The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact One of the statutory duties of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") is to evaluate the performance of every teacher employed in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"), at least once per year. To accomplish this, the Board uses a personnel assessment system known as "PACES," which is an acronym for Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. PACES is the product of collective bargaining between the Board and the teachers' union, and it has been duly approved by the Florida Department of Education. The Board's evaluation procedure begins with an observation of the subject teacher, conducted by an administrator trained in the use of PACES. On a score sheet called the Observation Form for Annual Evaluation ("OFAE"), the evaluator rates the teacher's performance on 44 independently dispositive "indicators." The only grades assignable to the respective indicators are "acceptable" and "unacceptable"; thus, the evaluator's decision, for each indicator, is binary: yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down.1 A negative mark on any one of the 44 indicators results in an overall performance evaluation of "unsatisfactory." For the teacher under observation, therefore, each indicator constitutes, in effect, a pass/fail test, with his or her job hanging in the balance. If the teacher passes all 44 of the independently dispositive indicators, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory" and the evaluative process is complete. If, on the other hand, the teacher is given a failing grade on one or more of the 44 indicators and hence adjudged an unsatisfactory performer, then the initial observation is deemed to be "not of record" (i.e. inoperative) and a follow-up, "for the record" evaluation is scheduled to occur, upon notice to the affected teacher, about one month later. In the meantime, the teacher is offered the assistance of a Professional Growth Team ("PGT"), a group of peers who, having received special training in PACES, are in a position to help the affected teacher correct performance deficiencies in advance of the follow-up evaluation. The follow-up evaluation is conducted in the same manner as the initial "not of record" evaluation. If the teacher passes all 44 indicators, then his performance is deemed satisfactory and the evaluative process is complete. If he fails one or more of the indicators, however, then the teacher is placed on probation for a period of 90 calendar days (excluding vacations and holidays). The probation period is preceded by a formal Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), at which notice of the specific performance deficiencies is provided to the teacher. As well, the teacher is given a Professional Improvement Plan ("PIP"), wherein particular remedial tasks, intended to help the teacher correct the noted performance deficiencies, are assigned. During the performance probation, the teacher must be formally observed at least twice, by an evaluator using the OFAE. If, on any of these probationary observations, the teacher fails at least one indicator, then another PIP is prepared and offered. Within 14 days after the end of probation, a "confirmatory evaluation" is conducted, using the OFAE. The purpose of the confirmatory evaluation is to determine whether the noted performance deficiencies were corrected. If they were, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory." If not, the principal then makes a recommendation to the superintendent whether to continue or terminate the teacher's employment. As mentioned above, a PACES evaluation takes account of 44 crucial indicators.2 The indicators are organized under "components." The 44 outcome determinative indicators fall within 21 components, which are identified on the OFAE. These components are organized, in turn, under "domains," of which six are identified on the OFAE. Each domain has been assigned a Roman numeral identifier: I through VI. The components are distinguished alphabetically: A, B, C, etc. The indicators are numbered using Arabic numerals. Each specific indicator is named according to the Roman numeral of its domain, the letter of its component, and its own Arabic number. Thus, for example, the first indicator under Component A of Domain I is referred to as "I.A.1." Notwithstanding the PACES taxonomy, the classifications of "domain" and "component" are useful only as a means of organizing the indicators. This is because a teacher does not pass or fail a performance evaluation at the domain level or at the component level; rather, he passes or fails at the indicator level, for, again, each of the 44 indicators is independently dispositive under PACES.3 Thus, each of the determinative 44 indicators is of precisely equal weight. None is more important or less important than another.4 B. At all times material to this case, Respondent Sergio H. Escalona ("Escalona") was a teacher in the District. From 2000 until May 19, 2004, when the Board suspended him pending termination of employment, Escalona was a science teacher at Miami Springs Senior High School ("Miami Springs"), a typical high school in the District. During the 2003-04 school year, an evaluator observed Escalona in his classroom on five separate occasions, each time using the OFAE. The dates of these evaluations were, and the names of the respective evaluators are, as follows: Evaluation Date Evaluator November 5, 2003 Carlos M. del Cuadro, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs December 2, 2003 Mr. del Cuadro January 16, 2004 Douglas P. Rodriguez, Principal, Miami Springs February 17, 2004 Deborah Carter, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs April 5, 2004 Mr. Rodriguez The Board contends that Escalona failed all five evaluations; the first, however, was deemed "not of record" and thus is relevant only insofar as it opened the door to the process that followed. The following table shows, for each evaluation (including the first), the indicators that the respective evaluators thought Escalona had failed: IA1 IA2 IB1 IB3 IE3 IF1 IF2 IIA1 IIA3 IIB2 IIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x 01-16-04 x x x 02-17-04 x x x x 04-05-04 x x x IID1 IID3 IID4 IIE1 IIE2 IIE5 IIIA1 IIIA3 IIIB1 IIIB3 IIIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x 01-16-04 x x 02-17-04 x 04-05-04 x x x x x IVA3 IVA 5 IVA6 IVB1 IVB2 IVB 3 IVC2 IVD1 IVD3 IVD6 IVE2 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x 02-17-04 x x x x x 04-05-04 x ? x ? x ? x x IVE4 VA1 VA4 VB1 VB2 VC1 VIA2 VIB1 VIB3 VIC2 VIC4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x x 02-17-04 04-05-04 x ? ? ? x ? x x Because Mr. del Cuadro identified 10 performance deficiencies on December 2, 2003, Escalona was placed on performance probation, pursuant to the procedure described in detail above. Mr. Rodriguez held a CFR on December 9, 2004, to review with Escalona the identified deficiencies and explain the procedures relating to the 90-day probation. Following the CFR, Escalona was given written notice of unsatisfactory performance, in the form of a Summary of Conference-For-The-Record And Professional Improvement Plan (PIP), dated December 9, 2003 ("Summary"). In the Summary, Mr. Rodriguez charged Escalona with failure to satisfactorily perform the following PACES indicators: II.B.4, II.E.5, III.B.3, IV.A.5, IV.B.1, IV.D.1, V.A.1, V.A.4, V.B.1, and VI.A.2. (These 10 indicators are highlighted vertically in the table above.) At the same time, Escalona was given a PIP, and a PGT was assembled to provide assistance. Following the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, based on which Mr. Rodriguez identified 24 deficiencies as shown in the table above, Mr. Rodriguez notified the superintendent that Escalona had failed to correct noted performance deficiencies during a 90-day probation and recommended that Escalona's employment be terminated. The superintendent accepted Mr. Rodriguez's recommendation on April 12, 2004, and shortly thereafter notified Escalona of his decision to recommend that the Board terminate Escalona's employment contract. On May 19, 2004, the Board voted to do just that. C. Of the four evaluations "for the record," the two that were conducted during Escalona's probation (on January 16, 2004, and February 17, 2004) are presently relevant mainly to establish that the proper procedure was followed——a matter that is not genuinely disputed. The substance of these probationary evaluations cannot affect the outcome here because even if Escalona's performance had been perfect during probation, Mr. Rodriguez nevertheless found deficiencies during the post- probation, confirmatory evaluation, which is the only one probative of the dispositive question: Had Escalona corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period after the close of the 90 calendar days' probation? In view of the ultimate issue, the evaluation of December 2, 2003, is primarily relevant because it established the 10 "noted performance deficiencies" that Escalona needed to correct. For reasons that will be discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, the Board cannot terminate Escalona's employment based on other deficiencies allegedly found during probation or at the confirmatory evaluation; rather, it must focus exclusively on those 10 particular deficiencies which Escalona was given 90 calendar days to correct. Thus, stated more precisely, the ultimate question in this case is whether any of the 10 specific deficiencies identified in the Summary provided to Escalona on December 9, 2003, persisted after the 90-day probation. As it happened, Mr. Rodriguez determined, as a result of the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, that Escalona had corrected three of the 10 noted performance deficiencies, for Mr. Rodriguez gave Escalona a passing grade on the indicators II.B.4, II.E.5, and III.B.3. The remaining seven deficiencies upon which termination could legally be based are identified in the table above with the "?" symbol. It is to these seven allegedly uncorrected deficiencies that our attention now must turn. The Board contends, based on Mr. Rodriguez's confirmatory evaluation of April 5, 2004, that Escalona was still, as of that date, failing satisfactorily to perform the following PACES indicators: 5: The purpose or importance of learning tasks is clear to learners. 1: Teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. IV.D.1: Learners have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level or to integrate knowledge and understandings. V.A.1: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in developing associations. 4: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. 1: A variety of questions that enable thinking are asked and/or solicited. VI.A.2: Learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks is monitored. The only descriptive evidence in the record regarding Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004——and hence the only evidence of historical fact upon which the undersigned can decide whether Escalona failed adequately to perform the seven indicators just mentioned——consists of Mr. Rodriguez's testimony. Mr. Rodriguez, who had observed Escalona in the classroom for 50 minutes that day, recounted at final hearing what he had seen as follows: Again, there were students that were simply not engaged at all in learning. For example, there was a student that put his head down at a particular time. He slept for about fifteen minutes. Mr. Escalona never addressed the student, never redirected the learning, never tried to engage that student. Overall the students continued to pass notes in class. The students simply——there was really no plan at all. That was get up, give a lecture. Kids were not paying attention. No redirection for student learning. Questions again very basic. Most of the questions had no response from the students. And [they] just seemed very disinterested, the students did, and the lesson was just not acceptable. Final Hearing Transcript at 103-04. To repeat for emphasis, any findings of historical fact concerning Escalona's performance during the confirmatory evaluation must be based on the foregoing testimony, for that is all the evidence there is on the subject.5 Mr. Rodriguez did not explain how he had applied the seven indicators quoted above to his classroom observations of Escalona to determine that the teacher's performance was not up to standards. D. The seven indicators at issue in this case, it will be seen upon close examination, are not standards upon which to base a judgment, but rather factual conditions ("indicator- conditions") for which the evaluator is supposed to look. If a particular indicator-condition (e.g. the purpose of learning tasks is clear to learners) is found to exist, then the evaluator should award the teacher a passing grade of "acceptable" for that indicator (in this example, Indicator IV.A.5); if not, the grade should be "unacceptable." The indicator-conditions are plainly not objective historical facts; they are, rather, subjective facts, which come into being only when the evaluator puts historical facts against external standards, using reason and logic to make qualitative judgments about what occurred. Subjective facts of this nature are sometimes called "ultimate" facts, the answers to "mixed questions" of law and fact. To illustrate this point, imagine that the class Mr. Rodriguez observed on April 5, 2004, had been videotaped from several different camera angles. The resulting tapes would constitute an accurate audio-visual record of what transpired in Escalona's class that day. Anyone later viewing the tapes would be able to make detailed and accurate findings of objective historical fact, including words spoken, actions taken, time spent on particular tasks, etc. But, without more than the videotapes themselves could provide, a viewer would be unable fairly to determine whether, for example, the "[t]eaching and learning activities [had been] appropriate for the complexity of the learning context" (Indicator IV.B.1), or whether the questions asked adequately "enable[d] thinking" (Indicator V.B.1).6 This is because to make such determinations fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the rule of law requires the use of standards of decision, yardsticks against which to measure the perceptible reality captured on film. Another term for standards of decision is "neutral principles." A neutral principle prescribes normative conduct in a way that permits fair judgments to be made consistently—— that is, in this context, enables the reaching of similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time. A neutral principle must not be either political or results oriented. It must be capable of being applied across- the-board, to all teachers in all evaluations. In the unique milieu of PACES, neutral principles could take a variety of forms. One obvious form would be standards of teacher conduct. Such standards might be defined, for example, with reference to the average competent teacher in the District (or school, or state, etc.). In an adjudicative proceeding such as this one, expert testimony might then be necessary to establish what the average competent teacher does, for example, to monitor learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks (Indicator VI.A.2) or to create opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive level (Indicator IV.D.1).7 Other standards might be definitional. For example, to determine whether teaching and learning activities are appropriate (Indicator IV.B.1) practically demands a definition of the term "appropriate" for this context. Still other standards might be framed as tests, e.g. a test for determining whether a question enables thinking (Indicator V.B.1). However the neutral principles are framed, at bottom there must be standards that describe what "satisfactory" performance of the indicators looks like, so that different people can agree, most of the time, that the indicator- conditions are present or absent in a given situation——and in other, similar situations. Without neutral principles to discipline the decision-maker, the indicators can be used as cover for almost any conclusion an evaluator (or Administrative Law Judge) might want to make. In this case, the record is devoid of any persuasive evidence of neutral principles for use in determining, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether the conditions described in the seven relevant indicators were extant in Escalona's classroom on April 5, 2004, or not. E. In this de novo proceeding, the undersigned fact- finder is charged with the responsibility of determining independently, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether, as of the two-week period following probation, Escalona had corrected all of the performance deficiencies of which he was notified at the outset of probation. The only evidence of Escalona's post- probation teaching performance consists of Mr. Rogriguez's testimony about his observation of Escalona for 50 minutes on April 5, 2004, which was quoted above. Mr. Rodriguez's testimony gives the undersigned little to work with. His observations can be boiled down to four major points, none of which flatters Escalona: (a) Escalona lectured, and the students, who seemed disinterested, did not pay attention——some even passed notes; (b) Escalona asked "very basic" questions, most of which elicited "no response"; (c) one student slept for 15 minutes, and Escalona left him alone; (d) the lesson was "just not acceptable." On inspection, these points are much less helpful than they might at first blush appear. One of them——point (d)——is merely a conclusion which invades the undersigned's province as the fact-finder; accordingly, it has been given practically no weight. The only facts offered in support of the conclusions, in point (a), that the students "seemed" disinterested and were "not paying attention" to Escalona's lecture is the testimony that some students passed notes, and some (many?) did not answer the teacher's questions. But this is a rather thin foundation upon which to rest a conclusion that the students were bored because Escalona's teaching was poor. And even if they were (or looked) bored, is it not fairly common for teenaged high-school students to be (or appear) bored in school, for reasons unrelated to the teacher's performance? There is no evidence whatsoever that student boredom (or note passing or non- responsiveness) features only in the classrooms of poorly performing teachers. As for the supposedly "basic" nature of Escalona's questions, see point (b), the undersigned cannot give Mr. Rodriguez's testimony much weight, because there is no evidence as to what the questions actually were or why they were so very basic. Finally, regarding point (c), the fact that a student slept during class is, to be sure, somewhat damaging to Escalona, inasmuch as students should not generally be napping in class, but without additional information about the student (who might have been sick, for all the undersigned knows) and the surrounding circumstances the undersigned is not persuaded that the sleeping student is res ipsa loquitur on the quality of of Escalona's teaching performance. There is certainly no evidence that students doze only in the bad teachers' classes. More important, however, than the paucity of evidence establishing the objective historical facts concerning Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004, is the failure of proof regarding neutral principles for use in determining the existence or nonexistence of the relevant indicator-conditions. Even if the undersigned had a clear picture of what actually occurred in Escalona's classroom that day, which he lacks, he has been provided no standards against which to measure Escalona's performance, to determine whether the indicator- conditions were met or not. The absence of evidence of such standards is fatal to the Board's case. To make ultimate factual determinations without proof of neutral principles, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Escalona.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Florida Statutes. When a teacher contests a superintendent's recommendation of dismissal, as here, the ensuing hearing must be conducted "in accordance with chapter 120." See § 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Fla. Stat. A "chapter 120 proceeding [entails] a hearing de novo intended to 'formulate final agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily.'" Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So. 2d 831, 833 (Fla. 1993)(quoting McDonald v. Department of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)). Thus, the Board's burden in this case was not merely to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators sincerely believed, after conducting a legally sufficient assessment, that Young's performance was deficient, nor even to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators' judgment was factually and legally tenable. Rather, the Board's burden was to persuade the undersigned himself to find, independently, that Young's performance was deficient. Because this case is a proceeding to terminate a teacher's employment and does not involve the loss of a license or certification, the Board was required to prove the alleged grounds for Escalona's dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas County School Bd., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. School Bd. of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Bd. of Lake County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). B. Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, which governs the process for evaluating teachers, provides in full as follows: 1012.34 Assessment procedures and criteria.-- For the purpose of improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory services in the public schools of the state, the district school superintendent shall establish procedures for assessing the performance of duties and responsibilities of all instructional, administrative, and supervisory personnel employed by the school district. The Department of Education must approve each district's instructional personnel assessment system. The following conditions must be considered in the design of the district's instructional personnel assessment system: The system must be designed to support district and school level improvement plans. The system must provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous quality improvement of the professional skills of instructional personnel. The system must include a mechanism to give parents an opportunity to provide input into employee performance assessments when appropriate. In addition to addressing generic teaching competencies, districts must determine those teaching fields for which special procedures and criteria will be developed. Each district school board may establish a peer assistance process. The plan may provide a mechanism for assistance of persons who are placed on performance probation as well as offer assistance to other employees who request it. The district school board shall provide training programs that are based upon guidelines provided by the Department of Education to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities understand the proper use of the assessment criteria and procedures. The assessment procedure for instructional personnel and school administrators must be primarily based on the performance of students assigned to their classrooms or schools, as appropriate. Pursuant to this section, a school district's performance assessment is not limited to basing unsatisfactory performance of instructional personnel and school administrators upon student performance, but may include other criteria approved to assess instructional personnel and school administrators' performance, or any combination of student performance and other approved criteria. The procedures must comply with, but are not limited to, the following requirements: An assessment must be conducted for each employee at least once a year. The assessment must be based upon sound educational principles and contemporary research in effective educational practices. The assessment must primarily use data and indicators of improvement in student performance assessed annually as specified in s. 1008.22 and may consider results of peer reviews in evaluating the employee's performance. Student performance must be measured by state assessments required under s. 1008.22 and by local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the state assessment program. The assessment criteria must include, but are not limited to, indicators that relate to the following: Performance of students. Ability to maintain appropriate discipline. Knowledge of subject matter. The district school board shall make special provisions for evaluating teachers who are assigned to teach out-of-field. Ability to plan and deliver instruction, including implementation of the rigorous reading requirement pursuant to s. 1003.415, when applicable, and the use of technology in the classroom. Ability to evaluate instructional needs. Ability to establish and maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement. Other professional competencies, responsibilities, and requirements as established by rules of the State Board of Education and policies of the district school board. All personnel must be fully informed of the criteria and procedures associated with the assessment process before the assessment takes place. The individual responsible for supervising the employee must assess the employee's performance. The evaluator must submit a written report of the assessment to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee's contract. The evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the assessment takes place. The evaluator must discuss the written report of assessment with the employee. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the assessment, and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or her personnel file. If an employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination. The notice must describe such unsatisfactory performance and include notice of the following procedural requirements: 1. Upon delivery of a notice of unsatisfactory performance, the evaluator must confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance in helping to correct deficiencies within a prescribed period of time. 2.a. If the employee holds a professional service contract as provided in s. 1012.33, the employee shall be placed on performance probation and governed by the provisions of this section for 90 calendar days following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are not counted when calculating the 90-calendar-day period. During the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract must be evaluated periodically and apprised of progress achieved and must be provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies. At any time during the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract may request a transfer to another appropriate position with a different supervising administrator; however, a transfer does not extend the period for correcting performance deficiencies. b. Within 14 days after the close of the 90 calendar days, the evaluator must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the district school superintendent. Within 14 days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the district school superintendent must notify the employee who holds a professional service contract in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the district school superintendent will recommend that the district school board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the district school superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 days after receipt of the district school superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. The hearing shall be conducted at the district school board's election in accordance with one of the following procedures: A direct hearing conducted by the district school board within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of ss. 120.569 and 120.57. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain the district school superintendent's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment; or A hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services. The hearing shall be conducted within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal in accordance with chapter 120. The recommendation of the administrative law judge shall be made to the district school board. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain or change the administrative law judge's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment. The district school superintendent shall notify the department of any instructional personnel who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and who have been given written notice by the district that their employment is being terminated or is not being renewed or that the district school board intends to terminate, or not renew, their employment. The department shall conduct an investigation to determine whether action shall be taken against the certificateholder pursuant to s. 1012.795(1)(b). The district school superintendent shall develop a mechanism for evaluating the effective use of assessment criteria and evaluation procedures by administrators who are assigned responsibility for evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. The use of the assessment and evaluation procedures shall be considered as part of the annual assessment of the administrator's performance. The system must include a mechanism to give parents and teachers an opportunity to provide input into the administrator's performance assessment, when appropriate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant a probationary employee a right to continued employment beyond the term of his or her contract. The district school board shall establish a procedure annually reviewing instructional personnel assessment systems to determine compliance with this section. All substantial revisions to an approved system must be reviewed and approved by the district school board before being used to assess instructional personnel. Upon request by a school district, the department shall provide assistance in developing, improving, or reviewing an assessment system. The State Board of Education shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54, that establish uniform guidelines for the submission, review, and approval of district procedures for the annual assessment of instructional personnel and that include criteria for evaluating professional performance. (Underlining and italics added). Under Section 1012.34(3), school districts must establish a primarily student performance-based procedure (or system) for assessing the performance of teachers. In other words, the method of accomplishing the assessment must be tailored to meet the goal of forming evaluative judgments about teachers' performance based mainly on the performance of their students. In clear terms, then, the legislature has announced that the primary (though not exclusive)8 indicator of whether a teacher is doing a good job is the performance of his students. If a teacher's students are succeeding, then, whatever he is doing, the teacher is likely (though not necessarily) performing his duties satisfactorily. It is plainly the legislature's belief that if we do not know how the teacher's students are performing, then we cannot make a valid judgment as to whether the teacher is performing his duties satisfactorily.9 The statute further mandates that, in assessing teachers, indicators of student performance——which performance is assessed annually as specified in Section 1008.22——must be the primarily-used data. (In contrast, evaluators are permitted, but not required, to make use of peer reviews in assessing teacher performance.) Section 1008.22, which is referenced specifically in Section 1012.34(3)(a), requires that school districts participate in a statewide assessment program, the centerpiece of which is the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). See § 1008.22(3), Fla. Stat. The FCAT is a standardized test that is administered annually to students in grades three through 10. Id. Section 1008.22 is not concerned only with the FCAT, however. Subsection (7), for example, provides as follows: (7) LOCAL ASSESSMENTS.--Measurement of the learning gains of students in all subjects and grade levels other than subjects and grade levels required for the state student achievement testing program is the responsibility of the school districts. Thus, the school districts are charged with developing their own local assessment tools, to fill in the gaps left open by the statewide FCAT testing program. Section 1008.22(5) provides additionally that "[s]tudent performance data shall be used in . . . evaluation of instructional personnel[.]" Section 1012.34(3)(a) prescribes two and only two permissible measures of student performance for use in evaluating teachers: (a) the statewide FCAT assessments and (b) the gap-filling local assessments, both of which measures are required under Section 1008.22. It is clear that Sections 1012.34(3) and 1008.22 have at least one subject in common, namely, student performance-based assessment of teachers. Being in pari materia in this regard, Sections 1012.34 and 1008.22 must be construed so as to further the common goal. See, e.g., Mehl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 1993)(separate statutory provisions that are in pari materia should be construed to express a unified legislative purpose); Lincoln v. Florida Parole Com'n, 643 So. 2d 668, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(statutes on same subject and having same general purpose should be construed in pari materia). When the requirements of Section 1012.34(3) are read together with Section 1008.22, several conclusions are inescapable. First, FCAT scores must be the primary source of information used in evaluating any teacher who teaches an FCAT- covered subject to students in grades three through 10. Second, school districts must develop, and annually administer, local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT. Third, student performance data derived from local assessments must be the primary source of information used in evaluating teachers whose subjects are not covered on the FCAT and/or whose students do not take the FCAT. The absence of evidence in the record concerning the performance of Escalona's students either on the FCAT or on local assessments, as appropriate, see endnote 5, supra, deprives the undersigned of information that the legislature has deemed essential to the evaluation of a teacher's performance. Having neither state nor local assessments to review, the undersigned cannot find that Escalona's performance was deficient in the first place, much less whether he corrected the alleged performance deficiencies in accordance with Section 1012.34(3)(d). Without such findings, the Board cannot dismiss Escalona for failure to correct noted performance deficiencies. C. It was stated in the Findings of Fact above that the Board can terminate Escalona's employment only if, based on an assessment of his performance as of the two-week period following the 90 calendar days of probation, the teacher had failed to correct the particular performance deficiencies of which he had been formally notified in writing prior to probation; other alleged deficiencies, whether observed during probation or thereafter, cannot be relied upon in support of a decision to dismiss Escalona. Standing behind this observation is Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The pertinent statutory language instructs that a teacher whose performance has been deemed unsatisfactory must be provided a written "notice of unsatisfactory performance," which notice shall include a description of "such unsatisfactory performance" plus recommendations for improvement in the "specific areas of unsatisfactory performance." The statute then specifies that the teacher must be allowed 90 calendar days "following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance" to correct "the noted performance deficiencies." Clearly, the "noted performance deficiencies" are the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance described in the notice of unsatisfactory performance. Finally, the statute mandates that the teacher shall be assessed within two weeks after the end of probation to determine whether "the performance deficiencies" have been corrected. It is clear, again, that "the performance deficiencies" are "the noted performance deficiencies" described in the written notice of unsatisfactory performance. See § 1012.34(3)(d)1. & 2.a., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The reason why a decision to terminate a poorly performing teacher must be based solely on the specific performance deficiencies described in the pre-probation notice of unsatisfactory performance is plain: allowing the school district to rely on subsequently observed deficiencies would defeat the teacher's unambiguous statutory right to have 90 post-notice calendar days in which to correct the noted performance deficiencies that triggered probation in the first place. This case exemplifies the problem posed by post-notice deficiencies. The notice of unsatisfactory performance (the Summary) that gave rise to Escalona's probation, which was based on Mr. del Cuadro's evaluation of December 2, 2003, charged the teacher with 10 specific performance deficiencies. By February 17, 2004, when Ms. Carter formally observed Escalona for the last time before the end of probation, Escalona had corrected all but one (Indicator IV.A.5) of the noted performance deficiencies——suggesting that he had made significant improvement. Unfortunately for Escalona, however, Ms. Carter believed that the teacher had exhibited nine deficiencies besides the noted performance deficiencies, with the net result that, near the end of probation, Escalona still had 10 deficiencies. Of these nine post-notice deficiencies, four (Indicators I.F.1, I.F.2, II.A.1, and IV.B.3) were recorded for the first time ever on February 17, 2004. Obviously, Escalona was not given 90 days to correct these four alleged deficiencies. Yet another three of the post-notice deficiencies reported by Ms. Carter (Indicators I.A.1, IV.A.6, and IV.B.2) had not been seen since Mr. Cuadro's initial evaluation of November 5, 2003. This initial evaluation, being "not of record," cannot count as a notice of unsatisfactory performance to Escalona. Hence he was not given 90 days to correct these three alleged deficiencies. For that matter, the remaining two post-notice deficiencies alleged to exist on February 17, 2004—— Indicators II.D.4 and IV.A.3——had not been observed, post- notice, until January 16, 2004, which means that Escalona did not have 90 days to correct them, either. For the above reasons, when assessing whether, in fact, Escalona had corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period following probation, the undersigned focused, as he was required to do, exclusively on the 10 deficiencies described in the Summary, seven of which were alleged not to have been timely corrected. Having determined as a matter of fact that the evidence was insufficient to prove these seven alleged deficiencies existed or persisted, it must be concluded that the Board has failed to carry its burden of establishing the alleged factual grounds for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Escalona of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Escalona be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended; and (c) awarding Escalona back salary, plus benefits, to the extent these accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 23rd day of November, 2004.
The Issue Did the Hendry County School Board (Board) have just cause to terminate Respondent from her employment as a paraprofessional teacher's aide?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the HCSD as a paraprofessional teacher's aide at LMS. The employment relationship between the Board and Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article 8, Section 8.013, Collective Bargaining Agreement, provides that "when an employee has completed three (3) years of the past five (5) with satisfactory service with the Hendry County School Board . . . and has been appointed for a subsequent year, he [sic] will be eligible for continued employment status, which status will continue year to year unless the Board terminates the employee for just cause (Emphasis furnished). Respondent was first employed with the HCSD on August 18, 1986, and worked continuously through May 25, 1999, when she was terminated. Since Respondent achieved "continued employment status," she can only be terminated for "just cause." The Board terminated Respondent for "failure to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner" and "other sufficient cause" under School Board Policies and Procedures 218. There were no written evaluations of Respondent's performance accomplished during the first 9 years of Respondent's employment with the HCSD because the Board did not adopt its current policy until approximately 1996. However, there is no evidence that Respondent's work performance was unsatisfactory during the first 9 years of her employment with the HCSD. Respondent worked at LMS for each of those nine years of her employment with the HCSD and was routinely re-appointed for each ensuing year. The first 2 years of her employment, Respondent was assigned to work with students that were classified as "trainable mentally handicapped." Respondent had to assist these students in learning rudimentary skills such as brushing their teeth and changing their underwear. From the fall of 1988 until the spring of 1992, the equivalent of 4 school years, Respondent was assigned to the "Time Out Room." The assignment to the "Time-Out Room" was not punitive in nature, or the result of unsatisfactory work performance by Respondent. Disruptive students that caused a problem in the classroom were sent to the "Time-Out Room." The students went in the "Time-Out Room" for one period after which they usually would return to their regular class. Although Respondent was employed as a "Teacher's Aide" for exceptional education students with special needs she did not assist a teacher, but ran the "Time-Out Room" alone. After 4 years working in the "Time-Out Room," Respondent was assigned to Internal Suspension. The "Time-Out Room" was eliminated, and replaced with Internal Suspension. Internal Suspension was used as a form of discipline for students who violated school policy. Students were sent to Internal Suspension anywhere from 2 to 10 days. Internal Suspension was conducted in a double-wide trailer behind LMS. Respondent again was by herself in Internal Suspension and was not assisting a teacher. The first documentation of any performance deficiency by Respondent consists of a Procedure for Improvement form and a Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form, both dated January 22, 1996. The forms were prepared by James C. Allen, Principal of the LMS. The Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form indicated that out of 8 areas assessed, Respondent achieved a "satisfactory" designation for 6 areas and a "Needs Improvement" in "Quality of Work" and "Work Attitude." The deficiencies specified in the Procedures for Improvement form are: "Harshness in speaking with staff and students, assisting students with academic work, unacceptable activities in classroom, needlepoint, police scanner." The Procedures for Improvement form provided that Respondent had the "95/96 school year" to improve, and that Mr. Allen would "Recommend dismissal" if the deficiencies were not improved. Respondent successfully improved her performance. On March 21, 1996, Mr. Allen wrote a letter to Respondent's union representative, with a copy to Respondent, stating that "I too am optimistic that improvement has occurred." On April 1, 1996, Mr. Allen wrote directly to Respondent expressing concern about "complaints/concerns" received about her conduct on a Beta Club trip to Washington, D.C., but stating, in pertinent part: These concerns cannot be overlooked, however, since we initiated procedures for improvement January 22, 1996, which dealt specifically with harshness in speaking with students/staff. Improvement has been noted. It must also be pointed out that Ms Dankanich (Beta Club sponsor) and some staff members felt that you did a good job in controlling your students and watching out for their safety and welfare. (Emphasis furnished). The March and April 1996 letters from Mr. Allen were included in Respondent's personnel file. Also included in the personnel file were letters from the Beta Club sponsor for the Washington, D.C. trip and a chaperone. These letters stated that Respondent spoke to students and adults and conducted herself in an appropriate manner throughout the trip. Respondent's annual "Overall Evaluation" for the 1995-1996 school year was "Satisfactory." Mr. Allen checked the box entitled "Reappoint based on employee's willingness to improve job dimensions not satisfactory." Respondent attained a "Satisfactory" score on 6 out of eight areas listed for job dimension with "Quality of Work" and Work Attitude" checked-off for "Needs Improvement." Respondent was reappointed and returned to LMS for the 1996-1997 school year. Respondent was assigned to assist with the "trainable mentally handicapped" students after having been on her own in the "Time-Out Room" and Internal Suspension for 8 years and working with Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students. This assignment required an adjustment for Respondent. On February 11, 1997, Allen presented Respondent with another Procedures for Improvement form and Special Non- Instructional Personnel Evaluation form. As in the preceding year, the Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form indicated that out of 8 areas assessed, Respondent "Needs Improvement" in "Quality of Work" and "Work Attitude." The Procedures for Improvement form identified deficiencies as "failure to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner, harshness in speaking with students/staff; unacceptable activities in classroom," and afforded Respondent the 96\97 school year to improve or be recommended for dismissal. Respondent wrote on both forms that she did not agree with them. In April 1997, 12 professional colleagues of Respondent wrote letters of support. These letters were included in Respondent's personnel file. The letters vouch for Respondent's professionalism and many stated that Respondent never was observed to engage in improper conduct or exhibit inappropriate speech or tone of voice. Throughout the second semester of the 1996-1997 school year, Respondent worked 2 class periods as a teacher's aide for Erin Berg-Hayes. Ms. Berg-Hayes was a sixth grade ESE teacher. Ms. Berg-Hayes testified that Respondent's job performance during the 1996-1997 school year was satisfactory. Respondent did not receive annual evaluation for the 1996-1997 school year. Since Respondent was not told otherwise, Respondent assumed she had improved her performance to Mr. Allen's satisfaction. Respondent received a letter of appointment at the end of the 1996-1997 school year and was reappointed for the 1997-1998 school year. For the 1997-1998 school year, the sixth grade students at LMS were moved to the Sixth Grade Center (SGC). Jodi Bell assistant principal at LMS was assigned to administer the SGC. Mr. Allen remained as principal at the LMS which consisted of seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent worked as Erin Berg-Hayes' full-time aide for the 1997-1998 school year. Respondent and Ms. Berg-Hayes were assigned to the SGC. Ms. Berg-Hayes characterized Respondent's job performance during the 1997-1998 school year as "good." When Ms. Bell prepared Respondent's annual evaluation, Ms. Berg-Hayes advised Ms. Bell that she was "pleased" with Respondent's performance and "on the overall [Respondent's] performance was good and satisfactory." Ms. Bell prepared Respondent's 1997-1998 annual evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Bell checked off "satisfactory" in the 8 areas designated for assessment. There were no check marks in the "Needs Improvement" column. On the 1997-1998 annual evaluation, Ms. Bell checked the box for "Satisfactory" as Respondent's "Overall Evaluation," and also checked the box for "Reappoint for next year." In the section entitled "Comments by Evaluator," Ms. Bell wrote: "I have appreciated your willingness to go above what is expected and help wherever help is needed. Keep up the good work!" Respondent returned to the SGC as Ms. Berg-Hayes' Aide in the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Berg-Hayes and Respondent worked together for the fall semester after which Respondent requested to be reassigned. Respondent attributed this to a personality clash with Ms. Berg-Hayes that started in July 1998. Ms. Berg-Hayes testified that Respondent's performance declined in the 1998-1999 school year. Cathy Lipford, teacher's aide at SGC, who worked together with Ms. Berg-Hayes and Respondent for one period during the entire fall semester in the 1998-1999 school year did not observe a problem with Respondent's work performance. This teachers' aide was aware of some tension between Respondent and Ms. Berg-Hayes. However, this aide testified that Respondent appeared to take the initiative, and assisted students, and the aide never observed Respondent speaking inappropriately to students. Ms. Berg-Hayes did not prepare any documentation of Respondent's alleged performance deficiencies during the fall semester of the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Berg-Hayes was not consulted about Respondent's performance by Mr. Allen, the former principal of LMS or Mr. Cooper, the current principal of LMS at the time Respondent's performance was evaluated for the 1998-1999 school year, when it was decided to recommend dismissal of Respondent for failure to perform her assigned duties or other sufficient cause. During the spring semester of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent was assigned as an aide to Dorothy Lomago, a varying exceptionalities teacher for seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent and Ms. Lomago worked together from January 1999 through May 1999. Ms. Lomago had been employed by the Board for 25 years. Prior to Respondent, Ms. Lomago only had had 2 other teaching assistants. Ms. Lomago considers compassion for children and initiative as the most important characteristics for a teacher's aide in special education. Ms. Lomago rated Respondent's performance in those areas as "ineffective." Ms. Lomago considered Respondent adequate in performing clerical tasks such as copying papers and grading papers. Ms. Lomago did not document Respondent's performance deficiencies. Ms. Lomago neither counseled nor corrected Respondent. Likewise, Ms. Lomago never brought to Respondent's attention the things she believed Respondent failed to do or did wrong. Ms. Lomago merely did what she was told to do by Mr. Cooper when he arrived at LMS in March 1999. On March 31, 1999, Respondent went to Mr. Allen's office for her 1998-1999 annual evaluation. R. Scott Cooper, assistant principal, Ms. Jodi Bell, assistant principal, Mr. Allen, and Ms. Davis, assistant principal were present in Mr. Allen's office upon Respondent's arrival. This meeting was terminated after Mr. Allen indicated there was a problem and asked Respondent if she wanted union representation. Respondent replied that she thought it would be wise. Before the meeting on March 31, 1999, Respondent was not aware that her job performance was considered deficient. Respondent had not been told of any deficiencies and had not received any counseling. In March/April 1999, Mr. Allen retired, and was replaced as principal of LMS by Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper arrived at LMS some time in the last 2 weeks of March 1999. Respondent and Mr. Cooper had had no professional contact before March 1999. Mr. Cooper met with Respondent on April 16, 1999, for Respondent's 1998-1999 annual evaluation. Mr. Cooper gave Respondent 4 separate Procedures for Improvement forms and an Annual Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form. This was Respondent's first notice of her specific performance deficiencies for the 1998-1999 school year. Mr. Cooper never conducted a formal observation of Respondent's job performance. Mr. Cooper based the annual evaluation predominantly on a review of the school board records, and on discussions with Mr. Allen, Ms. Bell, and Ms. Davis. The Procedures for Improvement forms specified the following deficiencies: "Work Attitude - able to successfully work with co-workers and students"; "Initiate Resourcefulness - ability to identify what needs to be done"; ""Dependability"; and "Quality of Work." The forms identified the following means of judging success in overcoming the foregoing deficiencies, respectively. "Supervisors will observe appropriate student/aide interactions in all circumstances"; "decreased necessity for teacher/supervisor to redirect Ms. Bennett's activities"; "Ms. Bennett will demonstrate the ability to effective [sic] facilitate school functions - adhere to work requirements"; and "Higher quality of work - decrease in errors." As a Statement of Assistance Offered, all of the forms provided: "Ms. Bennett may meet with Mr. Cooper weekly to obtain suggestions and assistance" Respondent was given until May 10, 1999, to improve her deficiencies. This was a period of 3 weeks or 15 school days. On Respondent's Annual Non-Instructional Personnel form, Mr. Cooper checked-off 4 out of 8 areas for "Needs Improvement" with "Satisfactory" checked for the remaining 4 areas. Mr. Allen checked "Unsatisfactory" for the "Overall Evaluation" and checked the box "Dismissal." Respondent noted her disagreement with the evaluation. On May 19, 1999, Mr. Cooper formally recommended dismissal of Respondent. Respondent received a Notice of Recommendation of Dismissal on that date. The Board approved Respondent's dismissal on May 25, 1999. During the 3 week period Respondent was given to improve her performance, neither Mr. Cooper nor any other administrator met with Respondent to advise her as to whether she was improving. There is no documentation whatsoever of Respondent's lack of improvement. During the 3 weeks Respondent was to improve her performance, she received repeated assurance from Ms. Lomago that they would be working together the following year. Ms. Lomago never advised Respondent that her performance continued to be unsatisfactory. Likewise, no one from the Board or any school administrator advised Respondent that she was not complying with the Procedures for Improvement or that her work continued to be unsatisfactory. Not hearing otherwise, Respondent considered her work to be satisfactory and did not meet with Mr. Cooper to obtain suggestions and assistance. The evidence does not establish that Respondent failed to perform her assigned duties in a satisfactory manner during the 1998-1999 school year or that the Board had just cause or any other sufficient cause to terminate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board reinstate the employment of Annette Bennett-Edwards and provide for back pay and benefits retroactive to May 25, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 6th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Upthegrove Superintendent Hendry County School District Post Office Box 1980 LaBelle, Florida 33935-1980 Richard G. Groff, Esquire Dye, Deitrich, Prather, Betruff and St. Paul, P.L. Post Office Drawer 9480 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman and Coleman Post Office Box 2989 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to terminate the Respondent's employment contract as a teacher. The grounds upon which the proposed action is based are alleged in a Notice of Specific Charges of Unsatisfactory Performance dated May 13, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was a duly-constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Michael J. Akpan, was an employee of the School Board of Miami- Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent possessed an annual employment contract as a teacher and was subject to the Memorandum of Understanding between United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was certified to teach middle grades science. This certification allows the Respondent to teach certain science courses to ninth and tenth grade students. During the 1997/1998 school year, the Respondent was teaching at North Miami Senior High School (NMSHS).1 The Respondent was placed in an alternative education assignment in which the students were at risk of dropping out of school. During that school year, the Respondent had difficulty controlling the conduct of students in his classroom. There were numerous instances of student misconduct and disruption of such gravity as to require intervention by school security personnel and assistant principals. Teachers employed by the Petitioner School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS has been approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between the Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). At all times material to this case, TADS was employed to evaluate the Respondent's performance. The same TADS documents are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers, whether new or veteran. TADS observers record deficiencies which are observed during the observation period and then provide a prescription for performance improvement.2 A post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. Then the cycle of assessment/prescription begins again. Under the TADS procedure as incorporated into the labor contract between the School Board and UTD, teachers who are in Annual Contract Two status, such as the Respondent, must have a minimum of two observations during each school year. One of those two observations must be done by the principal. During its 1997 session, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 1997, to provide for a 90-calendar-day performance probation for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. Because the statutory amendment impacted the implementation of TADS, the Petitioner and UTD negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the implementation of the new procedures required by the 1997 statutory amendments. The Memorandum of Understanding is an amendment to the labor contract between the Petitioner and the UTD. The Memorandum of Understanding reads as follows, in pertinent part: Performance Probation Period Upon identification of any deficiency, either through the observation/assessment process OR a Category VII infraction, the PRINCIPAL MUST, within 10 days, conduct a conference-for-the-record which addresses: results of the observation/assessment, or Category VII infraction, stipulations of the Performance Probation (90 calendar days excluding school holidays and vacations), which begins upon the employee's receipt of written plan of assistance (prescription), the plan of assistance and professional development opportunities to help correct documented deficiencies within a specified period of time, future required observations/assessments and possible employment actions. A minimum of two observations/assessments must be conducted subsequent to the completion of the initial prescriptive timelines and during the Performance Probation. The annual evaluation decision will be based upon the result of the last observation/assessment as illustrated in the chart titled, Examples of Assessments/ Observations and Annual Evaluation/Employment Contract Decisions for Employees on Performance Probation. In the event that an employee is absent on authorized leave in excess of 10 consecutive workdays, the Performance Probation is suspended until the employee returns to active duty, at which time it resumes. If the Performance Probation has not been completed during the current year of employment, the annual evaluation is withheld pending completion of the Performance Probation during the subsequent year of employment. Teachers who have not completed the requirements of the Performance Probation are ineligible for summer school employment. Within 14 calendar days after the close of the Performance Probation, the evaluator (principal) must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the Superintendent. Within 14 calendar days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the Superintendent must notify the employee in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the Superintendent will recommend that the School Board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the Superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 calendar days after receipt of the Superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. On October 13, 1997, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal Carrie Figueredo for one hour. The Respondent was found to be deficient in several categories and his performance was assessed as unsatisfactory. The observed deficiencies on this occasion included a failure to maintain appropriate classroom management. More than 90 percent of the students were "off task." Most of the students were either sleeping, filling out job applications, or otherwise inattentive. On October 20, 1997, Assistant principal Figueredo held a post-observation conference with the Respondent, discussed the Respondent's deficiencies with him, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities, which it was hoped would help him improve his performance as a classroom teacher. On November 21, 1997, the Respondent was formally observed in his classroom by Principal Charles Hankerson. Principal Hankerson assessed the Respondent's performance as unsatisfactory. Among other things, Principal Hankerson observed that the Respondent continued to have serious deficiencies in the area of classroom management. On December 2, 1997, Principal Hankerson held a conference for the record with the Respondent to address his unsatisfactory performance. During that conference Principal Hankerson made recommendations as to how the Respondent might improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and also discussed the Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner School Board. The Respondent was placed on a Performance Probation status in accordance with Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and he was provided with a plan of assistance to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed time frame. The Respondent's 90-day probation period began on December 8, 1997, which is the day on which he was furnished with a copy of the written plan of assistance. March 8, 1998. was the ninetieth day following December 8, 1997. During the Respondent's 90-day probation period there were at least 12 school holidays and school vacation days.3 Accordingly, the Respondent's probation period extended until at least March 20, 1998.4 On January 20, 1998, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal William Henderson. Assistant Principal Henderson observed the Respondent for 60 minutes. During this observation, the Respondent was found deficient in techniques of instruction. Assistant Principal Henderson observed that the Respondent was not addressing the needs of the students, that there was confusion as to the assignment, and that the Respondent wasted too much time initiating the lesson. On January 27, 1998, Assistant Principal Henderson had a post-observation conference with the Respondent, during which he discussed the Respondent's deficiencies, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities to assist the Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. Among those activities were, that the Respondent should meet with his department chairperson and review strategies which would be appropriate for the students assigned to the Respondent's classes. The Respondent was also directed to submit lesson plans to Assistant Principal Henderson. On February 27, 1998, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal Figueredo for two hours. Assistant Principal Figueredo found the Respondent to be deficient in several areas, including classroom management.5 This was Assistant Principal Figueredo's second observation of the Respondent. While she noted some minimal improvement since her earlier observation, the Respondent's performance on February 27, 1998, was still not anywhere near an acceptable level. On March 5, 1998, Assistant Figueredo held a post- observation conference with the Respondent, discussed the Respondent's deficiencies with him, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities in order to assist the Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. Among those prescriptive activities was a requirement that the Respondent develop lesson plans to be reviewed by Assistant Principal Figueredo's and by the Respondent's department chairperson. The Respondent was also directed to maintain a time log to determine when students arrived. Additionally, the Respondent was assigned several exercises in the Activities Manual to assist him in the area of teacher/student relationships. On March 27, 1998, Principal Charles Hankerson observed the Respondent in the classroom. On this occasion Principal Hankerson found the Respondent to be deficient in three categories: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher/student relationships. This was the confirmatory observation, which did not require a prescription. The assistance provided to the Respondent through his prescriptions was appropriate assistance related to the Respondent's observed deficiencies. The Respondent completed all of the prescriptions. Nevertheless, the Respondent continued to fail to plan for lessons, continued to fail to manage his students, and continued to fail to interact appropriately with his students. These continued failures resulted in a failure of the Respondent to meet the instructional needs of his students. As a result of the Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during each of the last three observations described above, Principal Hankerson notified the Superintendent of Schools that the Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during the probation period, and Principal Hankerson recommended that the Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 2, 1998, the Superintendent of Schools timely notified the Respondent that he was going to recommend that the School Board terminate his employment contract because he had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his period of probation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order sustaining the action to terminate Respondent's annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 5th day of April, 1999.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Polk County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause for terminating the employment of Respondent, David McCall.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner under a professional services contract as a classroom teacher at Lake Region High School, a unit of the Polk County Public School System. On Wednesday, October 3, 2007, a student entered the Respondent’s classroom approximately ten minutes after class had commenced. The student’s tardiness was apparently related to her participation as a donor in a blood drive occurring at the school on that date. At the time the student entered the classroom, the Respondent was engaged in administering a standard quiz, and the time allotted for the quiz was about to end. The Respondent directed the student to remain outside the classroom and take the quiz. The student advised the Respondent that she donated blood and, feeling dizzy, had hit her foot on a doorway. She told the Respondent that she injured her toe and requested that she be allowed to go to the school clinic. The Petitioner presented a statement allegedly written by the student asserting that her toe was bleeding at the time the Respondent observed the toe. The student did not testify, and the written statement is insufficient to establish that the toe was bleeding at the time she entered the classroom. The Respondent testified that he observed the toe and saw perhaps a minor abrasion but saw no evidence of serious injury. The Respondent declined to refer the student to the clinic and again instructed the student to remain outside the classroom and complete the quiz. The student remained outside the classroom and presumably began taking the quiz. Shortly thereafter, another teacher walking in the hallway observed the student sitting outside the Respondent’s classroom with a paper towel under her foot. The teacher observed the student shaking and blood on the towel and asked the student about the situation. The student advised the teacher of the circumstances, stating that she felt like she was going to “pass out.” The teacher, with the assistance of a third teacher, obtained a wheelchair, retrieved the student’s belongings from the Respondent’s classroom, and advised the Respondent that the student was being taken to the clinic. After the student was transported to the clinic, her mother was called. The mother came to the school and retrieved her daughter, observing that the toe was bloody and swollen. The mother subsequently took her daughter to a doctor and testified that the student was referred for x-rays of the injured toe. Later on October 3, 2007, the student’s mother contacted the school principal, Joel McGuire, to inquire as to the manner in which the matter had been handled by the Respondent. The principal advised the mother he would follow up on her inquiry. On Thursday morning, October 4, 2007, Principal McGuire sent an email to the Respondent and asked him to come to Principal McGuire’s office during a planning period or after 2:30 p.m. “to confirm some information” about the student. The Respondent did not respond to the email and did not comply with Principal McGuire’s request to meet at that time. After receiving no response from the Respondent, Principal McGuire left a copy of the email in the Respondent’s mailbox at approximately 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 4, 2007, with a handwritten note asking the Respondent to come to the principal’s office on the following Friday morning “before school.” The Respondent did not respond to the note left in the mailbox and did not appear at the principal’s office prior to the start of Friday classes. Based on the lack of response, Principal McGuire sent another email to the Respondent on Friday, October 5, 2007, and asked him to come to the principal’s office at 6:30 a.m. on Monday. The email advised that the meeting was “to discuss the situation which occurred on Wednesday, October 3rd” so that the principal could respond to the mother’s inquiry. Although the Respondent was routinely present on the school campus by 6:30 a.m. on school days, the Respondent replied to the principal and declined to meet at that time, stating that the “proposed meeting time is not within my contracted hours.” The principal thereafter emailed the Respondent and requested that he come to the principal’s office at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, October 8, 2007. The email stated as follows: Mother is really needing information concerning the situation which took place in your class. I do need to meet with you and provide a response to her. I believe 10:30 a.m. is during your planning period. Thanks for coming by my office. The principal received no response to this email and the October 8, 2007, meeting did not occur. The principal thereafter sent a letter to the Respondent dated October 12, 2007, which stated as follows: I am requesting a meeting with you Monday, October 15, 2007, at 8:00 a.m. I will provide a substitute in your classroom in order for you to meet with me. The meeting will be very brief. I need some information about [student], a student you had in 2nd period geometry, in order to inform her mother. This is the sixth request for a meeting. Failure to comply with my request will be deemed insubordination and will require additional actions. The Respondent attended the meeting, but refused to provide any information, stating, “I am not going to respond to you.” By letter dated October 22, 2007, the Respondent received a written reprimand for his “refusal to assist in the investigation of an incident involving [student] on October 3, 2007." The letter advised that the first step of progressive discipline, a verbal warning, was being omitted because of the “seriousness of your actions and the possible consequences.” In relevant part, the letter provided as follows: Attached to this letter is my memorandum setting forth the events and facts as I have best been able to determine. As indicated, you have been uncooperative in our effort to investigate the facts surrounding this incident. Most significantly, when we were finally able to meet in my office on October 15, 2007, you refused to discuss the circumstances surrounding [student’s] situation and you stated specifically, “I am not going to respond to you.” This situation involved an injured student and our school’s response to that incident. Your refusal to assist or participate in the investigation is contrary to your obligation as a teacher to respond suitably to issues of a student’s health and welfare, is adverse to the school’s obligation to address concerns of the parents, and is completely contrary to your obligations as an employee of the Polk County School Board. Please understand that this letter of reprimand is addressed solely to your refusal to participate, cooperate or assist in the investigation of this incident. Should the outcome of the investigation indicate that your conduct in dealing with the student was inappropriate, I am reserving the right to request further disciplinary action by the Superintendent. Please note that a suspension without pay is the next step in progressive discipline as set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In conclusion, the letter directed the Respondent to prepare a signed “full written report” of the incident, including “your recollections and observation of the events and your justification for your actions you took in response to this incident.” The letter directed the Respondent to deliver the report within five days of the Respondent’s receipt of the letter and, further, stated that “refusal to take such action and to cooperate in the investigation may have serious consequences regarding your employment.” The memorandum attached to the letter provided a chronology of events identifying all participants and specifically referencing the principal’s multiple attempts to obtain information from the Respondent. The Respondent failed to provide the written statement as required by the October 22, 2007, letter of reprimand and failed to otherwise provide information to the Petitioner. By letter dated November 15, 2007, from Principal McGuire to Superintendent Dr. Gail McKinzie, the principal requested that the superintendent issue a five-day suspension without pay to the Respondent for “gross insubordination.” The letter misidentified the date of the incident as October 4, 2007. By letter dated November 29, 2007, the superintendent suspended the Respondent without pay for five days. The letter, repeating the misidentification of the date of the incident, stated in relevant part as follows: On October 4, 2007, you denied a student’s request to go to the school clinic. It was determined that the student had a broken toe. Your administrator, Joel McGuire, has made six verbal requests and two written requests for information on this incident. The last request was made on October 22, 2007, in a formal letter of reprimand which stated “your refusal to take such action and to cooperate in this investigation may have serious consequence for your employment. This recommendation for a five day suspension without pay is provided for in Article IV section 4.4-1 of the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement and is a result of your continued insubordination and refusal to follow the requests of your immediate supervisor. Please be advised that future incidents of this nature may result in additional disciplinary action. The letter of suspension advised the Respondent that the suspension would be in effect from December 5 through 7, 10, and 11, 2007, and that he should report back to work on December 12, 2007. The Respondent served the suspension without pay. In a letter dated December 13, 2007 (“Subject: October 4, 2007, incident”), from Principal McGuire, the Respondent was advised as follows: I have made repeated verbal and written requests from you for your explanation of the events in which you participated on October 4, 2007, involving a student requiring medical attention. This is my final request to you for a written explanation of those events. You are herby directed to report to my office at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, December 17, 2007, and you are instructed to have with you at that time a written explanation of the events in question. You shall also be prepared to answer any questions regarding what occurred on that day and the actions you took. You should not have any classes at that time, but I will provide coverage for you if for any reason that is required. Please understand that this is a very serious matter, and you have previously received a five day disciplinary suspension. The next step in progressive discipline is termination, and insubordination can be just cause for termination. I hope that you will conduct yourself appropriately, if you wish to remain an employee of the Polk County School Board. On December 17, 2007, the Respondent appeared at the principal’s office at the appointed time, but asserted that he had not been involved in any incident on October 4, 2007, and declined to otherwise provide any information. Although the date of the incident, October 3, 2007, had been misidentified as October 4, 2007, in the referenced series of letters, there is no evidence that the Respondent was unaware of the specific event about which the information was being sought. It is reasonable to presume that the Respondent was fully aware of the matter being reviewed by Principal McGuire. In response to the December 17, 2007, meeting, Principal McGuire issued a letter dated December 18, 2007 (“Subject: October 3, 2007, incident”), essentially identical in most respects to the December 13, 2007, letter and correcting the referenced date. The letter scheduled another meeting for 10:30 a.m. on December 19, 2007. On December 19, 2007, the Respondent appeared at the principal’s office at the appointed time and declined to answer any questions, stating that he was invoking his rights under the Constitutions of the State of Florida and the United States of America. By letter to Superintendent McKinzie dated January 2, 2008, Principal McGuire recommended termination of the Respondent’s employment. Principal McGuire restated the chronology of the October 3, 2007, incident and wrote as follows: I have made repeated verbal and written requests of Mr. McCall to provide an explanation of the circumstances in order to include them in our investigation of the events. He refused to comply with each of those requests. He received a formal letter of reprimand and a five-day suspension without pay for his gross insubordination. Since his suspension, I have made written requests of Mr. McCall to provide an explanation of those events, and he has blatantly refused to do so. By letter also dated January 2, 2008, Superintendent McKinzie notified the Respondent that he was being suspended with pay and that she would recommend to the full school board that his employment be terminated. The letter set forth the grounds for the termination as follows: Since the incident on October 3, 2007, you have refused repeated verbal and written requests by the school administration to provide an explanation of the events which occurred on that date or to otherwise participate in the investigation of those events. As a result of your refusal to provide an explanation or participate in the investigation, you have received a formal written reprimand and a five-day suspension without pay. Since your suspension, you have again refused specific requests by your principal to provide an explanation of these events. Based on these facts, it is my opinion that you have intentionally violated the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education in Florida by failing to make reasonable efforts to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety (Rule 6B-1.006 FAC). Further you have engaged in ongoing, gross insubordination by repeatedly refusing to take certain actions which are a necessary and essential function of your position as a School Board employee. Progressive discipline, as specified in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, has been followed in this case, and the next step of progressive discipline is termination. Therefore, it is my conclusion that "just cause" exists for your termination as an employee of the Polk County School Board. The Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing to challenge the termination, and the Petitioner referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Prior to the instant hearing, the Respondent made no effort to provide any information to the Petitioner regarding the events of October 3, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the employment of David McCall. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 David McCall 3036 Spirit Lake Drive Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Dr. Gail McKinzie, Superintendent Polk County School Board Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831-0391 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case revolve around the question whether Respondent's employment as a teacher in the Broward County Public School System should be terminated either for failure to correct identified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, or for just cause as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Clemons is an elementary school teacher. She entered the profession in 1972 after graduating from Florida A&M University. In addition to her bachelor's degree, Clemons holds a Teacher's Certificate from the Florida Department of Education. From 1972 until 1988, Clemons taught both in Florida public schools and (for seven of those years) in Department of Defense schools overseas. After a hiatus from teaching, 2/ Clemons returned to the classroom in October 1990 as a substitute teacher in the Broward County Public School System. She performed well enough in that capacity to be offered a full- time teaching position at North Side Elementary School ("North Side"), beginning in January of 1994. The following school year, Clemons transferred to Lauderdale Manors, joining the instructional staff in August of 1994 as a second grade teacher. There, she soon attracted the attention of Doris Bennett ("Bennett"), the school's new principal. Bennett, a classroom teacher for approximately 13 years before spending six years as an assistant principal at several Broward County elementary schools, had assumed the position of Lauderdale Manors' principal on July 1, 1994. By the end of September 1994, she was growing concerned about Clemons' apparent inability to control and manage her classroom. By law, each public school teacher in the state must be assessed at least once a year to determine how his or her performance measures against criteria that are required to be communicated in advance to all personnel. 3/ To perform this assessment, performance evaluators in the Broward County Public School District use a tool called the Instructional Personnel Assessment System ("IPAS"). The IPAS requires that a teacher be rated in ten "performance areas": "instructional planning," "lesson management," "lesson presentation," "student performance evaluation," "communication," "classroom management," "behavior management," "records management," "subject matter knowledge," and "professional competencies." A teacher's categorical ratings of "S - Satisfactory," "N - Needs Improvement," or "U - Unsatisfactory" are based on the assessor's determination of the teacher's compliance with various "performance indicators" prescribed for each performance area. In addition to, and based upon, the several categorical ratings, the teacher is assigned a single "overall performance rating." Bennett testified that one categorical rating of "U" would result in an overall "unsatisfactory" performance rating. In April 1995, toward the end of the 1994-95 school year (Clemons' first at Lauderdale Manors), Bennett completed Clemons' annual evaluation. Using the IPAS, Bennett rated Clemons "unsatisfactory" in two performance areas, namely, classroom management and behavior management. These negative marks resulted in Clemons receiving an overall performance rating of "U." Bennett recommended that Clemons be dismissed. Clemons' employment might have been terminated in 1995 but for the fact that on March 10, 1995, Bennett had signed a Final Assessment form attesting that, in her "professional opinion," Clemons had "successfully completed the Professional Orientation Program" for first-year teachers. Because Bennett's recommendation of dismissal followed so closely after a favorable assessment of Clemons' performance, it was not approved. Bennett assigned Clemons to a fifth grade class for the 1995-96 school year, reasoning that she might succeed with older children. Although Bennett and former Assistant Principal Roach both testified at hearing that Clemons' problems persisted, 4/ a contemporaneous record suggests that the teacher performed better in her second year at Lauderdale Manors than she had during her first. On May 31, 1996, Bennett signed an IPAS instrument showing that Clemons had received a "satisfactory" rating in all categories, earning an overall performance rating of "satisfactory." Bennett qualified this positive evaluation, however, with a recommendation that Clemons be offered another annual contract, rather than the more favorable professional service contract for which she was then eligible. The reason, Bennett wrote on the IPAS form, was that Clemons still needed "to work on improving classroom and behavior management skills." Bennett's recommendation was not approved. Instead, Clemons was promoted to professional service contract status for the 1996-97 school year. That year, Bennett put Clemons in charge of a fifth grade "drop-out prevention" class. The drop- out prevention class had about half as many students as a regular class (14-18 as opposed to 32-35) and afforded the teacher greater flexibility with the curriculum. For these reasons, Bennett believed that the drop-out prevention class might be more suitable for Clemons. William Roach, who was the Assistant Principal at the time, explained that “this was done as an effort or a plan, if you will, to really give Ms. Clemons an opportunity to maybe come out of the classroom for awhile, get a perspective, maybe, you know, have a chance to be successful.” (T. 187.) On the other hand, Bennett acknowledged that the children in this special class were "academically challenged," "less motivated," and hence more difficult to teach than other students. 5/ The IPAS form containing Clemons' assessment for the 1996-97 school year, which Bennett signed on May 30, 1997, and Clemons refused to sign, reflects a deterioration in Clemons' performance. She received a "needs improvement" rating in the categories of lesson management and student performance evaluation. Clemons was rated "unsatisfactory" in the areas of classroom management and behavior management. Her overall performance rating was a "U." Clemons filed a grievance with the Broward Teachers' Union to protest this negative evaluation. Interceding on Clemons' behalf, a union representative requested that Bennett produce documentation supporting her unfavorable assessment of Clemons' skills. Bennett could not do so. Consequently, at the union's suggestion, Bennett changed Clemons' overall performance rating to "satisfactory" for the 1996-97 school year. Clemons continued to teach in the fifth grade drop-out prevention class during the 1997-98 school year. And she continued to have problems. For example, after personally observing Clemons in her classroom on February 23, 1998, Bennett wrote: “Have noticed some, slight improvement this year, but still not enough to warrant upgrading overall evaluation to satisfactory.” Roach, the Assistant Principal at Lauderdale Lakes from 1993 through the end of the 1997-98 school year, was less generous: Q [by Mr. Pettis]. During that four academic school year period [1994 through 1998], give me an overall assessment as to how Ms. Clemons’ behavioral management that was reflected in her classroom progressed? A [by Roach]. I felt that it did not progress. In fact, if anything, it digressed or regressed. As I said, the frequency of going down to the room for problems became more. (T. 186.) And then a new layer that was added as the [sic] was the fact that parents were complaining about the classroom and asking to have their children taken out of the room. There seemed to be just a total lack of respect, students for teacher, but I also observed sometimes that Ms. Clemons’ respect for the students was also lacking and I felt that sometimes there was an unhealthy situation and there were occasions in support of her that we did move children out. Nevertheless, the IPAS form that Bennett signed on May 29, 1998, reported that Clemons was performing satisfactorily in all areas; her overall performance rating for the 1997-98 school year was “satisfactory.” Thus, contrary to Roach’s recollection, the contemporaneous IPAS evaluation shows that Clemons’ performance did improve in her fourth year at Lauderdale Manors. The following year, 1998-99, Clemons was assigned to a regular fifth grade class. She did not do well. Here is how Keith Miller, who started as Assistant Principal that year, described his initial observations of Clemons: Q [by Mr. Pettis]. With regard to your first year as AP at Lauderdale Manors, '98 to '99, during the course of that year, did it come to your attention any performance concerns or deficiencies with regard to Ms. Clemons' classroom? A [by Miller]. Yes. Q. And what were those areas of deficiency that you were aware of in '98/'99? A. [T]he reason . . . Ms. Clemons was brought to my attention . . . was parental complaints. As I stated in my deposition, I wanted to seek out and find out for myself if these parental complaints were warranted as a concern for our classroom management. Q. So, how would you seek that out? A. By going into the classroom and observing. * * * Q. What types of things were you looking for . . . in '98/'99 during your observations? A. Initially, as I've stated earlier, my concern was to see if the parental complaints were warranted as it pertains to classroom management and the concern with parents saying the children were coming home and saying one thing. And, you know, as a teacher and an educator and also as a parent we know that the children sometimes will extend the truth to get what they want. But I wanted to find out if that was the case. Well, after doing my observations in the classroom, also on a formal observation, which you all have, often times I would walk up to a classroom that was chaotic with the noise. There are different types of noise. There is an active learning noise, let's make no mistake there, and there is a noise where there is disruption. And often times, one particular observation I went in, there were students out of their seats, there were paper airplanes thrown, Ms. Clemons yelling. And one of the things was, "You need to sit down," without a consequence being rolled out or dished out or implemented at that time. And it was very evident early on that the parental complaints and the student responses were, in effect, true with regards to classroom management. (T. 194-97.) Bennett also observed Clemons at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year. The principal noticed problems with behavior management, and also deficiencies relating to the delivery of instruction, such as incomplete lesson plans, blank student writing journals, falling behind in teaching the prescribed math curriculum, and failure to put subject "openers" (e.g. math and reading assignments) on the chalk board in the morning so that students could begin working immediately upon arrival. After an IPAS evaluation for the period from August 25 to October 1, 1998, Clemons was rated "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. As a result, effective October 2, 1998, Bennett placed Clemons "on documentation," meaning that she would have 90 days in which to correct the identified performance deficiencies, pursuant to Section 231.29(3)(d)2.a., Florida Statutes. In Bennett's opinion, Clemons did not correct the identified deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. Therefore, she recommended that Clemons' contract be terminated. The superintendent, however, did not timely act on Bennett's recommendation. 6/ Consequently, Clemons could not be dismissed. Returning to Lauderdale Manors for the 1999-00 school year, Clemons was assigned to teach a regular third grade class. By design, she was placed in a classroom located close to the administrative office, for support and assistance. Assistant Principal Miller visited her class on September 17, 1999. As he remembered: When . . . I walked into the room, one of the first things I noticed she was doing was reading, but it took her 10 minutes just to get her started when I walked in. That's noted here [on a Classroom Observation/Feedback Form prepared by Miller and signed by him and Clemons on September 17, 1999]. The lesson was broken up with student interruptions and lack of preparation. * * * One of the other things prior to walking in the classroom, I would stand outside the classroom and I heard children screaming, yelling. And I used the word, I felt chaos when I walked in. And you have to understand, when I walk into the classrooms immediately the tone is going to go down because of my presence in the classroom. So when I walked in, it did calm down. There were five students after I sat down when I circulated the room sleeping while she was attempting to teach reading. And my question to her was, How are you keeping track of misbehavior? Because she was telling people to do things, but not monitor[ing] it properly. (T. 202-04.) Bennett continued to observe and evaluate Clemons as well. On September 27, 1999, Bennett met with Clemons to discuss several classroom observations, including one that had been made on that day. Bennett remained concerned about Clemons' deficiencies in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. Bennett approved Clemons' request to observe two other third grade teachers, to learn from them. Bennett also decided to place a paraprofessional (teacher's aide) in Clemons' classroom for assistance. Bennett observed Clemons' class on October 20, 1999, and saw no improvement. Previously identified deficiencies in the areas of student discipline and presentation of subject matter persisted. Indeed, by this time, Clemons' class had dwindled to 11 students — and even these few were misbehaving. On October 22, 1999, Bennett placed Clemons on 90-day performance probation, effective immediately and ending February 11, 2000. Bennett notified Clemons of her decision, as well as the statutory procedures applicable to a performance probation, by memorandum dated October 22, 2000. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. As explained in a separate memorandum dated October 22, 2000, Bennett placed Clemons on probation due to her ongoing and documented concern about Clemons' performance in the areas of behavior management and instructional planning. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. Additionally, by yet another memorandum dated October 22, 2000, Bennett scheduled a conference with Clemons for October 27, 2000, to discuss the preparation of a Performance Development Plan. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. When a Broward County public school teacher's performance is determined to be unsatisfactory, a Performance Development Plan ("PDP") is prepared for, and with input from, the affected teacher. The purpose of the PDP is to assist the teacher in correcting identified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. On October 27, 2000, two PDPs were executed by Bennett and Clemons. One addressed Clemons' identified deficiencies in the area of behavior management. The other dealt with her deficiencies relating to instructional planning. The PDP concerning behavior management included a the following description of Clemons' perceived shortcomings: The teacher fails to: maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice by: establishing routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students. formulating appropriate standards for student behavior identifying inappropriate behavior and employing appropriate techniques for correction. Under the heading, "Strategies for Improvement, Correction, and Assistance," this PDP enumerated the following interventions: To date (10/27/99), by parental requests, a total of five (5) students have been removed from teacher's classroom to assist in alleviating severe disciplinary concerns. Teacher will be provided with an aide to assist with classroom behavior management. (This strategy will be in place during the week of November 1, 1999.) Alliance Coach will observe teacher and provide suggestions and feedback on effective classroom behavior management techniques. Curriculum Facilitator will observe teacher and provide specific suggestions and feedback on routines and procedures teacher can implement on effective transitioning techniques. Teacher will be afforded the opportunity to observe exemplary classroom teachers to identify and implement best practices for behavior management strategies. Grade 3 Team Leader will assist teacher in developing and implementing a classroom discipline plan. Team Leader will demonstrate, model, plan, and provide feedback. Outside Consultant will observe teacher and provide specific support and assistance in effective behavior management strategies. Teacher will attend a behavior management workshop, review observations with administrator, and implement appropriate strategy(ies) in own classroom. The PDP document advised Clemons that if she failed to correct all areas identified as deficient by February 11, 2000, she would receive an "Unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation," and a "recommendation for termination of contract" would be made. The PDP for correcting Clemons' problems in the area of instructional planning described her identified deficiencies as follows: The teacher fails to: select, adapt or develop, and sequence instructional materials and activities for the designated set of instructional objectives and student needs. create interest through the use of materials and techniques appropriate to the varying abilities and background of students. use individual student interests and abilities when planning and implementing instruction. The prescribed interventions for these deficiencies were: Alliance Coach will assist in providing appropriate materials, orienting techniques, demonstrating and modeling instructional strategies, transitioning techniques, and improving the overall learning environment of the classroom. Alliance Coach will meet weekly with teacher to provide specific support and assistance with feedback. Grade 3 Team Leader will review strategies and provide intensive support and assistance in areas of aligning objectives with lesson plans which focus on content, materials, lesson presentation, and student activities. Curriculum Facilitator will model and demonstrate a reading lesson, provide feedback, observe teacher presenting a lesson, and provide feedback of reading lesson to teacher. This process will be repeated on a weekly basis through November 18, 1999. Teacher will be afforded the opportunity to observe exemplary classroom teachers to identify and implement best practices for instructional planning and lesson management. Outside Consultant will observe teacher and provide specific support and assistance in effective instructional planning. Like the other PDP, this one notified Clemons that failure to correct all identified deficiencies by February 11, 2000, would result in a recommendation that her contract be terminated. As Miller testified, "this [the coordinated intervention strategy set forth in the PDPs] wasn't an afterthought where we just patchwork everything together. We worked together as a team in order to help [Clemons] meet with success." (T. 209.) Jounice Lewis is a Coach with the Alliance of Quality Schools (the "Alliance") in Broward County. The Alliance is a local program that provides assistance, in the person of coaches such as Lewis, to teachers in low performing schools. 7/ Alliance coaches help teachers with curriculum instruction. They are not invited into a school except upon the vote of 80 percent of the faculty. Taking part in the implementation of the PDPs that Clemons had approved, Lewis observed, counseled, and assisted Clemons while she was on 90-day performance probation during the 1999-00 school year. Lewis remembered a teacher who was having difficulties: "Often [Clemons'] class was disruptive, and I think that this may have been because there was not a routine." (T. 162.) The reading center was "not inviting." (T. 165.) The physical environment was not "conducive to learning;" one time, Clemons' students "were all around the classroom rather than in one area." (T. 166.) "Ms. Clemons' classroom was not organized, it was in disarray." (T. 167.) In Lewis's opinion, the behavior of Clemons' students did not seem to improve during the 90-day probation period. Further, Lewis observed at hearing that although Clemons had been receptive to Lewis's suggestions, she nevertheless had failed to improve her performance in the area of classroom control or management. Lewis was sure that Clemons had the "content knowledge" but felt that Clemons was unable to teach what she knew because her classroom was not under control. Bennett continued to observe and evaluate Clemons during the probation period. Using the IPAS instrument, Bennett rated Clemons "unsatisfactory" in the categories of instructional planning 8/ and behavior management 9/ for the period from October 22, 1999 through November 10, 1999. On this same IPAS, Bennett also assigned Clemons a rating of "needs improvement" in the area of records management. 10/ Bennett and Clemons both signed this IPAS form on November 15, 1999. Between November 11, 1999 through December 1, 1999, Bennett again assessed Clemons using the IPAS, rating her "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. In this period, Clemmons improved her rating in the records management area to "satisfactory," but slipped to "needs improvement" in the category, lesson presentation. 11/ Bennett and Clemons signed this IPAS evaluation form on December 9, 1999. On December 10, 1999, Clemons met with Bennett for a mid-point evaluation. Also in attendance was Valerie Proffer, a union representative. Bennett called this meeting to inform Clemons of progress achieved, as well as to make recommendations for correcting deficiencies that persisted. The minutes of the mid-point review meeting report that the participants discussed the many types of assistance that already had been provided Clemons, which included the services not only of Coach Lewis, but also input from the school's Curriculum Facilitator (who had provided suggestions and feedback on effective transitioning techniques) and the Grade 3 Team Leader (who had helped Clemons develop and implement a classroom discipline plan). Bennett notified Clemons that classroom behavior management remained a major area of concern and that deficiencies relating to instructional planning still needed to be corrected. The principal made specific recommendations for curing these problems and prescribed additional interventions, including the retention of an outside consultant to videotape Clemons for a self-critique. By memorandum dated February 3, 2000, Bennett notified Clemons that she had scheduled a conference for February 11 (the last day of the 90-day probation period) to discuss the final IPAS evaluation of Clemons, which would cover the period from January 27, 2000 to February 11, 2000. Also on the agenda for discussion were Clemons' PDPs and her "continued employment at Lauderdale Manors Elementary School." Clemons acknowledged receipt of this memorandum by signing it on February 3, 2000. On an IPAS form dated February 11, 2000, Bennett recorded her final assessment of Clemons. She concluded that Clemons' performance was "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. The ratings of "U" in these two categories compelled an overall performance rating of "unsatisfactory." Clemons received a "satisfactory" rating, however, in the eight other performance areas identified on the IPAS: lesson management, lesson presentation, student performance evaluation, communication, classroom management, records management, subject matter knowledge, and professional competencies. Thus, while the final IPAS evaluation of Clemons showed, on the one hand, that she had not corrected all identified performance deficiencies, it did demonstrate, on the other, that the teacher had improved during the 90-day probation period in the areas of records management and lesson presentation, and also that she was performing satisfactorily in most of the rated performance areas. Clemons attended the meeting on February 11, 2000, that Bennett had scheduled. At the meeting, Bennett provided Clemons with her final IPAS evaluation. Clemons disagreed with the evaluation and refused to sign it. Bennett informed Clemons that because performance deficiencies remained, she would recommend termination of Clemons' contract. Dwight Hamilton, a BTU representative who attended the meeting, explained the termination process to Clemons. Bennett told Clemons that the next Monday, February 11, 2000, she was to report to the Media Center rather than her classroom, from which Clemons was now being removed. Clemons became angry with Bennett and Assistant Principal Miller (who was also present) and apparently made some intemperate remarks, but these were not the subject of formal charges. By memorandum dated February 11, 2000, Bennett notified the superintendent of her recommendation that Clemons be dismissed immediately, pursuant to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, for failure to correct performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. The superintendent accepted Bennett's recommendation and so informed Clemons by letter dated February 16, 2000. The superintendent advised Clemons, "[p]ursuant to Florida Statute ," that he would recommend to the Board, at its meeting on March 7, 2000, that she first be suspended without pay and, thereafter, dismissed from employment. He expressly predicated the recommendation of suspension without pay on "unsatisfactory job performance." As apparent additional legal authority for his intended recommendations to the Board, the superintendent cited to, and quoted from, Section 230.33(7)(e), Florida Statutes. The superintendent closed his letter by notifying Clemons that the Board would act on his recommendation to dismiss her at its meeting on April 4, 2000, unless she made a written request for formal administrative proceedings before the close of business on March 22, 2000. Clemons timely requested a hearing by letter dated March 2, 2000. The Board met on March 7, 2000, and suspended Clemons without pay pending termination of her contract. A memorandum dated March 15, 2000, to the Supervisor of Personnel Records confirms that Clemons was suspended without pay effective March 8, 2000. Clemons has not complained about any alleged defects in notice or other procedures. Clemons does contend, however, that the assistance afforded her at times interfered with her ability to teach and was not always helpful. 12/ The preponderance of evidence showed, however, that the interventions prescribed for her benefit were appropriate and designed to help Clemons overcome her noted performance deficiencies. In short, the greater weight of the evidence established, as fact, that the Board followed the procedures and met its substantive responsibilities under Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Clemons did not correct all of the performance deficiencies that were identified at the outset of her performance probation in October 1999. At hearing, Clemons admitted that deficiencies in the area of behavior management had not been "totally corrected" by the end of the 90-day probation in February 2000. (T. 134.) While Clemons maintains, with some evidentiary support, that she made progress during the probation period, the established fact is that performance deficiencies, at least in the area of behavior management, remained as of February 11, 2000. In sum, the greater weight of the evidence established, as fact, that Clemons' performance deficiencies were not "satisfactorily corrected" during the 90- day probation, as that phrase is used in Section 231.29(3)(d)2.b., Florida Statutes. The greater weight of the evidence failed to show, however, that Clemons was guilty of any "just cause" for dismissal within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 13/ Specifically, as will be discussed below in the legal conclusions, a preponderance of evidence did not show, as fact, that Clemons either committed "misconduct in office" or demonstrated "incompetency" as those terms are defined in Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board: (1) reinstate Clemons and pay her back salary from March 8, 2000, through the date of reinstatement, pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes; and (2) terminate Clemons' employment pursuant to Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 28th day of December, 2000.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should terminate Respondent's professional service contract for his failure to correct his performance deficiencies within his 90-calendar-day probation period.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jose L. Rojas, has been employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, as a teacher pursuant to a professional service contract. During the 2004-2005 school year, he taught regular sixth-grade math classes at Redland Middle School. Teachers employed by the School Board, including Respondent, are evaluated pursuant to the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System, known as PACES. PACES was collectively bargained with the teachers' union and approved by the Florida Department of Education in 2001 as being in statutory compliance for teacher evaluations in Petitioner's school district. PACES focuses on student learning and teacher professional development, as well as on teaching behaviors. In PACES, there are seven domains: six are to be observed during a classroom observation, and the seventh domain deals with professional responsibilities demonstrated outside the classroom observation. The domains reflect the required statutory competencies of Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Each domain has teaching and learning components, and each component has indicators, 44 of which are required to meet standards under PACES. The 44 indicators are fundamental units of observation that are used to make professional judgments about the quality of learning and teaching. They represent the basic level of teaching to be demonstrated by all teachers in Petitioner's school district, i.e., the minimum requirements. They are the objective standards described in the PACES manual. Teachers have PACES manuals and access to the PACES Internet website. The standards are also repeated in any professional improvement plan, known as a PIP. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for a domain to be rated below performance standards. One below-standard domain indicates a teacher's non-compliance with statutorily- required competencies. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) measures student performance on the State's objectives for Florida's required curriculum, the Sunshine State Standards. While Petitioner's school district, as a whole, must utilize the FCAT data and indicators of student performance, there is no similar requirement for evaluating teachers by the results of the performance of their students on the FCAT (or other local assessments for subject matters not covered by the FCAT). Individual evaluations of teachers, however, must address student performance. PACES addresses student performance in every domain. What is assessed is whether the teacher is monitoring and gauging student progress in the classroom, making sure that the students are mastering the required curriculum. Teachers are expected to use their students' FCAT scores from the prior year for planning, pursuant to PACES domain I, to meet the students' deficiencies. Redland utilizes FCAT results in this manner. Further, a teacher's teaching strategies and activities are required to address FCAT expectations. At the beginning of the school year, teachers at Redland receive copies of the scope and sequence for what the students are to learn during the school year. The teachers develop the curriculum and timelines for meeting benchmarks to be covered during the school year. PACES domain II, as another example, deals with the teacher's management of the learning environment. If time is not managed and is, instead, wasted, the students' achievement of the Sunshine State Standards will be impacted, which will affect FCAT scores. PACES domain IV, as yet another example, requires teachers to informally assess the students' engagement in learning to assess their performance to ascertain whether the students are mastering the Sunshine State Standards. All of the administrators who were PACES observers in this case have had extensive training in the standards to be observed and evaluated in teacher performance and student learning and are, therefore, authorized to perform PACES observations, which are based upon what the observer objectively observes while in the classroom. The performance probation process in Petitioner's school district, like the PACES teacher evaluation process, was collectively bargained with the teachers' union. The process is as follows: if there is an observation conducted by an administrator that indicates a teacher is performing below standards, it becomes the "initial observation not of record." The administrator meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, makes suggestions for improvement, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed again in approximately three weeks. The administrator offers the teacher the assistance of a professional growth team (PGT). Use of a PGT is voluntary on the part of the teacher at this point. The PGT is part of the professional development aspect of PACES. PGTs are composed of experienced peer teachers who are extensively trained in PACES and are authorized to give support and assistance to teachers to improve classroom instruction. The same administrator who conducted the "initial observation not of record" must conduct the next observation, the "kick-off observation," which is the first observation of record in that school year. If this observation reveals below- standards performance, a conference-for-the-record (CFR) is held. A PGT and a PIP are provided to the teacher. The performance probation period begins the day after a PIP is given to the teacher. The teachers' union and Petitioner then mutually agree on the calendar for counting the 90 days. There must be two official observations during the performance probation period. The teacher must meet all 44 required indicators in order to meet performance standards during the teacher's performance probation. If any indicators are below performance standards, PIPs are again given. There are four levels of PIP activities, which are progressively more complex. A "confirmatory observation" takes place after the 90th day to determine whether the teacher has corrected his or her deficiencies. The "confirmatory observation" must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the performance probation, and the evaluator must forward a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools. Within 14 days of receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the Superintendent must notify the teacher whether he will recommend to the school board that the teacher's employment be continued or terminated. It is not sufficient for the teacher to improve on only some of the deficient indicators. It has been the custom and practice under the collective bargaining agreement that remediation occurs only when the teacher meets standards in all of the required indicators. Respondent's initial observation was conducted by Assistant Principal Fahringer on September 23, 2004. Respondent was teaching a class of 20-23 students. Respondent told the students to take out their agenda books which contained their homework. As Respondent went around the classroom checking each student's homework, the remainder of the students just sat and talked, waiting for a lesson to begin. They were not working on math. Out of the two-hour block of class time, the class was off-task about 25 percent of the time. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components and indicators of domain II, managing the learning environment, and domain IV, enhancing and enabling learning. Pursuant to the agreed-upon procedures, the observation became "not of record." Assistant Principal Fahringer met with Respondent September 28, 2004, went over the evaluation, and explained why Respondent had not met performance standards. Fahringer gave Respondent suggestions for improvement and advised him that she would return to do a follow-up observation. She offered Respondent a PGT, which he accepted. On October 19, 2004, Fahringer performed Respondent's first observation of record, the "kick-off observation." Respondent was giving a lesson on fractions, decimals, and percentages to 32 students using cups of M&Ms and a chart. Respondent told the students to divide into groups of four. There followed much noise and confusion. As Respondent went from group to group, he did not monitor the other seven groups. Students threw M&Ms and paper wads. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components and indicators of domains II and IV. He did not meet standards in domain II because the learning did not begin promptly. After a five-minute delay, another five minutes were wasted while Respondent counted out the M&Ms. Ten minutes wasted at the beginning of the class is a significant amount of time since time spent on-task improves achievement. There were delays in the organizational and teaching/learning activities. When Respondent told the students to divide into groups of four, some students appeared uncertain as to what group they were in and, instead, milled around talking noisily. Some students remained off-task throughout the lesson. Respondent did not address the off-task behavior because he did not appear to even notice it while he focused on one group at a time. Students came to Respondent with their agenda books, "visiting" other students and talking with them on the way. Eight students were distracted, noisy, and off-task, but Respondent failed to redirect them. Respondent's expectations about acceptable behavior had apparently not been made clear to the students. Although he told them to raise their hands and not to talk, they continued to talk noisily to each other for 50 minutes. Respondent failed to effectively monitor the class throughout the lesson. When he was with one group, he did not use management techniques to diffuse the unacceptable off-task behavior of the other groups. The remaining seven groups did not work (no learning took place) while they waited for Respondent to come to them. Respondent did not meet standards in domain IV because he did not introduce the purpose of the lesson. The students were told how to count the M&Ms and complete a chart, but there was no explanation as to what they were to learn. The students did not understand that they were learning the relationship among fractions, decimals, and percentages. Respondent did not give clear and complete directions. He told the students that they were going to "integrate" decimals, percents, and fractions, a meaningless word choice. The directions did not include any explanation of content or integration of mathematical concepts. Respondent did not demonstrate accurate content knowledge. He gave inaccurate and unclear information to the students. He counted the various colored M&Ms and put the numbers on the chart. On the chart, he explained that the decimals--.35, .10, .25, .17, .03, and .71--equal one, when in fact they equal 1.61. Also on the chart, Respondent explained that the percentages--35%, 10%, 25%, 17%, 3%, and 71%--equal 100%, when in fact they equal 161%. The students accepted the inaccurate information. On the line of the chart indicating the fractions, Respondent reduced some of the fractions leaving different denominators, which made the addition of those fractions difficult. On October 29, 2004, Principal DePriest and Assistant Principal Fahringer held a CFR with Respondent to address Respondent's sub-standard performance, his performance probation, recommendations for improving the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner. Respondent's input was sought, and he was formally assigned a PGT. Respondent was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP on November 1, 2004. The PIP required him to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manual by November 22, 2004. Respondent's performance probation period began November 2, 2004, the day after he received the PIP. He was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed time. Respondent's PGT provided assistance to him throughout his performance probation. Respondent failed to complete his PIP activities by the November 22 deadline. On December 2 he was given another 24 hours to comply, which he did. On November 24, 2004, Respondent was formally observed in his classroom by Principal DePriest. Respondent was presenting a lesson to 19 students, but the classroom was too chaotic for learning to take place. Respondent again did not meet performance standards in domain II. Learning did not begin promptly. Respondent wasted 12 minutes reprimanding students, taking roll, and answering his personal cell phone while the students were not engaged in learning. There were also inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. The students went to the board, one by one, to solve math problems. Respondent spent approximately five minutes with each student at the board while the rest of the class became noisy, walked around, or slept. Respondent failed to monitor off-task behavior or the behavior of the entire class. As Respondent focused on the one student at the board, the other students were off-task for up to five minutes at a time throughout the lesson, talking, putting their heads down, tapping their pencils, and making inappropriate comments such as "Can someone choke me?", "Can someone kill me?", and "Can I die now?". One student simply played with her hair for six minutes. Essentially, everyone was talking, and no one was listening to Respondent. Yet, Respondent did nothing to redirect the students. He did not appear to have classroom conduct rules in place. Thus, Respondent failed to make his expectations about behavior clear to the students. He instructed them not to talk without raising their hands. Nevertheless, eight of the students talked out-of-turn for 20 minutes without raising their hands. DePriest met with Respondent on December 2, 2004, to review the observation. DePriest provided assistance through a PIP to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes on the PACES Internet website. Respondent was to maintain a log and discuss techniques and strategies with DePriest. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 6, 2005. On January 10, 2005, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Janice Farrell. Respondent was presenting a lesson on perimeters and surface areas to 22 students. The lesson was disorganized, and there was an "air of confusion" in the class. Many students were being unruly and exhibiting off-task behavior. Therefore, not much learning was taking place. Respondent still did not meet performance standards in domains II and IV that had been previously identified. He also failed to meet performance standards in components and indicators not identified in the kick-off observation of October 19, 2004, and, therefore, not the subject of Respondent's 90-day performance probation or this Recommended Order. Respondent caused inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. The learners were instructed to complete a "bellringer" activity, i.e., an activity that is used at the beginning of the class period to engage the students in learning as soon as they enter the room. Although they were instructed to complete it, eight of the 22 students did not receive a bellringer worksheet. Students were asking for materials and attempting the activity unsuccessfully on their own. Respondent appeared unaware of the problem Respondent failed to monitor off-task behavior and disengagement from learning throughout the lesson. One student continuously called out Respondent's name, louder and louder, for five minutes. Students talked and copied each other's answers. While a student walked around stamping the other students' agenda books, they became off-task. A group of three students at a back table remained off-task throughout the lesson, talking, copying each other's answers, and throwing papers. Respondent did not redirect any of these students until the last five minutes of the class. Respondent failed to monitor the whole class effectively. When he went to the back of the room to address a tardy student without a pass, he turned his back on the other 21 students who changed seats, threw papers at each other, and hit each other with rulers. Respondent did nothing to redirect his students. He failed to make the purpose or importance of the learning tasks clear to the students. He did not give a rationale for the bellringer activity, which consisted of answering questions about perimeters and areas of geometric shapes. He also gave the students inaccurate information. He incorrectly calculated the perimeter of a square as 3+3+3+3=15. DePriest and Farrell met with Respondent to review the observation. Farrell made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent's PIP required him to complete self- assessment activities through the PACES website. He was to watch vignettes provided by the website in order to understand what the PACES indicators required of him. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 11, 2005. Because Respondent's second observation within the performance probation period was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether Respondent had corrected his deficiencies. Principal DePriest performed that observation on February 22, 2005. On that day, management of the learning environment and classroom discipline were non-existent. Respondent was presenting a lesson on geometric shapes to 18 students. While he did have instructions written on the board, there were still the same kinds of delays seen previously, and the students were still not engaged in learning. Overall, the class environment was chaotic. One-third to one- half of the class was off-task at any given time. The class was completely disorganized; the students were not engaged; the students did not pay any attention to Respondent, and very little learning took place. Each time supplies were distributed, commotion resulted. When colored paper was distributed so that the students could trace the shapes, they got into arguments over the different colors, negotiated the trading of colors, and asked Respondent for different colors. When rulers were passed out, the students were not instructed to use them to draw the geometric shapes. Some had already drawn the shapes freehand. Others were dueling with the rulers. Some tore the shapes, rather than waiting until they received scissors. Respondent again did not meet performance standards in domain II as identified in the kick-off observation. Learning did not begin promptly. Respondent spent 10-11 minutes taking roll and reprimanding tardy students. There were inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. Respondent allowed students to talk and distract others. Students were not paying attention. Respondent accepted a phone call and made a phone call during the class. He failed to monitor the off-task behavior caused by the manner in which supplies were distributed and failed to redirect the students, including while they argued about paper, scissors, and rulers. DePriest notified Respondent on February 23, 2005, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected noted performance deficiencies during his performance probation period and that DePriest would recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent's employment be terminated. On that same day, DePriest transmitted such a memorandum. On March 9, the Superintendent notified Respondent that the Superintendent would recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract for Respondent's failure to correct his noted performance deficiencies during his performance probation. Petitioner has met all procedural requirements and statutory time frames. The FCAT was administered to Florida students in late- February to early-March, 2005. Petitioner received Respondent's students' scores on May 17 and the district-wide FCAT results on May 19, 2005, the day before the final hearing in this cause. The district as a whole showed "tremendous" progress over the prior year. Even though Redland is a "low-performing" school, it likewise showed progress over the prior year in reading and mathematics. Respondent's students, however, failed to follow this trend. Petitioner does not use a teacher's current students' FCAT scores in assessing a teacher's performance because the scores are released too late in the school year. PACES, however, addresses student performance, as statutorily required. Where a teacher's students are observed as being noisy throughout lessons, being confused, not paying attention, and being given erroneous lesson content, there is a clear lack of student performance, and they are not engaged in learning.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent failed to correct his performance deficiencies and terminating Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 13, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Honorable John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Rudolph F. Crew, Ed.D, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission should deny Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate on the grounds that Petitioner lacks the requisite good moral character and that he has committed an act or acts for which such a certificate could be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. During the 1999-2000 school year, Rolle was employed as a public school teacher in the Miami-Dade County School District (the "District"). He was assigned to Mays Middle School, where he taught drama to sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students. Holding a temporary Florida Educator's Certificate, Rolle was hired initially to work as a substitute teacher. Later during the 1999-2000 school year, Rolle's contract status was reclassified, and he became a "3100" or "temporary" teacher. A 3100 teacher's contract automatically expires at the end of the school year. Before the close of the subject school year, Rolle was removed from the classroom after allegations of misconduct were made against him. When the school year ended, Rolle's supervisor gave him an unsatisfactory evaluation and recommended that the temporary teacher not be re-hired. Consequently, Rolle separated from employment with the District following the 1999- 2000 school year. In the meantime, Rolle applied to the Department of Education for a professional (i.e. non-temporary) teaching certificate, pursuant to Section 231.17, Florida Statutes. On March 28, 2001, the Commissioner, as the head of the Department of Education, issued a Notice of Reasons setting forth the grounds for denying Rolle's application. In a nutshell, the Commissioner alleged that Rolle lacked the good moral character required of a teacher and that he had violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. Below are the relevant historical facts concerning the specific incidents upon which the preliminary denial of Rolle's application was based.2 The Vulgar Joke On March 17, 2000, Rolle told a vulgar joke to his sixth grade class. One of his students, an 11-year-old girl named D. M., reported the joke to the school's administration, submitting a handwritten statement dated March 23, 2000, that quoted Rolle's monologue.3 Rolle admits having told the joke; indeed, he repeated it in full while testifying at hearing. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by including the entire joke in this Recommended Order. The punch line——"Your mouth smells exactly like your butt"——is sufficient to convey the crudity of Rolle's ill-considered attempt at comedy, which would have been inappropriate in polite adult company. Telling such a coarse joke in the classroom to a group of young schoolchildren at a minimum reflected appallingly poor judgment on the teacher's part. The R-Rated Movies On several occasions during the school year, Rolle showed movies to his sixth and seventh grade classes.4 At least two of the movies, Rolle admitted, are rated "R." Another, Rolle claimed, is rated "PG-13."5 Rolle did not obtain the permission of his students' parents to show the children any of these films in class. While the movies themselves were not offered into evidence, it is a matter of general knowledge based on common experience that R-rated movies are intended for a "restricted" audience and typically contain language, images, and plots to which children under the age of 17 should not be casually exposed. At any rate, clearly, children aged 11 and 12 should not be shown R-rated movies in a public school classroom without parental knowledge and consent. Rolle showed these movies, not for a pedagogic purpose, but merely to entertain the children. Making matters worse, Rolle instructed his students to have sheets of paper on their desks while a videotape was playing so that they could pretend to be "critiquing" the movie if someone (presumably another teacher) were to enter the classroom. Rolle also directed the children not to tell others that R-rated films were being screened in his class, warning the students that if word got out, then someone might complain, with the predictable result that the school's administration would forbid such movies from being shown in the future. The Impromptu Skits In class, Rolle often required small groups of his students to act in impromptu skits as a means of developing improvisational skills. Rolle would describe a scene in broad terms, and the students selected to perform would play assigned parts, making up appropriate dialogue extemporaneously. The plots for some of these impromptu skits were taken from the students' textbooks. But Rolle required the students to act out some other scenes that he had imagined on his own. Several of these skits were highly inappropriate, to say the least. In the sixth grade class, for example, Rolle assigned children to play in a scene involving a lesbian having an affair with her female boss at work; a skit in which a girl describes losing her virginity and becoming pregnant; and a vignette wherein a girl who has been raped reports the crime to her parents and the police. Students not chosen to perform in these skits were obligated to watch them. D. M., the young girl who reported the gauche joke discussed above, was one of the sixth-grade students chosen to play a lesbian. She refused the assignment, whereupon Rolle threatened her with a failing grade. Rolle also instructed his seventh grade students to perform in impromptu skits having adult themes.6 More than once, the plot required these adolescent (or pre-adolescent) children, aged 12 and 13, to explore the subject of homosexual relationships. On one occasion, according to the credible testimony of a (then) seventh-grade student named M. M., Rolle suggested that two girls kiss. One of the girls refused. M. M. described a separate incident during which she and another girl, playing lesbians in an impromptu skit under Rolle's direction, actually did kiss one another, although M. M. professed not to have been adversely affected by the experience. Rolle's Explanations Rolle conceded that he had exercised "bad judgment" in connection with the incidents described above and stressed that he had been "reprimanded" by the District for them. Rolle admitted that he had believed his actions were appropriate at the time taken, but upon reflection he now recognizes that he made what he calls "first year teacher" mistakes. Rolle adamantly denied having intended to harm or embarrass any student. Ultimate Factual Determinations Rolle's classroom conduct during the 1999-2000 school year repeatedly fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defines good moral character. By any reasonable measure, it is wrong for a teacher to show R-rated movies to impressionable sixth and seventh grade students; when that teacher, an authority figure acting in loco parentis, further instructs the students to be prepared to lie about or conceal the fact that such films are being shown, as Rolle did, he not only exhibits a propensity for dishonesty that is incompatible with the position of great trust he holds but also encourages the children in his charge likewise to be deceitful. Similarly, when Rolle told that scatological joke to his sixth grade class, he revealed a lack of respect for the rights of others and behaved in a manner inconsistent with the high standard expected of a public school teacher. Finally, asking children as young as 11 years old to act out or watch scenes in which lesbians discuss an illicit workplace romance; a rape victim describes her trauma; and a pregnant girl speaks about her first sexual experience, as Rolle did, reveals a personality that is preoccupied with subjects unsuitable for the middle school curriculum. If Rolle were soon permitted to teach again, parents understandably would question their children's safety and well-being. The risk of allowing Rolle to return to the classroom, at this juncture, is too great. The conduct in which Rolle engaged, moreover, took place in the classroom during the 1999-2000 school year and directly involved the students in his care. Thus, the conduct involved in this case is both recent and rationally connected to Rolle's fitness to teach in the public schools of Florida. In sum, the evidence fails to establish that, more likely than not, Rolle possesses the good moral character required of a teacher to whom the custody of children is entrusted. For that reason, Rolle is not eligible for certification. There is, further, ample proof that Rolle failed on numerous occasions to exert a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, health, or safety as required under Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which is part of the Principles of Professional Conduct. Rolle's multiple violations of this Rule would be grounds for revocation of a teaching certificate and hence independently justify the denial of his application for one. Finally, the greater weight of evidence does not demonstrate that Rolle specifically intended to expose his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying Rolle's application for a teaching certificate and providing that he shall not be eligible to reapply for certification for a period of 15 years from the date of the final order, during which time the Department of Education, in its discretion pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(a), Florida Statutes, may refuse to consider his application, neither granting nor denying same. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Between December 6, 1994, and October 15, 1995, Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a school bus driver and, subsequently, as a materials handling technician who delivered textbooks and supplies. His performance evaluations for that work were satisfactory or better. Prior to October 15, 1995, a teacher aide position became vacant at H. L. Johnson Elementary School, one of the public schools in Palm Beach County. This vacancy was in the special education classroom taught by Harriet Lurie. Although he had no experience or training for this type work, Respondent was hired to fill this vacancy. Respondent began this employment on October 15, 1995. The students in this classroom require constant supervision and assistance. Ms. Lurie, an experienced ESE teacher, the Respondent, and one other teacher aide were expected to provide the care and supervision required by these students. Respondent and Ms. Lurie were unable to develop an effective working relationship. The conflicts between Respondent and Ms. Lurie escalated, despite the efforts of the principal, Penelope Lopez, to encourage them to work together. December 15, 1995, was the last day of school prior the Christmas holidays. Following an incident between Respondent and Ms. Lurie earlier that day, Respondent appeared in Ms. Lopez's office and requested that he be transferred from Ms. Lurie's class to any other available position. Ms. Lopez explained to Respondent that there were no other available positions. Because he was adamant about not returning to Ms. Lurie's classroom, Ms. Lopez agreed during that meeting to let Respondent perform custodial duties for the remainder of the day. January 2, 1996, was the first day of school following the Christmas holidays. On that date, Respondent reported to Ms. Lopez's office and met with her prior to the beginning of school. Respondent again asked that he be transferred from Ms. Lurie's classroom. Respondent became upset when Ms. Lopez denied his request for transfer and thereafter gave him a written reprimand. The reprimand, which accurately reflects efforts by Ms. Lopez to resolve the problems between Respondent and Ms. Lurie, provided, in pertinent part, as follows: I have had conferences with you on December 6, 12 and 15, 1995 and numerous other impromptu meetings in which we discussed your concerns, my concerns and conflicts you were having with the teacher and the other teacher aide in the K-1B classroom (Ms. Lurie's classroom). The students in this classroom need consistent supervision in a warm nurturing environment. I am very unhappy with the conflict going on between you and the teacher and you and the other aide, at times in front of the students . . . There appears to be no effective working relationship between you and these associates . . . * * * 6. As a teacher-aide (sic), you report to the teacher in the K-1B class and work under her direct supervision. You are expected to follow directions and not argue with her . . . I have requested at each meeting with you to work cooperatively with the teacher and your coworker to solve problems or enhance the classroom setting and work as a team. I had to remove you from the classroom on December 15, 1995 due to a conflict with the teacher. Since you have not heeded my previous advice, I'm presenting you with this written reprimand as disciplinary action. I expect your behavior to improve immediately in all of these areas. Should you fail to improve your attendance and abide by established and published rules and duties of your position, you will subject yourself to further discipline. After Ms. Lopez gave Respondent the written reprimand, on January 2, 1996, she instructed him to return to his duties in Ms. Lurie's classroom. Respondent refused this instruction and left the school campus. Respondent did not return to the school campus on January 2, 1996. Respondent had seven days of sick leave available for his use as of January 2, 1996. Further, he qualified for additional unpaid leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (1993), 29 USC Sections 2611 et seq. Respondent did not requested nor had he been given any type of authorized leave for January 2, 1996. Respondent asserts that the School Board has no grounds to terminate his employment for his conduct on January 2, 1996, because he left school to go visit his doctor. The assertion that he left campus on January 2, 1996, because he was sick or in need of a doctor is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in this proceeding. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, it is found that after he left the school campus on January 2, 1996, Respondent spent the balance of the day attempting to contact district administrators to complain about the letter of reprimand he had received. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent did not seek medical attention on January 2, 1996. 1/ Respondent disobeyed Ms. Lopez's clear and direct instructions on January 2, 1996, and he willfully neglected his official responsibilities. This action was not justified by a need for medical attention. On January 3, 1996, Respondent reported to Ms. Lopez's office at approximately 7:45 a.m. Ms. Lopez told Respondent that he was needed in Ms. Lurie's class and told him to report to duty. Respondent replied that he was going to the doctor and left school campus. When Ms. Lopez asked why he had not gone to the doctor when he was away from school on January 2, Respondent replied that he had been too busy attempting to do something about the reprimand he had been issued. Respondent was entitled to use sick leave to visit the doctor on January 3, 1996, and he was entitled to use paid sick leave, to the extent of its availability, between January 3, 1996, and the time of his tests on January 16, 1996. Good Samaritan Primary Care is a group of doctors who have associated for the practice of medicine. Leonard A. Sukienik, D.O., and Karen Kutikoff, M.D., are employed by that group practice. On January 3, 1996, Respondent was examined by Dr. Sukienik. Following that examination, Dr. Sukienik scheduled certain medical tests for Respondent to be conducted January 16, 1996. Dr. Sukienik wrote the following note dated January 3, 1996: To whom it may concern, Mr. Frank Sedor is a patient in my office and is noted to have stress related anxiety attacks with chest pain symptoms. This stress may be related to his job and Mr. Sedor may benefit from time off from work. Respondent returned to Johnson Elementary and met with Ms. Lopez at approximately 1:30 p.m. Respondent gave Ms. Lopez the note written by Dr. Sukienik. When Ms. Lopez asked Respondent to return to work, he informed her that he was not going to return to work until after the tests scheduled for January 16, 1996, had been completed. Respondent thereafter left the school campus. Respondent did not request any type of leave on January 3, 1996. Prior to her meeting with Respondent on the afternoon of January 3, 1996, Ms. Lopez did not intend to recommend that Respondent's employment be terminated because she hoped that the problems between Respondent and Ms. Lurie could be resolved. After her meeting with Respondent on the afternoon of January 3, 1996, Ms. Lopez sent a memorandum to Louis Haddad, Jr., the coordinator of Petitioner's Employee Relations office in which she requested that further disciplinary action be taken against Respondent for his refusal to report to his classroom as instructed on January 2, 1996, and for thereafter leaving the school site. The School Board, based on the superintendent's recommendation, voted to terminate Respondent's employment at its meeting of February 7, 1996, on grounds of insubordination and willful neglect of duty based on Respondent's conduct on January 2, 1996. 2/ The School Board is not seeking to terminate Respondent's employment for conduct after January 2, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. The final order should also terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher aide. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1996.
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether the Respondent's teacher's certificate in elementary education and middle school social studies should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner was the state official responsible for the licensing and regulation of school teachers in Florida. Respondent, Virginia R. Purdy, was licensed as an elementary school and middle school social sciences teacher in Florida under certificate # 265007, issued on May 12, 1984, and which expired on June 30, 1989. During the school year 1988 - 1989, Respondent was employed as a social studies teacher for the 6th grade at W. D. Suggs Middle School in Bradenton, Florida. She had worked there as a teacher for approximately 14 years. Over the latter years of her tenure at Suggs, Respondent was involved in repeated incidents of improper use of alcohol, but under the prior administration, little if any corrective action was taken. However, with the arrival of Judy Bills as Principal in January, 1988, closer attention was paid to the Respondent's performance. Ms. Bills' preliminary efforts here aimed at assisting Respondent to seek professional help for her alcohol problem. At first, Respondent resisted any outside assistance. However, her performance continued to deteriorate. She frequently appeared in class in a disorganized manner, having difficulty standing erect, and demonstrating erratic and emotional behavior. Review of Respondent's record book revealed she failed to give her students any scores upon which the end of grading period grade could be based. She frequently failed to prepare lesson plans for her own use or the use of substitute teachers called in to replace her when she was absent. In that regard, during that school year she was absent 45 days, of which 31 were for hospitalization in the Genesis program as a result of her alcohol problem. In addition, she routinely failed to call in in advance of her absences which is a requirement by school policy. Her teaching performance was erratic and she frequently strongly smelled of alcohol. She routinely failed to take control in her classroom and provide the appropriate leadership to her students. As a result, the students could not and did not have the appropriate course materials presented, and she was, in addition, an unsatisfactory role model. Contrary to the school's rules, she frequently transported students in her private automobile to her home for swim parties. This is prohibited by the school due to the potential liability problems increased, in Respondent's case, by her alcohol problem. Also, in contravention of good teaching practices, she treated her students as her equals, allowing them to comb her hair, polish her nails, and rub her back in class. While she related well to her students and, for the mcst part, they loved her, she did not maintain an appropriate teacher-student relationship with them. On at least two occasions during that year, she failed to attend parent conferences, explaining that she had to do lesson planning. This was no justification and the evidence shows she frequently failed to do that in any case. On one occasion, Ms. Bills had to relieve Respondent of her duties because of her confusion and disorganization in class. At that time, Respondent claimed she had merely lost her contact lenses, but because she was inebriated and in no condition to drive, another teacher had to drive her home. On another occasion, Ms. Bills went to Respondent's classroom 15 minutes after the start of the class period to find Respondent had not yet begun teaching. She was still taking roll and doing preliminary matters. On the morning of September 13, 1989, Respondent had a conference with a parent. After the conference, at which Respondent was loud and disoriented and comported herself inappropriately in both action and comments, Ms. Bills, consistent with prior warnings given the Respondent, had her taken for a blood alcohol test to a lab of the Respondent's choosing. The result of that test, done on blood taken at 9:00 AM that morning, indicated a blood alcohol level of 0.420 on a test wherein an alcohol level greater than .200 is considered clinically toxic. No traces of drugs were found on this occasion. There is no direct evidence to establish that Respondent drank alcoholic beverages on school property. Evidence of an arrest for DWI, and of an admitted overdose of valium and wine are considered not probative and irrelevant since they occurred too far in the past. However, during the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent had numerous altercations with other teachers. If she felt that she or one of her students had been wronged by another faculty member, she would chastise that person in front of her students. This is inappropriate behavior. In the opinion of her principal, her department chairman, and the Director of Personal Services for the school system in which she taught, Respondent's obvious drinking problem diminished her effectiveness as a teacher; her actions were harmful to her students' ability to learn and to their safety; and she was not honest in her professional dealing with faculty and staff. It is so found. In addition, her use of emotional pressure on her colleagues in an effort to get them to support her and not report her deficiencies, may have resulted in several years' delay in identifying and rectifying the problem. Ms. Purdy resigned her position with the Manatee County Schools on September 20, 1989 and has not been employed within the system since that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case revoking the Respondent's teacher's certificate and her eligibility for a teacher's certificate in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of July, 1991, 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 5th day of July, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Lane Burnett, Esquire 331 E. Union Street, Suite 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Virginia R. Purdy 3616 62nd Street Bradenton, Florida 34209 George A. Bowen Acting Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL - 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a schoolteacher physically assaulted three third-graders in his music class, thereby giving his employer, the district school board, just cause to terminate his employment.
Findings Of Fact Background The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Manuel Brenes ("Brenes") was a music teacher at Little River Elementary School ("Little River"), which is within the Miami-Dade County Public School System. The alleged events giving rise to this case allegedly occurred on November 18, 2005. The School Board alleges that on that date, Brenes lost his temper in the classroom and physically assaulted three students, each of whom was in the third grade at the time and about nine or 10 years old. More particularly, it is alleged that Brenes poked a boy named K. C. in the head several times; choked, slapped, and/or picked up and dropped another boy, K. M.; and threw a chair at a third boy, whose name is C. P. For his part, Brenes denies these charges, claiming that his interventions were neither assaultive nor potentially harmful, but rather were reasonably necessary either to protect students from harm or to maintain order. There is no question that an incident occurred in Brenes's classroom on November 18, 2005, and that the students K. C., K. M., and C. P. were involved. The evidence adduced at hearing, however, is conflicting, confusing, and often incredible, affording the fact-finder little more than a fuzzy picture, at best, of what actually happened. Five eyewitnesses to the disputed incident testified. These were four student-accusers (comprising the three alleged victims and one of their classmates, a girl named "Kate"1) plus the accused teacher himself. In addition, Pamela C. ("Ms. C."), who is the mother of K. C. and also a teacher at Little River, testified regarding her observations and impressions as the "first responder" to arrive on the scene after the disputed incident had taken place. (To be clear, Ms. C. did not see Brenes commit any wrongful act; she has maintained——and testified——that Brenes made incriminating admissions to her in the immediate aftermath of the events at issue.) None of these witnesses impressed the undersigned as wholly reliable; rather, each had credibility problems that have caused the undersigned to discount his or her testimony to some degree. For example, every eyewitness who testified at hearing had made at least one prior statement about the incident that differed in some unexpected way from his or her subsequent testimony. Moreover, to the extent sense can be made of any given eyewitness account, there exist material discrepancies between the witnesses' respective stories. The upshot is that the undersigned does not have much persuasive, coherent, consistent evidence upon which to make findings of fact. Given the generally poor quality of the evidence, which ultimately precludes the undersigned from making detailed findings of historical fact, a brief summary of the key witnesses' testimonies about the controversial event will next be provided. These summaries, it is believed, give context to the limited findings of historical fact that then follow; they also should help explain the determinations of ultimate fact derived from the findings. It is important to note, however, that the summaries below merely report what each witness said occurred; they do not necessarily, or even generally, correspond to the undersigned's findings about what likely took place in Brenes's classroom on November 18, 2005. K. C. K. C. testified that the incident began when one of the boys told a joke that made "the whole class" laugh. Brenes was teaching a lesson at the time, writing on the board. Whenever Brenes faced the board, this particular boy would make "funny faces behind ["Brenes's] back," and when Brenes turned around, the boy would sit down. One student, C. P., continued to laugh, and Brenes made him stand in the corner. Undeterred, C. P. kept laughing. Brenes grabbed the two front legs of a chair, lifted it over his head, and threw the chair at C. P., who "ducked to the ground" to avoid being hit. After that, C. P. was frightened and remained on the ground "for like five minutes." Brenes told the students to put their heads down. He walked over to K. C. and poked the boy in the head three times, apparently for no reason. Then Brenes grasped K. M. by the throat and lifted the student, with one arm, off the ground and over his (Brenes's) head. While holding K. M. in the air by his throat, Brenes shook and slapped the boy before using two arms to set him down. A short while later, Ms. C. entered the classroom, having been summoned by Brenes. K. C. told his mother what had just occurred. Their conversation, as Ms. C. remembers it, will be recounted below. Angered and upset by what her son had reported, Ms. C. removed K. C. from Brenes's classroom and took him back to her own room. There, on November 18, 2005, K. C. wrote the first of two statements about the incident. K. C.'s second statement, dated November 23, 2005, was written in his mother's classroom as well. The most noteworthy discrepancy between K. C.'s prior written statements and his testimony at hearing is the absence of any mention in the prior statements about Brenes having poked him in the head.2 Asked at hearing about this omission, K. C. testified that he had "forg[o]t[ten] that part" because Ms. Castillo (the principal) rushed him to complete his statements.3 K. M. K. M. testified that "everybody was laughing" because the classroom smelled bad. Brenes put C. P. in the corner and then threw a chair at him. C. P. moved or ducked, however, and hence he was not struck by the chair. Brenes hit K. C. on the head. Then Brenes caught K. M. laughing at him (Brenes). Consequently, Brenes grabbed K. M. by the throat with both hands, lifted him out of his seat, and held him in midair, so that his feet were off the ground. Brenes held K. M. at arm's length, with his arms straight out from his body, for about one "second" before setting the boy down. Brenes did not shake or slap K. M., who was able to breathe while Brenes held him by the neck, suspended off the ground; indeed, K. M. never felt as though he were choking, even as he was practically being hanged. Shortly thereafter, K. M. wrote a statement about the incident, which is dated November 22, 2005. In the statement, K. M. made no mention of Brenes's having thrown a chair, nor did he report that Brenes had hit K. C. in the head, as he would testify at hearing. C. P. According to C. P., the trouble began when K. M. made C. P. laugh, which was sufficiently disruptive that Brenes told C. P. to stand in the corner. This discipline proved to be ineffective, for C. P. continued to laugh. C. P.'s ongoing laughter caused Brenes to grab a chair and walk quickly ("a little bit running") towards C. P. The boy ducked, and the chair, which remained in Brenes's hands and was not thrown, struck the wall. C. P. was unable to give consistent testimony at hearing concerning the distance between his body and the spot where the chair hit the wall. In different answers he indicated that the chair struck as near to him as two or three feet, and as far away as 20 feet. Brenes put the chair down, nowhere close to any students, and told the children to put their heads down. C. P. finally stopped laughing. In a discovery deposition taken before hearing, C. P. had testified that he thought Brenes's use of the chair as a disciplinary tool was funny. At hearing, however, he claimed that he had "just made that up" and given false testimony at the deposition. C. P. testified that Brenes had swung him by the arm, but he could not keep straight when this had occurred. At first, C. P. said that Brenes had taken his arm and swung him after sending him (C. P.) to the corner, because C. P. had kept on laughing despite the mild punishment. Then, because C. P. "was still laughing," even after having been swung by the arm, Brenes had rushed at him with a chair, ultimately causing the boy to quit laughing. Later in the hearing, however, C. P. changed his story and explained that Brenes had grabbed his arm and swung him around after the "chair affair"——when C. P. was no longer laughing——for the purpose of leading him back to his seat. Yet another version of the "arm swinging" episode appears in a prior statement dated November 21, 2005, wherein C. P. wrote that after Brenes had threatened him with a chair, he (C. P.) "was still laughing so [Brenes] took my arm and he [swung] me." Testifying about what Brenes did to K. M., C. P. stated that the teacher had taken K. M. by the neck and shaken him, lifting the boy up from his chair and then putting him back down, all because K. M. had been laughing. This testimony corresponded fairly closely to C. P.'s statement of November 21, 2005. Interestingly, however, on December 13, 2005, C. P. had told the detective who was investigating the charges against Brenes that Brenes merely had grabbed K. M. by the shirt and placed him back on his chair because K. M. was "playing around." C. P. also informed the detective that "the class [had been] laughing and playing, and Mr. Brenes was trying to stop them." C. P. said nothing at hearing about Brenes's allegedly having struck K. C. on the head. Likewise, he did not mention, in his written statement of November 21, 2005, the alleged attack on K. C. However, C. P. did tell the detective on December 13, 2005, that he had seen Brenes "tap" K. C. on the head. Kate Kate was in the classroom when the disruption occurred, although she did not see "all of it, really." She testified that, at the beginning of class on November 18, 2005, while Brenes was calling the roll, some boys were talking and laughing, and they kept on laughing even after Brenes had instructed them to stop. C. P. was one of the laughers. Brenes made him stand in the corner. The laughter continued, so Brenes got up and threw the chair on which he had been sitting toward the wall where C. P. was standing. The chair flew across the room, in the air, and hit the wall. C. P. ducked and was not harmed. Meantime, K. M. was laughing. Brenes "grabbed him up" and talked to him. K. M. started to cry, and Brenes let him go. Kate did not see anything untoward happen to K. C. Rather, Brenes "just talk[ed] to him, because he was laughing, too." After the incident, Kate prepared a written statement, which is dated November 21, 2005. As far as it went, her hearing testimony was essentially consistent with her prior statement. The prior statement, however, contains an additional detail about which she said nothing at hearing. In her statement, Kate wrote that, after throwing a chair in C. P.'s direction, Brenes took a table and hit a desk with it, causing the desk to hit the wall. Ms. C. Ms. C. was at lunch on the day in question when two students approached her with a request from Brenes that she come to his classroom, where her son was presently supposed to be having a music lesson. Ms. C. told the students that she would be there in about five minutes. When Ms. C. arrived, Brenes's students were well- behaved and "sitting very quietly." Brenes informed Ms. C. that her son, K. C., had been disrespectful to him, in particular by laughing at Brenes as though he were "a stupid person." Upon learning of her son's misbehavior, Ms. C. was neither perturbed nor nonplussed, but skeptical; she immediately demanded an explanation from Brenes: "How do you know when someone is laughing at you as though you're a stupid person?" After being persuaded that her son had behaved badly, Ms. C. reprimanded him in front of the class. Brenes thanked Ms. C. for coming, and she turned to leave. Before taking his seat, K. C. said, "But mommy, that's not all that happened." "What happened?" she asked. "Mr. Brenes poked me in the head," replied K. C. Ms. C. asked Brenes if this were true, and Brenes admitted that he had "tapped" K. C., but not hard enough to cause pain. Ms. C. started to leave, but K. C. stopped her again: "But mommy, that's not all." Thereupon, an exchange ensued much like the one just described, except this time, K. C. reported that Brenes had thrown a chair at C. P. "Mr. Brenes, did you throw the chair?" Ms. C. asked. Again, Brenes admitted that the accusation was true, but denied endangering the children. Before Ms. C. could leave, K. C. stopped her for the third time, saying, once again, "But mommy, that's not it." This initiated the now-familiar pattern of dialogue. K. C. accused Brenes of having picked up K. M. and dropped the boy "hard." Ms. C. asked Brenes if he had done that. Brenes conceded that he had, yet he assured Ms. C. that the children had never been in danger. Ms. C. had heard enough. She instructed K. C. to leave the classroom with her, which he did. The two of them proceeded directly to the principal's office. Ms. C. reported the incident to the principal. After listening to Ms. C. and her son, the principal decided to have Brenes removed from his class, and she called the school police. (Evidently, it was not thought necessary to hear from Brenes before taking these actions.) Brenes was kept out his class for a day or two but then was allowed to return to his regular duties. This upset Ms. C., who felt that "nothing was being done." As a result, Ms. C. "took it upon [her]self" to call the School Board's "Region Office" and lodge a complaint in her capacity as parent. Ms. C. was told to prepare an "incident report," which she did, on November 22, 2005. She submitted the incident report the following day. Shortly thereafter, Brenes was removed from Little River and administratively reassigned to the Region Office pending the outcome of the investigation. Brenes On November 18, 2005, Brenes met a class of third- graders at the cafeteria and took the students to his music room for a lesson. At the time, his music classes were being held in a portable classroom because Brenes's regular room had been damaged in a hurricane. Brenes's temporary classroom had an unpleasant odor. The room's bad smell caused the children to go "berserk" upon arrival; many began running around and misbehaving. One of the boys, C. P., pushed another student to the floor. The tables in the room were on wheels, and some of the children were pushing a table toward the boy on the ground. Brenes pushed the table out of the way, so that the student would not be hurt.4 Meantime, K. M. was engaging in horseplay, throwing himself off his seat and landing on the floor. Brenes viewed this misbehavior as not just disruptive, but potentially dangerous, so he took hold of the naughty child at the waist, lifted him up off the floor, and placed him back on his seat where he belonged.5 The students continued to be disruptive, so Brenes tossed a chair toward the wall, away from all the students, to grab their attention and stop the rowdy behavior.6 This quieted the students down——except for K. M., who started running for the door, where C. P. was standing with his arm outstretched, blocking K. M.'s path. Brenes rushed over and pulled C. P. away from the door to prevent a dangerous collision.7 Brenes's disjointed testimony fails to give a cogent explanation for why C. P. had been standing next to the door in the first place.8 In a prior statement, however, Brenes reportedly had told the detective that, before having tossed the chair, he had taken C. P., who was misbehaving, by the arm and led him to the corner, where the student was to remain until he had calmed down. This prior statement finds ample corroboration in the students' respective accounts. While the commotion continued, K. C. was laughing at the situation. Walking past the student's desk, Brenes tapped K. C. gently on the head and told him to quit laughing. About this time, the students calmed down and became quiet. Brenes commenced teaching his lesson for the day, and thereafter the class paid attention and stayed on task. Near the end of the period, Ms. C. appeared in the classroom, having been summoned by Brenes earlier when her son (among others) was misbehaving. Brenes was not asked at hearing to recount the particulars of his conversation with Ms. C. Whatever was said, however, resulted in Ms. C.’s yelling at Brenes in front of the whole class. Brenes, trying to defuse this awkward situation, became apologetic and attempted to explain what had happened, but to no avail. Ms. C.——who took her little boy's word against Brenes's——would not let Brenes tell his side of the story. Resolutions of Evidential Conflict Regarding the Disputed Event It is not the School Board's burden to prove to a certainty that its allegations are true, but only that its allegations are most likely true; for dismissal to be warranted, in other words, no more (or less) must be shown than that there is a slightly better than 50 percent chance, at least, that the historical event in dispute actually happened as alleged. As the fact-finder, the undersigned therefore must consider how likely it is, based on the evidence presented, that the incident took place as alleged in the School Board's Notice of Specific Charges. Having carefully evaluated the conflicting accounts of the disputed event, the undersigned makes the following findings concerning what happened in Brenes's classroom on November 18, 2005. It is highly likely, and the undersigned finds with confidence, that the incident stemmed from the misbehavior of students who were cutting up in class and generally being disruptive. There were, however, neither allegations, nor proof, that Brenes was in any way responsible for this misbehavior. Rather, it is likely, and the undersigned finds, that the children became boisterous in consequence of the classroom's foul odor. The students K. C., K. M., and C. P. were the ringleaders of the rowdy students, and, in the course of the event, Brenes was compelled to redirect each of them. More likely than not, C. P. was the worst behaved of the three main offenders. Because C. P. was clowning around, Brenes placed him in the corner. It is likely that when he did this, Brenes took C. P. by the arm and led him to the spot where he was to stand. The evidence is insufficient to persuade the undersigned that Brenes touched C. P. in a manner that was intended, or reasonably would be expected, to cause harm or discomfort; it is possible that this occurred——the odds, on this record, being roughly in the range of 25 to 40 percent——but not likely. As for what exactly happened with K. M., the undersigned can only speculate. The undersigned believes that the likelier of the possibilities presented is that the boy was rolling off his chair and flopping to the ground, more or less as Brenes described K. M.'s disruptive activity (although Brenes probably exaggerated the risk of danger, if any, this misbehavior posed to the child). The likelier of the scenarios presented (having a probability somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 50 percent) is that Brenes physically returned the boy to his chair, picking him up in a reasonable, nonpunitive fashion and similarly setting him back down.9 The possibility that Brenes strangled the boy, as charged, is relatively low——between 15 and 30 percent——but nevertheless nontrivial and hence bothersome, given the seriousness of the accusation. That said, however, the undersigned is unable to find that any of the possibilities presented is more likely than not true. Therefore, the School Board's proof fails as a matter of fact on the allegation that Brenes choked, slapped, or otherwise assaulted K. M. Brenes admits having tossed a chair, a point that is corroborated (to some degree) by all of the eyewitnesses except, ironically, C. P., the student toward whom the chair was allegedly thrown. Brenes, however, denies having tossed a chair at any student, and the undersigned credits his denial. More likely than not, it is found, Brenes tossed a chair away from the students, as he initially claimed, to focus the students' attention on something other than the rambunctious boys who were creating a disturbance. (The undersigned doubts that the chair was tossed to prevent injury, as Brenes asserted at hearing.) Brenes also admits that he tapped K. C. on the head while urging the boy to be quiet. It is likely——and indeed Brenes effectively has admitted——that this was done as a disciplinary measure. Brenes denies, however, that he tapped the child in a manner intended, or as reasonably would be expected, to cause harm or discomfort. The undersigned credits Brenes's denial in this regard and therefore rejects as unproven by a preponderance of the evidence the charge that the teacher forcefully "poked" K. C. in or about the temple. Other Material Facts The evidence is undisputed that after Brenes had gotten the three rowdiest boys under control——which seems to have taken but a few minutes——the rest of the class fell in line and behaved for the balance of the period. It is reasonable to infer, and the undersigned does find, that whatever actions Brenes took were effective in restoring order to the class. That is to say, Brenes's conduct did not create chaos, but quelled a disturbance that, from every description, could have gotten out of hand. Such efficacy would not justify improper means, of course, but the results Brenes obtained counsel against any easy inference that his alleged misconduct impaired his effectiveness in the classroom. Continuing on the subject of Brenes's alleged ineffectiveness in consequence of his alleged misconduct, the undersigned is struck by the undisputed fact that, notwithstanding the accusations that had been lodged against Brenes, the principal of Little River allowed the teacher to return to his classroom after spending one day in the library. Thereafter, he taught his music classes, as usual, for five or six days before being administratively assigned to the Region Office effective on or about December 5, 2005. The significance of this fact (Brenes's post-incident return to the classroom) lies in the opportunity it afforded the School Board to observe whether Brenes's alleged misconduct actually had, in fact, impaired his effectiveness as a teacher. As the fact-finder, the undersigned cannot help but wonder: What happened in Brenes's classroom in the next two weeks after the incident? The School Board did not provide an answer. Instead, it presented the conclusory opinions of administrators who declared that Brenes could no longer be effective, which opinions were based on the assumption that all the factual allegations against Brenes were true. Because that underlying assumption was not validated by the evidence adduced in this proceeding, however, these opinions lacked an adequate factual foundation. Moreover, the undersigned infers from the absence of any direct proof of actual impairment that Brenes's effectiveness stayed the same after November 18, 2005.10 While Brenes was spending time at the Region Office pending the outcome of the investigation, another teacher who also was awaiting the results of an investigation began to pick on Brenes, ultimately provoking Brenes into an argument on a couple of occasions. During one of these arguments, Brenes responded to his antagonist by saying, "fuck you." While this profanity might have been overheard by other adults nearby (the evidence is inconclusive about that), it is clear that no students were around. Brenes was the only witness with personal knowledge of these arguments who testified at hearing; in lieu of firsthand evidence, the School Board offered mostly hearsay that failed to impress the fact-finder. In light of Brenes's uncontroverted testimony that the other man had been badgering him "for the longest time," the fact that Brenes lost his temper and used vulgar language, while unadmirable, is at least understandable. The bottom line is, this was a private dispute between adults, one of whom——the one not accused of wrongdoing as a result——was actually more at fault as the provocateur. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's corporal punishment policy. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of unseemly conduct. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's policy against violence in the workplace.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Brenes of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Brenes be reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Brenes back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 27th day of February, 2007.
