The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 231.28(1)(c) and 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1997), and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida educator's certificate No. 539913. This certificate authorizes Respondent to teach art, early childhood education, and elementary education. Respondent's certificate is valid through June 30, 2002. Respondent has thirteen years of experience as a certified fifth-grade teacher at Florosa Elementary School in Okaloosa County, Florida. At the time of the hearing, the Okaloosa County School District employed Respondent under a continuing contract. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) currently is administered to third, fourth, and fifth grade students once each year. The test is designed to determine whether students meet certain academic levels in Florida's Sunshine State Standards, which range from level 1 as the lowest below-average score to level 5 as the highest above-average score. The test is also used to provide a "report card" for each school, based upon the number of students who score level 3 or above. At all times relevant here, student performance on the FCAT had no positive or negative consequences for individual teachers. Respondent participated in the administration of the FCAT in 1998 as a field test. Neither the school nor the students received the test results in 1998. Respondent also participated in administrating the FCAT in 1999, the first year that fifth-grade students received their scores. Susan Lowery was the school district's Director of Student Services for the 1998-1999 school term. Ms. Lowery's position included serving as the district's Director of Assessment Testing. As such, she was responsible for ensuring that each school site followed correct testing procedures. Prior to the administration of the FCAT in 1999, Ms. Lowery attended training sessions at the state level to learn the proper testing procedures for the FCAT. Upon her return to the district, Ms. Lowery trained the individual school test coordinators on the FCAT testing procedures. Sonia Weikel was the school counselor at Florosa Elementary School for the 1998-1999 school year. Her duties included serving as the school's testing coordinator. Ms. Weikel first participated in Ms. Lowery's FCAT training session then conducted a training session at Florosa Elementary School for all the classroom teachers, including Respondent. During her FCAT training session for the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. Weikel explained to Respondent and her colleagues that they could answer questions concerning test instructions but they were not to assist students in answering questions on the test. Specifically, the classroom teachers were not supposed to interfere with the natural responses of the children during the test. Ms. Weikel directed the teachers to inform the students of the test schedule, and the specific start and stop times. This was necessary because the fifth-grade test consisted of two 45-minute sessions on the morning of the first day and two 40- minute sessions on the morning of the second day. A short break between the two test sessions was also scheduled. However, if all the students finished a particular test session in less than the allotted time, the break time for an individual class could be adjusted as long as testing in other classrooms was not disrupted. Ms. Weikel instructed the teachers to maintain test security by making sure that students did not look at each other's test booklet. The students' desks were supposed to be at least three feet apart. Ms. Weikel told the teachers to make sure that the students were working in the correct test booklet. As the teachers scanned the room, they were advised to ensure that the students were following prescribed directions. During the training session, the teachers were reminded that it was a crime to interfere with a student's responses. This information was contained in the testing manual and the security paper that individual teachers, including Respondent, were required to sign.1 See Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6A-10.042, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Weikel used a hand-out containing an outline of the testing procedures for the 1998-1999 FCAT. The outline stated as follows in relevant part: TEST SECURITY-PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES: Copying or reading the student responses during testing or after testing. Mishandling of secure material--Breaks in number codes, Destruction of materials. Reading test items. Interpreting a test passage or item from the test. The outline also reminded the teachers to read certain pages in the testing manual regarding test modifications for special students and test booklet directions. Sometime prior to Ms. Weikel's training session, the teachers at Florosa Elementary School were given a copy of the testing manual. This was done so that the teachers could familiarize themselves with the specific testing procedures and student instructions set forth by the developers of the FCAT.2 Based on the instructions she received from Ms. Weikel, and after having read the teacher's instructions in the testing manual, Respondent understood that she was responsible for the following: (a) circulating around the room to ensure that the children were working in the right section; making sure that the students followed and understood the test and the test instructions; (c) making sure that the students were bubbling in the answers in the correct manner and not indiscriminately; (d) ensuring that a student was not falling too far behind other students; (e) making sure that a student was not spending too much time on one item; and (f) ensuring that a student was not hurrying through the test. Each classroom was assigned a parent volunteer to act as a proctor for the 1998-1999 FCAT. Kimberly Clark was the proctor assigned to Respondent's classroom. Ms. Clark assisted Respondent in administering the FCAT on the first day, February 2, 1999, and for the first 40-minute test session on February 3, 1999. Some of Respondent's students requested assistance as Respondent circulated around her classroom during the test on February 2, 1999, and during the first test session on February 3, 1999. Respondent told the students that she could not help on the test. However, she verbally encouraged the students with comments such as "you can do it," "go ahead," "go back and reread it." Respondent used non-verbal cues when communicating with students during the test. These cues included gesturing and pointing with her hands to redirect the students to the test booklet. In addition to gesturing with her hands, Respondent would nod her head when encouraging students and shake her head when telling students that she could not help them. On a few occasions, Respondent pointed toward a particular question in the booklet that some students had inadvertently passed over because of its placement on the page. The question was small in size and placed at the top of the page. The remainder of the page was filled entirely by another question. Respondent circulated in the room and alerted several students to the question that was skipped, telling them to go back and not skip it. A new student was placed in Respondent's class on or about February 3, 1999. This student had never taken the FCAT and was not prepared to take it on the date in question. Throughout the administration of the FCAT, this student would frequently close his test booklet and stop working. Respondent used verbal and non-verbal means of communication, repeatedly telling the student to go back in his book, to reread the questions, and keep working. Prior to the break in testing between the two 40- minute test sessions on February 3, 1999, Ms. Weikel visited Respondent's classroom several times, observing no testing irregularities. On each such occasion, Ms. Clark signaled to Ms. Weikel that everything was fine. On February 3, 1999, Ms. Weikel visited Respondent's classroom during a time that appeared to be an early break between the two 40-minute test sessions. Ms. Clark informed Ms. Weikel that everyone had finished the test and that the proper times had been observed. Respondent did not post the stop and start times for the test on the blackboard as required by the testing manual. Instead, she posted the testing schedule on a legal size paper. She also wrote "10 minutes" and "5 minutes" on the blackboard as appropriate to remind her students of the time remaining to complete each test session. Respondent knew that the children could not rely on the school clocks to follow the prearranged test schedule because the clocks were not synchronized. Therefore, she used an egg timer to time the FCAT test sessions, ensuring that her students would be provided the correct amount of time to complete the FCAT. If students are not allowed the correct amount of time for a section of the test, their tests must be invalidated. None of the tests in Respondent's class were invalidated for timing irregularities. Additionally, none of the tests in the surrounding classes were compromised because Respondent's class started or stopped a testing session a few minutes earlier than scheduled. While Ms. Weikel was visiting Respondent's classroom during the break between the two 40-minute test sessions on February 3, 1999, Ms. Clark reported a suspicion that Respondent appeared to be assisting students on the test. Ms. Clark's suspicions were based on her observations of the physical movements and gestures of Respondent. Assisting a student with a question on the FCAT is considered cheating. Such assistance would require invalidation of the student's test. None of the tests in Respondent's class were invalidated for cheating. After hearing Ms. Clark express her suspicions, Ms. Weikel sought the assistance of Kathleen Ball, the assistant principal. Ms. Ball met with Ms. Weikel and Ms. Clark briefly. Ms. Ball then decided to relieve Ms. Clark of her duties and to serve as Respondent's proctor for the last 40-minute test session. When Ms. Ball entered Respondent's classroom, Respondent informed Ms. Ball about the question that several students had overlooked at the top of one page. Respondent told Ms. Ball that she had told the students to go back to the question.3 Ms. Ball stood in the back of Respondent's class when the testing resumed. Ms. Ball observed Respondent walk up to a student's desk and bend over, putting one hand on the back of his chair and one hand flat on his desk. Respondent gave the appearance that she was reading a test question. Ms. Ball approached Respondent and said, "Ms. Mulhearn, we're not allowed to read the test questions on standardized testing." Respondent then left the area, stopped circulating among the students, and went to sit at the front of the room for the duration of the test. During the hearing, Ms. Weikel testified that it was appropriate for a teacher to point out a question that a student had overlooked or skipped on the test. According to Ms. Weikel, the FCAT testing procedures have been tightened considerably in recent years, with increased restrictions on the amount of assistance that teachers can give to students. During the hearing, Ms. Ball testified that it is recommended for a teacher to circulate during a test to make sure the students are moving through the test and not stopping and spending too much time on one item. According to Ms. Ball, if a child spends too much time on one question, the teacher should tell the child to keep working or not to stop. Respondent's expert, Rebecca Spence, Okaloosa County School District's Chief of Human Resources, expressed a similar opinion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission dismiss the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 20th day of April, 2001.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for Petitioner, Hernando County School Board (the “School Board” or “Board”), to terminate the employment of Respondent, Renee Koulouris.1/
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for hiring, supervising, and firing all employees within the Hernando County School System. This responsibility includes taking administrative action when an employee violates any rule or policy of the Board. Mrs. Koulouris was hired by the School Board approximately 15 years ago as a fourth grade teacher. At the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year, she was transferred to a fifth grade class in order to provide assistance to a struggling team. Her principal, Mr. Piesik, described Mrs. Koulouris as a very strong teacher with very high standards. Mr. Piesik said Mrs. Koulouris ran her classroom like “a well-oiled machine.” Mrs. Koulouris has had no disciplinary actions prior to the incident at issue in the present proceeding. One of the duties of a fifth grade teacher is to administer the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”) tests in four different subject areas: Language Arts; Math; Writing; and Science. The tests are an integral part of a student’s education and are used to determine placement in the next grade level, i.e., which classes the student will be eligible for upon advancement to middle school. It is imperative that FSA tests are administered correctly and securely. Extra measures are taken to ensure that all students take the tests independently, without assistance from anyone. Protocols are put in place to monitor students who are taking the tests. Mrs. Koulouris attended all of the required training prior to administering the tests. She also signed the Test Administration and Security Agreement, and the Test Administrator Prohibited Activities Agreement, acknowledging her understanding of the test protocols. Some of the FSA tests are administered in the classroom; some are done in the computer lab. In either case, the teacher administering the tests must diligently follow all rules and procedures. Fairness and honesty is paramount. The Board recommends the presence of a proctor in addition to the teacher when tests are given to certain sized classes. No proctor was present when the tests at issue herein were administered. Mrs. Koulouris is accused of inappropriately assisting students during the FSA tests she administered in the 2016-2017 school year. Those tests were taken over a period of three months: The writing test was administered on February 20, 2017; the English test was given on April 19 and 22, 2017; the Science tests were given on May 1 and 2, 2017; and the Math test was done on May 5 and 9, 2017. During this same time frame, Mrs. Koulouris’ classes took a number of practice FSA tests (as well as regular tests in various subjects). Mrs. Koulouris is alleged to have assisted students by signaling them during the FSA tests to indicate that their answer to a particular question might be wrong. This was allegedly done by tapping a student or making a particular face at them. Any student so notified would then be expected to change their answer. It is also alleged that Mrs. Koulouris would stand behind students for long periods of time, tapping or nudging them if they wrote or entered an incorrect answer. If the allegations are true, Mrs. Koulouris would be in violation of the test protocols and policies. Mrs. Koulouris adamantly and credibly denied any such behavior. She describes her “assistance” to the students as follows: She explains the test-taking process. She stresses the need to concentrate and stay on track. She tells them that if they do not know an answer, to move on and come back to that question later. She reminds them to be thorough and to take their time, thinking about each question carefully. She instructs the students to go back over their work when they finish, time allowing. In order not to disturb the students while they are testing, she prefers to remain at her desk rather than walking around the room. However, she does move around the room on rare occasions, or when she sees a student who is off task, e.g., sleeping or gazing out the window. She would sometimes tap a student’s desk to get them back on track or, in some instances, to wake them up. The testimony of the two students who appeared at final hearing in this matter supports Mrs. Koulouris’ description of her normal process for administering an FSA test. In the weeks leading up to the FSA tests, Mrs. Koulouris would give a number of practice exams so that the students would become accustomed to the test format. She does help students during the practice tests, but generally for the purpose of keeping them focused, not to correct their answers. She uses facial expressions and eye contact to provide that assistance. Mrs. Koulouris’ demeanor at final hearing gave credence to her testimony. She seemed very sincere concerning her actions and her entire testimony was credible. The allegations concerning Mrs. Koulouris’ actions during the 2016-2017 FSA testing cycle came about towards the end of that school year. As she described it: Fifth grade “graduation” occurred on May 18, 2017, a Thursday, at which time awards were handed out to students based on their performance. The following day, Friday, Mrs. Koulouris was in a multipurpose room tending children who would be picked up by their parents. Other adults were present in the room. Mr. F., a fellow Suncoast teacher whose son was a student in Mrs. Koulouris’ class, approached Mrs. Koulouris. Mr. F. angrily asked why his son had not received a “gold award” at the graduation ceremony held the day before. Mrs. Koulouris explained that the child had not achieved the necessary grade point average to receive a gold award. Mr. F. told her he was very “pissed off” and that if he found out that Mrs. Koulouris did something “on purpose” to hurt his son, he would be extremely angry at her. Mrs. Koulouris felt very intimidated by Mr. F.’s demeanor and his language. She was also very surprised, as she thought she had a good relationship with the student and had been fair with him. Mrs. Koulouris reported the incident with Mr. F. to her team leader and then to the principal, Mr. Piesik. Mr. Piesik reprimanded Mr. F. for his behavior and told Mr. F. not to have any further contact with Mrs. Koulouris unless an administrator was present. On the following Monday, Mr. F. went to Mr. Piesik and reported that-–according to statements made by Mr. F.’s son over the weekend-–Mrs. Koulouris had improperly assisted her students during the FSA tests. The timing of Mr. F.’s allegation against Mrs. Koulouris is extremely suspect. The principal immediately undertook an investigation to determine whether the allegation had any merit. He prepared a list of questions to be posed to Mrs. Koulouris’ students. Mr. Piesik went to the classroom on May 23, 2017, and talked individually with several randomly selected students, asking them the questions he had prepared in advance. (Mr. F.’s son was intentionally excluded from the group of students to be questioned.) Some of the questions were very innocuous, i.e., Mr. Piesik asked about the school year and about the FSA testing in general. He then pointedly asked, “During the FSA testing, did your teacher do anything to help students get the right answers?” A few of the students apparently indicated that Mrs. Koulouris had said something about making a face or nudging them if they were off task, gave a wrong answer, or were making mistakes. Others said that no such comments were made by Mrs. Koulouris. Mr. Piesik compiled the students’ answers to his queries and contacted two school district administrators: Matthew Goldrick, supervisor for professional standards; and Linda Pierce, supervisor of assessment and accountability. The administrators suggested Mr. Piesik continue his investigation of the matter. Next, Mr. Piesik drafted a form containing three statements and one question. The singular question on the form was, “Did Mrs. Koulouris instruct you before FSA test [sic] that if she tapped you or gave you a strange look it meant your answer was incorrect and you needed to change it?” He placed “Yes” and “No” lines beneath the question to record the students’ responses. The three statements drafted for inclusion on the form were: (1) “Yes I knew Mrs. Koulouris was helping students on the test.” (2) “Mrs. Koulouris did NOT help me on the test.” (3) “Mrs. Koulouris helped me on the test by giving a tap or a look so I knew I needed to change my answers.” Beneath the question and statements were these words: “Please indicate which test she helped you on. Math – Reading - Science.” On the following day, May 24, 2017, Mr. Piesik interviewed all 22 of the students who had undergone FSA testing with Mrs. Koulouris, including Mr. F.’s son. This time, the principal used his newly created form containing the one question and three statements. If the student agreed with a statement when it was read to him or her, Mr. Piesik would place a check next to the statement. He would circle either yes or no after asking the question, depending on the student’s answer. The principal testified that “all 22 students” answered “Yes” to the question of whether Mrs. Koulouris said she would tap them if their answer was wrong. Of those students, 12 said Mrs. Koulouris was “helping students” during the test, seven indicated they had been helped, and 13 said Mrs. Koulouris did not help them. However, some of the same students who said their teacher was helping students when asked on May 24, 2017, had said just the opposite on May 23, 2017. The discrepancy in their answers leads to the conclusion that the questions, as posed, were either unclear to the students or were unintentionally leading in nature. By way of example, student C.M.F., who had presumably answered “Yes” to the question posed on May 24, 2014, as to whether Mrs. Koulouris had helped students during the FSA testing (since all students had responded that way), said in her deposition that she misunderstood the question Mr. Piesik had asked her, that it was “all a misunderstanding.” She maturely opined that, “So, it is very commonly known that people cannot understand something because it was worded a way that they thought it would mean something else. And I thought what the principal, Mr. Piesik, said, he had asked me if she had helped with the – if Mrs. Koulouris had helped with the test, but he didn’t say the specific FSA so I thought he was talking about tests in general. And sometimes she would explain, like rephrase stuff and explain it to us for the normal tests, but never for the FSA.” This sort of equivocation renders the students’ statements virtually uncredible. Two of the students testified at final hearing. Their testimony was insufficient to adequately corroborate the hearsay evidence found in the written forms. Student A.S. said at final hearing that “before tests” Mrs. Koulouris would tell us she would tap students on the shoulder if they were “way off track” and you “needed to get back in the game.” However, she did not remember any student being touched during the FSA tests. A.S.’s testimony was too equivocal to establish whether or not Mrs. Koulouris had assisted any students during the FSA tests. It is notable that the School Board did not cite to any of A.S.’s testimony from final hearing, but instead relied upon the less certain and unclear statements made by students in their depositions, which are both hearsay in nature and less credible than live testimony. Student A.W.’s memory of the events was even more clouded. She believes she remembers one student messing up the order of his responses (i.e., answering up and down rather than side to side on the answer sheet) and Mrs. Koulouris helped him get realigned, but does not believe Mrs. Koulouris otherwise assisted anyone during the tests. When confronted with her response to the principal’s form questions, A.W. simply could not remember being asked the questions or how she responded. On May 23, 2017, Mr. Piesik had asked her the question from his form, “During the FSA testing, did your teacher do anything to help students get the right answers?” She responded, “No.” On May 24, 2017, she answered “Yes” to the question, “Did Mrs. Koulouris instruct you before FSA test [sic] that if she tapped you or gave you a strange look it meant your answer was incorrect and you needed to change it?” At final hearing, A.W. answered “No” to the question, “Did you see or hear Mrs. Koulouris make the statement, ‘If I look at you funny or strange or if I give you a tap on the shoulder, that means you need to change your answers’?” Again, the testimony was inconsistent and was not sufficient support to corroborate or affirm the information found in the forms.2/ The truth of whether Mrs. Koulouris helped students on the FSA tests cannot be established by Petitioner’s evidence, the supposed student responses as tallied by Mr. Piesik, due to their hearsay nature and various discrepancies. When considering how the allegation against Mrs. Koulouris first arose, i.e., after her confrontation with her fellow teacher, Mr. F., and the equivocal testimony of the students, there is insufficient basis to support the allegations against her. Findings of Ultimate Fact Under Florida law, whether charged conduct constitutes a deviation from a standard of conduct established by rule or statute is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact, considering the testimony and evidence in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Accordingly, whether conduct alleged in an administrative complaint violates the laws, rules and policies set forth in the charging document is a factual, not legal, determination. The Board has not met its burden in this case of proving that Mrs. Koulouris engaged in the conduct for which she was charged. Although Mr. Piesik testified as to his conclusion based on interviews with students, that conclusion was not corroborated by the students’ testimony. The double hearsay nature of the students’ responses to Mr. Piesik’s questions, coupled with the vague recollections of students actually testifying, is wholly insufficient to satisfy the Board’s burden of proof. It is clear Mrs. Koulouris gave her students instructions about how to take the FSA tests, administered practice test at which the strict FSA rules were not applicable, monitored the tests and redirected students who were sleeping or otherwise distracted, and sometimes walked around the classroom. But the evidence is woefully short of proving wrongdoing or improper assistance to students. Notably, the deposition transcripts offered into evidence jointly by the parties were not helpful to the finder of fact. The students’ responses to questions were vague and disjointed. Each of the parties interpreted the students’ statements differently, each seeming to think the statements supported their position in this matter. Besides the obvious hearsay nature of the evidence, the statements were nebulous, and lacking clarity or persuasiveness. The students contradicted each other, some could not even remember where they were sitting during testing, and their memories seemed, at best, confused.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, finding no cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Renee Koulouris, as there is insufficient evidence that she violated statutes, rules or policies regarding the administration of FSA tests. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 3rd day of April, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (hereinafter "NCEES") writes and otherwise prepares the examinations for candidates seeking engineering licenses in 55 states and jurisdictions. The examinations are then administered by the states and jurisdictions which constitute NCEES' member boards. Respondent, State of Florida, Board of Professional Engineers, is a member board and uses NCEES' examinations. The Fundamentals of Engineering (hereinafter "FE") examination is given twice a year, in April and in October. The FE examination measures the basic knowledge a candidate has acquired in a bachelor degree program in the first two years during which the candidate takes basic engineering and science courses. Passage of the examination does not result in licensure as an engineer; it results in either an "engineer intern" or an "engineer in training" certificate which shows that the examinee has completed the necessary educational requirements to sit for that eight-hour examination and to have passed it. The next step is that a successful candidate will then complete four years of experience and then pass a principles and practices examination called the "PE" examination in order to then be licensed as a professional engineer. The FE exam is a minimal competency examination. Questions for the FE examination are written by individuals and are then reviewed by a committee. That committee is composed of registered professional engineers who are practicing engineers and engineers from the academic world, from consulting firms, and from governmental entities. Each question or item on the examination is reviewed by at least 12 to 15 individuals during the review process which takes from one to one and a half years. As part of the development process, individual items appear on examinations as pre-test questions. The purpose of using pre-test questions is to determine the characteristics of that specific item, as to how hard or easy the item is when used on the target population (candidates for the FE examination), and to verify that minimally competent candidates can answer the test item correctly. If pre-test questions perform as expected, they are used on subsequent examinations. If they do not perform adequately, the questions go back to the committee to be changed or to be discarded. Pre-test questions on examinations are not scored, and whether an examinee correctly answers that question is irrelevant to the raw score or final grade achieved by that candidate on the examination. Pre-test questions are distributed proportionately throughout the examination, and no subject area on the examination ever consists of only pre-test questions. Pre-test questions are used by other national testing programs. No unfairness inures to candidates from the presence of pre-test questions on an examination for two reasons. First, all candidates are treated equally. Candidates do not know that the examination contains pre-test questions, and, even if they did, they do not know which questions are pre-test questions and which questions will be scored. Second, the length of the examination itself is not increased by adding pre-test questions. The examination has the same number of questions whether pre-test questions are included or not. In the actual exam preparation, NCEES uses American College Testing and/or Educational Testing Service as contractors. The contractors pull the proper number of items in each subject area from the item bank and assemble the examination which is then sent to the NCEES committee of registered professional engineers to see if changes in the examination are necessary. Once approved, the contractor then prints the examination booklets and sends them to the member boards to administer the examination. Answer sheets from an exam administration are transmitted to the contractor for scanning and statistical analysis. The contractor then recommends a passing point based on a scaling and equating process so that future exams are no easier or harder than past exams. When NCEES approves the passing point, the contractor sends the examination scores or results to the member boards. When the examination is changed in some fashion, a new base line or pass point must be established to ensure that the new examination remains equal in difficulty to past examinations and remains a good measure of competency. The new examination is referred to as the anchor examination. The October, 1990, FE examination was an anchor exam. The member boards of NCEES determined that the October, 1993, FE examination would be changed to a supplied reference document examination, meaning that the candidate during the examination could use only the supplied reference handbook, a pencil, and a calculator. Candidates would no longer be able to bring their own reference materials to use during the examination. One of the reasons for the change was fairness to the candidates. The FE examination was not being administered uniformly nationwide since some member boards prohibited bringing certain publications into the examination which were allowed by other member boards. Accordingly, it was determined that NCEES would write and distribute at the examination its Fundamentals of Engineering Reference Handbook, thereby placing all candidates nationwide on an equal footing in that all examinees would be using this same reference material of charts, mathematical formulas, and conversion tables during the examination, and no other reference materials would be used during the examination itself. In August of 1991, NCEES approved the concept of a supplied reference handbook, and a beginning draft was sent to the FE sub-committee of the examination committee for review. The individual members of the sub-committee actually took two FE examinations using the draft of the supplied reference document to ensure that all material needed to solve the problems on an FE examination was included in the reference document and that the document was accurate. On a later occasion the committee took the examination that would be administered in October of 1993 using a subsequent draft of the supplied reference handbook. The last review of the handbook occurred in February of 1993 when the committee used that draft to review the October 1993 examination for the second time, and NCEES' Fundamentals of Engineering Reference Handbook, First Edition (1993) was finished. When NCEES received its first copies back from the printer, it mailed copies to the deans of engineering at 307 universities in the United States that have accredited engineering programs for review and input. As a result, NCEES became aware of some typographical and other errors contained in that document. In July of 1993 NCEES assembled a group of 12 individuals for a passing point workshop for the October 1993 a/k/a the '93 10 examination. The group consisted of three members of the committee, with the remainder being persons working in the academic world or as accreditation evaluators, and recent engineer interns who had passed the FE examination within the previous year and were not yet professional engineers. That group took the '93 10 FE examination using the first edition of the Handbook and then made judgments to determine the pass point for that examination. During that two day workshop, the errors in the Handbook were pointed out to the working group so it could determine if any of the errors contained in the Handbook had any impact on any of the problems contained in the '93 10 examination. The group determined that none of the errors in the Handbook impacted on any test item on the '93 10 FE examination. In September of 1993 subsequent to the passing point workshop, the '93 10 FE exam and the first edition of the Handbook went back to the committee of registered professional engineers for a final check, and that committee also determined that none of the errors in the Handbook would have any impact on the questions in the '93 10 FE examination. An errata sheet to the first edition of the Handbook was subsequently prepared but was not available until December of 1993. In September of 1994 the second printing of the Handbook was completed, and that version incorporated the changes contained on the errata sheet. Of the errors contained in the first edition of the Handbook, only one error was substantive; that is, one mathematical equation was wrong. However, no item on the '93 10 FE exam could be affected by that mathematical error. The remaining errors were typographical or simply matters of convention, i.e., errors in conventional terminology and symbols found in most textbooks such as the use of upper case instead of lower case or symbols being italicized as opposed to being non-italicized. Candidates for the '93 10 FE examination were able to purchase in advance as a study guide, a Fundamentals of Engineering sample examination which had its second printing in March of 1992. The sample examination was composed of questions taken from previous FE exams which would never be used again on an actual FE examination. The sample examination consisted of actual test questions and multiple choice answers. The sample examination did not show candidates how to solve the problems or work the computation, but merely gave multiple choice responses. Errors were contained on the two pages where the answers to the sample examination were given. The answer key was wrong as to two items on the morning sample examination and was wrong for all of the electrical circuit items, one of the subject areas included in the afternoon sample examination. An errata sheet was prepared and distributed in September of 1993 to those who had purchased the sample examination. Petitioner took the '93 10 FE examination, which contained 140 items during the morning portion and 70 items during the afternoon portion. Approximately 25 percent of the questions on the examination were pre-test questions. The minimum passing score for that examination was 70, and Petitioner achieved a score of only 68. Accordingly, Petitioner failed that examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing score on the October 1993 Fundamentals of Engineering examination and dismissing the amended petition filed in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-5 and 8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 7 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6 and 9 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony or conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-15 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 16 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Wellington H. Meffert, II Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dorian Kenneth Zinck, pro se 521 Beech Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the School Board has cause to discharge Respondent, Arlene Murray, from her duties as a bus driver with the Board because of a positive result for cocaine obtained in a drug screening.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, was the agency in Pinellas County responsible for the provision of public education and educational support services in the county. Respondent, Arlene Murray, was employed by the Petitioner as a school bus driver. The position of school bus driver is a sensitive position and subject to the additional requirements pertinent to employment in such a position. One of these requirements is to undergo random drug screening from time to time. There is a decided safety purpose inherent in this requirement. By letter issued in October, 1994, the Board notified all its school bus drivers, including the Respondent, that, consistent with federal law, all employees who were required to hold a commercial driver's license and who perform sensitive functions for the Board, would be subject to drug urinalysis testing and/or breath alcohol testing. Respondent operated a school bus which transported more than 15 persons and was, therefore, subject to this requirement. Sometime thereafter, in December, 1994, the Board adopted Section 6Gx52-5.27, "Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace", as a formal Board policy. One purpose of this policy was to comply with the federal requirement. Consistent with this action, the Board contracted with FirstLab, a medical testing organization, to conduct the drug screenings, and FirstLab contracted with Corning-Metpath Clinical Laboratories, (Corning Metpath), a certified clinical laboratory, to conduct the actual analyses of the specimens gathered from subject employees. School Board policy and the pertinent federal regulations require that drug testing be conducted un-announced on a random selection basis and must equal or exceed fifty percent of the total number of individuals in each subject class. Consistent with the policy and federal requirement, sometime prior to January 23, 1995, Max Loden, the Board's supervisor of support services and its project coordinator for drug testing, compiled a list of all subject employees which he thereafter furnished to FirstLab. FirstLab, in turn, through use of its computers, generated a random list of those subject employees who were to be drug tested in calendar year 1995. The list for the first quarter of calendar year 1995 was telefaxed by FirstLab to Mr. Loden on January 23, 1995. Respondent's name appeared on that list. Also, sometime during January 1995, the Board conducted one-hour workshops for all bus drivers to inform them of its policy regarding drug testing. At those training sessions, a handbook describing the program was furnished to each driver. Each driver who received such a handbook signed a receipt to that effect. On January 26, 1995, Ms. Murray signed a receipt indicating she had received the information handbook describing the Board's drug policy. As a part of its implementation of the testing program, some time before March 1995, the Board contracted with Doctors Walk-In Clinic, (Clinic), located on US 19 North in Clearwater, to be a drug testing site. A complete and detailed collection procedure was developed which, all available evidence indicates, is designed to preserve the confidentiality of the donor, and to ensure that the integrity of each sample is maintained to guarantee a match of sample with donor and against contamination by any outside source. This procedure was followed in Ms. Murray's case. On the morning of March 10, 1995, Respondent was notified by a Board representative that she was to report to Doctors Walk-In Clinic for a drug test before 9:35 AM that day. Ms. Murray reported to the proper location for testing as instructed, where the sample was collected according to the defined collection procedure, by Ashar Deshbande, a lab technician at the Clinic. Once the sample was collected, Ms. Deshbande completed the required portions of the federal drug testing custody and control form for shipment of the sample to Corning-Metpath for analysis. Portions of this form are completed by both the technician and the donor, and a detailed procedure is prescribed and followed for the securing, packaging and transmission of the sample from the collection site to the laboratory. This procedure, which was followed in this case, is designed to insure that the sample collected from the individual donor is properly identified, secured and transmitted to the lab without any reasonable possibility of contamination. Respondent's sample was received at Corning Metpath, a facility licensed to conduct this type of laboratory analysis by both the appropriate federal and Florida authorities, on March 14, 1995. When inspected at Corning Metpath, the sample was found to have all security seals intact and undisturbed. The identification number on the specimen was compared with the number on the requisition form submitted by the Clinic and found to be identical. It is found, therefore, that the sample collected from Respondent on March 10, 1995, immediately secured, identified and prepared shipment to Corning Metpath, and thereafter shipped by air to Corning Metpath, was the same sample as received by the laboratory on March 14, 1995 and it had not been contaminated by any outside source at time of receipt by the lab. A tracking number to be used for laboratory internal tracking was also assigned at that time. Several distinct tests were run at Corning Metpath on the instant specimen collected from Respondent. The first was a screening test, conducted on March 15, 1995. In this test, the sample is placed within a batch of control samples used to insure the instrumentation is properly functioning during the process of analysis. This screening process tests for five drug classes. These include amphetamines, phincyclatine, PCP, opiates and marijuana. In the course of the test, only a small portion of the sample is utilized. The remainder of the collected sample is placed in a locked cage for temporary storage. The sample to be used is then taken the preparation room to the screening room where instrumentation reads the identifying bar code on the containers, performs the analysis and produces a print out. Once the process is completed, this tested sample portion is discarded. In the instant case, the screening test indicated Respondent's specimen showed a numerical value of 370. This is more than twice the minimal indicator calibrated for indicating the presence of cocaine. When the specimen tested positive for cocaine, the sample was removed from the test batch and secured in a locked refrigerator for confirmation testing. The next day, March 16, 1995, the Respondent's positive sample was removed from the locked refrigerator and subjected to confirmation testing. Confirmation testing is accomplished by a staff team entirely different from those individuals who made up the screening test personnel. The confirmation testing is done on only one specimen at a time and no more than that sample under test is opened. In a confirmation test, the standards of which are even more stringent than those for the screening test, Respondent's sample again tested positive for cocaine. The test results indicating a positive result of the laboratory analysis were received from FirstLab by Mr. Loden at the Board on March 23, 1995. Mr. Loden immediately notified the Board's Office of Professional Standards that a positive result had been received on Ms. Murray's sample, and a decision was then made to suspend Ms. Murray, with pay, until dismissal action could be considered by the Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Before the Board meeting could be held, Ms. Murray requested formal hearing. Ms. Murray denied under oath ever using cocaine and affirmatively stated she did not use drugs. She could not, however, give any explanation as to how cocaine metabolite could have been present in her urine. Ms. Murray has lived in Pinellas County for 32 years and has been employed by the Board as a bus driver for six years. Prior to the instance under consideration here, she claims, she has never been in any trouble with the Board and has never been convicted of a crime. When interviewed by Dr. O'Howell on the day the test results were received, she was advised of the results and that if she resigned, the incident would not appear in the papers. Because, she claims, she has not used drugs for at least one year prior to this incident, Ms. Murray declined to resign and was dismissed. She asserts that in briefings given to employees, they were told that if they were to come to their supervisor and indicate they needed help, they would not be fired. She knows of at least one other employee who tested positive for drugs and was not fired. That individual was not identified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Arlene Murray, be terminated for cause from employment as a school bus driver with the Pinellas County Schools. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 27th day of October, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County Schools Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Eduardo LaTour, Esquire Tarpon Tower, Suite 400 905 East Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689-4815 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by denying Petitioner employment with Respondent because of her sex (female).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a female and a member of a protected class, completed an application for employment with Respondent in or about February of 2002 for the position of Wastewater Operator "C." The particular position she applied for was a night shift position which runs from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. In February of 2002, Respondent had an opening for a Class "C" Wastewater Operator's position. Prior to that time, this position had been open for approximately one year. Respondent's standard interview process for a wastewater position is that Charles McDonald ("McDonald"), the Wastewater Production Supervisor, reviews the applications to see if they have the minimum qualifications for the open position. If the applicant possesses the minimum requirements, McDonald will schedule an initial appointment with the applicant. At this initial appointment, McDonald reviews the duties of the position with the applicant and finds out some general background on the applicant. Once that is accomplished, McDonald will arrange for an interview with his superior, James Anselmo ("Anselmo"), the Division Chief over the water and wastewater treatment facilities of Respondent. Anselmo, in his capacity as a Division Chief, oversees the operations of the water and wastewater treatment facilities of Respondent, as well as all the personnel matters in those departments. Anselmo has served as a supervisor for Respondent for fourteen (14) years, and during that time has not had any grievances or complaints of discriminatory treatment filed against him. The Wastewater Operator "C" that Respondent was seeking to hire was to perform chemical analysis and perform general preventative maintenance work. This chemical analysis work on the water samples consists of performing "solids determination, chlorine residual and pH determination; perform [ing] sludge volume tests; measure dissolved oxygen levels; perform [ing] chlorine residual test; turbidity and telemetry monitoring." These chemical testing duties consist of more than gathering samples, but also include taking them to the lab, actually performing the tests and then reading and recording the results. These lab-testing duties are considered an essential function of this position. The job description for this position also states that an operator "performs general preventive maintenance work" on machines. Anselmo considered this requirement to include changing packing on pumps, changing oil, greasing motors and pumps, making adjustments on machines and fixing broken lines. He feels this requirement is important because it is necessary to have all of his wastewater employees cross-trained to perform multiple functions. Petitioner's application was initially forwarded to Anselmo, who reviewed it and was impressed with the fact that the applicant possessed an "A" license. As a result, he forwarded the application to McDonald to initiate the interview process. It made no difference to Anselmo whether the applicant was a male or a female. In or about March 2002, McDonald contacted Petitioner by telephone and arranged for her to come meet him for an initial interview. During this initial interview with McDonald, Petitioner indicated to him that she did not perform any maintenance duties at her previous employment with the City of Orlando. McDonald mistakenly understood Petitioner to say that she did not do any lab work at the City of Orlando, but rather it was done at the laboratory by others. After the initial interview with McDonald, he spoke with Anselmo and informed him that he had a lady that had put in for the Wastewater Operator "C" position, and suggested that he interview her. McDonald did not emphasize the fact that Petitioner was a female, but rather made his usual comment that it was either a lady or a guy that was coming in for the interview. Anselmo indicated that McDonald should bring her over immediately for the second interview. Petitioner then had an interview with Anselmo in his office later that same day. This interview began by Anselmo and Petitioner shaking hands. McDonald was present and handed Anselmo a copy of Petitioner's application. Prior to this meeting, Anselmo had not been in possession of a copy of Petitioner's application, other than his very brief initial review of it. Before getting into the substantive interview, Anselmo initially said to Petitioner "Carmen Christensen, that's a very unique name. I went to school with a friend, and his name was Carmen also." Anselmo intended this comment simply to be small talk, and to serve as an "ice breaker." Anselmo and McDonald both testified that Anselmo never stated to Petitioner: "I thought you were a man with the name Carmen." They also denied that Anselmo stated "I went to school with a twin by that name." Anselmo made no references to Petitioner's gender during the interview. This testimony is credible. After this initial "ice breaker," Anselmo then reviewed Petitioner's application and began asking her questions about it. As a result of not seeing the application prior to this, Anselmo got a few of the minor items on her application wrong. On her application, Petitioner indicated that her duties at the City of Orlando had required her to "grab samples." In reading this, Anselmo assumed that this meant that Petitioner simply gathered water and did not perform any laboratory tests on the sample. Thus, Anselmo was hoping that Petitioner would elaborate and demonstrate to him that she had actually performed laboratory testing on these samples. During the interview, Anselmo asked Christensen questions about her duties at the City of Orlando. Petitioner responded that she simply collected samples and carried them to the lab, and occasionally, ran a few tests. Petitioner did not share any specific types of tests that she had done while at the City of Orlando. Anselmo encouraged Petitioner to take the opportunity during the interview to elaborate on these duties, but she failed to do so. When he asked her whether she had performed specific tests, she respondent that she did not because laboratory employees had performed those tests at the City of Orlando. Petitioner also did not present Anselmo with any of the written certificates that she now claims she possesses. At no time during the interview did Petitioner give Anselmo sufficient reason to believe that she did more than gather water samples at her previous job and bring them to the lab. During the interview, Anselmo also asked Petitioner questions about her maintenance duties while at the City of Orlando. Petitioner responded that maintenance work at the City of Orlando was done by maintenance personnel and, thus, she had not done any such work. Finally during the interview, Anselmo asked Petitioner about the reasons for her termination by her previous employer, the City of Orlando. Petitioner informed Anselmo that she had been terminated from the City of Orlando based on allegations of "falsified records." The City considers allegations of falsification of records to be a serious violation. Anselmo was not able to verify the reasons for Christensen's termination from the City of Orlando because she had indicated on her application that they could not contact her previous employers. Based on this request by Petitioner, Anselmo made no independent efforts to verify the reason for her termination. At no time during the interview did Anselmo ever tell Petitioner that he did not want females working at the facility. In fact, Anselmo testified that he hires employees based simply on their qualifications, not their gender; although no other female operator is employed by Respondent. Other than the alleged comment about her name, Petitioner did not offer any other evidence that Anselmo had any problem with women working in the wastewater facility. Instead, Petitioner gave her "opinion" that she was not hired because she is a female. At the end of the interview, Anselmo informed Petitioner that Respondent was still accepting applications for the position. Following the interview, Anselmo and McDonald discussed Petitioner's qualifications as a candidate. They agreed that she appeared to be inexperienced based on her responses during the interview. In particular, they were concerned with her lack of maintenance and laboratory testing experience. Anselmo completed an Applicant Referral form on or about March 12, 2002, in which he indicated that Petitioner had been "rejected" for the position of Wastewater Operator "C." On that form, Anselmo indicated that Petitioner had been rejected for employment because she "said she had no lab experience or did not perform any maintenance. Performing lab tests and maintenance is crucial to this position." Anselmo testified that this form accurately sets forth the reasons on which he made the decision to reject Petitioner for employment. Subsequent to Petitioner's interview, McDonald and Anselmo had the opportunity to interview two additional candidates, Richard Neitling ("Neitling") and Richard Burns ("Burns"). Neitling set forth more laboratory testing experience than Petitioner in his interview and on his resume. He indicated during his interview with Anselmo that he had done the specific laboratory tests that Respondent does at its wastewater facility, including BOD's, suspended solids, mixed liquid suspended, sludge samples and TSS. He also indicated during his interview that he had maintenance experience, including tearing down pumps, changing filters and oiling and greasing machines. Based on these expressed qualifications and experience set forth in his application and presented during his interview, as well as the fact that he was a "C" Operator and that was the actual position being offered, Neitling was offered the position of Operator "C." It was later discovered, however, that Neitling had provided false information on his application, and, therefore, he was never actually hired for the position. Respondent then turned its attention to the application of Burns. On his application and resume, Burns indicated that he could perform "all aspects of treatment plant op's." In addition, he indicated that he had 15 years experience as a wastewater plant operator, and that he possessed a Level "A" operator's license, the same license possessed by Petitioner. After submitting his application for employment to Respondent, Burns received an interview from McDonald and the lead operator, Tad Blazer ("Blazer"). During this interview, Burns informed McDonald and Blazer that he had previously done laboratory testing including OUR's, BOD's, fecal's and others. They also asked Burns about his maintenance skills, and he informed them that he had received cross-training in maintenance, preventive maintenance and pulling of pumps while at Orange County. Approximately a week after this initial interview, Burns had an interview with Blazer, McDonald and Anselmo. In this second interview, Burns again shared his laboratory testing experience, his maintenance skills and his cross-training. In particular, Burns represented that he could do all of the laboratory testing that the position required, and that he had extensive background in equipment maintenance. Burns also indicated to Anselmo that he had 15 years of experience in all aspects of the treatment process, including lab work and maintenance duties. In addition, Burns informed them that he had spent two months at Orange County in a cross-training program that consisted of him performing strictly maintenance duties. During this interview, Burns also shared with Anselmo the reasons for his leaving Orange County. He informed Anselmo that he had been terminated by mutual agreement, but that the reasons for the termination involved a conflict with one supervisor, not actual performance problems. Following this interview, but prior to hiring him, Anselmo and McDonald visited Orange County's personnel department and reviewed Burns' file. In reviewing his file, they discovered that he had exceptional evaluations except for his last year, and that the only negative comments in his file involved failure to give proper notice prior to taking a vacation. There were no allegations of falsification of any records in Burns' file at Orange County. Based on his background and hands-on experience, Burns was eventually hired by Respondent for the Operator "C" position in May of 2002. At the time he was hired, Burns could perform all of the functions set forth on Respondent's job description for the position of an Operator "C." More importantly, he had conveyed to McDonald and Anselmo that he was capable of performing all of those duties. Respondent's wastewater facility is smaller than the facility that Petitioner worked at while with the City of Orlando. In fact, the City of Orlando's facility has a capacity of 25 million gallons of water a day, while Respondent's facility can handle only 750,000 gallons per day. In addition, the City of Orlando employs two or three times more employees that Respondent. William Hurley ("Hurley"), the Section Manager for the Orange County Wastewater Utility, testified that he has been employed in the wastewater industry for 28 years, and has worked at four different facilities during that time. In his experience, larger facilities often require different tasks from their operators than smaller facilities require of operators. Hurley also testified that he plays a role in the hiring of operators at Orange County. In this capacity, he would consider it a serious violation, and it would give him serious concern, if an applicant revealed to him during the interview process that there were allegations of her committing a falsification of records at her previous employer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Carmen Christensen 5419 Shiloh Drive Adamsville, Alabama 35005 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul J. Scheck, Esquire Shutts & Bowen LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Harriett S. Parets, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, and dated July 27, 2004, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner filed his Administrative Complaint on July 27, 2004, alleging certain material allegations and Statutory and Rule violations and seeking an appropriate penalty pursuant to the authority provided to the Education Practices Commission in Sections 1012.795(1) and 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent filed her Election of Rights and requested a formal hearing on August 23, 2004. The parties’ previous attempt at resolving this matter met without success, and a formal hearing was requested which was scheduled for March 1 and 2, 2006. 2. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Harriett Parets, was employed as an elementary school teacher in the Broward County School District. 3. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate Number 592721. Her certificate covers the areas of elementary education and English for Speakers of Other Languages. It is valid through June 30, 2008. 4. Prior to the incidents complained of in this cause, Respondent taught in the Broward County School District without discipline for six years. Respondent was in her seventh year with the system when the allegations of this case arose. 5. Respondent had no prior disciplinary concerns. 6. Respondent had received satisfactory evaluations every year. 7. Respondent had administered the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) on five prior occasions without incident. 8. During the 2002 school year Respondent was assigned to teach fourth grade at McNab Elementary School (McNab). Her class was scheduled to take the FCAT on March 11 through 13, 2003. 9. Prior to the dates of testing, teachers at McNab were instructed to view a resource video. The video instructed and directed the teachers in the administration of the FCAT. It included information not previously addressed by the video. 10. Additionally, teachers at McNab were provided testing procedures to guide the administration of the FCAT. Teachers were to follow specifically worded texts in the directions provided to their students. A verbatim reading of the text was required by the FCAT testing protocols. Additional comments outside the text were prohibited. 11. Teachers at McNab were advised on the importance of the FCAT results, the requirement of adhering to the testing protocols, and the opportunities available to the school should McNab students perform well on the FCAT. 12. In fact, as McNab had received an “A” rating in the past (following good FCAT results), the school had received special funding tied to that performance. 13. In connection with the FCAT testing at issue herein, McNab administrators took precautions to provide test administrators with the schedule of the exam dates, the materials needed to administer the test, and training in the proper administration of the FCAT. Testing protocols were reviewed. 14. Proctors also received training regarding the administration of the exam. Each class was assigned a proctor along with the teacher who was primarily responsible for the test administration. 15. In this case, the proctor and several students verified comments from Respondent that deviated from the scripted instructions. 16. Contrary to the scripted instructions Respondent looked at the students’ test booklets, told more than one student to re-examine their work for errors, and pointed out a wrong answer. Respondent announced to the class as a whole that she was “seeing a lot of wrong answers.” 17. The Respondent was not authorized to make comments during the administration of the test. More important, the Respondent was not permitted to assist by any means the students who were taking the FCAT. 18. Respondent admitted that she did not watch the FCAT training video (known in this record as the BECON video). Respondent knew or should have known that she had been directed to watch the video. 19. Respondent admitted that she made comments to students that were beyond the scripted instructions provided in the teacher’s testing manual. 20. The issues of Respondent’s comments to the class and the level of assistance she had provided to students came to light when a student told her mother of Respondent’s conduct. The mother then contacted a school administrator to make the alleged improprieties known. 21. After determining that Respondent had assisted students in her class, administrators invalidated the test results from Respondent’s class. 22. As a result of the invalidation, the school did not have a sufficient number of test results to qualify as an “A” performing school under the state guidelines. Had the results from Respondent’s class been included, the school might have qualified and received recognition as it had in the past. 23. Following a formal hearing on the identical facts, the school district suspended Respondent for thirty (30) days. 24. Respondent has proctored the FCAT every year since the incident, including this year, without problem. 25. The District found that a 30-day suspension plus training was sufficient discipline.
Conclusions Stipulated Conclusions. 26. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. 27. Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this case to establish the allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner has met that burden. 28. Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, governs FCAT security and prohibits anyone from coaching students or assisting them in any manner in the administration of the exam. 29. Additionally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.042 prohibits interfering “in any way” with persons who are taking the FCAT in order to assist their performance. Clearly, Respondent inappropriately assisted students in her classroom. Had she watched the BECON video or more closely read the FCAT manual, she would have known that the comments and actions she made were inappropriate. The importance of test security was well known to all teachers. 30. By deciding to only suspend Respondent (as opposed to dismissal), Petitioner has recognized her past contribution to the school district. That Respondent blames others for her violation of testing protocols is regrettable. Petitioner has established that Respondent violated testing protocols and should be disciplined. 31. Respondent has violated the statutory rule violations alleged in Counts 1 through 4 of the Administrative Complaint. Other Conclusions. 32. Section 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes, gives the Education Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “EPC”) the power to suspend or revoke the teaching certificate of any person, either for a set period of time or permanently, or to impose any penalty provided by law, if he or she is guilty of certain acts specified in the statute. 33. The Commissioner has alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes; in Count 2, that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(10(f), Florida Statutes; and in Count 3, that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes. 34. Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that a teacher may be disciplined if he or she "[h]as been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude." 35. Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, provides that a teacher may be disciplined if he or she “has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person’s effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.” 36. Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, provides that a teacher may be disciplined if he or she “[h]as violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.” The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Principles") are set out in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 6B-1.006. Having failed to reference any particular part of the Principles, it is assumed that the allegations of Count 4 are intended to refer to the actual portion of the Principles Respondent violated. Count 4 charges that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), which requires that teachers “make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.” 37. Given the parties’ stipulation that “Respondent has violated the statutory rule violations alleged in Counts 1 through 4 of the Administrative Complaint,” the only issue which remains to be decided in this case is the appropriate penalty. In recommending a penalty, however, the extent to which the facts stipulated to by the parties actually supports their stipulation as to the statutory and rule violations must be considered. In particular, the Commission should take into account that the facts actually do not support the conclusion that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the basis for the alleged violation in Count 1. 38. The terms "gross immorality" and "an act involving moral turpitude" are not defined in Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes. See Sherburne v. School Board of Suwannee County, 455 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009, which applies to dismissal actions initiated by school boards against instructional personnel, does, however, provide guidance as to the meaning of the terms as they are used in Section 1012.795, Florida Statutes. See Castor v. Lawless, 1992 WL 880829 *10 (EPC Final Order 1992). 39. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2) defines "immorality" as follows: Immorality is defined as conduct that is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. It is conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community. 40. "Gross immorality" has been defined by the courts as misconduct that is more egregious than mere "immorality": The term "gross" in conjunction with "immorality" has heretofore been found to mean "immorality which involves an act of misconduct that is serious, rather than minor in nature, and which constitutes a flagrant disregard of proper moral standards." Education Practices Commission v. Knox, 3 FALR 1373-A (Department of Education 1981). Frank T. Brogan v. Eston Mansfield, DOAH Case No. 96-0286 (EPC Final Order 1996). 41. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(6) defines "moral turpitude" as follows: Moral turpitude is a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties, which, according to the accepted standards of the time a man owes to his or her fellow man or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude. 42. The court in State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, 146 So. 660, 661 (1933), observed that moral turpitude: involves the idea of inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society. . . . It has also been defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals, though it often involves the question of intent as when unintentionally committed through error of judgment when wrong was not contemplated. 43. In determining whether any teacher is guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, it must be remembered that "[b]y virtue of their leadership capacity, teachers are traditionally held to a high moral standard in a community." Adams v. Professional Practices Council, 406 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). 44. The acts committed by Respondent in this case were not sufficiently egregious to constitute gross immorality or acts involving moral turpitude. Respondent’s conduct, while inconsistent with the conduct expected of a teacher administering the FCAT, does not constitute an act ". . . which constitutes a flagrant disregard of proper moral standards" or an act of "inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed by man to man or by man to society." 45. As for the violation of Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, while the parties have stipulated that Respondent's conduct reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the School Board, the facts show that the School Board has considered Respondent's effectiveness as an employee adequate to continue her in its employment and to continue allowing her to administer the FCAT. 46. While clearly inappropriate conduct on the part of the Respondent, her conduct barely constitutes a violation of the other statutory violation alleged in Count 3. Recommended Penalty. 47. Section 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes, gives the EPC the following disciplinary authority: The Education Practices Commission may suspend the educator certificate of any person as defined in s. 1012.01(2) or (3) for a period of time not to exceed 5 years, thereby denying that person the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with students for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (4); may revoke the educator certificate of any person, thereby denying that person the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with students for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of subsection (4); may revoke permanently the educator certificate of any person thereby denying that person the right to teach or otherwise be employed by a district school board or public school in any capacity requiring direct contact with students; may suspend the educator certificate, upon order of the court, of any person found to have a delinquent child support obligation; or may impose any other penalty provided by law, . . . provided it can be shown that the person [violated one of the subsections that follow]. 48. In its Proposed Recommended Order for Appropriate Penalty, Petitioner has requested that it be recommended that Respondent’s certificate be permanently revoked and that she be permanently barred from re-application. Respondent has requested that it be recommended that Respondent’s 30-day suspension by the Broward County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the “School Board”) serve as her penalty in this case. In the alternative, Respondent has suggested that a one- year period of probation be added to the already served suspension. 49. In deciding the appropriate penalty to recommend in this case, consideration has been given to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.007(3), which provides aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be considered in determining the appropriate penalty in a case such as this: (3) Based upon consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors present in an individual case, the Commission may deviate from the penalties recommended in subsection (2). The Commission may consider the following as aggravating or mitigating factors: The severity of the offense; The danger to the public; The number of repetitions of offenses; The length of time since the violation; The number of times the educator has been previously disciplined by the Commission. The length of time the educator has practiced and the contribution as an educator; The actual damage, physical or otherwise, caused by the violation; The deterrent effect of the penalty imposed; The effect of the penalty upon the educator’s livelihood; Any effort of rehabilitation by the educator; The actual knowledge of the educator pertaining to the violation; Employment status; Attempts by the educator to correct or stop the violation or refusal by the licensee to correct or stop the violation; Related violations against the educator in another state including findings of guilt or innocence, penalties imposed and penalties served; Actual negligence of the educator pertaining to any violation; Penalties imposed for related offenses under subsection (2) above; Pecuniary benefit or self-gain inuring to the educator; Degree of physical and mental harm to a student or a child; Present status of physical and/or mental condition contributing to the violation including recovery from addiction; Any other relevant mitigating or aggravating factors under the circumstances. 50. Based upon the facts stipulated to by the parties, the following mitigating circumstances exist: the offense in this case is a single, isolated one; the actual danger to the public in this incident was minimal; it has been three years since the violation occurred (and in the interim, Respondent has continued to monitor the FCAT without incident); and Respondent has not been previously disciplined by the EPC. 51. The following aggravating circumstances have been shown to exist: Respondent actions deprived students of the educational process, likely resulting in the loss of school funding and hindering the school’s ratings; and a harsh penalty will send the message that Respondent’s conduct will not be tolerated. 52. Petitioner has argued that an additional aggravating circumstance is the failure of any evidence that Respondent has been rehabilitated. In particular, Petitioner has suggested that Respondent lacks any rehabilitation because she has “consistently accused other individuals, including the FCAT’s administrators and supervisors, for her misdeeds rather than accepting the blame.” Petitioner’s argument on this point must be rejected. First, there is no stipulated fact or any evidence that has been offered in this case to support Petitioner’s position. Secondly, Petitioner has failed to consider the fact that Respondent has agreed to the stipulated facts and law which form the basis of this Recommended Order. 53. Ultimately, in recommending a penalty in this case, the most important considerations in this matter should be the extent to which Respondent actually violated the provision alleged in the Administrative Complaint, which has been addressed, supra, and the action taken by Respondent’s employer, the School Board. 54. The extent to which Respondent actually violated the provisions alleged in the Administrative Complaint has been discussed, supra. 55. Just as significantly, the School Board, which, along with the parents and children it serves, suffered the actual harm of Respondent’s conduct, concluded that Respondent was adequately punished by a 30-day suspension rather than termination of her employment. The School Board, therefore, has indicated a willingness to continue to employ Respondent, something it will no longer be able to do if Petitioner’s recommended penalty is carried out. Nor will the School Board be able to continue Respondent’s employment if Petitioner were to suspend Respondent’s certificate for any period of time. 56. Given the School Board’s decision to continue to employ Respondent, any discipline taken by Petitioner should be limited to discipline which will not thwart the local government’s decision to continue to employ Respondent. A suspension of 30 days, considered already served at the time she served her School Board imposed suspension; five years probation; and a requirement that Respondent attend, at her own expense, any seminars or courses the EPC deems appropriate is an appropriate penalty in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing the following penalty: (1) suspending her teaching certificate for 30 days, such suspension to be considered already served; (2) placing her on probation for five years subject to any conditions deemed appropriate by the EPC; and (3) requiring her to attend, at her own expense, any seminars or courses the EPC deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this day 4th day April of, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 4th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of committing gross immorality or moral turpitude, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes; violating the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes; or failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held Florida Educator's Certificate 615429. Respondent is certified in business, drivers' education, and physical education. The School District of Palm Beach County hired Respondent to teach high-school business at Jupiter High School for the 1995-96 or 1996-97 school year. After changing schools with another teacher, the assistant principal of Respondent's new high school, Palm Beach Lakes High School, assigned Respondent to teach mathematics. Respondent has a very limited background in mathematics. Although he objected that he was not qualified to teach mathematics, he had no option but to accept the new assignment, or terminate his employment. Respondent reluctantly agreed to teach mathematics starting in the 1998-99 school year, but he was justifiably concerned about his ability to meet the needs of his mathematics students. In January 1999, Respondent walked past an unsecured room and saw a large number of test booklets in boxes stacked on a table in the school library. Respondent entered the room, picked up and examined a test booklet, and made a copy of the booklet before returning it to the table. The test booklet was the High School Competency Test (HSCT) that was being administered that year. Respondent claims to have copied the test booklet innocently, unaware that the test questions were not to be disclosed, except as was necessary to administer the test. Respondent also claims that he took the booklet to learn what generally he was supposed to be teaching and that he did not know that a future HSCT would be identical to the one that he had copied. Respondent's claims that he did not know that the test booklet was not to be removed or copied and that he took the booklet merely to learn what he was supposed to teach in general are discredited as highly unlikely. If Respondent had thought that the test booklets were freely available to teachers, he would have merely taken one, not copied one and returned it to the table. Respondent never asked for a booklet, nor did he ever disclose to anyone else at the school that he had taken a copy of a booklet. From the start, Respondent knew that his possession of the test booklet was improper. Respondent's claim that he did not know anything about the HSCT, such as its importance or confidentiality, undermines his claim that he took a copy of the test booklet to learn what to teach in mathematics. At the time, students had to pass the HSCT to graduate from high school. Respondent likely knew this fact, otherwise, he would not have relied so heavily upon this test booklet as the source of information as to what he had to teach in mathematics. Rather than taking his cue as to what to teach from the mathematics textbook or from other mathematics teachers, Respondent took the shortcut of obtaining the ultimate test instrument and relying on the test contents for deciding what to teach in his mathematics class. On the other hand, Respondent did not know that the identical test would be administered again. This fact was not widely known by teachers or even administrators. Once he had examined the test booklet, Respondent worked out the answers, although he required assistance to do so. He then cut and pasted questions onto worksheets for use by his students, who would complete the worksheets in class and turn them into Respondent, who would go over the answers in class. The investigator of The School District of Palm Beach County concludes that Respondent's rearranging of questions is part of his attempt to conceal his wrongdoing. This conclusion is incorrect, as the rearranging of questions allowed Respondent to save copying costs. The evidence likewise fails to establish that Respondent told his students not to disclose the worksheets. Thus, the sole evidence of concealment is Respondent's failure to disclose his possession of the HSCT booklet to administrators or other teachers. In fact, once confronted with his possession of the HSCT, Respondent admitted to his wrongdoing and cooperated with the investigation. However, it is impossible to harmonize Respondent's claims of innocence and good faith with the proximity of his use of the copied test with the test date. If, as Respondent claims, he intended only to learn what he should be teaching in mathematics, he could have examined the copied test booklet, noted the areas covered, and covered them in an orderly fashion through the school year, using different questions from those found in his copy of the test booklet. Instead, Respondent gave his students numerous questions from his copy of the test booklet on September 24 and 26-29 and October 1. The presentation of a variety of mathematical concepts in such close proximity to the HSCT test date suggest a knowing misuse of the copied test booklet. Respondent's knowing misuse of the test, combined with the chance occurrence of the administration of the same test in October 2000, led to distorted results among his students, many of whom recognized that questions on the real test were identical with questions with which Respondent had prepared them. After an investigation, the Florida Department of Education and The School District of Palm Beach County decided to invalidate the mathematics scores of the hundreds of students at Respondent's high school who had taken the October 2000 HSCT and require them to retake a different version of the mathematical portion of the test. The question naturally arises whether October 2000 marked the first time that Respondent used the HSCT booklet that he had taken in January 1999. Respondent claims that he filed the test booklet and forgot about it until shortly before the October 2000 test. The investigation revealed that the scores of Respondent's students on the mathematics portion of the HSCT during the 1999-2000 school year were considerably better than the scores of similarly situated students, but investigators lacked the evidence to pursue this matter further. Thus, the evidence fails to establish that Respondent improperly used the copied test material more than once. Petitioner's reliance on Respondent's training as a proctor does not tend to establish Respondent's knowledge of his misuse of the test booklet that he copied. The training materials do not directly address older testing materials in the possession of a proctor, and Respondent possesses only limited ability to draw the inferences that Petitioner claims were inescapable. Also, the late recollection of one of Petitioner's witnesses that Respondent had inquired whether he might obtain a bonus if his students performed well on the HSCT is discredited. Petitioner has proved that Respondent obtained a copy of an HSCT under circumstances that he knew were improper, and he knowingly misused the copied test materials to prepare his students to take the HSCT. Undoubtedly, Respondent did not know that the October 2000 HSCT would be identical to the test that he had copied. Also, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent tried to conceal his misuse of the copied HSCT materials, other than by not mentioning to an administrator or other teacher that he possessed these materials. Lastly, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's actions were motivated by self-interest. Respondent doubted his ability to teach mathematics, and he misused the test materials to serve the interests of his students, although at the expense of thousands of other students whose preparation did not include exposure to HSCT prior to taking it. Undoubtedly, this commitment to his students is partly responsible for the testimony of Respondent's principal, who described him as an "outstanding teacher," although Respondent received a decidedly mixed review from the four students whom he called as witnesses on his behalf. After an investigation, the Superintendent of The School District of Palm Beach County recommended to the School Board that it suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. The School Board adopted this recommendation. This is the only discipline that Respondent has received as a teacher, and he proctored last school year the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, which has replaced the HSCT.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code; suspending his Educator's Certificate for six months; and placing his certificate on probation for three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 19th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Director Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Matthew E. Haynes Chambleee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. The Barrister's Building, Suite 500 1615 Forum Place West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
