The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Monroe County School Board, has “just cause” to terminate the employment of Respondent, Maryeugene E. Dupper, as a teacher for Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Monroe County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the “School Board”), is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Monroe County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent, Maryeugene E. Dupper, has been a classroom teacher with the School Board since August 2000. She began her employment as a substitute teacher and was subsequently employed as a full-time teacher at Poinciana Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as “Poinciana”), where she worked with profoundly handicapped students. She remained at Poinciana through November 2006. Throughout her employment at Poinciana, Ms. Dupper received good performance evaluations, although they did decline over time. On November 17, 2006, Ms. Dupper transferred to Gerald Adams Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as “Gerald Adams”), where she taught a Pre-K Exceptional Student Education or ESE class for the first time. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Ms. Dupper was employed as a teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. 2006-2007 School Year. From the beginning of her employment at Gerald Adams, Ms. Dupper evidenced difficulty implementing the curriculum in a meaningful way. In particular, Ann Herrin, Principal at Gerald Adams, whose testimony has been credited, found that Ms. Dupper was having a difficult time establishing the scope and sequence of lessons and effective classroom management techniques. Among the deficiencies Ms. Herrin found with Ms. Dupper’s performance was the lack of progress notes for her students. Ms. Dupper failed to keep any notes indicating that she had performed any formal evaluation of her students. When Ms. Herrin asked Ms. Dupper how she could tell whether her curriculum was successfully reaching each student, Ms. Dupper simply replied that “I am a teacher and I just know.” After conducting two formal observations and a number of informal observations of Ms. Dupper, Ms. Herrin, in her 2006- 2007 annual teacher evaluation concluded that Ms. Dupper “Needs Improvement” in Management of Student Conduct, Instruction Organization and Development, Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Evaluation of Instructional Needs. Ms. Herring used a Teacher Annual Assessment Plan Comprehensive Assessment Form for this evaluation. Overall, Ms. Herrin rated Ms. Dupper as “Needs Improvement” noting that “Curriculum content is lacking – making the learning environment unacceptable and unmanageable.” Subsequent to Ms. Herrin’s evaluation of Ms. Dupper, Ms. Herrin issued a Professional Development Plan for Ms. Dupper dated May 30, 2007. Ms. Dupper, who had been provided assistance throughout the school year by Gerald Adams administrative staff, was offered guidance in the Professional Development Plan intended to improve her performance as a teacher. That guidance is accurately described in paragraph 9 of the School Board’s Proposed Recommended Order. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, the School Board instituted a new curriculum for use by Pre-K teachers. That curriculum, the Galileo Curriculum (hereinafter referred to as “Galileo”), is a computer-based program which includes lessons plans and benchmarks and goals for teachers to use in assessing student performance. Although Galileo includes a means for teachers to keep track of student progress, Galileo is not a student evaluation instrument intended for use in “testing” student progress. 2007-2008 School Year. During the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Dupper was observed on October 11, November 8, and December 18, 2007, and on March 20 and 26, and May 6 and 22, 2008. Despite efforts to provide Ms. Dupper with professional assistance and making several changes in the teacher’s aide assigned to assist her, Ms. Dupper’s performance remained inadequate. Ms. Dupper was provided with assistance by teachers at Gerald Adams, including a “mentor," and by the head of the Exceptional Student Education department and an Exceptional Student Education Program Specialist. Ms. Dupper was observed on one occasion by Ms. Herrin when every student in Ms. Dupper’s “learning center” left the area while she continued to “teach.” One student stood on a table dancing, uncorrected by Ms. Dupper. On two occasions, a student left Ms. Dupper’s classroom altogether and were taken back to Ms. Dupper’s classroom before she realized they were gone. On nine different occasions during the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Herrin requested a discipline plan from Ms. Dupper. No plan was ever provided. Ms. Dupper’s use of Galileo was minimal during the 2007-2008 school year. The system contained a checklist, by domain or skill, which was intended for use by a teacher in determining whether each student was learning the listed skills. Ms. Dupper rarely used the system, however, only logging into the Galileo system 19 times. Nine of those times were on the same day and four were on another day. Other Pre-K teachers utilized Galileo an average of 100 times more than Ms. Dupper. Ms. Herrin’s 2007-2008 annual evaluation of Ms. Dupper, dated April 4, 2008, found that her performance had declined and was “Unsatisfactory.” Ms. Herrin found Ms. Dupper “Unsatisfactory” in Management of Student conduct, Instruction, Organization and Development, Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Evaluation of Instructional Needs. Ms. Dupper’s performance in Professional Responsibilities also declined due to her failure to complete Individual Education Plans on time, incomplete and inaccurate progress notes, and her failure to follow suggestions for improvement. The 90-Day Probation Period. As a result of her continuing decline in performance, Ms. Dupper was informed on April 9, 2008, that she was being placed on a 90-day probation period pursuant to Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. She was informed that her deficiencies included the inability to manage student conduct, lack of lesson planning, inadequate knowledge of subject matter, lack of student progress evaluation, and inadequate professional responsibility. Ms. Dupper was given suggestions for how to improve her deficiencies over the summer break, suggestions which Ms. Dupper did not follow. While on probation, Ms. Dupper was also offered an opportunity to transfer to another school, an offer which was not accepted. On June 6, 2008, at the request of Ms. Dupper’s union representative, a second annual evaluation was performed by Ms. Herrin. While Ms. Herrin found some improvement, she found that, overall, Ms. Dupper’s performance was “Unsatisfactory.” Ms. Dupper was on probation during the 2007-2008 school year a total of 62 days, excluding holidays and “professional days.” During the summer months between the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Ms. Dupper, who was not teaching, failed to follow any of Ms. Herrin’s suggestions for personal improvement opportunities. The first day of school for the 2008-2009 school year and the commencement of the 90-day probation period was August 11, 2008. Ms. Herring formally observed Ms. Dupper during the third week of September 2008, and on October 2, 2008. Assistant Principal Willis observed Ms. Dupper on October 8, 2008. Ms. Dupper’s performance and use of Galileo continued to be unsatisfactory, despite continuing efforts of the administration staff to assist her, as more particularly and accurately described in paragraphs 30 through and including 35 of Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order. Additionally, Ms. Dupper continued to fail to prevent her very young students from leaving the classroom without her knowledge. Excluding non-school days, Ms. Dupper was given more than 120 days from the commencement of her probation period until her probation period was considered ended in October 2008. By the middle of October 2008, Ms. Herrin concluded that Ms. Dupper had not evidenced satisfactory improvement in her teaching skills. Ms. Herrin’s conclusions concerning Ms. Dupper’s unsatisfactory performance as a teacher, which were not contradicted, are credited. The Decision to Terminate Ms. Dupper’s Employment By letter dated October 30, 2008, Ms. Herrin recommended to Randy Acevedo, Superintendent of the Monroe County School District, that Mr. Acevedo review documentation concerning Ms. Dupper’s 90-day probation period and make a recommendation pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, concerning her continued employment. Ms. Herrin provided Mr. Acevedo with the following information for his review: Attached please find a copy of the professional development plan and this year’s observations conducted by Assistant Principal, Grace Willis and me. The remaining documentation for the 2007 and 2008 school years have been submitted to personnel. I have also attached the follow up documentation, the review of the 90-Day plan and the observations that outline the deficiencies that still remain. This teacher’s performance remains unsatisfactory. Petitioner’s Exhibit 7. Missing from the information provided for Mr. Acevedo’s consideration was any information concerning student performance assessed annually by state or local assessment. By letter dated November 14, 2008, Mr. Acevedo informed Ms. Dupper that he was going to recommend to the School Board at its December 16, 2008, meeting that her employment as a teacher be terminated. By letter dated November 18, 2008, Ms. Dupper requested an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to challenge her anticipated termination of employment. The School Board accepted the Superintendent’s recommendation at its December 16, 2008, meeting, suspending Ms. Dupper without pay, pending a final determination of whether her employment should be terminated. Student Performance Assessment. The Florida legislature has specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes, a “Student assessment program for public schools.” This assessment program is to be considered in evaluating student performance as part of a teacher’s evaluation. The assessment program, however, does not apply to Pre-K students. “FLICKRS” is a state assessment tool intended for use in evaluating Kindergarten students. FLICKRS allows schools to evaluate whether a Kindergarten student is actually ready for Kindergarten-level work. FLICKRS is not utilized by the School Board to evaluate the progress of Pre-K students. The School Board has not developed any means of annually assessing the performance of Pre-K students. As a consequence, the decision to terminate Ms. Dupper’s employment by the School Board was not based upon any annual assessment of her students’ performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order: (a) dismissing the charges of the Administrative Complaint; (b) providing that Ms. Dupper be immediately reinstated to the position from which she was terminated; and (c) awarding Ms. Dupper back salary, plus benefits, to the extent benefits accrued during her suspension, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 22nd day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Clinton Black, Esquire Vernis and Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway, Third Floor Islamorada, Florida 33036 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Randy Acevedo, Superintendent Monroe County School Board 241 Trumbo Road Key West, Florida 33040-6684 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in the case is whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a certified teacher, employed by the Petitioner under a professional services contract and working at the Lehigh Acres Middle School. On or about February 6, 2002, the Respondent received two written reprimands from Gerald B. Demming, the school principal, related to the Respondent's behavior towards students. The first written reprimand related to incidents occurring on January 17 and 22, 2002, during which the Respondent verbally disparaged students, calling them "sorry" and "no good" and advising them that they would be unsuccessful "in life." The second written reprimand related to an incident on February 5, 2002, during which the Respondent apparently mocked a student in the classroom. In meeting with the Respondent, Principal Demming clearly expressed his concern regarding the Respondent's behavior towards students, and advised that such actions were unacceptable and were viewed as violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct. The Respondent signed and received copies of the written reprimands. The written reprimands were not the first time such concerns had been addressed with the Respondent. During the 2000-2001 school year, Mary Ann Moats, then employed as the Lehigh Acres Middle School principal, had verbally expressed concerns of a similar nature, specifically the use of derogatory language directed towards students (such as "stupid," "no good," and "ignorant"). Students became so unhappy with the Respondent's behavior that, on one day, an entire classroom of students walked out of the Respondent's class and walked to Principal Moats' office to express their dismay with his treatment of them. She attempted to resolve the dispute and urged the Respondent to modify his behavior. During Ms. Moats' employment as principal, the Respondent's behavior toward students continued to be of concern. Complaints were received from students, parents, and from other faculty members. She met more than once with the Respondent to discuss matters raised by the complaints. A written memo dated December 5, 2000, specifically related to allegations of verbal abuse directed towards students was provided to and signed by the Respondent. Further, such concerns were identified in paragraphs 5-7 of the Respondent's 2000-2001 performance evaluation dated April 9, 2001, where he received "Below Expectations/Unsatisfactory" marks in several areas including: Human Development and Learning: Uses an understanding of learning and human development to provide a positive learning environment which increases student achievement and supports the intellectual, personal and social development of all students. Learning Environment for Student Achievement: Creates and maintains a positive learning environment which fosters active engagement in learning, social interaction, cooperative learning and self motivation and manages student behavior; and Communication for Student Achievement and Parental Satisfaction: Uses effective communication techniques with students, parents (i.e., one-to-one telephone calls, conferences, newsletters, etc.), and all other stakeholders. Despite the clearly expressed concerns related to the Respondent's behavior towards students, the behaviors generally continued during the 2001-2002 school year, and culminated on February 13, 2002, in two specific events that resulted in the Petitioner's decision to terminate the Respondent's employment. During the 2001-2002 school year, the Respondent was assigned to teach a seventh grade class during the first period. K.R. was a student in the Respondent's first period class, and generally was an "A" or "B" student. On February 13, 2002, K.R. returned to the Respondent's first period class after more than a week of absence related to a family vacation. Prior to going on vacation, K.R. had obtained one week of advance class assignments in order to maintain her school work while on vacation, but the vacation apparently extended beyond what was originally planned. During the time for which K.R. had not obtained class assignments, the Respondent directed the students to prepare speeches related to Black History Month. The speech assignment was written on the chalkboard, as was the Respondent's usual practice, but had not been assigned at the time K.R. left for vacation. After class started, K.R. began to repeatedly question the Respondent about the assignment and went so far as to interrupt other students as they presented their speeches. The Respondent told K.R. to "shut up," called her "ignorant," and directed K.R. to go to a table at the rear of the classroom, remarking to the other students in the class that they did not want to be like K.R. Thereafter K.R. sat in the back of the classroom and cried. When class ended, the Respondent required K.R. to remain in his classroom while he called her mother and reported the behavior to her. K.R. spoke briefly to her mother during the call, but otherwise remained in the classroom, during which time other students began to enter for the second period class. When K.R. arrived at her second period class, she was still upset and her teacher sent her to the office to speak to a school official, at which time, concern related to the Respondent's behavior was apparently heightened. During the 2001-2002 school year, the Respondent also taught a seventh grade class during the sixth period. M.C. and J.A. were students in the Respondent's sixth period class. At the beginning of the period, M.C. was standing near the Respondent's computer located close to his desk. Attempting to quiet the class, he instructed the students to take their seats and settle. Standing behind M.C., he placed his hands on her shoulders and gently pushed her towards her chair, leaning down to tell her that when he told the class to sit down he intended for her to be seated as well. M.C. testified that when the Respondent told her to take her seat, the Respondent kissed the back of her neck. The Respondent denies kissing the student. The evidence related to the alleged kiss is not persuasive. The Respondent asserts that at the time of the alleged kiss, he was advising M.C. that she was part of the class and his instruction to the class to settle was applicable to her. M.C.'s testimony related to the Respondent's statement corroborates the Respondent's recollection and indicates that she understood that he was including her in his instruction to the class to settle. Of the students who were in the classroom at the time and who testified at the hearing, only one student testified that she saw the alleged kiss. Although she testified that she saw the kiss occur, her recollection of what the Respondent said to M.C. at the time of the alleged kiss is completely different from the statement claimed by the Respondent and corroborated by M.C.'s recollection. Other students in the classroom who testified did not recall seeing the Respondent kiss M.C. Although there is no evidence suggesting that such a kiss would have been typical of the Respondent's interaction with a student, no student recalled any type of noise or verbalization from the other students at the time of the alleged kiss. There was some evidence presented indicating that M.C.'s hairstyle on that day would have made it difficult to kiss her neck without having moved her hair, and suggesting that in leaning down to speak to M.C., the Respondent spoke closely enough to cause her hair to brush her neck. M.C.'s recollection of what hairstyle she wore on that day was uncertain. In any event, M.C. believed she was kissed and was unhappy about it. She eventually requested and received a bathroom pass from the Respondent, but after leaving the classroom, she went directly to the school administration office and reported the incident. After speaking to M.C., school personnel called the Respondent on the classroom telephone and asked him to send another student, J.A., to the office for early dismissal. After arriving at the office, J.A. was asked whether she had witnessed the incident. At that time, she was apparently advised not to discuss the matter with anyone else. While in the office, M.C. asked J.A. to return to the Respondent's classroom and to retrieve M.C.'s belongings. J.A. was permitted by assistant principal to return to the Respondent's classroom and to retrieve M.C.'s possessions. A teacher who had been in the office, Kevin Richter, escorted J.A. through the school on her way back to the Respondent's classroom. Mr. Richter then returned to his classroom. After arriving back at the Respondent's classroom, J.A. entered and began to collect M.C.'s belongings. The Respondent asked J.A. to tell him what she was doing. Believing she had been instructed not to discuss what she was doing, she did not respond to him, but finished collecting the items after which she walked out of the classroom and into the hallway. The Respondent followed J.A. into the hallway, and began yelling at her for being "disrespectful." J.A. began yelling back, telling the Respondent she was doing what she was asked to do. Apparently the confrontation between the Respondent and J.A. continued for a period of time and at sufficient volume as to attract the attention of a student affairs specialist in the office across the hallway as well as Mr. Richter, who by that time was two hallways removed from the scene. Mr. Richter, hearing the commotion and assuming that some students were preparing to fight, ran to the commotion and realized that the yelling was coming from the Respondent and a student. At that point, Mr. Richter went to the school office and summoned Principal Demming. After the yelling had subsided, the principal contacted the school district's personnel office and requested an investigation of the day's events. The investigation ensued and eventually resulted in the Petitioner's decision to terminate the Respondent's employment. The Respondent asserts that he was not sufficiently placed on notice of the behavioral issues to suggest that termination of employment is warranted. The evidence establishes that the Respondent received notice sufficient to comply with the School Board's NEAT process (Notice of deficiencies, Expectations, Assistance, and Time to improve). The Respondent asserts that the students were disrespectful and presented disciplinary problems. The Respondent had a classroom telephone and other means of communicating with school officials if a disciplinary situation became unmanageable. There is no credible evidence that any of the students addressed in this Recommended Order presented disciplinary problems that could not be managed through the normal policies and practices of the school, including referrals to school officials.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Roger J. Phillips. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _____ WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 2nd day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman, P.A. 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Dr. John W. Sanders, Superintendent Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Eric Delucia (Respondent or Mr. Delucia) violated sections 1012.795(1)(c), (g), or (j), Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state agent responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Delucia held Florida Educator's Certificate 915677, covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages, Business Education, and Marketing, which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all times relevant to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Delucia was employed as a language arts teacher in the Broward County School District. Mr. Delucia stored the documents listed in Petitioner's Exhibit P-2 on his computer, as stipulated by the parties. Mr. Delucia was employed at Cooper City High School during the 2011/2012 school year. Ms. Doll was the principal. Principal Doll testified that Mr. Delucia was in the initial stages of a cycle of assistance during that year. He received a memo outlining expectations and concerns, and was observed by several people. Principal Doll indicated she believed that he had deficiencies in instructional planning, classroom management, lesson plan presentation, and lesson plan delivery. However, Principal Doll confirmed that Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score was a 2.954 for the period January 2012 through May 2012 at Cooper City High School, which was within the "effective" range. Principal Doll stated that there were concerns about his performance based on observations that were done earlier that warranted an outside observer, but those observations were not used for the evaluation. He was never placed on a Professional Development Plan while at Cooper City High School. Respondent requested a hardship transfer and was moved to Ramblewood for the following school year. On January 1, 2013, Mr. Delucia was admitted to the hospital following a series of strokes. Respondent received "effective" scores in both the Student Growth and Instructional Practice components, as well as his overall Final Evaluation for the 2012/2013 school year at Ramblewood. Respondent was subsequently on medical leave of absence during the 2013/2014 school year. On July 1, 2014, Ms. Smith became the principal at Ramblewood. On August 11, 2014, Mr. Delucia returned to Ramblewood from medical leave. On August 14, 2014, Principal Smith was inspecting all of the classrooms at Ramblewood to ensure that they were prepared for the first day of school. She felt that Mr. Delucia's classroom was not ready for students, because it needed a little bit of "warmth." On August 28, 2014, Principal Smith conducted a formal evaluation in Mr. Delucia's classroom. She concluded that the lesson had no clear focus and that it was not on the appropriate grade level for the students he was teaching. In early September, there was a complaint that Mr. Delucia was putting up students' grades on a board in his room. However, Mr. Delucia testified that he posted the grades only by student number, not by name. There was no competent evidence to the contrary. On October 30, 2014, in introducing the genre of mythology to his students, Mr. Delucia made the comment that "[t]he gods viewed humans as pets or sexual toys." While not an appropriate comment for middle school students, there was no suggestion that Mr. Delucia elaborated or pursued this statement further, and this incident did not constitute ineffective teaching. There was no evidence that it caused students embarrassment or harmed students' mental health. There was testimony that on October 30, 2014, Mr. Delucia also spent class time explaining that the fact that a Star Wars' character had no father would have been taboo in 1976 and discussing that the episodes of that movie series were released out of the chronological order of the story. While the discussion may have gotten a bit off track, it was not clearly shown that discussion of fiction was unrelated to the concept of mythology, might not have enhanced students' understanding of the topic, or was ineffective teaching. While it was clearly shown that Mr. Delucia made the statement, "These kids have the memories of gnats," it was clear that this was said when no students were present and in defense of his actions in discussing fantasy and fables. On December 2, 2014, Respondent said to a student in an angry and loud voice, "Don't you even piss me off." This warning, given in response to the student's statement that the student did not understand something, was inappropriate in language and tone, harmful to learning, and harmful to the student's mental health. Mr. Delucia's statement that he was not visibly angry or speaking in a loud voice on this occasion is not credited. On December 8, 2014, Mr. Delucia met with Ms. Poindexter, his new peer reviewer. At one point in their conversation, he talked about his former principal, Ms. Doll, referring to her battle with cancer. He stated, "She will kick the bucket soon because she has cancer and no one will care when she is gone." He stated, "She's the devil." Mr. Delucia also referred to his current principal, Ms. Smith, as "the devil." He stated, "My motivation is to destroy her with everything I have" and that he "wished the ground would open up and swallow her." Mr. Delucia also referred to the administrative staff as "assholes" and used multiple profanities, stating, "They do not know who they are messing with, but they will find out soon." Student A.F. testified that he heard Mr. Delucia tell Student C.D. that he should jump off of a bridge with a bungee cord wrapped around his neck; tell Student C.D. that if he was a speed bump, he (Mr. Delucia) would run over him; and tell Student C.D. to kill himself a couple of times. However, Student A.F. provided no detail or context for these alleged statements, some of which seemed to involve an incident involving an entirely different student who he testified was not even in his class. He was not a credible witness. On January 8, 2015, Ms. Sheffield observed Mr. Delucia using a four-page packet to teach punctuation to his seventh- grade language arts class. Ms. Sheffield told Mr. Delucia that this was not really part of the seventh-grade curriculum. Mr. Delucia made a statement to the effect of "these students don't know anything, not even the basics, so we have to start somewhere." There was no allegation that this comment was made in front of the students. From the period August 21, 2014, through December 3, 2014, Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score was 1.916, and he was placed on a 90-day Professional Development Plan. Numerous observations by Dr. Jones and Principal Smith followed through the remainder of the school year. Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score improved slightly, but was still less than effective. On January 12, 2015, Ms. Sheffield noticed that one of the vocabulary words written on Mr. Delucia's board for his students was "retard." Ms. Sheffield said she assumed that Mr. Delucia meant the slang term sometimes used as a noun to refer to persons with mental disabilities. Such use of the term, as a shortened form of the word "retarded," would be offensive and disparaging. Ms. Sheffield said that they talked about the fact that it is not appropriate to use the word "retard" as a noun as a reference to the disabled. She testified that he did not respond. At hearing, Mr. Delucia admitted using "retard" as a vocabulary word, but testified that he included the word as a verb, meaning to slow down or delay. Ms. Sheffield testified she did not hear him speak the term, or say anything about it, and there was no other testimony regarding this event. Mr. Delucia admitted that he often said, "If your writing looks like garbage and smells like garbage, then it is garbage." Ms. Sheffield stated that she told Mr. Delucia he might try to find another way to encourage students to write neatly in their journals that was a more positive comment or allowed students to take pride in their writing. On January 26, 2015, Ms. Sheffield testified that when a student returned late from lunch, Mr. Delucia and the student began arguing. Ms. Sheffield credibly testified that Mr. Delucia screamed at the student, "This isn't going to end up good for you. Just shut up." On February 4, 2015, Student A.W. had come in late to Mr. Delucia's class and was acting out in the back of the classroom. When asked why, her response was that other people also did it. Mr. Delucia responded, "If other people jump off of a bridge, would you jump off a bridge, too?" Student A.W., after a moment of silence, retorted, "Yeah, if you give me a bungee cord." Mr. Delucia replied, "If there is a bungee cord, you should wrap it around your neck before you jump." The class started laughing. Student A.W. replied, "You just told me to kill myself, I am telling the office." Mr. Delucia then asked Student A.W. to leave the classroom. While Student A.W. had a disrespectful attitude, Respondent's caustic comments to her were intentionally made in a spirit of mocking humor to subject Student A.W. to embarrassment in front of the class. A class grade graph prepared during the third quarter of the 2014/2015 school year documented that 68 percent of his students were failing at that time. No similar graph for any other quarter of that year, or for other years, was submitted in evidence. On April 7, 2015, the students in Mr. Delucia's class were supposed to be studying Latin and Greek roots of words, but one student did not have a packet and asked Mr. Delucia for one. After Mr. Delucia handed him the packet, the student said, "There is a footprint on this." Mr. Delucia responded, "Get working on studying or else I will call your father." The student replied, "Please don't." Mr. Delucia then said, "Why, because you don't want to get a footprint on your face?" Ms. Sheffield testified that during her observations, she never saw Mr. Delucia standing up interacting with his students. She said she never saw him deliver a lesson to students. For the 2014/2015 school year, Mr. Delucia's score for the instructional practice component on his evaluation was 2.002, a "needs improvement" rating, while his score for both the deliberate practice/growth plans and student data components was recorded as exactly 3.0. The final evaluation for Mr. Delucia in 2014/2015, computed by combining these unequally weighted scores, was 2.511, an "effective" rating.1/ Mr. Delucia was transferred to Piper High School for the 2015/2016 school year. The administration there did not place Mr. Delucia on a Professional Development Plan. Mr. Delucia has not been subjected to disciplinary action during his time at Piper High School, and he has exhibited positive rapport with his students and colleagues. Mr. Delucia's weighted overall evaluation score for the 2015/2016 school year at Piper High School was 2.831, "effective." Mr. Delucia's demeanor at hearing was defiant. His testimony was sometimes evasive and defensive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Eric Delucia in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), (3)(e), and (5)(e); imposing a fine of $3,000.00; placing him on probation under conditions specified by the Commission for a period of two years; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 November, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Respondent began working for Petitioner School Board in 1960 as a teacher and has been so employed for approximately twenty years, with several breaks in service. At all times material hereto, Respondent has held Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 112370, Rank 1, covering the areas of elementary education, social studies, and junior college. During the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, Respondent worked as a social studies teacher at Cutler Ridge Junior High School. Prior to the 1981-82 school year, Respondent served as a CSI instructor for several years. CSI is the Center for Special Instruction and is an indoor suspension system. Students who have had difficulty in school, such as skipping classes and defiance of authority, are sent to the CSI room where they are isolated from their classmates to work on their regular school assignments. When Dr. John Moore became principal of Cutler Ridge Junior High School for the 1981-82 school year, he became aware that the CSI program needed to be strengthened. Parents, community leaders, and staff members of the school felt that the CSI program was not supportive of the disciplinary structure of the school, and teachers had been complaining about CSI. When Respondent was informally observed in the CSI room, the students "seemed to be having an extremely good time there . . . [,and] were running their own show, . . . [so] they liked going to CSI." The students were out of their seats, moving around at will, and some were walking in and out of the classroom. The room was noisy and in one instance in November 1979 the students were throwing a football around the room. When Dr. Moore reviewed the schedule for 1981-82, he saw that Respondent had a split schedule of part-time in CSI and part-time in social studies. He changed Respondent to a full-time social studies schedule, initially with four seventh-grade classes and one eighth-grade class. As a result of the suggestion of Respondent and another teacher, Dr. Moore merged the two teachers' schedules so that Dr. Sullivan ended up with a straight seventh- grade schedule. This would have reduced the amount of lesson planning required by Respondent and would have made his work load easier. Seventh-grade social studies is the simplest assignment Dr. Moore could have given a social studies teacher. During the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, a pattern could be discerned in Respondent's teaching. During each of those years, there was a relatively positive start with erratic performance during the first semester. By second semester, there was substantial disaster and a total lack of a learning environment. This erosion pattern was attributed to Respondent's teaching techniques. During the first semester of each year, Respondent had the students working at the lowest level of cognitive ability, i.e., memory work. Students became bored with that after a period of time. Respondent was not using feedback mechanisms to tell him what the students were understanding. Respondent did not teach in a logical sequence beginning with the first semester. These things led to frustration and boredom on the part of the students, and negative behavior became apparent. The negative behavior became resistive. This led to the erosion as above described. Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal James Marshall on November 16, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was unacceptable in preparation and planning because he had no lesson plans. He was rated unacceptable in classroom management because of the disorganization of his class. He was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the needs and abilities of his students and failed to provide opportunities for the students to express their ideas. He failed to give specific directions to the students and only used one technique of instruction, i.e., the lecture method. Mr. Marshall prescribed help for Respondent. He recommended that Respondent formulate good lesson plans according to the scope and sequence of the curriculum. A portion of the lesson plan should contain a procedure for the evaluation of the students. He recommended that Respondent praise the students and that Respondent try to obtain enough textbooks. If he could not, he should utilize duplicated materials. Mr. Marshall pointed out how Respondent could change the seats of his disruptive children and call the parents to see whether he could get some backup from them. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Assistant Principal Albert Villar on January 8, 1982. Respondent was found overall unacceptable and was rated unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, assessment techniques, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the students were taking a test which was written on the chalkboard. The test was confusing to the students, and they were not certain as to what part of the test they were to take. Further, the test was not visible to the entire class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because students walked in and out of the classroom, several students were talking during the test, and some were putting on makeup. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the students needed to answer questions with the textbook, and not all of the students had a textbook accessible to them. Respondent told the students to share, which is inappropriate because there would be a tendency to cheat on the examination. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not have a written copy of the test; therefore, it would be impossible for students who are absent to make up the test. There also should have been a copy of the test in the students' folders. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because the lack of textbooks led to a relationship which did not reflect equal recognition and respect for every individual. Mr. Villar made recommendations for improvement. He recommended that if Respondent wanted to use a chalkboard test, he should have a written copy in the students' folders, and he should enforce his classroom rules about students not talking during a test. Respondent's next formal observation was performed by the principal, Dr. John Moore, on January 27, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the lesson he taught was not the lesson described on his lesson plan. The inadequate planning led to classroom management problems. Throughout the observation, the students were "off task, doing their own thing, talking to each other and so on." The students and Respondent were talking at the same time. Eight students were chewing gum, which is against school rules. Techniques of instruction were rated unacceptable because the students were no on task. Respondent was not getting the students involved in discussions or in expressing their ideas. He was not getting feedback from the students because the students were talking among themselves. With teacher-questioning techniques, Respondent could have gotten the students involved. He could have gotten them on task by giving them quizzes or handouts which could structure their learning. Instructions were given while the majority of the class was talking, and the students were not challenged. Respondent was rated unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because throughout the observations there were repeated examples of students' disrespect, students yelling out across the room, students talking back and refusing to follow instructions. There was no reaction by Respondent. The bulk of the students were not responding. Professional responsibility was marked unacceptable because at the beginning of the year, Respondent was directed to enforce his class rules and to establish an effective learning environment. This was a general disciplinary project for the whole school. Dr. Moore prescribed help for Respondent. He recommended that Respondent work with his department chairman to review grade level objectives and to be certain that his lesson plans reflected the Dade County Balanced Curriculum requirements. Dr. Moore also recommended that he meet with a fellow teacher to review how she prepared her lesson plans. Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent enforce his class rules and that instead of using an oral approach, Respondent should develop handouts for the students. This would give them some structure as to what they are going to do. He recommended having homework guidelines and using review quizzes. Respondent was next formally observed by Mr. Marshall on February 5, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable overall and was marked unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because while he had lesson plans, they were not done according to the sequence and pattern prescribed in the school. Respondent did not get the students to work right away at the beginning of the period and the students were not on task. Classroom management was rated unacceptable because Respondent had no control of the students. The students were doing what they wanted to do and were disrupting the class. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of his students. He was lecturing the students, and this technique did not allow the students to participate. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because the relationship was not a positive one: the students were not guided into a class discussion by Respondent; there was no relationship between Respondent and the students, and the students did not want to give information to the teacher. They just wanted to sit there. Mr. Marshall prescribed help for Respondent. He requested that Respondent make sure that each student participate in the learning activities. He recommended that Respondent duplicate the assignments so that there would be enough for all students to have and that Respondent guide the students in a discussion from his daily lesson plan. Respondent was next formally observed on February 16, 1982, by Phyllis Cohen, Area Line Director for the Dade County Public Schools. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. The instructions given to the class were not comprehensible. None of the things that were indicated in the lesson plan occurred. As a result, when the students were divided into three groups and told to read, without the appropriate directions, each group proceeded not to read. As the lesson progressed, the behavior deteriorated more and more until at the end of the lesson, three-quarters of the class was off task. There was an elaborate lesson plan, but it was not followed. Knowledge of the subject matter was rated unacceptable because the teacher did not demonstrate a knowledge of the content of the chapter while he was giving class directions. Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because his class management practices needed much improvement. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of the students. Further, he did not use instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because many of the students' papers were not graded, most of the work on file was work book papers consisting of mostly short answers and recall questions, and there were very few essays. Mrs. Cohen recommended help for Respondent. She directed him to develop lesson plans which are useful and which list key concepts, activities, questions and vocabulary. She directed him to work with the principal who would provide models for his use. She recommended that the department head arrange to have Respondent observe a master teacher presenting a civics lesson. She recommended that he observe teachers who exhibit good class control, that he become aware of what the students are doing, and that he review and enforce class standards for behavior. She recommended that he work with the assistant principal to improve class management techniques and that Respondent have a five-minute start-up activity on the board fro students to do when they enter the class in order to settle the class down, take attendance, and begin the lesson in a more orderly fashion. She also recommended that he improve his presentation strategies and teaching techniques by working with the social studies department head. The next formal observation was performed by Mr. Marshall on March 11, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because his lesson plans were not adequate, unacceptable in classroom management because there was still a problem with student control and participation, and unacceptable in techniques of instruction since he still was not adapting materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of the students and was not providing opportunities for the students to express their ideas. Mr. Marshall prepared a memo in which he listed teaching techniques that would help improve Respondent's teaching. He recommended that Respondent praise the students more. Respondent was next formally observed by the social studies supervisor for the Dade County Public Schools, Paul Hanson, on March 19, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher- student relationships, and in one subcategory of preparation and planning because the plans which were written were not compatible with what actually took place in the classroom. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because there was no means of controlling the students who talked and moved about the classroom at will. The discipline was nonconducive to a learning environment since students were talking, out of their seats, and not on task. Very little learning was taking place. Techniques of instruction were marked unacceptable because the students were not motivated, and the instruction given them was not conducive to learning for junior high students. The activities in the classroom did not reflect the adoption of materials and methods to the interests, needs, and abilities of the students, and there was confusion in the class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because the test which was observed did not equate with the instruction taking place, the test construction was very poor, and there were a number of grammatical errors on it. What was being tested was not compatible with what was being taught at the time, according to the lesson plan. The grades and records of the students' achievement were not up to date but rather were about two to three weeks behind. Therefore, the students' progress was not being monitored on a daily basis. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because of the behavior problem in the class. There seemed to be very little respect for the students on the part of the teacher, and it was difficult to determine who was in control of the class. Mr. Hanson recommended that the lesson plan be more specific and that it equate with what takes place in the classroom. He recommended that Respondent observe other teachers for their classroom management techniques and that a staff development course be taken. He also suggested that Respondent observe a master teacher for the techniques of instruction. Mr. Hanson provided some reading materials to Respondent dealing with such topics as how to conduct a classroom discussion, how to manage a social studies classroom, and how to use audiovisual films in a social studies classroom. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Dr. Moore on April 13, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher- student relationships, professional responsibility, and supportive characteristics. There was no improvement in this observation over the prior observations. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the majority of students were off task during the observation, the written plan was not in compliance with the prior prescriptions and the lesson plan was not followed by Respondent. Knowledge of subject matter was marked unacceptable because Respondent failed to provide students with necessary explanations to implement the lesson plan. He confused the teaching objective with directions for student activity. Classroom management was marked unacceptable because the students were off task, were frequently moving, were constantly socializing, and a student was permitted to defy Respondent without consequences. Also, there were forty wads of paper on the floor. Techniques of instruction wee marked unacceptable because Respondent gave materials to the students prepared by the National Council of Social Studies for teacher use without modifying or adapting these materials for student use. He did not provide opportunities for students to express their ideas, although this was called for in his lesson plan, and he gave confusing directions to the students. The distribution of the National Council materials caused organization problems, and confusing directions used excessive class time. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not make an assessment of each student's academic progress. He gave the students credit based upon untested assertions of mastery of assignments. He asked the students to "Tell me if you know this . . . I'll mark it down and you can go on. . . ." Teacher-student relationships was rated unacceptable because defiant students regularly disregarded his direction to stop talking. Respondent was marked unacceptable in professional responsibility because he had failed to comply with directives regarding remediation practices. He was found unacceptable in supportive characteristics because it was found that he did not contribute to the total school program. Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent review prior directives on lesson planning and comply with those. He further recommended that Respondent review material with his department head and that Respondent implement the posted consequences for student behavior. Dr. Moore submitted a memorandum to Respondent outlining the problems that he saw in this observation and compiled a list of pertinent materials available in the media center. On April 16, 1982, Dr. Moore made Respondent aware of a parent complaint concerning the basis for a student's grade and the failure to notify the parent of the lack of student progress. As a result of that parent complaint, Dr. Moore reviewed Respondent's grade book and found a variety of deficiencies: There were grades that were not identified; there was no indication of makeup work, and the mechanics of keeping grades were absent. The grade book is a document which is required by law and by School Board rule. It is an attendance record and a primary record of the student's progress as compared to the course standards. Dr. Moore provided a memorandum to Respondent indicating what improvement was needed. Around the same time, Respondent became ill and was hospitalized. A series of memoranda were sent from the school to the Sullivans and vice versa. It was difficult to ascertain the nature of Respondent's illness and the expected length of his absence. Eventually it was determined that Respondent's illness was genuine, and he was given an opportunity to return to his school to complete his prescriptions. Respondent was next formally observed by Althea King, Assistant Principal, on October 18, 1982. This was the first formal evaluation under the TADS system. There is no overall rating on the individual TADS observation forms. This observation showed a great improvement over the prior observations. Prior to this observation, Mrs. King met with Respondent to go over the things she would be looking for and made an appointment with Respondent for her observation. Although Respondent sincerely desired to improve, he was found unacceptable in preparation and planning because his plan did not fill the allotted time. Mrs. King observed Respondent for one hour and found that there were 20 to 25 minutes remaining in the class period when the students had finished an activity and were not provided another activity. Mrs. King noted that preparation and planning is very significant because it is the means of gaining control of the classroom. She recommended that Respondent read certain sections of the teacher handbook and complete activities therein to help him develop a lesson plan that would have the various essential parts. The next formal observation was done by Dr. Moore on November 8, 1982. He found that Respondent's classroom management was above a minimally acceptable level. The class was noisy, but it was under control. There was, however, substantial deterioration in the other categories. Dr. Moore directed Respondent to give priority attention to the other five areas since progress had been made in classroom management. He further directed Respondent to outline the sequence of key concepts and generalizations for each unit and to discuss them with the department head to insure consistent comprehension. He directed Respondent to use inquiry strategies and to review a section in the faculty handbook to implement activities listed therein. He directed Respondent to list specific student objectives in behavioral terms in his lesson plans. The next formal observation was done by Dr. Moore on December 15, 1982. The observation, which was scheduled in advance, was relatively good. There was improvement in a number of areas over the preceding observation although Respondent was still not dealing with students who were off task, a fault which eventually leads to deterioration. Respondent was weak in using feedback mechanism. This is a shortcoming in teacher-student communication, indicating whether or not the teacher knows what the students are really perceiving and learning. In order to help Respondent, Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent read sections in the TADS prescription manual and attend Teacher Education Center workshops on teacher-student relationships and on assessment techniques. Shortly after the Christmas break, there was apparent deterioration of behavior in the classroom. There were reports from other teachers of loud, disruptive behavior. Respondent was directed to confer with Assistant Principal Daniel McPhaul and to make sure the students know that there will be consequences if they do not behave. Starting at this point, there was the same pattern of disruption that had been seen in the prior school year. Respondent was making no visible effort to restore order in his classroom. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Dr. Moore and Mr. Hanson jointly on February 8, 1983. Respondent was not found acceptable in any category. The class lesson consisted of giving workbooks to the students. There was no teaching, simply a passing out of materials. This failed to keep the students on task. There were consistent violations of the class rules and no consequences. Media still was not being used, and there were wads of paper on the wall. Respondent was marked unacceptable in preparation and planning because his lesson plan did not fill the allocated time. What was planned covered only 30 minutes of a 55-minute period. What was going on in the classroom did not follow the lesson plan, and what was being done was not included either in that lesson or the lesson plan for the next day. While Respondent exhibited knowledge of the subject matter, he was not found acceptable in the area of presentation of the subject matter. He used a "scattergun" approach. With the remaining 30 minutes, he filled in the time with something completely irrelevant to the plan for the day and irrelevant to the general overall plan for the week. The information presented to the children was simply handed to them with no logic or reason why they were getting this information. The information presented was not timely. Only one cognitive level was utilized in the entire classroom period, the lowest level-recall or remembering. No higher or challenging cognitive levels were presented, and the lesson was presented in an uninteresting manner. Classroom management was unacceptable because approximately two-thirds of the students were not on task, and the behavior was inappropriate for a classroom. This resulted in no learning taking place, and Respondent did not seem to make any attempt to correct the situation. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he gave a skills lesson which needed some demonstration. However, he simply gave the students materials and told them to do the work. He should have taken the time to give instructions and actually demonstrate what the students were to do. The activities that took place did not give the students an opportunity for participation and verbal interaction with Respondent. The students were not invited to raise questions and were not actively involved in the lesson. It was basically a teacher-directed lesson. The lesson that Respondent presented would have been an opportune one for using media, but Respondent chose not to do so. There was a great deal of confusion on the part of the learners -- they did not know what to do with the materials, and very little clarification took place. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not give the students more than a book-type exercise, which was not challenging, and only required students to recall basic information. This technique did not require them to actually think or apply the knowledge they learned. In the student folders, there was only one kind of evaluation, a dittoed workbook-type of page with mostly fill-in-the-blank type activities. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because there was not any mutual respect on the part of the students or teacher. Mr. Hanson found no improvement over his prior observation of March 19, 1982. Mr. Hanson prescribed help for Respondent, and Dr. Moore concurred with those prescriptions. It was recommended that Dr. Sullivan observe a master teacher at a school close to his and that Dr. Moore, a former social studies teacher, help in demonstrating some of the techniques needed in a social studies room. Mr. Hanson provided additional reading materials for Respondent. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Mrs. King and Mrs. Cohen on March 29, 1983. Mrs. Cohen found Respondent unacceptable in all categories, and Mrs. King found him unacceptable in all categories except teacher-student relationships. Mrs. King found that his lesson plan was much decreased in quality over her prior observation: the objectives did not reflect good planning, the activities did not fill the allotted time, and the plan was not followed. Because of these, she rated Respondent unacceptable in preparation and planning. Knowledge of the subject matter was rated unacceptable because the subject presentation was unacceptable. Information and activities were not timely and accurate, and the sequence of presentation was not logical. Interesting, unusual or important dimensions were not included, and different cognitive levels were not presented. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because many students were not on task, and behavior management was not done appropriately. Techniques of instruction was marked unacceptable because the materials that were used were inadequate for the lesson. Student participation was very minimal, and there was little, if any, discussion. Students were asked to work on information in their folders. Individual questions were asked and answered but there was no other kind of instruction taking place during the observation. Assessment techniques was marked unacceptable for there was no indication that assessment had taken place or would take place for this particular lesson. The students seemed vague as to what they were supposed to be doing. Teacher-student relationships was unacceptable because there was no attempt to involve all students in the instruction. Basically, there was no instruction. Mrs. Cohen found the same conditions that existed on her previous observation of February 16, 1982. While the method of teaching had changed, as worksheets were distributed and folders were given out, there was still no teaching occurring, there was lots of confusion, and there was little attempt to draw relationships. These things contributed to a lack of control and off task behavior. Mrs. King discussed with Respondent activities that he might use to direct the students, to establish and gain control of their behavior in the class. She recommended written assignments, discussions, and lectures, using a variety of activities that might help give direction to him and to the students in the classroom. The next formal observation was performed by Daniel McPhaul, Assistant Principal, on May 5, 1983. Mr. McPhaul found Respondent unacceptable in all categories except knowledge of subject matter. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because there were some items lacking from the lesson plans, and the lesson plan did not have objectives. Classroom management was unacceptable because there were many students who were not on task strewn about the classroom floor, the desks were out of order, and students were walking around communicating with each other while Respondent was giving instructions. Techniques of instruction was unacceptable because there was no student participation. His instructional strategies were limited. There was no use of media from the library, although some was available to him. Assessment techniques were unacceptable because the lesson ended with the ringing of the bell. There was no time allowed for assessment. He did not ask questions to see if the students understood the lesson and did not evaluate the students. Respondent was found unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because if the students were interested in receiving instructions from Respondent, they would not have been playing around and communicating with each other. Mr. McPhaul suggested that Respondent get the students on task as soon as possible. One way to do this is to have handouts or pop quizzes ready at the beginning of the class. He also suggested that Respondent communicate with parents. He suggested that the students be made to clean the classroom before leaving. On May 25, 1983, Dr. Moore dropped in to visit Respondent because of a teacher's complaint. When he got there, there were several students running out of the door. Respondent indicate that no lesson was in progress, and the students were running around because there was nothing to do. The next formal observation was performed by Dr. Moore on June 1, 1983. There was no improvement: the class was noisy and off task; the lesson did not match the lesson plan; the lesson was not attended to by most of the students; many students talked while Respondent gave instructions; and nineteen out of twenty students did not follow directions. Further, since Respondent was using an inappropriate teaching technique for a fact recall level lesson, five students did nothing, fourteen students wrote statements totally unrelated to the unit they were studying, and only one student wrote one question pertinent to the unit under study. Seven weeks into the nine-week grading period, there were no grades recorded in the grade book. Based on this there would be no way to know what a student had done or how well. There were no codes in the front of the grade book to interpret the grades. There was no basis to explain a child's grade to a parent. Dr. Moore gave Respondent copies of his summatives on or about November 12, 1982, December 17, 1982, February 10, 1983, April 11, 1983, and May 1, 1983. A summative combines the preceding two classroom observations and rates a teacher overall acceptable or unacceptable at any point in the process. All of Respondent's summatives were rated overall unacceptable. Respondent was offered help at other times as well. The assistant principal had conferences with parents of disruptive students. Mrs. Parker taught directly across the hall from Respondent and observed that at times students were completely out of control, with desks and books being thrown across the room. Respondent asked her for help, and she suggested methods of control. There was so much noise coming from Respondent's room that Mrs. Parker would put her stool in the doorway and sit there and control both her class and Respondent's class at the same time. Mrs. Griswold, Respondent's department head, taught across the hall from Respondent. At times she noted the chaos. Quite frequently the students would be talkative and on occasions they would be walking around. The noise interfered with her class to the point that she would have to close her door. She offered to help Respondent by meeting with him on several occasions to discuss lesson plans, methods of controlling students, and using different techniques. She gave him materials to help him. During the 1981-82 school year, she met frequently, on a weekly basis, to go over Respondent's lesson plans. During some time periods, Respondent's lesson plans were more than adequate; at other times, they were not adequate. During the 1981-82, Respondent was told by Dr. Moore to submit lesson plans to Mrs. Griswold. He did not always comply. When he did , Mrs. Griswold went over his lesson plans with him, checking to make sure that the materials that he was using were applicable to the students in his class. She checked to be sure he was following the course outline for social studies for seventh graders. She tried to aid him in any way she could to try to maintain discipline and control in his class. On January 28, 1982, Assistant Principal Marshall gave Respondent a memorandum which dealt with tips for teaching. Mr. Marshall then monitored Respondent with informal observations two to three times a week to see whether Respondent was utilizing the suggestions made to him. The assistant principals had to enter Respondent's room at numerous times to gain control of or restore order to the classroom. Fellow teacher Beverly Dunbar also went into Respondent's room to restore control to his class. She observed that the children were so noisy that her own students could not do their work. When she went into Respondent's room, almost all of the students in the room were out of their seats, throwing papers, books, and throwing over desks. Respondent was standing there, not saying anything to them. They were out of control. On February 5, 1982, Respondent's room was changed to the first floor so that he could be closer to the administrative offices and to relieve the classes which had been around Respondent's classroom. The assistant principals were directed to assist Respondent whenever needed to restore order to his class when it was out of control. The assistant principals removed youngsters from Respondent's classroom and offered to take others out. Mr. Villar had a conference with Respondent to set up classroom rules for him and offered suggestions on the use of a seating chart to take attendance quickly and to become familiar with where students were sitting and to notice patterns in behavior that may become disruptive. Mr. Villar tried several times to talk to Respondent about his problems, but Respondent was not responsive. Mr. Villar also suggested that Respondent observe teachers in their school and in other schools in the same academic areas. He also recommended that Mrs. Griswold assist Respondent on lesson plans, ordering materials, and making sure he had a complete set of classroom textbooks. Mrs. King had conferences with Respondent. She called these her "lay-it-on-the-line" conversations. These dealt with how to get control of the students and force them through classroom activities through discipline measures, to do what they are supposed to be doing. She gave very specific recommendations such as moving certain students and specific kinds of activities that would keep the students involved. One day she went into Respondent's class and began the class for him to show how it could be done and how students could be controlled through various methods. Dr. Moore invited Mr. Hanson, the social studies supervisor, to observe Respondent's class and make recommendations to help the situation. At one point, when the principal observed Respondent's class, the room was so noisy and the students were so off task that he suggested that Respondent work with the students regarding the necessity of self control and following directions. He further recommended that Respondent work with Assistant Principal Villar to arrange for any kind of backup he would need. Dr. Moore also gave education articles to Respondent to read. The principal followed through and arranged for observations of other teachers by Respondent. Respondent was given an opportunity to raise any questions that he had about the type of support he needed. He was given an opportunity to give the administration feedback of the things they were not doing that he would like them to do for him. Dr. Moore compiled a composite record of all the prescriptions that had been given to Respondent in order that Respondent could review them and did a demonstration lesson for Respondent as an example showing the use of techniques which were explained in the readings that were given to Respondent. In spite of all the help that was given, Respondent's class continued to interfere with other teachers' classes. Mr. May testified that the noise was so loud that his students could not hear him dictating a spelling test during a semester examination. Mr. May saw things thrown through the room, such as books, and saw students out of their chairs and totally out of control. He heard glass breaking and saw glass on the ledges of the second floor. He was also afraid that some child would go out a second floor window and recommended to Dr. Moore that Respondent's class be changed to the ground floor. There was no improvement in the control of Respondent's class after he was moved to the first floor. On the occasion that Mrs. Dunbar went up to gain control of Respondent's class, her students were prevented from doing their work by the noise coming from Respondent's room. Other teachers in Mrs. Dunbar's department complained to her, and teachers complained to the assistant principals about the noise in Respondent's room. During informal observations, Respondent fared no better than he did no his formal observations. His class was generally disorganized with 100% of the time being spent without teachings. When Mrs. Dunbar observed Respondent, he was not teaching. There was commotion going on. At times, clapping and chanting could be heard coming from Respondent's room across the courtyard. The administrators received more student and parent complaints about Respondent's class than they did about other teacher's classes. When Mrs. King walked by the halls, she would come in to help establish order in Respondent's class. Sometimes she would be sent for by Respondent or by a student or other teachers. Very often she notices that there was chaos in the classroom with students moving around without inhibition. They were talking, tossing paper, and off task. They were not involved in any kind of constructive classroom activity, and the noise level was very high. On Mrs. Cohen's informal visits to the school, she observed Dr. Moore going into Respondent's room to quiet it because someone had thrown paper outside the room. It was the consensus of opinion of the experts who observed Respondent in the classroom that there was a repeated failure on his part to communicate with and relate to the children in his classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience. Respondent has not maintained direction and discipline of students as assigned by the principal and has not kept good order in the classroom. He has not taken precautions to protect the life, health and safety of every student. On one occasion Mr. Marshall had to respond to the Respondent's classroom because of the presence of a railroad spike in the possession of one of the students. Because of the gravity of the situation, the parents of the student were contacted and additional documentation was forwarded to Dr. Moore. During the 1982-83 school year, Assistant Principal King walked by the Respondent's class and observed a student holding a chair up in the air "as if in the intent of throwing it at another student." Another time she observed a student on all fours crawling along a back counter. On those occasions Respondent was standing in the front of the class, simply observing and doing nothing to (re)gain control of the class. During the 1982-83 school year, on several occasions jalousie windows were broken in Respondent's classroom by students playing and bumping into each other. Some students complained to Assistant Principal McPhaul about the noise level and disorder in Respondent's class and the difficulty they had in doing their work due to harassment by other students who wanted to play during class. Overall, during the last two years of Respondent's service, in the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, Respondent failed to achieve an acceptable performance rating as determined by eight formal evaluations during the 1981-82 school year, done by five different evaluators, two of which were external to the work site. In the 1982-83 school year, Respondent failed to achieve an acceptable performance rating as noted on nine different formal evaluations conducted by six different evaluators, two of which were external to the school site. The administrators asked Respondent whether there were any health conditions or medical conditions which should be considered in his case. Respondent stated that health was not a factor in his classroom observations. Neither Respondent nor his wife ever communicated to the administrators that there was a health problem that interfered with Respondent's teaching. After his suspension by the School Board, Respondent was examined psychologically and was found to have an inability to organize his social events into a meaningful order. His perceptual abilities are significantly below his age level, and his functioning is significantly below what one would expect given Respondent's level of education and teaching experience. He has extreme difficulty in differentiating relevant versus nonrelevant aspects in his environment. His thinking is highly concrete, and he is unable to coordinate data and integrate them into meaningful concepts. Respondent is verbose and uses circular reasoning to eventually reach a final conclusion. Respondent's examining psychologist determined that it would be difficult for Respondent to learn new techniques for getting a class into order, it would be difficult for him to learn new ways of doing lesson plans in order to structure his classroom activities, he would have a hard time working in a school organization where he had to perceive social situations and what is going on in a classroom, he would have a difficult time dealing with teachers, administrators, and students, and he would have a hard time perceiving the motives of the administration. His perceptions are vague and amorphous, and descriptive in nature. He has inordinate difficulties in capturing the essence of what was presented to him. While there is no evidence of thought disorder, his thinking is vague, disorganized, fuzzy, and reflective of an individual with possible organic factors interfering with his thinking and organizational abilities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in Case No. 83-2649 finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Specific Notice of Charges filed against him, affirming his suspension, dismissing him from his employment, and denying him any claim for back pay. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in Case No. 83-3793 finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 112370. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 George F. Knox, Esquire Penthouse 200 Southeast First Street Miami, Florida 33129 Donald Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER (DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD) ================================================================= SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-2649 WILLIAM D. SULLIVAN, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Respondent Wieland has been employed with the Broward County school system for approximately twenty-three years. In the school year 1973/74, he held the position of Director of Exceptional Child Education. His immediate superior was the Program Director of Educational Services, Mr. Larry I. Walden, a member of the superintendent's staff. Dr. James R. Fisher served as Director of Psychological Services on Dr. Wieland's Exceptional Child Education staff. During the 1973/74 school year, several rather drastic changes were occurring with regard to the administration of the exceptional child education program. This was the year of decentralization in Broward County, where concepts of authority, decision-making, accountability and responsibility were filtering down to the building or school levels through the various principals. Also, the Florida Educational Financial Program began in that year. This program related to state funding for students based upon a particular weight factor assigned for students in different programs. The cost factors for programs for exceptional students is considerably higher than for basic programs. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, the actual responsibility for placement of children and implementation of programs resided with the principals of the individual schools. The role of the Exceptional Child Education staff was then reduced to one of consultation, advice and administration. Prior to decentralization, psychological testing was conducted under the direction or supervision of the Exceptional Student Education Department at the Diagnostic Center. With decentralization, testing psychologists became a part of the staff of the area offices and were answerable to their respective area superintendents. With this change, they were repeatedly instructed that their functions were consultative and that they were simply to test students upon receipt of a request from a school's principal. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, school psychologists, as well as the then Director of Psychological Services, were constantly concerned with the pressures being placed upon them by the school principals and area superintendents to rapidly test and certify students for eligibility in the various exceptional education programs. A count of such eligible students was to be made in October and February of each school year. The results of such counts had a tremendous effect upon the school principal's budget. Many school psychologists felt that students were being placed in programs without sufficient diagnosis or data. This, along with inadequate personnel, was a constant topic of discussion both among school psychologists and at meetings on the staff level. Mr. Walden, respondent's immediate superior, was informed by Dr. Fisher of files containing insufficient data and other procedural irregularities. Mr. Walden also attended some of the staff meetings at which various problems were discussed. No specific problems at Horizon Elementary School were discussed between Fisher and respondent Wieland during the 1973/74 school year. In fact, Dr. Fisher was unaware of any discrepancies or procedural irregularities at Horizon during that year. Conditions did not improve during the 1974/75 school year, according to various school psychologists and the exceptional education staff. They still felt pressure to rapidly identify eligible students for exceptional education programs in order to generate funding and they still felt there was inadequate staffing for psychological services. During this year, Mr. Joel Kieter assumed respondent's position of Director of the Exceptional Education Program and respondent became Coordinator of Special Services, formerly called Psychological Services. Thus, Mr. Kieter was respondent's immediate superior. During this year, Mr. Kieter's office had no direct role in the certification of students for the various exceptional education programs. The 1974 "District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" specifically provided that: "In the process of decentralization the exceptional student personnel at the district level have been relieved of direct responsibility for administration and instruction. The respon- sibilities of such personnel are now consultative and advisory in nature. The primary responsibility for administration and instruction is at the building level." However, Mr. Kieter's staff did attempt to give guidance to school psychologists and administrative personnel regarding the criteria for placement and the required procedures to be followed. Among the duties of respondent Wieland during the 1974/75 school year was direct responsibility for the Diagnostic Center, which was a repository for some 35,000 to 40,000 student files. School psychologists were instructed to obtain a case number from the Diagnostic Center for all new student files and to send a copy of the completed file to the Center. At one time, they were told that they could retain the folders as long as they thought the case was active. Student files were also to be kept at the student's school and in the area superintendents' offices. Inasmuch as the school psychologists were accountable to the area superintendents, the Center and its staff had no authority and could do little more than request them to promptly forward the files to the Center. At times, staff at the Diagnostic Center would return files for parental consent forms. Numerous staff meetings were held by Director Kieter during the 1974/75 school year. During these meetings, the school psychologists complained of their heavy caseload, the lack of secretarial help and other staff, pressures placed upon them by principals and area superintendents to place children in programs, inappropriate testing and lost or misplaced files. These were general discussions and specific incidents were not related. Dr. James Fisher, who was the team leader for psychologists in the North-Central area, had general discussions with both Dr. Wieland, Director Kieter, and even Mr. Walden concerning the pressure he felt with regard to the rapid testing of children and the inadequacy of data in the files of children who had already been placed. Dr. Fisher expressed to them his fear that emphasis was being placed upon the filling of classes, rather than upon the individual students. During the school year 1975/76, respondent again occupied the position of Coordinator of Special Services and Joel Kieter was again the Director of the Exceptional Education Program. The building principal of the referring school or the school enrolling the student was directly responsible for placement in the appropriate exceptional student program. ("1975 District Procedures for providing special Education for Exceptional Students," p. 199, H(2)(c) and p. 3). The exceptional student education staff was responsible for the determination of eligibility of individual students (p. 3 of the 1975 District Procedures). This determination was to be based upon the report of the testing psychologist. In the first portion of the 1975/76 school year, Director Kieter signed the eligibility determination forms (also referred to as the B-1 form). This responsibility was delegated by Mr. Kieter to respondent Wieland in mid- December, 1975. Prior to this delegation, Mr. Kieter occasionally signatured some B-1 forms without having seen the psychological report. This was done because of a backlog in clerical assistance and processing, and to expedite the procedure. Mr. Kieter was assured by the school psychologists that if the B-1 form had been sent to him for execution, proper testing had been completed, the report was in the process of being written and the data was available. Simultaneous with the time that the authority to sign B-1 forms was delegated to Dr. Wieland, Mr. Kieter issued a memorandum to all school psychologists stating that B-1 forms without the completed psychological report attached thereto would no longer be entertained. In the Fall of 1975, Mr. Fisher communicated with Director Kieter concerning the absence of certain psychological data in the files of some ten to twelve students at Horizon Elementary School. Mr. Kieter instructed Mr. Fisher to make up any deficiencies in those folders. Mr. Kieter also discussed the folders with the principal of Horizon, Mr. Wallsworth. Other than this incidence, Director Kieter was not informed of any specific irregularities or abuses in the exceptional education program at Horizon during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. John Georgacopoulos worked in the Diagnostic Center as a psychometrist from 1969 to 1971, and at Horizon Elementary School as a guidance counselor in the school years 1974/75 and 1975/76. As a guidance counselor, he attended "staffings" or meetings with school psychologists pertaining to the placement of students in the various programs. He was also involved with the testing of students at Horizon. In the school year 1974/75 -- his first year at Horizon -- Mr. Georgacopoulos perceived that there were problems in the running of Horizon's exceptional student program. These problems included the misclassification of students, the placing of students into programs without certification and without proper testing, the nonexistence of programs for which children were certified and mimeographed certifications with the students' name placed thereon at a later time. Mr. Georgacopoulos informed Horizon's principal, Mr. Wallsworth, of these irregularities on numerous occasions during the 1974/75 school year. He also states that he discussed these problems with Mr. Fisher, Director Kieter and respondent Wieland. Both Dr. Wieland and Mr. Kieter denied being informed by Mr. Georgacopoulos of any irregularities at Horizon during the 1974/75 school year. According to Mr. Georgacopoulos, problems at Horizon continued in the 1975/76 school year. These included the misplacement of children, improper or inadequate testing of students, nonexistence of programs, inadequate data in student files and the lifting of signatures onto psychological reports. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos obtained from Mr. Wallsworth's office a computer printout of students funded for the various exceptional education programs at Horizon. He then checked the files of these students both at the Diagnostic Center and at Horizon and found that many did not have case numbers assigned to them, that many contained inadequate or no data and that, for some students, files did not exist at all either at the school or the Center. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos went to respondent's office and talked to respondent about the alleged irregularities existing at Horizon. It is difficult to discern from Georgacopoulos' testimony what specifics were related to respondent. It appears that Wieland was informed that children were certified as gifted when no gifted program existed at Horizon, that children were being placed in the wrong programs, that children were being placed without appropriate or adequate testing and that the information in the student files was inadequate. At the time of this discussion, respondent had a difficult time following Georgacopoulos' conversation. He appeared to respondent to ramble and to be upset and confused. Respondent felt that Georgacopoulos simply disagreed with the psychologists' reports as well as the contents of the gifted program. As a result of this conversation, respondent told Georgacopoulos that some information might be in the files at the Diagnostic Center and offered him the opportunity to check these files with the assistance of his staff. Georgacopoulos told respondent that he had discussed these irregularities with Principal Wallsworth. On May 27, 1976, Robert Lieberman, a school psychologist at Horizon, went to respondent's office and told him of irregularities that existed at Horizon. These included the lack of programs for gifted and emotionally disturbed students, the misplacement of certified children, inappropriate "staffing" of children, inappropriate and/or inadequate testing before placement and the pressures placed upon school psychologists to test and place numerous students within a short amount of time. Lieberman was concerned that he would lose his job at Horizon and Respondent told him to try to finish out the school year without sacrificing his professionalism. Dr. Wieland also offered to help him get an interview for a job at the county level. Sometime between May 27th and June 9, 1976, Ms. Queen Sampson, a school psychologist from the area office, talked to respondent and confirmed the statements made by Georgacopoulos and Lieberman. On June 9, 1976, respondent again discussed the irregularities at Horizon with Mr. Georgacopoulos. During this conference, Mr. Georgacopoulos specifically placed the blame upon Principal Wallsworth and he was more emphatic and specific in his allegations concerning the irregularities. He also mentioned the falsification of psychological reports via the "lifting" of signatures, and stated that this had come to his attention in May of 1976. Respondent was aware at this June 9, 1976, meeting that Mr. Georgacopoulos was leaving the Broward County school system. Mr. Georgacopoulos testified that he had discussed specific irregularities at Horizon with Director Joel Kieter during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. Kieter denied that there had been any such discussions and testified that he had never even met Mr. Georgacopoulos prior to June 9, 1976. About an hour after talking to Mr. Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, respondent Wieland went to the office of William T. McFatter, Assistant to the Superintendent. He related that Georgacopoulos had made serious allegations against Mr. Wallsworth and asked for McFatter's advice. Mr. McFatter remembers that respondent mentioned the possibility of double funding and the qualification of students for the gifted program at Horizon. McFatter advised respondent to go straight to superintendent Mauer with the allegations. McFatter and respondent then went to the superintendent's office and a brief ten to fifteen minute meeting ensued. This was the last day of the school year for students and the superintendent was quite busy at this time. The possibility of double funding was an explosive issue to the Superintendent and this is the only irregularity he recalls having been mentioned by respondent on June 9, 1976. The superintendent immediately called a Mr. Cox, who deals with pupil accounting, and related to him his concern with double funding of students in the exceptional education program. Mr. McFatter, Mr. Mauer and respondent then went to the office of Mr. Cox and respondent Wieland was assigned the task of determining the existence or nonexistence of double funding. None was found and respondent so reported to Mr. Mauer. Subsequently, respondent and two other persons were assigned the task of auditing the records of the exceptional student program at Horizon. The auditors were unable to verify either the existence or nonexistence of certain records, forms and psychological reports for many students. It was clear that many files were incomplete and there was no evidence that either the gifted or emotionally disturbed programs existed at Horizon. Respondent Wieland explained the delay between the first March 1976, meeting with Mr. Georgacopoulos and his June 9, 1976, report to Mr. McFatter and the Superintendent as follows. Respondent (as well as others) classified Georgacopoulos as a "child advocate," and respondent felt at the March meeting that Georgacopoulos was merely expressing his disagreement with psychological reports and the contents of certain existing programs. During the March meeting, his allegations were general in nature and his discussion of irregularities appeared to ramble and be confusing. Respondent was more concerned with the demeanor of Georgacopoulos than with what he was saying. When Mr. Lieberman related similar and more specific irregularities, which were thereafter confirmed by Queen Sampson, respondent felt that disclosure of Lieberman's and Sampson's statements would be detrimental to their future employment with the school system. Upon confirming that Georgacopoulos was leaving the school system, respondent felt that the charges could be attributed to Georgacopoulos without injury to Lieberman and Sampson. He therefore had another conference with Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, and decided to seek advice from the Assistant to the Superintendent, Mr. McFatter. Various other events have transpired since June 9, 1976, concerning Horizon Elementary School exceptional education program irregularities. These include a letter from Mr. Georgacopoulos to the Superintendent, which letter appears to have instigated an investigation by the Security Office or the Internal Affairs Division. Such later events are not deemed relevant to the present charges against respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent be immediately reinstated to his former position and that any back salary be paid to him for the reason that the charges against him were not sustained by the evidence. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: School Board of Broward County 1327 S.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida John B. Di Chiara DiGiulian, Spellacy, Bernstein, Lyons and Sanders Suite 1500, One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Robert M. Curtis Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore P.O. Drawer 4078 1750 East Sunrise Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Neil A. Merica, committed the offenses alleged to have begun in 1994 through 1999 as stated in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated May 7, 2003, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the demeanor and candor of the witnesses while testifying; the documentary materials received in evidence; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003); stipulations and arguments of the parties; and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant, material, and ultimate facts, arrived at impartially, based solely upon the extensive evidence adduced at the final hearing, are determined: Respondent's Qualification and Teaching Experiences Mr. Merica holds a degree in speech communication from the University of South Florida. He is also certified in specific learning disabilities (SLD) by that institution. Early in his 13-year tenure as a teacher at Foster Elementary School (Foster), he acquired a degree in computer science from Florida Metropolitan University. Mr. Merica holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 532934, covering areas of English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), SLD,2 and Speech. His Florida Educator's Certificate expired June 30, 2003. As of the date of this proceeding, Mr. Merica had not exercised his right to renew his Florida Educator's Certificate. Mr. Merica also holds a teaching certificate from New Hampshire. Mr. Merica has a very demonstrative and expressive personality. His voice, when speaking at his normal conversational tone, resounds from the back of his throat in a louder than average volume. During his testimony, the pitch of his voice and his rapid speech pattern was accompanied by an unexpected and sudden outburst of spastic energy. Hillsborough County School Board's "Pull-out" Classroom Policy In 1987, the Hillsborough County School Board (Board) operated a Pull-out Classroom Policy (Pull-out Policy) for SLD and Physically Impaired (PI) students. Pursuant to the Board's Pull-out Policy, SLD and PI students were pulled out of their regular classes, divided into various numbered groups, and sent to a designated "resource" class teacher during the school day. Respondent's Initial Teaching Assignment Under the Pull-out Policy in 1987-1988 Mr. Merica began teaching at Foster as a SLD resource class teacher in October 1987 when the Board's Pull-out Policy was in effect. A resource teacher is the teacher whose class consisted of SLD students who were "pulled out" of regular classes of non-SLD students and sent to a resource class consisting of all SLD students for teaching and instruction. In 1989, the Board changed its Pull-out Policy to a "Self- contained" Classroom Policy (Self-contained Policy). The Self- contained Policy was designed to keep all SLD students together in one identified class throughout the school year. Mr. Merica taught SLD students under the Self-contained Policy at Foster until the 1992-1993 school year. Beginning at the start of the 1992-1993 school year, Foster's administration assigned Mr. Merica to teach a resource class consisting of PI and Learning Disabled Resource (LDR) students. PI classes consisted of students with a variety of physical impairments, including students who required various assistance devices such as wheelchairs, walkers, braces and "talkers," a machine device that assists the student with speaking difficulties to communicate. Mr. Merica continued as a PI and LDR teacher from the 1992-1993 school year through the 1998-1999 school year. Foster Elementary Exceptional Student Education Student Population from 1998 to 2000 During the two-year period of the 1998-1999 and 1999- 2000 school years, Foster had a large exceptional student education (ESE) population among its general student population. Foster's ESE community population consisted of 22 units, composed of full-time ESE students. There were six units of mentally handicapped students, with mental handicaps ranging from severe and profound mentally handicapped to mild emotionally mentally handicapped. There were four units of autistic students and four units of PI students. Foster had approximately five units of early exceptional learning programs, and three units of SLD students. Policy Change to Self-Contained Classes in 1998-1999 During the fall of the 1998-1999 school year, the Board changed their Pull-out Policy for SLD and PI students to a Self- contained Policy. The Self-contained Policy was instituted because of the severity of the students' learning disabilities, their struggles with academics, and the administration's conviction that the daily routine of shifting the SLD and PI students from "regular class to resource class" did not sufficiently address the students' individual learning disabilities and individual educational needs. Foster's administration identified students whom they believed did not handle transition well and recommended them as candidates for self-contained classes. The primary objective of the administration was to provide more "direct teaching time" and "direct teaching services" to each SLD or PI student. In the self-contained classes, SLD and PI students were assigned to one class and one teacher with a teacher's aide and/or a Department of Education for Exceptional Students (DEES) attendant throughout the day. The teacher's aides were those persons who were permitted to assist, under the oversight of the teacher, the classroom teacher with all facets of teaching, instruction, and classroom control. The DEES attendants were those persons whose duties consisted primarily of assisting the teacher by attending to individual and personal needs of SLD and PI students, i.e. changing their clothing, providing restroom assistance, etc. Respondent's 1999-2000 Reassignment to Teach Self-contained SLD Class In mid 1998, Brenda Griffin (Principal Griffin) was appointed principal of Foster replacing Janice Payne, f/k/a Pils (Principal Payne). At the start of the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Griffin changed Mr. Merica from his PI and LDR class and assigned him to teach a self-contained class of SLD students. A self-contained SLD class is a class composed of SLD students, each of whom has an individual educational plan (IEP) designed as the teacher's guide to assist in teaching each student to achieve specific, individual, and predetermined educational goals. Each IEP is developed by joint agreement of the SLD student's parent, his/her teacher and the assigned therapist (teacher). The IEP also identifies special educational services and supports that may be necessary to achieve desired outcomes and short-term objectives, and it establishes student educational benchmarks. An IEP may or may not contain daily, weekly or monthly checklists to evaluate a student's progress in achieving the benchmarks contained in his or her IEP. To make an objective determination of whether a student with an IEP has made progress (advanced from or to an ascertainable educational position), knowledge of the educational benchmarks contained in the student's IEP are essential. During the earlier years as a teacher at Foster, Mr. Merica served as the school's Classroom Teacher's Association (CTA) representative. In this capacity, he would address and argue those issues he believed to have had direct impact upon teachers who were members of the CTA. Mr. Merica attributed many of the comments made during staff meetings to addressing issues he believed had an impact upon teacher members of the CTA. During the 1997-1998 school year and after lengthy discussions with Principal Payne, but before Principal Griffin was appointed principal, Mr. Merica resigned as CTA representative. In September of 2000 and after 13 years of annual employment contract renewals, the Board terminated Mr. Merica's employment. At the time of this proceeding, Mr. Merica had not exercised his right to renew his Florida Educator's Certificate. In this proceeding, the Commissioner seeks to permanently revoke Mr. Merica's right to renew his Florida Educator's Certificate. The Amended Administrative Complaint The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged specific instances of specific conduct, specific acts, and specific speech to have occurred at unspecified dates and at unspecified times during a five-year span of time from 1994 through 1999. Accordingly, only incidents specifically alleged and proven by evidence of record to have occurred on or after January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1999, are considered in determining whether the Commissioner proved each allegation charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. STATUTE VIOLATIONS Count 1: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has proved to be incompetent to teach or perform duties as an employee of the public school system or to teach in or to operate a private school. Count 2: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving mortal turpitude. Count 3: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. Count 4: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession Prescribed by State Board of Education rules. RULE VIOLATIONS Count 5: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. Count 6: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Count 7: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interfered with an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and further, failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual was protected from such harassment or discrimination. WHEREFORE, Petitioner recommends that the Education Practices Commission impose an appropriate penalty pursuant to the authority provided in Sections 1012.795(1) and 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes, which penalty may include a reprimand, probation, restriction of the authorized scope of practice, administrative fine, suspension of the teaching certificate not to exceed three years, permanent revocation of the teaching certificate, or combination thereof, for the reasons set forth herein, and in accordance with the Explanation and Election of Rights forms. Amendment to Amended Administrative Complaint to Correct Scrivener's Error. On December 24, 2003, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Correct Scrivener's Error, which was granted and provided the following: On November 6, 2003, Petitioner Amended the Administrative Complaint in this matter. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint should be further amended to correct the scrivener's error. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint currently states: "During the 1998-99 school year, Respondent sexually harassed several different co- workers." That portion of Paragraph 5 should be amended to state: "Between 1994 and 1999, Respondent sexually harassed several different co-workers," to conform the time period for the allegations of Paragraph 5 with the time period for the allegations of all other paragraphs of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Janice Payne, Principal at Foster from 1987-1998 Principal Payne was principal at Foster from May 1987 to May 1998. An illness forced her to retire midyear in the 1997-1998 school year. After Principal Payne’s retirement, the Board appointed Principal Griffin as principal of Foster. Principal Griffin held that position during the time of this hearing. During Principal Payne's 1987 to 1998 tenure as principal at Foster and as required by statute, she performed yearly evaluations of Mr. Merica's professional performance as a teacher of SLD and PI students. Consideration was given to annual performance evaluations for the 1994-1995 and 1998-1999 school years. During the 1994-1995 through 1997-1998 school years, Principal Payne identified, in her annual evaluations of Mr. Merica's overall professional teaching performance, specific areas in which she independently determined Mr. Merica was in need of professional growth and improvement. At the end of each of those four evaluation periods, she met with Mr. Merica and discussed and identified for him those specific areas in which he was in need of professional growth and improvement. She provided him with specific, constructive advice and assistance to facilitate his professional growth and improvement as a professional teacher in the areas she identified. Undisputed evidence established that Mr. Merica accepted Principal Payne's constructive advice and assistance; he complied and implemented her suggestions in each area identified as in need of growth and improvement, and he grew and improved his performance in each identified area. It is noted, however, that Mr. Merica would sometimes suffer relapses and revert into his old pattern of voicing his personal opinions on a variety of subjects, described by Principal Payne as just: "talking up and rumoring everybody." Even with his propensity to occasionally "talk up and rumor everybody," Principal Payne concluded that he was a very good teacher and that he could be better. Principal Payne's methodology of assisting her young professional teachers' growth was to identify areas in need of improvement followed by personal conferences with each teacher explaining areas in need of improvement, making individualized suggestions tailored to the need(s) of the teacher, and, after an appropriate time interval, completing a follow-up assessment to evaluate the teacher's growth, improvement, and compliance with her suggestions. The record evidence demonstrated the existence of a professional and respectful relationship between Principal Payne and Mr. Merica, spanning the eight or more years they worked together, including the few occasions when there were disagreements. 1998-1999 Performance Evaluation of Mr. Merica In February 1998, Principal Payne gave Mr. Merica a letter of reprimand citing him for having acted in an "unprofessional manner" with Pam Wilkins, an ESE co-worker. Nevertheless, when Principal Payne evaluated his overall professional teaching performance for the 1998-1999 school year, including his personal conduct, she gave him a "satisfactory" rating in every area, without comments. Principal Payne made her independent written evaluation of Mr. Merica without assistance of any criteria or standards, other than as indicated on the evaluation form.3 In reaching her independent assessment of Mr. Merica's proficiency and effectiveness, scoring them on the characteristics and numerical scale indicated, she relied upon his teachings, his problems, and his improvements experienced. Her professional judgment of Mr. Merica was based upon her personal observation and day-to-day association with her teachers. Mr. Merica's 1998-1999 Performance Evaluation is the most accurate, reliable, and undisputed evidence of his competence and overall professional performance as a teacher during the 1998-1999 school year. There is no credible evidence of record that Mr. Merica engaged in unprofessional conduct evidencing either a past, an onset or a continuation of professional incompetence as a teacher in the school system during the 1998-1999 period covered by Principal Payne's annual evaluation. In response to the general inquiry of “whether or not her previous discussions and her prior improvement expectations of Mr. Merica as a teacher over the [unidentified] years were successful,” Principal Payne, convincingly, testified: Yes, temporarily, absolutely. My philosophy about Mr. Merica--first of all, he could be a good teacher if he wanted to be because I have observed him. I know that. He could behave if he wanted to. He could be a strong staff member. But, you know, he could do that probably for maybe four months or five months and all of a sudden it was just--he was just doing the same old thing, just going around, talking to everyone, rumoring people or getting rumors to people. It's just like this school was his life. Continuing, Ms. Payne testified: Mr. Merica would frequently apologize and realize what he had done was wrong, because at one time he's like a lamb and help to do whatever he can do and other times he just be so angry and upset to the point of where I said his behavior would frighten me. As the professional supervisor who worked with Mr. Merica for more than a ten-year period, Principal Payne was the most experienced and most knowledgeable person from years of hands-on experiences to have observed "the beginning of professional teaching incompetence that was not responsive to assistance provided by other professionals and continued unabated throughout her tenure." The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony and documentation of Principal Payne, "a beginning of demonstrated professional incompetence in 1994" or even as late as the school year of 1996-1997, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Based on the testimony of Principal Payne, it is a reasonable inference, and I infer, that the "behavior of anger" sometimes demonstrated by Mr. Merica in Principal Payne's presence was directed toward the subject matter of "what he had done was wrong" and not directed toward the person of Principal Payne. Through the above testimony, the Commissioner failed to prove that between 1994 and 1998-1999, Respondent was insubordinate and confrontational towards Principal Payne during her tenure as principal. The Commissioner failed to prove the allegation that Mr. Merica's personal conduct began to demonstrate "incompetence" as a professional teacher during the period of the 1994-1995 through mid-year of the 1997-1998 school years while Principal Payne was principal of Foster. A review of the record demonstrated, and the undersigned so finds, that no other witness called by the Commissioner provided credible, material and substantive evidence, based on personal knowledge contradicting the testimony of Principal Payne, that related to Mr. Merica's professional "teaching skills" during the period of the 1994-1995 through mid-year 1997-1998 school years. Brenda Griffin Principal at Foster Elementary beginning in 1998 After the 1997-1998 midyear resignation of Principal Payne, the Board appointed Principal Griffin as principal of Foster. The professional relationship between Principal Griffin and Mr. Merica became tense, and, based upon the collective testimonies of teachers and administrative staff members hereinafter, the tension was known by both the professional staff and administrative employees at Foster Elementary. Principal Griffin recalled that during her first year as principal at Foster (approximately the latter half of the 1997-1998 school year), she made an unannounced visit to Mr. Merica's self-contained classroom of PI students. Recalling her visit, she testified: [T] hey [students], all had IEPs that have specific goals for each student and what I observed was group instruction, but I felt like the PI students were not being stimulated. (Emphasis added) There is no record evidence of the particular teaching materials being used by Mr. Merica during this single visit. There is no record evidence establishing ascertainable professional expectations or teaching standards below which Mr. Merica was performing during Principal Griffin's initial visit. There is no record evidence of specific educational benchmarks or educational goals contained in the PI students' IEPs. Within the situational circumstances of this one visit as testified to, Principal Griffin's conclusiory opinion that Mr. Merica's "PI students were not being stimulated" lacks an objective benchmark for evaluation, as well as any reasonable degree of reliability to produce a firm belief as to the truth of the matter sought to be established. Continuing, Principal Griffin testified: Mr. Merica would go to the board, where there may or may not have been written some vocabulary words, and he would start some kind of instruction and I felt that was because I was in the room--sometimes the aides would get up to work with the kids and sometimes not, and I was sure they were waiting on the direction from their teacher at that time. (Emphasis added) Principal Griffin recalled another separate incident, but omitted providing the month or year, when she "observed Mr. Merica sitting at his computer--she "did not know what he was doing at his computer"--but she had been in his classroom on a previous (unidentified time) occasion when a golf game was on the computer and she--"knows that he was not tending to the students." Principal Griffin's conclusions, her feelings, and her opinions in findings 24 and 26 herein above, minus evidence of the situational circumstances surrounding each incident, lack reasonable reliability to produce a firm belief of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Principal Griffin also recalled (unspecified) occasion(s) on which she observed Mr. Merica outside his classroom. She characterized those observations as having seen Mr. Merica: verywhere- in the hallways, in the lunchroom, at the PE field, in the back of the school--in the ESE wing building, where the buses are for the kids, in the clinic, in the office, everywhere-at any period of time during the day. There is no record evidence of personal knowledge by the witness or evidence of the situation and/or circumstances that caused Mr. Merica to be outside his classroom on those occasions when he was observed by this witness. The witness' summary characterization, "everywhere-at any period of time during the day," lacks certainty, reasonableness, and a degree of believable reliability to produce a firm belief as to the accuracy of the matters to which she testified. Viewed most favorably, Principal Griffin's testimony failed to establish that on each of those occasions she observed Mr. Merica outside his classroom; his presence outside his classroom was not within the scope of his professional responsibilities and duties as a professional staff member at Foster. The credibility of this witness is further diminished by her exaggerated testimony of facts at issue. This testimony and the intended inference that his absence from his classroom caused a direct and negative impairment on his students' learning, lack essential details to provide a reasonable degree of reliability and cast insurmountable doubt as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Principal Griffin testified she talked with Mr. Merica about not being in his classroom and he told her: [H]e needed a break or that it was his break time and that his aides were in the classroom and they were capable of instructing his students. Mr. Merica disputed and denied making the particular statement, i.e. "that his aides were capable of instructing his students." His version of the reason(s) for absences from his classroom were reasonable explanations(s) corroborated by other witnesses as found infra. Even if Mr. Merica's denial of the inferred accusation is unbelievable, it does not prove the accusation by the Commissioner to the contrary. The acceptable and unacceptable reasons or situations a teacher may or may not be out of his or her classroom, and personal knowledge of those unacceptable occasions that Mr. Merica was not in his classroom, were not established through the testimony of Principal Griffin. The evidence does not support the frequency or extent of her assertions but, instead, casts doubt on the accuracy of the witness' testimony. The Commissioner failed to prove through the testimony of this witness that on each occasion Mr. Merica was observed outside his classroom, his presence was unreasonable, unprofessional, and caused a direct and negative impairment on his students' learning. Principal Griffin testified, unconvincingly, regarding another incident (again with no record evidence of the month, school year or the situational circumstances) that "a mother" called her to bring to her attention "that the teacher was not using the touch-talker in the classroom and at one point took it away from the child as part of a discipline." The witness did not provide the mother's identity. The witness did not provide the child's identity. The witness did not provide the teacher's identity though those three persons were allegedly involved in this undocumented incident. The presumed inference(s) that Mr. Merica was "the teacher" referred to by the unidentified mother, who (inappropriately) disciplined "a child" by taking away the unidentified child's touch-talker, is unreasonable. The vague, non-specific testimony of this witness, and her inability and/or her refusal to identify the mother, the child, and the teacher, create an unacceptable level of credibility due to the absence of three significant points of identity. The credibility of this witness' testimony was further diminished by the lack of corroborating testimony by other witnesses, and the witness' credibility disappeared because no recording was made of such an important call from a parent to the principal of a school. The testimony by this witness does not establish or corroborate other testimony regarding the issue of "some teacher using the touch-talker in the classroom and at one point took it away from the child as part of a discipline." The Commissioner, through the testimony of this witness, failed to demonstrate that Mr. Merica "inappropriately disciplined a student," as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The testimony of this witness, based solely on debatable expressions as her personal "feelings" and personal "opinions" regarding alleged conduct in the past reflected in findings 24 through 32 herein above, viewed most favorably, lacked reasonable reliability and substantial weight to produce a firm belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Respondent's 1998-1999 Personnel Performance Evaluation At the end of the 1998-1999 school year and notwithstanding her testimony in findings numbered 24 through 32 above, Principal Griffin, independently, determined that Mr. Merica's overall professional teaching performance, to include his personal conduct and, by reasonable and objective implication, his teaching competence, was satisfactory in every category for the 1998-1999 school year. The overall "satisfactory" performance evaluation given Mr. Merica by Principal Griffin for his professional teaching competence and personal conduct in the 1998-1999 school year is significant when juxtaposed to her testimony at the final hearing. As late as May 1999, this witness' independent evaluation of Mr. Merica's professional teaching competence and his personal conduct was reflected on his 1998-1999 performance evaluation as "all satisfactory." However, the testimony contained in Findings of Fact 24 through 32 in this 2004 proceeding is a direct contradiction. This aspect of the witness' 2004 testimony and written 1999 evaluation raised substantial issues of the witness' intent and cast insurmountable doubt on the witness' credibility. The lack of consistency in opinion and the ambiguity created by the 2004 testimony of conduct having occurred from pre-termination to post-termination are resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. Mr. Merica's competence as a teacher, his teaching skills, classroom management, and student discipline, as evaluated and determined by Principal Griffin, for the 1998-1999 school year, ending May to June 1999, is the more substantial, reliable, and persuasive indicator of his past performance and competence as a professional teacher during the preceding 1998-1999 school year. Debora Bragdon, Secretary to Principals Payne and Griffin Debora Bragdon testified that during the 1999-2000 school year (ending May to June 2000), Mr. Merica came into the administrative office a minimum of once and "sometimes" twice a day, depending upon the day. According to Secretary Bragdon: Mr. Merica and Principal Griffin had discussions in the principal's office a minimum of once and sometimes twice a day throughout the entire school year. Secretary Bragdon could not recall the subject matter discussed nor did she recall hearing Principal Griffin's voice at any time during the alleged daily office discussions. Mr. Merica's voice, however, she heard stating that "Mr. Merica would be screaming so loud that I could hear him clearly." However, she could not recall a word or phrase spoken by Mr. Merica. Secretary Bragdon did not enter the principal's office when Mr. Merica and Principal Griffin were having their daily conferences. Secretary Bragdon surmised, from the tone of Mr. Merica's voice only, that Principal Griffin was in danger. Secretary Bragdon further testified that during those daily conferences she would buzz Principal Griffin on the intercom asking if she needed assistance, and Principal Griffin repeatedly assured her that "she did not need assistance." Principal Griffin did not corroborate or confirm Secretary Bragdon’s testimony on the issue "once and sometimes twice a day throughout the entire school year she had discussions with Mr. Merica in her office." Any reasonable consideration of Secretary Bragdon's above recollection requires acceptance of the fact that a minimum of 180 (once a day) to a maximum of 360 (sometimes twice a day) conferences occurred in Principal Griffin's office during the 1999-2000 school year between Principal Griffin and Mr. Merica. The intended inference that during each daily office conference, whether 180 times or more, Mr. Merica was always screaming at Principal Griffin while she sat silently in her office is rejected. Secretary Bragdon's exaggerated testimony lacks any appreciable degree of reasonableness, reliability or credibility. Her entire testimony failed to produce a firm or a precise belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, and the Commissioner failed to prove through this witness that Mr. Merica was confrontational and argumentative with Principal Griffin during unspecified conferences while in her office. Negative Statements Continuing, Secretary Bragdon testified, unconvincingly, regarding unidentified sounds she overheard on the intercom system: rom the sounds I overheard on the intercom system when Mr. Merica called the administrative office for help with control of his students,-not all the time but sometimes you could hear disorder, confusion, kids maybe not under control. (Emphasis added) From unidentified sounds she allegedly overheard on the intercom, Secretary Bragdon concluded that the sounds she heard were "disorder," and, from that, she inferred that the "kids were maybe not under control" in Mr. Merica's class. The intended inference that Mr. Merica's "student behavior management and student control" was not effective at unspecified times, alluded to by this testimony, is rejected for want of reasonable credibility. Secretary Bragdon's testimony in findings 33, 34, and 35 consisted of exaggerated and speculative conjectures. As such, her testimony was not substantial in specifics nor competent in knowledge to establish as fact the allegations testified to in findings 33, 34, and 35 hereinabove. Secretary Bragdon was secretary to both Principal Payne and Principal Griffin, but there is no record evidence of the school year the alleged intercom activities she purported to have overheard, and of which she testified, occurred. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged misconduct during the period 1994 through 1999 (1999 ending December 31, 1999), not throughout 1999-2000. The ambiguity regarding the time period the alleged conduct occurred is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. Subversive Statements Secretary Bragdon also testified about a personal conversation between her and Mr. Merica "shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing."4 Although she could not remember the day, month or year, she specifically recalled: I was in the cafeteria getting coffee and Neil was also in the cafeteria. He brought his children in there to have breakfast. And he was up at the same table that I was and he basically just said that, you know, - - everybody was basically talking about it and I don't know word for word, but basically what he said was it would be good if we could do something like that here, but we just have to make sure the administration are in the building. This statement, if true, demonstrated, at its worst, bad taste on behalf of Mr. Merica. When considered within the context (everybody was talking-about it), circumstances (just after the news report of the occurrence), and the location (at a table in the cafeteria) with everyone talking, the alleged statement does not evidence a manifested "subversive" intent of Mr. Merica, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Sectary Bragdon's demeanor, attitude, and manner of responding to questions seemed calculated to provide little light on the substantive facts of the situation, but rather an exaggerated version of the nature and circumstances of the incidents. I find the testimony of Secretary Bragdon unworthy of reliance upon as a true foundation to support findings of fact as to the matters testified to hereinabove. Negative Attitude Toward Administration Statements Cynthia Blake, a DEES attendant at Foster from 1985 to 2002, testified regarding "statements" allegedly made by Mr. Merica that demonstrated his negative attitude (state of mind) toward the school administration. When asked the following question: "[W]hat comments were made or what comments have you overheard that would support your belief that Mr. Merica had a negative attitude about the administration," Ms. Blake gave the following answer: Well, there was a lot and sometimes he would just walk away. He did not want to hear it. He would walk behind me, say it again, and would say, you know, be careful or whatever and it never changed. At this one given time, we was just outside and I was watching some kids, I think, and he came up and they was painting the school and he just said that ought to get all the kids out of the school and blow the school up and leave the administration in the school. During her earlier deposition, Ms. Blake was asked: "[W]hat comments were made or what comments have you overheard that would support your belief that Mr. Merica had a negative attitude about the administration?" As seen below, her response then differed from her present testimony. Q. Do you remember a situation where Mr. Merica said something about blowing up the school? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me about that? A. Well, we at some point always told Neil, you know, to you know, you'd better calm down because you never, you know, people -- the teachers and -- I mean the administration -- you have to just watch yourself. There are certain things you just can't say and probably in a joking way, but it was a lot of stuff going on at the time. The schools had been with firearms and up in Columbine and different situations, so probably it was in a -- I don't know what to say -- but he just spoke of we need to get all the kids about and leave the administration in and blow up the school. Q. Do you remember saying that it was probably in a joking manner back when your deposition was taken? A. Well, basically when Neil spoke about things, he laughed about it, so at the time, like I said, there was so much going on between the news and that, I would never know anymore. Q. All right. So he might have though it was funny, but you didn't think it was funny; is that fair? A. No, sir. The testimony of Ms. Blake, mirroring the testimony of Secretary Bragdon, demonstrated bad taste on behalf of Mr. Merica. When subject to cross-examination about the statement or other aspects of her prior testimony, Ms. Blake became vague and uncertain about her prior versions and was inconsistent on matters that seriously undermined her credibility. Consideration of the situation and circumstances when Mr. Merica made the alleged statement supports a reasonable inference that Mr. Merica's statement was a crude and boorish attempt at making a joke, not in good taste, but nonetheless a joke. The Commissioner did not prove by the above testimony that Mr. Merica was hostile and subversive or intended his comment as derogatory and disrespectful toward his principal as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Physical Restraint and Classroom Management Allegations Pat Drennan, assistant principal at Foster, by her admission was primarily responsible for the school's educational curriculum. In her "educational curriculum" capacity, Ms. Drennan assisted teachers, students, and parents in curriculum matters and assisted teachers in discipline in the classroom, student testing, and student grades. She was unable to recall the year and date, but she recalled she had been in her position as assistant principal for four years, approximately 1998 through January 2004. When asked about the Board's policy regarding an educator's physical restraint of students, Ms. Drennan responded that her "understanding" of the Board's policy was: [B]asically teachers are not to restrain students unless they have been trained-- unless they have ACT training they can not bring a child down on the ground or anything. She did not know whether Mr. Merica was ACT trained or not at all times pertinent and at the time of her testimony. No writing in the record speaks to this issue, and no predicate was laid to show that the witness was in a position to know the Board's policy. This witness stated her "understanding" of the applicable rule. A finding of fact that a violation of a penal statute or rule occurred cannot be based upon loose interpretations and problematic evidence, but on evidence as substantial as the penalty for violation of such statue or rule. The testimonial evidence given by this witness failed to establish the "rule." Thus, her opinion regarding violation of a rule she does not know, lacks a foundation upon which a reasonable degree of reliability will support. Ms. Drennan recalled one occasion on which (no evidence of the month and year) on which she instructed Mr. Merica "not to restrain a student she 'thought' he had restrained." She recalled making one general suggestion (not explained) to Mr. Merica regarding classroom behavior management, adding, but "he did not have to do it." Ms. Drennan did not know whether during his last year at Foster (1999-2000) Mr. Merica taught the entire year. When asked if she knew why Mr. Merica left Foster she answered: [I]n my mind, the situation was that he no longer was able to control himself and the class--the management of the class. No evidence of record speaks to the issue of a standard of classroom management from which to evaluate Mr. Merica's conduct. To demonstrate this issue the Commissioner's reliance on witnesses who could but state their "understanding" from various and dubious vantage points, failed to prove what was required of Mr. Merica and the specific conduct that fell below the required standards. The intended inference to be drawn from the above testimony of Foster's assistant principal, that Mr. Merica was "unable to control himself" and "unable to manage his class" and thus incompetent, is rejected for a lack of personal knowledge on behalf of the witness and evidence of an objective standard from which to evaluate "control" and class "management" by a teacher. The Commissioner failed to establish, by the testimony of Ms. Drennan, that Mr. Merica was unable to control himself and unable to manage his class and, thus, demonstrated incompetence, during the (unspecified) period inferred by Ms. Drennan's testimony, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Drennan testified, unconvincingly, about hearsay from another teacher, Ms. Parson, who told her, "for information only." According to Ms. Drennan: Ms. Paula Parson, a teacher who did not want anything done about it but for information only, told her she was apprehensive about Mr. Merica bringing her lunch and giving her unwanted attention. Paula Parson was not called to testify. The intended inference of unwanted attention is not accepted by the undersigned. The Commissioner failed to prove by the uncorroborated hearsay testimony of Ms. Drennan that Mr. Merica sexually harassed several different co-workers, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Code of Conduct and Rules of Professional Responsibility When asked if she was familiar with the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Professional Responsibility, Ms. Drennan again, unconvincingly, testified: I think yes, basically, the rule that deals with personal conduct that seriously reduces an educator's effectiveness in the school district,--when someone coming into the district-I would want to look at previous-- what had happened previously with the person and I would think they would be ineffective; I would find them ineffective in the fact if they were not open to interaction with faculty and staff in an appropriate, professional way; They are ineffective if they don't know how to deal with children in the proper way. If they couldn't tell me that they could do a management plan--have one before they walked in. I would find them ineffective if they were not--didn't have the right tools for teaching, basically, and those tools are many. Besides a degree, it would be how you get along with people, how open you are to learning new things, and that type of thing. There were no incidents of Mr. Merica being insubordinate or confrontational with Principal Payne witnessed by Ms. Drennan. This witness presented no evidence that she had personal knowledge of Mr. Merica's classroom management skills or the lack thereof. Her "opinions" about what conduct would be inappropriate and what conduct that would seriously reduce an educator's effectiveness (and competence) in the school district are her "opinions" and nothing more. The "right tools for teaching, basically, and those tools are many," standard coming from an assistant principal does not establish an objective and acceptable standard by which to evaluate a teacher's competence as a professional teacher. Viewed most favorably, the "opinions" of Ms. Drennan are not appropriate, objective standards by which to determine whether the professional conduct of a fellow teacher fell below the Code of Conduct and/or violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner failed to prove, by the testimony of Ms. Drennan, that during the period starting approximately in 1998 and continuing through December 1999 Mr. Merica engaged in conduct that fell below the Code of Conduct and/or violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Confrontations with Principal Griffin Ms. Drennan testified that at some point in time (of which she was not sure and unable to identify) her office was located next door to Principal Griffin's office, and she would "intentionally" leave her door open. According to Ms. Drennan, by leaving her door ajar she "could overhear and 'tell from the tone of the voice'--when someone was loud and confrontational like that [sic] you just never know and I just worried that there could be something else happening." Asked what she meant by "loud and confrontational," Ms. Drennan responded: Well, anger. Obviously, the man was angry when he was in there sometimes. I'm not saying every time, but the times that we're talking about like that, he was angry and anger sometimes can lead to other things, so . . . Ms. Drennan purportedly could overhear Mr. Merica speaking with her door open, but she gave no testimony of what, if anything, she overheard Mr. Merica say. Ms. Drennan's testimony, regarding loud talking by Mr. Merica toward Principal Griffin, inferring his state of mind as being emotionally out of control while conferencing with his principal, is speculative conjecture. There is no record evidence that this witness observed nor personally confirmed with Principal Griffin that Mr. Merica was, in fact, angry with Principal Griffin on each of those "sometimes" occasions she heard "someone was loud." This witness did not observe nor subsequently confirm with Principal Griffin that Mr. Merica pointed his finger her face, during those unspecified occasions when she sometimes left her office door ajar and sometimes heard someone was loud, as alleged in the Amended Administrative complaint. Secretary Bragdon recalled Mr. Merica yelling “everyday all the time,” and Ms. Drennan contradicts that testimony recalling he was loud and angry, but, qualifying that statement, she added she was “not saying every time [he was in the office].” The testimony of both witnesses, considered separately and together, failed to produced a firm belief, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Refusal of Failure to Comply with Requests and Instructions When asked, Ms. Drennan could not provide testimony based on personal knowledge or personal observation of any failure or the refusal by Mr. Merica to comply with an identified request or instruction given by either Principal Payne or Principal Griffin. When asked, Ms. Drennan could not provide testimony based on personal knowledge or personal observation of Mr. Merica having made derogatory and/or disrespectful remarks about Principals Payne or Griffin in her presence. Ms. Drennan's opinion that Mr. Merica deviated from her "understanding" of the principles contained in the Code of Conduct and Rules of Professional Responsibility standards were speculative and insufficient to establish as fact that Mr. Merica deviated from or violated the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner failed through this witness to establish any violation or any deviation from standards found in the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Professional Responsibility by Mr. Merica. Ms. Drennan failed to establish an objective, ascertainable standard of professional level of effective teacher behavior and teacher classroom management for SLD and IP students. Her testimony and the intended inferences regarding Mr. Merica's alleged ineffective and unprofessional student behavior, teaching, classroom control, and student management is incompetent to establish as fact that Mr. Merica deviated from clearly, established professional standards as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Drennan testified as did other co-workers who were present that Mr. Merica's had occasional disruptive verbal conduct in faculty and staff meetings and that during collegiate discussions he often demonstrated an argumentative attitude. The Commissioner proved, through the testimony of Ms. Drennan and other witnesses who were present and testified, that at one or more (unspecified) faculty and/or staff meetings that Mr. Merica occasionally engaged in disruptive verbal conduct accompanied by an argumentative attitude. Derogatory and/or Disrespectful Remarks About Principal Shelley Opila worked as a PI and ESE teacher at Foster from August 1996 to July 2001. When asked to give an example of "bashing the principal," Ms. Opila testified that during (unspecified) faculty meetings, Mr. Merica would often state: "Oh, that will never work," in response to unspecified matters under discussion. There is no record evidence of the situation or circumstances of the particular subject matter under discussions when this witness overheard the statement. Viewed most favorably, the isolated statement, "Oh, that will never work," is a personal opinion and, as such, does not evidence a manifest intent by Mr. Merica to make derogatory statements about the Foster administration as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Opila testified that she overheard Mr. Merica several times voice his personal opinions "[t]hat you have to be blonde or a female," and "It's who you know to be a principal." Without evidence of the situational circumstances when the statement was made, Ms. Opila assumed that Mr. Merica was referring to one or both, Principal Payne and/or Principal Griffin. There was no corroboration from either Principal Payne or Principal Griffin that Ms. Opila conveyed her concerns to either of them regarding Mr. Merica's alleged derogatory and/or disrespectful remarks. Viewed most favorably, the general statement "You have to be blond or a female," could have been a true statement if the record evidence established the color of Principal Payne and Principal Griffin's hair during their respective tenure as principal. The record evidence, however, does not. As reflected in the record, the testimony of this witness does not evidence a specific intent of Mr. Merica to make derogatory comments about Principal Griffin or Principal Payne. The record evidence reflects that approximately 120 educational personnel worked at Foster during the time in question and among that number only five or six were males. The reference to "blond and female to be principal" applied equally to approximately 100 females at Foster who, if they were not at the time the opinion statement was made, were capable of being blond and also capable of being a principal. Neither Principal Payne nor Principal Griffin testified regarding their respective hair colors during times pertinent to when the alleged statements were made by Mr. Merica, and the undersigned did not notice and can not recall with any certainty, the hair color of each of the twenty-plus female witnesses who testified in the proceeding. With the presence of more than 100 other females at Foster, and no evidence of the hair color of the principals at any time, an inexplicable ambiguity of "intent" is here presented. The ambiguity is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. The Commissioner failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, through the testimony of Ms. Opila, that Mr. Merica intended to, and did specifically, make the derogatory comments about Principal Payne and/or Principal Griffin by the "blond [hair color] to be principal" statement as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Mr. Merica's Students Performance Ellen Lipari was a teacher of third and fourth grade PI students with various physical ailments and/or traumatic brain impairments from the 1992-1993 school year to approximately the 1997-1998 school year. She taught forth grade PI students during the same five-year period Mr. Merica taught first grade PI students. According to Ms. Lipari: [U]nder the pull-out school board policy in effect during that time, Mr. Merica would pull out and send his kindergarten and first grade level PI students to her third and fourth grade level classes. At some unspecified period during the five-year time period, she and Mr. Merica switched grade levels, Ms. Lipari moved down and taught the kindergarten and first grade level PI students, and Mr. Merica moved up and taught the third and fourth grade level PI students. After the switch, she would send her kindergarten and first grade level PI students to his third and fourth grade level classes. According to Ms. Lipari, during the 1997-1998 school year she had many opportunities to observe students Mr. Merica taught when they were thereafter assigned to her class. During that year, she personally observed Mr. Merica's teaching methodologies, his classroom management methods, and his in- class teaching conduct and style. Ms. Lipari described her impressions, gained from close, extended, daily and weekly contact, of his classroom control and management skills and his teaching skills of PI students with various physical ailments and traumatic brain impairments as: Well, you know, he was a very technically-he was technically doing his job, but there was a lot of humanized things that you do with younger children to try to get them to learn to read and those kinds of things that primarily he did not do. He was mostly teaching out of the textbook and trying to teach very specific things and not doing the kinds of things and that's why we decided it would be better if I moved down so that I could do more mothering and maternal type activities and maybe the older children would respond better to having a man teacher. Alleged Complaint from an Unidentified Mother Ms. Lipari moved down to teach the kindergarten and first grade level PI students, and to provide what she described as "mothering and maternal type activities," in keeping with the stated policy and goal of Principle Griffin as chief of the Foster administration. As a male teacher, Mr. Merica could not provide "mothering and maternal type activities to first grade level PI students," and it was not established that "mothering and maternal type activities" were requirements of all teachers, male and female, by this policy. During an unspecified period after she moved down to teach the kindergarten and first grade level PI students, unidentified parents of her former kindergarten and first grade student(s) called her complaining to her about the differences in the curriculum used to teach their children who were then in third or fourth grade levels under Mr. Merica. According to Ms. Lipari, some unidentified parents of PI students complained to her that "their former kindergarten and first grade children had been allowed to do certain things, like watch TV programs to which they had become accustomed." Based upon complaints from parent(s) she could not identify, Ms. Lipari reached conclusions and, based upon those conclusions, offered her opinion: I personally did not see any educational benefit to students watching TV because our kids [PI] are at least developmentally delayed, if not mentally handicapped, as well as being physically impaired because those children are primarily mentally impaired. Most of our children's IQs go maybe up to 70-75, so the kind of math that you would do in The Price is Right [TV program] would not be valid for those age level of children. During her years of working with Mr. Merica and observing Mr. Merica's teaching methodologies, his classroom management, and his in class teaching conduct, she never once personally observed Mr. Merica's students watching TV programs. Ms. Lipari's recollection of one phone call and her failure to identify the parent(s), who were so concerned about their children that they personally called Ms. Lipari, fairly detracted from the weight and believability of her testimony rendering it unreliable to establish facts alleged therein. Her testimony was further diminished by the lack of corroborating testimony from other witnesses. Ms. Lipari's testimony failed to produce a firm belief, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegation sought to be established. Ms. Lipari's opinion regarding educational benefits derived from watching a TV program, based upon the hearsay of unnamed parent(s), failed to prove, such activity actually occurred, or if it did occur, failed to prove that Mr. Merica’s use of such methods and skills were ineffective teaching methods and deviated from the Code of Ethics or Standards of Competent Professional Performance standards as alleged in the Amended Administrative Compliant. IPE Preparation and Assistance Ms. Lipari testified that she assisted Mr. Merica, on unspecified occasions, by "explaining the particulars of an IEP and the mechanics of writing an IEP." According to Ms. Lipari: [F]or every student with an IEP, the teacher, parent and therapist [another teacher] agree on goals and objectives that in their collective determination can be achieved by the child during the forthcoming school year. The IEP is a joint collaborative endeavor requiring discussions, disagreements, compromises and finally an acceptable document; subject to subsequent modifications. Ms. Lipari gave her personal belief that: [T]he teacher(s) has to find different ways of handling their PI students' problems because each child is different, according to their disability, according to their ability to write or not be able to write. Some PI children cannot write at all. Some PI children cannot speak at all. Therefore, the teacher has to find some ways to show that the child can read. Because he can't read out loud to the teacher, the teacher would find different methods that can used to show the student is making progress. IEPs are personalized crafted documents designed to address the perceived needs and method of instructions to address the need(s) of each handicapped student. The evidence of record does not speak to the issue of accepted standard(s) for writing an IEP nor is there evidence that Mr. Merica did not comply with accepted standards for writing an IEP. The Commissioner's reliance on Ms. Lipari's "belief" that Mr. Merica needed her assistance in writing one IEP, without more, failed to establish that Mr. Merica was incompetent in his professional teaching skills and/or in IEP writing and/or implementation skills. Viewed most favorably, Mr. Merica had five to six years of writing IEPs with other teachers and counselors before Ms. Lipari's offered assistance which she characterized as "explaining the particulars of an IEP and the mechanics of writing an IEP." The intended inference of this testimony requires first a belief that other teachers and counselors who had worked with Mr. Merica on IEPs during the preceding five years (1987-1992) either did not know "the particulars of an IEP and the mechanics of writing an IEP" or were unable or unwilling to recognize a need for "the mechanics of writing an IEP" and to offer and suggest methods of improvement to Mr. Merica, to include Principal Payne who worked with Mr. Merica for almost 10 years. The testimony of this witness was not corroborated. The testimony of Ms. Lipari failed to include essential details that are central to the facts sought to be established and, thus, failed to produce any belief of conviction as to the truth of allegations sought to be established. The testimony of Ms. Lipari also failed to demonstrate a single refusal by Mr. Merica to accept and implement one positive necessary suggestion that was, in fact, made by Ms. Lipari to Mr. Merica relating to teaching students with IEPs. This testimony failed to establish the existence of, the beginning of, or the continuation of, a demonstration of professional teaching incompetence as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Physical Restraint and Control of Unruly Male Students Ms. Lipari recalled one occasion an unidentified male student in her class was unruly in the hall. During the time her male student was being unruly, Mr. Merica came along with his class. He asked her if he could be of help with her unruly student and according to her, without waiting for her to reply, physically restrained her unruly male student. No evidence of record establishes an injury to any unruly male student that resulted from the physical restraint by Mr. Merica. This testimony demonstrated that on one occasion Mr. Merica restrained one unruly male student in the hallway who was in Ms. Lipari's class. This evidence also demonstrated that PI and SLD students were routinely unruly in the hallways and elsewhere in the school, when Ms. Lipari was the teacher in control and in charge as well as when Mr. Merica was the teacher in control and in charge of a class. This evidence also demonstrated the propensity of young male students to react to female teachers and to male teachers in a different manner. Ms. Lipari's testimony regarding unruly conduct of students, in the hallways when Mr. Merica was the teacher in charge, does not evidence his lack of ability to control and manage his unruly students, as alleged in the Amend Administrative Complaint. This testimony does establish as fact that Mr. Merica restrained an unruly male student during a period when his ATC certification was expired. This technical violation of ATC certification by Mr. Merica is accompanied by the fact that the unruly student was unhurt; other PI students were not harmed; and Ms. Lipari, a female, who provided "mothering and maternal type activities," was rendered assistance by a male co-worker, in keeping with the school's policy, according to Ms. Lipari, of having a male teacher in charge of the older and larger male PI students. Ms. Lipari further testified that on one unspecified occasion when she was present in the school hall, Mr. Merica's class was "very loud and unruly." This is the same witness whose class had an unruly male student in the hall when Mr. Merica restrained him. According to Ms. Lipari, during Mr. Merica's loud and unruly class in the hall incident, her class was under her supervision and her volunteer, an unnamed "grandmother," who was assisting her with her class on that unspecified date. According to Ms. Lipari, she and the grandmother observed Mr. Merica: [M]oving from the front of his class line to the back of his class line, swinging his arms back and forth for his unruly students to get in line and stay in line; but, he was not swinging his arms at his students or in their faces. "Grandmother(s)" are community volunteers who come in to assist teachers with PI and SLD students. According to the witness, the objective of grandmother assistants is to provide a soothing and calming presence in the classrooms. Assuming the intended inference to be drawn from this vague, non-explicit, testimony was to demonstrate Mr. Merica's inability to control his class and his unprofessional conduct in the presence of an unidentified member of the community, it failed. The testimony in finding 70 above was not corroborated by other witnesses and was sufficiently vague so as to cause doubt and raise substantial issues of credibility. Viewed most favorably, the above testimony failed to produce a firm belief of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of this witness, that Mr. Merica's conduct was inappropriate or unprofessional in any manner toward his students in the hall at some unspecified period or in the presence of a member of the public/community as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Negative Feelings About School Administration Ms. Lipari acknowledged that Mr. Merica was a very outspoken person on all issues he addressed. From that observation she went on to testify about an incident in the teacher's lounge when she overheard him make the statement: "[n]o woman was going to tell him what to do." From overhearing that part of a single statement at some unidentified time and without providing the circumstances and context in which the alleged statement was made, Ms. Lipari assumed she knew how Mr. Merica felt about Principal Payne, Principal Griffin and, in general "all females." Based on her assumptions, Ms. Lipari concluded Mr. Merica's statement was specifically intended to be derogatory about a particular unnamed principal. She further assumed the statement "no woman was going to tell him what to do" included her. Based upon those assumptions, she inferred Mr. Merica was speaking first, in a negative fashion; second, he was speaking about all women in general; and third, he was speaking about Principal Griffin in particular. Ms. Lipari's testimony regarding Mr. Merica's general opinion statement "no woman was going to tell him what to do," without establishing the context, situation, and/or circumstances at the time the statement was made failed to establish anything other than the statement was made. To this non-specific and ambiguous testimony, any number of meanings can reasonably be attributed, including his private and personal relationships with women in his past. Testimony of this isolated statement is not competent to establish a manifested intent on behalf of Mr. Merica to be disrespectful toward Principal Griffin or Principal Payne or women in general. The testimony in finding 72 was not placed in a situational circumstance that would have enabled the undersigned to render an objective evaluation. The alleged out-of-context statement is not competent to establish as fact allegations that Mr. Merica intentionally made derogatory and disrespectful statements about Principal Griffin and other female co-workers as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. IEP Preparation and Principal Griffin/Mr. Merica Relationship Linda Thomas was an ESE specialist at Foster from 1997 through 2002. Her duties included giving suggestions for curriculum or classroom management, assisting teachers with paperwork, and assisting resource teachers as needed. The usual method of contact would originate from a principal who would call Ms. Thomas and request her to lend assistance to a specific teacher. Answering the open-ended question, "what caused her concern about the Principal Griffin-Teacher Merica relationship," Ms. Thomas, without providing the year or month, answered: In my opinion, I don't believe that Mr. Merica had much respect for Ms. Griffin- -that he demonstrated that in the school setting. A number of times I overheard him say things such as that he would be around longer than she would. He was frequently making comments in faculty meetings just in general about the leadership and the administration in the school and his dissatisfaction with it. Ms. Thomas' testimony confirmed testimony of others that Mr. Merica often spoke out in faculty and staff meetings. Her opinion regarding what she "believed" to be Mr. Merica's opinion about the administrative leadership, even if true, was based on the alleged "frequency of unspecified comments," and her opinion that "I don't believe that Mr. Merica had much respect for Ms. Griffin--that he demonstrated that in the school setting," failed to establish as fact any allegation contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Answering the question regarding Mr. Merica's preparation for IEP meetings, and without identifying the number of IEP meetings she attended with Mr. Merica during the 1994 through 1999 period in question, Ms. Thomas stated: I believed preparation was very minimal. There was not -- he was not always ready. Most of his IEPs were all the same. Yet, it's -- an IEP is an individual education plan which is written specifically for each child, so every child in your class should not have the same thing written for them. Regarding his preparation of IEPs during the five-year period from 1994 to 1999, and without evidence of the number of IEP prepared by Mr. Merica and/or the number of occasions she personally inspected one or more of those IEPs, Ms. Thomas concluded that "[f]requently he wasn't prepared." This witness’ "belief" was not a "belief" based upon personal knowledge or facts. Though she believed "most of his IEPs--frequently not prepared," there is no evidence of record that she had personal knowledge or had occasion to review the content of an IEP prepared by Mr. Merica upon which to base her "belief," and, without more, her belief is speculative. Ms. Thomas was not qualified as an expert on IEPs and her personal "beliefs" and opinions regarding unidentified IEPs that she may or may not have reviewed, is lacking in preciseness to produce a firm belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. As such, Ms. Thomas' testimony is not competent to corroborate and does not corroborate or support Ms. Lipari's testimony purporting to support the allegation that Mr. Merica's preparation of IEPs "in the school year of 1994- 1995 evidenced his ineffective teaching performance and demonstrated the beginning of his alleged incompetence that allegedly continued undiminished until not later than the end of the 1999 calendar year," as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner failed through the testimony of Ms. Thomas to establish as fact or to prove that Mr. Merica initially or began to demonstrate an inability, refusal, improper, or any other negative aspect of his professional teaching responsibilities at any time during the 1994-1995 school year. Ms. Thomas testified of overhearing statements made by Mr. Merica of which she shortly thereafter made the following written notation dated August 12, 1999: This morning at bus arrival time Mr. Merica left his students unsupervised to go into the clinic to talk with the nurse. His conversation consisted of suggestions that the clinic should have cell phones that could be used at home. He also commented that he should talk to the television reporters who were outside to let them know how the county runs things. He came in and out of the clinic at least 3 times in a 10 minute time span and made these comments in the presence of staff and at least one student. Ms. Thomas' testimony and her subsequent written notation regarding a conversation consisting of "suggestions" that the clinic should have cell phones and that Mr. Merica "should talk to the television reporters who were outside," if true, were suggestions and nothing more. The witness did not know why or for what reason Mr. Merica entered the clinic. The identification of the staff member (other than herself) or identification of the unnamed student alleged to have been present and presumably overheard Mr. Merica's suggestions are not in the record. The witness' testimony demonstrated a distinct lack of a specific memory of the facts at issue to which she testified. The testimony in findings 77 through 80 failed to establish a firm belief without hesitancy as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Classroom Visits and Observations Ms. Thomas testified that over an unidentified three- year period she visited and observed Mr. Merica teaching his PI class approximately ten times with each visit lasting ten to 30 minutes. Ms. Thomas' visits and observations were neither made at the request of the principal nor were they made after notice was given to Mr. Merica. She did, however, make note of a single incident outside the school cafeteria, apparently for future reference and not to help a fellow teacher; but of the ten visits she made to observe and presumably help a fellow teacher, she made no written notations evidencing the dates of her visits and observations, at or near the time of each visit. Her alleged visits to Mr. Merica's class, without specifying the reasons for her visits, were more or less one co-worker visiting another co-worker; if, in fact, those ten, undocumented visits actually occurred. Documents Prepared Critical of Mr. Merica's Performance Ms. Thomas did, however, within a 45-day period, prepare seven documents, each critical of either Mr. Merica's conduct or professional teaching methods, and purportedly gave a copy of each document to Principal Griffin. The seven documents prepared by Ms. Thomas were all dated over a three-month period (August 11, 1999 to October 27, 1999), when from evidence of record, Foster administration was preparing to recommend to the Board termination of Mr. Merica's contract employment with the county. Ms. Thomas dated her first document August 11, 1999. She dated her six additional documents Augusts 12, October 19, 20, 21, 25, and 27, 1999. The seven documents prepared by Ms. Thomas did not include any of the alleged ten visits she made over the three-year (from 1997 through August 11, 1999) observation period of Mr. Merica to which she testified from long past memory in Finding of Fact 81 hereinabove. No other witness, including Mr. Merica, corroborated Ms. Thomas' alleged ten visits to Mr. Merica's class. I find the lack of documentation and the witness' lack of recall ability regarding specifics that occurred more than four years past an insurmountable barrier in accepting the witness' testimony as creditable on those significant points sought to be established. When asked on cross-examination whether Principal Griffin requested her to prepare the two August 1999 documents and the five October 1999 documents, Ms. Thomas suffered a sudden lapse of memory. When asked about each document individually, Ms. Thomas gave answers of either "I don't remember," "I couldn't say for sure" or "I couldn't guarantee." The seven documents prepared by Ms. Thomas in August and October 1999 contained alleged statements made by Mr. Merica, some personal observations, a prepared historical statement beginning with her first meeting with Mr. Merica in 1996 throughout 1997 and 1999, and hearsay statements from several students that were not recorded at or near the time they were made. The witness' failed memory, coupled with her inability to recall if she was asked by her principal to prepare those seven documents within such a short time span, rendered suspect and unreliable both the author and the content of her seven documents. The witness was defensive, evasive, and reluctant on significant points, evidenced by her lack of memory and confusion regarding who made the request and for what purpose she wrote seven different documents in a short time period. Her answers were not forthright and this aspect of her testimony raised insurmountable issues regarding her credibility. The testimony of Ms. Thomas lacked sufficient reliability, due to her uncertainty, to produce a firm belief in the mind of the undersigned as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Classroom Management by Mr. Merica Compared to Classroom Management by Other Teachers When asked about problems regarding classroom management Mr. Merica had with his PI classes as "compared with class room management problems of other teachers," Ms. Thomas answered "[t]here are children in most classes who present behavior problems." Her memory was better on this issue and she recalled observing a few instances with two or three students creating problems in Mr. Merica's class. However, she did not identify the "other teachers" to whom she compared Mr. Merica nor did the witness establish "the other teachers" class room management standards. I find the witness' testimony was intentionally slanted to exaggerate the nature of Mr. Merica's classroom management without providing specific incidents from which an objective evaluation could have been made. The Commissioner failed, through the testimony of Ms. Thomas, to prove allegations that Mr. Merica demonstrated incompetence as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, by evidence that he had "more" behavior problems in his ESE and PI classes than other unidentified ESE and PI teachers similarly situated. Classroom Management by Mr. Merica as Compared to Classroom Management by New Teachers with Less Teaching Experience Ms. Thomas testified, unconvincingly, that after Mr. Merica left Foster in 2000, new unidentified teachers came in and taught self-contained SLD classes with acceptable classroom management style. With improved memory on this issue, Ms. Thomas recalled that she observed the new teachers' classroom management style but could not remember if she documented classroom management problems observed with the new teachers, as she had with Mr. Merica. Assuming the intended purpose of this particular testimony was to demonstrate an appreciable difference between Mr. Merica's classroom management skills and teaching methods, after years of experience, to the classroom management skills and teaching methods of new teachers with much less experience, it failed. The testimony of Ms. Thomas regarding the issue of her comparison of class management and teaching skills of Mr. Merica to those of new unidentified teachers, including documents she prepared, those referred to, and the alleged acts therein, whether used for comparison or not, occurred beyond the 1994 through 1999 time period alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint or some comparable pleading. On that basis, this testimony of Ms. Thomas must be, and is, rejected in toto. It is a basic tenet of common law pleading that "the allegata and probata must correspond and agree." See Rose v. State, 507 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). The documents Ms. Thomas prepared and the testimony she presented herein above in findings 78 through 85 failed to establish as fact that on those occasions Ms. Thomas observed Mr. Merica, he failed to perform to professional expectations as a competent teacher as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Statements Made to Principal Griffin's Daughter Tamiko Council believed, but was not certain, that she was a DEEDS attendant at Foster the 1997 to the 1999 or the 2000 school year. She testified that during a (unspecified) summer school session, Principal Griffin's daughter had been introduced to her earlier in the day but she was unable to give the date of the incident. As she recalled, she and Principal Griffin's daughter were coming from the bus ramp in route to the cafeteria when Mr. Merica noticed Principal Griffin's daughter and, in her presence, said to the child: You need to tell your mom to quit worrying about teachers around the school. She needs to focus more on what the children are doing. Later that day Principal Griffin called Ms. Council into her office and made inquiry regarding the incident, as told her by her daughter, and Ms. Council confirmed the incident had occurred. Mr. Merica acknowledged making a statement to Principal Griffin's daughter. The Commissioner proved that Mr. Merica made a statement to the daughter of Principal Griffin. The appropriateness of a teacher stating his opinion to a young person who was a student attending a Hillsborough County school was inappropriate. However, the statement alone, under the above circumstances, does not demonstrate a "failure to protect student[s] attending for educational purposes from harmful conditions." There is no evidence of record offered to demonstrate that Principal Griffin's daughter, after the comments by Mr. Merica, "experienced harmful conditions to her educational purposes," during the summer she was at the school of which her mother was principal. Pamela Wilkins was a teacher of educable mentally handicapped students at Foster for a five-year period from 1993 to 1998. During the three-year period of approximately 1995 through 1998, Ms. Wilkins was an ESE specialist. Harassment and Unreasonable Interference with Co-workers Ms. Wilkins testified regarding an incident that allegedly occurred when she asked Mr. Merica into her office for an unspecified discussion. Ms. Wilkins did not remember the school year or the month the incident of which she testified occurred nor did she remember the situational circumstances, the context or the issue over which she and Mr. Merica had their alleged discussion and subsequent disagreement. With no memory of any specifics as to why she would ask him into her room, Ms. Wilkins only recalled Mr. Merica’s discussion with her that she characterized as "his getting upset and her saying nothing." Ms. Wilkins did not know why she invited him into her office, but emphasized her "only reason" for inviting "him into her office would have been to discuss an ESE issue." There is no record evidence regarding the ESE issue of such importance that this witness called Mr. Merica into her office for a discussion of an issue she does not recall, when her "only" time calling him into her office was so memorable. Having established her ability to ”call Mr. Merica into her office" for reasons unknown to her, this witness then testified about some purported disagreement between she and Mr. Merica. Even assuming the alleged disagreement occurred and was, in fact, over an ESE issue between she and Mr. Merica during their single discussion the witness testified: I really don't recall the entire situation. The main thing 'is just his response.' We were talking about--obviously it was ESE issues and he ended up getting upset, and I was on one side of the desk and he was on the other side. He ended up leaning over the desk and was in my face. His veins in his neck were bulging and kind of trembling and just was yelling at me and I was completely stunned and shocked the way he had responded and so I really did not say anything else at that time. The testimony of Ms. Wilkins evidenced her characterization of one party's reaction to an alleged disagreement over an alleged and unidentified ESE issue. Absence evidence of the context, circumstances, and the ESE issue that precipitated the purported disagreement between co- workers, the record contains no basis upon which to determine with reasonable certainty the appropriateness of one party's alleged reaction to the other party's input during a collegiate disagreement. The referenced reaction, even if accepted as factually true, absent evidence of the issue, context and circumstances, failed to clearly and convincingly establish an unprofessional, hostile behavior on behalf of Mr. Merica toward a co-worker, Mr. Wilkins, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The witness' apparent stunned and shocked reaction to a co-workers' disagreement with her over an unidentified ESE issue was not so unprofessional and shocking, at the time of occurrence, to compel Ms. Wilkins to report such shocking disagreement to the school administration. It was not of such importance, at that time, to prompt Ms. Wilkins to document her shocking outrage for future reference and possible investigation by proper school authorities. Ms. Thomas' lack of recall of the circumstances to an incident to which she was a major participant, and the record evidence of scant circumstances surrounding the alleged one-party reaction to a two-party discussion and alleged violent disagreement, created an insurmountable credibility gap in her testimony. Based on the foregone, it is found that the testimony of this witness lacks credibility. This testimony is rejected because it is wholly unreliable regarding the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The testimony of Ms. Wilkins in findings 90, 91, 92 and 93, hereinabove, absent record evidence of the issue which caused the alleged disagreement between colleagues, is sufficiently vague and imprecise that it failed to establish a firm belief, without hesitation, of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The alleged conduct by one party over an unidentified issue during a mutual disagreement between colleagues does not establish unprofessional conduct or a violation of established standard of professional protocol. The Commissioner failed, through the testimony of Ms. Wilkins, to prove that Mr. Merica, while in Ms. Wilkins' office engaged in conduct that was unprofessional, belligerent, hostile, confrontational, and subversive in the workplace toward his co- worker as alleged in the Amended Administration Complaint. Sexual Harassing Statements Made in Presence of Child Evelyn Tait, at all times material, was the administrative data processor at Foster. Before her promotion to administrative data processor, she was a teacher's aide for a few years. Ms. Tait is the sister of Secretary Bragdon. Ms. Tait first qualified her testimony stating that she "believed but was not certain," that the Investigation Manager for the Board (Michael Saia) came to her and asked her if she would write a statement about Mr. Merica. In her effort to comply with the request of the Board's investigator, and on October 2, 2001, Ms. Tait wrote the following document purporting to detail a "forgotten and previously unreported incident" that allegedly occurred, some three years earlier, in 1999. Ms. Tait's efforts to comply with the request of the Board Investigator resulted in Ms. Tait writing the following October 2, 2001, addendum to her 1999 written statement: On August 27, 1999, I wrote a statement regarding Mr. Neil Merica. The statement that I wrote was true and accurate [sic] as I recall. However, I would like to add a time that I was out in the pickup area picking up my son from school. I was in my care [sic] and Mr. MERICA came over to my window and made a commet [sic] regarding to what was under my shirt. I was made to feel very uncomfortable, and was inappropriately addressed [sic] from a teacher to a pa [sic] and also to a parent of a child in this school. Back in August 27, 1999, Ms. Tait wrote: To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter to you regarding the actions of Mr. Neil Merica that I have observed. I am a paraprofessional at Foster Elementary School and have only been employed as a permanent employee since the beginning of this school year.[1999] On several occasions, I have seen Mr. Merica screaming at a student with his face being very close to theirs. The child on each occasion looked very scared. Since I am such a new employee at the school, I am not familiar with the discipline procedures of the instructors, but being a parent of an eight year old, I know that the behavior that I have seen him display with the students is very uncalled for. As a parent, I would be very upset if I thought for once that a teacher was yelling at my child in such a manner. I have also witnessed Mr. Merica when he was upset for one reason or another with the administration. He sometimes appears to be out of control, saying things that are unnecessary. I am writing this letter for documentation of what I have observed and for the welfare of the children involved. I am requesting that my name not be revealed to Mr. Merica because being "a smoker", I am in contact with him daily. I am afraid of retaliation from him if he were to find out. Sincerely, Signed by Evelyn B. Tait /s/ The two documents signed by Ms. Tait, and her explanations when questioned, evidenced not truth, but rather confusion caused by this witness' attempt to comply with the request by Mr. Saia, in preparation for her testimony at this hearing. The truth and accuracy of the documents as well as Ms. Tait's understanding, explanation, and lack of credibility regarding these two documents are best demonstrated by her cross-examination: Q. Would you look back at number exhibit 23 again? You wrote that statement on October 2, 2001; is that correct? A. Um-hum. Q. And the first sentence says: "On August 27, 1999 I wrote a statement regarding Mr. Merica." (as read) Were you referring the Exhibit 22? A. I think I was --- Q. All right. You were referring to the other statement when you write that? A. I think I was. Q. I want you to take your time and made sure. That one is dated August 27th, 1999; correct? A. Yes. This happened on two separate occasions. Q. That's what we're going to get to in a minute if you'll let me walk you through this. A. Yeah, it did. Q. You go on to state that you gave a statement back in August '99 and everything you said in that was true, but you want to add something. And what you want to add is this incident that happened at the pickup circle: correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long ago had that incident happened at the pickup circle? A. What do you mean, how long ago? Q. How long prior to the time when you wrote this statement? A. I would say probably close to the date that it was signed. Q. Okay. So the incident at the circle would have been close to October 2001? A. I don't remember the dates sir. I don't remember the dates that I wrote the statements. I don't remember the dated. Q. Al right. The incident at the circle -- did you complain about it when it happened? A. Yes, I did. Q. Who did you complain to? A. I went and obviously told the principal's secretary again. I don’t' know who I would complain to. I'm just not going to -- you know, I wasn't out to get Mr. Merica in trouble. Q. I'm not suggesting that -- A. I was just --- Q. I'm not suggesting that you were. [Witnesses instructed by the undersign to answer the question asked by counsel without editorializing] Q. All right. Let's walk back through it. An incident happened at the pickup circle; correct? A. Um-hum. Q. And at some point after that incident, you reported the incident to someone; is that correct? A. It was immediately. Q. Immediately? That day? A. Yes. Q. All right. You got out of your car when you picked up your child? A. No. It wasn't immediately that day. It was -- like I said, the principal's secretary is my sister, so I probably reported it that afternoon. Q. After you picked up your child? A. Um--hum. Q. Is that a "yes"? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. You took your child home? A. Yes. Q. And then went back to the school to report it? A. No. I probably called her on the telephone. Q. All right. You've said "probably a number of times. Do you -- A. I called her on the -- I don't remember. I'm sorry. I don't remember. You know, I don't remember when it was placed, to be honest with you. I don't remember exactly when it was reported, how it was reported. I don't remember. Q. All right. Did anyone ask you to write a statement about the incident that occurred at the pickup area? A. I don't remember that, either. I guess someone must have asked me to write a statement or I wouldn't have written one. Q. And when you say you wrote one, you're talking about Exhibit 23; correct? A. I wrote this statement as well. Q. Is there another statement besides Exhibit 23 that addresses the incident that allegedly occurred at the pickup circle at the school? A. No. It's this one. Q. So to your knowledge that is the only statement that you made; correct? You made that statement a couple of years after the incident occurred; correct? A. That would be 10-02 -- I mean, 01. Q. All right. A. August 27th is the first statement. Q. Of '99; correct? A. Right. Q. So here we are a couple of years later in 2001 and you're making a statement for the first time about the traffic circle incident; correct? A. Right. Q. That's the only statement that you're written about that? A. Yes. I am very sorry. This is very confusing to me. I wrote statement when they were reported -- you know, when I reported them. I don't remember dates. We're taking how many years ago and I apologize you know. Q. Could it be, ma'am that the first time that you reported the incident that occurred at the traffic circle was around October 2001 when you wrote this statement? A. Yes. When subjected to cross-examination about her two written statements, her confusions, and her lack of personal knowledge of specific details of the alleged curb-side incident, Ms. Tait contradicted her entire testimony as reflected in findings 96, 97, and 98 above, to include the two documents she authored. It is apparent that Ms. Tait's preparation for this hearing, at a minimum included writing a statement three years after the alleged occurrence. It is also reasonable to infer that Ms. Tait's testimony and her 1999 and 2001 documents were an attempt to exaggerate "negative personal conduct on behalf of Mr. Merica" in a decided attempt to appease her employer. Ms. Tait's entire testimony hereinabove, lacks credibility and failed to produce a belief to the undersigned as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established therein. Sexual Harassment of Co-workers Allegations Kelley Kolinsky (f/k/a Toms), a self-employed Occupational Therapist (OT) since 1998, worked at Foster for two and one-half years, doing evaluations and arranging treatment protocol for ESE children. As an OT, she recalled one pre-K evaluation she covered for Kathy Prado, Ph.D., another occupational therapist. Though she tried to recall the persons present at the meeting, she was unable to do so. She recalled an unnamed parent and a unnamed male who were also present. Ms. Kolinsky testified that she was not going to cover any more meetings at Foster. When asked why? Ms. Kolinsky answered: I don't know exactly. It's been like -- I don’t' even know how long, but I just remember being uncomfortable with -- I don't even remember if it was comments or notes, looks, whatever, but something like with the male teacher that was present at the meeting. But it's been so long that I really can't give any more specifics. When asked if during the meeting there was anything of a sexual nature, Ms. Kolinsky replied: I can't say. I mean, I remember I was uncomfortable, but I don't remember specifically now. The Commissioner, by the uncertainty of Ms. Kolinsky's testimony, failed to establish as fact that during the 1994-1999 school years, Mr. Merica sexually harassed a co-worker by making inappropriate comments to Ms. Kolinsky, an occupational therapist, in the presence of other colleagues and/or in the presence of a parent as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Kara Twohy was an ESE teacher at Foster from December 1996 through 2000. Ms. Twohy first met Mr. Merica when she was a teacher-intern in an EMH class at Foster during the 1995-1996 school year. Ms. Twohy testified that Mr. Merica made her "feel uncomfortable" giving as an example the following incident: He would do things like put his arms around me. One thing I can remember is he said I had an ink spot on the back of my shirt and he was attempting to rub it off. He would come -- and this is afterwards when I became a teacher -- he would come to the classroom and he brought a rose at one time, and he was constantly -- whether I was at art or I was in the classroom, he was constantly visiting the classroom. I can remember an incident where I was really ill and he came to an assembly and brought me some tissues. All in all, it just made me very uncomfortable. When she was "really ill," Mr. Merica brought her tissues and once gave her a rose. Bringing tissues to one's colleague when the colleague was "really ill" may have been either an appropriate or an inappropriate gesture. However, the act itself does not prove it was sexual harassment. According to Ms. Twohy, she initially expressed her uncomfortable feelings to other unnamed co-workers and Principal Griffin, but not to Mr. Merica. When she told Principal Griffin about her uncomfortable feelings around Mr. Merica, she testified that Principal Griffin said to her: "there's nothing really that anyone could do, but to start writing everything down. So I began writing them down." There is no evidence of record that Principal Griffin initiated an administrative investigation into the "uncomfortable incidents" related to her by the young teacher, Ms. Twohy. It is, thus, reasonable to infer, and I so infer that at the time and under the circumstances, Principal Griffin did not consider that Ms. Twohy's "uncomfortable" feelings resulting from Mr. Merica's attention to have been "sexual harassment" as that term is generally understood when placed in the above situational context. According to Ms. Twohy, after she told Mr. Merica that his presence, his attention, and his conduct made her feel uncomfortable, she recalled he apologized: There was in incident that occurred between him and my aide at the time who was Adele Morris, and basically she told him to leave me alone and he said well, I'm a big girl so I should be able to tell him myself. And he approached me the following day, I believe, after the confrontation and asked me if he made me feel uncomfortable, and I told him yes, he did. I felt very uncomfortable around him and he did apologize and say that he was sorry for making me feel uncomfortable. As a employee of the Board, Ms. Twohy knew the Board’s sexual harassment policy requirement of reporting harassment to the school's administration. She followed the policy by reporting her uncomfortable feelings and concerns to Principal Griffin. When Ms. Twohy informed Mr. Merica that his attention and conduct made her uncomfortable, he immediately discontinued all contact and apologized to her. If, as the Commissioner argued, Mr. Merica sexually harassed Ms. Twohy during the time above-stated, she followed protocol and reported the matter to her principal. There is no evidence of record that the principal of Foster initiated or requested an investigation by the School Board and a determination of whether or not Mr. Merica committed the alleged sexual harassment. If the matter was not properly investigated and determined by the Board to have been sexual harassment when it occurred, it will not be determined to be sexual harassment now by the undersigned based solely upon the unconvincing testimony of Ms. Twohy. The Commissioner failed to establish as fact, by findings 96 through 103 hereinabove, that Mr. Merica sexually harassed Ms. Twohy, a co-worker and sexually harassed Ms. Kolinsky, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Compliant. Kim Kimpton, via her video-taped testimony, was convincing and unequivocal in her response to the question, "[D]o you consider Mr. Merica's action(s) towards you to be sexual harassment? "No, not specifically." The "actions toward you" referred to what was described by the Commissioner as unwanted attention, several instances of on school-property encounters and off school-property encounters, to include buying lunch for her on one or more occasion, giving her presents, and thereafter writing a letter of apology. The Commissioner failed to prove by the evidence of record that during the 1998-1999 school year, Mr. Merica sexually harassed Ms. Kimpton, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. I find that the Commissioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Merica sexually harassed any present or past female member of Foster's administration as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. SLD Student's Version of Classroom Management and Student Control Patricia Rumlin, mother of Jarmaal Rumlin, a 15-year- old SLD student witness who, at the time of the hearing, was in ninth grade, accompanied him at the hearing. When asked, Jarmaal remembered he had been a student in Mr. Merica's class for his fourth and fifth grade school years (1997-1999 school years), but he did not remember the specific school years. During the period Jarmaal was a Foster student, the Board was operating under the self-contained class policy, and Jarmaal was in Mr. Merica's self-contained class throughout the school day. When asked the open-ended question, "[W]hat about the incident when the kids were kicking a ball in the classroom?" Jarmaal gave the following, incomplete, confused, response: We was [sic] playing in the class. Takela kicked the ball to the back of the room and she went to go get it and he trapped us in the back of the room and we bust out and we ran down to the PE field. When asked "[D]id Mr. Merica ever come into any contact or anything with Takela?" Jarmaal, again confused, answered: No. He just holding in the back of the room. [sic] Holding her and she was trying to run and trying to grab her. She was going to fight back, until she got loose and ran. When asked, "[W]hy did you not mention or report this incident to other teachers, the principal [1997-1998/Payne and 1998-1999/Griffin] or the Board’s investigator?" (1999 to 2003) Jarmaal answered: "They didn't talk to me." Jarmaal's above testimony, did not corroborate the testimony of another witness who stated: "Ms. Teresa Joslyn entered a room and found Mr. Merica seated on a couch holding Jarmaal by the arm and yelling in his face and that Ms. Joslyn took him by the hand and stood him up and Principal Griffin came into the room and observed those actions," as argued by the Commissioner in its post-hearing submittal. Jarmaal admitted that "kids in his class misbehaved in class, played kickball and got up and walked around when they were not suppose to." When asked if he liked Mr. Merica, Jarmaal answered "[N]o." When asked if he learned anything in Mr. Merica's class Jarmaal answered, "I didn't learn nothing [sic]." When asked if he wanted Mr. Merica as his teacher again, Jarmaal, answered, "[N]o I don't Mr. Merica as my teacher again." Testimony from other teachers at Foster established that SLD students were, if not daily, most certainly, routinely unruly in their classes and in hallways. Jarmaal's testimony seemed rehearsed, but he was confused about the facts critical to the situation of which he testified. The witness' inability to recall and his manner of testifying raised substantial issues of the witness' credibility primarily because of his seemingly rehearsed responses and confused factual response, often mixing several parts of separate incidents. Through the testimony of Jarmaal, a SLD student, the Commissioner failed to demonstrate and prove by example that: (1) Mr. Merica engaged in inappropriate discipline, (2) he failed to engage in meaningful teaching methods, (3) he lacked professional classroom control and management of his SLD class, and (4) he was incompetent as a teacher, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. I find the SLD students' reply he did not "like" Mr. Merica an insufficient foundation from which to infer that the SLD student did not "respect" Mr. Merica as a teacher. Tawnya Clark, mother of Demetrie White, another 15- year-old SLD student, accompanied him in the hearing. Demetrie only remembered attending Foster. He did not remember the years he attended Foster (1997-1998/Principal Payne and 1998- 1999/Principal Griffin). He did not remember the grades he was in when he was attending Foster. He did not remember the class (fourth and fifth grades) he was in when Mr. Merica was his teacher. When asked "[I]n what ways Mr. Merica would get upset?" Demetrie, hesitantly, gave the following response: When like students get like up out of they seat and walk around the classroom and talk to other students, he'd get mad then and then after that he'd like -- Jonathan he would be like getting up out of his seat and talk to me, Eldrid and another friend who go to my school and he would like grab Jonathan, try to twist his wrist and then slam him on the ground and then Jonathan would be like, Get up off me. And then that's when like he would like flip. He would try to get up off the ground, Jonathan. That is when he tried to grab Mr. Merica's neck. That's it. Demetrie admitted that the kids would get up and walk around in class when they were not supposed to do so. He admitted that Jonathan tried to grab Mr. Merica's neck. He remembered a female teacher's aide but he did not remember her name or whether she was black or white. As with Jarmaal, Demetrie remembered Mr. Merica yelling at students when they were acting up. He remembered Mr. Merica yelling in the faces of students. Demetrie, like Jarmaal, said he did not like Mr. Merica, "he didn't learn nothing" and he "didn't want Mr. Merica as his teacher again." Utter confusion permeated Demetrie’s understanding of the questions asked of him and his seemingly rehearsed answers to those questions. I find the SLD student's reply that he did not "like" Mr. Merica an insufficient foundation from which to infer the SLD student did not "respect" Mr. Merica as a teacher. Viewed most favorably, the testimonies of these two very large young boys consisted of a confused misunderstanding of questions asked of them and their rehearsed answers. The testimony of these two young boys established that at times, Mr. Merica yelled at them and, on occasion, restrained them for his personal defense and/or to regain classroom control when they were acting out of control, being disobedient, playing kickball in the class room, and yelling at each other and at him. The situational circumstances of the separate incidents to which the witnesses testified occurred four or five years earlier. These two SLD students were confused, and their testimony consisted of a mixture and intermingling of critical factual portions of two separate incidents into one continuous dialogue. From their individual and collective testimony, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of Mr. Merica's conduct, in an attempt to control and manage his SLD class, cannot be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty to produce a firm belief as to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The ambiguity created by the testimony of Jarmaal and Demetrie relating to a specific portion of their testimony related to a specific incident is decided in favor of Mr. Merica. The Commissioner proved that Mr. Merica "restrained" Takela, a student in his SLD class, by holding her arm. The Commissioner proved that Mr. Merica "restrained” Jonathan, a student in his class, by holding the wrist and arm of Jonathan. Based upon the testimony of these two young SLD students, assuming accuracy and truth, Mr. Merica’s physical restraining actions were, given the circumstances and situation at the time of physical restraints, appropriate for the defense of his person and for the protection of other students in the class. Disagreement Over IEP Content and Student Control In 1995 Ms. Teresa Joslyn began teaching at Foster Elementary as an EMH teacher. She affirmed other witnesses' testimonies that Mr. Merica was loud and argumentatively disruptive during staff and faculty meetings. Ms. Joslyn, however, gave unconvincing testimony regarding one IEP meeting she attended with Mr. Merica, but she could not provide the month or school year the IEP meeting occurred. According to Ms. Joslyn, during this IEP meeting an unnamed parent wanted unspecified items included in her unnamed child’s IEP, and Mr. Merica, the teacher, was apparently of the opinion that those items desired by this parent were not necessary. The IEP in question was not entered into evidence. When asked whose opinion determined the make up of the IEP, Ms. Joslyn replied, "[t]he case manager, who is generally the teacher [Mr. Merica in this instance]-- the person that serves the child the most.” During this particular IEP meeting, and with no evidence, or personal knowledge of the specific IEP items under discussion, Ms. Joslyn never the less concluded an unspecified position maintained by Mr. Merica was unreasonable and, by implication, unprofessional, and the position taken by the unidentified parent was reasonable. Ms. Joslyn's testimony is not credible, competent or of substantial weight to support a firm belief of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Ms. Joslyn, without giving the year or month, remembered occasions when she would visit Mr. Merica’s classroom. According to Ms. Joslyn: On the occasion(s) when I would enter Mr. Merica's room, oftentimes I did not find him engaged in active teaching. There were times when I would walk in and he was--there was a game on the computer that he was playing or he'd be reading the newspaper or magazine at his desk. The aides -- the children would --have may or may not have worksheets on their desks and the aides seemed to be the ones that were more engaged with the children. Ms. Joslyn testified again, unconvincingly, about one incident she remembered, but she was unable to provide the month or year, when she heard a "kind of ruckus and loud voices." She remembered hearing an unnamed child's voice and Mr. Merica's voice, but she did not hear the words being spoken by either person. She supposedly entered the room and saw Mr. Merica seated on a couch holding Jarmaal (Rumlin) by the arm and Jarmaal trying to resist and get up. Continuing, she also remembered that Mr. Merica was agitated, upset, and yelling, and the child was also yelling. Ms. Joslyn specifically recalled that while she was "taking Jarmaal by the hand and Merica letting go of Jarmaal's arm at which point the principal came into the room and asked Mr. Merica to come into her office." According to Ms. Joslyn, both "the Principal" (Griffin) and Jarmaal were actively involved in this arm holding incident. Principal Griffin did not corroborate Ms. Joslyn's vague and non-specific memory of an undated arm holding incident. Jarmaal was not asked about this specific incident nor did he corroborate Ms. Joslyn's testimony. No other witness called by the Commissioner gave corroborating testimony in support of Ms. Joslyn’s testimony. This is critical to the credibility determination in this proceeding since allegations of inappropriate conduct in his professional relations with children are specifically alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and form the bases, in part, to support the allegation of professional incompetence. I find that Ms. Joslyn's vague, non-specific testimony, without corroboration of the other alleged participants to establish the context, circumstances, and time, raised substantial issues of her credibility. Her testimony and credibility was further diminished by the lack of corroborating evidence from other witnesses who were allegedly involved. The testimony contained in findings 128 and 129 hereinabove is rejected for its lack of credibility. I find that the Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of Ms. Joslyn, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica was not engaged in active teaching and that on unidentified occasions he was playing computer games or reading a newspaper or magazine while some unidentified staff taught his class and failed to prove that Mr. Merica engaged in inappropriate conduct by "holding Jarmaal by the hand and Merica letting go of Jarmaal's arm at which point the principal came into the room and asked Mr. Merica to come into her office." The Commissioner has failed to prove that Mr. Merica was incompetent, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Debbie Maronic, physical education teacher at Foster, gave repetitive testimony affirming the fact that Mr. Merica was loud, often disruptive, and sometimes argumentative with colleagues at staff and faculty meetings. Ms. Maronic also testified of having heard "numerous stories about how Mr. Merica behaved inappropriately to other female staff members at meetings or in the hallway or other places," without recalling any one of those numerous stories. Ms. Maronic admitted that she heard her information, not from Kelly and Kim Rivenburg, the females alleged to have been recipients of inappropriate conduct, but from second-hand people. The hearsay upon hearsay summary testimony of "stories" Ms. Maronic heard regarding inappropriate conduct toward females is not competent to establish a finding of fact. The testimony of Ms. Maronic is rejected in toto by the undersigned. When the testimony of Ms. Kolinsky, Ms. Twohy, and Ms. Kimpton, that they were not sexually harassed by Mr. Merica, is juxtaposed to the hearsay upon hearsay testimony of Ms. Maronic that Mr. Merica "behaved inappropriately to other female staff members," a pattern of gossip, moving from witness to witness presented by the Commissioner, emerges for which there is no defense and very little, if any, truth to be objectively determined. The uncorroborated testimony of this witness lack credibility and is rejected. The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of Ms. Maronic, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica engaged in unprofessional conduct, inappropriate conduct, and/or sexually harassed female co-workers as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Ms. Maronic testified, again unconvincingly, concerning a throwing incident in the school cafeteria in 1999, she did not observe and therefore could not provide situational circumstances surrounding this incident. According to Ms. Maronic, as she walked by she could see Mr. Merica out in the hallway very upset and yelling very loudly at very close proximity to the unidentified students. Ms. Maronic testified that she was not "comfortable" witnessing that situation and would not leave the area until an administrator came. Nothing in her testimony identified the administrator who allegedly came so she could leave; she knew nothing, who, what, where, when or why, about the incident, though so "uncomfortable," she believed her presence was required. She neither attempted to record this "uncomfortable" incident for future reference nor did she report the matter directly to the school administration. This testimony was not internally consistent and the character of this witness' testimony, as well as the witness' demeanor, did exaggerate the nature or circumstances of the incident. The testimony of this witness lacks precise explicitness to produce a belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The Commissioner failed to establish as fact through the testimony of Ms. Maronic that, at some unspecified time in 1999, Mr. Merica's student behavior management was inappropriate or that Mr. Merica demonstrated professional incompetence as alleged in the Amended Administrative Compliant. Professional Assistance Offered by Resource Teachers Virginia King, with over 21 years of teaching experience, held the position of Hillsborough County, Area IV, administrative resource teacher (ART) since 1981. Ms. King's primary duty was to provide support and training for teachers of ESE. Her three-part support and training program consisted of: (1) teacher evaluation followed by (2) teacher assistance and concluded with (3) specific training for the teacher. Ms. King was not qualified as an expert. Based solely upon her experience, Ms. King opined that--"dealing with student behavior issues are [sic] challenging to teachers and most difficult for teachers in emotionally handicapped full time programs,” as was Mr. Merica. She further opined that "both SLD and ESE classes have behavior issues; but, in full-time ESE classes, student behavior control is most difficult for teachers regarding overall classroom control and classroom management, as compared to full-time programs where teachers of PI classes classroom control and management is least difficult." Ms. King testified that in her 21 years of teaching experience, many ESE teachers have difficulty with classroom behavior and management issues, and the training of teachers of those students is ongoing training in the Hillsborough County school system that never ceases. She is of the opinion that yelling in students' faces is unreasonable and physically restraining a student is "never" justified. Ms. King's opinion regarding physical restraint of a student is "never" justified conflicts with the statutory authority of teacher(s) to remove disrespectful, violent, uncontrollable or disruptive students from classes when appropriate, to include physical restraint, as provided in Subsection 1003.32(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2003). The Commissioner did not introduce evidence of physical restraints standards adopted by the Board of Education. The opinion of Ms. King is contrary to the statute and disregarded for all purposes in this proceeding. Proffered Evaluation and Assistance Offered to Respondent During the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Griffin requested that Ms. King visit Foster to evaluate, assist, train, and help Mr. Merica with his SLD class. According to Ms. King (without giving the year and month), she made two visits to Mr. Merica's class. She testified only about her initial visit that took place during the morning class session. When she returned for a second visit, the school administration had removed Mr. Merica from his teaching position. This one visit by Ms. King was the first step of her three-part support and training program, i.e. teacher evaluation. There was no teacher assistance and specific training offered to Mr. Merica by Ms. King. When asked to give her "general impression" of Mr. Merica's professional ability and competence to teach SLD students after just one visit, Ms. King replied: Well, in our interview I was a little surprised because I didn't really -- he has a background in SLD so he had a lot of knowledge of SLD and how to teach children with learning disabilities, addressing their different learning styles and I was actually able to observe that in class. It was a math class and I thought that he did a very nice job of addressing the student's individual needs, and that's a difficult thing to do because they're all so different and they were all at different math levels and I did see that he was able to use different teaching techniques all in one lesson. He did mention to me that -- well, I knew that there were behavior problems and I did see behavior problems and that did happen after the lesson in the transition period. The children were unruly and not really doing, you know -- you could tell that there was a lack of control was obvious. But at this particular time, the children had been really fairly well-behaved and he had mentioned to me that I should come back in the afternoon -- because this was a morning visit -- that I should come back in the afternoon so that I could see their true behavior which he said was truly out of control. Through the testimony of Ms. King, the Commissioner, clearly and convincingly, proved to the undersigned that during the 1999-2000 school year, Mr. Merica's competence as a professional teacher of children with learning disabilities ("the children had been really fairly well-behaved") was the same as and/or equal to competence as a professional teacher in the classroom of other teachers of children with learning disabilities whom the witness had observed. Conversely, the Commissioner failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, through the testimony of this witness that Mr. Merica demonstrated "incompetence" in his classroom teaching skills or that his classroom student behavior management was ineffective. The Commissioner failed to prove that Mr. Merica utilized ineffective lesson plans and ineffective classroom behavioral management plans. The Commissioner failed to prove that Mr. Merica failed to keep students academically engaged in class and that he failed to control his students and/or gain their respect as the manager of the class, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner failed to establish as fact, through Ms. King's testimony regarding her single classroom visit, that Foster administration, by and through Principal Griffin, offered Mr. Merica meaningful, professional, constructive help and assistance program plan that he intentionally disregarded and that he failed and refused to accept and implement the suggested offering of assistance as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The record evidence does not specify whether Ms. King's one visit occurred during the school year of 1998- 1999 or the school year of 1999-2000. This omission creates an ambiguity between the year 1999 (alleged in the complaint) and the year 2000 (the year beyond the time alleged in the complaint). The ambiguity is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. The testimony in findings of fact 139 and 140 is incompetent and irrelevant to establish as fact allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner presented testimony of Sue Hindman. Ms. Hindman, with over 27 years of teaching experience and at all times material, was an ART and an ESE supervisor for Area II, in Hillsborough County. Model Classroom Observation Prior to and in Preparation for Termination by the Hillsborough County School Board Near the end of the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Griffin called Ms. Hindman and requested her to do a model classroom observation of Mr. Merica's class. A "model classroom observation" consisted of Ms. Hindman's selecting another classroom and SLD teacher (the model) in the same or similar position of the teacher (Mr. Merica) to be observed. The teacher (Mr. Merica) being observed, along with Ms. Hindman, would then visit the "model" SLD class to observe how the classroom itself was arranged and how the lessons were presented to SLD students. Based on the teacher's personal observation, and with the help and assistance of Ms. Hindman, the teacher (Mr. Merica) would then modify and model his/her classroom arrangement, classroom behavior management, SLD students' lesson planning and presentation, and other educational matters involved with teaching SLD students to that observed in the model classroom. After a reasonable period of adjustment, the ART would return to evaluate the "results of implemented changes" made after the model classroom. On October 8, 1999, after observing Mr. Merica's classroom, his teaching, his student control and classroom management, and after observation of the model SLD teacher and classroom, Ms. Hindman made unspecified suggestions for improvement to Mr. Merica. After she made her suggestions for improvement, Ms. Hindman returned to observe whether her unspecified, suggested improvements had been accepted and put into effect by Mr. Merica, and, if so, to document what results were observed. Ms. Hindman documented improvements she noted in Mr. Merica's class on her return visit as follows: The new behavior rules were typed clearly and colorfully. The post-it-notes [tickets] were being used to reward positive [student] behavior. Instructions was hampered by inappropriate student behaviors. On October 18, 1999, Ms. Hindman made a second follow-up visit to observe the progress of her earlier unspecified suggestions. During this second return visit, Ms. Hindman made additional unspecified suggestions for improvement. Ms. Hindman returned to observe whether her second suggested improvement had been put into place and if so, the effect and impact of her second suggestions. Ms. Hindman documented improvements observed in Mr. Merica's classroom management and student control and professional teaching competency on her second return visit as follows: Student behavior was better. Students responded to the LLP redirections. They also responded to the additional tickets given for good behavior. More positive comments were made when students were on task. Student behavior will improve as teacher consistency improves. The more aggressive students are getting, all the attention (and tickets) while the good students tend to be neglected. Curriculum must now become a priority. Your students really settle down while working on assignments and seem eager to accomplish tasks. Capitalize on that momentum! On October 26, 1999, Ms. Hindman made a third return visit to observe Mr. Merica's implementation of her earlier suggestions. During this visit, Ms. Hindman made additional suggestions for improvement and documented improvements she observed in Mr. Merica's classroom teaching and classroom management and student control as follows: Reading groups began today using a sequential program. Math groups began learning higher skills plus using manipulative. Individual work folders were used for seatwork. Through the testimony and corroborating documentation of Ms. Hindman, the Commissioner proved, clearly and convincingly, that as late as October 26, 1999, Mr. Merica accepted and implemented constructive criticism and assistance from those administrators whose positions required giving such constructive criticism and assistance. The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of Ms. Hindman, as it did through the testimony of Ms. King, allegations that Mr. Merica intentionally disregarded and failed and refused to accept and implement the suggested offering of assistance. The undisputed testimony of Ms. Hindman clearly demonstrated that when given constructive professional assistance, a reasonable opportunity to implement the constructive assistance, and an objective evaluation thereafter, Mr. Merica was amenable and put into practice professional assistance and suggestions that proved to be helpful. He responded positively by implementing suggestions made by Ms. Hindman and to those made by Ms. King. During each return visit by Ms. Hindman, Mr. Merica demonstrated continued improvement in his professional ability as a SLD teacher. I find that through the testimony and resulting documentation of three separate occasions of Ms. Hindman rendering professional help and assistance and Mr. Merica's positive response thereto established as fact that the competence of Mr. Merica was not diminished so as to impair his effectiveness as a teacher in the Hillsborough County school system as of October 26, 1999.5 Petitioner's Presence Outside His Classroom, His Teaching, and Classroom Management Mr. Merica presented the undisputed testimony of Mary Evans-Bauman, a DEEDS Attendant who worked with over 15 teachers during her employment at Foster. From January through July of the 1997-1998 school year, Ms. Evans-Bauman was assigned and did work with Mr. Merica in his self-contained PI class. She did not work with Mr. Merica during any period he was teaching a SLD class. According to Ms. Evans-Bauman, Mr. Merica did not leave his classroom more often than any of the other 15 teachers with whom she worked during her employment at Foster. Based upon her daily observations, Ms. Evans-Bauman opined that Mr. Merica's PI students respected him, and she did not observe any problems with his classroom management. She denied observing Mr. Merica playing video games or reading newspapers when he should have been teaching. She testified that she never observed Mr. Merica exhibiting out-of-control behavior or imposing inappropriate discipline on students in his PI class. She acknowledged that PI students, because of their restricted physical mobility, were less likely to become disruptive and unruly because of their physical limitations. Mr. Merica presented the testimony of Carolyn Mobley. Ms. Mobley worked 21 years at Foster as a teacher's aide and as a DEES attendant. During her extended tenure at Foster, she worked with approximately ten different teachers, including Mr. Merica. Ms. Mobley began working with Mr. Merica during the 1998-1999 school year, the first year he taught a PI class with Ms. Payne as principal. She continued working with Mr. Merica when Principal Griffin moved him to an SLD class during the 1999-2000 school year. According to Ms. Mobley, she worked with Mr. Merica continuously, five days per week for seven and one- half hours per day, for two consecutive years. Based upon her continuous presence in Mr. Merica's classrooms, she had abundant opportunities to observe Mr. Merica's interactions with students in both his PI and SLD classes; she answered the question of how she would characterize his relationship with his students as follows: I would say he didn't have no problems that I would consider problems because I have kids and I wouldn't want nobody to mistreat mine, and I'm a fair person. On the mistreating kids in any way question, Ms. Mobley answered: No. He always seemed to be generosity [sic]. He would always treat them with respect and do the things most teachers wouldn't do, I would say. On what kind of things he would do that other teacher wouldn't do, Ms. Mobley answered: Well, you know, sometimes if they didn't have their lunch and they wanted something, then he would treat them to it, you know. On Fridays when they had free time, he would give it to them out of the cafeteria. Answering the question whether she observed Mr. Merica being off task--off his teaching duties during the time that you were the aide in the PI class, i.e. reading a newspaper during the time when he should have been teaching or playing computer games during the time he should have been teaching, Ms. Mobley answered: "No." Answering the question whether Mr. Merica would leave the classroom and leave the aides to take care of the kids, Mr. Mobley answered: No, because if he left the classroom, he would say, "I'm going to the office," run some papers or basically we knew where each other was. We always knew. Answering the questions whether Mr. Merica leaving the class occurred more often than other teachers, acting in an unprofessional way, being belligerent, and being confrontational with students, Ms. Mobley answered each question "No." Answering the question whether there were more behavioral problems in the SLD class than in the PI class, Ms. Mobley answered: SLD kids do have a behavior, [sic] where PI kind is not as verbal word-wise--. Answering the compound question of Mr. Merica's interactions with students in the SLD class, acting in an unprofessional way to any of the kids, being belligerent with the children, being hostile with the children, and being confrontational with any of the children, Ms. Mobley answered: "No" to each question within the compound question. Answering the compound questions of whether Mr. Merica raised his voice toward the students; talked loud when he was close to a student, screamed, or yelled, Ms Mobley answered: I wouldn't say raise his voice, but he talked loud, like scream or yell- No. Well he always talked loud, so to me it was always a loud voice. He don't have a soft voice. He had a loud voice. Through the undisputed testimony of Ms. Mobley, Mr. Merica demonstrated that from the school year beginning in 1998 and ending in 1999 his teaching and student behavior management, as observed by Ms. Mobley, was not ineffective; that he did not frequently leave his own class with his aides; that he did not walk around campus, socialize, and/or monitor other teachers and their students; and, when in class, that he did not play video games on his computer, read newspapers, or review architectural designs, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Human Resources Manager's Testimony Based upon her Summary Reports of Letters and Reports Received From Staff The Commissioner presented, as a summary witness, the testimony of Janice Velez.6 Ms. Velez had over 30 years in the school system during which time she has occupied the positions of classroom teacher, teacher trainer, school-based administrator, and director of personnel services. For four years (1999-2003), she occupied the position of General Manager of Human Resources (HR) for the School Board. The Commissioner did not qualify Ms. Velez as an expert. As director of personnel services for the School Board, Ms. Velez receives information, via written reports from Foster administration, from individual teachers, from medical personnel, and from other sources regarding school personnel. Ms. Velez rarely, if ever, has personal knowledge of instructional personnel activities at the many schools in the county, before such activities are reported to her in written form through the chain of administrative protocol. It is noted that her reports in evidence are not sworn to or notarized by the person(s) with personal knowledge nor are they "tested" for accuracy by independent investigation by Ms. Velez. She accepts each report as factually accurate. It was against this background and based upon many such unspecified reports that Ms. Velez summarized and posted a letter to Mr. Merica reflecting her summarized version of those hearsay reports that the Commissioner asked Ms. Velez to "explain" the first sentence of her July 1, 1994, letter to Mr. Merica. The sentence counsel for the Commissioner asked for as an explanation read: "Some information has come to my attention that you and I need to discuss." To the question "explain what did you mean by that sentence," Ms. Velez answered with the following editorial: What he acknowledged, and I don't have the report in front of me, but I remember the student was a difficult child and he had -- what upset me and the reason I asked him about the ACT [Aggression Control Techniques] certified was that in the course of taking care of this child, had dragged her across the carpet or something and then other adults were present that assisted him in the process. That's when I asked him if had had been trained and he said no, he had never been scheduled. There is no evidence that tends to corroborate the hearsay evidence contained in Ms. Velez's July 1, 1994, letter to Mr. Merica. Ms. Velez did not possess personal knowledge of the information reflected in her letter. Consequently, her testimony regarding Mr. Merica's alleged response merely amounts to hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay. There is no record evidence identifying the context and circumstances of "[w]hat he acknowledged” as testified to by Ms. Velez. The intended inference that Mr. Merica acknowledged-—“that in the course of taking care of this child, he dragged her across the carpet or something," was not corroborated by any "other adult present that assisted him." Mr. Merica's denial "that he dragged her across the carpet or something," even if unbelievable, does not prove the Commissioner's accusation contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Velez’s recollection explanation is an assumption and not fact (that he dragged a child and other students and adults were present). Based upon her assumption, Ms. Velez concluded that Mr. Merica acknowledged her assumption as fact. The assumption and conclusion of “acknowledgement” by Mr. Merica of that assumption is incompetent, not credible and insufficient to establish the incident as fact or to establish that Mr. Merica admitted and acknowledged her assumptions and her conclusions “that in the course of taking care of this child, he dragged her [a child] across the carpet or something and then other adults were present that assisted him in the process." Ms. Velez testified that she met with Mr. Merica on four separate occasions, the first meeting occurred on or about the first week in July 1994, during the period Ms. Payne was principal. At the time of her first meeting with Mr. Merica in July of 1994, Ms. Velez was not general manager of HR for the Board. The evidence of record does not establish Ms. Velez’s position in the school system in July 1994, other than she was a teacher assigned to personnel services. Continuing, Ms. Velez testified that during the first week in July 1994, she was “initially concerned” because Mr. Merica was not ACT certified. The Board's policy required each teacher to be ACT certified before engaging in physical restraint of students. In 1993 to 1994, Ms. Velez was a teacher assigned to personnel services, and the record evidence does not provide any authority for her to “meet with Mr. Merica” as a part of her duties in personnel services. There is no evidence of record that Principal Payne, who was principal and who did not corroborate this story, requested Ms. Velez’s involvement with her teachers, including Mr. Merica. Assuming Ms. Velez had authority to read Mr. Merica’s personnel file, why in 1994 did she only recall his restraint certification status? Principal Payne testified that she, and she alone, identified Mr. Merica's needs for improvement and provided him with useful suggestions that he incorporated and showed improvement. Principal Payne buttressed her testimony by giving Mr. Merica all "satisfactory" annual performance evaluations. Ms. Velez's testimony regarding any facet of Mr. Merica professional competence in the school year of 1994 to the contrary is not accepted by the undersigned as credible evidence. The Commissioner, through the testimonies of 21 witnesses, failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Merica exhibited any indicia of professional incompetence in July of 1994. Through the testimony of Ms. Velez the Commissioner again affirmed other witnesses' testimony that Mr. Merica was not ACT certified at certain periods. However, the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Mr. Merica’s last year of ACT certification was the year of 1995 and not, as Ms. Velez mistakenly assumed in her testimony, 1994. The Commissioner failed in its attempt to establish 1994 as the beginning year of Mr. Merica's alleged incompetence through the above testimony by Ms. Velez. In 1999, Ms. Velez was appointed to the HR position. Six years before, in 1993, she was in personnel services. It was during the 1993-1994 period that the Commissioner sought through her testimony to prove Mr. Merica knowingly admitted and acknowledged that in July 1994 "he used excessive force or restrained a [unidentified] child inappropriately as reported by a parent [unidentified] to the police department and the school internal investigators." The bare hearsay "admission against interest" hearsay statements of unproven acts from unidentified hearsay sources is not corroborated and is rejected by the undersigned. Ms. Velez gave her explanation of meeting with Mr. Merica for a second time on August 12, 1999, which she later reduced to a letter dated September 24, 1999. In that letter Ms. Velez recited the purpose of the August 12, 1999, meeting-- "for discussion of an investigative report into coworker's allegation that during the summer he made threatening remarks against the school administration and comments made about Principal Griffin, i.e. "She dyed her hair blond to get her job, "I got rid of one principal; I'll get rid of her too," and "If she wants to go head-to-head, then I'll win." In her 1999 letter, Ms. Velez stated that Mr. Merica admitted making the alleged statements, explaining the statements were "hearsay" and because, as he viewed the situation, "others wanted to bring [him] down to their own misery levels." Her third meeting with Mr. Merica occurred in September of 1999. This meeting, she explained, was convened "for discussion of a letter of reprimand written by Principal Payne." (In February 1998, Principal Payne gave Mr. Merica a letter of reprimand citing him for having acted in an "unprofessional manner" with Pam Wilkins, an ESE coworker.) Later during that school year when she evaluated his overall professional teaching performance, Principal Payne gave Mr. Merica a "satisfactory" rating in every area, without comments, for the 1998-1999 school year. This meeting and the letter of reprimand concerned Mr. Merica's professional conduct on two separate incidents. Those two incidents were a faculty meeting disruption and a school improvement team and parent meeting. No testimony was elicited or given by Ms. Velez regarding the situational circumstances attendant to those two incidents. When asked her opinion of Mr. Merica's "attitude" toward her during this third meeting, Ms. Velez replied: I would say it ranged in the typical realm of employees. When they meet with me sometimes they're angry. He was in denial that the letter was warranted. He said he didn't perceive himself to have lost his temperament. He did not recall -- in one of the two incidents, someone said he banged his hand or fist on the table. I don't recall doing that. There were several letters that the principal also forwarded to me from colleagues and they said that he was out of control. He said, I'm not out of control. I have a loud voice. And basically he was in denial that the incident was as significant as the principal had alleged in her letter or reprimand. The fourth meeting between Ms. Velez and Mr. Merica occurred on October 1, 1999. Also present at the meeting were Carl Crosson, CTA representative, and Dr. David Binnie, assistant superintendent for HR. The purpose of this fourth meeting was to discuss a specific classroom incident that had occurred on or about September 23, 1999, where it was alleged that Mr. Merica retained five students in the classroom due to their misbehavior while the other students went to lunch with the paraprofessional. In her 1999 letter, in the first paragraph, Ms. Velez wrote her version of an incident she did not personally observe: During the timeout period, you asked these students to sit quietly in their desks, while you placed your own lunch in the microwave. When they began to dance about the room and to toss and roll a kickball among themselves, you summoned several times for assistance on the intercom. During this period, you stated you remained at your desk, although once you tried to kick the ball away and once you moved your elbows in an effort to keep a student from retrieving the ball that had rolled behind your chair. Another student subsequently hit you on the head with a folder, and you chased him briefly until he, at your direction put the folder down. You summoned additional times for assistance. Continuing with the second paragraph, Ms. Velez stated: As a result of your poor performance this year, and its negative impact on the quality and continuity of instruction for students assigned to you, your principal recommended that you be either administratively transferred or dismissed as a teacher. Actions on these recommendations was placed in abeyance since you asked for, and Dr. Binnie granted, additional time and assistance from school and district personnel for you to develop and implement a plan to appropriately regain control of and develop respect from your students. He provided you with three days of paid duty time and a month of implementation to accomplish this end. In her last paragraph, Ms. Velez stated: Dr. Binnie will review the effectiveness of your plan, your professional conduct at work, and your future employment status during a meeting scheduled for Monday, November 1, 1999, at 3:45 pm in the Human Resources conference room, 2nd floor of the School Administration Center, 901 East Kennedy Boulevard. Ms. Brenda Griffin, your principal, has also been invited to attend. Ms. Velez testified that the November 1, 1999, meeting never occurred, "due to an error where [sic] his address was not in the system correctly, he was not in attendance at the meeting. So, we rescheduled it for November 3rd." Considering Mr. Merica was an employee with 13 years of service and had met four times with administration within a six-month period (July through October 1999), the loss of his address--"his address was not in the system correctly"--by the Board becomes suspect. Continuing, Ms. Velez testified that: [O]n November 2nd her office received a call from Foster Elementary School regarding an incident in the hallway that teacher could hear Mr. Merica scream at a child and described that he was in their face and we removed Mr. Merica from teaching at that time for a continuing pattern of being unable to control his students and control his temperament, creating a dangerous situation for children. (emphasis added) No witness presented by the Commissioner testified to having observed the incident above described by Ms. Velez. When subjected to cross-examination, Ms. Velez reluctantly admitted that her intentional use of the term “creating a dangerous situation for children" was not an accurate statement. During all times (1999-2000) pertinent to matters herein above, the goal of Principal Griffin, via Ms. Velez and through the Board, was to terminate Mr. Merica's employment with the Board. Thus, the HR manager's intentional selection and use of the statutory phrase, “creating a dangerous situation for children," that she knew at the time to be an inaccurate statement, revealed her intent and thus seriously undermined her credibility. The witness' credibility and testimony were further diminished by the fact that at the time she knowingly made her "inaccurate statement," she was an active participant in, and thus fully aware of, the Board's engagement in the procedural protocol process of terminating Mr. Merica's contractual employment. Ms. Velez's knowing misrepresentation, that Mr. Merica's continuing pattern of being unable to control his students and control his temperament was "creating a dangerous situation for children," was biased and inaccurate. Ms. Velez's unconvincing explanation of her understanding of the factual basis for the School Board's removal of Mr. Merica from teaching at Foster was vague: [B]ased on a pattern of similar incidents, and this was at the end of that month of time to focus on how to become more effectively -- more effectively deal with children. When asked to clarify her inaccurate misrepresentation of whether or not Mr. Merica's conduct resulted in an unacceptable environment or created a dangerous situation for children, Ms. Velez stated: "[D]uring the five years Mr. Merica taught the PI student class [from 1992-1993 to 1998-1999], Mr. Merica’s conduct and teaching did not create an environment that was dangerous to the students in those classes." Ms. Velez further testified that "[T]the [Hillsborough County School] Board determined that it was during the 1999-20007 school year a pattern of similar incidents, and this was at the end of that month of time to focus on how to become more effectively -- more effectively deal with children, that Mr. Merica was creating an environment that was dangerous to the students in his classes." Ms. Velez did not identify incidents that occurred August 12, 1999, through December 31, 1999, separate and apart from incidents that occurred between January 1, through May 24, 2000; thus, there is no basis to determine whether alleged incidents occurred in 1999 or 2000. Her testimony included "essential and substantial facts in support of the allegation" having occurred in a timeframe (1999- 2000) not embraced in the 1994-1999 period (ending December 31, 1999) alleged in the Statement of Charges of the Amended Administrative Complaint. "[T]the allegata and probata must correspond and agree." This ambiguity is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. On that basis the testimony of Ms. Velez in findings 183 through 186, hereinabove is rejected. The Commissioner did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that during the period between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica "created a pattern of similar incidents thus creating an environment that was dangerous to the students in his classes." Conversely, through the testimony of Ms. Velez, the Commissioner proved, clearly and convincingly, that "during the 1992-1993 through the 1998-1999," including the 1994 through 1999 period alleged in the complaint, Mr. Merica did not engage in a pattern of similar incidents that created a dangerous situation for children." Regarding the school year when allegedly Mr. Merica initially became or his teaching methods demonstrated incompetence, Ms. Velez demonstrated a lack of knowledge and lack of expertise by her following qualified answer: It was my feeling--my personal and professional feeling when I reviewed the file--that he had indicators of incompetence for quite some time, especially in his personal conduct. I am not an expert in curriculum. It's been a long time since I taught in the classroom. [emphasis added] But Mr. Merica's statement to me was he's the best teacher that was at Foster Elementary, and I had an opportunity to look at his lesson plans one afternoon when I went to meet with Ms. Griffin and although I haven't written them in years, there were no lesson plans. They were subjects. Math, math, math. Nothing to distinguish between the levels of his children. When I reviewed the record at Foster, his conduct that created an uncomfortable working environment for employees had been there a long time. The former principal, Ms. Payne, had dealt with it from time to time. It's my professional opinion that she put him in physically impaired so he had less opportunity to be inappropriate with children, and she began then to deal with his personal conduct issues. So to answer your question, I believe -- I don't know that -- I don't know when it began, but I don't think it surfaced his last assignment at Foster, but rather sometime prior to that. [emphasis added] Ms. Velez was unable to identify the school year Mr. Merica became, as she characterized, "incompetent in his personal conduct." Ms. Velez's personal feeling of incompetence is an inadequate standard by which to measure professional competence, to include one’s personal conduct. Ms. Velez did not know when, if at all, Mr. Merica's alleged professional incompetence, to include his alleged personal conduct, began. The evidence of record established that the Board, as of January 13, 2000, had concluded its investigation and made a final determination that Mr. Merica was incompetent. Therefore, the Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, through the summary testimony of Ms. Velez that Mr. Merica was or to began to become incompetent, as demonstrated by his professional teaching skills, at any time during the 1994 through 19997 period as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Violation of a penal statute or rule is not found on loose interpretations of the Human Resource Director with 31 total years of education experience and a Master's Degree in Education Administration, or based on problematic evidence. Evidence more objective and substantial of critical matters in issue should be as substantial as the consequences. Clear and convincing evidence is not present in this record nor established by testimony presented by this witness that Mr. Merica was incompetent, as demonstrated by his professional teaching skills, at any time during the 1994 through 1999 period as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Velez testified that teachers hired by contract (as was Mr. Merica), a veteran teacher, or a tenured teacher are required to be evaluated once annually by their principal, and the purpose of the principal's annual evaluation is for performance improvement. The testimony and documents prepared by Ms. Velez regarding a report from an unidentified mother about her unidentified child is unconfirmed, uncorroborated, incompetent, and thus insufficient to establish any purported facts of actual occurrence. Following protocol and to effectuate his contractual termination with the Board, on November 18, 1999, Ms. Velez submitted four of her letters, dated July 1, September 14 and 24, and October 20, 1999, to James A. Edgar, M.D., P.A., as the basis for her referral of Mr. Merica to Dr. Edgar for a psychiatric evaluation that was conducted by Dr. Edgar on November 18 and 23, 1999. Accepting as accurate and true the content of Ms. Velez's four letters and using those letters as the foundation of his examination, Dr. Edgar evaluated Mr. Merica. At the conclusion of his examination, Dr. Edgar opined that Mr. Merica did not have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder, either Axis I or Axis II, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed.). According to Dr. Edgar, "None of the problems, as reflected in Ms. Velez's summary taken from non-notarized reports from unnamed third parties, makes him in and of themselves incapable of functioning as a teacher." He then goes on to qualify his opinion with a "[H]owever, taken together they 'could' make him very difficult to work with as part of a team effort.” Dr. Edgar's evaluation resulted in a qualified conclusion that Mr. Merica is aware of his actions but minimizes or denies the effect of those actions on others and thus rationalizes his verbal aggressive behavior as his "constitutional right" to express his opinion. From that position, Dr. Edgar reaches what appears to be the desired conclusion that: "Mr. Merica's current behavior does not appear to be an escalation of previous behavior just more of the same. I can not say whether he might become more aggressive or violent but I do believe his behavior will not improve." The attempt to lay a factual foundation that Mr. Merica's alleged incompetence was present in 1994 through the conclusiory testimony of Dr. Edgar failed for want of competence. The one line in Dr. Edgar's 1999 opinion that Mr. Merica's "behavior does not appear to be an escalation of previous behavior just more of the same," is insufficient in weight and substance to establish as fact and/or establish the basis from which to infer, and I do not infer, that in 1994, Mr. Merica demonstrated an "aggressive behavior," which demonstrated emotional "incompetence," and that behavior continued through 1999 as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respondent's Response to Allegations Mr. Merica presented the testimony of Janice Wilson who worked as a DEES attendant at Foster from 1992 through 1998. Ms. Wilson was Mr. Merica's DEES attendant during the 1997-1998 school year and worked all day, five days a week, with Mr. Merica in his classroom when he taught PI students. She was not his DEES attendant when Mr. Merica taught SLD students. For the six-year period, 1992-1998, Ms. Wilson was in Mr. Merica’s classroom daily. She had occasion to observe his teaching as she worked with Mr. Merica. Based on her six-year association, Ms. Wilson testified as follows: When asked how would she characterize his rapport with his students, she answered: "wonderful, wonderful." When asked did she have problems or concerns working with Mr. Merica, she answered: "none, none, whatsoever." When asked had she ever observed Mr. Merica mistreating, in any way, students, she answered: "No." When asked did she ever see him getting in the faces of any of his students, she answered: "None whatsoever." When asked if she had observed Mr. Merica screaming at his students, she answered: "No." When asked if she would have any problems working with Mr. Merica in the future, she answered: "I would work with him any day." Regarding Mr. Merica leaving his classroom, Ms. Wilson testified that: When Mr. Merica would leave the classroom, he has been called from the front office or any other classroom for computer. If the computer goes down, he was the man that they will find to fix the problem with the computer. That's the only time he would leave the classroom, when they request they need it. To the question other than his lunch time and his planning period, did you know of Mr. Merica just to get up from the classroom and go walk around, she answered: "Not at all." When asked did Mr. Merica socialize, she answer: "Not at all." When asked did she ever know of Mr. Merica to be unprofessional, belligerent, hostile or confrontational, she answered: "No." When asked did she ever observe Mr. Merica trying to subvert the administration, she answered: "No." When asked how his students reacted to Mr. Merica, Ms. Wilson replied: Oh, they were glad to see him every day. I mean, a lot of times they would be hungry before lunch, and Mr. Merica would go to Sam's that night before and have snacks in the classroom to make sure they have snacks to eat before they went to lunch. I mean, he was a wonderful teacher. Nobody could never ask of --and I mean, he was outnumbered as male teachers at the school. There was only two, you know, and I think he was a wonderful teacher. Presence Outside His Classroom When asked if she personally received calls for Mr. Merica to assist someone with their computers, Ms. Wilson answered: Yes. It comes over the intercom and he always asked, will you be okay for five or ten minutes? Let me see what's wrong with the computer and that's the only time he would leave the classroom. When asked if she knew "specifically" where Mr. Merica went on computer calls, Ms. Wilson answered: The school has changed a lot with teachers. A lot of the teachers has left. A lot of times he would go to like an autistic class which is down the hallway from us. He would go to the room next door to us to help with the computer. Now, with names I'm not familiar with the teachers because like I said, the school has changed a lot since I've been there and maybe those teachers are not even working there. He used to help Rita Airwood (ph.) a lot with the computer because she wasn't--she didn't know where the power button was. Most of the teachers there didn't know where the power was. A lot of us would, after school, when all the kids were gone, we would have him to teach how to work the computer and be on task when the next day come. So, therefore, a lot of the teachers would come to our classroom to let Neil show them were the computer--what screen you start on and all before the next day because a lot of times we would get worksheets. We didn't have workbooks. A lot of times we would get worksheets off the computer. So when I say names, it's a whole bunch of names I would have to go through. When asked, "[h]ow do you personally know, from viewing him going to that room--witness him go to where he said he was going?" Ms. Wilson answered: Because we have windows. The aisles run from east to west. We have -- and I'm looking out the door to make sure he gets to that classroom. A lot of times when he gets to that classroom, he'll either do this here, a thumbs up, and he's on his way back. According to Ms. Wilson, she always knew where Mr. Merica went when he left his class because he would tell her before leaving; i.e. "They want me in the front office." "I need to be here." He would not just walk out of the class. Though she did not follow him out the classroom, she testified: A lot of times I would be doing bathroom and he would say, "Hey, I'll be right back." He may go and get a cup of tea and he's right back there helping me in the bathroom, because normally I think we had -- at the time I worked with him, we maybe four to five wheelchairs, and a lot of times he would give me help with the boys, you know, and then I would do the young ladies. I would take the girls first and he would stand right outside the bathroom and wait with them if I said I needed him, he'll come inside and help me. Through the undisputed testimony of Ms. Wilson, Mr. Merica established those purposes for his frequent departures from his classroom; to assist other teachers with computer problems in their classrooms. Whether or not one agrees with the stated purposes Mr. Merica gave for being out of his classroom, that fact does not affirm the Commissioner’s allegation of unprofessional conduct by his frequent presence outside his classroom. When asked if he was called upon by the Administration to provide technical computer assistance to the teachers Mr. Merica replied: Very often. I would not fix a computer unless it was on my planning time, unless it was instructed by the administration office, by Ms. Pils or Mr. Drennan--Ms. Payne, I'm sorry--or Ms. Drennan--that they needed me and it was a real emergency and I would also make sure with my class that there was the kind of instruction that wasn't going to hurt me to be pulled out for a few minutes. Regarding ACT training and physical restraint of students, Mr. Merica admitted that he received ACT training and was certified only for the 1995 school year. He was aware of the policy requirement of annual ACT re-certification, but he elected not to be re-certified. Mr. Merica admitted physically restraining students on approximately three to five separate occasions during the period of 1995 to 1999. When questioned as to his understanding of physically restraining students when his ACT certification had expired, Mr. Merica responded: That is not my understanding. I think another ESE teacher touched upon it that if a person is about to harm themselves or others or harm you, where you really feel that they're going to physically harm themselves, another student or yourself, then you can restrain them because what you are trying to do is keep a dangerous situation from becoming more dangerous. Mr. Merica denied having classroom behavior problems during his tenure as a SLD resource teacher (1987-1988 through 1992-1993 school years) as well as during his tenure as a PI resource teacher. Mr. Merica admitted engaging in disruptive conduct when attending faculty and staff meetings. He characterized his disruptive actions as "tapping a pencil on the table or tapping his fingers on the table," but denied "pounding his shoe on the table." He matter-of-factly acknowledged making arguably argumentative comments when he agreed or disagreed with some things presented by the speaker with callous disregard that the speaker was speaking. I find that such callous disregard of rendering reasonable respect to the person speaking and those of his colleagues in attendance under the circumstances demonstrated unprofessional conduct by Mr. Merica. I further find Mr. Merica's ". . . constitutional right" justification for unprofessional conduct unconvincing. Mr. Merica acknowledged he has a loud voice and a strong personality, and he is sometimes loud, but not "always" loud as testified by co-workers. Mr. Merica testified that he got along and related very well to the PI and the SLD students in his classes, and he believed they related very well to him and none of his children came to him personally with a complaint. According to Mr. Merica, during his tenure at Foster, he never received a written document from a parent that said "we have a complaint." Mr. Merica opined that other than academic concerns-- normal academic concerns--when he asked for a conference with parents of his children, a few parents would come on conference nights because most of the parents of his kids knew him because he had been there for a while. Regarding Principal Griffin's decision to move him from his PI resource class to a regular SLD class, Mr. Merica recalled that before summer school of the 1998-1999 school year, Principal Griffin and he discussed the matter. His recollection of their discussion follows: She basically said --she looked at my record and said, "As far as discipline goes -- I know we have some other issues, but as far as discipline goes, you look like somebody who could handle that class because it's very difficult class with mostly boys and we'd like to see a man in there,"--and to be perfectly honest, I told her I just went through a divorce. I needed stability. I would prefer to stay in PI or I would like a transfer, and unfortunately at that time, the transfer period was over or they had a freeze. It was one or the other. I think they might have had budget problems and had a freeze at the time. It was one of the two reasons.--It's just that I needed that stability and I hadn't done -- I had done resource before, and I've done PI, which I felt really comfortable in, but hadn't done a full time SLD unit. Even though I was qualified to do it, I just didn't really feel comfortable going into another area after the domestic problems I was having at home. I went through a divorce, which was not an easy thing, during that summer. (emphasis supplied) Mr. Merica's recall of Principal Griffin's comment, "[w]e'd like to see a man in there," was corroborated by Ms. Lipari testimony that during the 1997-1998 school year she was moved down to teach kindergarten and first grade level PI students to provide "mothering and maternal type activities," and Mr. Merica was moved to third/fourth grade to teach older, larger male students. Mr. Merica gave the following reason for resigning as CTA representative in the spring of school year 1998-1999: I resigned because there was undue pressure from the principal [Principal Griffin] and they actually were putting some pressure on my child that was going to that school. Concerning his role as a resource teacher, Mr. Merica stated: As a resource teacher, I had to implement the IEP that was generated by either me or a teacher before me, describing the amount of pullout time, and pullout means that they were in a "regular education class" and they were pulled out for special services. What special services I generally gave them was either math or reading, but it could be social studies or science. Those were rare occasions. Most of them were math or reading. You pull them out for the amounted time specified by the IEP at the level that the IEP indicates, and when that period of time during the day is over, you send them back or you walk them back. In Hillsborough County they had some problems at that time with kids running off campus, so they recommended that we pick up our students and take them back to class. Administrative Leave and Observation of Model Class According to Mr. Merica, on or about August 12, 1999, he was assigned to the SLD class and his last day in that class was November 2, 1999, a total of 83 days before he was placed on administrative leave for five work days plus the weekend. Mr. Merica's assignment by Foster administration to Lake Magdalene was for him to observe a class at Lake Magdalene similar to his SLD class at Foster. After he sat in the Lake Magdalene class for approximately two hours, he spent the next few days sitting next to the principal's office trying to compile materials that would work for his SLD class. Mr. Merica concluded that the Lake Magdalene (SLD) class was not similar (as a model) to his Foster (SLD) class based on following reasons: I was working in an inner city school, this was a very rich, affluent area with totally different set of behavior problems. The makeup of the class was totally different. There were more girls. They were more [sic] white. It was just a totally different makeup. They were younger. And I sat in the classroom for about two hours and then I spent the next few days sitting next to the principal's office supposedly trying to compile materials that would work for my class. Lock Down Drill and Student Running Out of Classroom Responding to questions raised about the "lockdown drill" situation when students were observed running from the classroom onto the PE field, Mr. Merica testified he was given a walkie-talkie because the school intercom system was down. He did not receive notification of the lockdown drill via the walkie-talkie, and so he was not made aware of the scheduled lockdown drill. The evidence is undisputed that students that were seen by his co-workers running "about" the facility during the lockdown drill were not under the supervision of Mr. Merica at that time. The evidence demonstrated those kids were in their scheduled PE class under the supervision of the PE teacher, who put them in "time-outs" and sent them to Mr. Merica for their "time-outs" periods. Undisputed evidence demonstrated and it is found as fact that during this "time-out" period that the incident of students kicking the ball and playing in the classroom and being generally unruly and disobedient that Mr. Merica had justifiable cause to defend himself when a student put his/her hands around his neck and attempted to choke him. His testimony regarding the conduct of students in his class was corroborated, in part, by the testimony of two students, Jarmaal Rumlin and Demetrie White. Mr. Merica denied yelling at either Principal Payne or Principal Griffin. In defense of his voice volume, he characterized his discussions as "forceful," "assertive," and sometimes with a "loud voice." He described pointing of his finger as [u]nder normal conversation when some people use their hands, they might consider that pointing, were I was just, you know, just using my normal gestures of speaking, as far as I was concerned, and if I was pointing, it was only --again, it was not to be pointing at anybody. It might be, that's point number 1; that's point number 2; that's point number 3. Continuing, Mr. Merica said he never lost his temper at school with either principal, was never "out of control" with any students under his supervision, and never injured a student under his supervision. Mr. Merica's explanations for his finger-pointing and verbal barrages during conversations with authority figures evidenced a defensive attitude that did not lend itself to the appearance of a professional team player. Principal Payne did not testify that Mr. Merica pointed his finger in her face during their many meetings over the years. Principal Griffin's testimony of "pointing his finger in her face by Mr. Merica" was not accompanied by specific circumstances and situational context of the incidents. Accordingly, the appropriateness of such conduct, without evidence of each party's participation in the conversation and the specific circumstances and situational context at the time of occurrence, was not shown by the evidence of record to be, clearly and convincingly, inappropriate. Answering allegations of making derogatory or disrespectful remarks about Principal Payne or Principal Griffin, Mr. Merica replied: That's the eye of the beholder, but as far as I was concerned, I was just trying to make them a better person and there were some things that they were criticizing me about. I criticize people for things that I feel they have weaknesses too. So, you know, it's the eye of the beholder. Responding to Offered Assistance and Suggestions When asked if he had received assistance to help improve his classroom management techniques with regard to his regular SLD class, Mr. Merica replied: Yes. I always took suggestions and implemented every suggestion. Some things did work and some things did not work. You know, sometimes certain personalities -- certain things won't work and certain things will, but I certainly implemented every plan. Now, hey, I can even say this: some plans that I wasn't that good at and probably somebody else could have made it work -- maybe. But I know that some things I did that they implemented -- some things worked and some things didn't and I can even go further without trying to be editorializing that we learn from others. Some of the other teachers have suggestions --not just the ones from administration. There were some teachers that came up with some plans that worked for me. Mr. Merica's above recollection of receptivity and implementation of constructive assistance was confirmed through the undisputed testimony of Ms. Hindman, who on three separate occasions documented specific improvements she observed in Mr. Merica's classroom on each of her return visits. Use of Computer, Games, and Newspaper as Teaching Aids Answering those allegations regarding his use of video and computer games as teaching tools, Mr. Merica's undisputed response was: I said I never played them [video games] during instructional time. Students played them sometimes and it was part of the IEP. There were various video games. There was many of them and one they talked about a lot was the golf. But, you see, these kids have kinesthetic problems and we're trying to teach them how to manipulate the mouse, keyboards and other things. There was a racecar game that they used to use, plus it was good for their eye-hand coordination because they were kinesthetically challenged kids. They were in IEP. It was in the IEP that they were supposed to be kinesthetically challenged to whatever level they were to try to take them another year's worth. They didn't even call it grade level, but another year's worth of progress. They were approved, by the way. As far as I know, every game that I brought was approved by the school board or if it was not, nobody told me it was not. There was a list of computer software that you could use for kinesthetic(s), but the list was not always complete. There was also ones for learning and some of the software I even created myself and I made sure it was approved by the office before I even used it because I created it. I wrote it and I wanted to make sure that it was okay with them. But they were very, very, academic. Mine dealt more with reading and -- it never had any kinesthetic(s) in it at all. So mine was easy to approve. ---I knew the list, but again the list -- it even says it does not include all the new software. It does not include all the new software. There are ones that we know about. And the same thing with video list. They had a video list. They have a video list, but it also said under these circumstances, these are -- generally a "G" movie is approved, but you know -- the list was always being compiled. It was always new it always had a little thing in there like, we may be incomplete, check with your principal. Answering the question, "[w]hat is kinesthetic?" Mr. Merica stated: Kinesthetic is using hand-eye coordination. They are physically impaired kids. Some of them were trying -- they might even some kind of physical deformity or nerve damage or cerebral palsy and they were trying to get them to manipulate their hands. Mr. Merica's selections of newspapers, computer games, and specific TV programs as associative resource educational tools for his students were undeniably appropriate resource materials and activities related to learning goals for his students with various learning and physical disabilities. No witness for the Commissioner, including Principal Griffin, the ART, and the ESE specialists, testified to the contrary. Mr. Merica denied that he had sexually harassed his co-workers, and his denials were confirmed by the testimonies of the alleged victims who were called to testify by the Commissioner. He denied "being off task when in the classroom." He denied playing video games in class during teaching and instruction time. Mr. Merica's denials of essential elements in the Amended Administrative complaint, even if unbelievable, does not prove the accusations. The burden remains with the Commissioner. Answering the allegation of "reading the newspaper in class," Mr. Merica stated: If there was a current event and we were talking about current events or -- the kids even had papers at that time, so we have used the paper in an educational way in the school before. Answering the allegation of allowing his class to watch the television program, The Price is Right, Mr. Merica stated: That's a possibility, because at one time in PI, our kids were not going to the lunchroom. They were served lunch in the room. Well, that was a time where I was not present. It was the aides on attendance. It was their duty. That was my time. I have a duty-free lunch is what they call it. It's part of the contract. I didn't always take that time. They knew if they needed help, I would help. If there was some special function going on or something like that, I would not necessarily go to lunch. But as a general rule I did do lunch, and those kids were in the room and sometimes the TV was on and the news during lunch period. It was lunch period for the children, too. Mr. Merica added that he was not aware of any prohibition against putting the TV on during the children's lunch period. Answering his attorney's question why he placed a "Do you need a Sub?" note (the Board's Exhibit 62) in some but not all his co-workers mailboxes, Mr. Merica stated: That's self-explanatory. It says: "Do you need a sub? If so please call Mr. Merica at 985-0203. Do not call before 6:00 a.m., or, you will have to deal with me personally. Can you spell DEAD?" I put it in a few teachers' mailboxes--friends mainly--I'm not a sub. People know that. The people that I gave this to know that I was not a sub. It's obviously a joke. The joke means that I don't think its appropriate to call anybody before 6:00 a.m. in the morning, you know, to disturb their family.--- As far as I know, they wanted to have a new policy because the secretaries didn't want to have to deal with sub calls anymore. So they said to start calling the subs before 6:00 o'clock in the morning to make sure they get there, and by the way, it doesn't say--can you spell dead? That's a little inside pedagogy, whatever you want to call it. It's a little inside teaching joke. "I hope you can spell." Based on the situations and circumstances at the time he engaged in activities and conduct in findings 206 through 211 and findings 229 through 234, I find Mr. Merica's explanations were plausible, reasonable, and within a teacher's authority and obligation to be creative and innovative by providing one or more methods of training to attain specific individual educational goals, based upon the physical and/or mental limitations of students and in concert with the educational goals as stated in their respective IEPs. Realizing that Foster administration and the Board were in the process of terminating his employment contract at the next Board meeting, Mr. Merica wrote a November 2, 1999, memorandum to Dr. Binnie and Principal Griffin, suggesting that he be transferred (to another school) as an alternative solution. The request of transfer was denied. By letter of January 13, 2000, Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent, the Board, suspended Mr. Merica with pay until the Board meeting on January 18, 2000, at which point his contractual employment with the School Board was terminated. The School Board's annual renewal of Mr. Merica's yearly contract of employment during Principal Payne's tenure as principal of Foster provides a reasonable inference, and I so infer, that the 2000 termination of Mr. Merica's annual contractual employment was based primarily upon issues that were identified and raised by Principal Griffin during the mid-1998 through 2000 period when she, and not Ms. Payne, was principal at Foster. There is no evidence of record that Foster brought to the attention of the Board or that the Board considered allegations of or findings of professional misconduct that had occurred during the 1994 through 1998 time period when Ms. Payne was principal at Foster Elementary. Amended Administrative Complaint Material Allegations Paragraph 3(a) The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica, at unspecified times, demonstrated heightened anger while conferencing with Principal Payne. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that between 1998 and 1999,8 Mr. Merica yelled at Principal Griffin while conferencing with her as alleged in Paragraph 3(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. I do not find that Mr. Merica "pointed his finger in his principal's face and being emotionally out of control while conferencing with Principal Griffin." The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that Mr. Merica failed or refused to comply with specific requests or specific instructions given by Principal Payne during her tenure as principal at Foster during the period of 1994 through mid 1998 or that Mr. Merica refused to comply with specific requests or specific instructions given by Principal Griffin during her tenure from mid-1998 through 1999, as alleged in paragraph 3(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica made derogatory and/or disrespectful remarks specifically about Principal Payne or specifically about Principal Griffin to and in the presence of his co-workers as alleged in paragraph 3(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 4 The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica rejected constructive criticism and assistance from those whose positions required giving such constructive criticism and assistance as alleged in paragraph 4(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. To the contrary, the reliable evidence proved that between 1994 and 1999, specifically in the mid and latter part of the 1999 calendar year, Mr. Merica accepted and responded positively to constructive criticism and offers of assistance from those whose position required giving such constructive criticism and assistance. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that on unspecified dates between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica was disruptive at faculty meetings by speaking aloud; speaking to co-workers, sometimes argumentatively; and interrupting speakers when they were speaking during faculty meetings as alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica was disruptive at faculty meetings by banging on tables and by making subversive and derogatory statements about the administration, in the presence of students and parent and faculty as alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 5 The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that Mr. Merica sexually harassed a co-worker, Ms. Kolinsky, during February 1999 as alleged in paragraph 5(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica sexually harassed a co-worker, Ms. Kolinsky, an intern and teacher at Foster as alleged in paragraph 5(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica sexually harassed co-worker, K.R., a teacher at Foster Elementary as alleged in paragraph 5(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 6 The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica frequently left his class with his aides so that he could walk around campus, socialize, and/or monitor other teachers and their students as alleged in paragraph 6(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material evidence proved on those occasions, recalled by Mr. Merica and his DEES attendant who was an on-scene observer, that his absences from his classroom were for legitimate purposes within his obligations as a professional teacher in the Hillsborough County school system. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica's use of alternative methods such as video games, newspapers, and other tools and equipment to teach his students were "ineffective teaching tools and student management" as alleged in paragraph 6(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. To the contrary, the undisputed evidence proved that Mr. Merica's use of other supportive, available, and permissible means and methods such as video games, newspapers, and other tools and equipment for stimulating his PI students' interest were effective teaching tools. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, the factual basis to support allegations that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica (1) utilized ineffective lesson plans, (2) utilized ineffective behavioral management plans, (3) failed to keep students academically engaged, and (4) failed to control his students and/or gain their respect as the manager of the class as alleged in paragraph 6(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 7 The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica restrained students without the required ACT certification as alleged in paragraph 7(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The evidence proved that Mr. Merica restrained "unruly" students and restrained "a student" in defense of his personal safety and that of other students in the time-out class incident herein found. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica yelled in the faces of students as alleged, in part, in paragraph 7(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Through the testimony of two students, Demetrie White and Jarmaal Rumlin, it is clear when Mr. Merica was yelling in their face(s) it was, in part, to be heard over their yelling at him and/or each other when they were kicking the ball and playing during time-out. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, within the circumstances and context of each encounter of record, Mr. Merica exhibited out-of-control or emotional forms of discipline as alleged, in part, in paragraph 7(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence proved that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica restrained one unruly large male ESE student that was not enrolled in his class without a request from the teacher who was responsible for the class, as alleged, in part, in paragraph 7(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 7(d) was withdrawn by the Commissioner. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica's teaching and student behavior management was ineffective, including: frequently leaving his class with aides so that he could walk around campus, socialize, and/or monitor other teachers and their students. when in his class, frequently playing video games on his computer, reading a newspaper, or reviewing architectural designs. utilizing ineffective lesson plans and behavioral management plans, failing to keep students academically engaged, and failing to control his students and/or gain their respect as the manager of the class. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, within the circumstances and context of each encounter of record, Mr. Merica restrained unruly students without the required ACT certification. The evidence demonstrated that in each proven encounter of unruly student restraint, Mr. Merica acted to protect the unruly student, other classmates, and, on two occasions, protect himself and another colleague. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica restrained an unruly male student who was not enrolled in his class without waiting for the female teacher to ask for such assistance as alleged in paragraph 7(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The evidence demonstrated and it is found that by restraining the unruly male student, Mr. Merica prevented possible potential injury to the unruly student, to the female teacher, to the grandmother volunteer, and to other students of both classes who were present in the hallway at the time of the incident. Paragraph 7(d), alleging inappropriate discipline of several students on or about September 23, 1999, was withdrawn by Petitioner. Paragraph 8 The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, allegations in paragraph 8 of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent met with his principal and county employees to discuss and received letters of reprimand for each act alleged in paragraphs 1 through 7 of the Amended Administrative Compliant. Paragraph 9 The Commissioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Board terminated Respondent's contractual employment as a teacher with Hillsborough County in 2000. The burden of proof required to terminate a contract of employment is not the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof standard required to revoke a license. The Commissioner offered no documented proof, however, proving the Board's decision was based specifically on the allegations found in paragraph 9 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. There is no documented evidence of record that identifies the specific basis upon which the ultimate determination to terminate Mr. Merica's 2000 school year employment contract was made by the Board. The Commissioner did not prove, clearly and convincingly, by material and relevant evidence of record, the allegations that "[E]ffective September 22, 2000, the school board terminated Respondent's employment on charges on [sic] insubordination, persistent violation or willful refusal to obey laws or policies relating to the public schools, and failure to demonstrate competency relating to the instruction, evaluation and management of students in accordance with accepted standards," as alleged in paragraph 9 of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order finding Respondent, Neil Merica, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003), and imposing the following penalties: Suspend Respondent's right of renewal of his teacher certificate and place Respondent on probation for a period of three years, to require successful completion of an anger management course and other such conditions as the Commissioner may specify upon re-application under existing requirements for certification by the State Board at the time the suspension expires. Impose a fine on Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 for violation of Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003), to be paid prior to or at the time of re-application for certification, and other such conditions as the Commissioner may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 March, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Karega Y. Paisley, who is eleven years old, was a student in the school system of petitioner, School Board of Dade County. Until his recent transfer, he attended Kendale Elementary School (KES) located at 10693 Southwest 93rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. At issue in this proceeding is Karega's reassignment from the regular school program at KES to J.R.E. Lee School, an alternative school program. The basis for the transfer is that Karega has allegedly exhibited "disruptive behavior" and a "failure to adjust to the regular school" program. Notice of such transfer was given by petitioner to Karega's parents by letter dated September 4, 1987. The transfer prompted the request for the hearing in this cause. Pending the outcome of this proceeding, Karega has been attending J.R.E. Lee School. Karega has been a student at KES since at least the fourth grade. In school year 1986-87, Karega, then a fifth grader, attended, among other classes, those taught by teachers Arias and Holden. Arias taught Spanish (second language) while Holden taught fifth grade English. At hearings Arias established that Karega was late for her Spanish class at least two or three times per week. Although repeatedly reminded by Arias to do so, he would frequently fail to bring his Spanish materials to class each day. When this occurred, Arias would have to send Karega out of class to retrieve his materials. Despite these orders, he would often return to class without them. This caused a disruption of the class and a loss of ten to fifteen minutes of instruction time whenever Arias had to deal with this problem. On occasion, Arias would order Karega to do something in class, and he would refuse saying words to the effect "I don't want to do that." He would then ask her "What are you going to do now, Mrs. Arias?" Karega also had occasional temper tantrums, and would make obscene gestures with his finger at the teacher. This behavior took place in the presence of other students. Efforts by Arias to counsel Karega and to change his behavior were unsuccessful. Because of several serious disruptive incidents with Karega during school year 1986-87, Arias prepared four disciplinary record reports or student case management referral forms which described the disruptive activity. These have been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibits 1, 2, 7 and 15 and reflect that Karega was referred to the assistant principal for disciplinary action on February 19, March 11, and May 15 and 17, 1987, respectively. The reports were prompted by Karega's disruptive conduct in class and the allegations therein were later admitted to by the student in meetings with the assistant principal. Holden did not testify at final hearing. She too prepared a number of disciplinary record reports as a result of disruptive activity by Karega in her classroom. The reports have been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibits 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16. Although her comments on the reports are hearsay, they corroborate admissions by Karega to the assistant principal and principal, and are therefore considered supplemental and corroborative evidence. These reports reflect disruptive activity by Karega throughout school year 1986- 87 that not only interfered with Karega's learning process but with the learning process of other students as well. On May 5, 1987, Karega was suspended from school for three days for "defiance of school authority." On June 1, 1987, while being escorted to the principal's office by Holden for certain disruptive conduct, Karega tripped Holden causing her to fall down and sustain a broken hip. For this action, Karega received a ten day suspension from school for "defiance of school personnel's authority and battery." Respondent's grades, while not failing, were described as being "poor." The Board's witnesses characterized Karega as being "above average," and possibly a "gifted" child, and this was corroborated by Stanford Achievement Tests administered to Karega. However, since Karega's grades were not introduced into evidenced a finding cannot be made that his academic progress has been "unsatisfactory." No other KES student had ever been sent to an alternative education program since the school considers this to be a last resort to all other measures. For this reason, school personnel attempted to change Karega's behavior by counseling, taking less drastic disciplinary action, and by seeking the help and cooperation of his parents. These efforts proved unsuccessful, and eventually a child study team consisting of the school psychologist, counselor, assistant principal, principal and a classroom teacher unanimously recommended that Karega be sent to J.R.E. Lee School, a school dealing with disruptive students. That school offers a more structured environment, individualized educational plans, favorable teacher-pupil ratio (3:1 at the time of hearing) and full-time on-campus counselors and a psychologist. In view of Karega's persistent disruptive behavior, this placement was appropriate. Respondent's father did not testify or present any evidence. He contended through arguments and suggested by interrogation of witnesses, that the disciplinary reports were fabricated and that his son was transferred solely because of racist policies of KES. However, the evidence shows the charges are totally unfounded, and without merit. The father also suggested that his complaints about the school system have been ignored, and that his son did not admit the allegations described in the disciplinary reports to the principal and assistant principal. Again, these charges were unsubstantiated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reassigning Karega Y. Paisley to Lee School. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1987.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent should be terminated from his employment with the Broward County School Board and whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 595579 in science and elementary education. Respondent's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1992. Respondent has filed an application for renewal. Respondent has held a professional service contract with the Broward County School Board (the "School Board") since September 11, 1987. Respondent began teaching in the Broward County school system in 1987. He taught at Seminole Elementary School. His mid-year evaluation indicated he needed some improvement in the preparation of lesson plans. His final evaluation indicated that Respondent had improved his lesson plans and had good control of his class. For the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent was employed as a fourth grade teacher at Banyan Elementary School. His mid-year evaluation indicated a need for improvement in lesson plans. His final evaluation, however, was satisfactory. Respondent continued teaching at Banyan Elementary School until December, 1989. From December, 1989, until he was suspended on January 16, 1992, Respondent taught at Rogers Middle School. Respondent's initial evaluation at Rogers Middle School indicated the need for some improvement, but his final evaluation for the 1989-1990 school year was satisfactory. At the end of the 1989-1990 school year, Mr. Sterling Dupont replaced Mr. Greg Clark as the principal of Rogers Middle School. Ms. Ellen Etling and Mr. Mike Newman, two of the three assistant principals, were also new members of the administration at Rogers Middle School. Mr. Dupont assigned Respondent to a self-contained drop out prevention class during the Summer of 1990. A class is self-contained when its students remain with the same teacher for the entire day. The drop out prevention class required a teacher certified in elementary education so that the students' academic needs could be individualized. Mr. Dupont wanted a male teacher in the class because of the students' inability to perform in a school setting and behavioral problems. Respondent is approximately 5 feet 7 inches tall and weighs approximately 112 pounds. Mr. Dupont did not consider other factors in applicable School Board guidelines for assignment of teachers to a disciplinary drop out prevention class. Mr. Dupont did not consider Respondent's: desire and ability to work with problem students; expertise in behavior management techniques; desire and ability to identify and solve underlying causes of student behavior rather than merely modify behavior; ability and expertise in diagnosing difficulties opposed to motivational achievement; ability to utilize school and community resources to benefit students; and ability to utilize a variety of instructional approaches to meet individual needs and learning styles of students. Mr. Dupont did not ask Respondent if he wanted to teach the drop out prevention class and did not otherwise confer with Respondent prior to making the assignment. Respondent was informed of his assignment in August, 1990, in accordance with customary practice for all class assignments. Criteria for placement in the drop out prevention class included excessive absences, being held back a grade or being older than other students, failing to perform at the appropriate grade level, and behavior difficulties. While a majority of the students were not placed in the class due to disruptive behavior, most of the students demonstrated disruptive behavior. The class was officially categorized as a drop out prevention class but was also a very disruptive class. Many students in the class came from single parent homes, disadvantaged socio-economic environments, and exhibited low self-esteem. One of the objectives of the class was to raise the students' self-esteem and grade level performance. The class was also intended to ensure that the students made a successful transition to the middle school setting. The Broward County school system has eliminated corporal punishment as a form of discipline. Teachers are not to become physically involved with students in order to discipline or control them. The use of force is appropriate only to prevent harm or injury to a teacher or student. Teachers may not use physical means to control students, punish their behavior, or maintain order in the classroom. Respondent violated the policy against corporal punishment. During the 1990-1991 school year and the 1991-1992 school year, Respondent engaged in inappropriate physical contact with students as a means of discipline or control. Respondent used excessive force to control students, yelled at students, faculty, and administrative staff, violated rules of the State Board of Education, and engaged in misconduct. Respondent's misconduct was so serious that it impaired his effectiveness in the school system. See paragraphs 21-44, infra. In most instances, the students involved in the events at issue in this proceeding were engaged in inappropriate behavior which warranted correction, discipline, and punishment. In addition, the relationship between Respondent and the administrative staff at Rogers Middle School was strained by Respondent's dissatisfaction with administrative support and his lack of success in obtaining a transfer. However, the underlying problems between Respondent and the administration and the disruptive behavior of Respondent's students did not justify Respondent's misconduct and violation of applicable rules. The School Board complied with the requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.008 for fair dismissal procedures. Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1990-1991 school year. On January 9, 1991, Ms. Etling issued an evaluation that Respondent needed improvement in behavior management, lesson design, and oral speech. Ms. Etling advised Respondent verbally and in writing that he would be given the opportunity to improve his performance by observing other teachers and attending workshops. On April 22, 1991, Mr. Dupont issued an evaluation that Respondent needed to improve in behavior management, classroom atmosphere, and lesson design. Mr. Dupont advised Respondent to observe other drop out prevention teachers, attend workshops, and review articles and tapes on positive attitudes. The administration arranged for Respondent to visit drop out prevention classes at other middle schools and offered Respondent the opportunity to attend workshops. Respondent attended some drop out prevention classes at other middle schools. Mr. Dupont made every reasonable effort to assist Respondent in obtaining a transfer to another school, but Respondent was unable to obtain a transfer. The School Board investigated a complaint regarding Respondent's conduct at school. On March 13, 1991, the Professional Standards Committee found probable cause to support the complaint. The Committee recommended that Respondent receive a letter of reprimand, be referred to Professional Practices Services, and be suspended for a period of time. In lieu of suspension, the School Board and Respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Respondent received a letter of reprimand on May 3, 1991, sanctioning him for verbal abuse and battery against his students. The letter of reprimand was issued by Mr. Ronald Wright, Director of Professional Standards for the School Board. Respondent was referred to Professional Practices Services, required to attend in-service programs, required to implement those programs in his classroom, and required to participate in an employee assistance program. Respondent was assigned to teach seventh grade science for the 1991- 1992 school year. Many of the students in his seventh grade class also demonstrated behavior problems. Some of the students had been in the drop out prevention class during the previous school year. Respondent was placed on administrative leave effective January 17, 1992. He was suspended with pay on March 11, 1992, and suspended without pay on April 7, 1992. Reduced Effectiveness And Rule Violations In December, 1990, Respondent used excessive force to restrain a female student who was involved in a fight with a smaller male student. Quanika Murray was beating Ladarian Griffin with her fist. After Quanika failed to respond to Respondent's verbal commands, Respondent put both of his arms around Quanika in a "bear hug." Quanika hit Respondent in the ribs with her elbow. Respondent threw Quanika to the ground and pinned her there by holding both of her arms behind her back. When an administrator came to the scene in approximately 60 seconds, Respondent released Quanika Murray. She lunged at Ladarian Griffin again, and Respondent threw Quanika against the wall and pinned her there until the administrator took her away. On December 12, 1990, Respondent used excessive physical force to break up a verbal confrontation between two students and precipitated a physical confrontation between one of the students and Respondent. William Boyd and Tanika Boyd were arguing in the hall. Respondent told the students to go to class. William left but Tanika became verbally abusive and confrontational toward Respondent. Respondent pushed Tanika toward her class. Tanika hit Respondent. When another teacher approached, Respondent and Tanika backed away from each other. Tanika backed into the teacher and fell to the ground. The teacher pinned Tanika to the ground by holding both of her arms behind her. Respondent approached the two and inadvertently kicked sand in Tanika's face. On February 25, 1991, Respondent used unnecessary and excessive physical force to control and discipline a student. School policy prohibited students from being in designated areas without a pass. The policy was intended to give teachers time to prepare for class before school started each morning. Respondent was monitoring a gate to one of the designated areas. Quincy Wilkins attempted to enter the designated area without a pass. When Respondent told Quincy not to proceed without a pass, Quincy became loud, verbally abusive, and pushed Respondent. Respondent grabbed Quincy's arm, put it behind the student's back, and pushed Quincy against the wall. The hold was painful, and Quincy broke free. Respondent took the student to the front office, and charged Quincy with attempting to fight Respondent. On March 20, 1991, Respondent was verbally abusive toward a student, used unnecessary physical force to control and discipline the student, and engaged in unprofessional conduct during an IOWA testing procedure in the school cafeteria. Respondent was acting as one of the monitors for the test. He reprimanded a student for failing to follow instructions by yelling at the student, throwing the student's books on the floor, grabbing the student by the arm, and seating the student at a table closer to the front of the room. The incident created a major disturbance and caused some of the students to miss directions for taking the test. On April 15, 1991, Respondent used excessive physical force to control a student who was not threatening another teacher. Alex Hernandez had been involved in an altercation with another student. Another teacher broke up the fight and reprimanded Alex. Alex was a good student, and the teacher felt that a verbal warning was sufficient under the circumstances. While the teacher was speaking with Alex, Respondent approached Alex from behind, grabbed him by the arms, and threw him against the lockers. Respondent led Alex to the front office with both arms behind the student's back. Respondent charged Alex with trying to hit another teacher. The teacher informed the front office at a later time that Alex had not threatened him or tried to hit him. Respondent yelled at students over minuscule matters. On September 6, 1991, Respondent yelled at a student for chewing gum. Respondent's conduct prompted a complaint by the student's parents and required a conference with the parents to resolve a matter that would have been trivial in the absence of Respondent's conduct. On September 13, 1991, Respondent yelled at students over minuscule matters and called them stupid, arrogant, and rude. An administrator was required to intervene in Respondent's class. On September 16, 1991, Respondent denied a female student's request to use the bathroom. About 15 minutes after class started, a student with menstrual problems requested permission to use the bathroom. The student returned to her seat and approximately five minutes later began leaking blood onto her clothing. The student left the room and sought the assistance of an administrator. On September 20, 1991, Respondent engaged in a confrontation with the assistant principal in the presence of approximately 200 students. Respondent's anger, over the behavior of another student, was misdirected at the assistant principal. Respondent screamed and pointed his finger in the assistant principal's face. On September 30, 1991, Respondent used unnecessary and excessive physical force on a student and filed criminal charges against the student. Ladarian Griffin refused to comply with Respondent's request to behave in class. Respondent properly disciplined Ladarian by placing Ladarian in a separate chair at the front of the class. Ladarian persisted in his disruptive behavior. Respondent called the front office to have someone cover Respondent's class while Respondent ushered Ladarian to the front office. No coverage was provided. When the class was over, Respondent let all of his students leave except Ladarian and blocked Ladarian's exit through the classroom door. Ladarian attempted to run through Respondent. Respondent physically subdued Ladarian and took him to the front office. Respondent requested that the principal file charges against Ladarian with the public resource officer. When the principal refused, Respondent filed charges against Ladarian with the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Respondent later requested that the charges be dropped. On October 4, 1991, the parents of two students telephoned the school administration to complain about Respondent yelling at their children during a class. The yelling interfered with the students' school work. On October 10, 1991, Respondent improperly accused a student of committing a felony against him. When the bell rang to end the sixth hour class, Respondent refused to allow his students to leave until the students returned their books. Respondent stood at the door to the classroom until each student placed a book on his or her desk. When Respondent turned to answer a knock at the door, Anthony Maclemore ran into Respondent with his head, shoved Respondent to the side, and ran out the door. Respondent mistakenly thought the student was Lashaun Johnson. Respondent wrote a referral for Lashaun and asked the principal to have Lashaun arrested. Mr. Dupont refused. Respondent filed a report and a complaint for prosecution against Lashaun with the local police department. Respondent told Lashaun's guardian that the police were going to arrest Lashaun that evening. The following day Lashaun and Lashaun's guardian participated in a conference with Ms. Etling and Respondent. Respondent realized his mistake and apologized. The mistaken identity caused substantial distress to Lashaun and Lashaun's guardian. Anthony Maclemore was suspended for three days. On October 15, 1991, Respondent yelled at Ms. Etling during a discussion on an educational matter. This incident occurred in the presence of numerous students. On November 13, 1991, Respondent issued a semester grade of "F" to 72 of his 160 students. During a conference with the parents of one of the students who received an "F", Respondent engaged in a tirade against the students' behavior and the failure of the administration to assist him in correcting that behavior. During a conference with the parent of another student, Respondent alluded to the student's bad behavior as a basis for the poor grade but was unable to present one disciplinary referral for that student. Between November 14 and November 21, 1991, several students or their parents complained to the administration of Respondent's verbal abuse and mistreatment of students. Respondent repeatedly yelled at students and disparaged them for their lack of academic effort. On November 21, 1991, Respondent took a folder away from Alex Holmes and told Alex he could get the folder back from Ms. Etling at the end of the day. Alex was disrupting the fifth period class by banging the folder on his desk. The folder contained materials Alex needed for another class. At the end of the class, Alex attempted to retrieve the folder himself, and Respondent attempted to prevent Alex from retrieving his folder before the end of the day. Alex hit Respondent. Respondent attempted to restrain Alex by placing his arms around Alex and pulling Alex's shirt over his head. Before Alex was restrained by other students, Alex hit Respondent in the head, forehead, face, and chest. Alex also used a bone from a skeleton that had been knocked over during the fight to hit Respondent on his leg and leave puncture wounds. Respondent filed criminal charges against Alex. Alex was arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to one day house arrest. Respondent was absent from work until December 20, 1991, due to injuries sustained from the incident with Alex Holmes. From December 20, 1991, through January 13, 1992, Respondent was involved in several confrontations with students and administrative staff in which Respondent yelled at students and staff. On January 16, 1992, Mr. Dupont informed Respondent that Respondent was being placed on administrative leave. Mr. Dupont instructed Respondent to return to his classroom and remove his personal belongings. Respondent was escorted to the classroom by the school's resource officer. Respondent threw his personal belongings on the floor of the classroom. Documents were discarded and tossed about the classroom leaving it in complete disarray. The school resource officer was instructed by Mr. Dupont not to arrest Respondent. A police officer was called in to escort Respondent from the school campus. Respondent used a school cart to transport his personal belongings to his automobile. Respondent pushed the cart over prior to leaving the school campus. Respondent left his classroom in disarray. The classroom was cleaned by the cleaning service that night and used the next day for another class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misconduct in office and terminating Respondent from his employment with the School Board. It is recommended that The Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of engaging in conduct which seriously reduced Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board and otherwise violated applicable rules of the State Board of Education. It is further recommended that the Final Order of the Educational Practices Commission suspend Respondent's teaching certificate for one year from the date Respondent was first suspended without pay and place Respondent on probation for two years after the expiration of his suspension. Respondent's probation should be subject to such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Educational Practices Commission to be reasonable and necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 9th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2388 and 92-3425 Proposed findings of Petitioner, Virgil L. Morgan. 1.-2. Accepted in substance 4.-5. Accepted in substance 7.-8. Accepted in substance 10.-13. Accepted in substance 18. Accepted in substance 3.,6.9. Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence 14.-17. Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence 19.-21. Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence Proposed findings of Petitioner, Betty Castor. 1.-16. Accepted in substance 17.-21. Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence Accepted in substance Rejected as not alleged in the administrative complaint 24.-25. Accepted in substance 26.-27. Rejected as not alleged in the administrative complaint Accepted in substance Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence 30.-32. Rejected as not alleged in the administrative complaint Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence Rejected as not alleged in the administrative complaint 35.-36. Accepted in substance 37.-40. Rejected as not alleged in the administrative complaint 41.-46. Accepted in substance 47.-50. Accepted in substance 51.-52. Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence 53.-68. Accepted in substance Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in substance Rejected in part as irrelevant and immaterial 2.-13. Accepted in substance 14. Accepted in part and rejected in part as not supported by the weight of evidence 15.-16. Accepted in substance Accepted in part and rejected in part as not supported by the weight of evidence Accepted in substance Accepted in specifics but rejected as to the generalization for the reasons stated in findings 21-44 Accepted in substance Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence 22.-25. Accepted in substance 26. Accepted in part and rejected in part as contrary to the weight of evidence 27.-33. Accepted in substance 34. Accepted in part and rejected in part as contrary to the weight of evidence 35.-38. Accepted in substance 39. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence 40.-55. Accepted in substance COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire 1512 East Broward Boulevard Suite 300 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest 4th Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312
