The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to impose discipline on Respondent, David Meyer, for violating provisions of statutes, rules, and/or policies, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees within the Franklin County School system. There is one large public school in Franklin County: Franklin County School (the “School”), which contains grades pre-kindergarten through 12. There were approximately 1,220 students enrolled at the School in the 2014-2015 school year. There are approximately 170 employees working for the School Board. There is also a charter school and one private school in the county. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Meyer was a teacher at the School. At the time of his termination from employment by the School Board, Mr. Meyer was teaching an alternative education class (referred to as “SOAR”) containing only a few students. His classroom was located in Building 8, Room 807, located just behind the School administrative building. Mr. Meyer has been employed by the School Board since 1990 and has held various teaching positions. He also served as the IT director for the School Board for approximately 10 years, but returned to the classroom in the 2013-2014 school year when Eagle Tree Technologies took over IT responsibilities. Mr. Meyer’s teaching certification is in science. During his entire career with Franklin County schools, he was never disciplined before the events related to the present case. Eagle Tree Technologies has a contract with the School Board to provide IT services to the School. Eagle Tree Technologies will be referred to herein as “the IT department.” In August 2014, i.e., at the start of the 2014-2015 school year during which all events of the present action took place, Mr. Meyer was tasked with teaching students in the SOAR program, a project intended to help children who were struggling with school for one reason or another, mostly behavioral or absentee issues. At the beginning of the school year, there were no students in Mr. Meyer’s classroom. Because he had no students of his own to teach, Mr. Meyer would fill in for teachers who were out sick, in training, or otherwise absent from their classrooms. As the year progressed, a few students were assigned to SOAR. Mr. Meyer basically taught those students in all of the core subjects, i.e., math, science, reading, language arts, civics, and history. When the first SOAR students were assigned, Mr. Meyer had several computers in his classroom: his teacher workstation, two or three student computers, his personal computer, and at least one laptop. At some undisclosed time in August 2014, Mr. Meyer was having trouble getting his teacher workstation to “come on right away.” In order to remedy that problem, Mr. Meyer “wiped” his computer and re-installed Windows 7. He did not check with the IT department before doing so, but admits that he probably should have. As a result of Mr. Meyer’s actions, the IT department could not access Mr. Meyer’s computer by way of its “TeamViewer” remote access program. Herrington left Mr. Meyer a note on his classroom white board, telling Mr. Meyer to reconnect to the School network. In December 2014, just prior to the School’s winter break, the IT department sent out an email to all staff warning against non-School Board-issued computers (including laptops) being connected to the School network. There was at that time a concern at the State Department of Education of potential computer hacking in statewide test sites. Personal laptops were a potential source for hacking. Mr. Meyer had, in fact, issued a warning against the use of personal laptops on the School system when he was the IT director back in 2013. Shortly after the IT department’s email warning went out, Herrington went into Mr. Meyer’s classroom and saw non- School Board computer equipment plugged into the School network portals. The equipment included a personal desktop computer, a laptop, and an external hard drive, among other items. Herrington notified an assistant principal, Ms. Walker, about what he had observed in the classroom. On January 6, 2015, Herrington, Ms. Walker, and Patty Kramer (media specialist at the School) went to Mr. Meyer’s classroom to confirm Herrington’s observations. The equipment was just as Herrington had reported. Per Ms. Walker’s direction, Herrington unplugged all the personal computer equipment from the School network. They stacked that equipment in one corner of the room and placed a sign saying “Personal” on top of the equipment. Before leaving the classroom, Herrington made sure that only School-authorized equipment was plugged into the school network. Meanwhile, Ms. Walker organized the classroom, cleaning up superfluous papers and books. The next day, January 7, Ms. Walker went back to Mr. Meyer’s room to address her findings with him, but he was absent from work that day. She came back on January 8 and talked with Mr. Meyer about what she had done two days earlier in his classroom. Ms. Walker also reminded Mr. Meyer that students were to work only on student computers, not on Mr. Meyer’s teacher workstation or on unauthorized laptops. She told him that the personal computer equipment should not be re- connected to the School system. About three weeks later, Ms. Walker went to see Mr. Meyer and saw a student sitting at the teacher workstation. She called Mr. Meyer outside the classroom and reminded him of their conversation earlier about students using his workstation. In February 2015, Herrington noticed that an inordinate amount of the School’s bandwidth was being used. He was able to track the use to Building 8 and then to Room 807, Mr. Meyer’s classroom. When he went into the room to determine what was causing the bandwidth usage, he saw that the personal computer equipment was again plugged into the School network portals. Conversely, the School Board-issued computers were not plugged into the network and their keyboards were in various states of disrepair. The teacher’s workstation was also plugged into the network. Herrington reported his findings to his supervisor, Ward, but did not address the situation with Mr. Meyer directly. On February 18, Herrington, Ward, and London went to Mr. Meyer’s classroom at approximately 6:00 in the evening to further investigate the personal computer equipment situation. They took pictures of the room and inventoried all the equipment found there. A computer audit was conducted of the computers found in the room. Herrington made copies of the computer internet histories and files. He attempted to copy the external hard drive but its contents were too extensive, so he took the hard drive back to his office where he had better copying capability. He was able to copy much – but not all – of the hard drive. The hard drive was then returned to Mr. Meyer’s classroom. Later, on or about February 24, Ward went back to Mr. Meyer’s room for the purpose of confiscating all of the computer equipment. The hard drive was missing at that time and, as of the date of the final hearing, has not been located. Mr. Meyer did not shed any light on the status of the external hard drive in his final hearing testimony. The computer audit showed that there were unauthorized computers and equipment connected to the School network, there were inappropriate internet sites visited on the computer and/or appearing on the hard drive, and there was some suspicious software on the computer. It also appeared that Mr. Meyer had attempted to circumvent the School network security system by plugging a “switch” into one of the school portals. There were two portals in the classroom, one for the teacher workstation and one for the teacher’s school-issued telephone. The switch gave Mr. Meyer the ability to allow other computers to access the teacher’s portal. This connection would presumably give users the ability to surf the internet with fewer restrictions than a student would normally encounter. Unfettered internet usage would increase the possibility of allowing a virus into the school network. That access could potentially give students the ability to access confidential school information. There was also a “bridge,” which provides some sort of network connection, at Mr. Meyer’s desk. He admits that he bought the bridge and brought it to the classroom. However, he was never able to figure out what it was to be used for and so he never connected it in the classroom. His explanation begs the question of why it was lying out on his desk, but that question was never answered at final hearing. The appearance of the bridge, in conjunction with the other devises, is – at the very least – suspicious. One of the unauthorized items found in Mr. Meyer’s classroom by the IT department was an external hard drive, which was connected to Mr. Meyer’s personal computer, which was, in turn, hooked up to the School District network. Mr. Meyer admitted bringing the hard drive to his classroom. He would transport it in his backpack and, on most days, take it home at the end of the school day. The hard drive contained a large amount of data and materials dating back several years. Ward and Herrington found many unauthorized programs on Mr. Meyer’s external hard drive, his teacher workstation, and/or his personal computers. On Mr. Meyer’s laptop computer, for example, there were programs that should only be used by the school network administrator, i.e., Ward and Herrington. Some of the unauthorized programs and material found on Mr. Meyer’s personal equipment by the IT department include: Windows Password Blocker – which could possibly have been used by Mr. Meyer to gain administrative privileges on his computer. This particular software can also help remove a password from a system so that an unauthorized person could access that system; IP Hider Pro – which is used most frequently to hide a user’s history on the internet, or, as Mr. Meyer maintains, it could be used simply to avoid advertisers who rely on a user’s history; A Hacker’s Life – which included a chapter about how to create a computer virus; Virtual Machine (VM) software – which gave Mr. Meyer’s laptop access to his teacher’s workstation; Inappropriate YouTube videos – including sexually- related videos, various prank videos, and others; A how-to book on oral sex – which included provocative pictures and explicit sexual language; and A list of XXX-rated sex questions – which also included provocative photographs and content. As to the Password Blocker, IP Hider Pro, Hacker’s Life, and VM software, Mr. Meyer said those were things he was curious about and investigated. He said that despite his IT background, he was not able to successfully install the programs and never was able to use them. Mr. Meyer’s explanation for the programs on his computer and hard drive is not persuasive and seems inconsistent with his IT background. There was also one instance when someone using Mr. Meyer’s personal computer made a Google search entitled, “Like a hacker; five steps.” If a student did that, it would be a problem; if Mr. Meyer made the search, it suggests more to the hacking issue than admitted by Mr. Meyer. As to the books on oral sex and sex questions, Mr. Meyer’s explanation seemed to change, depending on who asked him about them. In response to his counsel’s question, Mr. Meyer said he downloaded the books “last year sometime.” When asked again on cross examination, Mr. Meyer said that it might have been someone else who downloaded those things, he just did not remember. Although Mr. Meyer said none of his students saw those books, his failure to adequately supervise students means that he could not be certain of that fact. One concern of the School Board was that Mr. Meyer had a “TOR” browser installed on his computer. A TOR is generally used by people who are pirating movies and software and do not want to be detected. It is another tool, like the IP HiderPro, to help users avoid detection. Mr. Meyer admits using the switch and bridge; he asserts that the only reason for doing so was to have enough portals for his laptop, a personal printer, and sometimes other devises. The fact that it also allowed his students access to the internet while using computers in the classroom seems to be lost on Mr. Meyer. Mr. Meyer says he brought his personal computer and laptop into the classroom as a possible means of convincing his students not to destroy computer equipment. He reasoned that if he let the unruly students use his personal equipment instead of School-issued computers, they would be more likely to treat it properly. There is no credible support for this contention. The students had broken keyboards, mouse(s), and other equipment previously. And when they did so, Mr. Meyer did not contact the IT department to have the equipment repaired or replaced. Instead, he came up with the idea of replacing the equipment with his own personal equipment. The use of his personal equipment, however, violated School policies concerning outside, unauthorized equipment being connected to the School network. It was also a violation of School policy to allow the students to use his teacher workstation (even if, as Mr. Meyer alleged, other teachers allowed that to happen as well). The IT department did not find any actual harm to the school network caused by Mr. Meyer’s actions, nor did they find that a major security breach had occurred. However, it is clear there was a strong potential for harm and for a breach. For example, students were using the teacher workstation and the laptop to access social media sites and surf the internet. Students potentially had access to Mr. Meyer’s programs concerning hacking into a computer system. At one point, it was clear that Mr. Meyer’s teacher workstation and his personal computer were being used simultaneously. During that time, there were questionable and inappropriate internet websites being visited on the computers. For example, at least one person was accessing Facebook on the teacher workstation, a clear violation of School policy. Clearly, Mr. Meyer was not properly supervising students who were using the computers in his classroom. He, in fact, admits his failure to adequately supervise his students. His supposition that perhaps his daughter was using one of the computers while he worked on the other is not very likely when looking at the kind of sites being visited during the simultaneous usage. Mr. Meyer admits violating School policy regarding changing or altering a School computer by creating a second account on his workstation. He admits using the TOR browser on his personal computer when it was plugged into the School system. He admits putting a thumb-drive into his teacher workstation, but denies the IT department’s finding that he did so 10 to 15 times a day. Mr. Meyer admits that plugging additional devises into the School system could increase the potential for risk. Both the superintendent of schools and the principal at the School have serious reservations about allowing Mr. Meyer to hold any position at the School due to the fact that he could not be trusted to properly utilize the School computer system. While there could be ways to limit his access or restrict his usage, neither the Superintendent nor the Principal would be comfortable because Mr. Meyer could possibly find a way to circumvent the limitations or restrictions. There are essentially no teaching positions at the School which do not require some use of computers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Franklin County School Board, upholding the termination of Respondent, David Meyer's, employment for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 2015.
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Taylor County, Florida. A Master Teacher Contract between Petitioner and the Taylor Education Association governs relations between Petitioner and its teachers. Respondent is an educator, with 35 years of teaching experience. She is certified by the Florida Department of Education to teach students enrolled in the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. Respondent has at least 20 years of experience in teaching ESE students. During the 2009-2010 school year, Petitioner employed Respondent as an annual contract teacher at Perry Primary School. Pursuant to the contract, Petitioner hired Respondent to work from August 17, 2009, to June 9, 2010. Respondent’s class during the 2009-2010 school year was made up of students with varying exceptionalities. The exceptionalities included handicaps such as specific learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism, or emotional or physical handicaps. The class consisted of students in kindergarten, first, and second grades. At the outset of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was assigned eight students, two of which had a full-time personal assistant. Just prior to the Christmas break, Respondent was assigned another ESE student with a full-time personal assistant. The primary responsibility of the personal assistants was to help their designated students function successfully and safely in the classroom. Additionally, the personal assistants were supposed to support the classroom teacher as needed. In addition to the personal assistants, Respondent’s class utilized the services of Behavioral Management Center (BMC). The BMC consultants visited Respondent’s classroom frequently to develop and monitor the implementation of behavior modification plans for certain students. The school psychologist also visited the classroom frequently to assist the teacher and students. Petitioner uses many computer software programs for the testing and monitoring of student progress. The computer programs are necessary in order to comply with Florida Department of Education requirements. The computer programs are used throughout the state and require data entry and transmission at several points in the academic year. Gradequick is a program that enables teachers to electronically enter student grades. Among other tasks, the program calculates grade point averages. The grades and averages are then entered in the Edline program that is accessible by both parents and students. Administrators can access these programs to ascertain the level of progress by a particular class or student. For the 2009-2010 school year, the initial Gradequick and Edline training was conducted the first week of September 2009. Respondent attended the training session. Tienet is a computer program used to assist with the drafting of individual education plans (IEPs) for ESE students. It is a web-based program that also is used to monitor a student’s progress in accomplishing the goals and objectives on the student's IEP. Tienet generates a parent report that goes out with report cards. All students in Respondent’s 2009-2010 class were learning in accordance with an IEP. Aimsweb is a computer program that monitors compliance with state and federal guidelines regarding student achievement and progress in reading and math. Aimsweb requires that all students be tested at the beginning, middle and end of the school year. The teacher uses the initial test or “probe” to determine the child's baseline. Other probes are performed on a weekly basis throughout the school year. Petitioner can use the data to determine if a child is academically at risk and, if so, to implement interventions to address any deficiency. FAIR is a state-mandated assessment test in reading that also is given three times a year. FAIR provides for an exemption for students who are severely limited academically. However, Petitioner always completes the initial FAIR test for all students, regardless of academic ability. After assessing the results of the first probe, Petitioner can then determine whether students will be exempted from further testing. In the 2009-2010 school term, Jack Palaio was an ESE resource teacher and the Perry Primary School technology coordinator. As technology coordinator, Mr. Palaio had to make sure the teachers’ and students’ computers were up and running. He also trained staff and teachers on the use of the computer software programs referenced above. Mr. Palaio’s responsibilities included monitoring data collection and data transmission from the classrooms. On or about September 2, 2009, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent provide him with a list of her students. Mr. Palaio needed the names to made sure the students were placed in the proper Gradequick files. As of September 14, 2009, Respondent still had not provided Mr. Palaio with the list of names. In addition to the training sessions taught when school began, Mr. Palaio offered to assist Respondent on several occasions starting at the beginning of the year. At times, Respondent sought help from Mr. Palaio in person or by email. By mid-year, it should not have taken Respondent but a few minutes per student to enter weekly data on Gradequick. Aimsweb should have required no more than five minutes per student on a weekly basis. The FAIR data requires very little time because the teacher enters it while testing the students. Tienet data entry takes even less time because it requires formulation of IEPs only once a year and review and maintenance quarterly. Pam Padgett was the assistant principal at Perry Primary School. On September 15, 2009, Ms. Padgett advised Respondent to provide Ms. Padgett with a copy of Respondent’s class schedule. The schedule was necessary to show the times that Respondent intended to teach specific subject areas. On September 15, 2009, Ms. Padgett also informed Respondent that her students would need to take the initial FAIR and Aimsweb probes in order to establish baselines. Ms. Padgett advised Respondent that other staff members would do this testing for Respondent. In September 2009, two of Respondent’s students were exempt from taking the initial FAIR reading probe because of their disabilities. The two students were supposed to be tested using an alternative assessment known as the Brigance. Petitioner’s staff decided to test the two students on the FAIR material, using a paper test, in addition to the Brigance test. The Brigance test, in booklet form, was supposed to be given three times a year. Teachers used a different color to score students’ tests each time it was administered. On September 17, 2009, Mr. Palaio requested Respondent to see him about testing her students using the Brigance. Mr. Palio also offered to help Respondent set up Edline for her class. Alise Thompson is the Intervention Resource Compliance Specialist at Perry Primary School. In the 2009-2010 school year, she was responsible for ensuring that teachers properly drafted IEPs using Tienet and for scheduling IEP meetings. On September 21, 2009, Ms. Thompson instructed Respondent to prepare the IEP (goals and objectives) for a student. She reminded Respondent that the IEP meeting for the student was scheduled for September 25, 2009. On September 22, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that her class was set up in Gradequick so that she could start adding weekly grades. Mr. Palaio asked Respondent to see him for information about entering the grades in Gradequick. On September 29, 2009, Mr. Palaio again reminded Respondent that she needed to enter her grades in Gradequick so that she could send home midterm progress reports the next day. On September 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that her kindergarten student needed to have grades entered in the computer on a weekly basis for reading now and for reading, spelling, and math beginning in January. He also reminded Respondent that her first and second grade students needed grades for reading, math, and spelling. As of September 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio had prepared the midterm reports for Respondent’s first and second grade students. He also offered to do the same for the kindergarten student if Respondent would send him the necessary information. Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent that she had been provided with additional computer training in Edline and needed to post her grades in Gradequick on a weekly basis. The September 30, 2009, email to Respondent told her to put her Brigance booklets back in the students’ cumulative folders in the school office. This was necessary in order to ensure their safekeeping. On October 26, 2009, Perry Primary School was preparing to send report cards home for the first nine weeks. Mr. Palaio offered to help Respondent in this regard if she encountered any difficulty. On October 28, 2009, Mr. Palaio offered to help Respondent with entering grades in Gradequick because she was late in doing so. Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that he had corrected some of her inconsistencies, but that he was more concerned with her failure to enter all required grades for her students. Specifically, Mr. Palaio noted that Respondent had not entered grades for some children for over two weeks. George Clayton was the principal of Perry Primary School for the 2009-2010 school year. Around the end of October or the beginning of November 2009, Mr. Clayton sent Respondent a reminder that she was two weeks behind in posting her grades to Edline and entering grades to Gradequick. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to "take care of this matter." Anne Sesock, as the Response to Invention (RTI) Specialist for the 2009-2010 school term, was responsible for monitoring teachers’ data for FAIR and Aimsweb testing at Perry Primary School. Over time, Ms. Sesock became aware that Respondent was behind on her FAIR and Aimsweb testing and/or data entry. On October 29, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded all teachers that Thursday was the day they should monitor progress of their students in math using Aimsweb. Ms. Sesock had already entered the students’ names into the computer. Ms. Sesock then gave a brief description of how to perform the task. On October 30, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded certain teachers, including Respondent, that they needed to enter their reading/literacy scores into Aimsweb. This was necessary for the school to prepare for a data meeting. On October 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent that she needed to see about her Tienet progress reports that had to go home with student report cards. Mr. Palaio sent Respondent another message on October 30, 2009. In that message, Mr. Palaio stated that one of Respondent’s students still needed early literacy scores entered in Aimsweb. On November 2, 2009, Perry Primary School sent report cards home. Ms. Padgett asked Respondent to a meeting regarding Respondent’s failure to send Tienet parent reports out with report cards. On November 2009, Mr. Palaio responded to Respondent’s request for help in checking her students’ grades and parent reports. Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that he had corrected the grades in Gradequick so that she would now be entering grades for the second nine weeks. He stated that she had some grades missing and needed to be consistent in entering the grades. He also reminded Respondent that she needed to make corrections in the Tienet parent reports relating to student objectives, which should have been sent home with the last report cards. On November 17, 2009, Ms. Sesock directed Respondent to bring certain Aimsweb reading benchmark assessment sheets to a training session that afternoon. Ms. Sesock offered to enter them in the computer. In November 2009, Mr. Clayton became concerned with the lack of structure and student behavior problems in Respondent’s classroom. He subsequently initiated a plan to provide Respondent with help in this regard. On November 23, 2009, Ms. Padgett advised Respondent that a substitute would be available the next day so that Respondent could meet with school staff and the BMC consultant. The purpose of meeting was to develop a schedule and activities for Respondent’s class. On or about November 24, 2009, Respondent, the BMC consultant, and other school staff members met to develop a Tuesday/Thursday schedule for Respondent’s class. After the meeting, Respondent was supposed to develop a similar schedule for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever completed this task. The Tuesday/Thursday schedule provides for whole group time beginning at 8:00 a.m. As the day progresses, the personal assistants were assigned to work one-on-one with a student, in small groups, or large groups, while Respondent worked one-on- one or two-on-one with specific students. To supplement the Tuesday/Thursday schedule, Respondent and the BMC consultant developed a Tuesday/Thursday Lesson Plan of 1:1 or 2:1 Instructions. The lesson plan names specific students and the skills/materials to be used with that student. On December 1, 2009, BMC staff visited Respondent’s classroom to observe implementation of the new schedule. They advised Ms. Padgett that Respondent stayed on the schedule for part of the day, but failed to follow it for the rest of the day. On December 1, 2009, Ms. Padgett provided Respondent with a copy of a walk-through monitoring form to be used when she and other administrative staff visited Respondent's class. Ms. Padgett reminded Respondent to post her class schedule for all support staff during the times that Respondent and the personal assistants were working one-on-one with students and in group time. On December 2, 2009, Ms. Padgett shared BMC’s concerns with Mr. Clayton. On December 3, 2009, Ms. Padgett visited Respondent’s classroom to observe a reading lesson under the new Tuesday/Thursday schedule. Ms. Padgett noted that Respondent was behind schedule but appeared to be implementing the new plan. Ms. Padgett subsequently provided Respondent with written observations, setting forth strengths, missed opportunities, and something to work on. In December 2009, Ms. Padgett became aware that Respondent had not done the required mid-year FAIR testing or had done the testing but failed to enter the data in the computer. On December 3, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Ms. Padgett that Respondent had not started a single FAIR test. The next day, Ms. Padgett directed Respondent to begin FAIR-testing her students and to get help from Mr. Palaio and/or Ms. Sesock, if needed. On December 4, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent and another teacher that they needed to complete the regress/recoupment forms for their students before Christmas break. The forms are used three times a year to record test data on the same specific skill. The data is used to determine whether a student requires an extended school year (summer school) as an accommodation. On December 7, 2009, Mr. Clayton responded to Ms. Padgett that he was disappointed in Respondent’s failure to adhere to the new schedule. Mr. Clayton stated that he would be visiting Respondent’s class that day. From December 8, 2009, through December 11, 2009, Respondent was absent from school because she had pneumonia. During that week, Respondent came to school one time for a meeting at Mr. Clayton’s request. The meeting related to a student that would soon be entering Respondent’s class. There is no record of Respondent receiving emails from school while she was home sick. Accordingly, the following emails dated December 8 through 11 may not have been read by Respondent until she returned to school on December 14, 2009. On December 8, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. He advised her that certain students were missing a spelling score in the FAIR testing. On December 9, 2009, Ms. Thompson reminded Respondent that an IEP meeting was scheduled on December 11, 2009, for "O." Ms. Thompson had started the IEP but reminded Respondent to add the goals. The December 11, 2009, IEP meeting obviously had to be cancelled because Respondent was home sick and had not completed drafting the IEP. On December 10, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. Once again, he reminded her that she needed to enter FAIR scores for spelling. On December 11, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. Once again, he reminded Respondent to complete the regress/recoup form with all students that week. On December 16, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that the initial regress/recoup testing had been done by another staff member the week before and that he had entered the scores. Mr. Palaio provided Respondent with a spreadsheet showing the results of the first probe that needed to be repeated the first day after Christmas break and then again two weeks later. On December 17, 2009, Mr. Palaio reviewed the policy at Perry Primary School regarding the need to check email three or four times a day. Teachers were supposed to read email before school, after reading, during lunch, and after school. Respondent was advised that teachers are held responsible for knowing the information contained in school emails, including requests for specific data. On December 17, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded all teachers to complete their Aimsweb math and reading probes. Ms. Sesock wanted all teachers to enter the data that day or the next day so that the data would be available in January for intervention assistance team meetings. In an email dated January 3, 2010, Ms. Sesock wanted to know about missing scores in Respondent’s Aimsweb progress monitoring. Ms. Sesock could not run charts on the students until all scores were entered in the computer. January 4, 2010, was a teacher-planning day. During the day, Mr. Palaio sent Ms. Sesock a list of teachers, including Respondent, who had missing Aimsweb data as of December 18, 2009. Ms. Sesock responded with an email inquiring whether they could give Respondent an explicit instruction booklet on how to input scores so Respondent would learn to do it herself and quit bothering them. On January 4, 2010, Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent and other teachers that they needed to complete the second set of regress/recoup progress monitoring. He advised them to use the spreadsheet started before Christmas and to repeat the process on January 19, 2010. On January 5, 2010, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent see him about Aimsweb and Brigance. He wanted to assist her with the Brigance books and Aimsweb probes. On January 5, 2010, Respondent injured her shoulder and knee when she fell after tripping over a student at school. She was prescribed pain medication (Vicodin and Celebrex) and required to wear a leg brace. Respondent claims that the medications made her sleepy and made it difficult for her to focus. However, she did not complain to anyone at Perry Primary School that the medications were interfering with her performance. On January 8, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent and other teachers about completing IEPs. Specifically, she reminded them that they needed to enter the accommodations for each child on an individual basis. On January 11, 2010, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent see him that day. Mr. Palaio wanted to discuss Respondent’s scores for Brigance, Aimsweb, and Tienet. By January 2010, Mr. Clayton was aware that Respondent and the three personal assistants in her classroom were not working as a team. The personal assistants resented having to work with small or large groups of students while Respondent worked with students on a one-on-one or two-on-one basis. Mr. Clayton had a meeting with Respondent and her personal assistants on January 13, 2010. He gave the personal assistants a copy of their job descriptions. He reminded them that Respondent was the class leader and that they were her support staff. On January 13, 2010, Mr. Clayton told the personal assistants that they had to stay with their assigned students when BMC staff came to model implementation or observe implementation of a behavior plan. He did not want the assistants to think they could take a break every time BMC staff visited the classroom. During the January 13, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton discussed the Tuesday/Thursday schedule developed by BMC staff. He requested that Respondent develop a Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule, using the same format, and give it to him. Mr. Clayton was concerned that there was not a consistent daily routine in Respondent’s classroom. Mr. Clayton also discussed Respondent’s lesson plans during the January 13, 2010, meeting. Mr. Clayton wanted Respondent to give him a copy of her lesson plans for the upcoming week every Friday before she left school. The first Friday that Respondent should have given Mr. Clayton her lesson plans was on Friday, January 15, 2010. As a general rule, teachers kept their lesson plans, two weeks in advance, in spiral notebooks provided by the school at the beginning of the school year. Teachers were supposed to keep the lesson plan books on their desks at all times. Mr. Clayton reviewed the lesson plans on a regular basis. Mr. Clayton made the special request on January 13, 2010, about Respondent’s lesson plans because he never saw her plan book on her desk. When he asked about the plan book, Respondent always said it was in her car or at home. During the January 13, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton instructed Respondent to provide each personal assistant with a copy of the IEPs and behavior plans for each student in the class. Mr. Clayton wanted the personal assistants to be familiar with all of the students’ IEPs and behavior plans so that they would know what to do in the absence of Respondent or a colleague. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent never complied with Mr. Clayton’s directive in this regard. Finally, Mr. Clayton told Respondent on January 13, 2010, that her class would be moved that weekend from a portable classroom to a classroom in the main building. The purpose of the move was to place the class closer to the school clinic to accommodate a student with medical issues. Mr. Clayton created written minutes of the January 13, 2010, meeting to share with Respondent and the personal assistants. Following the meeting on January 13, 2010, the assistants became more cooperative. On January 13, 2010, Ms. Sesock told Respondent how important it was for her to have up-to-date progress monitoring data for Aimsweb reading and math. At that time, Respondent had not entered the required weekly progress monitoring data, seven scores in math and five scores in reading. The second benchmark assessment for Aimsweb was due to be entered between January 11, 2010, and January 15, 2010. Ms. Sesock wanted to make sure that Respondent had all the materials she needed to perform the assessment. On January 13, 2010, Ms. Thompson reminded Respondent that "O's" IEP meeting was scheduled for Friday, January 15, 2010. Ms. Thompson requested that Respondent update his academic and behavior goals before the meeting. The next day, Ms. Thompson directed Respondent to update "O's" curriculum and behavior goals. On January 15, 2010, the IEP meeting had to be rescheduled because Respondent did not have “O’s” IEP properly drafted. Ms. Thompson sent an email to Respondent, stating that Respondent needed to separate goals and objectives on the IEP by subject area. For example, Respondent needed one goal and two objectives for reading, math, and behavior. After receiving a copy of Ms. Thompson’s January 15, 2010, email to Respondent, Mr. Clayton directed Respondent to complete “O’s” IEP goals by January 19, 2010. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to put the IEP in his mailbox before she left school on the 19th. On January 15, 2010, Respondent did not provide Mr. Clayton with the lesson plans for the upcoming week. Instead, she left school early for a doctor’s appointment and took the rest of the day off. On January 19, 2010, Mr. Clayton advised Respondent that he had reviewed her Aimsweb data and that it was not updated. He told her to update the reading and math data before she left school on January 21, 2010. During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent had completed two IEPs before attempting the IEP for “O.” However, Respondent failed to complete “O’s” IEP and place it in Mr. Clayton's mailbox on January 19, 2010, as requested. On January 19, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an internet link for Tienet. Apparently, Respondent had lost the website address. On January 21, 2010, Mr. Clayton issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for “insubordination” for failing to complete “O’s” IEP on time. Respondent received the January 21, 2010, letter of reprimand, concerning the IEP, in her mailbox at school. Respondent’s failure to timely complete the IEP was gross insubordination. Respondent had been given more than enough time and assistance to properly draft the IEP. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent’s pain medication was responsible for her inability to complete the IEP. On January 21, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent that corrections still needed to be made to “O’s” IEP. Respondent was told that each area of the IEP needed a present- level statement followed by at least one goal and two objectives. Later that day, Mr. Palaio gave Respondent additional suggestions to make the IEP meet Petitioner’s ESE standards. On January 21, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. The message reminded Respondent that most of her Aimsweb scores had not been entered. On the morning of January 22, 2010, Mr. Clayton shared some of his concerns with Respondent in an email. First, he discussed Respondent’s need to conduct Aimsweb progress monitoring probes in reading and math. Second, Mr. Clayton was worried about Respondent’s failure to enter grades in Gradequick, advising her to see Mr. Palaio by the end of the day to resolve this matter. Third, Mr. Clayton reminded Respondent that she needed to be using the school-wide behavior modification program. Fourth, Mr. Clayton noted some errors in “O’s” IEP. Fifth, Mr. Clayton told Respondent not to forget to do the ESE regress/recoup form. Finally, Mr. Clayton reminded Respondent that she was supposed to provide him with a copy of her lesson plans before leaving school that afternoon. Mr. Clayton wanted to make sure that Respondent received his January 22, 2010, email. He asked his assistant to call Respondent that afternoon. Realizing that Respondent was not in her classroom, Mr. Clayton requested the assistant to call Respondent’s cell phone and her husband’s cell phone. Because Mr. Clayton could not reach Respondent, he sent her another email at 3:55 p.m., telling her to contact Mr. Palaio if she and he were still on campus. Respondent left school on Friday, January 22, 2010, without giving Mr. Clayton her lesson plans. At 5:51 p.m. on January 22, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. He reminded her to do her quarterly Tienet progress reports that were due to go home with report cards on January 27, 2010. On Monday morning, January 25, 2010, Mr. Clayton sent Respondent an email. The message stated that administration wanted to meet with her at 2:30 in Mr. Clayton’s office. Respondent was advised that she could bring union representation to the meeting. During the meeting on January 25, 2010, Mr. Clayton discussed Respondent’s failure to provide him with her lesson plans as directed. Mr. Clayton also told Respondent that her failure to complete a task by a given date constituted insubordination and served as grounds for termination. During the January 25, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton told Respondent that she had a chance to resign. Mr. Clayton stated that if she did not resign, he would contact the Superintendant and recommend her termination. Respondent could not make a decision to resign without talking to someone. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to let him know her decision by Wednesday, January 27, 2010. Respondent did not do so. At some point in time, Mr. Clayton placed a letter of reprimand, dated January 25, 2010, in Respondent's mailbox for failing to provide him a copy of her lesson plans on January 15, 2010, and on January 22, 2010. Mr. Clayton noted in the letter that he still had not received Respondent's lesson plans. Following the meeting, on January 25, 2010, Respondent got materials ready for her students for the remainder of the week. Respondent did not return to work until Monday, February 1, 2010. On January 26, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent by email that “O’s” goals and objectives were looking better. However, Ms. Thompson noted certain corrections needed to be made. Ms. Thompson placed a draft copy of the IEP, with notations, in Respondent’s mailbox. When Respondent returned to school on February 1, 2010, she gave Mr. Clayton a very detailed copy of her lesson plans for February 1, 2010, through February 12, 2010. The lesson plans were in a narrative form and not in a lesson plan book form that contains plans for a week at a glance. Even though the plans were not drafted according to Perry Primary School policy and were not the plans expected, Mr. Clayton provided Respondent with a lengthy critique of the lesson plans. On February 1, 2010, Mr. Clayton advised Respondent that she needed to complete the regress/recoup spreadsheet. He also told her that she still needed to fix “O’s” IEP by February 3, 2010, and before the IEP meeting on February 10, 2010. Mr. Clayton directed Respondent to complete the January Brigance testing before she left work on February 5, 2010. On February 1, 2010, Ms. Padgett sent Respondent an email regarding the reading programs in Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Padgett told Respondent that Ms. Padgett and the BMC staff had made certain decisions about the reading program while Respondent was absent from school. On February 2, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent that "O's" IEP was better. However, Ms. Thompson noted that Respondent needed to work on the reading goal and two objectives. On February 3, 2010, Ms. Thompson stated that she had met with Mr. Palaio and that he had offered some suggestions for “O’s” IEP. Ms. Thompson's message included a copy of a draft IEP prepared by Mr. Palaio. In a letter dated February 3, 2010, Mr. Clayton recommended that the Superintendant terminate Respondent’s employment. The letter references Respondent’s failure to provide him with lesson plans and the associated reprimand. The letter does not refer to Respondent’s reprimand for not completing the IEP goals. Mr. Clayton’s February 3, 2010, letter also included the following deficiencies: (a) Respondent never provided the personal assistants with the student behavior plans as instructed on January 13, 2010; (b) Respondent did not have her Brigance testing up to date; and (c) Respondent’s Aimsweb data was not up to date. In a letter dated February 5, 2010, Paul Dyal, Superintendant of Taylor County School District, advised Respondent that her employment was suspended with pay as of February 8, 2010. Mr. Dyal stated that the action was based on Respondent’s insubordination as outlined in Mr. Clayton’s February 3, 2010, letter. Mr. Dyal’s letter was hand-delivered to Respondent on February 5, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That The Taylor County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela M. Ball, Esquire Post Office Box 734 Perry, Florida 32348 Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Dyal, Superintendent Taylor County School District Alton J. Wentworth Administrative Office Complex 318 North Clark Street Perry, Florida 32347 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment with Petitioner due to unsatisfactory performance in accordance with Subsection 1012.34(3) (d), Florida Statutes (2009) .*
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. 2. Respondent is employed as a teacher by the Petitioner, pursuant to a professional services contract. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent began working as a sixth-grade mathematics teacher at Buffalo Creek Middle School (Buffalo Creek). The principal of Buffalo Creek was Scott Cooper (Cooper). During the 2007-2008 school year, Janet Roland (Roland) was the assistant principal at Buffalo Creek. 3. In or around December 2007, Respondent met with Cooper to discuss a parent telephone call. Cooper received a complaint from a parent about the grade the parent’s child received in Respondent's class. During the meeting, Cooper asked Respondent to detail her grading system. Respondent informed Cooper that she used a point system and explained how the system was beneficial to the students in her class, most of whom were below grade level and did not test well. 4. During the meeting in December 2007, Cooper logged into Respondent’s Pinnacle account in her presence and changed the weighting of her grades in various ways to see how the change would affect the students’ grades. Respondent did not agree to weight her grades and continued to use a point system. 5. Later in December, Respondent noticed that some of her grades were changed. She did not tell anyone of the alterations, but merely changed the grades back to be accurate. However, Respondent noticed that her grades where changed a second time and contacted the Manatee County School District’s (District) grade book administrator, Don Taylor (Taylor), out of concern. Taylor looked into the matter and, eventually, referred it to the District’s Office of Professional Standards, which conducted an investigation. The result of the investigation, which concluded in or around July 2008, showed that Cooper logged into Respondent’s Pinnacle account, without her knowledge or consent, and altered many of her grades. 6. Cooper was responsible for counseling teachers regarding performance issues. He walked through Respondent’s class every two-to-four weeks, but did not discuss with Respondent any other alleged performance deficiencies during the 2007-2008 school year. 7. Cooper was found guilty of misconduct by the District and was given a letter of reprimand. Cooper was soon thereafter demoted to a teaching position. During the first week of school of the 2009-2010 school year, Cooper apologized to Respondent for altering her grades. 8. Prior to becoming employed at Buffalo Creek, Respondent taught language arts at Lincoln Middle School (Lincoln). During her tenure at Lincoln, Respondent received all positive evaluations and was not informed of any perceived deficiencies in her performance. 9. During the 2008-2009 school year, Petitioner adopted the Manatee Core Curriculum (MCC) as a standardized curriculum to be implemented in the District’s four core subjects: math, language arts, social studies, and science. The MCC aimed to promote a consistent curriculum among the schools within the District, many of whom serve a transient population. The MCC is composed of prescribed units of study intended to promote student achievement of specific educational benchmarks, which are established by the state and assessed through statewide FCAT testing. Each unit is prescribed a specific duration of study to ensure that all units are covered during the course of the academic calendar and to ensure that the students are provided an opportunity to learn the skills and information required for promotion to the next grade level. In addition to traditional assessments such as homework, quizzes, and tests, students are required to complete a Unit Performance Assessment (UPA) at the end of each unit to assess progress and understanding of the covered concepts. 10. Petitioner has also adopted a standardized grade book, called Pinnacle, which all teachers in the District are required to maintain. Pinnacle is a computerized grade book system, in which teachers are required to enter all grades, assignments, and assessments provided to the students during the school year. Pinnacle can be accessed by both parents and administrators and was adopted by Petitioner as a means of communicating students’ progress to parents by providing instant and up to date access to their students’ grading history throughout the various stages of the MCC. The main benefit of Pinnacle is that it provides both teachers and parents a tool for identifying, in a timely manner, those students who may be having difficulties achieving the benchmarks evaluated by the MCC. Teachers are required to enter all of the students’ assessments in a timely manner in order to maintain an accurate and up-to-date picture of the students’ progress. District policy does not require weighting, but does require that grades be input into Pinnacle. Petitioner’s expectation is that teachers enter grades within two weeks of a given assessment. Thus, Pinnacle became a source of communication between parents and teachers. 11. Unfortunately, very few of the parents of Petitioner’s teachers requested a username, and other identifiers, and, thus, did not have access to the tool. 12. During the 2008-2009 school year, Petitioner employed Respondent, under a professional services contract, as a sixth- grade mathematics teacher at Buffalo Creek. The principal of Buffalo Creek during the 2008-2009 school year continued to be Cooper, and the newly-appointed assistant principal was Sharon Scarbrough (Scarbrough). Scarbrough was assigned the responsibility of evaluating the performance of certain teachers, including Respondent. Respondent was included in Scarbrough’s responsibility in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. 13. During the first quarter of the 2008-2009 school year, Scarbrough identified certain issues relating to Respondent's performance, including the inordinately high failure rate among students in Respondent’s class. Several parents requested the transfer of their students out of Respondent’s class due to concerns that the students were not learning. 14. In grading her students, Respondent assigned different point values to each type of student assessment. Tests and UPAs were worth 100 points each, quizzes were worth 50 points each, and homework was worth ten points. As a teacher, Respondent had discretion as to how many tests and quizzes to administer, as well as how much homework she assigned and what point value to assign each assessment. 15. UPAs are project-based assessments given at the end of each unit of the MCC. UPAs are required by the MCC. 16. Respondent generally assigned homework to her students two or three times a week. When the students returned to class, they would grade their own homework for accuracy, while Respondent went over the answers on an overhead (ELMO) projector. Respondent required that the students redo the problems that they got wrong on the homework while they were reviewing it. The students then passed the homework forward to Respondent, who would grade the homework for effort, and would eventually log the grades in Pinnacle. Only the students who completely failed to complete the assignment were given a zero. 17. In addition to Pinnacle, Respondent communicated with the parents of her students through an agenda (initialed daily by Respondent and parents), progress reports, grading their own homework, and grade reports sent home every couple of weeks for parents’ signature. 18. All teachers at Buffalo Creek are required to prepare and have available for inspection, on the Friday before the next week, weekly lesson plans. They are critical not only as an established agenda to assist the teacher in maintaining pace with the MCC, but also as a mechanism to assist the administration in identifying those teachers who are not maintaining the required pace. 19. Scarbrough noted that Respondent was not submitting lesson plans in a timely fashion. Scarbrough engaged Respondent in informal conversations concerning these issues on at least three occasions in the fall of 2008. Respondent admitted to turning in her lesson plans late on occasions, but explained that she was always prepared for class and that she kept more detailed plans in her own lesson plan book. 20. During this same time period, Petitioner’s mathematics curriculum specialist, Joseph McNaughton (McNaughton), noted that Respondent had fallen well behind the pace for instruction established by the MCC. The MCC prescribed ten units of curriculum to be covered in sixth-grade math classes at set times during the school year. By the end of the first quarter, Respondent had completed only one of the ten units and had fallen 25 to 30 days behind the instructional pace established by the MCC. Respondent explained that she was behind in the curriculum due to the fact that: (1) it was her second year teaching math, (2) it was the first year of the MCC, (3) the unit itself included many components, and (4) many of her students lacked the requisite basic skills to comprehend the lesson. 21. On October 28, 2008, Scarbrough held a formal conference with Respondent, identifying various concerns with Respondent’s performance and addressing her expectations for improvement. Scarbrough noted that Respondent submitted untimely lesson plans eight of the ten weeks and informed Respondent that she was expected to submit her lesson plans the Friday before the week’s lessons are taught. Scarbrough addressed the fact that Respondent only completed Unit 1 of the McC during the first quarter and that Respondent was well behind the required pace of instruction. McNaughton was asked to assist Respondent in getting caught up with the curriculum. Respondent expressed a concern to McNaughton that the students did not possess the requisite knowledge coming in from fifth grade to complete the unit. 22. Scarbrough noted various omissions and inconsistencies in Respondent’s Pinnacle grade book entries and informed Respondent of the expectation that her grade book be timely and accurately maintained. Respondent admitted to failing to input the grades of approximately 23 students who had recently transferred to her class. However, she explained that the failure to input the grades was due to the failure of the original teachers to give the grades to Respondent, despite her repeated requests for the information. 23. Scarbrough noted that 59 percent of Respondent’s students received a “D” or “F” for the first quarter, which Scarbrough characterized as “an excessively high number of students not being successful” in comparison with other sixth- grade classes. Many of the students receiving failing, or near failing, grades in Respondent’s class were successful in their other subjects. Respondent admitted that she occasionally failed to comply with the District’s policy requiring teachers to input grades within two weeks of the assessment, but she 10 generally adhered to the policy. Further, teachers often used an X or Z to represent grades not assigned a numeric value in their grade books. Respondent explained to Scarbrough that in certain reports, the X or Z did not print and appeared to be blank. 24. Scarbrough noted that Respondent had failed to enter a grade for Unit 1, which was a requirement of the MCC. Respondent administered the UPA Unit 1 during the last week of the first quarter and input the grades into Pinnacle. Scarbrough also informed Respondent that grading and record- keeping are essential to basic teacher skills. Respondent denied having 59 percent of her students receiving a “D” or “F” in her class. She explained that the grades were inaccurate, due, at least in part, to the lack of transfer grades from the other teachers. 25. As a result of these concerns, Scarbrough issued Respondent a formal notice of return to documentation, dated October 28, 2008. Documentation is a procedure utilized by Petitioner to allow administration to formally observe its professional service contract employees at a date and time determined by the employee and to draft performance evaluations. The purpose of observing Respondent was to identify the root cause of her performance issues, so that Scarbrough could assist Respondent to improve upon them. Respondent understood that she 11 was being placed on documentation due to the issues outlined in the letter, dated October 28, 2008, from Scarbrough. She began an attempt to remedy the perceived deficiencies immediately by working with two resource teachers. Respondent also amended her policy of not accepting late work from students in an effort to boost the students’ grades. She also put together a packet of work and sent it home with the students over winter break, conducted an academic “boot camp,” asked administration to meet with parents, and asked Scarbrough to send out an automated telephone message to parents to make them aware of the makeup work. In addition, Respondent input her grades into Pinnacle in a timely manner. 26. Petitioner also provided Respondent professional development coaching with Specialist Amy Booth (Booth), who was hired by Petitioner to assist instructional staff with various issues relating to grade book maintenance, organization, time management, and execution of daily lessons, and Peggy Wolfe (Wolfe), who was hired by the Manatee Education Association (MEA) for the same purpose. Upon Wolfe’s request, Scarbrough agreed to delay formal observation of Respondent, until March of 2009, to allow Booth and Wolfe additional time to assist Respondent in improving her performance issues before being formally observed. 12 27. Petitioner also provided Respondent the opportunity to work directly with McNaughton to develop strategies and techniques for maintaining the instructional pace required by the MCC. McNaughton assisted Respondent in making revisions to the MCC in an effort to cover all the instructional units before the end of the school year. 28. McNaughton intended to present a “model lesson” to Respondent's classes while Respondent observed. The model lesson would provide Respondent the opportunity to observe beneficial instructional techniques demonstrated by McNaughton, while providing McNaughton an opportunity to assess whether any nuances existed within the classroom, or among Respondent's students, that might reveal the cause of the issues related to the instructional pacing and lack of student achievement. 29. At the request of Respondent, however, the model lesson was cancelled. Instead, Respondent accompanied McNaughton to another middle school within the District to observe another teacher present a lesson. 30. In January or February of 2009, Scarbrough conducted her first formal observation of Respondent. Students are assigned “bell work” at the start of each class, which is “start up” work for students to complete while the teacher performs administrative tasks such as attendance. Bell work assignments should typically take five-to-ten minutes to complete. 13 Respondent spent nearly half of the class period assisting her students complete bell work, which left only half of the class period for the scheduled instruction. Respondent did not complete the scheduled instruction. 31. On February 24, 2009, Cooper and Scarbrough held a formal conference with Respondent to discuss continued concerns with her performance. Respondent's Pinnacle grade book entries indicated that 66 percent (69/104) of the students in Respondent's combined classes were receiving an “F” at the time of third-quarter progress reports. Respondent’s Pinnacle grade book entries also revealed that Respondent was not recording student assessments in a timely manner and that Respondent failed to enter grades of any type for the first half of the third quarter. Cooper and Scarbrough reiterated Petitioner's expectation that students’ grades be entered within two weeks of a given assignment and that frequent and ongoing assessment of students’ progress and timely feedback to students are essential components of effective teaching and vital for student learning. Cooper and Scarbrough also reiterated the expectation that lesson plans be submitted in a timely manner, as Respondent continued to fall short of this expectation. 32. On March 2, 2009, Scarbrough conducted another formal observation of Respondent. Scarbrough noted that Respondent was still well behind the required MCC pacing, despite McNaughton’s 14 assistance and revision of the curriculum. Respondent's Pinnacle grade book entries demonstrated a lack of variety in the type of assessments utilized by Respondent to monitor students’ progress and failure on the part of Respondent to record assessments in a timely manner. However, on the appraisal form, Scarbrough indicated that Respondent had successfully demonstrated each of the requisite areas, except Area 7, regarding using technology in instruction. Scarbrough marked they are “not yet demonstrated” due to a question as to how often Respondent entered her grades into Pinnacle. 33. On March 24, 2009, Scarbrough conducted a third formal observation of Respondent. Respondent took nearly the entire class period to review one problem and held the students after the end of class to assign homework. During their post- observation conference, Scarbrough emphasized the need for Respondent to utilize a lesson plan as a schedule of topics to cover to assist Respondent in maintaining pace with the MCC. 34. On March 25, 2009, Cooper issued Respondent a formal written reprimand for “failure to meet expectations for curriculum implementation, and for lack of adequate, timely and appropriate student assessment, and grade reporting.” Respondent remained three units behind the pacing required to successfully complete the MCC by the end of the school year, which placed her students at risk of not acquiring the math 15 skills needed to advance to the next grade level. Respondent failed to record expected UPA grades in her Pinnacle grade book. Cooper reiterated that completion of a UPA for every unit is a “non-negotiable requirement for implementation of the [MCC].” Respondent failed to adequately assess student progress through tests and quizzes and continued to record grades in an untimely manner. Cooper stated that the high failure rate among students in Respondent’s classes was directly related to these deficiencies and that further recurrence of the actions identified would result in further discipline. 35. On April 2, 2009, Scarbrough placed Respondent on a 90-day probation, due to unsatisfactory performance. Despite instruction and modification of the curriculum from McNaughton, Respondent failed to complete required UPAs and remained three units behind the pacing required by the MCC. Respondent demonstrated poor time management, lesson planning, and lesson execution, as evidenced by her observed inability to complete her daily lessons within the allotted class time and her failure to maintain pace with the MCC. Respondent performed little or no assessment of her students’ progress during the third quarter through homework, quizzes, and tests, as evidenced by her Pinnacle grade book entries. 36. Respondent’s students continued to receive an inordinate number of failing and nearly failing grades. In the 16 first quarter of the 2008-2009 school year, 59 percent of Respondent's students received a final grade of “D” or “F.” In the second quarter of the 2008-2009 school year, 62 percent of Respondent’s students received a final grade of “D” or ‘F.” In the third quarter of the 2008-2009 school year, 47 percent of Respondent’s students received a final grade of “D” or “F." The inordinate number of students failing to succeed was particularly troubling since Respondent's class load was the lowest on campus, and her class size average was the smallest in comparison to other core classes. Numerous parents indicated that Respondent was not keeping them adequately informed of students’ progress and requested that their students be transferred from Respondent’s class. Parents complained that Respondent failed to respond to telephone calls and e-mails ina timely manner. 37. Scarbrough provided Respondent written notice of these deficiencies and of the procedural requirements relating to the probationary period. Scarbrough also provided Respondent a Formal Improvement Notice, reiterating her performance deficiencies and expectations for improvement and identifying the assistance available to her, including continued coaching and instruction from Booth, Wolfe, and McNaughton. Scarbrough met with Respondent, Booth, and Wolfe to formulate strategies for Respondent’s continued evaluation. 17 38. On April 24, 2009, Scarbrough conducted a fourth formal observation of Respondent. Respondent again took nearly half of class to complete bell work and utilized only minimal time for actual instruction. Scarbrough noted in her post- observation conference that Respondent needed to reduce/eliminate this time management issue. Respondent also failed to maintain her Pinnacle grade book entries in a timely manner. 39. On May 20, 2009, Scarbrough conducted a fifth formal observation of Respondent. Respondent failed to continue to adequately assess students’ progress and to provide a variety of assessments, as evidenced by the fact that she had given only one quiz and completed only one UPA at the time of the observation. Respondent continued to enter assessments in her Pinnacle grade book in an untimely manner and failed to enter any grade for UPA Unit 7. Respondent continued to submit her lesson plans in an untimely manner. 40. Scarbrough observed Respondent on May 20, 2009, and made notations on the teacher appraisal form. After this observation, Scarbrough marked Respondent demonstrated all of the requisite areas aside from Areas 10 and 14, regarding demonstrating improvement in students’ performance through assessment and adhering to the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct, respectively. Scarbrough felt Respondent 18 did not demonstrate Area 10, because Respondent had administered only one quiz and one UPA in a month, and the quiz grades were not entered into Pinnacle timely. Scarbrough marked Respondent deficient in Area 14, because she did not turn in all of her lesson plans in a timely manner. 41. On June 2, 2009, Scarbrough completed the Teacher Performance Appraisal Feedback Summary Form, summarizing Respondent’s performance during probation. Scarbrough found that Respondent demonstrated all areas with the exception of Areas 10 and 14. She noted that Respondent still has some areas to improve upon such as lesson planning, assessments, and grading. Scarbrough gave her opinion that Respondent had not improved upon her identified deficiencies and that her performance remained unsatisfactory. 42. However, on cross-examination, Scarbrough reluctantly agreed that Respondent did improve in many areas outlined in the probation notice, including proper use of daily agenda and bell work. The number of “D’s” and “F’s” in Respondent’s classes decreased. Scarbrough also admitted that Respondent completed the MCC by the end of the year, without skipping any units. She also admitted that after receiving only two complaints from teachers whose classrooms were located a far distance from Respondent, she spoke to Respondent about letting her students out on time, and the situation was remedied. Scarbrough 19 admitted that she did not compare the amount of assessments administered by other sixth-grade mathematic teachers when deciding that Respondent did not administer enough tests or quizzes. 43. Effective August 18, 2009, Respondent voluntarily transferred to Electa Lee Magnet Middle School (Electa Lee), upon the retirement of another teacher. Respondent received approval for transfer up the chain of command to the superintendant. 44. The law provides that a teacher who holds a professional services 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. 45. In light of Respondent’s transfer, Scarbrough met with Scot Boice (Boice), principal of Electa Lee, and Darcy Hopko (Hopko), Petitioner’s director of Human Resources, to review Respondent’s performance issues, the process associated with the statutory probationary period, and the deadline for the end of probation. Teachers were required to report for the 2009-2010 school year on August 18, 2009. At the meeting, Scarbrough, Boice, and Hopko determined that Respondent’s probation expired on September 19, 2010. When Respondent transferred to Electa Lee, she had completed 58 of the 90 days’ probation. He also 20 reviewed only the letter placing Respondent on probation. He did not review her personnel file or other relevant documents. 46. Boice assigned Respondent a position as a sixth-grade math teacher at Electa Lee. On August 25, 2009, Boice and Electa Lee Assistant Principal Wally Hunter met with Respondent to discuss her continued formal observation and the remaining probationary process. 47. On September 3, 2009, Boice again met Respondent to schedule her formal observation. Respondent chose September 10, 2009, at 1:30 p.m., as the date and time for Boice to observe her. 48. Prior to the September 10, 2009, formal observation, Boice did a few walkthroughs of Respondent’s classroom, but never for more than five minutes. 49. On September 10, 2009, Boice conducted his formal observation of Respondent. Boice noted that Respondent took 26 minutes to complete administrative tasks and to assign bell work at the start of class. Respondent did not begin the scheduled lesson until the final ten minutes of class. Boice also observed Respondent releasing students from class late, because they were unable to complete the lesson during the allotted class time. 50. Boice was unable to sufficiently observe some of Respondent’s identified performance deficiencies due to the 21 limited time Respondent worked at Electa Lee prior to the end of her probation. For example, Boice was not able to sufficiently observe the manner, variety, and adequacy of the assessment tools used by Respondent to evaluate student progress, such as homework, quizzes, and tests. Respondent had not yet completed UPA Unit 1 at the time of the formal observation. Respondent provided Boice, as an example of her assessment of the students, a short, handwritten quiz composed of only four or five questions. Boice determined that the quiz was not adequate, but did not give her an opportunity to correct the problem. 51. Boice was also unable to sufficiently observe Respondent's performance in communication with parents, including her timely maintenance of the Pinnacle grade book. Boice informed Respondent that training on proper use of technology in assessment of students, including Pinnacle training, would be provided to all staff at Electa Lee during in-service on September 25, 2009, six days after the 90-day probationary period ended. 52. Despite her prior observed deficiencies, during her probation, in the area of Pinnacle, Respondent failed to attend the in-service training. However, Respondent also failed to schedule her absence in advance, but stated that she was on campus that day, but did not have access to a computer, so she did not attend the in-service. 22 53. On October 1, 2009, Scarbrough and Boice authored a letter to the superintendent of schools, detailing Respondent’s continued unsatisfactory performance. Based on their combined observations and assessments, Scarbrough and Boice concluded that Respondent was still not competent in planning, implementing, and presenting effective lessons and communicating effectively with parents. 54. On October 13, 2009, the superintendent recommended the termination of Respondent’s employment pursuant to Subsection 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. 55. In the letter to the superintendent, Boice and Scarbrough relied almost exclusively on Respondent’s past performance, in coming to the conclusion that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected her performance deficiencies. The reasons cited in the letter were those identified in the initial April 2, 2009, probation letter, including lesson planning, students’ assessment, instruction/presentation of subject matter, and communication. The basis for purported deficiencies was Respondent's behavior at Buffalo Creek and, to a much lesser degree, the short observations while Respondent was at Electa Lee. 56. Boice conducted a single observation of Respondent, of less than one class period, on September 10, 2009. Boice took notes regarding the observation on a Teacher Performance 23 Appraisal Feedback Summary Form and provided a copy of that form to Respondent at a meeting the following day. Boice marked that Respondent had demonstrated four of the 14 areas and that she did not demonstrate three areas. Boice felt he did not have enough information in the short time he observed Respondent to form an opinion as to the other seven areas. 57. Boice marked that Respondent did not demonstrate Area 1 because the bell work her students completed took a long time to complete, due, in part, to the fact that Respondent walked up and down the aisles to initial the students’ agendas. Boice also marked Respondent deficient in Area 7, regarding using technology in instruction, because she only employed the use of an ELMO and Pinnacle. Finally, Boice marked Respondent as not having demonstrated knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject matter based upon his understanding that she tolda student that she did not know how to complete a problem. 58. At the meeting with Boice to discuss his notes regarding the observation, Respondent told Boice that she believes she promotes the students’ independent development and learning and that she is extremely enthusiastic about math. Respondent denied having told a student that she did not know how to complete a problem, but explained that she told the class she would calculate an answer and have it for them in the next class period. Respondent further explained that she used an 24 ELMO and Pinnacle during the class and that she did not have computers present in the classroom to use other types of technology. While working at Electa Lee, Respondent received only one parent concern. After a parent-teacher conference, the parent appeared satisfied. Respondent requested that Boice observe her for a second time, but Boice declined and indicated that they were on a timeline. 59. The administrators at Buffalo Creek and Electa Lee had never put any other teacher on performance probation other than Respondent. Cooper and Roland each testified that they did not believe Respondent was incompetent during the 2007-2008 school year. Cooper stated that during his walkthroughs during the 2008-2009 school year, he did not witness any behavior by Respondent that made him feel she was ineffective or having any problems. McNaughton also testified that he did not observe any behavior by Respondent that would lead him to believe she was incompetent or ineffective. 60. The District expected the FCAT math scores of sixth- grade students to be lower after implementation of the MCC. Students at Electa Lee in 2008-2009 followed that pattern, and their scores were lower than the previous years’ scores. The summaries provided by the District showed that the number of students ranked at a level one, who were in fifth grade in 2008, increased by 13 percent by the time they took the FCAT in 2009. 25 Also, the number of students in that same group who were ranked at level four decreased 11 percent during that same time. Further, the Student Dashboard reports showed that overall, Respondent’s students at Eletra Lee were improving their math FCAT scores from the previous year (comparing previous FCAT scores to first-quarter benchmark scores). 61. Many other teachers turned their lesson plans in late while working at Buffalo Creek. Further, Respondent did not teach any advanced classes during 2008-2009 or 2009-2010 school years. Of all of Respondent’s students during the 2008-2009 school year, she had two students who were ranked at a level four on a scale of one to five. The rest of the students were ranked at a three or lower. 62. Other mathematics teachers in the District fell behind during the first year of the MCC, including every mathematics teacher at Electa Lee. Pacing, although it was described as “suggestive,” was treated as mandatory to Respondent. 63. The purpose of performance probation is to allow a teacher an opportunity, through coaching and other assistance, to remedy any performance deficiencies. 64. At the hearing, under cross-examination, Boice testified that he had no problem with Respondent inputting grades or otherwise using the Pinnacle online grade book. Boice also testified that Respondent's grade distribution was 26 acceptable and that he did not have a problem with her not having her lesson plans complete in a timely manner. 65. Respondent weighted her grades while working at Electa Lee. The Grade History Verification report dated September 1, 2009, shows that ten of 80, or 12 percent, of Respondent’s students were earning a “D” or “F” at that point. 66. Boice testified that Respondent did not have any problems in her assessment of students and that Respondent was not having trouble keeping up with the MCC during her time at Electa Lee. In general, Boice found that Respondent’s grading and recordkeeping were acceptable. He also found that Respondent was working within the guidelines of the UPA Unit 1 and the MCC. 67. Boice did not consider extending the probationary period to allow Respondent an opportunity to establish that she had remedied all of the perceived deficiencies in her performance. Instead, he deferred to the information provided to him by Scarbrough for the prior year and related Respondent's present performance in August and September 2009 to her past performance at Buffalo Creek. This was clearly wrong. Respondent appeared to have made significant progress in remedying her performance deficiencies. Boice’s conduct short- circuited that progress and did not permit a thorough observation to be complete before recommending termination. 27
Conclusions For Petitioner: Brian Ussery, Esquire Erin G. Jackson, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A. Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33602 For Respondent: Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Manatee County School Board enter a final order that: (a) finds that Petitioner has not proven that Respondent has not satisfactorily corrected the performance deficiencies noted against her; that, (b) Respondent’s contract be reinstated; and that (c) Respondent be awarded back salary, plus benefits, to the extent these accrued during the suspension period. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2010. 39
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Petitioner, Osceola County School Board (School Board or Petitioner), has just cause to terminate Respondents Mona Sagar and Kristie Gilmore from their employment contracts.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is duly constituted and charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Osceola County, Florida. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; ch. 1012, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore were employed by the School District. Ms. Sagar has been in the education field for years. She attended “teachers college” in Trinidad and taught school there for ten years. She was hired as a paraprofessional (para) by the School District in 2011. Ms. Sagar was assigned to an autistic classroom at Discovery Intermediate School (Discovery) and later switched to an “intellectually disabled mild” (InD mild) classroom. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Sagar was the para assigned to the “intellectually disabled severe” (InD severe) class. The InD severe class had a teacher and two paras,7/ and was composed of children who were mainly confined to wheelchairs or who needed special assistance to walk. Ms. Sagar completed the crisis prevention intervention (CPI) class, a class that instructs personnel on how to physically and verbally restrain, redirect, and prompt a child who is misbehaving. Ms. Gilmore became a para in exceptional student education (ESE) in 2005. She arrived at Discovery in August 2005. Ms. Gilmore worked with students with varying educational needs including: emotional behavior disorder (EBD); autism; InD mild; intellectually disabled moderate (InD moderate); intellectually disabled profound (InD profound); and regular educational students.8/ Ms. Gilmore had completed the CPI training twice before, but she was not re-certified at the start of the 2013-2014 school year. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. Discovery had six self-contained ESE classrooms for the 2013-2014 school year. There were two autistic classrooms, one InD mild classroom, one InD moderate classroom, one InD severe classroom, and one EBD classroom. All six classrooms are located on the first floor of one of Discovery’s buildings, in close proximity to the office of the dean of students. Student safety is of paramount concern for School District employees. As such, every EBD classroom has a land-line telephone and a walkie-talkie for use to request assistance, to notify the appropriate office of a student’s unscheduled exit from the classroom and to provide other information. The telephone is primarily a school-based phone that has its own five-digit internal extension number.9/ In the event a walkie-talkie is not available, a teacher or para may use the telephone to communicate with other school personnel. The walkie-talkies are limited to the self-contained classrooms, guidance counselors, deans, school resource officer, administrators, principal’s secretary, academic coaches, athletic coaches, and maintenance staff. The walkie-talkies are on one channel or frequency, and when used, everyone who has a walkie- talkie can hear the conversation. Discipline referrals may be written by any adult at Discovery for any infraction in the student code of conduct. The referral form reflects the student’s name, identification number, the classroom, school, grade level, date of birth, race, sex, homeroom teacher, incident date and time, location of the incident, the problem or explanation of the problem, the action taken by the adult prior to the referral, the signature of the referring adult, and the date signed. The bottom of the referral form was for “administrative use only,” and reflects what if any action was taken. Ms. Gilmore, as the para in the EBD self- contained classroom, authored numerous discipline referrals for student J.G. During the 2013 summer, Ms. Chowdhary was notified that she would be re-assigned to Discovery’s EBD self-contained classroom for the 2013-2014 school year. Ms. Chowdhary did not want this assignment; however, Ms. Chowdhary contacted Ms. Gilmore and asked if she (Ms. Gilmore) would consent to be Ms. Chowdhary’s para in her EBD self-contained classroom. This request was based on their positive working relationship during the 2012-2013 school year in an autistic classroom. Ms. Gilmore agreed, the school administration concurred, and Ms. Gilmore was assigned to Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year there were ten male students in Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. This classroom had a walkie-talkie and telephone. Each student had an individual educational plan (IEP), a different EBD, and a medical condition. On the first day of school, each student was given a welcome packet that contained an emergency contact sheet and a health care report form. The parents are requested (but not required) to complete as much of the information as they wish, and return it to the classroom. Ms. Gilmore read the responses “thoroughly” regarding the medical conditions of students J.G. and J.C., as provided by their respective parents or guardians. In early December 2013, Ms. Gilmore was re-assigned to an InD moderate classroom as an accommodation for her pregnancy. Ms. Chowdhary requested a male para to replace Ms. Gilmore. Based on the support staff already engaged by Discovery, Ms. Sagar was transferred to work in Ms. Chowdhary’s self- contained classroom. Ms. Sagar observed and worked with Ms. Gilmore on two separate days for several hours prior to the actual transfer in mid-December. Approximately two weeks before the Christmas break, a female student, J.T., arrived in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. was taller and heavier than either Ms. Chowdhary or Ms. Sagar. J.T.’s language was loud and predominantly profanity-laced. J.T. did not complete her classroom assignments, and she did not follow the classroom rules regarding the use of her cellphone.10/ On January 9, 2014, Ms. Gilmore learned that Ms. Chowdhary was absent from school. Ms. Gilmore volunteered to be the substitute teacher in Ms. Chowdhary’s classroom.11/ In the early afternoon of January 9, two male students engaged in a physical altercation (Altercation No. 1) in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. took out her cellphone and recorded Altercation No. 1 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 6, Respondents’ Exhibit 21). That recording showed one student, J.G., standing over and taunting another student, J.C. J.G. called J.C. a “taco.” J.C. responded that J.G. should call J.C. “Taco Bell,” and added that J.G. was the dark meat in his taco. J.G. took J.C.’s remark to be a racist comment. J.C.12/ was crumpled on the floor behind a desk where J.G. grabbed J.C. by his warm-up jacket collar/shirt. J.G. pulled J.C. up by the collar/shirt and pushed J.C. into a chair at a computer cubby and small space near a wall. J.G. kept one hand on J.C. while pinning J.C. to the small space. J.G. continued to taunt J.C. and is heard to say: Next comment I’m gonna stomp on your [J.C.’s] heart, and I know you got a condition to where I stomp on it, you dead, and I don’t give a f . So you can’t keep making a racist joke. Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were both present and observed Altercation No. 1. Ms. Gilmore was sitting at the teacher’s desk in the front of the room when Altercation No. 1 started. When J.G. “dumped [J.C.] out of the chair,” [to start the altercation], [Ms. Gilmore] told J.G. to “knock it off,” and when J.G. had J.C. on the floor, she [Ms. Gilmore] “told him to quit.” Ms. Gilmore testified that she didn’t call for help because “It was over.” Her testimony is not credible because the recording shows that J.G. then pulled J.C. up to a standing position, and continued to taunt him. Further, Respondents’ Exhibit 16 is a discipline referral that Ms. Gilmore authored on January 9, the day of the altercations. Ms. Gilmore documented in this discipline referral the following “PROBLEM – EXPLAIN:” During Science class, 5th period, [J.G.] was talking about how he fights and got into an altercation with another student. Words were exchanged and [J.G.] didn’t like what the student [J.C.] said so he [J.G.] flipped him [J.C.] out of his chair, kicked him [J.C.] a couple times and threatened to kill the other student [J.C.] by stomping on his [J.C.’s] heart. Ms. Sagar was seated at a desk assisting another student, J.M., when Altercation No. 1 started. Ms. Sagar did not hear any loud shouting or threats at the beginning of Altercation No. 1, but it escalated to the point where she was “alarmed.” Ms. Sagar admitted that she got up to leave the room, then decided not to do so, telling herself: “I shouldn’t leave the class at this time.” The reason she did not leave the classroom was because the altercation “wasn’t settled like down, down, down. It still had like the talking and everybody, so I turned around and came back to my seat.” Ms. Sagar did not move to intervene or call for help. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar moved to intervene in Altercation No. 1, and neither used the walkie-talkie or the telephone to call for assistance or to alert the administration of the volatile situation. A few minutes later another altercation (Altercation No. 2) took place in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. also recorded Altercation No. 2 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 8) on her cellphone. J.G. was again taunting J.C. J.G. dared J.C. to “take a swing” at J.G. J.C. did not swing at J.G. J.G. proceeded to talk to the class about J.C. and other classmates. J.C. then expressed his desire to die because his life “sucks,” his father was dead, and his step-father didn’t love him. J.C. violently kicked/pushed a chair several feet away from himself, began to cry, stated that he’d be “happy if you [J.G.] kill me,” violently overturned a desk, and walked out of the EBD self- contained classroom. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the EBD self-contained classroom, and observed Altercation No. 2. During Altercation No. 2, Ms. Gilmore was at the front of the class at the teacher’s desk. Ms. Gilmore confirmed that J.C. “flipped a desk and walked out of class.” Ms. Gilmore testified she “opened the door, . . . and put myself at the doorway to get the rest of the kids out of the class if I had to get them out.” Ms. Gilmore is briefly partially seen in the recording, and she is heard asking J.C. to pick up the desk before he left the classroom. J.C. did not pick up the desk. The recording shows Ms. Sagar seated at a work table with J.M. At one point Ms. Sagar rises from her seat, walks to a counter with a microwave, stays at the counter for a short time, returns to her seat, and then eats something while Altercation No. 2 is on-going. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar used the walkie- talkie or telephone to obtain assistance or alert the administration of the continuing volatile situation. J.C. went to the dean of students (Ms. Rice’s) office after he walked out of the EBD self-contained classroom. Once there, he screamed at Ms. Rice about the events that had just taken place in his classroom. Ms. Rice observed J.C. to be distraught and angry. Based on J.C.’s comments, Ms. Rice understood that a recording of the classroom events was made. Ms. Rice requested the principal to obtain the recording. Between when J.C. left the EBD self-contained classroom and when the principal arrived at the EBD self-contained classroom to retrieve the recording, yet another altercation, Altercation No. 3, occurred. J.T. started recording Altercation No. 3 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 10) on her cellphone. Student W.F. held a chair over his head and threatened to throw it at another student, D.S. The other students in the classroom can be heard urging W.F. to throw it, but W.F. did not. J.G. can be seen standing behind D.S., and heard to say he’ll “make sure it hit[s] you [D.S.].” When it became apparent that W.F. was not going to throw the chair, J.T. handed her phone to W.F., who continued to record the action, and J.T. threw the chair. J.T. testified that she did not intend to hurt D.S., but she was not “play acting.” Ms. Gilmore testified she did not remember much of Altercation No. 3. She thought she might have been writing a referral at her desk, and did not call for help because the altercation was over so quickly. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the classroom, observed Altercation No. 3, and did nothing to radio or call for assistance or alert the administration of the volatile situation. There is no credible evidence that any of the altercations were pretend fights, or that they were staged for the benefit of the other students. Ms. Gilmore’s contention, that the altercations were staged, is not credible. This EBD self-contained classroom is a challenging class, one that should be closely monitored and adequately staffed to ensure learning can occur, and safety maintained. Respondents never attempted to gain control of the classroom or students. They never called for help or removed the other students from the area. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Osceola County School Board, enter a final order finding that just cause exists for terminating the employment of Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2015.
The Issue This case has been presented for hearing in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The substance of the case concerns an amended petition for the revocation of the Respondent's teacher certificate before the State Board of Education of Florida, Case No. 78425-M. That case was investigated after receipt of a report from the Duval County School Board, Duval County, Florida. Subsequent to the receipt of that report and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, inquiry was made into the details of the Duval County report and, subsequently, the Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida found probable cause on November 28, 1978, to file the Amended Complaint. The material allegations of the Complaint are that the Respondent, Johnnie M. Bennett, is incompetent to teach because: Respondent has proven incapable of keeping clearly defined records for student attendance, participation and grades. Respondent has failed to analyze individual needs and individual potential of students assigned to her and to provide instruction to students in accordance with their needs and potential. Respondent has proven incapable of creating a classroom atmosphere which fosters interest and enthusiasm for learning. Respondent has failed to provide clear, understandable instructions to her students, resulting in confusion as to the students' assignments. Respondent has failed to create student interest in her classroom by failing to use materials and teaching techniques appropriate to the abilities and backgrounds of her students. Respondent has proven incapable of interpreting student work and providing accurate feedback to her students. Based upon these allegations, the Petitioner contends that the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the allegations set forth in the amended petition for revocation of the Respondent's teacher's certificate spoken to in the issues statement of this Recommended Order. Those comments made in the issues statement are hereby incorporated into the Findings of Fact. The Respondent, Johnnie M. Bennett, holds Florida Teacher Certificate No. 88299, Graduate, Rank III, which is valid through June 30, 1982. That certificate covers the area of business education, vocational office education and cooperative business education. The evidence adduced in the course of the hearing directed to the proof of the allegations made, concerned the Respondent's teaching performance while she was employed at Sandalwood Junior/Senior High School in the academic year 1976-77, and at Edward H. White Senior High School during the academic year 1977-78. Both of those schools are located in Duval County, Florida. Various employees of the Duval County School Board and students from that system testified for the Petitioner and certain documents were presented as items of evidence. In addition, testimony was presented through witness Elizabeth Seitz, an outside consultant with an expertise in conducting teacher performance evaluations. Respondent testified in her own behalf and presented witnesses who spoke to her performance at the aforementioned schools and her performance prior to the occasion of being assigned to those schools. In the academic year 1976-77, the Respondent was assigned to the Business Department at Sandalwood Junior/Senior High School. During that school year, several members of the staff of the school had an opportunity to observe the Respondent's instruction on a number of occasions. One of those persons was James C. Roberts, the principal of Sandalwood. He observed the Respondent using a technique which would involve instructing one student while other students were left out of the discussion and those neglected students directed their attention to matters other than the subject matter of the class discussion. There were also several occasions when the principal observed that the Respondent had left her classroom unattended while class instruction was scheduled for presentation and she took her leave without making the necessary arrangements to have someone conduct her classes in her absence. In addition, as a part of the evaluation process, Mr. Roberts collected the Respondent's class roll book which reflects the attendance and grades of the students. This may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. The roll book, as pointed out by the witness, Roberts, fails to have a sufficient number of entries in the first nine weeks period of the school year 1976-77, by which someone could determine how the grades that were processed at the end of that term were arrived at. When confronted with this fact, Mrs. Bennett was unable to explain the deficiency. Mr. Roberts had also received complaints from parents that the Respondent had used profanity in the presence of students while classes were being conducted. These complaints were verified by testimony offered through students who attended the hearing. Some of the remarks made were comments such as, "Oh, shit", at a time when the Respondent was frustrated at an attempt to thread film in a movie projector; "Get the hell out of here" at a time when a student was being sent to the Dean; and another occasion using the expression, "Pissed off". A further incident at Sandalwood reported and established through the testimony was an incident in which the Respondent said that a student was "nutty as a fruitcake" and made those remarks in the presence of other students in a way that embarrassed the student to whom the remark was directed. There was an allegation investigated by the principal dealing with the destruction of classroom furniture, in which the claim was made that Mrs. Bennett allowed the members of the class to destroy the furniture during the conduct of a class; however, the testimony offered is not of the quality that would establish responsibility on the part of Mrs. Bennett for the alleged vandalism. Doris Moon, the Department Chairman of the Business Department at Sandalwood Junior Senior High School in 1976-77, offered testimony. Her testimony established that at the end of the first semester of the school year, from her observation, the students in Mrs. Bennett's class were not listening. Mrs. Moon also established that Mrs. Bennett's papers for aiding in instruction directed to the students, were not in good order. She made the same observations about Mrs. Bennett's grade book that was made by Mr. Roberts and those observations were valid. This concerns the insufficiency of entries in the grade book dealing with a method and arriving at a grade from the nine-week term. Mrs. Moon observed that on at least five occasions the Respondent left her classes unattended without pursuing the necessary procedures for such an absence. Mrs. Moon's remarks established that the class members were too noisy, thereby creating a problem for those class members in adjacent classrooms. Finally, Mrs. Moon's testimony revealed that the lesson plans of the Respondent were not adequate to apprise a substitute teacher of the nature of the class to be taught and the objectives to be pursued, and this lack was contrary to school procedures. Dr. Margaret Griffin, who was the Assistant Principal at Sandalwood Junior/Senior High School in 1976-77, gave testimony. She observed that the instruction given by the Respondent in the second semester was principally visual aids, other graphic aid materials and handouts, without defining lesson objectives adequately. The students were not participating at the time that Dr. Griffin observed the class; they were merely sitting around talking. She also observed Mrs. Bennett speak to four or five students amount remarks that the Principal had made to Mrs. Bennett, while other students were left out of the conversation. This conversation was not directed toward the realization of educational goals. Dr. Griffin also viewed the Respondent's classes at a time when the Respondent had left the classroom unattended without following the necessary procedures for leaving the classroom and at a time when the Respondent had been instructed on the technique for signing out of the classroom. All these matters led to unsatisfactory evaluations of the Respondent which were made by the Principal, Mr. Roberts. The routine evaluation was made on March 9, 1977, and a follow-up evaluation was made on May 17, 1977, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the initial evaluation. These evaluations may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively, admitted into evidence. Due to the difficulty which the Respondent had experienced at Sandalwood Junior/Senior High School, she was afforded the chance to return to that school or to be placed in another school. She elected to be placed at Edward H. White High School for the year 1977-78. When the Respondent arrived at Edward H. White High School, she was assigned to teach courses to business math and typing. There ensued the same pattern of conduct on the part of Mrs. Bennett that had been evidenced in the year at Sandalwood. The Principal of White High School, John Thombleson, testified at the hearing about his observation and evaluation of the Respondent. This testimony established that the class members had a very negative attitude toward her and Mrs. Bennett's teaching performance in terms of techniques and rapport with the students was not satisfactory. Thombleson noted that there was a lack of class discipline and control and a lack of guidance for the students in the course work. In addition, Mrs. Bennett was not punctual in arriving at her classes. Mrs. Bennett also had problems maintaining a proper grade book and Mr. Thombleson was aware of that difficulty. As with the circumstance at Sandalwood, the grade book was deficient in a number of entries, thereby making it difficult to conclude how the Respondent had determined the grade for the respective students. Excerpts of the grade book which are in question may be found as part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 18 admitted into evidence. Mr. Thombleson sat in on a parent-teacher conference between Mrs. Bennett and the parents of a student. In the course of that conference Mrs. Bennett was overly emotional and did not handle the situation appropriate. Mrs. Bennett's difficulties led to an unsatisfactory evaluation in the period covered by an evaluation of October 31, 1977, and March 15, 1978. These evaluations may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits 12 and 13, respectively, admitted into evidence. Grace Hinson was the head of the Business Department at Edward H. White High School in 1977-78. She observed Mrs. Bennett's performance as a teacher and her analysis of Mrs. Bennett's performance establishes that Mrs. Bennett did not promote the proper discipline in the classrooms and lacked organization. In particular, the students were loud and disruptive of other adjacent classes. At times, students were asleep in Mrs. Bennett's classrooms and at times the students were openly cheating. In the typing classes students did not understand the instructions and, consequently, did not know what they were required to do. The students in the math classes of Mrs. Bennett were unruly. Ms. Hinson's observation of the Respondent's grade book in terms of the adequacy of the grade book was the same as that noted by Mr. Thombleson. Sally Griner, the Curriculum Assistant at Edward H. White High School in 1977-78, testified. Her testimony established that the business math objectives in the classes taught by Mrs. Bennett were not covered. Her observation of Mrs. Bennett's classes also established there was a lack of discipline in the classroom and the students were not involved in the classroom activities and were asleep at times. Ms. Griner saw students reading newspapers in the personal typing class. Ms. Griner's analysis of the teacher performance of Mrs. Bennett pointed out that Mrs. Bennett had the capacity to work with one or two or three students, but not with the overall class. Efforts were made by Ms. Griner and others to improve Mrs. Bennett's performance, but those efforts were not successful. Upon agreement with Mrs. Bennett, the witness, Griner, administered a Flanders Interaction Analysis, which is designed to reveal the amount of time spent in lecture and the amount of time spent in student participation. This analysis revealed that 86 percent of Mrs. Bennett's time was lecture and 14 percent student participation, which revelation showed the distribution of time to be too heavily weighted in favor of the lecture method. In view of the problems that Respondent was having at Edward H. White High School, the Principal, Mr. Thombleson, asked that the Professional Practices Council assign a professional reviewer to check the quality of Mrs. Bennett's teaching performance. The Respondent agreed to this review and on December 6 through 8, 1977, Elizabeth Seitz performed such a review. The details of Ms. Seitz's evaluation may be found in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 18. Summarizing Ms. Seitz's findings, she concluded, it is established through her concluding remarks that Mrs. Bennett did not maintain clearly defined records in the classroom; that Mrs. Bennett was not aware of the different levels of the business math classes; that Mrs. Bennett did not create an atmosphere conducive to learning; that Mrs. Bennett's directions created confusion as to what the students were to do; that Mrs. Bennett was inconsistent in dealing with students; and that Mrs. Bennett did not interpret work to provide accurate feedback. Finally, the Respondent engaged in open profanity in other classes at Edward H. White, using the words, "damn", "hell" and "bitches". All of these words served to embarrass the students. Mrs. Bennett also referred to pregnant students in the class as "OBW's", an abbreviation for "old big-bellied women" Other comments to the class members included the comments that a student was "dumb" and a "smart mouth".
Recommendation It is recommended that the Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 88299, Graduate, Rank III, held by the Respondent, Johnnie M. Bennett, be PERMANENTLY REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated School Board Policies, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times to this matter, Respondent was employed as a science teacher in the Pinellas County School District and currently holds a professional service contract. She was hired as a teacher in September 1995, and worked at Lakewood High School for one school year. During the bulk of her career with the school district--August 1996 through December 2012--she worked at Largo Middle School teaching science. At the semester break, she was transferred to Countryside High School to finish out the 2012-2013 school year. She was assigned to teach anatomy and biology at Largo High School for the 2013-2014 school year and then transferred to Bay Point Middle School beginning with the 2014-2015 school year until she was placed on paid administrative leave on April 25, 2016. From at least 2011 forward, administrators, parents, and colleagues at three different schools, voiced repeated concerns regarding Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher, including her failure to appropriately plan and deliver instruction; the lack of rigorous academic assignments; poorly organized lessons; failure to align learning targets and goals with activities and tasks; failure to differentiate instruction; failure to explain content; and failure to engage students. Complaints persisted regarding her failure or refusal to regularly grade student work and enter the grades into the student information system known as FOCUS; administer assessments; and otherwise properly manage the students in her classroom. Specific examples of her performance deficiencies, as well as repeated efforts to remediate her deficiencies through mentoring opportunities and professional development, were described in great detail at the two-day hearing and are summarized herein. Performance Issues While Teaching at Largo Middle School During the latter part of her time at Largo Middle School, administrators met with Snow to address performance concerns that existed regarding her instructional delivery, grading policies, and classroom management. Specifically, she met with administrators on October 25 and 31, 2011, to revise a “success plan,” and to discuss concerns from parents that grades were not being entered in a timely manner, mid-term progress reports not being sent home, failure to allow make-up assignments, and the issue of not enough grades being entered each marking period. They discussed developing a positive relationship with students and discontinuing the use of sarcasm during class, use of the Gradual Release Model for instructional delivery, the development of rubrics for grading student projects, and developing clear criteria for how grades would be earned. These concerns and expectations were memorialized in a disciplinary memorandum dated November 7, 2011, known as a “conference summary.” Another meeting was scheduled at Largo Middle School on April 6, 2012, to discuss “on-going issues that occurred last year and continue to occur in the 2011-2012 school year.” This meeting resulted in a letter of reprimand dated April 10, 2012, for insubordination because Respondent ignored directives to send home progress reports for students with a D or F grade; to enter student grades bi-weekly; and to allow students to make up assignments. The letter stated, in part: [D]ue to your act of insubordination in disregarding an administrative directive you are receiving this letter of reprimand. Also, by this letter of reprimand I am directing you to enter grades into the computer weekly or bi-weekly, send out progress reports at least three weeks before the end of a six week grading period and make every reasonable effort to support all students to achieve educational success. Failure to follow this directive will result in further disciplinary action. The Same Performance Standards Continue at Largo High School Following the disciplinary conferences noted above, Respondent spent a few more months at Largo Middle School, then served one semester at Countryside High School with no noted issues. Some of the same issues that plagued her at Largo Middle School, however, continued at her new school--Largo High School. For example, just four weeks into the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was told by her supervising assistant principal, John Marina, that he was “getting feedback from parents that they don’t know what’s going on in [her] class.” He explained that parents need to see the grades so they can appropriately address their children at home. Another assistant principle notified her by e-mail that her seventh-period class had no grades entered, and two of her other classes only had two grades entered. The assistant principle reminded her of the expectation “that grades are posted weekly in FOCUS to assist students with tracking their progress, as well as parents being able to track what their students are doing.” A few days later, a parent’s complaint to the principal came to Marina’s attention. The parent advocated for her daughter’s “rights to be educated by a teacher that knows how to TEACH. . . . She is a junior, and the last two years are the most important. She deserves no less than a teacher that can provide her with the knowledge she seeks.” At the hearing, Marina recalled the meeting between the parent and Respondent. He testified that the student aspired to attend medical school and was frustrated that there was no rigor in Respondent’s anatomy class. He described the relationship between the student and Snow as “contentious” after the student said, “Hey, when are you going to teach, Mrs. Snow.” Ultimately, the parent obtained a doctor’s note authorizing the student to be removed from Respondent’s class. Even her colleagues complained to administrators. One teacher stated that Respondent “is either a really good actress, or she is inept completely.” The teacher described Respondent struggling to attach a copy of an exam to an e-mail so the teacher could print it for Snow. She said that Respondent had originally planned to have the anatomy students simply answer questions at the back of the book, but was urged by her colleague to create an exam. This caused Respondent to skip her assigned cafeteria duties to perform the task. Her colleague complained to the school administrators, stating, “I have observed that she has extremely poor planning and forethought and I believe she exists on campus for the purpose of seeking out possible excuses for her inability to perform her job duties. The more I interact with her, the more appalled that I am.” Marina developed a detailed success plan and both he and the principal met with Respondent to discuss their expectations regarding improved classroom management, use of formative assessments to differentiate instruction for students at various levels, use of standards-based benchmarks to drive instruction and measure student understanding of the curriculum, and entering grades into FOCUS. Basically, the success plan addressed the same deficiencies that were identified at Largo Middle School. Snow was offered support from experienced educators and took advantage of coaching provided by an instructional staff developer to help her with classroom management processes. According to Marina, Snow never accepted that her performance required improvement. Rather, “there was always an excuse,” and she routinely maintained that she was “an exceptional science teacher.” On April 30, 2014, Marina completed an annual appraisal of Respondent’s performance. The appraisal instrument for the 2013-2014 school year was described by Louis Cerreta (“Cerreta”), the district’s Director of Professional Development, as a “hybrid model,” because it consisted of behavior indicators from the Charlotte Danielson evaluation system and the Dr. Robert Marzano evaluation system, as well as a few indicators recommended by an appraisal advisory committee consisting of principals, assistant principals, union representatives, district administrators, and classroom teachers. The appraisal system was approved by the Pinellas County School Board, submitted to and approved by FLDOE for use as the instructional appraisal instrument, and Marina was appropriately trained to conduct the appraisal. The evaluation instrument consists of three components: the administrative review or “instructional practice” component; the deliberate practice, also called the “professional development” piece; and the student achievement component. Marina completed the Summative Evaluation (consisting of the first two components, but excluding student achievement data) on April 30, 2014, which resulted in a scaled score of 1 out of 4 available points on the administrative review and zero points for professional development. The student achievement score was based on the scores of students taking the biology EOC (student achievement) and resulted in Respondent receiving a score of 3 on a 4-point scale. Snow’s final evaluation resulted in a score of 1.685 or “needs improvement” under the statutory rating system. The administrative review incorporated and summarized observations made by Marina during visits to Snow’s classroom from January through April 2014. During these visits, Marina completed a “science implementation rubric” for each of the seven observations. He explained that each of the indicators on the rubric correlated to an indicator on the evaluation instrument, and he would either mark the indicator as “evident” or “not evident” depending on what he observed in the classroom. The Administrative Review reflected many of the same concerns addressed in Respondent’s success plans at Largo High School, as well as from her former school, Largo Middle School. For example, she received “unsatisfactory” ratings on each of the five indicators under “ability to assess instructional needs.” Marina commented: “This has been an ongoing issue this entire year. I mediated several parent meetings over the concern of accurate and up to date grades.” Under the section entitled “Plans and Delivers Instruction,” she received less than effective ratings on seven of the nine indicators. Here, Marina commented that her “lesson plans are more of a to-do list,” and while she had opportunities to “go into higher order thinking and increase the rigor of her classes,” she failed to do so. He also noted that she failed to abide by the directive to send tests and quizzes to the administration for review. Under the category entitled “Maintains a Student Centered Learning Environment,” Respondent scored less than effective on ten of the 11 indicators. Marina noted: “rules and procedures tend to fall into chaos on a daily basis, as administrators are frequently called to your room. Many times it is loud and there is a back and forth between teacher and student(s).” Marina testified that he gave Respondent a zero on the professional development section of the evaluation because she submitted the same form that she had submitted when she worked at Largo Middle School indicating that she taught comprehensive science to seventh graders when in fact her professional development goals should have accurately reflected the courses she taught at Largo High School. Marina stated: “not only was it the wrong [professional development form], but it was [delivered] in March” when they are due at the beginning of the school year. Professional Performance Deficiencies Continue at Bay Point Middle School Respondent was involuntarily transferred out of Largo High School at the conclusion of the 2013-2014 school year and resumed teaching middle school for the start of the 2014-2015 school year. The principal at Bay Point Middle School (“Bay Point”), Dr. Jason Shedrick (“Shedrick”), learned during the summer of 2014 that Respondent would be his new sixth-grade science teacher. He immediately reached out several times on the telephone to introduce himself. She proved to be unreceptive to his overtures and combative at every turn. When she did not return his calls, he contacted her former school, Largo High School, to gain some insights into her background and discovered she was on a success plan. He sent Respondent an e-mail to schedule a formal meeting to discuss his expectations, as well as the climate at Bay Point so that she could become successful at her new school. At an impromptu meeting, she told him she was not happy with her schedule because she only wanted to teach biology and advanced classes. He reminded her that middle schools do not have biology classes. She insisted she was a high school teacher and that any further meetings would have to include her union representative. They met again on August 15, 2014, and developed a sixteen-paragraph detailed success plan that addressed classroom management, instructional planning and delivery, grading and tracking student progress, notification to parents through contact logs and progress reports, and attendance and professional development. Shedrick testified that there was no ambiguity as to what he expected from Respondent. He said they spent three full hours working on the success plan because they hammered out each and every issue: We went through every single item on this plan. Ms. Snow went through every item on this plan. Her Union representative went through every item on this plan. We changed it several times to accommodate Ms. Snow for Professional Development, her doctors’ appointments before school, after school, whatever it entailed. Everything was laid out so there would be no misunderstanding about the plan. For the next two years, until she was placed on paid administrative leave on April 25, 2016, Respondent proved to be both unwilling and incapable of following directions and performing the most basic duties of a classroom teacher and fulfilling the expectations of her success plan. 2014-2015 Bay Point Lesson Plans Appropriately completing lesson plans and submitting them timely was a recurring problem for Respondent at Bay Point as it had been for her while assigned to previous schools. She had been provided the Bay Point template for lesson plans in her “first day packet” and the expectation for their submission had been reviewed as part of their marathon meeting on August 15, 2014, in connection with the success plan. Nevertheless, Respondent returned her first submission on handwritten notebook paper claiming that she was unable to save an attachment on her computer. Shortly thereafter, Respondent met with Dr. Elizabeth Tisdale (now “Chiles”), the sixth-grade assistant principal responsible for supervising Snow during the 2014-2015 school year. Chiles scheduled the meeting to review school-wide rules and processes with Respondent because she had missed a couple of days during pre-school when administrators typically review these expectations. Her lesson plans were late, so Chiles specifically reviewed this expectation again. Respondent’s excuse for not submitting them varied but included: no internet at home, computer malfunction, wrong lesson plan template, and an uncertainty as to required content. Throughout Respondent’s two-year tenure at Bay Point, Shedrick had to regularly remind her to correct her lesson plans and to submit them timely. Parent Contact and Progress Reports Respondent was expected to contact parents anytime a student was in jeopardy of receiving a grade less than a C. This was another expectation in her success plan, as was the expectation that parents receive a progress report in such cases. She fell short on this expectation and, in fact, expressed early on that she had no intention of calling parents, as required. Specifically, Chiles met with her on September 2, 2014, to discuss, among other matters, a parent’s concern that her straight-A student was receiving an F in Snow’s class. Chiles reminded Respondent that parents need to be contacted if their child has an F. Respondent outright refused, stating that “she would not call every parent.” On September 15, 2014, Shedrick asked Respondent to produce the progress reports that she had sent home for students receiving a D or F in her class. In response, Snow sent him copies of the computer gradebook that she had sent home to parents requesting that they sign and return. Shedrick was incensed that she had no concept of confidentiality and would send each parent a printout describing the grades of every other student in the class. Moreover, the gradebook printouts were not the progress reports he had requested. He explained: I didn’t receive the progress reports the way that I wanted. . . . I want to know what students were doing, what the assignment was, what the point value was, when it was due, when it was turned in. I wanted to see it before it went home because, then again, I have to answer to these parents at this time why was there not enough grades in the computer, why did my kid have an F, why did my kid have a D. So what I received from Ms. Snow wasn’t what I asked for. Several months later on February 12, 2015, Shedrick notified Respondent by e-mail that he wanted to see the progress reports for all students with a D or F in her class by February 18, 2015. On that date, Chiles spoke with Snow and followed up with a an e-mail requesting that she submit the progress reports no later than 4:00 p.m., that afternoon. At 4:19 p.m., Snow sent Shedrick an e-mail telling him that the progress reports would not be completed by 4:00 p.m. The excuses given included her usual claim that there was a computer problem, this time the internet was slow, but also that students were absent and, therefore, were still taking the test. Failure to Provide Weekly Academic Assessments and Assignments Respondent was expected to grade at least two academic- based assignments each week and record the grades in FOCUS so parents and students could monitor their progress. She blatantly refused to do so and claimed that she was not contractually required. According to Snow, she was only required to record one grade weekly. During a conversation in early September, Chiles reiterated that the expectation was two graded assignments, not one, but even if only one assignment were required, Snow missed the mark because it was the third week of school and she only had two grades recorded. By September 15, 2014, several weeks into the first grading period, Snow had recorded only four grades and one was for a review of the student code of conduct, not an academic- based grade. The walk-through feedback forms completed by Chiles noted this deficiency. On January 13, 2015, Chiles noted “currently zero (0) grades posted-starting new quarter (should have at least 2-4)”; on January 20, 2015, she noted again that zero grades had been posted and on February 23, 2015, she noted that four grades were posted and there should have been 18. Shedrick testified that it was “unacceptable” that by March 23, 2015, eight weeks into a nine-week grading period, after which students were supposed to receive their report cards, Snow had posted only four grades. Respondent also was expected, and repeatedly directed, to give the students a test which would enable her to measure the students’ progress and tailor her instruction accordingly. She gave her first and only test in February 2015, and that was only after several people in administration coaxed, prodded, and essentially wrote the assessment for her. Lack of Classroom Structure, Organization, and Management Several people noted that Respondent’s students were not engaged during class and that she needed help with classroom management. For example, during walk-throughs on September 8 and 15, 2014, Chiles told her she needed more engaging lessons and to circulate the classroom rather than sitting at her desk. Again, on January 13, 2015, Chiles noted lack of engagement, students not paying attention, “no flow of the lesson-transition nonexistent, unorganized structure,” and students not understanding the lesson. On January 20, 2015, Chiles and Michele Stewart (“Stewart”), an instructional staff developer, observed her classroom together and again noted lack of engagement, rigor, and understanding by the students. Chiles had a meeting with Snow on January 21, 2015, to review these issues. Snow did not respond to her suggestions for improvement, except to say that her planning period should not be interrupted and that the students do not understand the class “because of their levels.” Excessive referrals, sending students out of class into the hallway without assistance, and not addressing student needs were regular issues for Snow. In one instance, she assigned a student to the back of the room in a time-out chair and did not excuse him to use the restroom. The student wet himself causing him to be embarrassed and ridiculed by his peers. Snow told Chiles that she saw the boy’s hand slightly raised, but thought he was playing with the blinds. Shedrick testified that the boy’s parent called and came to the school to take the student home and that he “had to explain [to the parent] why the student sat in the back of the classroom and the teacher would not let him go to the bathroom.” Another time, Respondent left campus in the middle of the day without telling anyone. Her class of 22 students was left alone, unsupervised. Shedrick said he arrived in her room, and she was not there. Another teacher had to cover her class. He said he called her on the phone and was informed that she was sick or had a doctor’s appointment. As a result of this incident, coupled with the other recurring performance deficiencies, the superintendent suspended Snow for three days. Support, Training, and Professional Development at Bay Point Snow had multiple opportunities to correct her performance and improve her deficiencies through a variety of training opportunities and support provided to her. On most occasions, she refused to attend or otherwise participate. Many examples were given by the witnesses testifying on behalf of the school district. At the very beginning of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was expected to attend District Wide Training (“DWT”) for middle school science teachers. The DWT is the “big kick- off” for the upcoming school year, and the sessions consist of practices and initiatives that the science department expects to be implemented in the schools. Despite being specifically told that she needed to attend the middle school sessions to learn about revisions to the middle school curriculum, she instead chose to attend the high school science sessions. When asked why she did not attend these (which would have been relevant to her assignment as a middle school teacher), she told the principal that in her mind she was a high school science teacher. As is the case with all teachers new to the school, Respondent had a mentor assigned. Lara McElveen (“McElveen”) was the lead mentor at Bay Point and testified that she was a resource and was always available to help teachers navigate issues ranging from curriculum questions to technology. She held regular monthly meetings to discuss what was working for the teachers and what was not. While most teachers came to her when they needed help with the type of problems Snow experienced (lesson planning, progress reports, assignments, test preparation, FOCUS, etc.), Snow only sought her help occasionally and only for minor issues such as printing or copying assignments. McElveen testified that she tried to set up meetings to help with more substantive matters, but Snow complained that she had “too many meetings and that it was outside her contractual hours.” Four specific trainings were identified in the Success Plan negotiated between the principal, Respondent, and her union representative during their three-hour meeting on August 15, 2014. Specifically, she agreed to attend the following training sessions: Just in Time Unpacking & 5E Collaborative Planning on September 2, 2014; Content Enhancement Part 1 Unit Organizer on September 23, 2014; Data Driven Instruction & Analysis Gap Check In in January 2015; and Just in Time Boot Camp on February 3, 2015. Shedrick went out of his way to remove any barrier to her attendance. He made sure she was paid to attend the trainings by giving her a “TDE” (Temporary Duty Elsewhere). He personally coordinated the timing of the trainings with other appointments on her calendar, including her doctor’s appointments, and also sought out convenient locations for the different trainings so that she did not have to travel far. He set the first training scheduled for September 2, 2014, at a school located only five minutes away. She did not attend this training. Given the efforts that he went through to personally set up the trainings and personally reach out to the people conducting them, Shedrick testified that he was beyond disappointed and annoyed that she did not bother to attend. As a result, he wrote her a reprimand dated September 5, 2014, and directed her to follow the expectations in the success plan-- including attendance at the other trainings--in order to avoid future discipline. Despite her agreement as part of the success plan and the directive in the reprimand, she did not attend any of the four trainings. She never offered the principal an explanation for not attending, but simply told him that she did not attend. In early October 2014, administrators visiting Respondent’s classroom noted that she was two-to-three weeks behind in the pacing calendar establishing the dates by which certain subjects should be covered in her classroom. Shedrick worked with the middle school science specialist, Tom Doughty, to provide Snow assistance and get her back on pace. They assigned Stewart the task of working with Respondent. Stewart observed her class on October 8, 2014; met with her briefly to discuss a remediation plan; and scheduled another meeting the following week to follow through. At the scheduled meeting, Stewart brought the additional materials Snow had requested, but was unable to work personally with her because there was a collaborative planning session scheduled with all teachers. Stewart attended this training with Respondent. Afterward, she asked Snow to meet with her individually as planned, but Snow told her no, she was not contractually required to meet. Over the next couple of weeks, Stewart was at the school for five more days conducting trainings and available to assist the science teachers. Respondent appeared for one group-training on November 12, 2014, but no more. On one of the days (October 20, 2014), all of the science teachers came to meet with Stewart, except Snow. On another day (November 20, 2014), administrators asked Snow to meet with Stewart, but she never showed up and on the other two days, she called in sick. In addition to Snow falling behind in pacing, Doughty and others observed during classroom visits that Snow had “instructional pedagogy issues.” Shedrick again asked Doughty and his team to come in and provide direct support to Snow. Doughty observed her classroom on four occasions between January 13 and January 16, 2015, to see “what instructional strategies were used or lack thereof, what could have been used and were not employed or were not employed correctly.” The plan was to work in tandem with Stewart to provide professional development geared toward the specific areas where Snow struggled. Following the observations, he met with Snow, Shedrick, and Chiles to “debrief,” but Snow was openly resistant to his observations and suggestions. He said he tried to point out areas where her classroom management and practices needed to be refined, but she “cut me off at various points to argue with my observations.” For example, he suggested that a classic and fun activity for kids to learn the concept of balanced and unbalanced forces was a simple game of tug-of-war where they can experience what happens with forces on either side of a rope. Snow’s method for teaching this concept was to refer the kids to a picture of a satellite in their textbooks. Doughty told her that pointing the kids to a picture in a textbook “is not helping a student put an abstract concept to a concrete example.” In response, Snow “defensively interrupted [him] saying that she would never do that with her students and would stick with the picture of a satellite in a book.” He concluded that overall “Snow was very defensive and seemed not willing to accept feedback in order to improve her practice.” Snow was told repeatedly that assessments are necessary to measure a student’s understanding of the content taught. Also, Shedrick wanted to see any test she planned to give the kids. Despite these directives, Snow had not tested her students nor had she tried to create a test. Finally, on January 20, 2015, Snow sent Shedrick two documents for his approval which she presumably believed to be appropriate for testing her students. Noting that they appeared to be three-year-old worksheets, Shedrick forwarded the proposed assessments to Doughty for his review. Doughty first questioned why Snow would be testing certain subjects in late January--homeostasis and cells--when the pacing calendar called for the topic to be covered in the first week of October. He also noted that the sheet was straight out of the textbook. He observed that the second document was apparently pulled by Snow from a bank of questions designed several years earlier and was not appropriate to be given as a test to students. He also reminded Shedrick that Snow would benefit from attending a session at an upcoming DWT focused on proper classroom assessment design. As already noted, she did not attend the trainings which could have helped her do her job and, in particular, a training specifically designed to help her create a test. Next, Shedrick notified Snow that she was not to give the test she had proposed. In desperation, he asked Doughty and his science team to again work with Snow on creating a test. He testified that he had to ask for their help because Snow had not tested her students all year: I had to because we’re in December, January and the students haven’t been assessed. So how do you know what deficiencies they have? How do you know what standards to remediate? How do you know what they’re lacking? How do you know where to fill in the gaps? How do you know what to do as a teacher if you haven’t given a five-question quiz? How do you know what to do? When Shedrick informed Snow that the county science department would be setting up individualized training at Bay Point because she missed the professional development planned for all teachers (a DWT), she responded that “she did not have time for training because [she] was so busy.” He asked if it would be possible to set them up in the morning before school, during her planning period or after school, and she repeated that she was too busy and would never attend a training during her planning period. Finally, Snow agreed to attend a side-by•side training with Stewart so that Stewart could teach Snow, a veteran teacher with upwards of 23 years’ experience, how to write a test. Stewart and the district’s test bank did the bulk of the work, and eventually a test was created. Snow’s students were administered their first and only test on February 10, 2015. 2014-2015 Annual Evaluation at Bay Point On April 17, 2015, Chiles completed an annual appraisal of Snow’s performance. The appraisal instrument for this year was the “hybrid model” incorporating indicators from the Charlotte Danielson evaluation system and the Dr. Robert Marzano evaluation. Chiles completed a two-day training on the evaluation system. She passed a test on its use prior to evaluating teachers. The instructional practice portion of the evaluation, completed by Chiles, comprised 40 percent of the total score. Snow scored 1.364 points achieving an “unsatisfactory” rating. Snow did not score “effective” on any of the indicators. Chiles noted in the formal observation that: Ms. Snow demonstrates deficiencies in the area of delivery of instruction . . . she also struggles with time management in delivering instruction which causes students to be unclear on instruction and assignments. Many students are unable to articulate the learning goal or relate the learning goal to the lesson. Furthermore, many parts of the Gradual Release Model are not applied or observed. With regard to the assessment of instructional needs, Chiles noted that “little progress has been made.” “Tracking and monitoring data has not been exhibited, as well as using multiple assessments to assess the instructional needs of all students.” The student achievement portion of the evaluation counted for 50 percent of the overall score. Snow achieved 3.0 points for this portion. The remaining ten percent was based on professional development and Snow was given three out of ten available points. Respondent received only three points because she submitted a plan that did not match her duties. Again, she submitted an old form from the previous year when she worked at a high school. The form stated she was a biology teacher at Largo High School rather than a sixth-grade science teacher at Bay Point. Three points on a ten-point score was converted to a 1.2 on a four-point scale. Overall, Snow’s evaluation reflected a “needs improvement” rating with a final score of 2.166. 2015-2016 School Year at Bay Point Despite Snow’s poor performance, lack of cooperation and outright defiance the preceding year, Shedrick was optimistic that the 2015-2016 school year would be different. He testified that he was excited that Snow may have “turned a corner.” He testified that he was hopeful because over the summer Snow had shown some initiative and “went to a training without me asking her to.” Moreover, she actually approached him and shared the information, which was rare. He then scheduled a meeting with Snow to scale down her success plan and work on what was necessary to make her a successful science teacher. Shedrick’s optimism was misplaced and quickly faded. Snow was contentious and not receptive to the scaled-down success plan which contained many of the same expectations as the earlier one, i.e., two grades per week in FOCUS; at least one approved assessment each grading period; follow pacing guides; provide progress reports to students with D’s and F’s; contact parents; submit lesson plans; and attend classroom management training. She immediately objected to the expectation that she attend classroom management training stating that she already went to a training in July: “I’ve already been to that training and I am not going to any more training.” He tried to explain to her that the trainings are not all the same at which point it occurred to him that the only reason she attended training in the summer was probably to get a “trade day,” which amounted to a paid day off during the school year. He said, “I hope she didn’t go to that training just for the trade day. I hope she went to that training for students. Conclusion, trade day, because she would not go anymore [to additional trainings].” Not only did her performance and attitude fail to improve, it went downhill quickly from that point forward. Throughout the first semester of 2015, Shedrick and other administrators conducted numerous visits to Snow’s classroom and repeatedly notified her that she was behind the curriculum; her instruction was very low-level textbook work; she had not given the students a single assessment or even a quiz; she was not entering academic grades into FOCUS; she was not engaging the students or managing her classroom; and she had no plan to remediate the students who were falling behind. Shedrick testified that by December 2015, he was “at wits end.” He tried to schedule a conference with her prior to her formal observation but she would not meet with him. He tried repeatedly to re-schedule a meeting. Snow responded with a variety of excuses and objections and once marched into his office at the scheduled time simply stating, “I’m not meeting for your pre-conference,” and walked out. She did not complete the required pre•observation form, so Shedrick asked someone from the professional development department to go into the iObservation database and prepare the form for her. She never completed the form and never appeared for a pre-conference before the formal evaluation. Shedrick experienced the same difficulty with Snow in scheduling a formal observation. She objected that he did not give her enough notice; she did not have enough time; she had to test ESE and ESOL students; and other teachers do not have a formal observation mid-year. At one point he went to her classroom to discuss the observation (because she did not respond to his e-mails) and discovered that the kids were working on crossword puzzles. He said that if she was going to ignore his e-mails, “at least let me walk into [her] class and see [her] students highly engaged in some specification [sic] of some science labs, some dissection, and some hands-on lab learning for science. Imagine my dismay to walk in and see students working on crossword puzzles.” He conducted the formal observation on December 16, 2015, and for 55 minutes of the class period, the students worked on defining terms. He said this was typical of Snow’s lessons. “Bell work was defining terms. Classwork was defining terms . . . students would sit there and actually copy word for word verbatim or she would have them in the science consumer workbooks underline or she would regurgitate to them as to what to write next to whatever they underlined right next to it.” On the formal observation, Shedrick notes under “Establishing Classroom Routines”: [A]s I walked into the classroom you were moving around students from seat to seat and one student asked what are we doing and you replied “just wait.” You instructed the class to sharpen their pencil one by one and seven students ran to the pencil sharpener. Now students are sitting and waiting for you to begin the lesson. Two students are passing out books. Four minutes are gone and students are still waiting. Two students in the front row are passing out sheets of paper, now you have several students up doing various things at this time. Female students in the back are talking about the movies from the weekend. Ten minutes has gone before you address the class. You are trying to inform students of the Scale you created. Under the category entitled “Identifying Critical Content,” he wrote: Teacher reading terms that she asked students to define (define three terms) and students ask you to repeat and what page? No collaboration for this assignment . . . students are just defining terms out of the book and writing on paper . . . . At the beginning of the second semester, Shedrick’s frustration with Snow was palpable. He requested help from OPS, as well as the area superintendent, Robert Path, asking: How much longer must we continue with Snow? Anytime I request a meeting, she does not respond and doesn’t attend. This is defiant and disrespectful to start. How will I continue to run my campus as teachers hear she doesn’t attend my requested meetings, why should they. All this with no action which allows her to continue her behavior. On January 15, 2016, Shedrick sent Snow a letter telling her that she was on very thin ice but he was going to try once again to remediate her numerous deficiencies. After summarizing all of his efforts to meet with her to conduct a formal observation, as well as her responses, he stated: I have grave concerns over whether the very marginal instructional improvement that you made last year is sustained. You have never assessed your students so I have no information on that score, refused to show me the work that your students are performing so I do not have that information to review, refused to meet with me to finish a formal observation and have called in sick for several days avoiding this discussion. For that reason, I asked Mr. Doughty, the Middle School Science Specialist to observe your classroom, on Thursday, January 14th and this morning. I am very concerned about numerous things including the lack of science instruction taking place in your classroom, your classroom management and your conduct and attitude every time that I try to discuss these issues with you. Your continued refusal to do what I ask has seriously impeded the education of our students and they deserve better. I remain willing to work with you and sincerely hope that you choose to work with me toward preparing our students to meet the goals set for 6th grade science. I plan to meet with you to discuss all of these issues. Doughty again observed Snow’s class on January 14 and 15, 2016, and used his observations as a basis to develop yet another remediation plan. He observed that the activities were “low rigor-no connection made to learning target”; the pace of the lesson was not appropriate; there was “minimal student engagement” with students “off task” and “compliant” [sic, the context supports “non-compliant”]; and classroom management and discipline was not evident. Doughty helped design yet another remediation plan that was presented to Snow on January 20, 2016. He said: [W]e wanted to provide as much support and help to try to help her be the best teacher we could make her to be. So one of the things I suggested to Dr. Shedrick was, for example, Letter G [of the remediation plan] was stop using movies as a time filler, having appropriate topics and rigorous assignments that tied to it. Aware that much of what he had observed in the past was “textbook, textbook, textbook, writing in the textbook and . . . not a lot of hands-on engaging things,” he suggested Letter H of the plan, “performing labs that tied into the unit to bring on hands-on activities to give students ownership into their learning.” Doughty and Stewart spent several sessions with Snow during January and February 2016. On February 19, 2016, following an observation of her class, Doughty wrote to Snow commenting that the students were generally confused because the learning goal or the content she intended to teach, did not align to the task: The strategies used weren’t implemented correctly and did not achieve the desired effect. . . . Through my last two visits I have not seen effective implementation of the professional development Michele has provided on an individual basis. It is apparent we will need to revisit the topics from the previous 2 PO [personal observation] sessions. . . . At this point, Doughty felt his team’s efforts could be better utilized elsewhere, rather than continuing to work with Snow who was not cooperating. He contacted a number of people to tell them that “we’re not getting anywhere.” In an e-mail dated February 23, 2016, Doughty noted that “overall it is not going well” and “Michelle is very frustrated that her efforts are not yielding any results.” Insubordination, Incompetence, Performance Deficiencies, Willful Neglect of Duty Respondent is either incapable of performing the duties of a classroom teacher or simply unwilling to do so. Based upon the record, it is both. At times it seems that she is not willing to try because she does not have the skills necessary to perform her duties and, at other times, she is outright defiant claiming that she is not required to do what is asked of her. For two years at Bay Point, she has been directed to enter at least two academic standards-based grades per week in FOCUS and administer an assessment to the students. The assignments that she gave to students in no way could be construed as academic- based. The workbooks produced at hearing from students T.J. and M.T. contain pages with a few definitions, questions and answers copied out of the textbook, and “reflections” consisting of one to two sentences of what the student learned. One assignment is a “foldable” that the student cut out and pasted in the book, with definitions of cell parts written under the flap. In another assignment, the student cut out pictures of body parts and pasted them in the book partially labelling them. With all of the emphasis placed by the educators and administrators on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) and rigorous science instruction, Shedrick was appalled that Snow was teaching and assigning her students what he described as “baby work.” From the record and Snow’s testimony, there is little explanation as to when or how she graded these assignments. The students testified that they did not know the purpose of the assignments or how they were graded. Their parents did not know how she arrived at the grades and, when asked, she was not able to explain the grades to them. In addition to the low-level nature of the assignments in FOCUS, Shedrick objected to Snow giving a grade for a parent’s signature, bell work, notebook checks, reflections, and review of the code of student conduct. These were not academic grades, in his opinion. Parents also complained that they never knew where their child stood in the class because of the irregularity of Snow’s grading. Shedrick testified that parent complaints came in “fast and furious” because of Snow’s habit of “dumping” grades at the end of the marking period. John Frank (“Frank”), the OPS administrator, conducted an audit trail in FOCUS which enabled him to determine the dates that grades were entered and found that grades due earlier in the grading period were added a day or two before the end of the marking period, often drastically affecting a student’s grade with no warning or opportunity for the student to improve. For example, on March 14, 2016, FOCUS indicated Snow had entered six grades. Three days later she had entered four more grades for assignments that should have been added weeks prior. It is nearly inconceivable that entering two grades weekly could have been so difficult, especially for an experienced science teacher. For Snow, however, it was a constant uphill climb. When she met with Shedrick and, at times, with Valencia Walker, and later Frank, each told her “just put in two grades a week.” She said she did not have to. At the hearing, she claimed that she was “confused” when she was told the school district wanted two grades. She “preferred” to enter only one grade and reasoned that her assignments were so “intense” that one grade for her was really the equivalent of two grades for another teacher. Her lessons and assignments could in no way be deemed “intense.” At one point, she said she tried to put in two grades, but did not have time. Later, she said “my goal was to put in two grades a week. The reason why I wasn’t able to put in two grades a week at the end was because of the testing schedule and the pacing guide.” This explanation is almost nonsensical. As evident from her belief that her assignments were “intense,” Snow appears to have no insight into the lack of academic rigor in her classroom. At the hearing, she tried to explain the complexity involved for students to answer two questions in their textbooks on cells. She defended her extensive use of the textbook and instructional strategy of having the students read aloud from it on the basis that she had a lot of “special learners” who needed to learn to read. The record does not support her contention that her students needed “special” treatment due to learning disabilities or other special needs. Snow blames many of her deficiencies on the students’ misbehavior in her class. Testimony confirms that at times the class was loud and the students sometimes disrespectful. This is not uncommon when teaching middle school students. A parent called by Snow to testify characterized her observation as a class “out of control.” Snow, however, fails to recognize that her inability to deliver meaningful instruction caused, or at least substantially contributed to, the student behavioral issues. If the students were more engaged and assigned to more meaningful tasks, classroom decorum would have improved. Doughty summarized the correlation well when he testified, “The more low- rigor, the more textbook work . . . the more misbehavior I see happening. The more I see classrooms that engage students in fun, interactive . . . cool science, engaging science, the less misbehavior I see.” Snow attributes the misbehavior to the students, not her teaching methods or poor classroom management skills. She claimed that she was assigned “more than three fourths of the 6th grade SE/ESOL and 504 population . . . in addition, I have the majority of the lower level 6th graders.” Shedrick and the sixth-grade assistant principle, Jason Helbling, testified that the population of students in Snow’s class was no different than any other sixth-grade class. In fact, Helbling pulled the grades of the students Snow complained were nonperforming and found they received A’s, B’s, and C’s in their other classes. Snow’s testimony on this point is not credited. Helbling testified that he was called to Snow’s room much more frequently than any other teacher’s classroom in the school; in his words, as much as ten times more frequently. She had no interventions set up to redirect the students, but would instead call administrators to have those misbehaving or rowdy removed from class. She complained to Helbling that the students were terrible and not teachable. He counseled her to call home to the parent and “try to do other things than throw the student out of class and having them miss content.” Snow claimed she contacted parents but when Helbling called them himself, he learned that there had been no follow-up by Snow in the form of telephone calls. Helbling found that the students characterized by Snow as “rough,” “terrible,” and “not teachable” did not have the same problems in other teachers’ classes. He visited other classrooms to observe these students’ interaction with the teachers. The difference was that the other teachers had classroom management strategies and reached out to the students. Inexplicably, Snow did not even know the names of her students, something Helbling found inexcusable after several months of school. He testified, “If [by end of January] we don’t even know the names of our students, we have a problem, and a lot of that is linked to classroom management. How can you manage a classroom if you don’t know who your students are?” During a classroom visit on January 29, 2016, Helbling walked into a classroom in disarray. A chair was sitting on top of a desk; most of the students were talking; bell work took 21 minutes with no student actually working on bell work (“bell work” are brief assignments given at the start of class to warm up the students, settle them down, and prepare them for the day’s substantive lessons); five kids were lined up at the pencil sharpener; and Snow “sat at her desk the entire time that the observation took place.” Annual Evaluation at Bay Point for 2015-2016 School Year When the time came for the annual evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year, the district had fully integrated the Marzano appraisal system for use in all schools, which as noted above, is designed to grow a teacher’s practice. The comprehensive instrument is comprised of three components: the instructional practice, the deliberate practice, and the student growth score. The Instructional Practice portion counts for 56.67 percent of the evaluation and consists of four domains. Domain 1 is “Classroom Strategies and Behaviors” consisting of 41 instructional categories that happen in the classroom. Administrators conducted seven informal and two formal observations (mid-point and final) for completion of Domain 1. Domain 2 is “Planning and Preparing.” Domain 3 is “Reflecting on Teaching” and Domain 4 is “Collegiality and Professionalism.” Administrators also conducted nine walk-throughs which contributed to Domains 2-4. In each of the four domains, a teacher is rated based on a scale with the lowest being “not using” and the highest being “innovating.” The scores are tallied in the iObservation database. Snow received a score of 1 which is an “unsatisfactory” rating for the instructional practice portion. Her weaknesses in classroom management, instructional delivery and planning, and failure to cooperate were noted in many instances by her evaluator. The Deliberate Practice portion of the instrument counts for ten percent of the overall score. The rubric dictates that a teacher may receive a score of 1, 3, or 10. Teachers receive points, either 1, 3, or 10, depending on whether they submitted a professional development plan and then whether they implemented it. Snow received three out of ten points because she submitted a deliberate practice plan, but did not attend the required professional development. On a four-point scale, this translated into a score of 1.2. The Student Growth score is worth 33.3 percent of the overall score. Snow received a score of 3.0 on this section resulting in a final score on her evaluation of 1.69 or “needs improvement.” Cerreta testified that Snow is the only teacher in the district, out of more than seven thousand teachers, ever to have received three consecutive ratings of “needs improvement.” Cerreta confirmed that each of the evaluators for the 2013-2014 through 2015-2016 school years received training and were certified by the district to conduct an evaluation using the respective evaluation instruments. The administrators properly administered each of the evaluation instruments and Snow never challenged, through a grievance, the process followed by the administrators in conducting the evaluation. Cerreta’s office is responsible for submitting the appraisal systems to FLDOE for approval each year and confirmed that each of the respective systems described for the three-year period were submitted and approved by FLDOE. It bears noting and a brief discussion as to the integrity and character of Principal Shedrick and the other administrators who patiently worked with Respondent throughout her tenure with the Pinellas County School District and, especially, at Bay Point. It is rare to see a principal and district administrators who not only give a teacher the benefit of the doubt when it comes to her shortcomings, but go well above the call of duty to counsel; offer guidance at many levels; and utilize so many already overworked district personnel in an attempt to make one teacher not only a better educator, but successful in every way relating to her classroom and her students. Shedrick, his fellow administrators, and other teachers at Bay Point spent an inordinate amount of time working with one teacher, Snow, who not only rebuffed their efforts to make her successful, but seemed to resent their attempts to make her a more effective teacher. Only after constant failures by Snow in the classroom, and her apparent inability or lack of desire to improve or learn from all the advice and instruction given, did Shedrick reach his breaking point and move forward with the steps leading to Snow’s proposed termination. Less dedicated individuals would have pulled the plug far sooner, and Shedrick, along with all the administrators involved, should be commended for their patience and desire to make an experienced science teacher, a valuable commodity in the district, successful to the point where she could better further her students’ education in such a vital academic subject in today’s world. Based upon the extensive evidence and testimony, all these efforts were unappreciated and, ultimately, made in vain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie A. Dart, Esquire Office of General Counsel Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Dr. Michael A. Grego, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding Florida Educator’s Certificate 958493, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Autism Spectrum Disorders, valid through June 30, 2014. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Bay County School District as an ESE teacher at Margaret K. Lewis Center (MKL Center). This is a second career for Respondent. She left a business and technology career to pursue a career in education, specifically working with students with special needs. Respondent obtained her Master’s degree and a special designation to work with special needs students. Respondent was motivated to pursue teaching special education students because she had an aunt with Down’s syndrome who had limited educational opportunities. Respondent taught at Oscar Patterson Elementary for the 2006-2007 school year, and then transferred to MKL Center beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. After Respondent received her state educational certification in autism spectrum disorders, she requested to be assigned to teach an ESE class beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. That year, she was voted as “Teacher of the Year” by her peers. The class to which Respondent was assigned was a challenging class. It was not unusual for students in this classroom to bite, kick, hit, pinch, and trip staff. During the 2010-2011 school year, the number of students was reduced from eight to four, and the number of paraprofessionals was increased from two to three. During the 2011-2012 school year, there were four students in her classroom: C.B., J.B., K.M., and D.C. One paraprofessional, Patricia Lewis, was assigned specifically to D.C. The other two paraprofessionals, Jennifer Shea Saulmon and Nancy Davis, worked with all of the children, and when able to, Patricia Lewis did as well. Ms. Davis, Ms. Saulmon, and Ms. Lewis have seven, fourteen and twenty-seven years of experience, respectively. C.B. had a severe mental disability with a limited ability to comprehend verbal communications and a limited ability to communicate. C.B.’s communication involved single words, sounds, and gestures. He could discern the speaker’s mood, but might not fully understand the content of what was said. For example, C.B. might not understand that someone was saying hello, but would understand that the speaker was friendly towards him. C.B. also had problematic behaviors including biting, pinching, scratching, and hitting. C.B. had an awkward gait and wore ankle orthotics (AFO’s), a type of plastic brace, over his shoe and lower leg to provide stability from the foot to the leg, and to assist in improving his ability to walk. C.B. was ten years old. J.B. was approximately 11 years old in January 2012, and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He also had a limited ability to communicate using single words, sounds and utterances, and gestures. J.B. also used an iPad to communicate. Over time, someone working with J.B. would develop a greater ability to understand and communicate with him. J.B.’s difficult behaviors included spitting, hitting, kicking, and pinching. K.M. was 11 in January 2012. K.M. was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, and had previously suffered a stroke which limited her use of one arm. She also had significant intellectual limitations. However, K.M.’s ability to communicate was greater than the other members of the class, and she could understand verbal communications. In addition, K.M. was more independent than her classmates, and was a risk for elopement from both the classroom and the campus. As stated by one of the paraprofessionals, K.M. “was a runner.” By all accounts, K.M.’s behaviors were consistently disruptive, and managing her in a classroom took a significant effort. D.C. was also 11 in January 2012. D.C. was diagnosed as autistic and engaged in repeated self-injurious behaviors. When upset, D.C. would repeatedly strike himself in the head and face, and he often wore a football helmet as a protective measure. D.C. was very strong, and attempts to prevent him from hurting himself could often result in staff members being hurt. There was testimony at hearing that his behavior plan addressed how many he times he was allowed to hit himself or how long he was allowed to hit himself without intervention. However, the behavior plan for D.C. was not in evidence. A portion of the classroom was designed specifically for D.C., with padded walls and a padded floor, in light of D.C.’s tendency to hit his head against hard surfaces as well. He had some beads that he played with that sometimes calmed him. At some point during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to show signs that the stresses of her very challenging classroom were having an effect on her. After the Christmas break, her stress seemed to have intensified. Respondent was having trouble sleeping, suffered from high blood pressure and pain from injuries sustained in the classroom, and was experiencing some depression. Respondent began to “self- medicate” with alcohol at night. There was no credible evidence that Respondent ever drank during the day or was under the influence of alcohol during work hours. At the end of the school day on January 30, 2012, Ms. Lewis approached assistant principal Elizabeth Swedlund to voice some concerns about Respondent’s behavior in the classroom. Ms. Lewis related some events that had occurred in the classroom that day, as well as some general concerns regarding treatment of the students in the classroom. She voiced the following concerns: that Respondent took away D.C.’s beads and would allow him to hit himself for a period of time longer than allowed by his treatment plan; that she made statements to K.M. such as “I could kill you” or “go play in the street”; and that she hit C.B. with a closed hand and kicked him while working in “circle time.” On January 31, 2012, Ms. Swedlund notified her principal, Britt Smith, of the conversation with Ms. Lewis. She decided to speak with the other paraprofessionals in the classroom and after doing so, to report the information to the abuse registry. Principal Smith notified Sharon Michalik, the District’s Executive Director of Human Resources, of the issue with respect to Respondent. As a result, Mike Jones, Chief of Safety, initiated an investigation. Mike Jones visited the campus the following day. All three paraprofessionals were interviewed and asked to provide written statements. He took Respondent for a drug and urine test, which came back negative. On Friday, February 3, 2012, Respondent was notified to meet with Ms. Michalik and other administrators to review the allegations. After this meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay, and the School District planned to proceed with a recommendation for termination. However, instead the parties entered an agreement executed on March 30, 2012, through which Respondent would take a medical leave of absence and would only be allowed to return to a position with the School District if she was found fit for duty. If she returned, she would be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. On March 30, 2012, the Department of Children and Families issued a letter to Respondent stating that it found no indicators of physical injury and no indicators of bizarre punishment. On April 27, 2012, Respondent was evaluated by psychologist David J. Smith who opined that at that time, she was not fit for duty. She was re-evaluated on July 26, 2012, and cleared to return to work. At that time, she was assigned to a different school. One of the issues raised by Ms. Lewis was that Respondent permitted D.C. to hit himself more frequently than allowed by his behavior plan. The Administrative Complaint specifically charges that she allowed D.C. to hit himself repeatedly for up to ten minutes, while his behavior plan indicated that he should be allowed to hit himself up to three times. The behavior plan was not entered into evidence. The evidence was unclear as to what the plan actually required, and it was equally unclear exactly what Respondent was doing. For example, there was testimony that she would attempt to redirect him once he started hitting himself, but did not physically intervene for ten minutes. There was other testimony that there was never a time when he was allowed to simply hit himself with no one doing anything. Without being able to examine the behavior plan, and without being able to specify the exact incident or incidents at issue, it is not possible to determine whether Respondent was varying from the requirements of the behavior plan, or if any variation was significant. Ms. Davis reported to Ms. Swedlund that on or about Friday, January 27, 2012, J.B. was in time-out because of bad behaviors. While he was in time-out, he was sitting behind a rolling partition, and Respondent was holding the partition in place so that J.B. would have to remain in place. J.B. spat at Respondent, which is something he did often. Ms. Davis reported that while holding the partition Respondent spat back at him, an action that shocked Ms. Davis. Respondent denies ever spitting on J.B. She testified via deposition that J.B. was spitting while in time-out, and she was holding the barrier while talking to him. She responded to his behavior by saying “you do not spit.” Respondent testified that it was possible that some spittle may have fallen on J.B., but that she never intentionally spit on him. The only person who testified regarding the spitting was Ms. Davis. While she was a very credible witness, there was no testimony regarding how close she was to Ms. Henson or to J.B., or that J.B. reacted in any way. Neither of the other paraprofessionals in the room testified that they saw or heard about the incident, and it is implausible to think that such behavior would go without comment. It is conceivable that in saying, “you do not spit,” that spittle would result. Given the high burden of proof for this proceeding, the allegation has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. As previously stated, K.M. presented a classroom management problem. She had a tendency to run around the classroom, take her clothes off, or run out of the classroom and sometimes out of the building. She also would tear up items in the classroom and could be very disruptive. Ms. Lewis felt that Respondent had a hard time getting past her dislike of the child. She had heard her say things like, “I could just kill you right now,” and “go ahead and go into the street.” While Ms. Lewis believed K.M. could understand such statements, she did not react to them, except perhaps to run faster. Ms. Lewis did not believe that Ms. Henson was serious when she made the statements, but more likely made them when frustrated by K.M.’s behavior. Respondent did not recall ever making such statements. Neither Ms. Lewis nor the Administrative Complaint identified exactly when Respondent was to have made these statements, although Ms. Lewis specified that they were statements made at different times. While Ms. Lewis testified that she believed Respondent did not like K.M., it is just as likely that she did not dislike the child, but was extremely frustrated by her behavior. All of the paraprofessionals testified that Respondent truly loved the children she worked with, but that she was frustrated and overwhelmed in the very challenging classroom in which she taught. While the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent made the statements, even Ms. Lewis testified that she did not believe Respondent was serious when she made them. Regardless, the statements were not appropriate statements to make to a child, especially a child with limited intellectual abilities that might not be able to discern whether Respondent was serious. They are, by their nature, disparaging statements. Finally, the incident which caused Ms. Lewis to approach Ms. Swedlund about Respondent involved Respondent’s reactions to C.B. C.B. liked to work on the computer. He would play computer games, such as Dora the Explorer, and was rewarded with computer time for good behavior and finishing all of his assigned work. On Friday, January 27, 2012, C.B. had a rough day, and had been hitting, pinching, and kicking staff. Respondent had spoken with his mother about his behaviors to see if there had been any changes at home that might have contributed to his aggressive behavior. Respondent had told C.B.’s mother that they would have to try some different methods to get C.B. to comply, and that his playing on the computer all day would have to stop. The paraprofessionals testified that on Monday, January 30, 2012, Respondent seemed agitated all day. One said she seemed to carry the frustrations of Friday into Monday. That morning Jennifer Shea Saulmon went to the cafeteria to pick up C.B., who had walked from the parent pickup area without incident, and seemed to be in a good mood. When they reached the classroom, C.B. went straight to the computers. Respondent immediately told him that he could not have computer time. Ms. Saulmon was upset by this, because C.B. had not misbehaved that morning. She questioned Ms. Henson’s decision, and Respondent responded that he could not play on the computer all the time. He then completed his morning work without any disruption, and then walked over to the computers. Ms. Saulmon told him he could not play on the computer at that time. At about 9:15 a.m., the class began “circle time.” During this time, the students sit on the outside of a u-shaped table while Respondent sits on the inside of the “u.” C.B. did not like circle time. On this particular day, he was sitting at the end of the u-shaped table, to Respondent’s left. He began, as he often did, to hit and bite. According to Ms. Saulmon, this behavior usually subsides after about five minutes. This day, however, it did not. C.B. continued to pinch and hit Respondent. In response, Respondent put her arm up with a closed hand (so that the child could not pull and bend back a finger) in a blocking motion, as the teachers and paraprofessionals had been taught to do in order to protect themselves. She said out loud, “I’m blocking, I’m blocking.” However, rather than simply holding her arm up to block against any blows, she would swing her arm toward him to stop the blow, and in doing so, made contact with his arm. Although to Ms. Davis it looked like Respondent was hitting him, she never thought Respondent was trying to hurt C.B. Each time Respondent blocked C.B., he pinched her again, and she blocked him again, which made him angrier. He then started kicking her, and Ms. Davis and Ms. Saulmon believed she kicked him back. However, neither paraprofessional could say that Respondent actually made contact with C.B. They were pretty certain that C.B. was kicking Respondent, and they could see movement toward him by Respondent, and C.B. responded angrily by squealing as he usually did when frustrated or angry. It is just as likely that Respondent was using her leg or foot to try to block C.B.’s kicks, as she stated in her deposition, and that C.B. was angry because she was blocking him. Nonetheless, Respondent’s clear agitation in the classroom that day led to Ms. Lewis’ conversation with Ms. Swedlund about Respondent’s behavior. While all of the paraprofessionals stated concerns about Ms. Henson’s ability to handle that particular class, all were very supportive of her continuing to teach in the special education area. All three seemed to think that the environment of that particular class, which by any measure would be extremely challenging, is one that overwhelmed Respondent, and that she had been in that setting too long. When Respondent returned to work at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, she was transferred to Beach Elementary School. The principal at the new school is Glenda Nouskhajian. Ms. Nouskhajian considers Respondent to be one of her lead teachers in the ESE department, and has no performance- related concerns about her. The only issue Respondent has had since coming to Beach Elementary was a minor paper-work issue related to transferring schools within the district. Respondent is not working in a stand-alone classroom like she was before. She is what Ms. Nouskhajian referred to as a “push-in,” meaning that she goes into other teachers’ classrooms and works with students in small groups in an inclusion setting. She works with the lowest quartile of students, and helps with all of these students’ interventions. Ms. Nouskhajian testified that the students with whom Respondent works are making “great strides,” and Respondent is an educator she would “absolutely” seek to retain. Ms. Nouskhajian knew that there was an issue at Respondent’s prior school, but did not investigate the details. She stated that Respondent had been placed at Beach Elementary by Sharon Michalik, and “I knew that if she was a danger to students, Sharon Michalik would not have placed her at my school . . . . That she went through the counseling and everything she had to do so when she came to my school it was a total fresh start.” Since coming to Beach Elementary, Respondent’s evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was overall effective, with all categories rated as effective or highly effective. In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made inappropriate remarks to student K.M. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent spat on J.B., or that she hit or kicked C.B. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that she varied significantly from D.C.’s behavioral plan or acted in a way that allowed him to hurt himself. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was frustrated and overwhelmed in the autistic classroom and, despite having asked for the assignment, had been teaching in that environment for too long to be effective, given the violent tendencies of the children in that setting. There is clear and convincing evidence that she took a leave of absence in lieu of termination and could only return to the classroom after an evaluation found her fit for duty. A change of setting was needed and has served to re-invigorate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent has violated rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission in its discretion may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder PA 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Should Respondent's five-day suspension without pay in December 1996, for her neglect of school policy and procedure be upheld? Case No. 97-1873 Should Respondent's five-day suspension without pay in February 1997, for insubordination in failing to complete student assessments be upheld? Should Respondent's employment with the School Board of Polk County, Florida, be terminated for insubordination in failing to complete required student assessments?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Board is the agency responsible for providing public primary, secondary, and adult education in Polk County, Florida. To facilitate that responsibility, the Board hires certified teachers for classroom and administrative activities. Respondent Berger is a teacher, certified by the State of Florida. Berger has been a teacher for 34 years, the last 32 years in Polk County. Berger has taught Exceptional Student Education (ESE) since approximately 1980, Most recently, Berger has been working as an ESE teacher in Polk City Elementary School. During the 1995-96 school year, Randall Borland's first year as principal of Polk City Elementary School, he observed significant discipline problems in Berger's classroom. However, Borland recognized that some of the students were behavior problems, and during the school year Borland worked with Berger on the discipline problem, even to the point of removing students from Berger's classroom. Borland continued to observe problems in Berger's classroom at the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. In response, Borland began working with Berger to assist her management system in the classroom. Borland also observed that appropriate materials were not being used for the students at various levels. In September 1996, Borland met with Berger to discuss the Professional Development Plan (PDP) which he had prepared for Berger to assist her in the improvement of the management of student conduct and the monitoring of student progress. Under the goal of monitoring student progress, Berger was to: Assess students in math, reading, and writing during the first few weeks of school. Use assessment results in prescribing appropriate instruction and materials. Continue to utilize ongoing assessment to monitor student progress. Utilize meaningful and appropriate materials during instructional practices. Ongoing assessments of each student is a requirement of all teachers at Polk City Elementary School. These assessments were to be completed at the beginning of the school year and every nine-week grading period. All teachers are regularly given notice that these assessments are to be reviewed for each grading period. On September 12, 1996, Borland did a classroom observation of Berger's class and reported that she appeared unprepared and unfamiliar with the materials. Borland also made recommendations to assist her in these areas. Individual Education Plans (IEP) are required by State regulation for all ESE students, and the failure to timely prepare IEP's could affect the funding for those students. On September 27, 1996, Berger and another teacher at Polk City Elementary School received verbal reprimands for failing to have IEP's for all of their students. Following the verbal reprimand, Borland met with Berger to discuss her failure to successfully complete her PDP. At this meeting, Borland advised Berger that he intended to request the implementation of a Notice of Evaluation of Assistance in Time (NEAT) procedure. The NEAT procedure is designed to address and improve a teacher's deficiencies. Subsequently, Berger requested the Board to replace her Continuing Contract with a Professional Service Contract under Section 231.36(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and further requested that the process be expedited. The Board acted favorably on Berger's request on October 22, 1996. The effect of the change in contracts was to delay the NEAT procedure. Under the Professional Service Contract Berger would have one year to correct the deficiencies, whereas this benefit was not available under her Continuing Contract. By letter dated October 18, 1996, ESE Supervisor Jonda L. Dement advised Borland that the IEP's for a number of students were out of compliance. It is the responsibility of the ESE teacher to have the IEP's in compliance. Some of the IEP's for Berger's students were not in compliance. Berger received a reprimand for failure to have all of her student's IEP's in compliance. On November 4, 1996, the date set for teachers at Polk City Elementary School to review their assessment results with administrators, Borland met with Berger, and it was evident that her student assessments were not complete. Berger gave no explanation why the student assessment were not completed. Berger's failure to have her assessments complete resulted in her receiving a written reprimand. Additionally, Borland reviewed the importance and significance of the assessment results with Berger. To assist Berger, Borland requested that ESE Supervisor Jonda Dement meet with Berger to review available assessment tools. Dement met with Berger on December 2, 1996. However, other than the assistance offered Berger by Dement as set forth in Finding of Fact 26, the record is not clear as to what assessment tools Dement offered Berger at this meeting. On December 2, 1996, Assistant Principal Toni Bartley observed three students outside of Berger's classroom who remained unattended for some period of time. Bartley entered the back door of Berger's classroom to inquire about the students. Berger informed Bartley that she was giving a test (part of the student assessment) to a student which had to be administered individually to the student without other students present. Therefore, the other students had to remain outside. Upon leaving the classroom by the door where the students were located, Bartley discovered that the door was locked. Berger did not realize the door was locked. However, she admitted that she was not able to always observe the children that were outside the classroom. Subsequently, Borland and Bartley met with Berger concerning this incident. At this meeting, Berger was advised that leaving students unattended was unacceptable and that school policy required that students be supervised at all times. As a result of this incident and because of prior verbal and written reprimands, Borland recommended to the Superintendent that Berger be suspended without pay. By letter dated December 10, 1996, the Superintendent suspended Berger without pay for five days. This five-day suspension is the subject matter of Case No. 97-0384. Although the student assessments were due January 8, 1997, Berger was granted an extension until January 13, 1997. By memorandum dated December 12, 1996, Berger was advised that the ongoing assessments of her students were due January 13, 1997, and that a meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. that day to review those assessments. However, Berger was granted an extension until January 15, 1997, to complete the assessments. At the January 15, 1997, meeting, it was clear that Berger's student assessments were not completed. As a result of Berger's failure to complete the student assessments, Borland recommended to the Superintendent that Berger be suspended five days without pay for insubordination. By letter dated February 18, 1997, the Superintendent advised Berger that he was suspending her without pay for five days based on insubordination in failing to complete student assessments as required by school policy and procedures. This five-day suspension is the subject matter of Case No. 97-1873. Review of student assessments for all teachers was scheduled for the week of March 10, 1997. Berger's appointment to review her student assessments was scheduled for March 14, 1997. Assistant Principal Bartley reviewed Berger's student files, and determined that numerous student assessments were missing for which there was no explanation by Berger. It is clear that Berger had failed to complete her student assessments at this time. As a result of Berger's repeated and ongoing failure to follow Borland's direction to complete student assessments, Borland recommended to the Superintendent that Berger's employment be terminated due to insubordination in failing to complete student assessments as required by school policy and procedure. By letter dated March 19, 1997, the Superintendent advised Berger that he was suspending her with pay effective March 21, 1997, and would recommend to the Board that her employment be terminated based upon continued insubordination in failing to complete student assessments. By letter dated April 1, 1997, the Superintendent advised Berger that the Board had adopted his recommendation to suspend her without pay effective April 1, 1997, pending the outcome of the administrative hearing. The Board's adoption of the Superintendent's recommendation to terminate Berger's employment with the Board is also the subject matter of Case No. 97-1873. Basically, prior to the 1996-97 school year, Berger had received good evaluations. Likewise, Berger has not had any serious discipline problems while employed as a teacher with the Board. Berger did not verbally refuse any direct order from Borland, or anyone else with authority, to complete her student assessments. However, although she completed some of the student assessments timely, Berger failed to timely complete all of her student assessments as directed by Borland, and required by school policy and procedure. Since approximately 1980, Berger has been completing county-wide assessments for her ESE students. Other than a small problem in 1992, Berger has successfully completed the county- wide assessments since 1980 without incident. Beginning with the 1996-97 school year, Berger, along with the other ESE teacher, was required to complete school-based student assessments. At the beginning of the school year it was Berger's understanding that the students’ classroom teacher would complete the school-based assessments. After being advised that she would be responsible for completing the school-based assessments for her students in certain areas, Berger began to assemble the necessary materials to conduct the assessments. Although Berger was not given any detailed explanation as to how the assessments were to be conducted, she was offered assistance by Jonda Dement, notwithstanding any testimony by Berger to the contrary. Although Dement testified that her office was not entirely familiar with this particular school-based assessment, she offered to have someone from her office to come and assist Berger in conducting and completing the assessments. Berger did not make a request of Dement for any assistance in conducting and completing her student assessments. Berger was given ample opportunity and time to complete her student assessments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board: (a) In Case No. 97-0384 enter a final order rescinding the Superintendent's five-day suspension and giving Berger a written reprimand; (b) In Case No. 97-1873 that the Board enter a final order sustaining the Superintendent's five-day suspension, but rather than terminating Berger, place her on a probationary status, which would allow her to correct any deficiency that the Board feels is necessary. Additionally, Berger should not be entitled to any back pay since the Board’s suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire LANE, TROHN, CLARKE, BERTRAND, VREELAND & JACOBSEN, P.A. Post Office Box 1578 150 Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33831 Mark Herdman, Esquire HERDMAN and SAKELLARIDES, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Mr. Glenn Reynolds Superintendent of Polk County School 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-0391
