The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner, DeSoto County School Board (School Board), to suspend Respondent without pay, and terminate her employment as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Relevant Policies The School Board is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise public schools in DeSoto County. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. (2018). This includes the power to discipline instructional staff, such as classroom teachers. §§ 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.33, Fla. Stat. Respondent is an ESE classroom teacher at DeSoto County High School (High School). Although Respondent has been teaching for 23 years, she has only been an ESE classroom teacher for the School Board since 2016. Superintendent Cline is an elected official who has authority for making School Board personnel decisions. His duties include recommending to the School Board that a teacher be terminated. § 1012.27(5), Fla. Stat. David Bremer (Principal Bremer) was the principal at the High School at all times relevant to these proceedings, and Cynthia Langston served as the Assistant Principal. The parties’ employment relationship is governed by School Board policies, Florida laws, Department of Education regulations, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) entered into by the School Board and the Desoto County Educators Association, a public union. The CBA relevant to this action was effective July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021. The School Board employed Respondent on an annual contract basis. “Annual contract” means an employment contract for a period of no longer than one school year which the School Board may choose to award or not award without cause. § 1012.335(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The testimony at the hearing and language in the CBA establish that the annual contract of a teacher, who has received an indication he or she “Needs Improvement” or is placed on an improvement plan, is not eligible for automatic renewal. In these situations, the superintendent has discretion regarding whether to renew that teacher’s annual contract. See CBA, Art. 8, § 16. Article 22, section 8 of the CBA provides for progressive discipline for teachers in the following four steps: (1) verbal reprimand (with written notation placed in the site file); (2) written reprimand (filed in personnel and site files); (3) suspension with or without pay; and (4) dismissal. The CBA makes clear that progressive discipline must be followed, “except in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or [involve a] flagrant violation.” February 11, 2019 (the February 11 Incident) This proceeding arises from an incident that occurred on February 11, 2019, after lunch in Respondent’s ESE classroom. The School Board alleges Respondent intentionally threw a foam or Nerf-type football at a student in a wheelchair when he failed to follow her instructions, and the football hit the student. Respondent asserts she playfully threw stress ball-type footballs up in the air and one accidently bounced and hit A.R.’s chair. Respondent’s classroom at the High School consisted of ten to 12 ESE students during the 2018-2019 school year. These students had special needs and some were nonverbal. On the day of the incident, there were nine or ten students in Respondent’s classroom, including A.R., a high school senior with cerebral palsy. Respondent kept small foam or Nerf-type footballs in her desk drawer. The testimony at the hearing established Respondent had used them in the classroom to get the students’ attention in a playful fashion. In addition to Respondent, four paraprofessionals assisted the students in the classroom. Of the four, only three were in the classroom during the February 11 incident: Ms. Walker, Mr. Blevins, and Ms. Murray. Respondent was responsible for A.R. while in her classroom. A.R. uses a wheelchair or a walker to get around, but has a special chair-desk in Respondent’s classroom. A.R. had difficulty in the classroom setting. Specifically, it was noted at the hearing that he has trouble processing what is happening around him, and that he needs help simplifying tasks that require more than one step. Although A.R. is verbal, he is slow to respond. A.R. was described as a “repeater” because he repeats things that others say, smiles if others are smiling, or laughs if others are laughing. In conversation, A.R. would typically smile and nod, or say “yes.” Ms. Walker’s and Mr. Blevins’s recollections of the February 11 incident were essentially the same. They testified that on the afternoon of February 11, 2019, the students returned to Respondent’s classroom from art class. They were excited and did not settle down for their lesson. As a result, Respondent became frustrated and yelled at the students to get their pencils so they could start their work. Respondent asked A.R., who was in his special chair-desk, to obtain a pencil. A.R. did not respond immediately and Respondent told him to get his pencil or she would throw a football. Ms. Walker’s and Mr. Blevins’s testimony established that, at this point, Respondent threw either one or two blue, soft, Nerf-type footballs approximately six inches long at A.R., who was looking in another direction. One of these blue footballs hit A.R. either in the side of his torso or back. A.R. began flailing his arms while he was in his chair-desk, and the entire room became silent. Ms. Murray was not facing A.R. during the incident, but she heard Respondent yell at A.R. to pay attention. She did not see Respondent throw the balls and was unsure if any of the balls made contact with A.R. After the incident, however, she saw two balls on the floor, picked them up, and returned them to Respondent. Ms. Murray did not recall the color of the footballs, and could only describe them as “squishy.” Respondent testified that A.R. was not paying attention, and she admits she told him she was going to toss the footballs if he did not get his pencil. She denies throwing a blue football at A.R., but instead claims she threw two smaller foam brown footballs. She denied any of the balls hit him, but rather, explained one of the brown footballs bounced off the floor and hit A.R.’s chair-desk; the other fell on her desk. The undersigned finds the testimony of Respondent less credible than the paraprofessionals’ testimony. First, all of the evidence established Respondent clearly threw footballs after A.R. did not respond to her instruction, and Respondent knew (or should have known) that A.R. was incapable of catching the football or responding positively. Second, Respondent’s version of what happened to the balls after she threw them is inconsistent with the testimony of Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins that one ball hit A.R. Respondent’s testimony that one ball fell on her desk is also inconsistent with Ms. Murray’s testimony that she picked up two balls off the floor. Finally, Respondent’s version of events is not believable in part, because neither the brown nor the blue football entered into evidence had sufficient elasticity (or bounciness) to have acted in the manner described by Respondent. Based on the credible evidence and testimony, the undersigned finds Respondent intentionally threw the blue larger footballs at A.R. knowing he would not be able to catch them, one ball hit A.R. in the side or back, and A.R. became startled from being hit. There was no evidence proving A.R. was physically, emotionally, or mentally harmed. Report and Investigation of the February 11 Incident Both Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins were taken aback by Respondent’s behavior. Ms. Walker was concerned that A.R. did not realize what was happening, and that the rest of the students were in shock. She did not think a teacher should throw anything at any student. Mr. Blevins similarly stated he was stunned and did not believe Respondent’s conduct was appropriate, especially because A.R. was in a wheelchair. At the hearing, Respondent also admitted it would be inappropriate to throw anything at a student even if it was just to get his or her attention. Both Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins attempted to report the incident immediately to the High School administration. Ms. Walker left the classroom to report the incident to Principal Bremer, who was unavailable. Ms. Walker then reported to Assistant Principal Langston what she had seen happen to A.R. in Respondent’s classroom. During this conversation, Ms. Walker was visibly upset. After listening to Ms. Walker, Assistant Principal Langston suggested she contact the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Ms. Walker used the conference room phone and immediately contacted the abuse hotline at DCF. As a result, DCF opened an abuse investigation into the incident. Meanwhile, Mr. Blevins had also left Respondent’s classroom to report the incident to Assistant Principal Langston. When he arrived, he saw that Ms. Walker was already there and assumed she was reporting what had happened. Therefore, he did not immediately report anything. Later that day, Assistant Principal Langston visited Respondent’s classroom, but did not find anything unusual. She did not speak to Respondent about the incident reported by Ms. Walker. The next day, February 12, 2019, Assistant Principal Langston obtained statements from the paraprofessionals, including Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins in Respondent’s classroom regarding the February 11 incident. These statements were forwarded to Superintendent Cline, who had been advised of the incident and that DCF was conducting an investigation. It is Superintendent Cline’s practice to advise administrators to place a teacher on suspension with pay during an investigation. If the teacher is cleared, the administrator should move forward with reinstatement. In this case, Principal Bremer met with Respondent on February 12, 2019, and informed her she would be placed on suspension with pay while DCF conducted its investigation into the incident. DCF closed its investigation on February 19, 2019. No one who conducted the DCF investigation testified at the hearing, and the final DCF report was not offered into evidence. Rather, the School Board offered a DCF document titled “Investigative Summary (Adult Institutional Investigation without Reporter Information).” This document falls within the business records exception to the hearsay rule in section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes, and was admitted into evidence. The undersigned finds, however, the Investigative Summary unpersuasive and unreliable to support any findings. The document itself is a synopsis of another report. Moreover, the document is filled with abbreviations and specialized references, but no one with personal knowledge of the investigation explained the meaning of the document at the final hearing. Finally, the summary indicates DCF closed the investigation because no physical or mental injury could be substantiated. On February 21, 2019, Principal Bremer notified Superintendent Cline that DCF had cleared Respondent, but did not provide him with a copy of the DCF report or summary. Principal Bremer did not have to consult with Superintendent Cline regarding what action to take regarding Respondent. Based on the DCF finding that the allegation of abuse or maltreatment was “Not Substantiated,” Principal Bremer reinstated Respondent to her position as an ESE teacher, but still issued her a written reprimand. The reprimand titled “Improper Conduct Maltreatment to a Student” stated in relevant part: I am presenting you with this written reprimand as discipline action for your improper conduct of throwing foam balls at a student. On February 11, 2019 it was reported you threw a football at [A.R.], a vulnerable adult suffering from physical limitations. As a result of this action, Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) were called to investigate and you were suspended until the investigation was complete. Although maltreatment of [sic] Physical or Mental Injury was not substantiated, DCF reported three adults in the room witnessed you throwing at least two foam balls at [A.R.] because he did not get a pencil on time. Apparently [A.R.] did not follow through with the direction provided by you and you became frustrated for that reason. I am by this written reprimand, giving you an opportunity to correct your improper conduct and observe Building rules in the future. I expect you will refrain hereafter from maltreatment to a student and fully meet the duties and responsibilities expected of you in your job. Should you fail to do so, you will subject yourself to further disciplinary action, including a recommendation for immediate termination and referral of the Professional Practices Commission. On February 25, 2019, Respondent returned to her same position as an ESE teacher, in her same classroom, with the same students, including A.R. Superintendent’s Investigation and Recommendation to Terminate Meanwhile, Superintendent Cline requested a copy of the report of the investigation from DCF and contacted the DCF investigator. Based on his review of what was provided to him and his conversation with DCF, he concluded A.R. may still be at risk. Superintendent Cline found Respondent’s actions worthy of termination because “it is unacceptable to throw a football at a student who has cerebral palsy, and thus, such conduct violates” state rules and School Board policy. School Board PRO at 15, ¶ 72. There was no credible evidence at the hearing that A.R. or any other student was at risk from Respondent. The School Board failed to establish at the hearing what additional information, if any, Superintendent Cline received that was different from the information already available to him, or that was different from the information provided to Principal Bremer. There was no justification or plausible explanation as to why Superintendent Cline felt the need to override Principal Bremer’s decision to issue a written reprimand for the violations. On March 6, 2019, Superintendent Cline issued a letter suspending Respondent without pay effective March 8, 2019, and indicating his intent to recommend to the School Board that it terminate Respondent’s employment at its next regular board meeting on March 26, 2019. Attached to the letter were copies of the Investigative Summary, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081, and School Board Policy 3210. This letter was delivered by a School Board’s human resources employee to Respondent on March 8, 2019. Respondent did not return to the classroom for the remainder of the school year. Respondent’s Disciplinary History Prior to the February 11 incident, Respondent had received an oral reprimand for attendance issues on December 21, 2018. On February 6, 2019, Assistant Principal Langston met with Respondent to address deficiencies in Respondent’s attendance, lesson plans, timeliness of entering grades, and concerns with individual education plans for her ESE students. At that meeting, Assistant Principal Langston explained Respondent would be put on an improvement plan and that if Respondent did not comply with the directives discussed at the meeting, she would be subject to further discipline, including termination. Although the plan was memorialized, Respondent was not given the written plan until after she returned from the suspension. Ultimate Findings of Fact Respondent intentionally threw two footballs in an overhand manner at A.R., a student who could not comprehend the situation and could not catch the balls. She did so either in an attempt to garner the student’s attention or out of frustration because he was not following directions. Respondent did not violate rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., because there was no evidence the incident exposed A.R. to harm, or that A.R.’s physical or mental health or safety was in danger. Similarly, Respondent did not violate School Board Policy 3210(A)(1). Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., which prohibits a teacher from “intentionally expos[ing] a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.” The evidence established Respondent’s action in throwing the ball was intentional and was done to embarrass or belittle A.R. for not following her directions. For the same reason, Respondent’s conduct violated School Board Policy 3210(A)(5). Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)7., which states that a teacher “[s]hall not harass or discriminate . . . any student on the basis of . . . handicapping condition . . . and shall make reasonable effort to assure that each student is protected from harassment.” Again, the credible evidence established the act of a teacher throwing any item at any student, especially one who requires a wheelchair, is inappropriate and would be considered harassment on the basis of a student’s handicap. Similarly, Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., which requires that a teacher “not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes . . . with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination.” For the same reasons listed above, Respondent’s conduct also amounts to a violation of School Board Policy 3210(A)(7). There was no evidence this conduct constituted a real immediate danger to the district, nor does it rise to the level of a flagrant violation. Therefore, the School Board must apply the steps of progressive discipline set forth in article 22, section 8 of the CBA. Pursuant to the terms of the CBA, Respondent should have received a written reprimand for the February 11 incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the DeSoto County School Board: enter a final order finding Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., and (2)(c)4.; and corresponding School Board Policy 3210(A)(5) and (7); rescind the notice of termination dated March 6, 2019, and, instead, reinstate Principal Bremer’s written reprimand dated February 25, 2019; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or Collective Bargaining Agreement provision that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits from March 8, 2019, to the end of the term of her annual contract for the 2018-2019 school year. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Suite 100 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Adrian H. Cline, Superintendent The School District of DeSoto County 530 LaSolona Avenue Post Office Drawer 2000 Arcadia, Florida 34265-2000 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Ms. Hymon is guilty of incompetency, and if so, whether she should be dismissed from employment with the School Board of Dade County.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Hymon was a teacher employed by the School Board and assigned to Oak Grove Elementary School (Oak Grove). She holds a continuing employment contract with the School Board pursuant to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, and a Florida teaching certificate in early childhood education, grades 1-6. She began teaching for the Dade County Public Schools in 1973. After several years of employment at Oak Grove, Ms. Hymon was observed crying in the classroom while students were present. In 1983, Respondent's principal, Beaulah Richards, observed that Ms. Hymon was having emotional problems, and asked Ms. Hymon if she needed help. The principal referred Ms. Hymon to the District's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Respondent began a course of professional counseling for her emotional problems at the North Miami Community Mental Health Center that year. Ms. Hymon has not followed through consistently with her counseling appointments. Each year as she exhausts her medical insurance benefits, she stops the counseling but resumes it again when the benefits become available the next year. 1984/85 School Year On October 11, 1984, Respondent's teaching was formally observed and evaluated in her fourth grade classroom by her principal, Robert Russell. He rated her performance unacceptable in techniques of instruction and student assessment techniques. The unsatisfactory rating in techniques of instruction was given because her instructional methods were not appropriate for the needs and abilities of her students. She taught the class as a total group, on one level, not implementing the standard practice of subdividing the class into two or three reading groups. She also failed to use any supplemental materials. Ms. Hymon was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not examine the pupils' work. There was no graded work in their folders. The principal prescribed help to aid in overcoming her deficiencies. She was to observe two other teachers, to take inventory of the classroom materials, and to be given an additional classroom aide for at least two hours per week more than was customary. On October 15, 1984, Mr. Russell held a conference with Respondent to discuss her observation and her prescription. On November 20, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed in her fourth grade classroom by Mr. Russell. She was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she had difficulty in keeping students focused on learning. She was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not identify areas likely to be confusing to students before the lesson began and she did not give individual students clarification when they needed it. Mr. Russell again prescribed help to aid Ms. Hymon in overcoming her deficiencies. She was directed to review sections of the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) Manual to provide her with ideas for classroom management and teaching strategies. She was to observe a reading class. Other teachers were to perform demonstration lessons for her. On November 27, 1984, Mr. Russell held a conference with Respondent to review her observation and prescription. On December 14, 1984, Mr. Russell held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to put her on notice that her unacceptable performance could lead to disciplinary action if not remediated. Respondent was formally observed in the classroom on January 24, 1985, February 20, 1985, and March 28, 1985. These observations were acceptable. Ms. Hymon had remediated her performance and received an overall acceptable evaluation for the 1984/85 school year. At the end of that year, Mr. Russell changed Respondent's teaching assignment to the third grade in an attempt to help her become more effective. Third grade classes were smaller. 1986/87 School Year On December 9, 1986, Mr. Russell held an informal conference with Respondent to discuss unprofessional behavior between her and a fellow teacher. The two teachers had loudly and heatedly argued with each other in the teacher's lounge. Respondent admitted her behavior to the principal. On February 13, 1987, Mr. Russell held a conference with Respondent and issued a letter of concern about conduct he deemed unprofessional. Ms. Hymon had neglected to give one of her students a report card and the student's parents complained to Mr. Russell. Respondent was directed to comply with School Board policy in the future about sending timely report cards home for all students. Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Mr. Russell on February 25, 1987. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management because numerous students were consistently off-task and she did not redirect them back to learning. Respondent failed to evaluate the students' progress during the class period. Mr. Russell prescribed help to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies. She was to review certain sections of the TADS manual and observe two math classes. In addition, the assistant principal was to observe two of her classes and discuss them with her. A district math teacher would provide a demonstration lesson for her. Again, Respondent was given additional aide time. On March 3, 1987, Mr. Russell held a conference with Respondent to review her observation and prescription. On March 11, 1987, Mr. Russell held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. Respondent was put on notice that disciplinary action could result from unremediated performance. Respondent's previous argument with the other teacher on February 13, 1987, was also addressed at this conference. The principal told Respondent that if incidents like these continued, she would be rated unacceptable in professional responsibilities (Category VII of TADS) and would be given a prescription. On March 25, 1987, Mr. Russell held an informal conference with Respondent. During the conference, she had a blank-faced look, and did not respond to the principal's questions. On March 30, 1987, Mr. Russell referred Respondent to the Employee Assistance Program because of inconsistent emotional behavior that affected the morale of her students and fellow teachers. She had developed a pattern of putting her head down in class and ignoring the students. Her emotional stability was inconsistent, with mood shifts from a passive, depressed demeanor to elation for no apparent reason. She was subject to moody outbursts. 1989/90 School Year For the 1989/90 school year, Mr. Russell changed Respondent's assignment to a kindergarten class. He had hoped that it would be easier for Respondent to work with younger children in a less demanding curriculum. In November 1989, her teaching was evaluated, and found acceptable. On January 26, 1990, Mr. Russell again referred Respondent to the EAP for marked changes in mood and activity level. She was exhibiting the same types of behavior for which Mr. Russell had referred her on March 30, 1987, and Mrs. Richards had referred her in 1983. On February 6, 1990, Mr. Russell held an informal conference with Respondent and issued a letter of concern to her. She had grabbed a kindergarten student in an unprofessional, confrontational manner, twisting him into his seat, using excessive restraint. She admitted this to Mr. Russell. They also discussed the fact that, despite a directive given at the faculty meeting on January 31, 1990, concerning the procedures for reporting to the office whenever parents were lingering in the halls, she had failed to report lingering parents on February 6, 1990, but engaged in an unprofessional, confrontational exchange of harsh words with a parent. Mr. Russell again directed Respondent to comply with school policies with regard to the handling of students, the reporting of lingering parents, and to refrain from conducting unprofessional conversations with parents. She was told that another violation of any of these policies could result in disciplinary action. In March 1990, Ms. Hymon became frustrated with a student and threw a kindergarten child's notebook out of the window into the courtyard and the papers flew all over. This took place in front of visiting principals who were at the school for a meeting. Shortly thereafter, Respondent took a leave of absence from March 16 to April 5, 1990. During May 1990, Respondent continued to exhibit frequent radical mood swings. She became hysterical in front of the assistant principal, Susie Robinson, and Mr. Russell. She was not properly supervising her students and allowed two boys to disappear from her classroom for an extended period of time. Respondent was the subject of numerous parental, student and teacher complaints. There were numerous instances of Respondent's screaming and yelling at students and parents. The parents complained about her discipline and the teachers complained about her arguments with them. As a result of an anonymous complaint to HRS about her treatment of students, an investigator came to the school. During this investigation Respondent's facial expression showed rage and she made a telephone call during which time she alternated between crying and whimpering. Respondent used profanity in front of administrators, e.g., "God damn," "shit." Mr. Russell requested that the Office of Professional Standards require Respondent to undergo an examination to determine her emotional fitness to continue teaching. On May 23, 1990, Respondent was directed to an alternate assignment at the School Board's Region II office where she would not have contact with students, while the Board's Security Investigative Unit (SIU) investigated the parental complaints and the anonymous HRS complaint. During the 1989/90 school year, Respondent was not an effective teacher. Her conduct had a negative, detrimental impact upon the students. Nevertheless, Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1989/90 school year was acceptable because it was based on the one classroom observation of November 8, 1989, which was acceptable. Mr. Russell did not find Respondent unacceptable in Category VII (Professional Responsibility), because Respondent had not been afforded her full due process rights. He had made the referral to the Office of Professional Standards and was awaiting a decision on the fitness determination. In addition, he was awaiting the results of the SIU investigation. Mr. Russell was still trying to help Ms. Hymon. 1990/91 School Year Respondent was formally observed in her third grade classroom on October 1, 1990, by her new principal, Dr. Elaine Lifton. Ms. Hymon's performance was unacceptable in techniques of instruction, because she presented a lesson so confusing that the students could not achieve the lesson's objectives. Respondent did not address the student's confusion. When they demonstrated unsatisfactory performance, she made no adjustment to her instruction, and gave students no suggestions on how to improve their performance. Respondent did not allow for oral interaction from the students; they had no opportunity to ask questions or to offer examples. The components of the lesson were inappropriately sequenced, for necessary background was not established and there was no closure to the lesson. Dr. Lifton prescribed help to aid Ms. Hymon in overcoming her difficulties by referring her to various sections in the TADS Prescription Manual, in the hope that she could remediate her deficiencies though self- improvement. On November 26, 1990, Dr. Lifton again formally observed Ms. Hymon in the classroom and found her unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction. Her overall performance had not improved--she was still confusing her students. Students who did not understand still were not provided suggestions for improving their performance. No adjustments were made to the instruction when only 10-12 of the 22 students understood the directions and concepts. Respondent still did not allow for oral interaction from the students. Dr. Lifton again prescribed help in an attempt to aid Ms. Hymon in overcoming her deficiencies, but this time the prescription was more "hands-on." In addition to reviewing various TADS Prescription Manual sections, Respondent was to tape and review her lessons. She was to observe another teacher and discuss certain aspects of the lesson with that teacher. On November 28, 1990, Dr. Lifton conducted a conference-for-the-record with Ms. Hymon. They reviewed her performance and the assistance that had been given. They reviewed the TADS process and the disciplinary action which could result from unremediated performance deficiencies. In addition, Dr. Lifton referred Respondent to the EAP because of erratic behavior, her third principal to do so. Ms. Hymon continued to exhibit swings from depressed to euphoric behavior. Respondent next was formally observed in the classroom on December 4, 1990, by her assistant principal, Susie Robinson. Ms. Hymon was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management and techniques of instruction. She was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because students were off task, talking, moving around, and not listening, but she did not correct them or redirect them. Ms. Robinson found Ms. Hymon unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not involve all of the students in her lesson. She was only teaching to a small group. Ms. Robinson prescribed help in an attempt to aid Ms. Hymon in overcoming her deficiencies. She was referred to various sections of the TADS Prescription Manual, and scheduled to receive help from Bertha Neely, the Regional specialist. Ms. Neely assisted Respondent 10 to 12 times during the 1990/91 school year. Ms. Neely found Ms. Hymon's performance very inconsistent. She had good days and bad days, but more bad days than good. The class did not follow a consistent routine. Her students were inattentive and they appeared unaccustomed to following through on assignments. When they were off-task, Ms. Hymon made no attempts to redirect them. Students were allowed not to participate in a lesson at all. Ms. Neely helped Respondent and gave her suggestions. By her next appointment, Respondent would implement the suggestions and have an acceptable lesson. Then, when Ms. Neely would return, Respondent would revert to the unacceptable teaching methods. Ms. Neely found that the children tried to help Ms. Hymon, and treated her like a pet. On January 31, 1991, Dr. Lifton held a conference-for-the-record with Ms. Hymon to discuss three instances of inappropriate interpersonal on-the-job behavior with teachers, parents, and people from the community. The first, on January 15, 1991, concerned a fellow teacher, Ms. Beverly Gross. Respondent had approached Ms. Gross and had started to blame her and yell at her for scheduling Youth Fair activities during February, Black History month. Ms. Gross was not on the committee responsible for scheduling Youth Fair activities. The confrontation had a racial overtone, as Respondent accused Ms. Gross of having a "plantation mentality." Ms. Gross tried to calm Respondent, but Respondent continued to complain loudly to fellow teachers in the hall and in front of students who were entering the office. The principal already had held a meeting with Respondent on that day during which Respondent admitted the incident and regretted what had happened; however, during the January 31 conference, Respondent denied the substance of the incident except for using a loud voice with Ms. Gross. The second incident discussed was a confrontation with a parent, Mr. Willie Kemp, on January 25, 1991. Mr. Kemp was late for a meeting with Respondent. When the school registrar contacted Respondent on the intercom system, Respondent's response caused Mr. Kemp to become angry. Respondent then entered the school office loudly complaining that people were playing games with her and she did not like it. Dr. Lifton had to calm the parent down and the school counselor had to calm Ms. Hymon down. The third matter discussed was a confrontation with a business person from the community, Ms. Cheryl Raleigh. Ms. Raleigh operates a pizza restaurant in the Oak Grove neighborhood. A colleague of Ms. Hymon had ordered pizza from Ms. Raleigh and there was some confusion in the order. Respondent took it upon herself, during her lunch period, to call Ms. Raleigh to "set her straight." Respondent said to Ms. Raleigh: "I am presently a member of the Oak Grove staff and if you cannot act like you are supposed to, I'll call the NAACP and CORE to see if you can learn some manners." Ms. Raleigh complained about the incident to the region office and notified Dr. Lifton. That day Ms. Hymon admitted having made the statement, that she was loud, and that perhaps she had come across in an angry manner. At the January 31 meeting, however, Respondent denied the content of the conversation but did acknowledge the use of poor judgment in involving herself in make the telephone call. Dr. Lifton wrote a letter of apology to Ms. Raleigh and Ms. Hymon volunteered to call Ms. Raleigh to apologize. On February 25, 1991, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Lifton and a principal from another school, Steven Lovelass. This was an external review, which takes place after a prescribed number of unacceptable observations. Both observed a lesson at the same time and independently rated Ms. Hymon. They then merged their data and prepared a prescription. Both observers rated Ms. Hymon unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. This lesson was inadequate, and was worse than the previous lessons formally observed. It was disorganized and Ms. Hymon's classroom management was weak. Ms. Hymon was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plan did not provide for homework. She was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because Respondent moved indiscriminately from activity to activity without developing an appropriate sequence. Twenty out of a class of 23 students were off-task or confused. Respondent did not adequately define vocabulary words she used in the lesson. Respondent was found unsatisfactory in classroom management because she did not begin the instructional activities promptly. Ten minutes were wasted with housekeeping chores such as roll-taking, collecting homework, distributing papers and addressing organizational tasks such as locating papers and books for the day's lesson. During the lesson, seven students sharpened pencils and five asked for paper and pencils. Two students were permitted to leave to go to the restroom and were gone for 15 minutes. These students presented behavioral problems and should not have been allowed to depart together. They were not addressed when they came back. Respondent's transition from reading to writing was disjointed and the students were unable to follow the lesson. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because students were not given feedback about their deficiencies, and those who had difficulty were given no assistance. Respondent did not make adjustments to the instruction when necessary. She stopped the class in the middle of a reading selection, which meant that the students could not answer lesson questions on their worksheets. The lesson was fragmented, not properly sequenced, and did not have closure. The observers prescribed help in order to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies. This time the prescription was again a "hands-on" approach, less abstract and more specific. Ms. Hymon was directed to include homework assignments as part of her lesson plans. Respondent was again given exercises to complete out of the TADS Prescription Manual. She was directed to tape her lessons and to observe at least one language arts lesson and to describe particular aspects from those lessons. During the week of January 7, 1991, teachers at Oak Grove were provided with Weekly Bulletin No. 23, directing them to comply with district policies on grading and attendance. On February 27, 1991, Dr. Lifton reviewed Respondent's gradebook and found that it was out of compliance with district grading policies and local school directives. Her gradebook did not have a grading code and the grades were not labeled. Attendance was not maintained in the gradebook. Respondent was directed to maintain up-to-date records of specific assessments and of attendance in her gradebook, and was told that failure to comply with this directive would be viewed as insubordination. In May of 1991, Ms. Neely conducted a formal observation of Respondent and found her teaching acceptable. Ms. Neely attributed Respondent's success to the preparation she had given Ms. Hymon the week before; however, Ms. Neely found that Respondent subsequently did not perform acceptably and could not teach appropriately without continuous support. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1990/91 school year was unacceptable. Dr. Lifton conducted a conference-for-the-record with Respondent on June 4, 1991. They discussed Respondent's performance and her future job status. Ms. Hymon was notified of the potential negative impact on her employment if her performance deficiencies were not corrected. Respondent was given a detailed prescription in an effort to help her over the summer. 1991/92 School Year Dr. Lifton changed Respondent's teaching assignment to the second grade level in an effort to give her a greater opportunity for success. The scope of material in second grade is easier to teach, since much of it is a review of first grade work. Ms. Neely continued to help Respondent during the 1991/92 school year, but not as often. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom on October 14, 1991, by Dr. Lifton. She was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. This was a very poor lesson with many serious errors in content and sequence. Respondent confused the signs for "greater than" and "less than" six times, which confused her students. Respondent's sequencing was not logical. She jumped from unfinished examples to dissimilar patterns, again confusing the students. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because of the poor sequencing and because necessary topics were not included in the lesson. Respondent was prescribed help in an effort to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies. Again, Dr. Lifton gave her a concrete prescription. Respondent was directed to the mathematics teacher's manual and was directed to specifically follow the directions. She was also to observe a fellow teacher at Oak Grove and another excellent teacher at another elementary school. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Ms. Robinson on November 26, 1991. She was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because of numerous errors in her presentation. Respondent was prescribed help in an effort to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies. Two of her fellow teachers were to observe her and give her suggestions regarding subject matter. Respondent was to observe her department chairperson teach. On December 9, 1991, Dr. Lifton conducted a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to review her performance and job status. Dr. Lifton told Ms. Hymon that she needed to remediate her deficiencies in order to continue her employment. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Lifton on January 16, 1992. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, classroom management and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because very little of her lesson was covered. Her lesson contained three objectives but only covered one. The students could have completed more than the one activity during the 35 minutes. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because of wasted time in starting the class and during the lesson. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because she did not encourage students who responded poorly or who were having difficulty. She did not give assistance to students who made incorrect responses. She did not solicit involvement from students who did not participate, but only called on the students who were not having difficulty. Out of 21 students, 11 were not called upon, while one was called upon eight times. Respondent was prescribed activities in an attempt to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies. She was to prepare a checklist of objectives for every lesson and to check off all those that were covered. She was to develop a system of distributing papers, books, and materials so that less time would be spent doing these ministerial tasks. She was to observe another teacher's class for techniques and strategies to involve all students in class activities. Another external review was conducted on March 5, 1992, by Dr. Lifton and Marguerite Radencich, the district's reading supervisor. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory by both observers in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because while presenting a lesson on the vocabulary words "desire," "crave," and "require," Respondent gave the same definition for two of the words, thereby confusing students. Moreover, the examples she gave could have applied to more than one of the words, further confusing the students. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because while preparing the students for the Stanford Achievement Tests (SAT), she used a worksheet in which the reading level was too high for the students so they did not understand the humor in the story. In addition, the worksheet was not a timed exercise and was not multiple choice, as is the SAT. Respondent was prescribed help in an attempt to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies. She was to research and write strategies for teaching vocabulary words. She was to identify them on her lesson plans and to monitor them. She was to meet with the grade level chairperson to review SAT preparation techniques. She was to meet with the grade department chairperson to review the next two weeks of the basal reader lessons and to write out sequencing of lesson components in her lesson plans. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1991/92 school year was unacceptable. On June 17, 1992, Dr. Lifton held a conference-for-the-record with Ms. Hymon. They reviewed her unsatisfactory teaching performance, and the fact that she had filed 108 accident reports that year for students she was assigned to supervise. Respondent was given an end-of-the-year prescription and was given directives to maintain a safe learning environment in her classroom and to employ preventive strategies to decrease the number of class-related injuries. On numerous occasions throughout Respondent's employment, she was informally observed by various administrators to have the same or similar deficiencies which were observed during the formal observations. There were times when things went well and other times when her teaching was poor. She was subject to mood swings. She was observed with her head down in the classroom. At times she sat in the dark with her hands folded and appeared upset; on occasion, she was too angry to teach. Respondent would have to go to the teachers' lounge to lie down and sometimes her husband was called to calm her down. This called him away from his duties as a Dade County public school teacher. When Ms. Hymon had lapses of emotional stability, she felt unable to manage life, was very anxious and excitable. During the last 4-5 years, she has called her therapist about five times from school while she was experiencing an emotional lapse, so that she and her therapist could "talk it out." Based on her conduct when viewed as a whole, she has failed to teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction. She used isolated worksheets as the basis for her teaching. The worksheets were not developmentally appropriate for young children. She did not use the basal reader approved by the School Board, which is a developmental reading series. She was not following the School Board's curriculum. Respondent failed to communicate with and relate to the students in her class to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimally acceptable educational experience. When she had her head down or was experiencing mood swings, she was not fulfilling her duties as a teacher. If she became upset in the morning, she would not calm down for the rest of the day. When she was teaching, the students were generally not actively involved in the learning. The subsequent teachers for her students had to pay "catch up" with them. In spite of Respondent's emotional instability, there were days when she was observed to present an adequate lesson. The bad days, however, outnumbered the good days. Her students cannot be required to suffer while Respondent is attempting to overcome her emotional problems. Respondent's behavior in dealing with parents, students, staff members and members of the community did not reflect credit upon herself and the school system. Her behavior indicated that she did not value the worth and dignity of every person. She did not exercise good professional judgment. She failed to maintain the respect and confidence of her colleagues, students, parents, and members of the community. She did not make a reasonable effort to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning, health or safety. She subjected students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Respondent was offered a position as a paraprofessional so that she could maintain a job and fringe benefits while she undergoes treatment. She would have aided a teacher and would not have been responsible for a class. Respondent declined the offer, however. On August 19, 1992, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings against her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining Ms. Hymon's suspension without pay and dismissing her from employment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of March 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5531 The following are my rulings on proposed findings filed by the parties, as required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1991). Rulings on findings proposed by the School Board: After careful review of my notes from the hearing, I find that the proposed findings of the School Board closely comport with my view of the evidence. Consequently, all findings proposed by the School Board have, essentially, been adopted, though they have been edited. Rulings on findings proposed by Ms. Hymon: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1. Rejected as unneccessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1. Implicit in Finding 11, 20 and 27. The first year she received an unacceptable annual evaluation was in the 1990/91 school year, although her performance was not actually acceptable in the 1989/90 school year for the reasons stated in Finding 27. Adopted with the explanation found in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 45 and 63. This Finding is made in several Findings of Fact, and had its beginning early in her period of employment, see Finding 2. Generally adopted in Findings 65 and 66. Adopted in Finding 2, although the nature and the significance of the medication is not clear from the record made. The predominate form of dealing with her problem was counseling. Rejected as not relevant. Although I believe that Respondent did attempt to perform her duties, the question is whether her teaching was adequate, not whether she tried to teach. Adopted in Findings 28 through 66, although her performance in the 1989/90 school year was not actually acceptable, although she received an acceptable evaluation, see Findings 21 through 27. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Attorney for Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 William du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent, a school teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract, committed the offenses alleged by the Petitioner in its Petition for Dismissal and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was first employed by Petitioner in 1992. For the school year 1995-96, Respondent was assigned as a special education teacher at John I. Leonard High School, one of the public schools in Palm Beach County. In addition to his teaching duties, Respondent was the coach of the Junior Varsity baseball team. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Respondent was a member of the CTA, the union that represents instructional staff in the Palm Beach County School District. Effective January 18, 1995, the Petitioner adopted School Board Policy 3.26 as a rule. This rule was drafted by James Kelly, an attorney who is employed by Petitioner as the chief of its police force. It was the intent of Chief Kelly to draft a "zero tolerance" rule, prohibiting employees and others from bringing firearms on school property. It was the intent of Chief Kelly in drafting the rule that the employment of any employee who violated that prohibition would be suspended until that employment could be terminated. Rule 3.26 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: It is the intent of this Policy to clearly state that possession of firearms will not be tolerated on School District property. Definitions: "Firearm" means any weapon (including a starter gun or antique firearm) which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any destructive device; or any machine gun.1 "Employee" means any person hired by the School Board after completing the personnel procedures required by the School Board. "Independent Contractor" means any person or company other than a School District employee, who provides goods and/or services to the School District and enters into a contracted agreement with the School Board. "Visitor" means any business or personal invitee including, but not limited to, parents, volunteers, family members of School District employees or friends of School District Employees. Any School District employee found to have brought a firearm on School District property shall be subject to suspension and dismissal in accordance with the procedures set forth in School Board Policy 3.27.2 All Contract Agreements with Independent Contractors shall provide that, if any employee of an Independent Contractor or Sub-Contractor is found to have brought a firearm on School District property, said employee will be terminated from the School Board project by the Independent Contractor or the Sub-Contractor. If the Sub-Contractor fails to terminate the employee, the Sub- Contractor's Agreement with the Independent Contractor for the School Board project shall be terminated. If the Independent contractor fails to terminate said employee or fails to terminate the Agreement with the Sub- Contractor who fails to terminate said employee, the Independent Contractor's Agreement with the School Board shall be terminated. Except to the extent allowed by law, any visitor found to have brought a firearm on School District property shall be notified that all subsequent visits to School District property will be by an appointment only, and that visits without prior appointment may result in a criminal action for trespass. This Policy does not apply to any Law Enforcement Officer . . . Article II, Section M of the collective bargaining agreement between the CTA and the School Board, entitled "Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline)," provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. * * * Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Section, an employee maybe reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended with pay, suspended without pay or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall not be placed in the employee's personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee after twelve (12) months of the action/inaction of the employee which lead to the notation. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this agreement. Suspension With Pay. A suspension with pay may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension with pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay may be issued to an employee, when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Section , including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension without pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Dismissal. An employee may be dismissed (employment contract terminated or non-renewed) when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. If the disciplinary action(s) include either a suspension or a dismissal, the grievance shall be initiated at STEP TWO. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had a concealed weapon's permit issued by the Florida Department of State's Division of Licensing. Respondent received instructions and materials when he obtained his concealed weapons permit in Florida that clearly advised him that a concealed weapons permit does not authorize the possession of a concealed weapon on school premises. Respondent knew or should have known that his concealed weapon's permit did not authorize him to carry a firearm on school property. At all times after March 29, 1996, Respondent knew or should have known that school employees were prohibited from bringing firearms on school property. Prior to May 1, 1996, Respondent knew or should have known of the School Board's Rule 3.26.3 Respondent knew or should have known that bringing a firearm on school property would violate this rule. March 29, 1996, was a teacher planning day. On that day Respondent brought on school property a firearm that he had recently purchased so he could show the firearm to Officer Charles C. Edwards, a member of the School Board's police force. Officer Edwards told Respondent he could not have a firearm on school property. As of May 1, 1996, the junior varsity baseball season was over for John I. Leonard High School, but the varsity team was in the post-season playoffs. On May 1, 1996, the varsity team was involved in a game that would eliminate the loser from the playoffs. The game was scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. on the campus of John I. Leonard. At the request of the varsity baseball coach, Respondent agreed to scout a potential playoff opponent that was playing a game in Plantation, Florida, at 7:00 p.m. When Respondent left his house on the late afternoon of May 1, 1996, he intended to make a bank deposit prior to going to John I. Leonard High School to pick up the forms that he was to fill out as he scouted the potential opponent. The bank deposit was for the Men's Baseball Association of Palm Beach County and consisted of more than $1,000 in cash and checks. It was Respondent's practice to carry a firearm on his person when he had a large sum of money to be deposited. Consistent with that practice, Respondent took his firearm when he left his house on May 1, 1996, and drove to his bank's drive- in window. At all times on May 1, 1996, pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had his firearm in a holster. When Respondent first entered his vehicle, he placed the holstered firearm in a fanny pack and placed the fanny pack containing the holstered firearm under the seat of his vehicle. Consistent with his practice, when Respondent got to the line for the drive-in window, he removed the gun from the pouch and placed the holstered firearm in his lap. Because he was running late and the line was moving slowly, Respondent pulled out of the line of cars without making his deposit and headed for John I. Leonard High School to pick up the forms he needed. He clipped the holstered firearm to his belt between his body and his pants at the rear of his right hip. His shirt tail covered the firearm. Respondent also had his cellular phone and beeper clipped to his belt. The cash was in the right front pocket of his pants. Respondent arrived at John I. Leonard High School a few minutes before 6:00 p.m. on May 1, 1996. He parked his vehicle on school grounds in the parking lot near the school gymnasium and approached the gate to the ball field area. Respondent intended to go to the office of the varsity baseball coach to get the forms he needed to scout the game in Plantation. The coach's office was located inside the ball field area above the concession stand. Tickets to the game were sold at a table that was set up at the gate. As Respondent approached the gate, Gary Zaniewski, Jack McLaughlin, and Scott Siegel were present at the ticket table. Mr. Zaniewski was, as of May 1, 1996, the father of a varsity baseball player and served as the president of the John I. Leonard High School Baseball Booster Club. Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Siegel were school board employees. As Respondent passed by the table, Mr. Zaniewski noticed that Respondent was wearing a firearm and reminded him of that fact. Mr. Zaniewski told Respondent that he did not think it was appropriate for him to have a firearm on school property. Respondent immediately turned around, went back to his vehicle, placed the holstered firearm in the pouch under the seat, and locked the car. He thereafter went to the coach's office, got the forms he needed, and went to Plantation to scout the game. The firearm was in Respondent's vehicle during the few minutes it took him to get the forms from the coach's office. During the time Respondent was on school grounds, he did not remove the firearm from the holster, point it at anyone, shoot anyone or anything, threaten or harm anyone, or engage in any kind of confrontation. While there were members of the baseball team at the field warming up, those players were not in close proximity to Respondent. For the calendar year 1995, there were 169 reported thefts from motor vehicles located on School Board property and 23 motor vehicles stolen from School Board property. The presence of a firearm locked in a vehicle on school property presents a real and immediate danger that Rule 3.26 was enacted to prevent. Respondent testified that he was in a hurry on May 1, 1996, and simply forgot that he had the firearm on his person when he approached the gate to the baseball field. Although there was testimony that a person would not forget he was carrying such a weapon, the testimony of the Respondent is found to be credible. Consequently, it is found that he forgot he had the firearm on his person when he first exited his vehicle on school property on May 1, 1996. There can be little doubt, however, that Respondent was aware that he had a firearm with him when he drove on school property. The Respondent's holster did not have any device to impede unauthorized or inadvertent removal of the firearm. In contrast, the type holsters used by Petitioner's police force requires three separate actions in order for the gun to be removed from the holster. Respondent's careless possession of a firearm that was clipped to his belt in an unsafe holster presented a real and immediate danger that Rule 3.26 was enacted to prevent. Rule 3.26 is a reasonable exercise of the School Board's authority. Despite the events of May 1, 1996, Respondent was given a professional services contract by the School Board for the year 1996-97. On the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, the School Board suspended Respondent's employment effective September 19, 1996, and voted to institute these proceedings to terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order that finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Rule 3.26 as alleged by Petitioner and suspends his employment for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, holds Teaching Certificate Number 475518, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of elementary education, grades 1-6. From 1968 or 1969 until 1980, Respondent worked for the School Board as a teacher aide. As a teacher aide, she had approximately twelve years to view a wide variety of teaching strategies, methods, and teaching techniques in the approximately six different schools to which she had been assigned. While employed as a teacher's aide, Respondent attended Miami-Dade Junior Community College, North Campus, and studied Initial Elementary Education. She then completed Bachelor's Training at Nova University in 1979 and thereafter became employed as a classroom teacher with the Dade County School Board at the Elementary Level beginning in the 1980-1981 school year. Respondent has been employed as an elementary teacher by Petitioner School Board since the 1980-1981 school year. During all of that period, she has taught at Perrine Elementary School in Dade County, Florida. During all of the years Respondent taught, except for the first year, she had classes approximately half of a regular size class. This was because she has been teaching Title I/Chapter I classes. "Title I", renamed "Chapter I", classes refer to classes funded and mandated as part of the Education Consolidation Improvement Act which targets children who are deficient in certain areas and concentrates on bringing them into the mainstream of the education process by concentrated remediation in small, directed education classes. It is a "given" that many of these children are difficult to teach and to control. 1980-1981 SCHOOL YEAR On October 29, 1980 Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by her principal, Gloria H. Gray. Although rated overall acceptable she was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. Although rated acceptable in techniques of instruction, Respondent was rated unacceptable in one subcategory thereof because the proliferation of students' questions concerning the work indicated to the observer that the Respondent did not give clear assignments and directions to allow ample time for completion of tasks. Respondent was next formally observed by Principal Gray on December 12, 1980. Although Respondent was rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in classroom management because Mrs. Gray found much off-task behavior on the part of students, and Respondent appeared not to notice it. Through no fault of her own, Respondent had a very difficult first year experience with many interruptions. She was the foreman of the Grand Jury and was absent every Wednesday. In addition, she had legitimate family and medical problems causing frequent absences. To the extent possible, principal Gray initiated and followed through on numerous attempts to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in teaching. Mrs. Gray also provided an aide for Respondent in order to be assured that the education of her students was not being sorely neglected. Respondent was in a large pod with two other teachers. They helped Respondent in putting work on the board clearly. They also helped her in getting and using instructional material. Although Mrs. Gray testified that she was, in the spring of 1981, of the opinion that there was a repeated failure on the part of Respondent to communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience, she nonetheless rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and gave Respondent an overall acceptable rating on her Annual Evaluation for the 1980-1981 school year. Mrs. Gray gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt because Respondent had improved her teaching skills during the year, she had a good attitude toward trying to improve, she took Mrs. Gray's recommendations and attempted to implement them, and Mrs. Gray expected further improvement from Respondent the following year. Mrs. Gray further recommended Respondent for re-employment as an annual contract teacher. 1981-1982 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by her new principal Dr. Joan Hanley, on November 23, 1981. While Respondent was very devoted to self-improvement, she was nevertheless rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the category of preparation and planning because she did not have complete lesson plans for each of the following subjects she was responsible to teach: social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. Likewise, she did not have plans which could be used by a substitute in the event of her absence. Although she was rated acceptable in classroom management, Dr. Hanley offered suggestions for Respondent's improvement. It was not clear to Dr. Hanley whether Respondent's students were grouped for math. It is a standard instructional strategy to ascertain the ability levels of the students, group them accordingly, and plan separate instruction for the various groups. She also instructed Respondent to stand up and move between her groups of students in order to monitor the random activity that goes on. Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Assistant Principal Ellen Supran on January 6, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was found unacceptable in one subcategory, techniques of instruction. This subcategory deals with the use of instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Her students were not grouped for math instruction and the subject matter was too difficult and too abstract for the students. Respondent was not getting feedback from them. During the remainder of the school year, Mrs. Supran assisted Respondent through informal visitations. On these occasions, Mrs. Supran was concerned about Respondent's lesson plans, her children being off-task, and the appropriateness of the tasks assigned to the students by Respondent. She spent time working with Respondent on lesson plans, materials, instructional strategies, grouping, and monitoring children's progress. Respondent had an accident during the 1981-1982 school year which resulted in extended sick leave. Dr. Hanley was unable to observe Respondent formally in the classroom for the remainder of that school year. Because Respondent was anxious to improve her teaching and because she had made a good start, Dr. Hanley felt that it was only fair to rate Respondent acceptable in all categories for her Annual Evaluation for the 1981-1982 school year. Therefore, for the school year 1981-1982, Respondent's second annual contract year, Respondent was found acceptable in all categories on her Annual Evaluation and was again recommended for employment. 1982-1983 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent's next formal observation was on November 23, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, because the observer, Dr. Hanley, felt Respondent needed improvement in grammar, particularly verb usage. More specifically, Dr. Hanley observed poor grammar was utilized orally by Respondent in the course of teaching other subjects. Hers was a significant error because Respondent was teaching a resource class in compensatory education. This is a remedial class which addressed the reading, language arts, and mathematics needs of low- achieving students. In every type of class, it is necessary that a teacher set a good example in spoken English. Because elementary school children model the speech of their teacher, Respondent's grammatical errors, which were frequent and excessive, would impede the students' acquisition of appropriate language arts skills. In remedial classes, the effect is more pronounced and reinforces poor language arts skills because the children are already deficient in that area. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was again found unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to make the same kinds of grammatical errors she had been observed making at the November 23, 1982 observation. The December 7, 1982 observation resulted in a prescription for remediation. Dr. Hanley suggested that Respondent record herself on a tape recorder so that she could become sensitized to verb forms. Respondent followed Dr. Hanley's advice and it helped on the subsequent observation, but she did not sustain the improvement as indicated below. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on February 10, 1983. She was rated overall acceptable and made only one grammatical error, saying "cent" sometimes instead of "cents." Note was made of excellent behavior modification. On Respondent's Annual Evaluation for the 1982-1983 school year, Dr. Hanley rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent had achieved tenure. 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on May 7, 1984. Although rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and in a single subcategory of preparation and planning. She was rated unsatisfactory in the latter subcategory because her room was so cluttered that it was difficult to carry on her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she was again making the same grammatical errors she had made the year before. (See Finding of Fact No. 20 that improvement was not sustained). For example, the following statements were written on Respondent's chalk board: "Dorothy want to go back home", " . . . work that I have not finish." Dr. Hanley reminded Respondent that they had worked on the "ed" and "s" endings on verbs before. Nonetheless, Respondent was rated acceptable in all areas on her Annual Evaluation for 1983-1984 and was recommended for continued employment as a continuing contract teacher. 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR Through the 1983-1984 school year, the School Board utilized the standard evaluation system which was an undefined system that allowed observers maximum discretion, without any clear or consistent criteria. It was essentially geared toward making any end-of-the year employment decision. With the advent of the 1984-1985 school year, a new method of evaluating teachers was put into effect. Beginning with the 1984-1985 school year, Respondent's performance was assessed under a new form of evaluation which was thoroughly tested by the School Board and which was negotiated and agreed-to between the School Board and Respondent's union. This is the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS is a highly specific research-based clinical supervision system. State-of-the-art research has characterized certain teaching behaviors that are effective in a learning environment. TADS has grouped these into categories of assessment criteria. Required teaching behaviors are very precisely defined and there is very little room for discretionary interpretation by the observer. Ideally, the system is governed by decision rules which eliminate the potential of an arbitrary or capricious application of the criteria. The system is intended to further develop and upgrade teaching skills and assist the individual teacher to perform better. On the down side, TADS was characterized by the School Board's expert, Dr. Patrick Gray, as a clinical form of evaluation which primarily identifies teaching behavior which is simply acceptable, but it would not identify behavior of superior or excellent performance. (TR-II 47) Respondent's first formal classroom observation under TADS was on November 13, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she only carried out a very small part of the lesson and because she did not follow the assessment item in her lesson plan. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she presented the information to the children inadequately. There was no background given to draw out the students' previous understanding; no introduction, reinforcement, and drill; and no form of assessment to ascertain what the children had learned when the lesson was completed. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, because there was disorder a good part of the time and the class was not conducive to learning. Respondent and students arrived late. There were many delays during the class period. The cardboard coins utilized in the lesson on coin values became a great distraction and Respondent was unable to bring the coins into the lesson. She only got into the very introductory part of the lesson and rambled in her instruction. Respondent was not able to pull the students together into a group of attentive listeners. She was also rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she never fully instructed the students about her expectations regarding what they were to do at their desks. The coins became the major focus of the children's attention and they were tossing them and taking them from one another. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no assessment of the teaching objectives. As a result, there would be no way to tie up a lesson or help a teacher plan subsequent lessons. In order to aid Respondent in improving her performance, Dr. Hanley prescribed help. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent develop the skill of pacing her lessons so that she could complete the lesson within the allotted time; that Respondent seek help from Cynthia Muller, a PREP specialist, and that she also seek help from Dorothy Sissel, Chapter I Manager. Dr. Hanley also prescribed help in that she recommended that Respondent reorganize her room to make materials accessible for more efficiency. She recommended Mr. Holmberg, Assistant Principal, as a resource person. She also recommended that Respondent seek help from the Chapter I Specialist. Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent seek help from Chapter I and PREP specialists because she felt that the on-the- spot classroom training by these very qualified people would be very helpful to Respondent. PREP stands for Florida Primary Education Program, a program mandated by the State of Florida pursuant to Section 230.2312, Florida Statutes. PREP mandates a diagnostic- prescriptive approach that enables each child to have an individualized program to permit development of that child's maximum potential and to achieve a level of competence by that child in basis skills. Pursuant to this approach, students are divided into three categories, with those developing at a normal level being taught with developmental teaching strategies, those having been identified as having potential learning problems, being taught with preventive teaching strategies, and those needing more challenging work, being taught with enrichment teaching strategies. The School Board has developed reading and math programs to comply with the statutory mandate. Respondent actually received help from Cynthia Muller, the PREP Specialist, in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Muller helped Respondent approximately on 9 to 10 occasions for a total of approximately 12 hours of assistance. She provided this assistance on November 7, 9, 26, 29 and December 4, 1984, and on February 7, May 28, June 6, and 11, 1985. In the course of her assistance, Mrs. Muller observed several problems with Respondent's teaching. There was a lot of off- task behavior. The children were jittery and walked around the classroom at will. They exhibited little motivation. Mrs. Muller found that much of the work was inappropriate for the students, above the level for which they were competent. That added to the off-task behavior. On November 26, 1984, Mrs. Muller did a demonstration lesson for Respondent showing her how the children could be motivated to stay in their seats and work quietly. She also demonstrated the use of the teacher manual in planning for the complete class period so that all of the children would receive their reading lessons within the prescribed timeframe. On another occasion, they also discussed the Total Math Program (TMP), Petitioner School Board's diagnostic-prescriptive program for math. TMP provides for pre- and post-testing of students and clustering students into particular groups. They discussed grouping students, assessing them, planning for them, and instructing them using a teacher's manual. Mrs. Muller also suggested a positive re-enforcement type of reward system. She also suggested that Respondent remove books and materials from the instructional area so that the class would have a clean place to work and place their books. Mrs. Muller also noticed misspelled words and improperly used words on the chalkboard e.g., "When he finish the book." Mrs. Muller's assistance, November 7, 1984 to June 11, 1985 overlaps several subsequent formal observations. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. Despite Mrs. Muller's assessment on November 7 and 11 that there was some improvement, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she had no assessment item in her lesson plan. Because Respondent told Dr. Hanley that she knew what was expected and she promised to do it in the future, Dr. Hanley did not make a further prescription in that area. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was still very disorderly. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent designate areas for specific subjects and tasks within her room. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because her lesson, again, was considered by Dr. Hanley to be a rambling one. Dr. Hanley found the lesson components not to be sequenced; Respondent did not accent the important points; Respondent was unaware of what her students were doing; she did not provide suggestions to her students for improving performance; she did not adjust her lesson when students were not understanding but went right on with what she was teaching rather than re-teach a concept. Dr. Hanley did not feel Respondent provided for closure of the lesson so as to help the children pick up the critical areas of the lesson and so as to be ready for the next lesson. Respondent continued to make grammatical and spelling errors, e.g., "...Santa Clause and other tradition." In order to help Respondent improve her performances Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent observe two fellow teachers whom Dr. Hanley felt had excellent techniques of instruction. A conference-for-the-record was scheduled for the Respondent in December, 1984, but due to Respondent's illness and impending surgery, it was rescheduled for February 13, 1985. A conference-for-the-record is an official meeting regarding a teacher's teaching performance. It is required so that the teacher is officially notified that her deficient performance has not been remediated. At the conference, administrators went over Respondent's classroom observations. Respondent was notified that if she was still under prescription at the time of her Annual Evaluation, she would not receive her annual teaching increment (pay raise). From February through May, 1985, Perrine Elementary School was visited at least once a week by the Chapter I Educational specialist, Tarja Geis. She helped most of the teachers each time she visited. Chapter I is a federally funded program which addresses reading and math deficiencies in children from low income areas. It uses a language experience approach. Ms. Geis' opportunities to observe Respondent were short and sporadic. Her observations were not "formal" observations. However, when Ms. Geis did observe Respondent in the classroom, she noticed Respondent's inattentiveness to some of the children's behavior. She suggested ways to Respondent to improve that, most of which were "boilerplate" suggestions. Ms. Geis also observed one of Respondent's lessons and did a demonstration lesson for her on May 22, 1985, in order to show Respondent the language experience approach used in the Chapter I program. Ms. Geis discussed and/or demonstrated techniques to improve class management, student behavior, student comprehension and student attitude. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Geis gave a workshop for Chapter I teachers. All teachers who would have been working that day would have been in attendance. It is probable that Respondent attended that workshop. She had missed an earlier one in February because of her absence. Respondent indicated at formal hearing that she was not aware that Tarja Geis was a resource person for her use, but her perception is illogical in that Ms. Geis is a Chapter I Educational Specialist and Respondent teaches in the category of Chapter I students. Respondent also testified that she was not given in-service learning experiences by Dr. Hanley and Mr. Holmberg when she requested them. The workshop given by Ms. Geis would seem to address this request, contrary to Respondent's assertion. Respondent concurs that she attended at least one such workshop. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on March 21, 1985. By this time, Respondent had received help from Mrs. Muller and Ms. Geis. She may have also sought help from the two teachers at her school. By her own testimony, she sought assistance from Ms. Jackerson and by a course taught outside of the usual school day. She showed great improvement and was rated acceptable in every category. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom on May 7, 1985, simultaneously by Dr. Hanley and the area director, Phyllis Cohen. Under TADS, this is an external or dual observation where two observers assess the same classroom performance. Its purpose is to assure objectivity and fairness. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not carried out. While Respondent attempted to work with one group, the other groups' lessons were not implemented. The students were not on task. The group at the listening station was not doing its work. The group doing independent reading did not open their books. At least half the students did not receive their directed reading lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because her development of ideas and information was unclear and confusing. She would give insufficient definitions and did not reinforce with enough examples so that the students could understand the homework assignment. The lesson was not sequenced and Respondent was again using inaccurate language. The vocabulary words that the students were working on were not introduced to them and did not have any relationship to the lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was out of control and because of her problems in managing the transition time, getting and keeping students settled, and managing the different reading groups. Class started ten minutes late, and during transitions in the lesson, approximately twenty minutes were wasted. As the hour progressed, the noise crescendoed. Five to eight students were off-task at different times during the class. One student slapped another during the lesson. Respondent was not aware of the off-task behavior and did not redirect the students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not introduce the lesson, provide opportunities for the students to practice, get feedback whether the students had obtained information, or provide reinforcement and follow-up. In other words the sequence was not appropriate. There was a lot of jumping around in the lesson. Respondent did not address the various learning styles of the students. Her communication was not precise enough for students to understand what she was trying to teach. She did not give the students feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Although she used the teacher manual, she did not fill in between the questions with her own information. She asked the questions in a distorted manner. The students were unable to answer the questions and Respondent could not elaborate but went on to the next question. Her directions to the students were very poor, as were her explanations. She failed to rephrase explanations that were not understood. Her instructions to the listening station group were not specific enough. Her questions on the worksheet were not explained in a way that the students were able to proceed independently. They did not do the worksheet at all. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not assess what the students were learning at their levels. Material was presented at a low cognitive level. She did not seem to be able to ascertain whether the students were learning what she was teaching them. She did not walk around to determine what each group was doing. In order to help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she work with Mrs. Muller again on the execution of her lesson plans in order to facilitate a directed reading lesson for each of her reading groups. To help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she observe another Chapter I teacher during a reading lesson to hone in on the development of ideas and information in a sequential and meaningful manner. Two teachers were named as resources. To help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent work with Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal to develop strategies for effective student management while beginning classes and during transition periods and that she work with an observer to sensitize herself to off-task, nonproductive activities on the part of students. It was also recommended that Respondent revamp her behavior modification plan to enhance student involvement. To help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent again work with Ms. Geis and Mrs. Muller since she had improved after working with these two education specialists the prior year. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent review the elements in a basal reading lesson, i.e., background, sequence, and closure. She also recommended that Respondent rehearse her reading lesson so that she would think ahead about the main points and key definitions. She recommended that Respondent work with the observers to sensitize herself to situations in which the students are confused, and that she develop strategies to improve clarification. Dr. Hanley was also available to Respondent as a resource. In order to help Respondent improve techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent have a person observe Respondent while she was teachings and help her on the spot when her students were not following the lesson. She suggested the Respondent develop assessment techniques which incorporated multilevel assessment activities. She also recommended that Respondent include development of summative assessment instruments in conjunction with these other activities. She recommended that Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal be used as resources to help Respondent develop a sensitivity in identifying whether the students were on-track. On May 28, 19 85, Mrs. Muller discussed reading lessons with Respondent. She went over sequencing. She asked Respondent to rehearse her reading instruction. Mrs. Muller also gave Respondent a PREP teacher guide and a sample directed reading lesson. She referred her to a section on classroom organization and management. On June 6, 1985, Mrs. Muller was to visit Respondent's class and to observe a directed reading lesson. Respondent, however, was doing a different lesson. There was very little organization in the lesson. Mrs. Muller saw some improvement in the Respondent's teaching; however, considering the amount of time she had spent with the Respondent, she would have expected to have seen more progress. Although Respondent had demonstrated a willingness to receive suggestions for improvement and a willingness to work toward acceptable ratings, her Annual Evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year was unacceptable. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Nonetheless, Respondent was recommended for continued employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. It was Dr. Hanley's hope that Respondent would remediate herself during the next school year. Respondent remained on prescription and would not be entitled to her pay increment (raise) for the next school year while she was still on prescription. 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On October 16 and 17, 1985, Respondent received more help from a fellow teacher, Joyce King. Ms. King discussed with Respondent the instructional processes of sequencing, interfacing subjects, and closure. Ms. King also demonstrated a reading lesson for Respondent. On October 22, 1985, Respondent received further help from another teacher, Doretha P. Thomas. Respondent observed Ms. Thomas during a developmental reading lesson in her class. Ms. Thomas also discussed with Respondent the amount of time used with the reading group, scheduling, and possible changes Respondent could make in her own planning. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on October 30, 1985. The class was working on the Dade County required diagnostic-prescriptive reading curriculum known as RSVP. This curriculum contemplates that students are to be pretested and their deficiencies listed on individual profiles so that the teacher knows what specific skills to teach them. It is mandatory that the students' skills be profiled before the teacher attempts to work with them. Respondent had not completed the RSVP paperwork as of the date of this observation. I accept Respondent's testimony that she only had from October 18 until October 30, 1985 in which to complete these profiles; that she was under some disadvantage in preparing the profiles because of the administration's peremptory move of all her materials to a smaller classroom on Friday October 18; and that her observation rating was somewhat tainted by the temporary mess that resulted from the move. However, I find that the period involved would have been sufficient to complete at least the profiles if she had performed her tasks diligently in the intervening seven workdays. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because the class was not well managed and the students were not working. After the midpoint of the period, three students did no work. In the last ten minutes of the periods, six students did no work. Many students completed worksheets during the first twenty minutes of the class and then colored pictures. These students of Respondent's were not re- directed by her. Respondent seemed to be unaware of the off-task behavior. In order to help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent move among the students periodically. She also recommended the Respondent plan sufficient work for the instructional period and that she clarify to students what additional study and enrichment activities were available when work is completed. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not monitoring pupil performance. Students were doing work incorrectly on their worksheets, and Respondent did not circulate and catch the errors or clarify them. Therefore, incorrect material was being reinforced by the students in their work. Several of the students did not understand the follow- up worksheets. The students' confusion indicated that they were not being taught at their appropriate level. They were being taught on a hit or miss method since their profiles had not been completed. In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that she fulfill the requirements of RSVP by completing her profiles, grouping her children, and making a class profile chart. Dr. Hanley also recommended that the teacher aide assist Respondent with the pretesting. Dr. Hanley listed the area PREP specialist and herself to review grouping for instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because although she, as part of her school faculty, had been instructed every year as to the School Board requirements for maintaining student folders, her student folders were deficient. She had no papers dated after September 19, 1985 in them. In order to help Respondent improve her assessment techniques, Dr. Hanley clarified what was expected as far as classroom folders. Respondent must have at least one graded and dated paper per week in reading, math, and writing in each student's folder. Dr. Hanley listed herself and other classroom teachers as a resource for Respondent. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal, Herbert Holmberg. He rated her unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had grammatically incorrect information and statements on the chalkboard. Knowledge of subject matter was not exhibited as Respondent read verbatim from the teacher manual. She did not address various cognitive levels. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Mr. Holmberg recommended that Respondent prepare her material, information, and directions in advance and that her verbal and written usage be grammatically correct. He suggested more flexibility and elaboration during reading. He also suggested that the subject matter be presented at more than one level. As recommended resources, he listed the Principal, the Assistant Principal, and a peer teacher. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not have a sequence in the lesson. The grammar on the board was incorrect. Her spelling was incorrect. There was no variety to her activities. There was no assessment of closure in the lesson. As resources for help, he recommended the Assistant Principal, the PREP specialist, and a peer teacher. Another conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on December 9, 1985. Respondent's teaching performance was discussed. Dr, Hanley was hopeful the Respondent would be able to remediate her deficiencies; however, Respondent was put on notice that if she was not fully remediated by the close of the school year she would be recommended for termination for cause. Respondent was next formally observed by Charles Sherwood, Directors Basic Skills on December 13, 1985. She was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Respondent testified that Dr. Sherwood orally indicated to her that her rating was satisfactory and created no problems but the business record of the school (P 30) shows that he rated her unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because all of the pupils received the same spelling lesson, despite the differences in their reading levels; and that he rated her unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because, although the school year was very close to being halfway over, Respondent still had not completed her PREP roster. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in her classroom in another external observation on March 17, 1986, by Dr. Hanley and Mrs. Cohen, and she was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because there were a substantial number of errors in teaching the concept "1/2". The words "equal" and unequal" were not used, although they were key vocabulary words in the teacher's manual for the lesson. Respondent told the children that a whole with a line in it becomes one-half. She did not indicate that the line had to be in the middle of the whole in order for there to be halves. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of her subject matter, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent use the teacher's manual for planning and delivering of instruction. It was requested the Respondent master the use of and use the words "equal" and "unequal" appropriately. She also recommended the Respondent use the area specialists, peer teachers, and the Assistant Principal as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the explanations of the concept of a whole, half, and fractions were not clear to the reviewer, and the reviewers felt the components necessary to address the key concepts were not effectively presented, thereby confusing she children, and an appropriate vocabulary was not used. They felt Respondent's lesson was again lacking in sequence. Additional resources and suggestions for improvement were prescribed to Respondent. Another conference-for-the-record was held with the Respondent on April 16, 1986. Some of Respondent's concerns regarding the TADS process were addressed. Respondent's improvement was discussed and Respondent was again notified that if she failed to be removed from prescription by the end of this second year of deficiency, recommendation of dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in the classroom in another external observation by Dr. Hanley and Evelyn Evans, another area director. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subtracting. The errors which she made on the board were not corrected. She also made errors in the process itself. These errors were demonstrated on a chalkboard at formal hearing which was erased without being admitted in evidence, but the oral testimony and business records of this observation are sufficient to support this finding. Respondent did not correct student errors, used inappropriate terminology referred to the one's and ten's columns as the right column and left columns and thereby confused the children. Dr. Hanley found the deficiencies in this lesson very similar to the math lesson observed on March 17, 1986. Respondent was still using her own vocabulary. Despite the fact that most of the children in her class and certainly most of our society could understand Respondent's use of "take away" for "subtract" and use of similar colloquialisms, the School Board established the need for more precise and consistent language in teaching early math skills. Respondent did not show evidence of having mastered the subject matter. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Hanley again emphasized mastery of vocabulary and concepts in the teacher's manual and advised adhering closely to the recommended word usage and plan of instruction. Respondent was instructed not to use her own vocabulary and methods until she had total command of the material. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because of many errors. The lesson was not properly sequenced; the children did not have a basic understanding of subtracting without regrouping before beginning subtracting with regrouping; Respondent's use of her own vocabulary confused the children; Respondent did not clarify by rephrasing with different words, but rather, used the same vocabulary over again that the children had not understood the first time. Respondent blocked the chalkboard while she was demonstrating to the class, was inattentive to the need for a chair by one student, and required a reading level of the children in math for which they were not prepared. Respondent again demonstrated improper subject-verb agreement, e.g., "What is the numbers?" and dropping endings on verbs, e.g., "As time go on", "Three minus two leave one." In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley again recommended the Respondent work with another second grade teacher to understand and become proficient in following the sequence and the delivery of instructions to include introduction, background, and the other steps in sequencing. She was also instructed to master the vocabulary and instructional plans in the teacher's manual and to adhere to them while teaching. She was instructed to develop a method for re-teaching individual students who appeared not to understand the lesson. Another conference-for-the-record was held on June 6, 1986. Respondent's unacceptable teaching performance was reviewed. Respondent was advised that a recommendation for dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was also given an end of the year prescription, as required by TADS. Although Respondent had improved her classroom management during the year, she was still unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction for the 1985-1986 school year. The two unacceptable categories are key categories in teaching. Improvement in these had either been slight or not at all, and Dr. Hanley had exhausted the school system's resources in attempting to assist Respondent. Respondent's testimony at formal hearing corroborates her supervisors' observations as to her failure to exhibit appropriate English grammar and usage with regard to subject-verb tenses. Gloria Jackerson, a retired teacher, testified on behalf of Respondent. Although this retired teacher of 21 years and a candid witness, she is Respondent's best friend. While this relationship may not have colored her favorable testimony, she admits that she has never observed Respondent teach in the classroom nor has she taught Chapter I students in Miami-Dade County under the present program. Therefore, her testimony with regard to Respondent's competency must be rejected. Evidence presented by several satisfied parents is all in Respondent's favors however, most had no training in classroom observation nor were they able to observe Respondent teaching in her classroom over any significant period of time. Their observations, therefore, were of minimal duration and purely subjective. No objective records showing whether their children were promoted or how their children progressed under Respondent's teaching were offered to substantiate their layman's viewpoint. With regard to the testimony of Robert Collins, a Learning Disability teacher in the Dade County School System, who requested that his child be placed in the Respondent's class and who had a brief opportunity to observe Mrs. Brewer in the classroom and who testified that her classes were well managed, his observation opportunities were so brief and so sporadic as to not outweigh the greater weight of the expert testimony of Petitioner's witnesses. The supportive evidence of Geraldine Townsend, another Perrine teachers is not helpful to Respondent in that this witness also had no truly meaningful observations of Respondent. The testimony of Mrs. Collins, a mother and also a teacher's aide, that some of the formal observers made Respondent's classes nervous and jittery is accepted, but this circumstance does not eliminate or seriously mitigate Respondent's responsibilities to teach effectively and to keep her students under control during observations. Respondent Brewer has worked hard to obtain her education and position. She is a deeply religious, compassionate, and caring individual. She has the type of supportive personality the young people of this society dearly need to know and relate to. She has good rapport with the young and communicates with them in loving and supportive ways. However, her personal qualifications and attributes do not outweigh the clear and convincing evidence of her incompetency as demonstrated by the foregoing Findings of Fact. On August 20, 1986, Petitioner School Board suspended Respondent, 55 years old, from employment, 2.20 years short of her attaining full retirement, and further initiated dismissal procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, as of August 20, 1986, of Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, and dismissing Respondent Anna M. Brewer as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida teaching certificate for five years or until she demonstrates competency pursuant to statute and ruled whichever occurs first. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOs. 86-3926, 87-0468 The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner School Board's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2 and 3. Covered and corrected to reflect the record in FOF 5. Covered in FOF 6. Covered in FOF 7. 6-8. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as set out in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 8. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, it is covered in FOF 9. Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. Partially addressed in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 12. Covered in FOF 13. 16-18. Covered in FOF 14. Covered in FOF 15. Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 17. 22-23. Covered in FOF 18. Covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 20. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23. Covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. Except to the extent it required expansion to fully conform to the record and except to the extent its proposals are subordinate and unnecessary, this proposal is covered in FOF 26. 33.-42. Covered in FOF 27-28. 43.-47. Except as contrary to the record for expression or subordinate, covered in FOF 29. Covered in FOF 30. Covered in FOF 31. Covered in FOF 32. Covered in FOF 33. Covered in FOF 34. Covered in FOF 35. Covered in F0F 36. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 37. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 38. Covered in FOF 39. Covered in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 42. , 62., 64., 66. and 68. are covered in FOF 43. , 63., 65., 67. and 69. are covered in FOF 44. 70.-73. Covered in FOF 45. Covered in FOF 46. Covered in FOF 47. Covered in FOF 48. Covered, expanded and modified so as to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record as a whole in FOF 49. Covered in FOF 50. Covered in FOF 51. Covered in FOF 52. Covered in FOF 50 and 53. Covered in FOF 54. Covered in FOF 55. Covered in FOF 56. Covered in FOF 57. Covered in FOF 58. Covered in FOF 59. Covered in FOF 60. 89-91. Expanded and modified to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record and to eliminate the subordinate and unnecessary in FOF 61. Covered in FOF 62. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 63 and 65. Covered in FOF 64. 95-96. Covered in FOF 65 except for cumulative and unnecessary material. Covered in FOF 66. Covered in FOF 67. Covered and expanded in FOF 68. Covered in FOF 69. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary or cumulative, covered in FOF 70. Covered in FOF 71. Covered in FOF 72. Covered in FOF 73. Rejected as cumulative. Covered in FOF 74. Rejected as cumulative. Covered and expanded in FOF 80. Petitioner Betty Castor's (EPC's) PFOF Since this petitioner adopted the PFOF of Petitioner School Board, the rulings are also the same. Respondent's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2-3. Covered in FOF 4. There is no PFOF. Covered in FOF 7-13, most specifically in FOF 13. Covered in FOF 14-17, most specifically in FOF 17. Covered in FOF 18-22, most specifically in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23-25, most specifically in FOF 25. 9-10. Covered in FOF 26. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 75. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 77. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 76. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 78. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madeline P. Schere, Esquire Board Administration Building Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 J. David Holders Esquire 211 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue Whether there exists just cause to suspend Respondent without pay for fifteen work days.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Madruga has been employed as an English, Stagecraft, and Theater Arts teacher at Ronald Reagan/Doral Senior High School since 2006. During the 2011-2012 school year, Mr. Madruga taught Stagecraft and Theater Arts. In his Stagecraft class, the students learned how to create the overall visual aspect of the high school productions. The students create costumes, construct set pieces, apply make-up, design the lighting scheme, and control the sound of the production. Mr. Madruga seems to thoroughly enjoy teaching these subjects; his passion for teaching was evident during his testimony. In July 2011, a complaint was filed against Mr. Madruga regarding communication he had with a student via Facebook. He received a letter of reprimand, which included the following directives: refrain from participating in any kind of communication with students through Facebook, cellular phone, or email unless it was regarding school business; refrain from using inappropriate language in conversation of any type (written or verbal) with students when addressing them; adhere to all School Board rules and regulations at all times; and conduct himself, both in his employment and in the community, in a manner that would reflect credit upon himself and the Miami-Dade public schools. On September 29, 2011, on a teacher planning day, Mr. Madruga and the Band Director were, with the help of student volunteers, building a set for a marching band production. Mr. Madruga was present that day to help the band students build the stage. He recognized most of the band students, but did not know them well. The school had received grant money from the City of Miami-Dade, and the money was being partially used for the construction of the set. The school was responsible for creating a report which documented the use of the grant money. E.P., a student, was assigned the task of photographing the construction of the set for use in the report. E.P.'s mother, C.P., was also helping that day. C.P., the Band Director, and Mr. Madruga went to Home Depot to buy all the materials needed for construction of the stage. During that trip, Mr. Madruga made some comments that C.P. interpreted to be sexual in nature. While the students were building the frame of the stage, they used metal braces at the junctures. Those supports are screwed into the wood frame using approximately 8-10 screws. Two students worked together during this process; one held the metal support piece in place, and the other used a power tool to drill the screws in place. While two students worked on installing one of these metal braces, E.P. photographed them. One photograph captures the two students on the floor with the framing; one is kneeling while using the power drill, the other is sitting on the ground while holding the metal brace in place. Mr. Madruga is standing beside the student who is using the power drill, holding screws in his left hand. His hand is lowered to his knee level, which is also at the level of the kneeling student's head. Mr. Madruga explained that, at the time the photo was taken, he was standing next to the student using the power drill because it is quite easy to get injured using it. As he was holding the screws, the photograph captured him handing a screw to the student using the power drill. C.P. filed a complaint with the school, alleging that Mr. Madruga had extended his middle finger in the photograph intentionally, and then laughed about having done so. She also alleged that while the student using the power drill was kneeling and bending at the waist over the framing, Mr. Madruga commented that he was familiar with that position. C.P. considered the comment to be sexual in nature, and thought that extending his middle finger in the photograph was inappropriate. Students present during this construction event were interviewed during the investigation of C.P.'s complaint, and none, with the exception of C.P.'s son, corroborated C.P.'s allegations. The student kneeling in the photograph refused to provide a statement. The student sitting down holding the metal brace had no knowledge of these allegations, and never heard Mr. Madruga make the alleged comment. The greater weight of the evidence supports Mr. Madruga's testimony; the photograph captures Mr. Madruga handing the student screws as he described, and if Mr. Madruga had made sexually charged comments while in close proximity to students, the undersigned believes the students--in particular the student to whom the comment was allegedly directed--would have heard it. The greater weight of the evidence established that Mr. Madruga is not guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or of violating any School Board policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board dismiss the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Madruga. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 2012.
The Issue (1) Whether facts and circumstances demonstrate the existence, on August 20, 2019, of an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students of Championship Academy of Distinction at Davie, Inc.-5422 d/b/a "Championship Academy" ("Championship") justifying the immediate termination of its charter by the Broward County School Board ("School Board") pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c); and (2) whether the School Board formulated one or more agency statements that constitute unadopted rules, in violation of section 120.54(1)(a), and applied one or more of those unadopted rules as the basis for its agency action immediately terminating Championship's charter.1 1 Championship's rule challenge petition, as filed, also challenged an adopted School Board rule under section 120.56(3). This challenge was abandoned at the beginning of the final hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Championship is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that holds the charter for numerous charter schools throughout Florida, including in Broward County, Florida. Championship was the holder of the charter for Championship Academy of Distinction at Davie, Inc., the charter school for which the charter was immediately terminated by the School Board on August 20, 2019.4 Pursuant to Article IX, section 4 of the Florida Constitution, the School Board is the political subdivision that operates, controls, and supervises all district public schools in Broward County, Florida.5 3 CS for CS Senate Bill 7030 (2019) substantially amended section 1006.12, Florida Statutes, regarding safe-school officers. This legislation was published as chapter 2019-22, Laws of Florida (2019) and has been codified in numerous Florida Statutes, including section 1006.12. 4 For purposes of this Final Order, including the stipulated facts, all references to "Championship" are to the Championship Academy of Distinction at Davie, Inc., the charter school for which the charter was terminated on August 20, 2019. 5 The School Board is an educational unit, as that term is defined in section 120.52(6), and, therefore is an "agency" for purposes of chapter 120. Pursuant to section 1002.33(8), Florida Statutes, the charter termination proceeding is conducted pursuant to sections 120.569 and In Florida, charter schools are nonsectarian public schools that operate pursuant to a charter contract with a public sponsor. § 1002.33(1), Fla. Stat. In this case, the School Board is the sponsor for Championship. Stipulated Facts At a regularly scheduled meeting, the School Board approved a renewal Charter School Agreement (the "charter"), dated April 5, 2016, with Championship. The charter became effective on July 1, 2016, for a term of five years. At a regularly scheduled meeting on August 20, 2019, the School Board voted to immediately terminate Championship's6 charter pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). As the basis for its action, the School Board concluded that the particular facts and circumstances indicated that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students existed on that date, due to Championship's failure to comply with and implement the requirements of section 1006.12, by failing to arrange for the assignment of one or more safe-school officers for the protection and safety of students, school personnel, and property, without interruption, during all school hours of every school day, and for repeatedly allowing a licensed security guard other than a safe-school officer to possess a firearm on Championship's campus in violation of section 790.115(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The School Board's notice of termination of the charter was delivered to Championship on August 22, 2019. The first day of the 2019-2020 school year for the students at Championship was Wednesday, August 14, 2019. Students attended classes at Championship on Wednesday, August 14, through and including Friday, 120.57(1). Additionally, pursuant to section 1001.41(2), Florida Statutes, the School Board is required to adopt its policies pursuant to the rulemaking procedure in section 120.54. 6 In the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the parties interchangeably refer to "Championship" and the "Charter School." For consistency, the stipulated facts in this Final Order are modified to refer to "Championship." August 16, 2019, and on Monday, August 19, through Thursday, August 22, 2019. Pursuant to section 1022.33(8)(c), Florida Statutes, the School Board assumed operation of Championship after it immediately terminated Championship's charter. On August 14, 2019, Championship had an armed security guard, rather than a safe-school officer pursuant to one of the four options authorized and required by section 1006.12, present on its campus. On August 15, 2019, Championship had an armed security guard, rather than a safe-school officer pursuant to one of the four options authorized and required by section 1006.12, present on its campus. On August 14, 2019, Detra Adams observed a person sitting behind the front desk at the Charter School. Championship's principal, Todd Dupell, told her that that person was an armed guard. On August 15, 2019, starting at approximately 2:37 p.m., a police officer from the Davie Police Department was present on Championship's campus. A police officer from the Davie Police Department was present on Championship's campus during all school hours on Friday, August 16, 2019; during all school hours on Monday, August 19, 2019; and during all school hours on Tuesday, August 20, 2019. On August 19, 2019, Broward County Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie, Leslie Brown, and School Board Deputy General Counsel Robert Vignola received a copy of an email dated August 16, 2019, from Davie Police Department Captain Christopher Chastain to Todd Dupell, stating, in part: We will meet with the Town Administrator Monday morning to finalize everything. In the interim[,] there will be an officer at your location on school days. We hope to have an approved agreement ready for signing by Monday afternoon which will provide you with what is being requested by the county. Runcie stated the following during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: "I know, I think it was late on Thursday afternoon, and certainly on Friday when we checked, there was a full-time officer there from the City of Davie." Brian Katz, the School Board's Chief Safety, Security, and Emergency Preparedness Officer, stated the following regarding whether the Charter School was in compliance with section 1006.12, during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: "as of today [August 20, 2019], they are." School Board member Nora Rupert stated the following regarding a written communication she received from the Mayor of Davie, Judy Paul, during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: The Mayor of Davie, Judy Paul, says there presently are Davie officers in the three Davie charter schools, and the executed agreement will be forwarded, specifically, Championship, excuse me, when completed today. We take care of our own, ["]we["] meaning their city. They've always been a very good, good partner with us. I asked if I could say this publicly, and she said yes. This is for the public record. I also forwarded it to the attorney, as well as the Superintendent the minute I received it, and just so my colleagues could have that information, I had to say it here. Vignola stated the following during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: If there's an officer there [at Championship] now and . . . if there is a representation from appropriate officials in the City [Town of Davie] that they see themselves as having a binding obligation to provide safe-school officer coverage with continuity, that goes to your threshold question of whether immediate termination is appropriate. The following exchange occurred between School Board member Laurie Rich Levinson and Vignola during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: Levinson: "So, Mr. Vignola, I know it's a difficult question, but legally, where are we? As of today, we are going to have an agreement with the Town of Davie that this school is covered, so as of today, we're not able to terminate a contract." Vignola: "If we get that representation from the city, I think that I would counsel voting against immediate termination." School Board member Donna Korn stated the following during the meeting of the School Board on August 20, 2019: "Do I believe that our decision will be overturned? Unfortunately, to the extent we have a very mixed message, I do." Vignola stated the following at the meeting of the School Board on August 20, 2019: Right now, today, they have, as I've been—it's been reported to me, they have a safe[-]school officer on campus today that would be compliant. As for what they have down the road, the law is not very clear as to an obligation. There's nothing in here that says have a contract in place. At an emergency meeting held on August 27, 2019, the School Board voted against immediately terminating its charter school agreement with The National Ben Gamla Charter School Foundation, Inc. ("Ben Gamla Charter School"), pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c), concluding that the particular facts and circumstances did not indicate that an immediate and serious threat to the health, safety, or welfare of that charter school's students existed on August 27, 2019. The School Board was aware, at its August 27, 2019, meeting that the security guard at the Ben Gamla Charter School campus was not a certified guardian pursuant to section 1006.12. School Board member Dr. Rosalind Osgood stated the following during the August 27, 2019, meeting of the School Board regarding the Ben Gamla Charter School: It was a problem because there were not enough law enforcement officers in the whole state even available to meet the demands of the legislature, so we had to be very creative in the way that we made decisions to keep our kids in the traditional public schools safe[,] with requiring that they have military or law enforcement background and training, which again, we keep hearing limited the pool, but it's the . . . safest way that we can address it. Runcie stated the following during the meeting of the School Board on August 27, 2019, regarding the Ben Gamla Charter School: "[s]o I think they're [Ben Gamla Charter School] working to try to get to a point where they have a sustainable plan, but if they currently have a plan, no matter how short-term it is, and they're able to have a safe[-]school officer on campus, they're technically in compliance." Chief of the Plantation Police Department, W. Howard Harrison, stated during the meeting of the School Board on August 27, 2019, that the Plantation Police Department did not provide any officers for the campus of Ben Gamla Charter School on August 14 through 16, and August 26, 2019. A Plantation Police Department Officer was provided to Ben Gamla Charter School for half a day on August 19, 2019, and an officer from the Broward County Sheriff's Office provided coverage for August 27, 2019. The School Board did not designate, assign, or provide any safe-school officers at Championship for the 2019-2020 school year. Championship timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearings with the School Board, requesting an administrative hearing on the School Board's immediate termination of its charter. The School Board referred Championship's request for hearing to DOAH on September 11, 2019. Findings of Fact Based on Evidence at Final Hearing Safe-School Officer Statute In response to the tragic school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that occurred on February 14, 2018, the Florida Legislature enacted the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, a portion of which is codified at section 1006.12, the statute titled "Safe-school officers at each public school." Certain provisions of section 1006.12 have given rise to the matters in dispute in these consolidated proceedings. School Board Communications and Actions Regarding Charter School Compliance with Section 1006.12 On or about March 8, 2019, the Florida Department of Education ("DOE") contacted the School Board, requesting information regarding the status of compliance, by all public schools in the Broward County Public Schools District ("District"), including charter schools, with the statutory requirement in section 1006.12 for a safe-school officer to be present at each school. The request set a March 22, 2019, deadline for each school in the District, including charter schools, to provide that information to DOE. The School Board contacted all charter schools in the District, requesting that they provide the information requested by DOE by March 22, 2019. Championship did not provide the requested information by that date. The amendments to section 1006.12 enacted as part of SB 7030 became law on May 8, 2019. On May 15, 2019, Katz conducted an informational meeting with charter school personnel to inform them of the requirements of newly- amended section 1006.12, and to provide instructions to upload compliance documentation into the Charter.Tools application. Dupell attended the meeting. On June 28, 2019, Commissioner of Education Richard Corcoran sent a letter (the "Corcoran Letter") to the representatives of charter schools regarding compliance with newly-amended section 1006.12. The letter provided information regarding the options for meeting the requirement to have at least one safe-school officer present on campus while school is in session. The Corcoran Letter particularly addressed the expanded school guardian option codified at section 1006.12(3), and the new school security guard option codified at section 1006.12(4). The letter stated, in pertinent part: [E]very public elementary, middle, and high school in Florida, including all Florida charter schools, must have a Safe-School Officer (SSO) physically present on each campus while school is in session. . . . All charter schools without current [safe-school officer] coverage have until August 1 to come into compliance for the 2019-2020 school year For those charter schools that choose to treat our requests for information as optional, our only option going forward will be to use the full extent of the law to ensure compliance. On July 9, 2019, Katz and Leslie Brown, the School Board's Chief Portfolio Officer, issued a memorandum directed to the charter schools in the District. The memorandum stated: "[t]he statute requires each charter school to implement one of the safe-school officer options." The memorandum listed the options and explained that the first three options, with some legislative revisions, had been available to charter schools in the 2018-2019 school year. The memorandum further stated: [t]he School Board has taken no action to deny any charter school access to any of the safe-school officer options summarized above and more fully detailed in [s]ection 1006.12, Florida Statutes." Citing the Corcoran Letter, the memorandum stated, in boldface type: If one of the Safe[-]School Officer options is not confirmed by your location by August 1st,[2019,]such facts and circumstances will be considered by your charter school sponsor to present an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of your charter school's students. Please be advised that, under those circumstances, the school district will request the School Board of Broward County, Florida, to "use the full extent of the law[,]" as urged by Commissioner Corcoran and immediately terminate your charter agreement pursuant to [s]ection 1002.33(8)(c), Florida Statutes. July 9, 2019, memorandum, Exhibit JE-4 (emphasis added). From this memorandum, it is apparent that the School Board interpreted the phrase "use the full extent of the law," as referenced in the Corcoran Letter, to mean immediately terminating a noncompliant charter school's charter. In so stating, the School Board was not merely following guidance set forth in the Corcoran Letter—which did not mention immediate termination of a charter as a sanction for noncompliance with section 1006.12—but, instead, was articulating its own sanction, which it would impose for noncompliance with section 1006.12.7 The memorandum further stated: "[p]lease upload into Charter.Tools, under the benchmark entitled Senate Bill 7030, the attached form and pertinent documentation that confirms that your implemented Safe[-]School Officer option is in compliance with [s]ection 1006.12, Florida Statutes, for the 2019-2020 school year. This documentation is due by August 1, 2019." On July 31, 2019, the School Board sent a follow-up email to the principals of the charter schools in the District, reminding them of the August 1, 2019, deadline. 7 To this point, in response to an email from Broward County Public Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie dated August 15, 2019, Corcoran counseled against immediate charter termination to sanction noncompliant charter schools, recommending instead that the District take immediate steps to provide safe-school officer coverage at a noncompliant charter school, followed by steps to ensure that the school maintained coverage and implemented a long term solution. The School Board conducted another meeting with charter school principals on August 1, 2019, at which Katz highlighted the four safe-school officer options available under section 1006.12, and reminded the charter school principals of the School Board's position that charter schools were solely responsible for establishing and assigning one or more safe-school officers for their campuses. Championship did not meet the August 1, 2019, deadline to upload the safe-school officer documentation into Charter.Tools. Katz testified at the final hearing that the School Board did not establish or assign any safe-school officers at any charter schools in the District, including Championship, in the 2019-2020 school year. Actions Taken by Championship Regarding Safe-School Officer Requirement in 2019-2020 School Year On Friday, August 2, 2019, Linda Williamson, office manager for Championship, emailed Lieutenant Patricia Ravine of the Davie Police Department regarding obtaining a school guardian while Championship's security guard was in training to become certified as a School Guardian. Ravine told her that the Broward County Sheriff's Office ("BSO") was in the process of developing the guardian program, and that the Davie Police Department had a contract with the School Board for all 13 of its school resource officers to be assigned to the 12 traditional public schools in Davie. Ravine suggested that Championship contact a security agency, and she also suggested, as an alternative to a temporary guardian, that Championship secure the services of a Davie Police Department private duty detail officer. On or about Friday, August 9, 2019, Championship submitted a Private Duty Detail Application ("Application") to the Davie Police Department, requesting private duty detail officer coverage for Championship from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. for each school day, beginning on August 14, 2019, and ending on September 28, 2019. Private duty detail coverage consists of voluntary coverage by off-duty police officers whose presence is not guaranteed by the police department. To that point, the Application states, in pertinent part: "[e]very reasonable effort will be made to fill the detail request, but there is no guarantee that it will be filled. Members of the Davie Police Department, who are authorized to work Private Duty Detail, do so voluntarily during their off duty hours." The first day of the 2019-2020 school year for District schools, including Championship, was August 14, 2019. On August 14, 2019, the Davie Police Department did not send a private duty detail police officer to provide safe-school officer services to Championship, and Championship did not have any other persons qualified under any of the safe-school officer options in section 1006.12 present on its campus that day. On August 14, 2019, Championship did have present on its campus an armed security guard, Steven Carbone, who Championship had hired to provide school safety services on its campus. Although Carbone had not yet completed the school guardian training program, he met the other safe-school officer requirements set forth in section 1006.23, including having completed a psychological evaluation which indicated that he was suitable for the position, and holding Class D and Class G licenses under chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Carbone was trained regarding domestic and foreign terrorism, explosives, improvised explosive devise recognition, and identification of hazardous materials. Detra Adams, Curriculum Supervisor of Secondary Literacy for the District, visited Championship's campus on August 14, 2019. She did not view a safe-school officer who met the requirements of section 1006.12 on Championship's campus that day. However, she did observe a person at the front desk wearing a security uniform and bearing a firearm. That person ultimately was identified as Carbone. Adams met with Dupell, who told her that Championship had procured the service of an armed security guard (Carbone) who was present on campus that day. Dupell acknowledged that Championship had not submitted the required documentation to the District to have an armed security guard on campus. He told Adams that Carbone was registered for a school guardian training program8 and that once he completed the training, Championship would submit the certification documents to the District. Dupell also told Adams that Championship had arranged for a Davie private duty detail police officer to be present at the school on some, but not all, school days. On August 15, 2019, the Davie Police Department did not send a private duty detail police officer to provide safe-school officer services to Championship, but did send an on-duty police officer who arrived shortly before the end of the school day. Donte´ Fulton-Collins, Director of the Charter Schools Management Support Department for the District, visited Championship's campus on August 15, 2019, and did not observe a safe-school officer meeting the requirements of section 1006.12 on campus that day. However, she did observe an armed security guard on that date. That person ultimately was identified as Carbone. Katz, along with Damien Kelly of the DOE Safe Schools Office, visited Championship's campus on August 15, 2019, to discuss with Dupell the need for Championship to secure the services of a safe-school officer who met the requirements of section 1006.12. At that meeting, Dupell provided documentation to Katz showing that Championship had filed the Application with the Davie Police Department, 8 On July 31, 2019, Championship entered into an agreement with the BSO to provide Carbone training to serve as a safe-school officer pursuant to the Aaron Feis School Guardian option under section 1006.12(3). The training course was only offered every three months, so when Carbone was hired to fill the safe-school officer position at Championship, the soonest he could obtain training by BSO was early September 2019, after the 2019-2020 school year had begun. requesting to have private duty detail officer coverage until Carbone could complete the training to satisfy the requirements for certification as a school guardian under section 1006.12(3). Dupell also provided Katz a list of dates for which Davie Police Department had signed up to provide private duty detail coverage at Championship between August 14 and September 28, 2019. Katz observed that for many of the shifts on school days during that period, no officers had signed up to provide coverage at Championship. In sum, for the first two days of the 2019-2020 school year, Championship was not in compliance with section 1006.12 because it did not have present on its campus an individual who met the statutory requirements to serve as a safe-school officer. Championship does not dispute that it was not in compliance with section 1006.12 on those days. For the first two days of the 2019-2020 school year, Championship did have an armed security guard, Carbone, who had been hired by Championship specifically to provide school safety services to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its students. As discussed above, although Carbone had not yet been trained as a school guardian, he met the other requirements to be a school guardian. Pursuant to an electronic mail exchange between Championship and Ravine on the afternoon of August 15, 2019, the Davie Police Department guaranteed police officer coverage for Championship's campus, for the full school day, on all the days requested in the Application for which no private duty detail officer had volunteered. Thus, by the afternoon of August 15, 2019, Championship had secured guaranteed police officer coverage from the Davie Police Department—albeit not pursuant to a fully-executed contract. Pursuant to this informal arrangement, a police officer from the Davie Police Department was present and provided safe-school officer services on Championship's campus for the entire school day on August 16 and 19 through 22, 2019. On Wednesday, August 22, 2019, Championship and the Town of Davie, Florida, executed a Safe School Officer Agreement ("SSO Agreement") for a term commencing on August 14, 2019, and ending no more than 90 days later. Article 2 of the SSO Agreement states, in pertinent part, T[own] shall assign a certified police officer to serve as a [Safe School Officer ("SSO")] at the charter school for a period not to exceed the school year [(sic)] to allow C[harter] to otherwise become compliant with the [c]hapter 2019-22, Laws of Florida (2019) . . . . The certified police officer assigned to the school will be working in an overtime capacity. There is no guarantee that the same officer will work at the school on a daily basis. The parties agree that this does not include any after[-]hours activities, sports programs, aftercare, etc. Assignment of SSOs. The Town may change the law enforcement officer assigned to participate as a[n] SSO at any time during the Agreement. Unless precluded by emergency circumstances, the T[own] shall at all times maintain an SSO on duty during those regular school hours. "Regular school hours" shall be defined as the respective [p]articipating school's posted bell schedule. Wherever possible, the T[own] shall assign a replacement SSO during the time that the assigned SSO is absent when students are required to be in attendance during regular school hours. Pursuant to the SSO Agreement, the Town of Davie guaranteed police officer coverage for Championship for every school day during regular school hours, commencing on August 14, 2019, and ending no more than 90 days later. This coverage was to be provided by private duty detail officers when available, and if no private duty detail officers were available, safe-school officer coverage would be provided by an on-duty police officer. Because the SSO Agreement was not fully executed until August 22, 2019, and because no private duty detail officers had volunteered to provide safe-school officer coverage at Championship on August 14 and 15, 2019, the Davie Police Department did not provide coverage on those dates. However, as found above, pursuant to the informal arrangement for private duty detail coverage that Championship had made with the Davie Police Department on August 15, 2019, a Davie police officer was physically present and provided safe-school officer services on Championship's campus on August 16 and 19 through 22, 2019. Thereafter, the Davie Police Department provided safe-school officer services to Championship under the SSO Agreement for the rest of the 2019- 2020 school year, until all District schools were closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Other School Safety Measures Taken by Championship Cynthia Dotson, Chief Executive Officer of the management company who provides services to small charter schools, including Championship, testified regarding the measures that Championship has implemented on its campus to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its students and staff. The Championship campus is located in a fenced facility within a small business park in a cul-de-sac. The school has one point of ingress and egress for the public, and additional means of ingress and egress for the provision of fire, life, and safety support services. Championship screens persons entering the campus through a software application used to determine whether that person has a criminal record. It also utilizes a video camera system to provide surveillance of the interior and exterior of the campus, an audio communication system consisting of an intercom system and walkie-talkies, and a software application through which faculty members can report suspicious activity to the appropriate authorities. Additionally, Championship has hired a retired SWAT team to train all of its employees to respond to active assailant situations on campus in order to mitigate any threat and prevent injury and loss of life. To this end, Championship conducts monthly code red drills in both the summer months and the school year. Before the 2017-2018 school year, Championship hired a school security guard, Yoan Herrera, to provide school safety services to its campus. Herrera became certified by the BSO on November 15, 2018, to serve as an Aaron Feis Guardian on Championship's campus.9 He provided those services to Championship until approximately mid-March 2019. After Herrera left his position, Championship retained the temporary services of the King Security Agency ("King") to provide school security services while it searched for a replacement school security employee. After an exhaustive search that yielded very few qualified applicants, Championship hired Carbone to fill the school security guard vacancy. Carbone had been an employee of King and had provided school security services to Championship during the last few months of the 2018-2019 school year. As noted above, Carbone's psychological evaluation indicated that he was suited for the position. Additionally, he had training regarding domestic and foreign terrorism, explosives, improvised explosive device recognition, and identification of hazardous materials, and he also held Class D and Class G licenses. After Championship hired Carbone, he was immediately enrolled in the Aaron Feis School Guardian certification program offered by the BSO. However, due to the high demand for such training and limited program 9 Notably, even though Herrera was present on Championship's campus while carrying a firearm for the entire 2017-2018 school year and a portion of the 2018-2019 school year, and for part of that time, provided school security services in a capacity other than as a safe- school officer pursuant to section 1006.12, no evidence was presented at the final hearing showing that the School Board considered Herrera's presence on Championship's campus as constituting a violation of section 790.115(2), warranting immediate termination of Championship's charter. offerings, Carbone was unable to begin the training before early September 2019. Thus, assuming he successfully completed the program, he would not have been certified as a school guardian pursuant to section 1006.12(3) until October 2019. Ultimately, Carbone did not successfully complete the training program. Additionally, on August 19, 2019, Championship hired Andre Chambers to serve as a safe-school officer at its campus. At the time Chambers was hired, he already was certified as an Aaron Feis School Guardian pursuant to section 1006.12(3). He began providing safe-school officer services on Championship's campus in September 2019, and did so until all District schools, including Championship, were closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. School Board's Immediate Termination of Championship's Charter As a result of Championship's failure to have a safe-school officer meeting the requirements of section 1006.12 on its campus on August 14 and 15, 2019, School Board personnel prepared an agenda item recommending immediate termination of the Charter for consideration at the School Board's next regular meeting, scheduled for August 20, 2019. At the final hearing, Brown and Katz testified that the School Board determined that Championship's failure to have, on campus, a safe-school officer who met the requirements of section 1006.12, constituted an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students, which commenced on August 14, 2019, and continued through August 20, 2019, when the School Board immediately terminated Championship's charter. Brown acknowledged that the School Board was aware that as of August 16, 2019, Championship had a police officer from the Davie Police Department physically present on its campus. She testified that this did not change the School Board's position that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare to Championship's students existed. As she put it: [t]he services were piecemeal, there was nothing that we could depend on, nothing had been established and nothing had been assigned. . . . There was no evidence that [having a Davie police officer on campus] was going to be the case as each—each minute or hour or day that was going to continue. Katz and Brown also testified that the School Board interpreted section 1006.12 as requiring a charter school to have in place a fully-executed contract for a safe-school officer in order to meet the statute's requirement that a safe-school officer be "established and assigned" to the school. To this point, Katz testified that having a Davie Police Department police officer present on campus would not, by itself, meet the safe-school officer requirement, because an executed contract "establishing" the presence of the officer also is required by the statute. He stated: "I believe both things are necessary, the agreement and presence. A fully[-]executed contract and presence [J]ust to be clear, a contract that states that there will be coverage, not a contract that says there may be coverage."10 Katz and Brown also testified that the School Board interprets section 1006.12 as placing the responsibility solely on the charter school to secure a safe-school officer for its campus. To this point, Katz testified that the School Board has "always believed that they [charter schools] were responsible for . . . assigning or establishing a safe school officer for every one of their schools." 10 In the stipulated facts set forth above, Katz stated, in response to a question from a School Board member at the August 20, 2019, meeting, that if Championship had a law enforcement officer present on its campus on that day, it was in compliance with section 1006.12. At the final hearing, Katz testified at the final hearing that this statement assumed the existence of a fully-executed contract on that date. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that the SSO Agreement was not fully executed until August 22, 2019. Brown testified that the School Board views Florida law as prohibiting the District from assigning a safe-school officer to a charter school. To that point, she testified that if a charter school wished to secure the services of a school resource officer under section 1006.12(1) to meet the safe-school officer requirement, the charter school would have to directly contract with the law enforcement agency to do so.11 Further to this point, Katz testified that the School Board did not have the authority to assign a law enforcement officer whose services are contracted by the District to provide safe-school officer coverage on a charter school's campus.12 Both Brown and Katz testified that the School Board met the requirement in section 1006.12 to "collaborate with charter school governing boards to facilitate charter school access to all safe-school officer options available" by providing information, presentations, and training to charter schools regarding the statute's safe-school officer requirements and available options for meeting those requirements. Katz acknowledged at the final hearing that Championship having an armed security guard who was not a safe-school officer present on its campus to provide school security services did not pose an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students at Championship. Fulton-Collins testified that she assisted in preparing the School Board agenda item recommending the immediate termination of Championship's charter because, as she put it: 11 Section 1006.12(1), establishing the school resource officer option, states: "A school district may establish school resource officer programs through a cooperative agreement with law enforcement agencies." § 1006.12(1), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Notably absent from this provision is language authorizing charter schools to do so. 12 Section 1002.33(12)(a) states: "A charter school shall select its own employees. A charter school may contract with its sponsor for the services of personnel employed by the sponsor." § 1002.33(12)(a)(emphasis added). This provision appears to authorize a school board to contract with a charter school to establish or assign a safe-school officer at the charter school, pursuant to a partnership between the school board and a law enforcement agency or security agency as provided in the first sentence of section 1006.12. all charter schools must be in compliance with any requirements that the Legislature has deemed to be necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the students. The Legislature specifically found in section 1006.12 . . . that the establishment or assignment of a safe school officer on a charter school campus is necessary for the protection of school personnel, property, students, and visitors. And by failing to do so, failing to establish and assign a safe school officer on the campus, Championship created an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, and welfare of its students. Fulton-Collins testimony, T. Vol. I, p. 192. Fulton-Collins acknowledged that section 1006.12 does not expressly state that charter schools are responsible for establishing and assigning their own safe-school officers.13 However, she maintained that charter schools are solely responsible for establishing and assigning safe-school officers for their own campus, and that the School Board's duty is "not impeding [them] on any opportunity that they have to secure a safe-school officer." Broward County Public Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie confirmed that the School Board interprets section 1006.12 as placing the sole responsibility on charter schools to secure their own safe-school officers. To this point, Runcie testified: " [j]ust as we [the District] go and secure [safe- school officers], by any means necessary, to have them on our campuses, [charter schools] are also required to go and use whatever means they can to secure them." Runcie also confirmed the School Board's position, articulated by Katz and Brown, that for charter schools to be in compliance with section 1006.12, a person meeting the requirements of one of the safe-school officer options 13 Notably, during the 2019 Legislative Session, the Legislature expressly rejected an amendment to SB 7030 that would have amended the first sentence of section 1006.12 to also require "charter schools, as applicable" to establish and assign one or more safe-school officers at its school facility. must be physically present on the school campus for the entire school day, and a fully-executed contract must exist, guaranteeing the presence of the safe-school officer on the campus each school day, for the full term of the contract.14 Runcie testified that the School Board interprets the terms "establish and assign" to require that both of these conditions be met for the charter school to be in compliance with section 1006.12. He acknowledged that section 1006.12 does not expressly state that a fully-executed contract is required for compliance with the statute.15 To this point, he testified: [t]he statute, itself, may not specify a contract. It says what you are required to do. And the reason why it doesn't specify a contract is that there are several means to do it. There are some school districts, like Miami, I believe Palm Beach may be similar, but there's a handful of them where they actually have their own police force. So they're not going to have a contract in order to meet that[.] So the legislation is not going to be that specific because there's varying ability in how school districts and charter schools go about securing safe- school officers. So it wouldn't have that . . . degree of specificity. Runcie testimony T., Vol. II, pp. 44-45. Further to this point, Runcie testified: It [(the statute)] doesn't specifically require that, but the—so, again, the statute speaks to multiple 14 Runcie testified that in the School Board's view, section 1006.12 does not require an executed long term contract, such as a school-year-long contract, securing safe-school officer services; rather, the School Board interprets the statute as requiring a fully-executed contract that guarantees continuous presence of a safe-school officer on campus for the duration of the contract's term, whatever that term is. 15 See paragraph 243, below. To the extent a statute does not specify the precise means by which it is to be implemented, rulemaking may be necessary in order for an agency to implement the statute. See § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. (defining "rule" as a statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule). avenues, multiple ways of securing a safe-school officer. A couple of those don't require a contract. Again, if you have your own police force or you're using an armed guardian. So, for example, we actually have some schools that we have put in our detectives from our school investigative unit when we needed to. So we have 15, 20 police officers, if you will. So some districts, their whole entire system, they have their own police department. Or you can hire an individual, put him through the guardian program, have them become certified. Outside of doing those two things you would actually have to have a contract or some types of established agreement, an arrangement to be able to fulfill that. Runcie testimony, T. Vol. II, pp. 58-59. The School Board terminated Championship's charter on August 20, 2019, because Championship did not have a safe-school officer present on its campus for the first two days of the 2019-2020 school year, and because as of August 20, 2019, Championship did not have a fully-executed contract with the Town of Davie guaranteeing the presence of a police officer to serve as a safe-school officer on Championship's campus; thus, the School Board considered these circumstances to constitute an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students at Championship, warranting immediate termination of the charter pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). Safety-Related Circumstances on Championship's Campus in the 2019- 2020 School Year Three parents of students who attended Championship in the 2019-2020 school year testified regarding the safety-related circumstances on Championship's campus at the beginning of the school year leading up to the School Board's termination of Championship's charter on August 20, 2019. Specifically, Anne-Valerie Daniel-Laveus, the mother of three students enrolled at Championship during the 2019-2020 school year and a teacher at Championship during that school year, testified that she observed a school security guard present at the school every day. In her experience as a teacher at Championship and as a mother whose children were enrolled there, she perceived conditions at Championship as being safe. To that point, no other parents or students relayed to her any concerns they had regarding safety at Championship at any time during the 2019-2020 school year, including on August 14 through 20, 2019. She was not aware of any incidents, threats, or weapons-related incidents having taken place at Championship at any time during the 2019-2020 school year. Sandra Acosta, the mother of a student enrolled at Championship, testified that she took her child to school daily during the 2019-2020 school year, that she always saw a security guard present on campus when she did so. She always felt that her child was safe at Championship, and that she was not aware of any incidents in which the safety of the students at Championship was threatened. Melissa Bustamante, the mother of two students enrolled at Championship during the 2019-2020 school year and a member of Championship's governing board since 2011, also testified regarding conditions at Championship during the 2019-2020 school year, including on the school days between August 14 and 20, 2019. Specifically, when she took her children to school, she always observed a security guard at the front of the school, which is the only publicly-accessible entrance to the school facility. She was not aware of any bomb threats, weapons threats, or trespassing by unauthorized persons on Championship's campus during the 2019-2020 school year, nor was she aware of any parents of Championship students having expressed concerns regarding safety-related matters at the school during the 2019-2020 school year. As a member of Championship's governing board, she verified that the school had secured the presence of a Davie police officer on campus before, and for some time after, the charter was terminated, and also had secured a school guardian (Chambers) to serve as a safe-school officer for the remainder of the 2019-2020 school year. No evidence was presented showing that there were any actual or imminent threats or dangers to the health, safety, or welfare of the students at Championship on any school days between August 14 and 20, 2019. Additionally, no evidence was presented showing that the presence of Carbone, who had been hired by Championship specifically to provide school safety and security services and who provided those services, presented a threat or danger to the students at Championship on August 14 through 16, 19, and 20, 2019. To the contrary, the witnesses who observed Carbone testified that he was at the front entrance to the school performing his school protection duties. None of them testified that they perceived him as a threat or saw him threatening or endangering the students, and all of them testified that his presence was one reason they perceived Championship's school campus as being safe. Additionally, as noted above, Katz conceded at the final hearing that Championship's having an armed security guard on campus to provide school security services on August 14 through 16, 19, and 20, 2019, did not present an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students. Championship's Standing The School Board took action on August 20, 2019, to immediately terminate Championship's charter, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). Although the School Board subsequently operated Championship for the 2019-2020 school year while these proceedings were pending, if the School Board were to prevail in Case No. 19-4818, Championship's charter would be permanently terminated and the charter school could no longer operate. Thus, the School Board's immediate termination of Championship's charter has caused Championship to suffer an immediate, direct injury that is within the scope of these proceedings, which are brought under sections 1002.33 and 1006.12. Additionally, as discussed below, the School Board applied unadopted rules to Championship in these proceedings to terminate its charter. Findings of Ultimate Fact Immediate Termination of Charter under Section 1002.33(8)(c) Championship's Noncompliance with Section 1006.12 did not Cause Immediate and Serious Danger to Its Students Pursuant to the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the School Board did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students was in existence on August 20, 2019, when it immediately terminated Championship's charter. The School Board contends that Championship's failure to have present on its campus a person who met the statutory qualifications for serving as a safe-school officer on August 14 and 15, 2019, coupled with its failure to have a fully-executed contract securing the services of a safe-school officer for Championship by August 20, 2019, constituted an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students warranting immediate termination of its charter, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). However, the School Board presented no evidence of any particular facts and circumstances showing that an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students was in existence on August 20, 2019—whether due to Championship's failure to have a person on campus who met the statutory qualifications for serving as a safe-school officer plus a fully-executed contract securing the services of a safe-school officer for Championship, or for any other reason. To that point, there was no evidence presented showing that there were any threats or actions constituting a threat—such as bomb threats, trespassing by unauthorized persons, armed persons presenting a danger or threat, or any other circumstances on Championship's campus that existed on August 20, 2019—or on any other school day in the 2019-2020 school year, for that matter. To the contrary, Championship presented the testimony of three witnesses stating that to their knowledge, there had been no threat or danger whatsoever to Championship's students at any time during the 2019-2020 school year, including on the school days before and including August 20, 2019. Each of these witnesses was in a position to have personally known whether, or be informed if, there had been any actual, immediate threat or danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students. The very most that may be inferred from the evidence is that not having a person who was qualified as a safe-school officer on campus may have presented a potential threat to Championship's students on August 14 and 15, 2019. However, even such a potential threat—to the extent it may have existed—was substantially diminished by the presence of a trained, armed security guard who had been hired specifically to provide protection to the students, faculty, and staff on campus, and who had satisfied most of the requirements, including the psychological evaluation, to become certified as a school guardian. Further, starting on August 16, 2019, a Davie police officer was present and provided safe-school services on Championship's campus every day for the rest of the school year, including on August 20, 2019, when the School Board immediately terminated Championship's charter. There is no dispute that these law enforcement police officers met the qualifications expressly stated in section 1006.12 to serve as safe-school officers. Therefore, as of August 16, 2019, the only remaining ground for the School's Board's conclusion that an immediate and serious danger existed on Championship's campus warranting immediate termination of its charter was that a contract securing the guaranteed presence of a safe-school officer on Championship's campus had not yet been fully executed. However, no evidence was presented showing that Championship's failure to have a fully-executed contract for a safe-school officer constituted any danger—much less an immediate and serious danger—to its students. Accordingly, there was no factual or circumstantial basis for finding that an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students existed on August 20, 2019, when its charter was terminated. Based on the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence failed to establish the existence of an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students on August 20, 2019, as a result of Championship not having a safe-school officer on August 14 and 15, 2019. Additionally, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence failed to establish the existence of an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students on August 20, 2019 (or on August 14 through 16, and 19, 2019), as the result of Championship not yet having secured a fully- executed contract guaranteeing the presence of a safe-school officer on Championship's campus. Presence of Armed Security Guard Did Not Constitute an Immediate and Serious Danger As previously discussed, no evidence was presented showing that Carbone presented any threat or danger to the students at Championship on August 14 through 16, 19, or 20, 2019. The witnesses who observed him on those days testified that he performed his school protection duties, and he did not threaten or endanger Championship's students. Additionally, the evidence establishes that the school security and protection services that Carbone provided on Championship's campus on these days were school-sanctioned activities. To that point, Championship hired Carbone for the specific purpose of providing school security services to its students. As such, Carbone was given express permission by Championship's governing board to be on campus specifically to provide school security services to enable and support school-related activities. Based on the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the presence of the armed security guard on Championship's campus on August 14 through 16, 19, and 20, 2019, did not constitute an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students warranting the immediate termination of its charter under section 1002.33(8)(c). Unadopted Rules Applied to Championship to Terminate Charter Section 120.57(1)(e)1. states, in pertinent part: "[a]n agency or administrative law judge may not base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule." This provision prohibits an ALJ or an agency from basing agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule. Because this statute is directed at, and specifically circumscribes, the authority of the ALJ, or the agency, as applicable, neither the ALJ nor the agency is authorized to base agency action on an unadopted rule, regardless of whether a party has alleged that a particular agency statement constitutes an unadopted rule. The evidence establishes that in immediately terminating Championship's charter, the School Board determined Championship's substantial interests based on two unadopted rules. Unadopted Rule Interpreting Section 1002.33(8)(c) The evidence shows that the School Board has determined that the failure of a charter school (in this case, Championship) to have, on campus, a safe-school officer who meets the requirements of section 1006.12, to constitute an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students, warranting immediate termination of the school's charter. In so determining, the School Board has interpreted section 1002.33(8)(c)—specifically, the first sentence of that statute16—to define a charter school's failure to comply with section 1006.12 as per se constituting an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the school's students. This interpretation ascribes a meaning to the first sentence of section 1002.33(8)(c) that is not readily apparent from the literal reading of the statute. Indeed, the first sentence of that section specifically speaks to the "particular facts and circumstances" showing that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students exists. Thus, the statute's plain language requires that the particular facts and circumstances of each particular case be considered to determine whether those particular facts and circumstances constitute an immediate and serious danger that exists at the time the charter is immediately terminated. Nowhere does the statute's plain language speak to, or authorize, a school board to formulate a categorical determination that a defined set of facts and circumstances—here, noncompliance with section 1006.12—per se constitutes an immediate and serious danger to the charter school's students. It is indisputable that the School Board's interpretation of section 1002.33(8)(c) requires compliance and has the direct and consistent effect of law. This interpretation requires a charter school to comply with section 1006.12—including all of the interpretive gloss the School Board has placed on that statute by imposing the requirement that a fully-executed safe-school officer contract be in place to be in compliance—or face having its charter immediately terminated on the basis of such noncompliance. 16 The first sentence of section 1002.33(8)(c) states: "[a] charter may be terminated immediately if the sponsor sets forth in writing the particular facts and circumstances indicating that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students exists." § 1002.33(8)(c), Fla. Stat. The evidence also establishes that the School Board uniformly applies this interpretation of section 1002.33(8)(c) to all charter schools in the District. Therefore, the School Board's interpretation of section 1002.33(8)(c) to determine that a charter school's noncompliance with section 1006.12 per se constitutes an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students is a rule. This interpretation has not been adopted as rule pursuant to section 120.54, and, thus, constitutes an unadopted rule, as defined in section 120.52(20). The School Board applied this unadopted rule to Championship to determine that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship student's was in existence on August 20, 2019, such that its charter must be terminated. Unadopted Rule Interpreting Section 1006.12 The evidence also establishes that the School Board interprets section 1006.12 as requiring a charter school to have in place, at the time the school is in session, a fully-executed contract with an appropriate safe-school officer entity, guaranteeing that a safe-school officer will be present on the school's campus for the entire school day for the specified term of the contract.17 Nowhere in the plain language of section 1006.12 is there an express requirement for a charter school to have a fully-executed contract for safe- school officer services in order to be in compliance with the statute. Thus, the School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 imposes a requirement that is not apparent from the literal reading of the statute. 17 Runcie, Katz, and Brown each testified that a fully-executed contract is necessary for a charter school to meet the statutory requirement that a safe-school officer be "established and assigned" to the school. This interpretation of section 1006.12 requires compliance and has the direct and consistent effect of law. Specifically, it requires a charter school to either have a fully-executed contract for safe-school officers in place by the time school is in session, or face having its charter immediately terminated on the basis of such alleged noncompliance. The evidence also shows that the School Board uniformly applies this interpretation of section 1006.12 to all charter schools in the District. Therefore, the School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 as requiring a charter school to have in place, at the time the school is in session, a fully-executed contract with an appropriate entity that guarantees that a safe-school officer will be present on the school's campus for the entire school day for the specified term of the contract, is a rule. This interpretation has not been adopted as rule pursuant to section 120.54, and, thus, constitutes an unadopted rule, as defined in section 120.52(20). The School Board applied this unadopted rule to Championship to determine that Championship was not in compliance with section 1006.12 on August 20, 2019, such that an immediate and serious danger to its students was in existence on that date, warranting immediate termination of its charter. Alleged Unadopted Rules Challenged under Section 120.56(4) Championship alleges that in immediately terminating its charter, the School Board has formulated and applied two agency statements which constitute unadopted rules. As articulated in the Rule Challenge Petition, these statements are: "[T]he School Board's unadopted policy that it is not legally required to provide safe-school officers to charter public schools within its borders"; and "[T]he School Board's policy of failing to collaborate with charter schools to facilitate access to safe-school officers pursuant to section 1006.12. . . by directing charter schools to either comply with the statute or risk having their charters terminated." Each of these alleged unadopted rules is separately addressed. Alleged Unadopted Rule that School Board is not Legally Required to Provide Safe-School Officers to Charter Schools in the District The School Board takes the position that it is not required by section 1006.12 to establish or assign safe-school officers to charter schools in the District, and that the responsibility for securing a safe-school officer for a charter school rests solely with the charter school itself. To this point, the School Board contends that the only circumstance under which it ever would be required to assign a safe-school officer to a charter school is if it denied the charter school access to a safe-school officer—which the School Board claims means actively preventing a charter school from securing a safe-school officer, and then declares it has not done so.18 As more fully discussed below, the School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 ascribes a meaning to the statute that is not readily apparent from a reading of the statute's plain language. Further, the School Board's interpretation requires compliance and has the force and effect of law because it directs charter schools to secure their own safe-school officers and imposes the penalty of charter termination for failure to do so. . The School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 is applied to every charter school in the District, and, thus, is a statement of general applicability. Therefore, the School Board's statement that it is not required to establish and assign safe-school officers to charter schools except when it has affirmatively prevented a charter school from securing a safe-school officer, is an unadopted rule. 18 The July 9, 2019, memorandum from Brown and Katz to charter school principals states, in pertinent part: "The School Board of Broward County has taken no action to deny any charter school access to any of the safe-school officer options summarized above and more fully detailed in [s]ection 1006.12." The School Board applied this unadopted rule to Championship such that it did not assign a safe-school officer to its campus for the 2019-2020 school year. This led to the School Board determining Championship noncompliant with section 1006.12 and immediately terminating its charter on that basis. Alleged Unadopted Rule that School Board has a Policy of Failing to Collaborate to Facilitate Charter School Access to Safe-School Officers Championship also alleges that "the School Board has a policy of failing to collaborate with charter schools to facilitate access to safe-school officers pursuant to section 1006.12. . . by directing charter schools to either comply with the statute or risk having their charters terminated." By casting the alleged agency statement in these terms, Championship effectively asserts that by not establishing and assigning safe- school officers to charter schools, the School Board has a policy of "failing to collaborate" with charter schools in direct contravention of the second sentence in section 1006.12. The evidence does not show that the School Board has a policy of "failing to collaborate" with charter schools—which would be tantamount to the School Board having a policy of purposefully violating the statute. Rather, as more fully discussed below, the evidence shows that the School Board interprets the phrase "collaborate to facilitate" to mean that it is only required to communicate with charter schools and inform them regarding the safe-school officer requirements of section 1006.12, and to require them to provide documentation showing compliance.19 Championship disputes the correctness of this interpretation, and contends that instead, this phrase means that the School Board must 19 Championship has not challenged the School Board's interpretation of the phrase "collaborate to facilitate" as an unadopted rule in this proceeding. establish and assign a safe-school officer to each charter school if the charter school so chooses.20 Based on the evidence, and for the reasons more fully discussed below, it is determined that the School Board's alleged policy of "failing to collaborate" to facilitate charter school access to safe-school officers is not an unadopted rule. The School Board did not present evidence showing that to the extent the alleged agency statements constituted rules, rulemaking was not feasible or practicable, as provided in section 120.54(1)(a)1. and 2.
The Issue Whether Maria E. Tuma, a teacher in the Dade County School System, has been grossly insubordinate or has willfully neglected her duties as a teacher so that she should be dismissed from employment by the School Board of Dade County?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, The School Board of Dade County, is the authority that operates, controls, and supervises all free public schools in the Dade County School District, "[i]n accordance with the provisions of s. (4) (b) of Article IX of the State Constitution ...". Section 230.03(2), F.S. Respondent, Maria E. Tuma has been employed by the School Board of Dade County for 24 years. She presently holds a continuing contract of employment. Since 1983, Ms. Tuma has been employed at Naranja Elementary School, Air Base Elementary School, Palm Lakes Elementary School and Ojus Elementary School. Ms. Tuma possesses many of the talents of a good teacher as evidenced by the myriad awards her art students have won and the numerous commendations for teaching art she has received over the years. But beginning in 1983 with her employment at Naranja and until and through a leave of absence commenced in 1995 while employed at Ojus, Ms. Tuma's employment history has been chronically troubled. Naranja On October 31, 1983, Ms. Maedon Bullard, Principal of Naranja Elementary School issued a notice to Ms. Tuma, who was then employed as an art teacher at the school. The notice reads, in part, A parent brought to my attention that you distributed pocket Bibles to some students this date, October 31. * * * This is in violation of School Board Policy (citations omitted). I urge you to review this policy and to adhere strictly to its contents. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THIS NOTICE. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. On the same day, October 31, 1983, Mrs. Bullard gave Ms. Tuma a copy of a memorandum with attachment on the subject of "Religion in the Public Schools." Dated October 25, 1977, the memorandum is from Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education in the State of Florida. The essence of the memorandum is a warning to school districts and teachers not to create an unconstitutional preference for one religion over another. With regard to the distribution of Bibles, the memorandum states, The distribution of free Bibles to children in the public schools tends to impair the rights of children to be free from governmental action which discriminates against the free exercise of religious belief. When in practice only a particular kind of religious literature is in fact distributed, "the school board's use of the school system as a means of distribution amounts to its placing, at least in eyes of children and perhaps their parents, its stamp of approval upon [that version], thus creating an unconstitutional preference for one religion over another." (citations omitted.) Petitioner's Ex. No. 2, p. 4 and 5. The memorandum further indicated that the Commissioner would not condone any violation of the law. Air Base On May 13, 1985, while Ms. Tuma was a teacher at Air Base Elementary School, a conference-on-the-record was held. In addition to others, present were Ms. Tuma and the school's principal, Mr. Turano. The conference was called because of complaints that Ms. Tuma had made statements to a student about praying and having faith. Ms. Tuma was instructed that it is a violation of federal law, school board policy and students' civil rights to engage in religious activity in the classroom. Ms. Tuma was warned that if her religious activity in the classroom continued, she could be cited for gross insubordination and could lose her teacher certification. Ms. Tuma promised to abide by school board policies in the future. Palm Lakes: Religion in the Classroom Again On October 24, 1985, it was reported that Ms. Tuma, then an art teacher at Palm Lakes Elementary School, hit a student on the neck with a pencil and cut a lock of hair with a scissors as discipline for fighting with another student. The complaint was assigned Case No. P-2607 by the Dade County Public School's Special Investigative Unit ("SIU,") and investigated. The investigator for the Special Investigative Unit reached the conclusion that the complaint was substantiated. On October 31, 1985, a complaint conference with Ms. Tuma was conducted by Palm Lakes Principal Steven Lovelass. In addition to the complaint about striking the student with a pencil and cutting his hair, other complaints were discussed at the conference. These included that Ms. Tuma discussed the Bible during class, made references to the devil and made references to her church. On December 4, 1985, Ms. Tuma was asked by her employer to undergo a medical examination to determine her "fitness to properly carry out [her] assigned duties." Petitioner's Ex. No. 8. One week later, Ms. Tuma was evaluated by Charles C. Barton, M.D., a psychiatrist. Dr. Barton reported that Ms. Tuma was religiously preoccupied, suffered from impairment of insight and judgment and recommended intervention and possible medication. On December 23, 1985, Ms. Tuma, on her own initiative, was seen by another psychiatrist, Francisco A. Campos, M.D. She related to Dr. Campos that "she does not feel that she needs to see a psychiatrist, but feels that she has to do it in order for her to keep her job." Petitioner's Ex. No. 10. Dr. Campos found her to be preoccupied with religious material and in need of treatment directed toward improving her ego strength and coping skills. Dr. Campos' written opinion was forwarded to Dr. Patrick Gray, then the Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. In the meantime, on December 10, 1986, a conference-on-the-record was held with Ms. Tuma in the office of the Superintendent for the North Area of Dade County. In attendance were Ms. Tuma; her principal, Mr. Lovelass; Superintendent Marvin Weiner; Ms. Doretha Mingo, Area Director; and Supervisor for the Office of Professional Standards, Mr. James E. Monroe. The conference was held to discuss, among other problems, the report in SIU Case No. P-2607 and Ms. Tuma's "continual acts of refusal to comply with both written and verbal directives to cease and desist from instructing (teaching) your students about your religious beliefs, to include issuing Bibles and other religious materials to your students." Petitioner's Ex. No. 12. On January 28, 1986, the principal at Palm Lakes, Mr. Lovelass, forwarded his recommendation in SIU Case No. P-2607 to the Area Superintendent for the North Area of Dade County. On the bases of the substantiation of the complaint after investigation, and Ms. Tuma's statement at the conference-for- the-record that she could not comply with all of the established School Board rules because of personal and religious views, Mr. Lovelass "strongly" recommended that Ms. Tuma, "be separated from employment with the Dade County Public Schools for [among others] misconduct in office and gross insubordination." Petitioner's Ex. No. 11. On February 4, 1986, a memorandum was written to Ms. Tuma by James E. Monroe, Supervisor for the Office of Professional Standards. The memorandum summarized the conference-on-the-record held the previous December 10. Under the heading "ACTION TO BE TAKEN," Mr. Monroe wrote the following to Ms. Tuma: During the conference Mr. Weiner expressed concern relative to your continual failure to comply with administrative directives. He expressed further concern relative to its adverse impact upon your effectiveness as a classroom teacher as reported, by the principal. Mr. Weiner stated that upon receipt of the principal's recommendation for disciplinary action, he would forward his recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools. You were informed that your future employment would be determined upon a review of the facts presented in this conference. You were also informed that the recommen- dations made by the Principal and Area Super- intendent will be reviewed by the Superinten- dent of Schools; approval of the recommended discipline would necessitate action by The School Board of Dade County, Florida. You were informed of the likelihood of this recommendation being presented to the School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Petitioner's Ex. No. 12. On March 7, 1986, Dr. Gray, Assistant Superintendent for the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, by letter to Ms. Tuma, directed her to cease and desist all proselytizing of religion in the classroom. She was further directed in the letter: not to advise students with regard to powers of the devil or hell; not to read from the Bible, advocate the Bible, advocate membership in her church; and, not to make disparaging remarks against any group of people on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin. The admonishment was repeated in the letter with a warning in unmistakable terms, "I repeat, you are specifically directed to cease any of the above activities; your failure to do so will be con[si]dered to be misconduct in office and gross insubordination, and will subject you to severe disciplinary action by The School Board of Dade County, Florida." Petitioner's Ex. No. 13. On March 20, 1986, Ms. Tuma received a document under the signature of Mr. Lovelass denominated, "Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement." Petitioner's Ex. No. 14. The deficiencies listed in the document related to non-compliance with School Board rules and policies and provisions of the labor contract that resulted from collective bargaining conducted between the School Board and the teachers' union. Deficiencies also related to non-compliance with published school-site rules and policies consistent with School Board rules and provisions of the contract. The document also provided a prescription or directive. Part of the prescription was for Ms. Tuma to review the Code of Ethics and Principles of Education Profession found in Chapter 6B-1 of the Florida Administrative Code. Another part was to take a "School Law Course," which Ms. Tuma was allowed to take during the summer of 1986. On May 28, 1986, a conference-on-the-record was conducted by Mr. Lovelass with Ms. Tuma to discuss her prescription and employment status. Ms. Tuma was directed to complete the prescription and comply with all directives. Further, she was warned that her upcoming evaluation and recommendation as to future employment were contingent upon "continued professional efforts in remediating all ... prescriptive activities by [the fall of 1986]. In Ms. Tuma's annual evaluation for the 1985/86 school year, her overall summary rating was "unacceptable." In the category of professional responsibility, too, she was rated "unacceptable." Nonetheless, she was recommended for employment to give her the opportunity to remediate her performance deficiencies through completion of the prescription. Due to the unacceptable rating, Ms. Tuma did not receive the step increase in her salary to which she was otherwise entitled. Ultimately, Ms. Tuma was given until October, 1986 to complete the prescription. She was determined in December of 1986 to have done so successfully. In 1989, Nicholas Rinaldi became principal at Palm Lakes. He began to encounter problems with Ms. Tuma in March of 1992. These included distribution of Bibles at school, formation of a secret club of students, solicitation of church membership on school time and intimidation of students. On March 3, 1992, Mr. Rinaldi notified Ms. Tuma of a conference-on- the-record to discuss these problems as well as distribution of a religious letter to a faculty member and inappropriate language to both students and staff. Ms. Tuma responded to the notification with a "Reply of Allegations," dated March 3, 1992. While Ms. Tuma denied or offered explanations for most of the allegations, she admitted giving Bibles to students with their parent's permission. She also admitted giving the letter to a teacher. About this incident, Ms. Tuma wrote in the response that, believing the teacher to be a Christian, she took the liberty to: A. Admonish her, B. Requested prayer for her son to the Pastor and 4 deacons and an elder 'friend' of her, C. I tried to inform some of her friends about the Love of Jesus. But she got real mad at me for: A., B., and C. I asked her to forgive me after I saw that she got mad, but evidently, she hasn't (sic)! In fact one of the 3 Scriptures I wrote in the letter was 'Forgive 70 x's 7" Matthews 18:22 Petitioner's Ex. "B" attached to Deposition of Nicholas Rinaldi, Petitioner's Ex. No. 1. Ms. Tuma's written response concludes, Id. I wish to see the day when we can truly and freely exercise FREEDOM OF RELIGION in our Public Schools. After all it was the Holy Bible the first book used to teach Reading in the Public Schools of America. And we better return to the BASICS or continue to perish! On March 6, 1992, the conference was held with Ms. Tuma, Mr. Rinaldi and Angela Santos, assistant principal, present. Mr. Rinaldi opened the conference with reference to previous violations of Board policy with which Ms. Tuma had been cited. He also quoted from school board officials who had dealt with Ms. Tuma before on similar issues in order to impress upon her that the conference was not dealing with an isolated incident but rather a pattern. Again, Ms. Tuma admitted distributing Bibles and sending the letter with religious references to a faculty member. On March 10, 1992, Mr. Rinaldi issued a summary of the conference-on- the-record in a memorandum to Ms. Tuma. The memorandum recited Mr. Rinaldi's opening of the conference with a review of prior incidents including the complaint conference conducted by Mr. Lovelass in October of 1985 concerning Ms. Tuma's discussion of religion in art class. Ms. Tuma wrote back to Mr. Rinaldi on her copy of his March 10, 1992, memo, "All I said was: 'The devil came to kill, steal & destroy & God came to give us life abundantly.' John 10:10". On March 20, 1992, Mr. Rinaldi provided Ms. Tuma with additional copies of school board rules discussed at the earlier conference. On April 30, 1992, Mr. Rinaldi conducted his second conference-on-the- record with Ms. Tuma to discuss her posting of religious posters on the bulletin boards and doors of her classroom. The previous conferences-on-the-record in February, March and October of 1986, and Mr. Rinaldi's earlier conference that year were discussed with Ms. Tuma as well as a reprimand in October of 1983 for distribution of Bibles. A memorandum summarizing the conference received by Ms. Tuma on May 5, 1992, concluded: In summary, I want to inform you that you have not complied with previous admin- istrative directives to cease all mention of religion at work. Continued violations and noncompliance will result in further disciplinary actions. Exhibit "G," attached to Petitioner's Ex. No. 1. In the meantime, on April 23, 1992, Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director of the Office Professional Standards for the School Board, notified Ms. Tuma of a conference-on-the-record to be conducted on May 7, 1992, with regard to Ms. Tuma's violations of School Board policies concerning religious references, refusal to participate in a program of assistance, fitness to perform assigned duties, and her future employment status. With regard to the refusal to participate in a program of assistance, Ms. Tuma wrote on her copy of the notice, "Mr. Rinaldi offered it & I told him TWICE I didn't need it! THIS IS FOR PSYCHOLOGIST. I don't need or want to go. I don't believe in them!" Petitioner's Ex. No. 21. The conference was conducted as scheduled. Dr. Annunziata, in conformance with the applicable labor contract that allows the board to obtain a medical evaluation when performance appears to be affected by a teacher's mental health, directed Ms. Tuma to select a physician for an evaluation. Ms. Tuma, despite the directive, refused. On the same date as the conference, May 7, 1992, Ms. Tuma was issued a memorandum from Dr. Gray, Assistant Superintendent, to serve as a written basis, as called for by the applicable labor contract, for a required medical examination. The memorandum directed Ms. Tuma to select a physician from an attached list and to communicate that choice to Dr. Annunziata. Ms. Tuma continued to refuse to select a physician to conduct the evaluation. On June 18, 1992, Mr. Rinaldi conducted a conference-on-the-record to discuss with Ms. Tuma violations of professional responsibilities, noncompliance with directives and her annual evaluation. She was issued a prescription which included reading and summarizing applicable School Board Rules. In her annual evaluation for the 1991-92 school year, Ms. Tuma was rated "unacceptable" overall and in the category of professional responsibilities. As a result, for the second time in her career, she did not receive the salary "step" increase that she was due by virtue of the length of her employment with the School Board. In August of 1992, the School Board contemplated a suspension of Ms. Tuma and initiation of dismissal proceedings against her for gross insubordination and misconduct in office. Instead, at Ms. Tuma's request, the School Board allowed her to take a leave of office without pay from August 26, 1992 through December 30 of the same year to seek medical treatment. The School Board also referred her to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). This office provides assistance to School Board employees having problems affecting job performance. As a condition of employment, Ms. Tuma was directed to undergo the medical evaluation and participate in a counseling/therapy program monitored by EAP during the leave of absence. In order to return to work she would have to receive medical clearance. She was also advised that upon return to the work site, any recurrence of the previous problems would lead to a termination of employment. On August 11, 1992, a second "Written Basis for Required Medical Examination," was issued to Ms. Tuma by Assistant Superintendent Gray. Ms. Tuma selected Dr. Anastasio Castiello to conduct the evaluation. The evaluation was conducted; no pathology was diagnosed but counseling was recommended by Dr. Castiello. Ms. Tuma's participation in EAP proceeded without incident. Following a delay in seeing Dr. Castiello in December in order to obtain clearance to return to work, Ms. Tuma was seen by Dr. Castiello in January of 1993. Dr. Castiello continued to recommend therapy for Ms. Tuma but he cleared her to return to work. Conditions of employment were attached to Ms. Tuma's return. Her involvement with a program of therapy was to be monitored. She was required to adhere to site directives, policy, prescriptive directives and the Code of Ethics. She was warned again that recurrence of behavior with regard to religion in the classroom would be considered an act of insubordination and would incur discipline. Ms. Tuma was placed at Ojus Elementary effective January 27, 1993. Ojus Failure to Continue Therapy Ms. Tuma finished the 1992/93 school year at Ojus. In June of 1993, it was determined that she had remediated the performance deficiencies listed on her 1991/92 evaluation. On September 22, 1993, however, EAP reported that it had no information that Ms. Tuma was participating in counseling and therapy. Four months later, Dr. Annunziata informed Ms. Tuma in writing that she was not in compliance with the directive that she participate in a program of counseling and therapy. Dr. Annunziata had learned that Ms. Tuma had been to only three sessions during the entire year of 1993. These sessions were with Dr. Stephan Tchividjian. In February of 1994, Dr. Tchividjian wrote Dr. Annunziata. He stated that the last time he had seen Ms. Tuma was in March of 1993. He relayed his opinion that Ms. Tuma needed to continue in therapy for her issues with religion. Ms. Tuma was referred again to the Employee Assistance Program. On March 1, 1994, Dr. Friedman, the principal at Ojus, conducted a conference-on-the-record with Ms. Tuma to discuss noncompliance with a site directive to modify her schedule for a field day and her failure to report when called to the office. Ms. Tuma was advised that her future employment status depended on compliance with school site directives. Once again, she was warned that noncompliance would be considered misconduct in office and insubordination that would subject her to disciplinary action. Personal Communication and Gifts for the Principal Ms. Tuma was also given another directive and a reminder. She was directed not to communicate with Dr. Friedman in writing about any matter unless it was school-related. She was reminded that Dr. Friedman was not allowed to receive gifts that exceed $25 in value. The directive and reminder were given because Dr. Friedman had received from Ms. Tuma numerous gifts as well as invitations to go on vacation and attend functions with her. Dr. Friedman summarized some of the communications and gift-giving as follows: ... Ms. Tuma would write me an inordinate amount of personal letters and cards. I have files of them. She would allege that I had eyes beautiful like Jesus. Gorgeous. She would allege that she wanted to take many photographs of me, that she wanted to do a painting of me and my daughters, that I would have to pose for her to do that. She would take pictures of me, and she would stand in the hallway and look at my pictures. Now that would send off signals to other people. Now she would just shower me with all kinds of gifts. This was just something that was extreme. (Tr. 141.) On March 7, 1994, Dr. Annunziata conducted a conference-on-the-record with Ms. Tuma to discuss her noncompliance with the directive to attend counseling and therapy, her medical fitness to perform assigned duties, and her future employment status. In addition to Dr. Annunziata and Ms. Tuma, Dr. Freidman and Dr. Joseph Burke, the Director of Region II for the School Board, were present. Ms. Tuma was directed to submit to another medical evaluation, this one by Dr. Ronald Bergman. Ms. Tuma complied; the evaluation was performed. Ms. Tuma was also directed to continue her program of counseling and therapy and to keep EAP informed of compliance. From April to September of 1994, contrary to the clear directive the previous March, Ms. Tuma continued to send Dr. Freidman presents and personal communications. For example, in September, Ms. Tuma, while on vacation in Greece, sent Dr. Friedman a post card and a birthday card. The birthday card contains the following hand-written message: May God Himself enlighten you fully & direct your paths. May He be your guide Savior & Friend ... May He bless you and keep you, May He let His face shine upon you & give you Peace - I HOPE you have a VISION of HIM & you can see for your self what I said of your eyes is real ... Let us aim to look like HIM in many of His ways: His Gentle- ness, His kindness & His LOVE! & know that in spite of them and in spite of you SE HAGA POPOLI! Petitioner's Ex. No. 43. "Se haga popoli," is Greek for "I love you a lot." The card is entirely personal in nature and does not relate at all to school matters. Parental Complaints and Continued Refusal of Therapy In October, 1994, Dr. Friedman received the first in a sequence of parental and staff complaints about Ms. Tuma's professional demeanor and negative comments about staff members. Furthermore, on October 4, 1994, Dr. Gray advised Ms. Tuma that she was not in compliance with the directive that she participate in a program of counseling/therapy. She was directed to begin a program of therapy promptly. She was directed again to adhere strictly to all prior directives. On October 7, 1994, Ms. Tuma wrote to Dr. Gray, "I categorically refuse to go to any psychologist because I don't believe in them." Petitioner's Ex. No. 44. On October 18, 1994, Dr. Gray, in response to the October 7 missive, advised Ms. Tuma in writing that her employment was conditioned upon compliance with a program of medical therapy. His letter ended, "If you do not initiate confirmed compliance within ten day of receipt of this letter, your employment is subject to termination." Petitioner's Ex. No. 45. On November 28, 1994, Ms. Tuma began treatment with Dr. Doris Amaya. More Meetings and Conferences On December 8, 1994, an informal meeting was held between Dr. Friedman and Ms. Tuma concerning the taking of attendance in art class, alteration of the children's art work by Ms. Tuma, and the need to treat children's self-esteem with sensitivity. During the meeting, Ms. Tuma called Dr. Friedman a liar. The meeting was memorialized in a memorandum to Dr. Gray from Dr. Friedman, in which Dr. Friedman wrote, Ms. Tuma continues to demonstrate a pattern of flagrant disrespect toward administrative authority. Please advise ... as to what supportive action I may expect from district level as to this accelerating problem. Petitioner' Ex. No. 48. On March 1, 1995, at a parent/teacher conference concerning a grade of "C" Ms. Tuma gave to the child of the parents present, Ms. Tuma was asked to explain the grade when the child had received "A's" and "B's" in all of his other classes. The parents complained to Dr. Friedman that Ms. Tuma advised them that "all of the teachers and faculty at Ojus Elementary School were after her, were against her, and involved in some conspiratorial way. She said that my children's grades were falsely stated as good in their classes when in fact, they were really 'bad' as reflected by her grades." Petitioner's Ex. No. 54, Attachment "C." The complaint went on to relay that the conference ended with Ms. Tuma accusing one of the parents of being in conspiracy with the faculty or being "some type of liar." Id. On March 6, 1995, Dr. Freidman conducted a parent/teacher conference with Ms. Tuma and the parent who had complained about Ms. Tuma's bizarre behavior at his March 1, 1996 conference with her. During this conference, Ms. Tuma again stated that some of the teachers at the school were against her and had given false grades to students while her grade of the student in question was correct. She also called the parent a "liar." On March 8, 1995, another parent/teacher conference of Ms. Tuma's was held in Dr. Freidman's presence. This conference involved a parent different from the conference two days earlier. The complaint in this case was that Ms. Tuma had given a grade to a student based on her conduct rather than her work. It became apparent that Ms. Tuma, indeed, was lowering students' work grades for misconduct. The next day, another a parent/teacher conference was held again with Dr. Freidman present. This conference concerned yet another parent and a third child. The conference was held because the child, an avid art student, was not enjoying Ms. Tuma's class. Again, it became apparent that Ms. Tuma was lowering grades for work due to perceived misconduct. Dr. Freidman apprised Ms. Tuma that this was contrary to School Board policy. In response, Ms. Tuma wrote on a summary of the conference which she was given, "Dr. Freidman has a personal vendetta against me, because I've Blown the Whistle about her & her favourite friends there; Dr. Friedman embraced the Negativism of these parents!" She also wrote, "The councelor (sic) told me: 'Don't be surprised if she: (Friedman); set these parents up in the telephone to say certain things against you." Petitioner's Ex. No. 51. On March 27, 1995, Dr. Freidman conducted a conference-on-the-record with Ms. Tuma to discuss her professional responsibilities, performance to date, and her future employment status. Also discussed were her unprofessional conduct during parent conferences, her noncompliance with the School Board's grading policy, accusations against faculty members, and violations of the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct in the Education Profession. Ms. Tuma was directed to read the section of the board's rules which indicate that academic and effort grades are independent of conduct grades. The March 1995 Prescription and Outright Refusal to Perform On March 29, 1995, Ms. Tuma was issued a "Record of Observed Deficiencies" with a "Prescription for Performance Improvement" for the category of professional responsibilities. Deficiencies cited in the document included: noncompliance with the grading policies found in School Board rules; violation of Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, by intentionally making false statements about colleagues to parents and staff; noncompliance with the labor contract; and noncompliance with school site rules and policies. While considerably more detailed, in summary, the plan activities under the prescription required Ms. Tuma to read and familiarize herself with the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida; read and summarize cited board rules on grading policy; read and summarize the 1994-95 School Improvement Plan Strategy to Improve Conduct; and read a handout related to effective attitudes for teachers and develop a parent involvement plan using guidelines in the handout. Ms. Tuma did not agree that she needed to complete the prescription, felt the prescription was unfair, and refused to make any effort to perform it. On March 30, 1995, Dr. Friedman directed Ms. Tuma to meet the next day to discuss a segment of the prescription. Ms. Tuma advised the principal that she would not attend the meeting. Dr. Friedman told her non-attendance would be gross insubordination. The next day, the day before spring break, Ms. Tuma took a sick leave day. Following the break, more than a week later, Ms. Tuma met with Dr. Friedman. At the meeting, she informed Dr. Friedman that she would not perform the prescription. Dr. Friedman regarded Ms. Tuma's refusal as very serious not only because it constituted, in her view, gross insubordination, but because the incidents leading to the prescription had involved the welfare of Ms. Tuma's students. Dr. Friedman requested that Ms. Tuma be reassigned to another school or that she be dismissed as a teacher. When presented with a document showing an alternative assignment, Ms. Tuma, contrary to district-wide procedure, refused to sign it. Ms. Louise Harms, then director of OPS, conducted a conference-on-the- record with Ms. Tuma to discuss the matters which had occurred at Ojus, including her refusal to perform the prescription, and Dr. Friedman's recommendation that she be dismissed as a teacher. At the conference, Ms. Harms had available to her a fax from Ms. Tuma's attorney advising that Ms. Tuma would not perform the prescription. As the conference got underway, Ms. Tuma reiterated her refusal to follow the prescription. She maintained this position for an extended period of time during the conference which lasted two hours. Present at the conference was Dr. Joseph Burke, Personnel Director of the Dade County Public Schools, and a region director. Toward the end of the conference, Dr. Burke informed Ms. Tuma that it was his recommendation that she be dismissed given her position of refusing to perform the prescription. In response, Ms. Tuma asked what would happen if she were to follow the prescription. The memorandum summarizing the conference shows Dr. Burke's reply to have been: The gross insubordination has occurred. You refused to do the Prescription. We can't change that fact. You are now saying that you are now willing to do what you blatantly refused to do even at the onset of this conference. I have a feeling that your change of mind is directly related to the recommendation for dismissal. Petitioner's Ex. No. 58, p. 12. Ms. Tuma then asked about the possibility of taking a leave of absence. Dr. Burke responded to Ms. Tuma that she would not be able to complete the prescription while on leave and asked her what she was requesting: to remain on faculty at Ojus and perform the prescription or to take leave during which time she would not be allowed to complete it. Ms. Tuma requested leave. The Leave of Absence It was decided that Ms. Tuma's request for leave would be granted from April 17, 1995 through January 29, 1996. Ms. Tuma's evaluation for the 1994/95 school year rated her, for the third time, "unacceptable" both overall and in the category of professional responsibilities. She was not recommended for employment. In July and August of 1995, while on leave, Ms. Tuma wrote to Dr. Friedman despite the directive not to communicate with her personally. While the letters relate marginally to a school-related matter, that is, whether Dr. Friedman should help her return to the school, they are largely personal communications. For example, the July letter states, "I do wish we could go skiing in the winter, snorkel in the summer, go to Greece in the Spring or fall." Petitioner's Ex. No. 63. The letter concludes with a post-script, "Please let me know; don't be so snobbish, hard and un-forgiving: Could we meet you for lunch one day?, me & mom - we'll treat you. Maybe Olive Garden or so ... Please?, then we'll talk a little bit more. Thank you." Id. On August 16, 1995, Dr. Gray met informally with Ms. Tuma and her attorney. In the meantime, Ms. Tuma requested that her leave be terminated and she be allowed to return to Ojus on the upcoming November 6. At the meeting, Ms. Tuma advanced the date of her request to terminate leave to the start of the school year. She said that she was repentant about having refused to perform the prescription and that she would do it once her leave was over in exchange for being allowed to return to work before her leave was scheduled to be up. Ms. Tuma's requests were denied and she was advised that she would be apprised of her status upon completion of review of her records. On September 8, 1995, Ms. Tuma's 1995/96 salary was frozen per denial of a salary step increment. f. School Board's Last Attempt On November 8, 1995, Dr. Gray conducted a conference-on-the-record with Ms. Tuma to discuss her performance assessment to date, her medical fitness to perform full classroom duties, her noncompliance with directives, rules, contract provisions, and her future employment status. At the November 8, 1995 meeting, in a final attempt to save Ms. Tuma her job, Dr. Gray gave her two options: to work as an adult education teacher or to be redirected to a paraprofessional position. Ms. Tuma rejected both options. Suspension and Dismissal Proceedings Having exhausted all avenues of assistance to Ms. Tuma, the School Board, on January 24, 1996, suspended her and initiated these dismissal proceedings for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County, Florida, issue a Final Order sustaining the suspension without pay of Maria E. Tuma and dismissing her as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida, without back pay, for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties, pursuant to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0820 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-17, 19-62, insofar as material, are accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant. It is not clear from the evidence that this event was part of Ms. Tuma's pattern of insubordination. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 1 is accepted except that Ms. Tuma's insubordination had an effect on her competency. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected for containing conclusions of law. Paragraph 4 is rejected with the exception of the last two sentences which are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Joseph F. Lopez, Esquire 250 Bird Road, Suite 302 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Ms. Maria E. Tuma 11320 Northwest 58th Place Hialeah, Florida 33012
