Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher serving pursuant to a continuing contract. At the time of the final hearing in this cause, she was 49 years old and had worked continuously as a teacher for the School Board of Dade County, Florida, from 1962 until her suspension on August 23, 1989, except for five maternity leaves. Respondent attended college in Greenville, North Carolina, on a "State Department" scholarship between 1958 and 1962. In 1962, she received a B.A. degree in French and English and passed the National Teachers' Examination. In 1962, she accepted a teaching position with the Dade County Public Schools, teaching a two-course basic education program in her earliest years. Thereafter and until the 1986-87 school year, she taught English. During the 1962-63 academic year Respondent experienced many changes in her life: she began her first teaching job, she married, and she experienced her first pregnancy. These events, taken as a whole, made the 1962-63 academic year an extremely difficult one for the Respondent. Respondent's teaching performance was evaluated during the 1962-63 academic year using the Petitioners evaluation instrument then in use. Under that evaluation instrument, the teacher's performance was evaluated and assigned an averaged score. An averaged rating of 3.5 indicated satisfactory performance. During that academic year, Respondent's annual evaluation averaged score was 3.3. For every year thereafter continuing through the 1985-86 academic year Respondent's annual evaluation rated her performance as a classroom teacher as being acceptable. Throughout that time, Petitioner used three different evaluation systems for rating classroom teachers, including the TADS evaluation system currently in effect. In 1984, the School Board encouraged its teachers to become computer literate. Because Respondent needed additional coursework to renew her State teaching certificate, she enrolled in a computer class and then in a word processing class. She was "intrigued" by computers. She continued taking computer courses at Barry University, eventually entering the master's program at Barry University, majoring in computer education. By June of 1988 she had completed 39 credits with an overall grade point average of 3.846. In 1986, Respondent decided to look for a position teaching computer classes. She learned of a vacancy for a computer teacher at Brownsville Middle School, a Chapter I school in Dade County. She sought a transfer from her then current school where she taught English to Brownsville. She was interviewed by both the outgoing principal and the incoming principal Patricia Grimsley. Grimsley hired her to teach computer courses and to develop and equip the computer lab. Grimsley admitted that the computer lab had "deficiencies" which she expected Respondent to overcome. Respondent began teaching computer courses at Brownsville Middle School during the 1986-87 school year. During the three academic years Respondent taught at Brownsville Middle School, her general ability to perform her duties was seriously impaired by the "deficiencies" in the computer lab and the lack of assistance from her supervisors regarding her problems with adapting the administration of computer classes to traditional requirements. When she began teaching at Brownsville during the 1986-87 school year the computer lab itself was not ready to be occupied. Instead, Respondent was required to use a converted teachers' work room as a classroom. This room contained an inner office which was used by the school security personnel. The passage through her classroom of school security personnel and other law enforcement officers frequently accompanied by disruptive students caused a serious and continuing class distraction. The computers installed at the school were Tandy machines, Style TRS 80, Model 3, commonly known to people who were computer literate as "trash 80 machines." These computers had a non-functioning network which prohibited saving in or retrieving data from the computer memory. Accordingly, a student working on a project would begin each day's class by programming into the computer everything that student had already programmed into the computer on the previous day before the student could move forward. There was not a functioning printer in the classroom so that no hard copies off anything could be printed. The few textbooks available were textbooks commonly used in college, not in a Chapter I junior high school. These were the conditions under which Respondent taught during the 1986-87 school year. By the 1987-88 school year Respondent and her students had moved into the new computer lab. State-of-the-art computers had arrived for use in the computer lab, but there was still no software or books. During the summer of 1988, the software-and books arrived. Respondent had requested permission to be able to use the software to teach it to herself during the summer when She was only teaching half days, but the administrative personnel stored the software instead. During the 1988-89 school year, Respondent and her students began learning the software and the books together. In the interim period, before all of the materials and equipment necessary to daily teaching were supplied, Respondent borrowed software from her friends, and began creating daily projects, lessons, and activity sheets to keep her students busy and learning. These efforts to generate daily classroom activity created a "lot of work" for this teacher. She did not have a bank of lessons and activities from which to draw as would any experienced teacher or even a beginning teacher teaching in an area where others had lessons and activities previously given to draw upon. She was also considered a "vital resource" at Brownsville during those three years, assisting other teachers and other school employees in setting up their computers and learning the programs they needed to use. She even set up the computer in Principal Grimsley's office and assisted Grimsley in learning the program. School year 1986-87, Respondent's first year as a computer teacher and first year at Brownsville, was also Principal Grimsley's first year as a principal and first year at Brownsville. It was also Assistant Principal Senita's first year as an assistant principal. During each of Respondent's three years at Brownsville, she experienced difficulty with Principal Grimsley whom she found to be "unreceptive" and "unsupportive." Grimsley's "mind would wander" during Respondent's discussions with her of the problems that Respondent was having. On October 10, 1986, near the beginning of Respondent's first year at Brownsville, she was formally observed in the classroom by Principal Grimsley and was rated acceptable in all categories. On November 26, 1986, Grimsley held a conference- for-the-record with Respondent. A conference-for-the-record is a formal meeting with the employee to put the employee on notice of problems. The subject matter of this conference-for-the-record was Respondent's failure to continuously submit lesson plans on a weekly basis as required by Grimsley's administrative directives. Respondent had been submitting her lesson plans on some occasions but not on a weekly basis. She was directed to submit her lesson plans on a weekly basis and was put on notice that if she did not do so, further disciplinary action would occur. Respondent wished to discuss at the conference-for- the-record the lack of materials and equipment for the computer lab and the unusual demands on her time occasioned by those deficiencies. However, Respondent had been given prior notice of the purpose of the conference, and the labor contract between the United Teachers of Dade and the School Board does not permit the person holding the conference to go outside the stated subject matter of the notice. Grimsley did not initiate any subsequent discussions with Respondent regarding Respondent's problems during the three years that Respondent taught at Brownsville. On March 9, 1987, Grimsley held another conference for-the-record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's failure to submit weekly lesson plans each week and the fact that Respondent had not called the school until 8:55 a.m. to say she would be late when she was due to begin work at 8:45 a.m. Respondent was again directed to submit her lesson plans every week, and was directed to call the school in a more timely manner to indicate her tardiness or absences. Grimsley further explained that if the problems were not remediated, Respondent would be rated unsatisfactory in Category VII, Professional Responsibilities, and would be put on prescription. A prescription is a formal plan given to the teacher to address deficiencies in the teacher's performance. It is a plan formulated to assist a teacher for whom a deficiency has been documented. However, once a prescription is established, it is obligatory upon the teacher to fulfill it. At the March 9 conference-for-the-record, Respondent explained to Grimsley that she could not keep up with all the demands on her time and requested a transfer to a different teaching assignment. Grimsley explained that she had no other computer teachers at Brownsville and no current vacancy in a different teaching area. Therefore, Respondent could not be transferred to a different teaching assignment. On April 22, 1987, Grimsley held another conference- for-the-record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's unsatisfactory performance in Category VII, Professional Responsibilities. Respondent had been absent on the day that grades were required to be turned in and for several days before that. She had made no provision for bringing her grades to school to turn them in on the days that she was out sick. Respondent was placed on prescription. She was directed to submit her grades within the school's guidelines, and Grimsley had her write a report on proper grading procedures. Respondent completed the prescription and indicated that she understood the directives as to submitting grade sheets. Respondent remediated her deficiencies and received an acceptable yearly evaluation for the 1986-87 school year in all categories. The 1987-88 school year commenced with the Respondent and her students located in the new computer lab using the new state-of-the-art computers and printers. Respondent, however, still did not have software and books for her students to use. On February 8, 1988, Grimsley held a conference-for- the-record with Respondent. The issues discussed were Respondent's leaving work early and not signing out, not completing grade sheets, and not submitting grade sheets by the end of the teacher workday on January 29, 1988. A teacher workday is a professional day when there are no students in school and the teachers generally complete grade sheets for the end of the grading period Respondent had been given the teachers' workday agenda prior to the workday, outlining the schedule of deadlines and the meetings that Grimsley had also scheduled for teachers to attend that day. In fact, Respondent had not left work early that day but had been late returning from lunch because she and other teachers from Brownsville had gone during the lunch period to another school to attend a celebration at that school. Further, teachers are not required to sign out for lunch on a teacher workday. Nevertheless, Respondent had failed to submit her grades at the end of that teacher workday. Under the procedures established in that school, Respondent's failure to submit her grades by the end of the day delayed the report cards for the entire school. Respondent was again placed on prescription for Category VII, Professional Responsibilities. She was directed to submit her grade sheets on time for the next two grading periods. She was also docked a half-day's pay for returning from lunch late on January 29., She was told that if her grades were turned in on time and completed, the prescription would be satisfied On March 7, 1988, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal Gail Senita. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she had no lesson plans. For her prescription, she was directed to develop weekly lesson plans and to include in them objectives, activities, a method of evaluation, add a provision for homework, as required by the labor contract. She was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because there were no graded papers in student folders, and there were no grades in Respondent's gradebook. As a prescription, she was directed to maintain student folders with examples of graded student papers. School Board policy requires teachers to keep folders with samples of student works Respondent explained to Senita that she kept an electronic gradebook on the computer. However, she did not show that electronic gradebook to Senita. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Senita on June 1, 1988. She was rated in assessment techniques because there were still no student folders with graded work and no gradebook with student grades. While Respondent did have computer spreadsheets with students' names, they contained no grades for the students. As a prescription, Respondent was directed to prepare folders for the students and to file samples of the students' classwork, quizzes, homework, and tests in those folders. She was directed that the folders should contain at least one paper per week and should show a progression of difficulty. Respondent explained to Senita that the students' work was on computer disks. Senita suggested that Respondent print out hard copies of the students' work to file in the students' folders On June 14, 1988, Grimsley gave Respondent her 1987- 88 annual evaluation. That evaluation rated Respondent as acceptable in all categories, meaning that Respondent had remediated all deficiencies during that school year. Respondent signed that annual evaluation as having been received by her on June 14, 1988. Three days later, Grimsley came to Respondent's classroom and told her to sign another annual evaluation form. Respondent did so. That second annual evaluation form indicated that Respondent was acceptable in all categories except for Category VI, Assessment Techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in that category and was given an overall rating of unacceptable. However, she was recommended for employment That second evaluation contained an end-of-the-year prescription directing Respondent to record at least one formal grade for each student in the gradebook each week, and, if she used a grade sheet, to show a hard copy to the assistant principal on a weekly basis, and to place graded samples of student work, including homework and tests, in the student folders. Grimsley did not tell anyone that she had determined that Respondent had remediated her deficiencies and achieved an acceptable 1987-88 annual evaluation in all categories. Rather, she turned in the second evaluation form to be made part of Respondent's personnel file. At hearing, Grimsley verified that the signature on the evaluation finding Respondent acceptable in all categories was her signature, but failed to tell the truth about the incident, saying only "that's strange." The second evaluation form cannot be declared to be the "official" evaluation form. Grimsley did not offer any explanation for why, or if, she had changed her mind. It, therefore, cannot be found that Respondent received an unacceptable evaluation for the 1987-88 school year. Respondent taught during the summer of 1988, keeping a computerized rollbook which she turned in to the administrators. No criticisms were given to her of her computerized gradebook. During that summer, the software and books for the students arrived although Respondent did not have access to them until the beginning of the 1988-89 school year. That school year began, and Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Senita on September 22, 1988. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she had no lesson plan. Without a lesson plan, an administrator cannot monitor compliance with the School Board's curriculum. As a prescription, she was directed to prepare lesson plans and submit them weekly to the department chairperson. She was directed that these plans were to include objectives, activities, a way of monitoring pupil progress, and an indication of homework. She was further directed to review the school Board's curriculum for computer education and to indicate in her plans which standards and skills were being taught. She was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not have student folders with student work. There was no evidence of quizzes, classwork, homework, or a variety of test formats. As a prescription, she: was directed to develop a folder for each student and to file at least one graded paper per week in the files. The files were to include samples of homework, classwork, and tests. She was directed to submit her gradebook for review every Friday. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Grimsley on November 16, 1988. She was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because there was no evidence in her gradebook or in the student folders that she was administering tests or quizzes. As a prescription, she was directed to construct a sample test and to show it to the principal for discussion. She was directed to administer tests biweekly and to submit copies to the principal prior to administering them. She was directed to construct tests which reflected a variety of test formats and to read certain pages in the TADS Prescription Manual which deals with the construction of tests. She was directed to place grades in a traditional gradebook. Respondent began keeping two sets of gradebooks -- one computerized set which she used, and a traditional rollbook to satisfy Grimsley. A conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on December 12, 1988. The purpose of the conference was to put Respondent on notice that if her deficiencies were not corrected, there was a possibility that she would be recommended for separation from the school system. Some lesson plans had been submitted by Respondent, but not every week as prescribed, and a traditional gradebook had not been submitted to the administrators. During the conference, Respondent asked permission again to use electronic spreadsheets rather than the standard gradebook, but Respondent was directed to keep a standard gradebook with attendance and grades. Grimsley did indicate that she would determine if an electronic spreadsheet was an substitute. Test formatting and homework were also discussed. Grimsley explained that the School Board requires teachers to give homework that relates to classroom activities and to note same in the gradebook. There was no indication that Respondent was giving homework. Respondent was put on notice that she needed three consecutive acceptable classroom observations in order to be continued in her employment. She was further advised that an external review would take place. An external review is an observation done by a non-school site administrator and a school site administrator simultaneously. Each one prepares an observation report, and these are combined by mathematical formula. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom on February 2, 1989, by Assistant Principal Orlando Milligan and was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques. Although the School Board requires that students' work be retained throughout the school year and the school year was more than half over, Respondent still failed to maintain student folders with student work. There was no evidence of assessments such as quizzes, classwork, and homework so that administrators could assess whether pupil progress reflected the objectives in the curriculum. As a prescription, Milligan directed Respondent to maintain samples of student work in student folders and to maintain a decipherable traditional gradebook. She was given until March 3, 1989, to complete this prescription. A conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on April 24, 1989, for not having complied with her prescriptive directives or showing the administration a computerized gradebook or a traditional gradebook. She was advised that an external review was scheduled for April 27, 1989, to be conducted by Milligan and Dr. Mildred Berry, a non-school site science supervisor. Respondent was also told that the external review would occur during her second period class. She was told that even if the first external review were satisfactory, another would be required in order to meet the requirement for two successful summatives. A summative is a combination of two observations. Therefore, it takes at least three acceptable observations to result in two acceptable summatives. Respondent was also advised that her future employment with the school system was in jeopardy At the conference, Respondent was still discussing a computerized method of keeping grades and attendance. She was again directed to maintain a standard gradebook and to keep sampled of students' work. The first external review took place as scheduled on April 27, 1989, by Milligan and Berry. Milligan looked at the folders for the class he was observing and found samples of student work in the folders. He did have difficulty correlating the work in the folders with the gradebook and found the gradebook difficult to understand. He was about to rate Respondent unsatisfactory in assessment techniques but Berry explained to him that the keeping of student folders does not relate to assessment techniques Because of her insistence, the two of them reviewed the TADS Manual and Milligan found that Berry was correct. The concerns that he saw did not come under Category VI, Assessment Techniques, but rather came under Category VII, Professional Responsibilities. Category VII is not reflected on the classroom observation reports and is not part, therefore, of the formal classroom observation Milligan and Berry individually each rated Respondent acceptable in all categories. Berry's observation report contained the remark that "all students were actively involved in class activities." In spite of finding out that he had misunderstood the TADS evaluation system, Milligan did not go back and correct his February 2, 1989, observation report on Respondent where he had erroneously marked Respondent unacceptable in the area of assessment techniques based upon her failure to have student folders. If Milligan had gone back and corrected his February 2, 1989, observation of Respondent once he correctly understood the TADS evaluation system, then Milligan's formal observation of Respondent on February 2, 1989, would have resulted in her being marked acceptable in all categories. A second external review was conducted by Grimsley and Nelson Diaz, Area Director, on May 24, 1989. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in all categories except teacher-student relationships. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Grimsley and Diaz observed students walk into the classroom, walk over to their computers, load their computers, and begin working on their projects. Respondent sent a few of the students to the library to do some research and spent the remainder of the class period walking around the room stopping to talk individually and work individually with each student. At times, some of the students were observed making comments to each other or writing notes, getting out of their seats, or laughing. Neither Grimsley nor Diaz attempted to ascertain if the comments or notes were related to students working with each other on their programs or if the students left their seats simply to go to the printer to retrieve a hard copy of their work. They did observe Respondent work individually with each student throughout the class period. Diaz became confused. The TADS observation form requires that certain teaching behaviors be observed during the lesson in order that the form can be completed. Because of the type of class conducted by Respondent, the observers could not observe the required teaching behaviors in order to complete their forms. Since Diaz believes that teachers usually try to do their very best when they know there will be a outside observer, he became concerned that perhaps Respondent was ill. Diaz requested that a post observation conference be held immediately so that he could determine whether there were extenuating circumstances for what he had observed. Respondent was requested to bring her gradebook to the conference because Diaz was not able to correlate the grades in the gradebook with the work in the folders. When the gradebook was discussed at the conference, Respondent told Diaz that she kept a traditional gradebook to satisfy Grimsley. When asked why she did not give the students tests, Respondent told him that her students could not read. Respondent had previously determined that when she gave students tests, the grades they received from the written materials did not reflect their understanding or progress as was observed by her when they did their actual "hands-on" computer programming and activities. Diaz noted that the students were reading their computer screens and were reading a sheet that they were following. He did not, however, note whether the computer screens; and the sheets the students were following contained words or pictures. Although Respondent had a lesson plan for that day, Diaz and Grimsley determined that she did not follow the plan. They concluded that she gave no instruction to her class on that day. They further concluded that the lesson plan used by Respondent, although a form lesson plan picked up by teachers in curriculum offices at schools, did not comply with the labor contract provisions in that it did not list homework. Further, an administrator could not look at the lesson plan and know what the teacher would be doing in the classroom because the lesson plan contained a listing of potential activities but did not note which specific ones would occur. At the conference with Diaz and Grimsley, the suggestion was made to Respondent, for the first time in the three years that she had been teaching at Brownsville, that she consult with a computer teacher at another school in order to ascertain how other computer teachers had made provision for tests, homework, student folders, and gradebooks. Eights days later, on June 1, 1989, Grimsley finalized Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1988-89 school year by rating Respondent as acceptable in the areas of teacher- student relationships and professional responsibility. She rated Respondent as unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. The overall summary ratings of acceptable and unacceptable were left blank; however, she checked the box marked "not recommended for employment." A conference-for-the-record was held by Grimsley on June 5, 1989, to discuss Respondent's performance to date, her unacceptable annual evaluations, and her future employment status with the Dade County Public Schools. Grimsley noted that at that time Respondent had still not remediated her deficiencies and was still on prescription. Prior to Respondent's suspension from her employment in August, 1989, there was no state teacher certification in computer education. There were also no other computer teachers at Brownsville to assist Respondent in the problems she was having. Although it was clear to Grimsley for three years that Respondent was having difficulties in conforming her computer class with a traditional academic class, Grimsley never suggested to Respondent that Respondent obtain assistance from other computer teachers to see how they had overcome such difficulties. That suggestion, withheld for three years, came during the conference among Grimsley, Diaz, and Respondent, just eight days before Grimsley recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. Respondent maintained student grades and attendance on computerized spreadsheets. Further, Respondent maintained samples of student work on their computer disks. On at least one occasion Respondent showed copies of her grading and attendance spreadsheets to Grimsley, but Grimsley rudely brushed her hand across them and stated that she could not read them. Thereafter, Respondent did not show them to Grimsley. Cecelia Dunn, who served as Respondent's department head, saw Respondent's student records consisting of a file box with students' names, grades and attendance marked on cards and also Respondent's computer printouts with grades and attendance on them. She found Respondent'S records to be acceptable and thorough but suggested to Respondent that she also transfer this information to a traditional gradebook. There is no question that Respondent kept students' grades and attendance records; she did not keep them in a traditional gradebook. It is also clear that Respondent kept samples of students' work on computer disks. However, she did not consistently reproduce a hard copy of that work to maintain in the students' folders. Respondent does not know how to adapt the record keeping that is used in a traditional academic class to a computer class. In a traditional class all students work on the same assignments on the same day. In a computer class, students work on projects at their own speed over extended periods of time. She does not know how to give daily grades to a student working on a project over an extended period. Respondent does not know how to give homework in a computer class to students who do not have computers at home. Although Senita once suggested to her that she require her students to read newspaper articles about computers, Respondent's students do not receive newspapers at home and therefore cannot comply with such a requirement. Respondent agrees that Grimsley gave her a number of suggestions on a number of occasions as to how she could correct her deficiencies. However, the suggestions given by Grimsley, a former English teacher herself, would work in an English class but would not work in a computer class. No suggestion given by Grimsley during the three years that Respondent taught at Brownsville was tailored to a computer class. No suggestion was made during the first year as to how Respondent could comply with traditional requirements in a classroom with non-functioning equipment and textbooks written for college students. Similarly, Grimsley's conclusion on her last formal evaluation of Respondent that Respondent did not teach fails to take into consideration the fact that Grimsley observed Respondent giving individual instruction, the kind of instruction which is appropriate for a computer class. Grimsley never suggested to Respondent how Respondent could give lectures during her classes. The only computer teacher to testify in this proceeding also keeps his records of students grades by using electronic spreadsheets. However, he prints out those spreadsheets and places the sheets inside a traditional gradebook and prints out hard copies of the students' work for folders simply because his class does not always meet in the computer room but must meet on frequent occasions in a regular classroom. That teacher is a teacher on special assignment who runs the MAGNET program wherein students use computers for everything. He testified that it takes a lot more time to teach computers than other courses Respondent's colleagues hold her in high esteem as a very knowledgeable, excellent teacher. Her students always appear to be actively involved in their classroom work. They are always "on task." With their adherence to the formal evaluation instrument and traditional classroom techniques, Grimsley and Senita were not able to determine whether Respondent was following the School Board's computer curriculum or whether Respondent was providing her students with the minimal educational experience required by State Board rule. They admitted at final hearing that they could not say that she was not following the curriculum or that she was not providing her students with the minimum educational experience. There is no allegation that Respondent did not in fact assess her students or grade them appropriately although Respondent did not always keep records of those assessments in a traditional format. Similarly, it cannot be said that Respondent failed to prepare, keep, and submit all records and reports required by School Board rules. It can be said that she did not prepare, keep, and submit all records and reports required by administrative directives issued by Grimsley to her. On the other hand, it cannot be said that she knew how to do what Grlmsley instructed her to do, and it is clear that Grimsley referred her to no resources in the computer education field to assist her in learning how to do what Grimsley wanted her to do. It can only be said that Grimsley repeated the same prescriptions; it cannot be said that those things were helpful to Respondent in remediating her deficiencies. It is not suggested that Grimsley, Senita, or Dunn refused to assist Respondent in overcoming her record keeping deficiencies or in solving her problems with giving quizzes and homework assignments. There is no evidence that any of those persons knew how to assist Respondent in adapting a "hands-on" computer course to the standard record keeping requirements or all of the traditional assessment techniques. Respondent neither intentionally nor willfully disobeyed instructions given to her by her administrators. She was, however, unable to consistently comply with their directives due to the demands of day-to-day teaching, in a technical non- traditional subject area, without adequate resources and materials.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reinstating the Respondent Patsy Moore to a teaching position in English education or computer education on a one-year probationary contract basis and providing that Respondent shall receive no back pay for the period of her suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 10th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4857 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-6, 8-15, 17-25, 27-40, 42- 46, 48, 51, 53, and 55 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 7 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's ,proposed findings of fact numbered 16, 26, 47, 49, 50, 52, 56, and 57 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 41 has been rejected as being unnecessary for the determination of the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 54 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-18 and 20-22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Patricia Bass, Esquire School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Lorraine C. Hoffman, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Paul W. Bell, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2012), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 739881, covering the areas of Physical Education and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2015. He has held a certification in Florida since 2005. Respondent is African- American. At all times relevant to the charges in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been employed as an In- School Suspension (ISS) Teacher at the CARE Program in the Calhoun County School District (District). The CARE acronym is shorthand for character, achievement, respect, and education. The CARE Program is a second-chance school for students who have been suspended for more than ten days, have been suspended for drug offenses, or who are currently in a juvenile facility. The first time a student is assigned to the CARE Program, it is for a 90-day term. If the student does well, he or she returns to their regular school. The second referral is for a period of 180 days; the third for a year. The CARE Program generally has approximately 30-40 students at a time. In November 2012, the program had approximately 31-32 students. The CARE Program is located at a facility that used to house a vocational complex, next to the adult school. Also housed in this complex is the In-School Suspension (ISS) class, where students serve in-school suspensions of less than ten days. Students are referred to the ISS class for behavior such as tardiness and being disruptive in the classroom. The number of students in the ISS classroom varies, because it depends on how many students have been referred. There is a limit to how many students can be in the ISS class, because each school has a cap on the number of students it can refer at any given time. Testimony varied as to how many students were present at the time of the incident giving rise to this case. The most reasonable and credible testimony indicates that on November 14, 2012, there were approximately 15-20 students in the ISS class. There was adequate room in the ISS classroom for the number of students in the class. Some time prior to the incident giving rise to this case, part of the complex where the CARE Program and the ISS class were housed underwent construction. As a result, several staff members working in the complex had tires punctured because of construction debris in the area. The District would reimburse employees for repairs to tires that were punctured if the employee submitted the documentation related to the repair. Respondent had requested two new tires, as opposed to repair of his tires. Although the record is not clear when Respondent made his request, there was some delay in any action being taken to address it. Wilson McClellan was the superintendent of the District from 2000 to 2004, and then again from 2008 to 2012, after which he retired. Mr. McClellan, who is Caucasian, was an educator in Calhoun County for approximately 25 years. He had worked with Respondent in a summer recreation program at some point before Respondent was hired by the District. Mr. McClellan had told Respondent that if there was an opening in Calhoun County, he would give Respondent a call and let him know. On November 13, 2012, Mr. McClellan was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent. The next day, he visited the CARE Program and spoke with several of the staff there, presumably to touch base with people with whom he had worked. He came to the CARE Program around midday, and class was in session. While he was there, Mr. McClellan went to speak with Respondent about Respondent’s pending request for reimbursement for his tires. While repairs had been authorized, no other staff member had requested new tires. Mr. McClellan told Respondent that he would need to submit documentation for the reimbursement for action by the School Board, as opposed to the superintendent, because Mr. McClellan did not feel comfortable authorizing the expenditure when no one else had requested reimbursement for new tires instead of repair of existing ones. Mr. McClellan knocked on the door to the ISS classroom and he and Respondent went into the small office adjacent to it. When he told Respondent about the need to submit the reimbursement matter to the Board, Respondent became angry and walked back into his classroom. Respondent told McClellan, in the presence of his students, that if he had a different last name and a different color, then the results would have been different. McClellan denied Respondent’s claim and left the classroom. Mr. Thomas’s classroom had an inside door, going into a hallway, and an outside door that led to a covered pavilion area with picnic tables. Also adjacent to the area with the picnic tables is Barbara Hathaway’s office. Ms. Hathaway served as the Dean of Students for the CARE Program, a position that functions much like a principal does in a traditional school. When Mr. McClellan left the classroom, he went to the area with the picnic tables. Ms. Hathaway saw him there and came out to speak with him. While Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan were speaking, Respondent came out of his classroom and asked Ms. Hathaway to get someone to cover his class because he was “pretty hot” and needed to walk. According to Ms. Hathaway, Respondent was agitated and upset. She did not understand him to mean he was overheated based on temperature, but rather that he was upset or angry, and her testimony is credited. Without waiting for coverage for his class, Respondent walked away from the classroom and the area where Mr. McClellan and Ms. Hathaway were standing and up the sidewalk. Ms. Hathaway left to ask another staff member to cover the classroom and was going to walk back outside when she heard Mr. Thomas speaking loudly. She could not hear what Mr. Thomas said, but his tone was agitated. She noticed that the ISS classroom door to the outside was open, and the students could hear the heated conversation between their instructor and the superintendent, so she opened the inside door and told a student to shut the outside door. Ms. Hathaway thought from the students’ reactions that they were enjoying the interchange between Mr. McClellan and Mr. Thomas. She used her phone to call for a resource officer because she felt the situation was agitated and that someone should be present to intervene. After Ms. Hathaway walked inside to arrange for coverage for the classroom, Mr. Thomas had walked back down the sidewalk to Mr. McClellan. He repeated to Mr. McClellan that in this county, if he had a different last name and a different color, it would probably be a different result. Mr. McClellan became impatient and said, “shut up Ed, I am just not wanting to hear any more about that.” Mr. Thomas walked closer to him, glared and said, “if you ever say shut up again to me, I will be the last black man you ever say that to.”1/ Mr. Thomas is a large, imposing figure, and according to Mr. McClellan, he spoke in a loud, angry voice and “bowed up” in a threatening gesture; however, he was never close enough to the superintendent to actually strike him. While Ms. Hathaway could not hear the actual language being used, both Ms. Barbee, who came to cover the ISS classroom, and the students in the classroom were able to hear the colorful exchange. Ms. Barbee testified that she did not remember the actual conversation, but that there was “some cussing and hollering.” Her statement written the day of the incident indicates that Mr. Thomas used the term “f**k.” Likewise, P.G., one of the students in the classroom, testified that Mr. Thomas told Mr. McClellan, “don’t tell me to shut the f**k up,” and for him to “shut the f**k up.” P.G. believed the students in the room were shocked at the interchange.2/ After this exchange, Respondent once again walked away from Mr. McClellan and up the sidewalk away from his class. On both occasions, Respondent was five to six classroom lengths away from his classroom, and unable to monitor in any way the actions of his students. Ms. Hathaway, as noted above, was not present for this heated exchange and did not hear what was said. When she returned outside, Mr. Thomas was standing on the sidewalk up the hill from the classroom. She spoke to Mr. McClellan, who told her about the conversation with Mr. Thomas. What he told her involved the reimbursement issue and not any complaint about overcrowding. About that time Warren Tanner, the school resource officer, came around the corner. When he arrived, he saw Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan sitting on a bench under the pavilion, and Mr. Thomas was standing at the end of the driveway at the end of the building. Mr. Tanner asked what had happened, and Mr. McClellan told him that Mr. Thomas had threatened him. Mr. Thomas walked back down the hill to where the others were standing, and Mr. McClellan told him to go home for the rest of the day. Mr. Thomas went into his classroom briefly, then came out and asked Mr. McClellan if he was sending him home for the rest of the day, and was told, “yes.” Mr. Thomas got in his truck to leave, then got out and asked Mr. Tanner if this was going to be a complaint, and Mr. Tanner told him, not at this time. Mr. McClellan returned to his office and called David House, the school board attorney. He related the events of the morning and told Mr. House that, in light of past behavior by Mr. Thomas and the current incident, he was considering terminating Mr. Thomas. Later that afternoon, Vicki Davis, assistant superintendent for the District, called Mr. Tanner and asked him to collect statements from those who witnessed or heard the morning’s events. Mr. Tanner got statements from Mr. McClellan, Ms. Hathaway, Ms. Barbee, and several students in Mr. Thomas’s class.3/ On Thursday, November 15, 2012, Mr. McClellan wrote to Mr. Thomas advising him that he was suspended with pay, effective immediately. Respondent had been the subject of discipline previously, and there had been concerns expressed about his behavior during his employment in Calhoun County. For example, in January 2008, he received a formal reprimand for allegedly confronting a fellow teacher in front of students in a loud, belligerent, and profane manner.4/ On June 3, 2008, Respondent received a second reprimand for allegedly leaving a magazine with an unclothed woman on the cover in the Health Building bathroom where it could be viewed by students. On January 13, 2011, Neva Miller, the principal of Blountstown Middle School, wrote a lengthy letter to Superintendent McClellan detailing several alleged incidents involving Mr. Thomas that caused her to “express concerns that I have as to the effectiveness and concerning anger control abilities of Edward Thomas.” A two-page document titled “Ed Thomas Issues Calendar Year 2011” was placed in his personnel file, recounting a series of concerns regarding alleged deficiencies in his performance. On February 23, 2012, Ms. Hathaway, as Dean of the CARE Program, documented an alleged incident involving a ninth-grade student.5/ On December 11, 2012, Mr. McClellan’s successor, Superintendent Ralph Yoder, issued a Notice of Charges for Dismissal to the Calhoun County School Board, recommending Respondent be suspended without pay and dismissed from employment by the District. The Notice of Charges stated, “Mr. Thomas has a history of engaging in insubordinate, hostile and confrontational behavior toward faculty members and administrators, which began in 2007 and culminated in an incident that occurred on November 14, 2012, involving the former Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Tommy McClellan. Mr. Thomas has been repeatedly instructed by persons in authority to correct his behavior, but he has failed to do so.” The Notice goes on to describe 13 separate incidents and references several others. Only the incident involving Mr. McClellan on November 14, 2012, is alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and Petitioner presented no evidence to prove what happened with respect to the other incidents. No findings are made concerning the validity of the other allegations in the Notice of Charges. It is considered solely to show that the District took action with respect to Respondent’s employment. Likewise, it is unclear what, if any, proceedings were conducted with respect to the Notice of Charges before the school board. Respondent acknowledged that his employment was terminated as of December 11, 2012, the day the Notice was issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), as well as Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondent’s teaching certificate for one year; that he submit to an evaluation for anger management by the Recovery Network on terms to be set by the Education Practices Commission; and that upon re-employment as an educator, Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years, with terms and conditions to be set by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 19th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issues presented are whether the unauthorized use of a school computer to view Yahoo personal websites violates Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and and (4)(c), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against the teaching certificate of Respondent.1
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate Number 719005 (teaching certificate). Respondent is certified to teach English, grades six through 12. The Seminole County School Board (the School Board) has employed Respondent as a teacher for approximately 13 years. The School Board employed Respondent as a teacher on the date of the hearing. For the 2003-2004 school year, Respondent taught honors English and drama at Oviedo High School (Oviedo). Oviedo provided a computer in Respondent's classroom. Oviedo limited acceptable use of the computer to educational and academic business use (the acceptable use policy). The acceptable use policy prohibited personal use of the computer such as viewing the news, weather, or sports. From the start of the school year through February 24, 2004, Respondent violated the acceptable use policy. Respondent used the computer for various personal purposes for as much as 20 to 30 minutes or as little as five minutes; as frequently as every day and as infrequently as one day a week. Respondent viewed various internet sites, including sites for Celtic music, cross-stitching, and Yahoo personal websites. The Yahoo personal websites included pictures of nude adult women, sometimes in sexually explicit scenes. The Complaint alleges that Respondent's use of the school computer to view Yahoo personal websites violates several statutes and rules. Counts 1 through 3 in the Complaint concern alleged violations of statutes. Counts 4 through 6 concern alleged violations of rules. Count 1 alleges that viewing Yahoo personal websites is an act that constitutes gross immorality or involves moral turpitude in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(c). Count 2 alleges that the unauthorized use of the computer seriously reduced Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(f). Count 3 alleges that the use of the school computer to view Yahoo personal websites violates the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by the State Board of Education Rules in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(i). Counts 4-6 identify the specific rules of ethics that were allegedly violated when Respondent used the school computer to view Yahoo personal websites. Counts 4-6 allege that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), (3)(e), and (4)(c), respectively, by: failing to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health; intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement; and using institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage. At the hearing, Petitioner dismissed Count 5 in the Complaint. That Count alleged that Respondent intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e). The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health. There is no evidence that a student at Oviedo viewed any inappropriate material on the computer. Respondent used the computer during his planning periods after he had graded papers, completed lesson plans, and concluded any other academic business. Students were not present during planning periods. When Respondent used the computer for inappropriate purposes, the classroom door was closed and locked. No students were present, and the computer faced a wall away from the classroom entrance. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(4)(c) by using the school computer for personal gain or advantage. There is no evidence that Respondent did anything other view images on a computer. There is no evidence that Respondent copied the material, distributed it, pandered the material, or took any other action for personal profit or gain. The absence of a finding that Respondent violated any of the rules of ethics cited in the Complaint precludes a finding that Respondent violated Subsection 1012.795(1)(i) pertaining to ethical violations. Therefore, clear and convincing evidence does not support the charges in Count 3 of the Complaint. Nor is Count 2 supported by clear and convincing evidence. The act of viewing Yahoo personal websites on the school computer did not seriously reduce Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(f). Respondent continued as an effective employee of the School Board. On February 25, 2007, the School Board removed Petitioner from the classroom for the duration of the school year without pay. However, the School Board continued to employ Respondent in non-teaching positions until October 2005 when Respondent returned to the classroom at Greenwood Lakes Middle School (Greenwood) and then at Millennium Middle School (Millennium).2 The principal at Greenwood and Millennium assessed Respondent as proficient and an asset to the schools.3 Respondent earned satisfactory evaluations.4 Clear and convincing evidence does not support the allegations in Count 1 of the Complaint, which alleges that Respondent is guilty of moral turpitude or gross immorality in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(c). Petitioner defines the term "moral turpitude" by rule. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(6) defines moral turpitude, in relevant part, to be a "crime . . . evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity. . . ." The use of the school computer to view Yahoo personal websites was not a crime. After an extensive criminal investigation, no criminal charges were filed against Respondent.5 The use of a school computer to view Yahoo personal websites was not an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity. There is no evidence that the Yahoo personal websites are pornographic sites. Oviedo blocks access to pornographic sites, and Oviedo does not block access to Yahoo personal websites. There is no evidence that any of the women depicted as nude or in sexually explicit scenes were underage. Yahoo prohibits persons under 18 from using the personal websites. Petitioner does not define the term "gross immorality" by rule, but Petitioner does define the term "immorality" by rule. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2) defines immorality, in relevant part, to be conduct that is sufficiently notorious to bring Respondent or his profession into public disgrace and impair Respondent's service in the community. The act of viewing Yahoo personal websites did not satisfy the definitional elements of immorality. The act of viewing Yahoo personal websites did not impair Respondent's service in the community. After the events at issue in this proceeding, Respondent continued to teach at Valencia Community College (Valencia) and Seminole Community College (Seminole). At Valencia, Respondent teaches a dual enrollment class in Western Civilization. A dual enrollment class is one in which high school seniors receive both high school and college credit for the course. At Seminole, Respondent has taught courses in Fundamentals of Writing 1 and 2, both of which are college preparatory courses; Western Civilization; U.S. History; and Medieval Humanities. The act of viewing Yahoo personal websites on the school computer was not sufficiently notorious that it brought either Respondent or his profession into public disgrace or disrespect. Any notoriety that did occur resulted from the actions of the School Board and Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the violations charged in the Complaint and imposing no penalty against the teaching certificate of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2007.
The Issue The issue here is whether the Superintendent has shown "good and sufficient reasons" for recommending that Mr. Udell be returned to annual contract status as a teacher employed by the School Board of Hamilton County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact For fourteen years, Mr. Udell has been employed by the Hamilton County School Board as a teacher. He is presently assigned as an auto-mechanics instructor at Hamilton High School. He has held a continuing contract for the last seven years. The principal of Hamilton High School has been Mr. Maurice Hammond for the last two years. It appears that he is less indulgent of rule violations than was the former school principal, Mr. William Edwards. Mr. Hammond has cracked down on activities such as student card playing which at one time were tolerated by the former administration. This has been at least a partial cause of friction between the old teachers like Mr. Udell and the new principal. It is the school policy that if a student is absent for more than nine days in a nine-week grading period, he will receive a sixty-five or lower grade for that period. With respect to the grade of Tim Holland, a student of Mr. Udell's for the 1979-1980 school year, Mr. Udell did not follow that policy. The policy was known to him through the teachers' handbook which he received at the beginning at the school year. In Mr. Hammond's opinion, Tim Holland would not have graduated if it has not been for Mr. Udell's violation of the nine-day rule. Tim Holland missed a total of seventy-five days of the 1979-1980 academic year. According to Hamilton High School policy, each student must receive nine grades during each nine-week grading period. Mr. Udell has not complied with that policy. During the last complete school year, his students received on the average only three grades. Hamilton High School students who are seniors and have a class grade average of ninety-five or above are exempt from quarter examinations. During the 1979-1980 year, on at least one occasion, Mr. Udell exempted from quarter exams several senior students who had less that a ninety-five average. The teachers of Hamilton High School compute the grades for their assigned students. In the 1979-1980 year, Mr. Udell had one of his students compute grades for him. The result was numerous computation errors, all in favor of the students. For instance, Leonard Phillips had a seventy-four for the first grading period and an eighty for the second period yet he received an average grade of eighty for the whole semester. Jack Alford received a sixty the first period, a sixty-four for the second period and an average of seventy for the semester. For the first semester of 1979-1980 alone, at least sixteen of Mr. Udell's forty-nine students received incorrect grades. Prior to Mr. Hammond's administration at Hamilton High School, there were occasions when students were allowed to play cards during class periods. On April 2, 1979, during a visit to Mr. Udell's classroom, Mr. Hammond observed numerous students playing cards in the third and fourth periods. Halter in the afternoon when the principal spoke with Mr. Udell about the indent, he responded that card playing occurred in other parts of the campus and "the best thing to do was to give me that oil [needed to operate an engine]." This response is typical of Mr. Udell's attitude when deficiencies in his teaching have been pointed out to him. He attempts to rationalize them by shifting repairability onto others. He explained his grading errors by complaining about not having a student assistant or a planning period; yet, with only three grades per student for the whole year, it would take little time for him to accurately compute the grades himself. In one instance, on January 14, 1980, Mr. Udell left an inadequate lessor plan for a substitute teacher. The plan which was for three classes for two periods stated in its entirety (spelling etc. as on original): 1-14-80 Auto Class 1-2 P. Class Basic Tune-up on six cyl. engine Practice on training unit that is on roll cabinit tools are in top drawer in roll cabinit Check training unit with sun scope This is for all classes one group work on engine one on training unit, then change over. Udell A 30-gallon drum of cleaning solvent was sent to Mr. Udell's auto mechanic shop without a purchase order being first submitted. This is contrary to the purchase procedure established at Hamilton High School. It resulted, however, because the salesman sent the solvent before he had Mr. Udell's approval. Mr. Udell was therefore not at fault for there not being a purchase order prior to the delivery of the goods. Evidence was presented which shows that Mr. Udell adequately handles many of the instructional aspects of his teaching responsibilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Hamilton County, Florida, enter a final order pursuant to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, returning Mr. Lawrence Udell to an annual contract of employment as a member of the instructional staff, effective from the beginning of the 1980-1981 school year. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 7th day of January 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Daniel Presmy, committed the violations alleged in the Recommendation for Suspension and Termination for Employment, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Daniel Presmy (hereinafter "Presmy" or "Respondent") has been a teacher for six years with Palm Beach County School Board (hereinafter "School Board"). He has always taught elementary students. Presmy has had no prior disciplinary action taken against him by the Superintendent of Palm Beach County School Board or the School Board. Presmy was a certified teacher in the School Board of Palm Beach County. On December 11, 2006, while in his classroom Presmy was teaching his third-grade class, and three students who were not students in his classroom showed up and disrupted the class. Presmy requested that the students leave his room. The students did not leave upon the initial request. One student informed Presmy that a student in the class had his eraser. Presmy then asked his class who had the eraser. Subsequently, an eraser flew to the front of the classroom and fell on the floor. Presmy picked up the eraser and handed the eraser to the student who had requested it. Presmy turned back to his class and was hit on the temple with the eraser. Presmy turned back around toward the student who he had given the eraser to and the student raised his hand. Again, Presmy told the student to leave. The student continued to stand in the middle of the doorway to Presmy's classroom and would not leave. While Presmy remained in his classroom, he used his fingertips to push the student's head and told the student (hereinafter "student victim") to "leave and don't come back here." Presmy "didn't think that [he] was doing anything wrong by telling him to leave with a gesture to leave." Presmy's reaction of touching the student was inappropriate. However, no evidence was demonstrated that the student was hurt during the incident. Presmy did not press the buzzer or contact and ask for any assistance regarding the incident because he didn't think it was necessary. On December 11, 2006, Officer Price was paged regarding the incident and she returned the call. She was informed that a student reported that he had been hit by a teacher at Roosevelt. Price interviewed the student victim and witnesses regarding the incident with Presmy. The School Board initiated an investigation into the incident. During the investigation, Respondent met with Detective Walton. Presmy told the investigator that he pushed the student victim in the head and told him to leave.2 The investigator concluded his investigation and presented the case to the State Attorney’s Office for review. As a result, Daniel Presmy was criminally charged with Battery as a violation of Florida Statutes. On August 2, 2007, Presmy pled guilty to the battery charge as a negotiated plea agreement so as not to put himself and his family through a lengthy trial and under the advice of his lawyer. His sentence was 45 hours community service, 12 weeks of anger management, 12 months of probation with early termination after six months and a $595 court fee. Petitioner alleges Respondent, by his conduct, violated School Board Policies 0.01, 1.013 and 3.12, and State Board of Education Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006. Subsequently, the School Board of West Palm Beach County at a meeting on October 24, 2007, voted to suspend Presmy without pay effective October 25, 2007, and initiated dismissal proceedings.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Palm Beach County School Board find Presmy had inappropriate physical contact with a student but apply the progressive disciplinary policy to determine his punishment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the two Respondents, or either of them, should be assigned to the Petitioner's school program.
Findings Of Fact During the 1989/90 school year, Michel Alvarez and his brother, Maikel Alvarez, were both students at American Senior High School in Dade County, Florida. Michel was in the ninth grade and Maikel was in the tenth grade. During the 1989/90 school year, Michel and Maikel Alvarez were students in the industrial arts class of a teacher named Morton Bernstein. On May 1, 1990, during the change of classes after second period, Michel Alvarez approached another student in his second period industrial arts class, Benny Rodriguez, and asked why the latter had been pointing at him. A verbal dispute ensued as to whether there had been any pointing and, if so, what anyone was going to do about it. Thereupon, Michel tackled Benny around the waist with enough force to knock Benny to the floor. Both boys fell to the floor, Benny beneath on his back, Michel above, facing Benny and holding onto him. They struggled on the ground. As they struggled, a large crowd of other students quickly gathered. During the course of the struggle, Benny Rodriguez was kicked or stomped several times. As a result of the blows he received during the struggle, Benny Rodriguez suffered a broken nose and several bruised ribs. 1/ Maikel Alvarez was nearby when he was informed that his brother was in trouble. Maikel pushed his way through the crowd and worked his way towards the middle. Maikel pulled his brother off of Benny Rodriguez and Maikel and Michel Alvarez moved away from the crowd of students. Maikel and Michel Alvarez both went to their respective third period classes. During third period, both of them were called to the Principal's office. At about the same time that Maikel Alvarez went to help his brother, a teacher named Morton Bernstein became aware of the crowd and the struggle and went to break it up. When Bernstein got to the scene of the fracas, the struggle was over and Benny Rodriguez was on the floor, obviously injured. Bernstein assisted Benny and called the school security office. A school security officer accompanied Benny to the main office. Donald Hoecherl, an assistant principal, was present when the security officer brought Benny to the office. Hoecherl put Benny in a room and asked if he was okay. Benny was still bleeding but was coherent. Hoecherl questioned Benny to find out what happened. He then summoned Michel and Maikel to the office where he questioned them. He also called the parents of the students involved, the police, and the school's special investigative unit. Hoecherl had the students write down what happened after they had given him a verbal account. Benny was released to his parent. He was taken to his doctor who then sent him to the hospital. He remained hospitalized for two days and had an operation for the fracture to his nose. Mrs. Alvarez arrived and Hoecherl explained, through an interpreter, what had happened based on the account he had gotten from Bernstein and the students. During the discussion with Mrs. Alvarez and her sons, Maikel appeared to have a poor attitude and he did not appear to be taking what had happened seriously. Mrs. Alvarez told Maikel to straighten up in his chair. She then slapped him. Maikel pushed his mother against the wall. Hoecherl and the police officer who had been called to the school had to restrain Maikel from further physical confrontation toward his mother. Maikel was placed in handcuffs. Hoecherl told Mrs. Alvarez that he was suspending both Michel and Maikel for ten days and recommending an expulsion with a waiver to opportunity school. He made certain that School Board rules and procedures for according the Alvarezes their due process rights were followed. Hoecherl prepared and mailed home the Notice of Suspension forms for Maikel and Michel which narrated the reasons for the disciplinary actions and the right to a school level hearing. Michel's Notice of Suspension form indicated that the suspension was for battery and kicking another student. Maikel's Notice of Suspension form indicated that the action was being taken for battery on a student and parent. Both forms indicated that these rule infractions were Group III violations. The School District's Code of Student Conduct provides that Group III violations warrant expulsion from school. Bernstein had both Michel and Maikel as students in his industrial arts classes. Michel required more attention than the rest of the students. Bernstein described Michel's behavior as disruptive of the regular program and also indicated that Michel's behavior created safety concerns because of the use of power tools in his class. Michel was not passing Bernstein's course because of excessive absences and poor effort. Maikel did little or no work in Bernstein's class. He sat around and talked to friends and did not complete projects. His absences were excessive and he was not passing. Carol McKenny taught Michel math. Michel was disruptive, absent excessively, and was making no effort. He required more attention than her other students, which made it difficult to teach. She talked to Michel and to Mrs. Alvarez about her concerns in an attempt to help him, yet this produced no noticeable improvements in his behavior, attendance, or effort. James McKiernan taught Maikel biology. Maikel was failing this subject because he was making no effort and was frequently absent. McKiernan spoke with Maikel and Mrs Alvarez, but Maikel did not improve. Henry Adams was Michel's and Maikel's guidance counselor. He talked to both students during the year in an attempt to help them. He discussed their chronic absences which were in excess of the state mandatory attendance requirements. He discussed the relationship of attendance to grades. He discussed their behavior in class. He talked to Mrs. Alvarez about their absences and poor progress in school. Adams, who is knowledgeable of the programs offered by the district's opportunity schools, is of the opinion that both students would benefit from such placement because of the smaller class sizes, more structured environment, and increased counseling services. Hoecherl conducted a review of both students' school records files prior to making his final recommendation to the Assistant Superintendent for Alternative Education. His review included grade reports, ability test scores, discipline reports, and attendance information. Michel has average ability and was capable of making B's and C's; however, he failed six of eight courses during the year. Even had he not been suspended on May 1, 1990, he would not have been academically successful because of his grades prior to the last marking period. Maikel has average to slightly below average ability, but was capable of average work in the courses he was taking; however, he failed seven of nine courses during the year. Even had he not been suspended on May 1, 1990, he would not have been academically successful because of his grades prior to the last marking period. Maikel had previously been suspended for five days for fighting. This was a Group III expellable offense. Maikel also had been assigned to several Saturday schools in an attempt to help him remediate the work he had missed when he cut classes on approximately 20 occasions. Saturday school is a District- approved method for helping a student improve his academic performance through a tutorial program. American High School had provided both Michel and Maikel with a variety of student services, including counseling by Adams, Saturday school for Maikel, teacher conferences, and parental contact by the administration. Despite the school's efforts, both students were not successful in the regular program at American High School. An opportunity school assignment would assist Michel and Maikel because it would provide greater structure, smaller class sizes and increased student services. This educational alternative program would afford both students an opportunity to become more successful in school. Maikel is currently enrolled in the opportunity school. He is doing well in his classes and has improved his attendance.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter a Final Order in these consolidated cases concluding that Michel Alvarez and Maikel Alvarez are properly assigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior School-North, an opportunity school located in Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County Florida, this 11th day of December, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 11th day of December, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated December 17, 2003, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education, is responsible to investigate and prosecute complaints against individuals who hold a Florida educator's certificate and are alleged to have violated provisions(s)of Section 1012.795 and related Rules. In cases where there is clear and convincing evidence to support any alleged violation, Petitioner is responsible to bring the case forward to the Education Practices Commission (EPC) for the imposition of discipline. At all times material to this case, Sanchez holds a Florida educator's certificate and is certified to teach social science. Sanchez was employed as a social studies teacher at Pinellas County's Northeast High School from January 1996 until August 8, 2001. He resigned on that date when confronted with the allegations which give rise to this case. Sanchez is a second-generation educator. Over the years he has been an effective teacher in a variety of settings, and has had a positive impact upon the lives of many students. At times relevant to this case, Sanchez had personal problems which he describes as "marriage problems, ex-wife hassles, money issues, lack of focus." In an effort to address the "money issues," Sanchez took a part time job at Sam's Club (Sam's), where he continues to work. At times relevant to this case, Sanchez was considered an excellent employee and team player by both Sam's and Northeast High School. At times relevant to this case, Sanchez shared a classroom at Northeast High with a teacher colleague. Each was provided by the Pinellas County school district with a classroom computer with Internet access. The computers were to be used exclusively for pedagogical purposes, including work related communications. Sanchez knew or should have known that the use of his classroom computer for non-professional purposes, including the exchange of sexually explicit or suggestive e-mail, or to download pornography, was expressly prohibited by the Pinellas County school district. At all times material to this case, the Pinellas County school district protected all of its computers with a so- called filter program called Net Nanny. The program's purpose is to filter out inappropriate websites, including pornographic websites. However, the Net Nanny filter is easily defeated if an Internet service provider such as America On Line (AOL) is installed on an individual computer. For that reason, the Pinellas County school district properly prohibited teachers from installing AOL on their assigned classroom computers. Sanchez claimed not to know of this prohibition, but the fact finder credits the testimony of Assistant Principal Cynthia Hearn (Hearn), Northeast High's technology specialist, who had a clear and precise recollection of having personally instructed Sanchez to remove AOL from his computer at least six months prior to the events giving rise to this case. Sanchez freely admits that at all times relevant, AOL was on his classroom computer and frequently utilized because he considers it "an amazing resource for teachers." At all times relevant to this case, AOL users have access to an "instant message" service. Sanchez claims that at relevant times, he confined his use of this service to brief messages such as "I'm on the way home" to his then-wife. Sanchez also admits to using the instant message service "on a fairly regular basis" to participate in informal work-related discussion chat rooms with "several colleagues that had . . . similar set ups on their computers at work as well. " Sanchez' description of his use of AOL was less than forthcoming. At times relevant to this case, Sanchez established Internet accounts in names such as "FunkyLoverMan99@yahoo.com" and used these accounts to access the Internet via AOL for purposes of exchanging sexually explicit and sexually suggestive e-mail with a woman with whom he was having an extra-martial affair. In addition, at times relevant to this case Sanchez downloaded a substantial amount of adult pornography to his classroom computer. Some of these unauthorized uses of the classroom computer occurred during hours when students were in the classroom. There is no evidence regarding what, if any, specific pornographic images or sexually inappropriate e-mail was viewed by any student. Sanchez' misuse of the classroom computer came to the attention of Northeast's administration on March 6, 2001, when two students from Sanchez' class were sent to the office of Assistant Principal Harry Brown on disciplinary referral. The girls alleged to Brown that Sanchez was using his computer for personal e-mail and further claimed they had seen pictures of girls on his computer. After school, Brown, accompanied by Hearn, entered Sanchez' classroom and turned on the computer assigned to Sanchez. Brown noticed an AOL icon and asked Hearn to launch the program. She did so, and immediately the AOL instant messenger program opened and revealed messages directed to Sanchez. Hearn reviewed the computer's records of websites which had been accessed that day. Some appeared to be teen- oriented sex sites. The computer assigned to the teacher who shared Sanchez' classroom was also turned on and its content reviewed. No inappropriate websites or programs were found. Brown and Hearn seized the central processing unit of Sanchez' computer and locked it in a closet in the main office. The following day, Michael Bissette (Bissette), chief investigator for the Pinellas County school district's Office of Professional Standards, reviewed the history as recorded on the central processing unit with regard to websites which had been accessed on Sanchez' computer. Finding a number of pornographic sites, Bissette turned the central processing unit over to law enforcement to determine if any crimes had been committed. It is the policy of the Pinellas County school district not to conduct any administrative investigation of an employee during the pendency of a criminal investigation, nor to allow a teacher to teach while under criminal investigation. Accordingly, the Pinellas County school district made arrangements to have a substitute teacher cover Sanchez' classes indefinitely pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. Sanchez was at first unaware he was under investigation because for much of March 2001, he was on leave for reasons related to the illness and subsequent death of his father. Upon his return from leave on or about March 29, 2001, Sanchez went to his classroom to prepare for the day and was soon confronted by an assistant principal who told Sanchez to gather his things. Sanchez was thereafter escorted off campus. Months later, law enforcement returned the case to the Pinellas County school district, having determined that there was no evidence that any crime had been committed. However, an analysis of the central processing unit revealed that thousands of adult pornographic images had been downloaded to the computer assigned to Sanchez. Pursuant to Pinellas County school district procedures, Bissette arranged a meeting with Sanchez and his union representative Betty Shields (Shields) to be held on August 8, 2001. At that meeting, and on other occasions prior to the final hearing, Sanchez admitted accessing adult pornography sites. He has consistently denied accessing teen pornography. This is a distinction without a difference in context of this case, because at all relevant times, the Pinellas County school district had a zero tolerance policy with reference to the use of its computers to access pornography of any kind. Employees believed to have abused computer access in this manner are in all cases offered the opportunity to resign in lieu of termination proceedings. Pursuant to that policy, Sanchez was offered, and accepted, the opportunity to resign his teaching position with the Pinellas County school district. At hearing, Sanchez insisted that Bissette coerced his resignation through the use of tactics which were improper and possibly illegal. Sanchez further testified that he submitted to Bissette's coercive tactics in part because he had incompetent union representation. Shields died prior to the hearing and thus was unable to be present to defend herself. The trier-of-fact carefully observed the demeanor of Bissette and Sanchez as they testified regarding all aspects of this case, including the circumstances surrounding the resignation. Under all of the circumstances, including the documentary evidence; the motivation to recall events in a particular light; and the level of detail one would reasonably expect each to be able to recall after three years and in light of the relative significance of the meeting to each man who was present, it is determined that Bissette's recollection of the circumstances surrounding the resignation is much closer to the truth than Sanchez'. In particular, it is determined that Sanchez' resignation was not coerced. The fact that Sanchez resigned voluntarily is not deemed to be an admission of any nor all of the conduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and has not been considered with respect to the matter of whether or not the alleged violations were committed by Sanchez. In addition to accusing Bissette and Shields of incompetence or worse, without corroborating evidence of any kind, Sanchez also repeatedly suggested--again without corroboration of any sort--that other individuals were responsible for some or all of the pornography found on his computer. Specifically, Sanchez attempted to cast suspicion upon student helpers, workers involved in construction projects at Northeast High, and even the teacher with whom Sanchez shared his classroom. This tactic was ill-advised and unavailing. Sanchez does not contend, nor could he, that anyone but he was responsible for the e-mail exchanges between himself and his mistress. With reference to the pornographic websites, it is emphatically noted that there is not a shred of evidence connecting anyone but Sanchez to such websites. Sanchez appealed for sympathy for his personal problems, and made repeated efforts to draw attention to his years of exemplary teaching service. It is not necessary to decide when, if ever, a professional's personal problems would justify seeking refuge in pornography and an extramarital affair, inasmuch as Sanchez seeks exoneration, not mercy. Sanchez' blanket denial that he downloaded pornography is not credited. In addition to making baseless accusations against innocent third parties, Sanchez' credibility was tainted by deceptive testimony at hearing about even inconsequential matters. For example, Sanchez was asked if he visited his mistress on the way to school in the mornings. He replied, "On occasion, yes." Under follow-up questioning, he acknowledged, "It was actually a fairly regular visit." To take another example, in the course of attempting to implicate others in the misuse of the computer, Sanchez intimated that former students, present in the classroom to "grade papers," had access to the computer. Asked to explain why former students would have been grading papers, Sanchez amended his testimony to say that former students would come by his class to "help out," but not to grade papers. The lack of candor exhibited by Sanchez in his hearing testimony is not, of course, proof of the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint. It does, however, provide an extra measure of confidence in the proof offered by Sanchez' colleagues who testified regarding their knowledge of and concerns regarding his trustworthiness and continued efficacy as a teacher. Pursuant to the Pinellas County school district's above-described zero tolerance policy, Sanchez will not be restored to employment as a teacher in that district, regardless of the outcome of these proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Subsection 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes; finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006 (4)(c). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s teaching certificate be suspended retroactive to August 8, 2001, through and including the date of the entry of a Final Order by Petitioner, followed by five years of probation under conditions deemed appropriate by the EPC. Such conditions may reasonably include evaluation by a mental health professional with training in pornography addiction to determine if Sanchez poses any risk of repeating the conduct which gave rise to this case; and denial of access to a classroom computer and/or periodic examination of any classroom computer by appropriately trained personnel. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert E. Sickles, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Post Office Box 3310 Tampa, Florida 33601-3310 Joan Stewart, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact During the 1993/1994 school year, the Respondent, Alan Davis, was in his 12th year teaching eighth grade science at Meadowlawn Middle School in St. Petersburg, Florida. He is on a professional services contract. He has a good record and reputation as science teacher at the school and no prior disciplinary problems (or even accusations against him.) The Respondent's classroom was located on the east wall of the school building, at the intersection of two interior hallways to the north and west of the classroom. There is a classroom door to the outside to the east, and the entire east wall of the classroom consists of windows looking across a walkway directly onto portable special education classrooms. There are vertical blinds that can be drawn across the windows and closed. The blinds usually are drawn but not closed. There is a classroom door to the hallway to the west of the classroom. Immediately across the intersecting hallway to the north of the classroom is the door to the teachers' lounge. Immediately past the intersecting hallway to the north is the door to the office of the school resource officer. Immediately past the resource officer's office, only approximately 25 feet from the door to the Respondent's classroom, is a suite of offices belonging to the school principal and other school administration personnel. Kim Wilder was an eighth grader at Meadowlawn during the 1993/1994 school year. She was in the Respondent's fourth period science class. Through about half of the year, she enjoyed a good record and reputation as a pupil of the school. Her grades were A's and B's, and she was not a disciplinary problem. However, several people noticed a change in her behavior in the middle of the school year. Her relationship with her parents deteriorated somewhat, and she sometimes displayed an attitude of not caring about family or school. The beginning of these changes in Kim roughly coincided with her friendship with a boy named Gilbert, who was a poor student, both in academics (he had to repeat grades) and in conduct. Gilbert also later began to spread rumors that he and Kim allegedly were sexually active. Such rumors came to the attention of interested and concerned teachers, one of whom alerted Kim's parents. Kim's parents became convinced that Gilbert was a bad influence on Kim and that she would be better off not seeing him. They refused to allow him to visit at their home, and they insisted that she stop seeing him. This created a conflict between Kim and her family. In the course of conversations with some girl friends approximately the end of March or beginning of April, 1994, Kim disclosed that she had been sexually assaulted by the Respondent. Initially, she told one of her friends only that the Respondent had "felt on" and "kissed" her. She told others additional details. But the first three friends she told did not recall any allegation that the Respondent performed oral sex on Kim. In later retellings, Kim added that allegation. In one later retelling, she added the allegation that the Respondent felt her breasts. Kim forbade her friends to tell anyone about her allegations. But one of her friends disclosed the allegations, and school authorities were informed on or about April 8, 1994. When Kim learned that the school authorities were investigating her allegations, she was very upset and angry at the friend who disclosed her confidences. When the school authorities confronted Kim, she maintained that her allegations were true, and the school authorities brought her home from school. Kim's parents were not home but her sister-in-law, who lived next door, was home and spoke with Kim. Based on the sister-in-law's testimony, it does not appear that Kim's statement to her was very detailed. Although Kim and her parents reported that they generally have an open and communicative relationship, Kim refused to discuss the allegations with them when they came home from work. Instead, she referred her parents to her sister-in-law. Through at least August 26, 1994, Kim had not discussed the details of her allegations with her parents. (They have, however, read statements she has written concerning the allegations.) Law enforcement interviewed Kim at her home on April 8, 1994, and memorialized the interview in a written statement. On June 21, 1994, Kim wrote an account of the alleged assault by the Respondent. Kim also recounted the entirety of the alleged assault twice during testimony at final hearing, once on direct and again on cross; parts were repeated once more on redirect. All of these statements are replete with rich detail, making them seem real. However, with one noteworthy exception, the consistent precision with which the details are repeated seems unnatural and could give the impression of being recited from a memorized script. Before her fourth period science class on Friday, December 10, 1993, the Respondent told her that her mother had telephoned the Respondent earlier that morning to inquire about the C on her report card for the second grading period (after getting an A for the first grading period) and that the Respondent had told Kim's her mother that Kim was missing seven assignments. The Respondent told Kim that she could get the assignments, together with the book she needed to do them, after school. (The required book would not be available until after school because the Respondent's classes shared the use of the same books during class.) Meanwhile, in the detailed versions of her allegations, Kim stated that she was jokingly bantering with a friend and the Respondent about whose "man" the Respondent was, as they did from time to time. She stated that, on this occasion, the Respondent informed them that he was "a dirty old man." She stated that she and her friend did not take the Respondent's statement seriously. Kim stated that, after school ended at about 3:50 p.m. on Friday, December 10, 1993, she went to the Respondent's class room to get the make-up assignments. She testified that she would have arrived at approximately 4 p.m. She said the Respondent was straightening desks and that she helped him finish before sitting in one of the desks. She stated that he then asked her if she had come by to see if he really was a "dirty old man." She made an off-hand comment to the effect, "I guess," or "whatever." He then walked to the classroom door and shut it. Several of the witnesses, including her friends and her sister-in-law, testified that, when Kim first told them what happened, she said that the Respondent locked the classroom door. The report of the law enforcement interview on April 8, 1994, also indicated that Kim told law enforcement that the Respondent locked the door. In fact, the classroom door does not lock from the inside. In her June 21, 1994, statement and in her testimony at final hearing, Kim stated that she thought the Respondent locked the door. Kim alleged that, after shutting (and, in the early versions, locking) the door, the Respondent put a poster with a monkey on it over the window portion of the door and dragged an easel with a flip chart in front of the door, apparently to block access to the classroom or, at least, to serve as an alarm to give him some time to react in the event someone tried to enter the classroom. There was indeed a poster of a monkey (or chimpanzee) on display in the Respondent's classroom that year, and there also was an easel in the classroom that would have been at the Respondent's disposal. But, in fact, the classroom door opens into the hallway, not into the classroom, and the placement of the easel in front of the door would not have been very effective. It is possible that it was the Respondent, not Kim, who overlooked the manner in which the door opened. But, even if the classroom door had been locked or blocked, the Respondent's classroom was adjacent to another science classroom, and there is a door between the two classrooms that does not lock. Ordinarily, it would not be uncommon for the Respondent's fellow science teacher, as well as a few students, to be in the adjacent classroom from 3:50 p.m. until as late as 4:05 p.m. In addition, administration personnel in the suite containing the principal's office and the other administration offices generally are occupied until 4:30 p.m., or later, even on a Friday. Custodians also circulated through the building after school (although they generally did not clean the Respondent's classroom until later.) Fortuitously, it has been possible to deduce, from some of the details provided in Kim's allegations, the precise day on which the alleged assault occurred--Friday, December 10, 1993. It so happens that Friday, December 10, 1993, was the last day of the school science fair. There were approximately 200 projects on display in the school gymnasium, which was just down the hall from the Respondent's classroom. Entrants in the fair were required to dismantle and remove their projects after school that day. As a result, although both students and teachers generally leave the school building promptly on Fridays, and fewer after school activities usually are planned for Fridays, more than the normal number of students would have been in the hallway during the time immediately after the end of school on that particular Friday. In addition, the Respondent's fellow science teacher in the connecting classroom adjacent to the Respondent's had arranged with a handful of his students to allow them to dismantle their projects earlier in the day and store them in his classroom. These students would have been in the connecting adjacent classroom between approximately 3:50 and 4:05 p.m. picking up their science projects. Kim alleged that, after securing the classroom door, the Respondent returned to her and asked whether she thought he was a "dirty old man." She stated that, when she answered, "no, I think you are a nice guy," he suggested, "maybe you should go now," and went over to remove the easel and open the door. But, she alleged, when she insisted that she had to stay in order to get her assignments, he again went to the door and repeated the steps he had just taken to secure the door. This time, when he returned to her, he backed her into a corner of the classroom, using gentle pressure on the shoulders, and (in each telling, "putting his arm around her neck") began kissing her. Kim stated that she did not resist the Respondent or call for help because the Respondent was not being violent, and she was afraid that he would become violent if she was not compliant, so she kissed him back. She alleged that he proceeded to lift her ankle-length "peach and black floral print skirt" (which she was wearing with a "black, long sleeve V-neck shirt"), remove her panties (and, in each telling, she stepped out of the panties "with [her] right foot" while he held her panties) and insert his finger into her vagina. She alleged that he pressed down on her shoulders until she was in a squatting position, lay on his back on the floor and positioned his head under her, and initiated oral sex. After this, he allegedly stood her up, and resumed kissing her, while unbuckling his belt and unzipping his pants. She alleged that he took her hand and placed it on his penis. She alleged that, when he removed his hand from hers, she removed her hand from his penis. When she allegedly thwarted his attempt to have intercourse with her, he allegedly turned her around to face the wall, bent her over (somehow, towards the walls she was facing), again pulled up her skirt, and (as best she could tell) again attempted intercourse, this time from the rear (she alleged that she "felt something hard against her vagina"). Then, she alleged, she detected movement from behind her and assumed that he was masturbating and ejaculating because, when she turned around after the movement stopped, he was wiping something off the floor with a yellow towel. (A yellow cloth, from which a piece had been torn or cut, was found in one of the closets in the Respondent's classroom during the School Board's investigation of the allegations. But it was not proven that the cloth which the Respondent allegedly used to clean the floor on the afternoon of Friday, December 10, 1993, had come from the cloth found in the closet in the Respondent's classroom.) Kim alleged that the Respondent apologized to her for what he did and begged her both never to come back to his classroom alone after school and not to tell anyone. She alleged that the Respondent made reference to a teacher who was being disciplined for sexual misconduct with a student 20 years ago and stated that he always would be afraid that she would disclose what he had done. (In fact, such a story had been reported in the local newspapers on December 8, 1993.) Kim alleged that she promised the Respondent she would not tell anyone. According to Kim, after the incident, which lasted a total of 20-30 minutes, she and the Respondent calmly and amicably left the school together. They allegedly exited through the classroom door into the hallway to the west of the classroom, crossed the intersecting hallway, immediately down which is located the door to the teachers' lounge, and continued walking down the hallway. Immediately past the intersecting hallway, they would have had to pass both the office of the school resource officer and the suite of offices belonging to the school principal and other school administration personnel. A little further down the hallway, they would have passed between the school cafeteria and the school gymnasium (the site of the science fair). Just past the cafeteria and gymnasium, they would have come to the door leading to the parking lot. Kim stated that no one saw them and that they did not see anyone on their way out of the building. Kim alleged that, before she left the building to walk home, she watched the Respondent walk across the parking lot and get in his pickup truck. The Respondent testified that, after learning the date on which it was deduced that the assault allegedly occurred, he realized that it would have been impossible for Kim to have witnessed him getting into his pickup truck on the day in question. He testified that he was having mechanical problems with the truck that week and was driving his wife's car across the bay bridge to work after dropping her off at her place of employment in Tampa, where they lived, while his truck was being repaired. He produced a cancelled check and was able to secure a computer printout from the bill he paid for the repairs when he picked the truck up the next day, Saturday, December 11, 1993. Kim also testified that the Respondent left the "monkey poster" on the door covering the window when they left the classroom. But the custodian who cleaned the Respondent's classroom each evening did not recall ever seeing the "monkey poster" anywhere but on the wall. The Respondent denied engaging in any of the alleged inappropriate behavior. He was able to reconstruct that he had bus duty on Friday, December 10, 1993, and would not have returned to his classroom until 4 p.m. He recalled that there was an unusual amount of activity in the hallways, especially for a Friday, but that probably was attributable to the school science fair. He recalled that, as he approached his classroom, he noticed several students in the adjacent connecting classroom with his fellow science teacher. He thinks he saw Kim there, too. In any event, Kim followed him into his classroom shortly after he unlocked it, opened the door and turned on the lights. He remembered that she helped him straighten desks and that he sat at a desk with her to go over the assignments. He did not recall whether he or she actually wrote the assignments down. He then gave her the book she needed, and she left. He testified that the entire process took approximately five minutes and that the door to the classroom never was closed during that time. Kim alleged that, although she never completed the missing assignments, the Respondent raised her grade from a C to a B. The Respondent testified that Kim completed four of the seven missing assignments. The Respondent normally would not either keep the make-up assignments nor, to prevent other students from copying them, return them to the student. Kim alleged that the Respondent gave her special privileges, like library passes, after the assault. But it was not proven that the Respondent gave more privileges to Kim after the alleged incident than before, or that he gave her privileges that he did not also give to other good students like Kim. Kim alleged that the Respondent often complimented her appearance. The Respondent admitted to affirmatively answering occasional direct questions from Kim as to whether she was pretty. He also recalled occasions when he told Kim and other female students that they were "pretty enough already" and did not need to (and should not) comb their hair and apply makeup in class. Kim alleged that, on one occasion, the Respondent commented that a low-cut blouse she was wearing was distracting. The Respondent recalled once reprimanding Kim for wearing a blouse that was revealing and in violation of school dress code. He admitted that he may have told her that it could be distracting to other students. The Respondent admitted to making an inappropriate comment to or about Kim on one occasion. The school assembled in the gymnasium one day for the introduction of a fund-raising campaign that featured a "money machine." The money machine consisted of a transparent booth with dollar bills inside. As part of the fund-raising campaign, students would be allowed to enter the booth while fans blowing air through holes in the floor of the booth blew the dollars bills off the floor and around inside the booth. The student inside had a limited period of time to grab as many dollar bills as possible. When volunteers were requested to demonstrate the "money machine," Kim thought better of it since she was wearing a skirt. The next day, in the Respondent's class, the Respondent asked Kim why she hadn't volunteered. When she answered that she was wearing a skirt and was concerned that air in the booth would have lifted her skirt, the Respondent commented aloud to the class, "that would have been interesting," or words to that effect. The Respondent was trying to be funny but admitted that the comment was not appropriate. It is noteworthy that, when the Respondent was told that Gilbert was spreading rumors to the effect that he and Kim had an intimate sexual relationship, the Respondent warned Kim to take appropriate steps to protect her reputation. It was revealed during the course of the investigation into Kim's allegations against the Respondent that Kim also has made allegations that, during the summer of 1993, she was forcibly raped at two in the morning, in the bathroom of a restaurant, by a 24-year old male acquaintance. Although Kim's mother thought she remembered Kim returning home upset after the alleged incident, she also testified that she may have learned about it after the allegations against the Respondent surfaced--long after the alleged rape. (Kim's mother, who has been terminally ill and on several medications for some time, seemed confused on this point.) Regardless when Kim revealed the alleged rape, both she and her mother agreed that Kim asked her mother not to tell anyone because Kim could "handle it" by herself. Kim did not receive any treatment or counseling for the alleged rape. Kim also did not mention the alleged rape to law enforcement during the investigation into the allegations against the Respondent. Although it is possible that the alleged rape or the Respondent's alleged sexual assault actually happened, both seem improbable. Yet, it is troubling that no obvious motivation for Kim to fabricate the allegations against the Respondent appears from the evidence. It is possible that she was seeking attention. It is possible that her mother's medical condition could have played a role in motivating such action. On the other hand, it could have had something to do with the relationship between Kim and Gilbert. Maybe she was upset with the Respondent for his role, minor as it was, in turning her parents against Gilbert. Maybe she was trying to deflect her parents' attention away from the bad influence that Gilbert might have represented by trying to make the point that acquaintances or even teachers could pose a worse threat. Maybe the alleged rape and the allegations against the Respondent arose from apprehension about how to explain feared consequences of sexual activity with Gilbert, as irrational as it might seem. Maybe there are other possible explanations in the nature of mental or emotional instability. Perhaps the most likely explanation is that Kim was simply making up a story to impress her girl friends and found herself committed to the story when one of them disobeyed Kim's command not to tell anyone. One can only speculate as to what the actual motivation could have been.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order dismissing the charges and reinstating the Respondent with back pay. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 1st day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated; the rest is rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. 13.-29. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven that she "volunteered." (She decided not to volunteer.) Rejected as not proven that he told Kim (privately, as opposed to as part of the class). Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 32.-33. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13.-17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301-4th Street S.W. Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. Suite 301 1718 East Seventh Avenue Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County School System Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, as amended. If so, what action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Among these schools are Miami Central Senior High School (Central) and American Senior High School (American). Alberto Rodriguez is now, and has been for the past six years, the principal at American. As American's principal, Mr. Rodriguez has supervisory authority over the School Board employees assigned to work at the school. These employees are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with School Board Rules, including School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, 6Gx13-5D-1.07, and 6Gx13-6A-1.331 At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES Employee Conduct All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. . . . At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 provided as follows: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT- PROHIBITED The administration of corporal punishment in Miami-Dade County Public Schools is strictly prohibited. Miami-Dade County Public Schools has implemented comprehensive programs for the alternative control of discipline. These programs include, but are not limited to, counseling, timeout rooms, in-school suspension centers, student, mediation and conflict resolution, parental involvement, alternative education programs, and other forms of positive reinforcement. In addition, suspensions and/or expulsions are available as administrative disciplinary actions depending of the severity of the misconduct. Procedures are in place for students to make up any work missed while on suspension, or to participate in an alternative program if recommended for expulsion.[2] Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the School Board since 1994. He has a professional service contract of employment with School Board. From 1994 through 2000, Respondent was assigned to Central, where he taught emotionally disturbed and severely emotionally disturbed students. He had an unblemished disciplinary and performance record at Central. Respondent was reassigned from Central to American, where he remained until August of 2001, when he was "placed in an alternative work assignment at Region I" pending the disposition of charges against him. At American, Respondent taught emotionally handicapped (EH) students. Among the students in his classes were O. A., V. S., C. H., T. S., R. D., and A. D. At all times material to the instant case, Nanci Clayton also taught EH students at American.3 She had some of the same students in her classes that Respondent had in his. At the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year, Ms. Clayton and Respondent had paraprofessionals in their classrooms. The paraprofessionals, however, were removed from their classrooms after the first grading period. Ms. Clayton's and Respondent's classrooms were located in one "very large [room] divided in half [by a makeshift partial partition4] to make two classrooms."5 This partial partition consisted of bookcases, a blackboard, filing cabinets, and, at times, a table. To enter and exit Respondent's classroom, it was necessary to pass through Ms. Clayton's classroom, where the door to the hallway was located. There was no direct access to the hallway from Respondent's classroom. Ms. Clayton's desk was located immediately to the left of the door as one walked into her classroom from the hallway. Students leaving Respondent's classroom had to pass by Ms. Clayton's desk to get to the hallway. The "divided room" that Ms. Clayton and Respondent shared had a "phone line," but no School Board-supplied telephone. Ms. Clayton and Respondent had to supply their own telephone. "Sometimes [the telephone] would work, sometimes it wouldn't work." There was no "emergency" or "call" button in the room. There were occasions when Ms. Clayton and Respondent "conduct[ed] [their] lessons simultaneously in this divided room."6 Things said in one of the classrooms could, at times, be heard in the other classroom. It is not uncommon for EH students to have mood swings, to become easily frustrated and angered, to be verbally and physically aggressive, to engage in off-task behavior, and to defy authority. Controlling the behavior of these students in the classroom presents a special challenge. As EH teachers at American, Ms. Clayton and Respondent were faced with this challenge. It was their responsibility to deal with the behavioral problems exhibited by their students during the course of the school day while the students were under their supervision. American had a Behavior Management Teacher, David Kucharsky, to assist the school's EH teachers in dealing with serious or chronic behavioral problems. There were far fewer instances of disruptive student behavior in Ms. Clayton's classroom than in Respondent's. While in Respondent's class, some students would do such things as throw books and turn the lights off. Ms. Clayton, however, would not "have the same kind of problems" with these students when she was teaching them. Ms. Clayton "made recommendations" to Respondent to help him better control the behavior of students in his classes. As a teacher at American, Respondent was a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and UTD, effective July 1, 1999, through June 20, 2002 (UTD Contract). Article V of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of "employer rights." Section 1 of Article V provided, in part, that the School Board had the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss or terminate employees "for just cause." Article XXI of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of "employee rights and due process." Section 2 of Article XXI provided, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) " Article VIII of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of a "safe learning environment." "Student discipline" was discussed in Section 1 of Article VIII, which provided, in part, as follows: Section 1. Student Discipline A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. Such an environment requires that disruptive behavior be dealt with safely, fairly, consistently, and in a manner which incorporates progressive disciplinary measures specified in the Code of Student Conduct. Rules governing discipline are set forth in the Code of Student Conduct, School Board Rules, and Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment and, by reference, are made a part of this Contract. * * * D. The parties recognize the potential for difficult circumstances and problems related to the use of corporal punishment. Accordingly, the parties agree that such punishment shall be prohibited as a disciplinary option, and further agree to act affirmatively in continuing to identify and implement more effective alternatives for dealing with student behavior. The involvement of school-site personnel in developing such alternatives is critical to their potential for success. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive prior to or upon the student's return to the classroom, a copy of the Student Case Management Form (SCAM) describing corrective action(s) taken. . . . "Physical restraint" and its use, in certain circumstances, on students receiving exceptional student education services was discussed in Section 3 of Article VIII, which provided as follows: Section 3. Physical Restraint There are instances where exceptional students exhibit behaviors that are disruptive to the learning environment and pose a threat to the safety of persons or property. Some exceptional students because of the nature of their disability, may, on occasion, experience impaired impulse control of such severity that the use of physical restraint is necessary to prevent such students from inflicting harm to self and/others, or from causing damage to property. The purpose of physical restraint is to prevent injury to persons or destruction of property. It is not to be used to "teach the child a lesson" or as punishment. For students who exhibit such behaviors, the use of physical restraint procedures shall be discussed as part of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) development and review process. A recommendation for the use of Board-approved physical restraint procedures must be made by the Multi-Disciplinary Team (M-Team) and shall be documented on the student's IEP form before the use of such procedures may be authorized. When parents or surrogates are not present at the IEP meeting, written notification to them regarding the use of physical restraint will be provided. Strategies for the prevention of aggressive behavior shall be utilized on an ongoing basis. However, when an explosive event occurs without warning and is of such degree that there is imminent risk to persons or property, the use of physical restraint technique is authorized for such circumstances. Subject to available funding, the Board shall provide for the training of instructional and support staff in physical restraint techniques, as well as strategies for prevention of aggressive behavior. Training manuals developed for this purpose are, by reference, incorporated and made a part of this Agreement. Physical restraint techniques provided in training programs approved by the Board are authorized and, when utilized in accordance with the training provided and these guidelines, shall not constitute grounds for disciplinary action. If a teacher is not trained in the use of approved physical restraint procedures and is faced with an emergency, the teacher is authorized to employ the moderate use of physical force or physical contact as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07 and 1.08.[7] The appropriate use of these procedures shall not constitute a violation of the corporal punishment policy (Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07). Physical restraint refers to the use of physical intervention techniques designed to restrict the movement of a student in an effort to de-escalate aggressive behavior. In order to promote a safe learning environment, the district has authorized the implementation of specific physical restraint procedures to be used in Exceptional Student Education programs when a student's IEP documents the potential need for their use. These procedures include, but are not limited to, holding and escape techniques which, when implemented, prevent injury to students and staff or prevent serious damage to property. Specific physical restraint procedures may also be approved for use with other specific student populations, upon mutual agreement of the parties and would be reviewed on an annual basis. The use of physical restraint must be documented as part of the SCM system. Instructional or support staff who utilize physical restraint techniques shall complete the SCM Student Services Form to record student case information regarding each incident. Directions shall be provided to instructional and support staff to assist them in completing the appropriate form. At all times material to the instant case, the Individualized Education Program for each of the students in Respondent's classes "document[ed] the potential need for the[] use" of the School Board-approved "physical restraint techniques" referenced in Section 3 of Article VIII of the UTD Contract. Respondent received training in 1994 in the use of these techniques. At another in-service training session that he attended when he was teaching at Central, the head of the school's program for emotionally disturbed and severely emotionally disturbed students spoke about the "preventative strategies" of "planned ignoring" and "proximity control" and gave to the attendees, including Respondent, a handout, which stated the following about these "preventative strategies": Planned Ignoring Inappropriate behavior is ignored and not reinforced by staff by not reacting or responding to specific disruptive activity of a student in anticipation that the inappropriate behavior will extinguish or subside without further [sic]. The second part of this intervention is to reinforce positively acceptable behavior in anticipation that this behavior will occur more frequently. Proximity Control This intervention takes advantage of the positive effect of using a nonverbal communication such as gestures, looks, or body postures to decrease inappropriate classroom behavior. As an additional measure, physical contact in the form of a hand on the student's shoulder or a squeeze of an arm, can be very supportive to the student, yet convey the message that certain behaviors will not be tolerated. Respondent employed these "preventative strategies" at Central and was never disciplined for doing so. At American, Respondent was involved in several incidents in which he used physical force against students. On February 28, 2001, Respondent was at his desk teaching a class when one of the students in the class, V. S., got out of his seat and started "knocking on the T.V." that was in the classroom. V. S. was a "very large student" who, on a previous occasion, had "threatened to take [Respondent's] head and push it through a plate-glass window" and, on other occasions, had told Respondent: We are going to get you white man. We are going to make you quit. We are going to get you fired.[8] Respondent told V. S. to take his seat. V. S. refused. Instead, he sat down on Respondent's desk and "leaned over toward [Respondent]," positioning his face "about a foot" from Respondent's. V. S. was "glaring down at [Respondent]" and had a "tight-lipped grin" on his face. This made Respondent feel "a little edgy." After directing V. S. to "get off [the] desk" and receiving "no response," Respondent (rather than getting up from his seat and walking away from V. S.) "reached out and gave [V. S.'s] arm a shake" in order "to get [V. S.'s] attention."9 Respondent obtained the result he desired. V. S. got off the desk; but he did not do so quietly. V. S. yelled profanities at Respondent and threatened to "kill" Respondent if Respondent ever touched him again. Prior to Respondent shaking his arm, V. S. had not made, during the incident, any verbal threats against Respondent. The incident was reported to the administration and the matter was investigated. Respondent, V. S., and another student, C. H., who witnessed the incident, gave written statements that Mr. Rodriguez reviewed. On March 15, 2001, after reviewing the statements, Mr. Rodriguez held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent. Mr. Rodriguez subsequently prepared (on March 21, 2001) and furnished to Respondent (on that same date) a memorandum, in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: The following is a summary of the conference-for-the-record on Thursday, March 15, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. in this administrator's office. Present at the conference were Mark Soffian, assistant principal; Karen Robinson, assistant principal; Jimmy Jones, UTD Representative; yourself and this administrator. The purpose of the conference was to address the following: -Miami-Dade County School Board Police Case #F-09343. -Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. -School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited). -School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct). -Review of the record. -Future employment with Miami-Dade County Public Schools. This administrator began the conference by reviewing Case #F-09343. This administrator read your statement and the statements of the students alleging battery on a student. This administrator asked you if you had any comments in reference to the incident. You stated that you had to write up everyone in class, because students were turning off the lights and throwing books in the dark despite repeated warnings. You characterized this student behavior as "organized disruption." You further stated that another student was tormenting a classmate who shrieked out in pain, ran out of class and then was dragged back in by the same student. You described that another student was banging on the television and you had to write him up. You said you did not push [V. S.] (victim-I.D. #427561) but rather he leaped off the desk, shouted a tirade of curses at you and then left class. You indicated that you did not push because you were unable to move an 18 year old who is 260 pounds.[10] This administrator asked if you ever left your class unsupervised. You stated, "Yes, from time to time." This administrator cautioned you that one of your professional responsibilities is never to leave your students unsupervised. Additionally, the fact that you described the numerous classroom discipline problems, it is of the utmost importance that your students remain supervised at all times. This administrator reviewed with you the Code of Ethics and Principles of . . . Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. This administrator specified certain areas of the Code of Ethics in which you were in violation. This administrator asked you to respond and you nodded your head in the affirmative. This administrator reviewed with you Miami- Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited). You were asked if you understood and you responded "Yes." This administrator reviewed with you Miami- Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct). This administrator reminded you that you are expected to conduct yourself, both in your employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon yourself and the school system. You were asked to respond and you stated "I understand." This administrator conducted a review of the record. There was another incident involving the use of improper force and disciplinary means against a student that was cited on November 11, 2000. The case (F-03631) was never pursued; however, this administrator cautioned you that these past episodes demonstrate use of poor judgment on your part. This administrator informed you that repeated offenses would result in further disciplinary actions that will negatively impact your future employment with Miami- Dade County Public Schools. This administrator then asked if you had any further comments or statements for the record. You requested that a handout on "preventative strategies" and Florida Statute Chapter 232.27[11] be included as part of the written summary. You further stated that you didn't claim to be perfect and there was room for improvement. You stated that teaching six periods made it difficult to do the job effectively. This administrator asked if you wanted to give up the sixth period supplement since if was your choice to take on that added teaching responsibility for remuneration. You stated that you did not want to give up the money. This administrator advised that you cannot use the sixth period day as an excuse, and if it is a hardship where you are unable to perform your prescribed duties th[e]n you need to let this administrator know. Additionally, this administrator informed you that writing referrals to exclude seven or eight students in your Exceptional Education class was unacceptable. This administrator recommended for you to acquire additional training in dealing with Emotional Handicapped students. Seeking alternative means of discipline in lieu of suspension and exclusion from class will be necessary. This administrator provided you with Miami-Dade County School Board Manual of Procedures for Special Programs to assist you in managing your classroom and providing appropriate strategies in handling Exceptional Education students.[12] This administrator issued you the following directives: -Refrain from using any physical means to enforce student discipline. -Adhere to Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. -Adhere to School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited). -Adhere to School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct). -Refrain from leaving students in the classroom unsupervised. In closing, this administrator informed you that failure to comply with these directives and recurrences of this type will result in further disciplinary action which will adversely affect your future employment status. This administrator stated that he would be available to provide[] you any assistance that you may require. In conclusion, you are apprised of your right to append, clarify, or explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. Attached to the memorandum were copies of the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (which are found in Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B- 1.006, Florida Administrative Code), School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D- 1.07, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, the handout on "preventative strategies" that Respondent had received at Central, and the cover page, as well as pages 119 and 121, of the Miami-Dade County School Board Manual of Procedures for Special Programs referenced in the memorandum. Page 121 of the Miami-Dade County School Board Manual of Procedures for Special Programs manual read as follows: Some exceptional students because of the nature of the disability, may on occasion experience impaired impulse control of such severity that the use of physical restraint is necessary to prevent such students from inflicting harm to self and/or others, or from causing damage to property. The purpose of physical restraint is to prevent injury to persons or destruction of property. It is not to be used to "teach the child a lesson" or as punishment. For students who exhibit such behaviors, the use of physical restraint procedures shall be discussed as part of the IEP development and review process. A recommendation for the use of Board-approved physical restraint procedures must be made by the Multidisciplinary Team (M-Team) and shall be documented on the student's IEP form before the use of such procedures may be authorized. When parents or surrogates are not present at the IEP meeting, written notification to them regarding the use of physical restraint will be provided. Strategies for the prevention of aggressive behavior shall be utilized on an ongoing basis. However, when an explosive event occurs without warning and is of such degree that there is imminent risk of persons or property, the use of physical restraint techniques is authorized for such circumstances. The School Board shall provide for the training of the appropriate instructional and support staff in physical restraint techniques, as well as strategies for the prevention of aggressive behavior. Training manuals developed for this purpose are available at school sites. Physical restraint techniques provided in training programs approved by the Board are authorized and, when utilized in accordance with the training provided, these guidelines shall not constitute grounds for disciplinary action. If a teacher is not trained in the use of approved physical restraint procedures and is faced with an emergency, the teacher is authorized to employ the moderate use of physical force or physical contact as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07 and 1.08. The appropriate use of these procedures[13] On May 2, 2001, Respondent again used non-approved "physical means to enforce student discipline," notwithstanding the reasonable directive that he had been given by Mr. Rodriguez at the March 15, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record that he "refrain" from engaging in such conduct. That day, students in Respondent's third period class, including T. S., R. D., and O. A., were scheduled to take the Scholastic Reading Inventory Test (SRI). The SRI is a standardized test designed to measure students' reading skills. The results of the test are "used to guide classroom instruction, so it is considered [to be a] low- stakes" test. Respondent had received in-service training, prior to May 2, 2001, on how to administer the SRI. It was emphasized during the training that, for the SRI "to be an effective test, [it had to] be protected from [pre-test administration] dissemination" and that it was important for teachers administering the test to make sure their students returned all test materials "at the end of the test period" and did not leave the test site with these materials. At the training, Respondent was given a document which contained standards for "test administration and test security." These standards provided, in part, as follows: STANDARD: PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TESTING PROGRAM AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL . . . . The test administrator is responsible for directing and conducting the testing session(s) as specified in the administration manual or program guide, strictly adhering to test directions, monitoring students during testing, and maintaining the security of test materials assigned to him/her. . . . STANDARD: TEST SECURITY PROCEDURES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION AND RETURN OF TEST MATERIALS Each principal or designee is responsible for the receipt, inventory, secure storage, distribution, collection, and return of all test booklets and test-related material assigned to that school, according to the directions and instructions specified in the administration manuals or program guides. The principal or designee must notify the Division of Student Assessment and Educational Testing immediately if any discrepancies are noted in the counts, or if any materials are missing. The principal or designee must advise all teachers of the rules relating to test security and of the importance of complete adherence to them. Adherence to these test security procedures for the distribution and return of test materials, before, during, and after testing will ensure that: students do not have access to any of the material prior to the actual exam time or following it; professional staff have access to the test booklets, test folders, questions, and/or reading passages only at the time necessary for administration purposes; test booklets and test materials are returned to the test chairperson at the end of each testing session; and nothing has occurred in the school to allow unauthorized access to any of the test materials at any time. . . . STANDARD: MAINTAINING STANDARDIZATION AND TEST SECURITY DURING TEST ADMINISTRATION . . . . Students must have access to test booklets, test folders (i.e., test questions) ONLY during the actual administration of the test. Test materials must be secured at all times. Materials must be handed directly to and collected from each student one at a time. If a student needs to leave the test room, his/her materials must be collected and held upon the student's return[;] the test administrator must ensure that the student receives only his/her own test materials. Test administrators and proctors must actively monitor students during the entire testing period by walking around the room, to ensure compliance with test directions and to prevent cheating. Any irregularities or problems with the test administration must be promptly reported to the test chairperson, the school-site administrator, and district staff. . . . Test administrators, proctors, and any other school or district staff involved in test administration are required to adhere to guidelines laid out in the Florida Test Security Statute, Section 228.301[14] and the FDOE State Board of Education Administration Rule 6A-10.042, Maintenance of Test Security,[15] as well as district policy and board rule regarding test security. Violations of test security provisions shall be subject to penalties as provided in statute and FDOE State Board of Education Administrative Rules. . . . After Respondent handed out the test materials to the students in his third period class on May 2, 2001, and provided them with instructions regarding the test, T. S., who was seated in the back row of the classroom, asked Respondent several questions about the test. Dissatisfied with Respondent's responses, T. S. got out of his seat and, with the test booklet and answer sheet in hand, headed towards Ms. Clayton's classroom to see if she could provide him with the information that he was seeking about the test. On a regular basis, T. S. would leave Respondent's classroom, without permission, before the end of the period and go into the hallway. Concerned that T. S. would go out into hallway with the test materials, Respondent followed T. S. T. S. was near the partial partition dividing Respondent's and Ms. Clayton's classrooms, facing Ms. Clayton, when Respondent caught up to T. S. T. S. started to ask Ms. Clayton a question, when he was interrupted by Respondent, who instructed T. S. to give him the test materials. Respondent had positioned himself so that he was in front of T. S. and "close enough to touch" him. T. S. did not hand over the test materials to Respondent; instead, he asked Respondent "to give him some space." Respondent, however, held his ground and again "asked for the test materials back." T. S. refused to return the test materials to Respondent, telling Respondent he was "just asking a question." Respondent then started to reach for the test materials in an effort to grab them out of T. S.'s hand. T. S. reacted by moving the hand in which he was holding the test materials away from Respondent so that Respondent would not be able to take the materials from him. During the scuffle, Respondent grabbed ahold of T. S.'s shirt and "pulled" it. He also bumped into T. S. as he was reaching for the test materials in T. S's hand. Upset that Respondent was "over [him], touching [him]," T. S. ripped up the test materials and threw the pieces at Respondent. He was going to hit Respondent, but was subdued by a classmate, R. D. He then walked out the door and into the hallway. Respondent returned to his classroom and went back to his desk. He was followed by R. D., who told Respondent that he "need[ed] to chill out." While talking to Respondent, R. D. put his hands on Respondent's desk. Respondent told R. D., "get your hands off my desk." Using his hand, Respondent then forcibly moved R. D.'s hands off the desk. What occurred during Respondent's third period class on May 2, 2001, was reported to the administration and the matter was investigated. Written statements from Respondent, Ms. Clayton, and T. S., as well as other students, were collected and reviewed as part of the investigation. Mr. Rodriguez scheduled a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent for June 11, 2001. Before the conference was held, Respondent was involved in yet another incident in which he used physical force against a student in his class. The student on this occasion was A. D., and the incident occurred on June 7, 2001, at around 9:30 a.m. or 9:45 a. m., near the end of the first (two hour) class period of the school day. A. D. had engaged in disruptive behavior in Respondent's classroom before walking out of the classroom and into the hallway towards the end of the period. As A. D. was leaving, Respondent told him, "If you leave before the bell rings, I am not letting you back in this time." (This was not the first time that A. D. had walked out of Respondent's class before the period was over.) Deanna Lipschutz, a clerical employee assigned to American's exceptional student education department, saw A. D. in the hallway. A. D. was "walking around in circles," but he was not "out of control." Ms. Lipschutz approached A. D. and, after engaging in a brief conversation with him, escorted him back to Respondent's classroom. The door to the classroom was closed. Ms. Lipschutz knocked on the door. When Respondent opened the door, Ms. Lipschutz told him that A. D. "would like to come back in class." Respondent indicated that he would not let R. D. return. Respondent then took his hands, placed them on A. D.'s shoulders, and gave A. D. a "little push." A. D. stumbled backwards. There was a wall behind A. D. that A. D. nearly made contact with as he was stumbling backwards. After pushing A. D. away from the doorway, Respondent went back inside the classroom and closed the door. Respondent's use of physical force against A. D. on June 7, 2001, was reported to the administration and an investigation of the matter was commenced. This was the last of the incidents (specified in the School Board's Notice of Specific Charges, as amended) involving Respondent's use of physical force against a student. Respondent's use of physical force in each of these incidents (the February 28, 2001, incident with V. S.; the May 2, 2001, incidents with T. S. and R. D.; and the June 7, 2001, incident with A. D.) was contrary to School Board policy and unauthorized and, moreover, evinced poor judgment and a lack of adequate concern for the physical well-being of the EH student involved in the incident. In none of these incidents was the physical force Respondent used reasonably necessary to prevent physical harm to himself, the student involved in the incident, or anyone else, or to prevent the destruction or serious damage of property. Respondent did not use School Board-approved "physical restraint techniques" (which are referenced in Section 3 of Article VIII of the UTD Contract) in any of these incidents. Rather, he used physical methods that were more likely to provoke, than deter, aggressive student behavior and, in so doing, created conditions harmful to the exceptional education students in his charge. Furthermore, Respondent's use of these methods in the incidents involving T. S., R. D., and A. D. was in defiance of directives he had been given by Mr. Rodriguez during the March 15, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. It is true that Respondent did not have an easy teaching assignment. He had students in his class who, because of their disability, made teaching quite difficult. As a certified EH teacher, however, Respondent should have been equipped to deal with these students' disruptive behavior without resorting to the use of unauthorized physical force. Respondent's repeated use of such force was so serious as to impair his effectiveness as an EH teacher. The Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent that Mr. Rodriguez had scheduled for June 11, 2001, was held as scheduled on that date. Mr. Rodriguez subsequently prepared (on June 13, 2001) and furnished to Respondent (on that same date) a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: The following is a summary of the conference-for-the-record on Monday, June 11, 2001, at 8:00 a.m. in this administrator's office. Present at the conference were: Karen Robinson, assistant principal; Mark Soffian, assistant principal; Jimmy Jones, UTD Representative; Sherri Greenberg, UTD Bargaining Agent Representative, yourself and this administrator. The purpose of the conference was to address the following: -Miami-Dade County School Board Police Case #F13868 (Substantiated) -Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida -School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited) -School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct) -Review of the record -Future employment with Miami-Dade County Public Schools This administrator began the conference by reviewing written statements from several students, a teacher and yourself in the School Board Case #F13868. This administrator informed you that your actions were in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 of using corporal punishment and inappropriate physical restraint as a means of disciplining your students. This administrator asked if you had a response to these statements. You stated that you had seven years of university training and a master's in SED and you had a perfect record of no incidents at Miami Central High School. You requested to read a letter from Clifford Golden, School Psychologist, that you wished to be included in the record's summary. Additionally, you stated that "I had no problems until I came to American and it has been a difficult situation. When I first got here, you told me at a staff meeting about an ongoing LED conspiracy." This administrator corrected you about the contents of my statement as saying that "there was never a mention of a conspiracy; however, I was concerned with the quality of instructional delivery in the Exceptional Education department." You continued stating that your colleagues were less than helpful, and that no one came to your class, and that Mr. Kucharsky, Behavior Management Teacher, did not show consistent discipline. This administrator informed you that when he visited you classroom during second period, he observed on several occasions that on one side of the room with another teacher there were students learning; however, on your side there was bedlam. Dr. Soffian indicated when he visited your class on three occasions, he observed your room to be in disarray, with books on the floor, desks overturned and students not engaged in any productive activity. Mr. Jones also indicated upon his visitation, he observed that your kids were "out of control." You responded that "I have frequent misbehavior from that class but no one provided any consequences when I wrote them up." This administrator then reviewed with you the State Board of Education Rule, Code of Ethics (6B-1.001, 6B-1.006). This administrator read to you that your obligation to the student requires that "you shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning, to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety." This administrator reminded that this is the second time he is issuing you this material and as a professional teacher you are obligated to comply with this code. You responded by saying you disagreed with the statement of using corporal punishment and that due to the classroom not having ventilation and being an old chorus room exacerbates the problem. This administrator reviewed your record, citing a pattern of putting your hands on students. This administrator reviewed with you two other incidents of unnecessary physical contact of your students (Miami- Dade County Police Cases #F03631 & F09343). This administrator read to you Part III, page 121, from the handout of Special Programs and Procedures for Exceptional Students (6Gx13-6A-1.331): "Some exceptional students because of the nature of the disability, may on occasion experience impaired impulse control of such severity that the use of physical restrain[t] is necessary to prevent such students from inflicting harm to self and/or others, or from causing damage to property." This administrator stated that your actions were not justified because the student was not doing any of the above. You responded that you disagreed with the findings. You felt that the student leaving with the test booklet caused you to physically intervene and you interpreted this action as preventing property damage. You further commented that you were a seasoned professional and that you have never hurt a student in your entire professional career. In the other cases, you stated that you were the victim and sometimes it is necessary to intervene to protect their health and safety. This administrator referred you to the District's Support Agency Program. This administrator informed you that this supervisory referral is strictly voluntary and that you will be contacted by that office. You stated that you certainly would pursue this. This administrator reviewed with you your Annual Evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year. This administrator explained that Categories I-VI were acceptable; however, Category VII, Professional Responsibilities, was unacceptable.[16] This administrator issued you and explained the prescription and the unacceptable Annual Evaluation. This administrator also explained to you that this prescriptive status would freeze your salary, revoke your transfer request, and exclude you from summer employment. You asked if your salary would be retroactive and if you would be able to transfer after the prescription date. This administrator informed you that after you have met your prescription requirement then you would be free to transfer and your salary will be reinstated and retroactive to the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. This administrator asked if anyone had any other questions. Ms. Sherrie Greenberg, UTD representative, suggested that you receive training in physical restraint the next time it is offered. This administrator agreed with that suggestion as soon as a class opens. Ms. Greenberg also suggested to you that the District's Emotionally Handicapped supervisor visit your classroom at the beginning of the school year and provide assistance as needed. This administrator agreed with this suggestion of any additional support to improve classroom management. This administrator reminded you that per your request, your six period schedule during this second period class was changed to a five-period day. This administrator issued you the following directives: -Refrain from using any physical means to enforce student discipline, particularly if the student(s)' or your safety [is] not endangered and/or damage of property is not imminent -Adhere to Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida -Adhere to School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited) -Adhere to School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct) In closing, this administrator informed you that this is the second time a conference- for-the-record has been held with you concerning the same issues. Due to your failures to comply with the previous directives, this administrator deemed this behavior as insubordination. This administrator indicated that continued failure to comply with these directives and recurrences of this type would result in further disciplinary action which will adversely affect your future employment status. This administrator stated that he would be available to provide you any assistance that you may require. In conclusion, you are apprised of your right to append, clarify, or explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. The "prescription" that Mr. Rodriguez issued for Respondent indicated that Respondent would be in "prescriptive status" from August 27, 2001, through November 1, 2001. Respondent, however, did not return to the classroom during the 2001-2002 school year. Shortly before the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year, Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, a director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, conducted a Conference-for- the-Record with Respondent, at which she discussed Respondent's use of physical force against students at American, including the June 7, 2001, incident with A. D., and his future employment with the School Board. Dr. O'Donnell subsequently prepared (on August 27, 2001) and mailed to Respondent (on August 28, 2001) a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. In those portions of the memorandum addressing the "action taken" and the "action to be taken," Dr. O'Donnell wrote the following: Action Taken In consideration of this incident and conference data, you were placed in an alternate work assignment at Region I until disposition of the charges are determined . You were advised of the availability of services from the District's referral agency. You were also provided the option to resign your position with Miami-Dade County Public Schools which you declined at this time. Pending further review of this case and formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to be taken, these directives are reiterated upon your return to the worksite to prevent adverse impact to the operation of the work unit and to the services provided to students. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review by the Office of Professional Standards. Refrain from using physical means to effect discipline. Adhere to all School Board Rules and the Code of Ethics. Supervise assigned students at all times. During the conference, you were provided with a copy of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; 6Gx13-5D- 1.07 Corporal Punishment-Prohibited; and Chapter 6B-1.0[0]1(3), Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. You were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's concern for any behavior which adversely [a]ffects this level of professionalism. You were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. You were advised to keep the information presented in this conference confidential and not discuss this with students or staff. Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented at this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, the Superintendent of Region I, and the Principal of American Senior High School. All investigative data will be transmitted to Professional Practices Services (PPS), Florida Department of Education, for review and possible licensure action by the Education Practices Commission (EPC). Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of legal review with the endorsement by the Region Superintendent will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include suspension or dismissal. A determination was made that Respondent "be recommended for dismissal for the following charges: Just cause, including but not limited to: misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-5D-1.07 Corporal Punishment-Prohibited." On September 25, 2001, Dr. O'Donnell held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to discuss this recommendation. At its October 24, 2001, meeting, the School Board took action to "suspend [Respondent] and initiate dismissal proceedings against [him] from all employment by the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, effective the close of the workday, October 24, 2001, for just cause, including but not limited to: misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment-Prohibited."17
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating his employment as a professional service contract teacher with the School Board for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 2002.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed misconduct in office or gross insubordination violating Miami-Dade County School Board policies or other provisions of law, and, if so, whether such conduct constitutes "just cause" for a ten-workday suspension from employment as a teacher with Miami-Dade County Public Schools ("MDCPS").
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Stipulated Facts, Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, Section E. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the duly- constituted school board with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the Miami-Dade County School District, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes (2013). In accordance with chapter 120, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3213, Student Supervision and Welfare, are adopted policies of the School Board, which took effect beginning July 1, 2011. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed pursuant to a professional service contract as a teacher at Henry E.S. Reeves Elementary School ("HRES"), a public school in Miami- Dade County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent's employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between MDCPS and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"), the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. Findings of Fact Established at Hearing Respondent has been a teacher with MDCPS for approximately 32 years. During that time she has worked at nine different schools. She is presently employed at HRES and has been working there since 2012. Respondent is certified by the State of Florida to teach elementary school. During the 2014-2015 school year, she was teaching second-grade students at HRES. Her supervisor, Principal Julian E. Gibbs, testified that MDCPS prohibits corporal punishment and that teachers are never allowed to put their hands on students as a form of discipline. This policy was reviewed with Respondent during openings of the school, as well as faculty meetings held by Principal Gibbs. Also reviewed at these meetings was the School Board policy against sharing confidential student information with parties other than parents. Pet. Ex. 4. Principal Gibbs testified that other than incidents where he has had to discipline Respondent in the past, their relationship has been cordial. For purposes of compliance with progressive discipline and to establish the charge of gross insubordination, three reprimands and an Administrative Review Site Disposition/Conference were included in the Notice of Specific Charges. The record reveals that the first reprimand was issued to Respondent on December 18, 2012, by Principal Gibbs. The reprimand directed Respondent to "refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students" and to adhere to School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics. The directives necessary to correct her conduct were explained to her by Principal Gibbs. Respondent acknowledged receipt of this reprimand and directives with her signature. Pet. Ex. 13, p. 114.2/ On March 14, 2013, a Conference for the Record ("CFR") was held with Respondent relating to another incident. It also included her union representatives and Principal Gibbs. At this conference, Respondent was directed to "Immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students," adhere to School Board policies, particularly 3210 and 3210.01, and also to "conduct yourself . . . in a manner that will reflect credit on yourself and MDCPS." Respondent acknowledged receipt of this CFR summary and directives with her signature. Pet. Ex. 12, p. 107. On May 12, 2014, Respondent received another reprimand regarding her personal cell phone ringing during testing procedures.3/ Moreover, Respondent also received a directive to adhere to School Board policies and to "conduct yourself . . . in a manner that will reflect credit on yourself and MDCPS." Respondent acknowledged receipt of this reprimand and directives with her signature. Pet. Ex. 11, p. 97. On February 2, 2015, Respondent received yet another reprimand pertaining to her inappropriate physical treatment of students. Specifically, she was given directives and warnings including, but not limited to, "Refrain from using physical means as a form of disciplining and redirecting students," to "conduct yourself . . . in a manner that will reflect credit on yourself and MDCPS," and, again, to adhere to School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Respondent acknowledged receipt of this reprimand and directives with her signature. Pet. Ex. 10, p. 82. To summarize, prior to the incidents underlying the present case, Respondent was given clear and unmistakable disciplinary directives to refrain from inappropriate physical contact with students on at least three occasions. She had also been repeatedly warned and directed to adhere to School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Allegations of Misconduct on March 3, 2015 On March 3, 2015, a second-grade student, D.L., was running to the bathroom and clapped her hands in the face of another student as she ran past. D.L. admitted that she was misbehaving. Respondent thought that D.L. had hit or tried to hit another student. D.L. testified that Respondent "snatched" her and "slammed" her in the classroom closet where she loudly reprimanded her with the door open. According to D.L., Respondent was "rough" with her, used a "big grip" and a "strong force" that left a mark on her arm. D.L. stated that her being grabbed by the wrist did not hurt her. Also, while being taken into the closet, D.L. was "100% sure" that she hit her head on something in the closet. The incident was observed and corroborated by the testimony of Makiba Burkes. Burkes was an adult co-teacher who was teaching in the classroom with Respondent at the time. Burkes had sent D.L. to use the restroom, because she said she was not feeling well. Along the way, she saw Respondent grab her by the upper arm and take her into the closet. When D.L. came out, she was "crying profusely." Burkes testified that the closet that D.L. was forcefully "pulled" into was a walk-in closet and was full of "stuff," including teacher supplies, desks, a refrigerator, and a microwave cart. She did not see D.L. hit her head on anything. Furthermore, she heard no yelling, but saw Respondent speaking close up to D.L. She witnessed no inappropriate physical contact inside the closet between Respondent and D.L. In Burkes' opinion, the way Respondent grabbed the student's upper arm and pulled D.L. into the closet was not appropriate or necessary, because teachers are not supposed to touch students in that manner. Burkes admits that her professional relationship with Respondent was not the best and that the two did not get along.4/ Respondent came into the class after Burkes had already spent time with many of the students. Respondent wanted to do things her way, and that was not working because the students had already become accustomed to Burkes' style. As a result, the professional relationship became a "pull and tug situation." After a while, the students were not listening to Respondent, and Burkes would have to jump in to "demand control of the whole classroom." According to Burkes, she felt Respondent became frustrated with D.L., and she had seen her become frustrated with other students on other occasions. However, she felt that the frustration she witnessed did not justify putting hands on D.L. Shortly after this incident, Respondent attempted to call D.L.'s father to report her misbehavior to him. Respondent dialed a telephone number using a number contained in the grade book system. However, without first confirming the identity of the person on the other line, Respondent began to discuss D.L.'s misbehavior in detail with the other party. According to Respondent, without asking the name of the person on the other line, she stated, "Mr. L., I'm calling concerning your daughter. And I need you to speak with her." To which the person on the line replied only "Okay." Respondent then went on to explain in detail D.L.'s disruptive conduct that had just occurred. She then gave the phone to D.L. without further conversation. When D.L. got off the phone, she advised Respondent, "That wasn't my dad." The person was actually "Jose," D.L.'s father's boss.5/ D.L.'s father testified at the hearing. He offered hearsay statements from his boss, Jose, pertaining to what he was told on the phone by Respondent.6/ Jose was apparently never asked his name by Respondent and was told the "whole situation" about D.L. that day. D.L.'s father was upset and outraged when he learned of this phone call to his boss. He stated that he was "hurt" and that everyone at his job has learned what happened with D.L. D.L.'s father was so upset by the incident that on March 10, 2015, he sent a letter to the school explaining the situation and his feelings on the matter. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 38. Respondent claimed that the incident with the telephone call was some type of "set up" or conspiracy against her. Yet, she offered no names or other factual details to support her conclusory allegation. Allegations of Misconduct on March 11, 2015 On March 11, 2015, Student A.W. was misbehaving. She was standing up out of her seat and throwing paper. In response, Respondent grabbed her by the shirt collar and pushed her to the wall. A.W. testified that it hurt and that the incident made her mad and sad. D.L. also testified that she saw Respondent "snatch" A.W.'s shirt and "like she just dragged her to the wall" and started talking to her. Student J.F. also saw Respondent grab A.W.'s shirt collar and put her against the wall, when she was misbehaving. According to J.F., you could "hear it" when A.W. was "put up against the wall hard" by Respondent. Burkes was also a witness to this incident. She saw Respondent grab A.W. by the front of her shirt and give her a "moderate" push into the wall. Because she considered this to be inappropriate, she reported what she saw to Principal Gibbs. Respondent testified as to both incidents. Regarding the incident on March 3, 2015, involving D.L., Respondent testified that she was running, passed the classroom table, and she "like hit at a student." She acknowledged that D.L. had likely asked her co-teacher, Burkes, to go to the restroom. Respondent claimed that she "gently" led D.L. into the closet to reprimand her because she did not want her to be embarrassed in front of the other students. Regarding the incident on March 11, 2015, with A.W., Respondent testified that she was standing up out of her desk and throwing paper across the room. She spoke to her and turned back to start working with her group again. She told A.W. to stand by the wall until she was finished because she had been interrupting. She denied grabbing her by the shirt or collar and pushing her into the wall. According to Respondent, she only uses gentle touches with children. Respondent claims that she has received so many reprimands from Principal Gibbs that she cannot remember how many. She also claims that she has been under attack by Principal Gibbs since she has been at the school. Aside from claiming that she has been reprimanded on many occasions by Principal Gibbs, she provided no other facts or details as to how, why, when, or where she has been "under attack" by the principal. She called no witnesses to offer any details or corroboration. Respondent testified that there are unnamed employees trying to "set her up." However, she offered no substantive facts to support this conclusory allegation, and the undersigned finds it unpersuasive.7/ Respondent testified and acknowledged that it would not be appropriate to grab a student by their collar and pull them towards a wall. According to Respondent, she only touches children gently to direct them where she wants them to go and sit. The facts underlying the charge of misconduct and gross insubordination occurring on March 3 and 11, 2015, were testified to by three students. Their testimony regarding these incidents was corroborated by an adult co-worker, Burkes, who was in the room and observed the incidents. She also prepared a written statement. Pet. Ex. 4, p. 44. Having assessed the credibility, demeanor, and interests of the witnesses, as well as the weight of the evidence, the undersigned credits and finds more persuasive the version of the facts testified to by the three female students and Burkes concerning how these incidents occurred, over Respondent's testimony to the contrary. The undersigned finds that Respondent's conduct violated several rules and policies that establish standards of conduct for teachers, namely, Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, and 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, and several School Board policies. As such, Petitioner has proven that Respondent committed gross insubordination and misconduct in office and violated School Board Policies 3210, 3210.01, and 3213. Despite fair and proper warning, Respondent defied several clear and simple directives that had been issued to her by Principal Gibbs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board discipline Respondent with a ten-day unpaid suspension as previously proposed by the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 20th day of May, 2016.
