The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner satisfied the requirements to be classified as a tenured teacher and was thereby entitled to the privileges and rights, afforded to persons employed by Respondent pursuant to the Duval County Teachers Tenure Act. Chapter 21-197, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1941, as amended by Chapter 70-671 and further amended by Chapter 72-576; and the education laws of the State of Florida and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Petitioner, Mary C. Gristina (formerly Mary Helen Campbell), was employed as a full-time teacher from September, 1960 through June, 1964, by the Duval County School Board (Respondent). Petitioner was granted an approved professional leave of absence without pay beginning on August 21, 1964, through June 11, 1965, to pursue graduate studies toward her masters degree. (Joint Exhibit 2) Petitioner was granted an extension of professional leave without pay from August 23, 1965 through June 15, 1966, to continue studies toward completion of her masters degree requirements at Florida State University. The above facts are not herein disputed. What is in dispute however is Petitioner's assertion that during the period in which she was on an approved professional leave of absence from August 21, 1964 through June 15, 1966, she completed all of the requirements for establishing tenure, including teaching (for Respondent) for three (3) consecutive years and securing the requisite hours of continuing education during such time frame, thereby establishing her tenure rights. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that Petitioner failed to establish that she completed the requisite hours of continuing education to be qualified for tenure in the Duval County School System, either while employed or between consecutive years that she was employed. In further support of this contention that the Petitioner failed to qualify as a tenured teacher, Respondent points to the fact that Petitioner was reemployed as an instructional employee pursuant to an annual contract during the 1979-80 school year. (Joint Exhibit 8) Respondent failed to renew Petitioner's contract for the 1980-81 school year and further refused to employ Petitioner in any other capacity since the 1979-80 school year. Petitioner received notice of Respondent's non-renewal of her employment contract during the late spring of 1980 and at the conclusion of the 1979-80 school year, both orally from her principal and in writing from the personnel department of the Duval County School Board. (Joint Exhibit 9) In this regard, Petitioner was advised by letter dated July 31, 1980, in response to a follow-up of a telephone conversation with Gary Simmons, Respondent's Director of Personnel Systems, that the personnel office had no record of Petitioner having completed six (6) semester hours of college work during any three (3) consecutive years of employment with the School Board. In support of her position that she in fact satisfied the requirements for appointment as a tenured teacher pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Respondent offered a transcript from Wagner College, Staten Island, New York, for three (3) semester hours' credit for Exploring Art in New York. That transcript shows an entrance date of July, 1964. Respondent rejected Petitioner's application for credit for the Wagner College course based on the fact that the entrance date of the art course was neither during any school year that she was employed nor between consecutive years that she was employed by the Respondent School System. (Joint Exhibit 5) During times material herein, Respondent had a procedure whereby instructional employees could request permission to substitute other educational work in lieu of the tenure law summer school course work requirements. 1/ Finally, Petitioner points out that she was handed a contract by a secretary while teaching during December, 1979, which she was not afforded an opportunity to review before executing. She was not therefore aware that she was in fact signing an annual contract for employment with the Respondent School Board. Petitioner contends that she completed her course work necessary to be qualified for a tenured teacher during the summer of 1964; however, she did not submit a transcript reflecting completion of such course work to Respondent because of her belief that she felt that she was employed as a tenured teacher and therefore, submission of the transcript was not required. In this connection, Personnel Systems Director Gary Simmons noted that if Petitioner had returned for employment and had taught during the 1964-65 school year, her services would have been continuous and she would have been employed as a tenured teacher under such a contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Duval County School Board enter an order denying Petitioner's claim to be afforded the rights and privileges afforded teachers who have satisfied the Duval County Teachers Tenure Act and, in accordance therewith, that she be denied all additional relief requested such as reinstatement with back pay etc., pursuant to the Amended Petition for administrative hearing filed herein. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher's aide in a mentally handicapped classroom for the past three years. Prior to her employment, Respondent, who is the mother of a handicapped child, worked as a volunteer classroom aide. She is active in the Parent Teacher Association and is a girl scout leader. Respondent attended an orientation session at the beginning of the 1983-84 school year where school policies were discussed. However, she does not remember any explanation of corporal punishment policy and did not receive a copy of Petitioner's rules on this subject. Respondent has had no formal training in education and is not certificated. Respondent recalls a discussion at the beginning of the school year with the special education teacher who was her supervisor. The teacher advised Respondent not to hit Robert Pelligrino because his sister would likely take legal action. The teacher concedes that she made a special point of telling Respondent not to strike Robert Pelligrino, but claims to have forgotten everything else about the discussion including the reason for this unusual warning. On or about February 3, 1984, while engaged in her duties as a teacher's aide, Respondent slapped the student Robert Pelligrino in the face. She struck the child with sufficient force to leave a mark which was visible for a brief period following the incident. Although Petitioner presented no evidence to establish that Respondent struck Robert Pelligrino, she readily admitted doing so. However, Respondent claims she was merely trying to correct his finger-sucking habit. This alibi is rejected, in that events leading up to the incident provoked Respondent and caused her to believe that Robert needed to be disciplined while his unacceptable behavior was fresh in his mind. Robert, who is mentally handicapped, tripped a smaller, handicapped student who fell and was injured as a result of Robert's action. Respondent first went to the aid of the injured student and immediately thereafter slapped Robert. The two other incidents were attested to by Robert's sister, Mrs. Donna Ferrell, who was serving as a volunteer aide on February 1, 1984. Mrs. Ferrell and Respondent were both working with a group of handicapped children on the occasion of a class field trip. Mrs. Ferrell observed Respondent beating on the chest of one student in an effort to re-attach a "stick-on" name tag which the child had removed. Later, on the bus, Mrs. Ferrell observed Respondent reach out and strike or tap a student on the top of his head to gain his attention. This evidence did not establish that Respondent injured either student, that she used undue force, or that she was attempting to punish either of them.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing its charges against Respondent. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1984.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact The Public Employer filed a petition for determination of managerial and confidential employees with PERC on February 21, 1975. The job positions for which managerial or confidential status is requested, and the persons who occupy the positions are set out in the petition. The petition was presented to the Public Employee Relations Commission on May 8, 1975. The hearing in this case was scheduled by notice dated August 1, 1975. The Public Employer recognized the MCEA as the exclusive bargaining agent of instructional personnel employed by the Public Employer prior to the instant petition being filed. A contract between the Public Employer and MCEA was signed on August 26, 1975, and was received in evidence at the hearing as Public Employer's Exhibit 5. The Public Employer's evidence respecting the responsibilities, duties, and day-to-day activities of the persons who occupy the positions for which managerial or confidential status is being sought was received primarily in the form of job descriptions, and a chart showing the functions of each position which justify managerial or confidential status as perceived by the Public Employer. The job descriptions were received in evidence as Public Employer's Exhibit 2. The chart was received in evidence as Public Employer's Exhibit 3. The job descriptions accurately describe the duties, responsibilities, and day- to-day activities of each position. If the persons who occupy the positions are not performing their duties in accordance with the descriptions, then they are performing their duties improperly. It is likely that if the jobs were being performed contrary to the descriptions, this fact would be known to the Superintendent. The positions for which managerial or confidential status is being sought are described in Public Employer's Exhibit 2 beginning at the following indicated page: the Assistant Superintendent for Service at page 27, the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction at page 5, the Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs at page 32, the Director of Personnel at page 24, the Director of Instructional Support and People Personnel Services at page 20, the Director of Adult Education at page 17, the Director of Exceptional Child and Special Services at page 13, the Director of Federal Programs at page 22, the Director of Career Education at page 16, the Director of Secondary Education at page 7, the Director of Elementary Education at page 9, the Director of Vocational Education at page 15, the Director of Community Manpower Programs at page 18, the Director of Planning and Research at page 14, the Maintenance Supervisor at page 28, the Transportation Supervisor at page 29, the Supervisor of Custodial Services at page 30, the Food Service Supervisor at page 34, the High School Principal at page 8a, the Middle School Principals at page 8f, the Elementary School Principals at page 11, the Assistant High School Principals at page 8c, the Assistant Middle School Principals at page 8h, the High School Department Heads at page 8d, the Curriculum Coordinators at page 8i and 12a, the Helping Teacher at page 12c. The references in the chart which was received as Public Employer's Exhibit 3 are to paragraphs in the job descriptions set out in Public Employer's Exhibit 2. The Public Employer is seeking to implement what was described at the hearing as a "team management system" in order to accomplish management a baser level. Under this system Principals, Assistant Principals, and department Heads would take on increased management functions. Principals are expected to initiate action respecting policy changes which they consider appropriate. The School Board, the Public Employer's legislative body, is ultimately responsible for adopting policy. The School Board typically adopts policies based upon the recommendations of the elected Superintendent, the Public Employer's chief executive officer. The Principal's recommendations respecting policy, especially policy which would be applicable primarily in the Principal's school are given great weight. One recent policy making decision in which a principal played a part involved parking at Martin County High school. The school Principal advised the superintendent of a need for a change in rules and regulations respecting parking. The principal went before the Board to describe the problem, and the Board directed the Principal and the Assistant Superintendent for Service to write a new policy for the Board's consideration. This policy was formulated primarily by the school Principal and was presented to the superintendent. The superintendent presented the policy to the School Board and recommended its adoption. The School Board adopted the policy without amendment. There are ten Principals employed by the Public Employer. There are one High School Principal, three Middle School Principals, and six Elementary School Principals. The High School Principal, one Middle School Principal and one Elementary School Principal were appointed by the Public Employer to the team which negotiated a contract with the MCEA. Under the agreement that has been signed by the Public Employer and by the MCEA, the Principal is charged with administering the agreement within his or her school. The Principal takes on a primary responsibility in the grievance procedure established in the agreement. The Principal is primarily responsible for making determinations respecting hiring and firing of personnel employed at his or her school. The Principal does not have the absolute authority to hire or fire personnel. The Principal makes recommendations to the superintendent, who in turn makes recommendations to the School Board. The School Board has the ultimate authority. In Martin County the Principals' recommendations respecting hiring and firing are followed, possibly without exception. The Principal is responsible for evaluating the personnel employed at his or her school. The evaluation is done on a form that has been adopted by the School Board. The evaluation goes into the employee's personnel file, and becomes a part of the employee's permanent employment record. The Public Employer's system for formulating and administering its budget is somewhat decentralized. Money is budgeted to a school based on the number of students. The school budget, which does not include expenditures for salaries or capital improvements, is prepared by the Principal. The Principal's budget is for all school supplies including textbooks. The central administration reviews the Principal's budget and would have authority to change items that were out of line. The budget ultimately adopted by the School Board actually reflects ten separate school budgets. The Principal has no control over the amount of money that will be budgeted to his or her school, but the Principal does have considerable latitude in setting the budget priorities for his or her school. Once the budget is adopted, the Principal has the authority to make expenditures based upon the budget. The Principal signs all purchase requisitions emanating from his or her school. The duties of Assistant Principals vary among the schools in Martin County, depending in part upon the responsibilities which are delegated by the Principal to the Assistant Principal. Virtually any of the Principal's responsibilities can be delegated by the Principal to the Assistant Principal, although ultimate responsibility would remain with the Principal. Generally Assistant Principals are charged with establishing schedules, and assigning teachers. The witness Clara Bevis Fulton is presently Principal at Martin County High School. She was previously Assistant Principal. As Assistant Principal she would hold initial interviews with job applicants. If the applicant appeared satisfactory she would call in the Department Head in the area in which the applicant works and would check the applicant's references. She would evaluate the teachers based on information given to her by Department Heads, and based upon her own classroom visits. She made recommendations to the Principal respecting hiring and firing. The Principal's budget responsibilities were handled by Mrs. Fulton while she was Assistant Principal at Martin County High School. There are six Department Heads employed by the Public Employer. All of the Department heads work at Martin County High School. The Department Heads typically spend approximately 4/5 of their time as classroom teachers, and the remaining time fulfilling administrative duties. The Director of Guidance, who is classified as a Department Head, spends more than half of his time on administrative duties. Department Heads are paid on a management pay scale rather than on a teacher's pay scale. The opinions of the Department Heads respecting new employees and old employees are solicited by the Principal or Assistant Principals. The Department Heads give considerable input into teacher evaluations. Department Heads serve as the first step in the grievance procedure adopted in the collective bargaining contract that has been signed by the Public Employer and by the MCEA. The School Superintendent refers to Department Heads as the front line of management. The Principal or Assistant Principals seek information from the Department Heads respecting the budgetary needs of their department. This information would primarily amount to an explanation of the coming year's needs in relation to the past year. This budget information relates to supplies and textbooks, not to salaries. The primary function of Curriculum Coordinators is to plan and administer a school's curriculum. The Curriculum Coordinator plays a role in evaluating teachers by forwarding information to the Principal or Assistant Principals. Information is sought from the curriculum Coordinators respecting budgetary needs, especially from the perspective of the priority of conflicting needs. The Curriculum Coordinator has no classroom duties. ENTERED this 16 day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida COPIES FURNISHED: All parties of record
Findings Of Fact Thomas L. Berkner, Petitioner, holds a continuing contract status as principal of elementary school in Orange County. During the 1977-1978 school year Petitioner was assigned as principal of the Winter Garden Elementary School which had a student enrollment of approximately 250 and consisted of kindergarten, first and second grades only. The Orange County School Board consolidated Winter Garden and Dillard Street Elementary Schools for the school year 1978-1979 leaving one principal for the school which retained the separate facilities, but was called Dillard Street Elementary School. The job of principal of the consolidated schools was given to the Dillard Street School principal and Petitioner was transferred to the position of Program Coordinator, ESEA Title I at the same salary he was paid as principal. The ESEA Title I Program is a federally funded project to serve economically disadvantaged and educationally deprived or disadvantaged children in grades 1, 2, and 3 but math is extended to grades 4, 5, and 6. The pay grade for Program Coordinator Title I was pay grade 46 and when first assigned Petitioner's personnel records reflected this pay grade (Exhibit 3). However, the records were corrected to reflect his continuing contract status and his pay grade was increased to 48 (Exhibit 4) the same pay grade for elementary school principals for schools with enrollment below 800. Although program coordinators are on annual contract status, Petitioner does not, while serving in this capacity, lose the continuing contract status as an elementary school Principal which he acquired in 1970. Scholastic and experience requirements for various positions in the Orange County school system are revised when these positions are advertised for applicants and generally reflect the highest qualities available in the local job market. At the present time elementary school principals and program coordinators are required to hold a masters degree. In addition program coordinators must be certified in elementary education and supervision, and have a minimum of five years teaching experience at the elementary level. Elementary principals must be certified in elementary school administration and supervision, and have a minimum of five years teaching experience (Exhibits 5, 7, and 9). Both principals and program coordinators perform primarily administrative functions as opposed to teaching functions. The principal is given overall responsibility for the school to which he is assigned and has certain statutory duties and authority that are not visited upon other positions. These include administrative responsibility for evaluating the educational program at his school, recommending the transfer and assignment of personnel at his school, administrative responsibility for school records, authority to administer corporal punishment and suspension of students, and perform such other duties as may be assigned by the Superintendent. Those duties assigned by the Superintendent are contained in the Job Description, Elementary School Principal (Exhibit 7) and phrased in the lexicon of education administrators, call upon the principal to promote, develop, coordinate, formulate, involve, manage and initiate programs and relationships to optimize the effectiveness of the school. The job description of the Program Coordinator ESEA, Title I (Exhibits 5 and 9) assigns to him responsibility for supervision of the Title I Program. The program coordinator's typical duties include interpreting the philosophy and goals of the program, assisting teachers, planning activities, participating in program planning, assisting principals and staffs, preparing and submitting reports and records, and performing other duties that may be assigned. Both jobs involve dealing with teachers and students, supervision, and administrative functions in carrying out the program for which each is responsible. The principal carries out his duties in the school to which he is assigned and works from his office while the program coordinator is responsible for the Title I program in several schools and spends a large part of his time away from the "office" he shares with other program coordinators. The principal has a secretary while the program coordinator must share a secretary with other program coordinators. However, one witness described the secretary at one elementary school as a school secretary and that the secretary did not work solely for the principal. Of those 15 typical duties of an elementary school principal listed on Exhibit 7, the program coordinator performs all but 5 and they involve duties that may be described as school-oriented rather than program-oriented. Of those 7 typical duties listed on Exhibit 9, Job Description for ESEA Title I Program Coordinator, the elementary school principal performs all except serve on Title I advisory council. Several witnesses testified that the position of principal was more prestigious than that of program coordinator, however, when all the evidence is considered it appears that prestige, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. While testifying in his own behalf Petitioner averred that as a program administrator he had no administrative duties and no personnel duties. Other program coordinators testified that they did have administrative and personnel duties. Petitioner acknowledged that most of the typical duties listed on Exhibit 7 were also performed by program coordinators.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause, within the meaning of Subsection 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007),1 to terminate Respondent’s professional services contract for the reasons alleged in a letter dated November 18, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has taught in the Polk County School System since 2000. For the first four school years, Respondent taught drama at the Rochelle School of the Arts. The next school year, Respondent taught English for one year at Kathleen Middle School. Beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, Respondent taught middle school English at Gause Academy until January 13, 2009. The allegations at issue in this proceeding pertain to the 2007–2008 school year at Gause Academy. By letter dated November 18, 2008, the superintendent of the Polk County Public Schools notified Respondent that the superintendent was recommending that Petitioner terminate the professional service contract of Respondent. On January 13, 2009, Petitioner followed the recommendation of the superintendent. The letter dated November 18, 2008, is the charging document in this proceeding. The letter notifies Respondent of the alleged grounds for termination of her employment and provides Respondent with a point of entry into the administrative process. In relevant part, the stated grounds for termination of employment are: . . . excessive absenteeism, dishonesty, and ongoing gross insubordination. Progressive discipline, as specified in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, has been followed in this case, and the next step of progressive discipline is termination. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of excessive absenteeism during the 2007-2008 school year at Gause Academy. It is undisputed that the absences for Respondent during the 2007-2008 school year totaled 43 days, of which many were before or after a weekend and resulted in three or four consecutive days. However, it is also undisputed that absences were due to illness and the remaining 14 absences were suspensions or leave time imposed by Respondent’s employer. During the 2005-2006 school year, Respondent missed days due to illness, and Petitioner determined that Respondent was a good, dynamic teacher who related well with students and worked well in the classroom. Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence any credible and persuasive reason why 30 absences for sickness during the 2005- 2006 school year were acceptable to Petitioner, but that 29 absences for sickness during the 2007-2008 school year warranted termination of Respondent’s professional service contract. The medical reasons for Respondent’s absences during the 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 school years were the same. Respondent has suffered debilitating migraine headaches from a very young age. When Respondent suffers a serious migraine headache, it is difficult for her to function. However, Respondent has managed to control the effects of her migraines. A preponderance of the evidence does not explicate persuasive reasons why 30 absences during the 2005-2006 school year did not prevent Respondent from doing her job satisfactorily, but that 29 absences during the 2007-2008 school year justifies the termination of Respondent’s professional service contract. The allegation of dishonesty relates to a form, identified as an Employee Application for Leave, that Respondent completed for absences from October 1 through October 3, 2008. The form provides that Respondent was sick and unable to leave her bed from October 1 through 3, 2008. Respondent signed the form on October 6, 2008, and the school principal approved the form on October 7, 2008. Sometime after October 7, 2008, the principal received information that Respondent had been arrested on October 1, 2008. The testimony of the principal during the hearing shows that he has no knowledge of the circumstances of the arrest, including the time of the arrest and the time Respondent was released and returned to her home. Nor does the principal have any knowledge of whether Respondent was ill with a migraine from October 1 through 3, 2008. Local law enforcement officers arrested Respondent at her home at 6:00 a.m. on October 1, 2008, on a charge that Respondent had issued a bad check. The officers took Respondent to the courthouse, the amount was paid, and Respondent was back home by 9:00 a.m. Between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on October 1, 2008, Respondent’s mother called the school and told school officials that Respondent was ill and would not be in to work. Neither Respondent’s mother nor Respondent misrepresented Respondent’s illness. Respondent was ill with a migraine headache while she was at the courthouse and, upon her return home, was confined to bed for three days. The remaining allegation is that Respondent did not prepare adequate lesson plans. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of inadequate lesson plans. At the conclusion of the 2006-2007 school year, the principal performed a Quality Performance Summary Assessment for Respondent, which is the equivalent of a year-end evaluation. The principal rated Respondent as “Needing Improvement” in the areas of Planning for Learning Communication and Professionalism and rated Respondent as “Unsatisfactory” in the area of Managing the Learning Environment. The principal indicated an appropriate Professional Development Plan (PDP) would be written for the 2007-2008 school year. The PDP was presented to Petitioner at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year. The primary strategies identified for improving classroom planning included: maintenance of a plan book to be turned in at the end of each week to the assistant principal and participation in in-service training for expanded classroom strategies. The PDP identified a Professional Resource Team to assist Respondent in the implementation of the PDP. The team consisted of the assistant principal, guidance counselor, and dean of students. Lesson planning at Guase Academy is left to the discretion of individual teachers. There is no template for lesson plans. Each teacher is left to develop lesson plans in a manner that is appropriate for his or her purposes. The assistant principal and guidance counselor did not provide Respondent with meaningful assistance toward the PDP goals. The assistant principal instructed all teachers that they could use documents identified in the record as “curriculum maps” as lesson plans. Respondent relied on the assistant principal and utilized curriculum maps to develop her lesson plans. Respondent worked extensively with the dean of students to formulate and complete lesson plans in a manner that was satisfactory to the principal. Respondent also worked with three fellow teachers who evaluated Respondent’s lesson plans and found them to be sufficient. None of the lesson plans were ever satisfactory to the principal. Respondent met with the principal on numerous occasions during the 2007-2008 school year. At each meeting, the principal gave only a cursory review of the plans, concluded they were inadequate, and gave no explanation of a specific deficiency. Respondent never refused to provide lesson plans and never failed to submit lesson plans until after it was apparent that no lesson plan from Respondent would satisfy the principal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order reinstating Respondent’s professional services contract with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 2009.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations treated herein, Respondent, William Wyche, held a Florida Teaching Certificate number 106113, issued on October 29, 1980, covering the area of industrial arts. Respondent applied for a Florida teaching certificate by submitting the required application form and documentation on or about October 20, 1980. At the time of submission, Respondent replied "no" to the question in Section V of the form which asks: "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. . .?" This answer was false in that: On September 20, 1979, respondent was found guilty of driving while his license was suspended, and fined $50.00; On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and fined $25.00; On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of driving with a suspended license and fined $100.00; On April 2, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00; and, On April 25, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00. On that same date, in a separate case involving an identical charge, adjudication was withheld but Respondent was placed on probation for sixty days. Respondent explains the check charges on the basis that at the time they took place, all within a few weeks of each other, his bank account had been garnished and because of that garnishment, though he had ample funds in his account to honor these checks, the bank did not honor them. There were quite a few checks dishonored for this reason-so many, in fact, that he lost track of some of them and though he redeemed most, he failed to redeem these. As to the convictions for driving with a suspended license, he thought these were minor traffic offenses that did not have to be listed. Respondent was employed as an industrial arts (IA) teacher at Kirby Smith Junior High School (KSJHS) in Jacksonville, Florida during the 1981-82 school year, teaching in the metal shop. During this period, he was evaluated on a regular basis, based on observations and evaluations by other school officials carried on at various times throughout the school year. During these evaluations, such things as classroom conditions, the instructor's presentations, the preparation of lesson plans, and the use of lesson plans as guidelines for in-class instruction were considered. Lonnie W. Davenport was assistant principal for curriculum at KSJHS during this period and had to insure that teaching was taking place properly in both form and substance. To do this, he contacted his teachers daily and also relied on observations such as described above, and reports submitted to him. These reports were regarding such things as student class size, grade reports by teachers, black/white student count in the homerooms, and teachers' lesson plans which were required from each teacher weekly. While he has no formal IA training, he has a lot of experience in the area. Mr. Davenport first took serious note of the Respondent in mid- December, 1981 when he noted that Respondent had not submitted complete lesson plans. There were holes in those submitted relating to time and quality. In addition, the principal had asked him to look into reported irregularities in Respondent's classroom. His examination of Respondent's lesson plans showed that they were inadequate because they: did not conform to the form required; did not cover the subject matter sufficiently; did not follow a time sequence properly; and, were not sufficiently specific. They should have broken down the instruction into segments for skill development on a step-by-step, day-by-day basis. In short, Respondent's plans did not adequately tell what he was intending to do in his classroom. As to Respondent's teaching, Davenport's observation showed that Respondent: had no plans to show what was expected of his students; maintained the shop in a depressing state. (Here, however, it was admitted that this school was old and the shop dingy, and Respondent could not control all of that. However, Respondent's teaching aids, such as posters, which were old, faded, and torn, added to the dinginess.) allowed shop metal to lay around the shop without being placed in stock storage, creating a safety hazard; failed to safeguard and neglected one student's artwork project, and other students' projects were left out and not placed in storage for the next class period; stored a large stack of sheet metal under a work bench with cutting corners end edges protruding (also a safety hazard) allowed equipment which should have been stored to remain out; failed to have safety lines placed on the floor around individual pieces of equipment; failed to insure that soldering forges were properly shielded or securely fastened down; and, failed to post safety rules prominently in the classroom. Respondent contends that he submitted purchase orders requesting corrections be made of these deficiencies. However, with the exception of several orders for paint, some of which may have been used for the safety lines and to brighten up the area, the remainder of the purchase orders he introduced into evidence (Respondent's Composite Exhibit E), were for metal stock and other pieces of new or replacement equipment. There was no evidence of work orders for correction of any of the cited defects. Mr. Davenport's observations as to Respondent's teaching ability were that: He sat at his desk in the classroom while his students were working in the shop behind his back. As a result, students with problems had to come out of the shop to him for help rather than him being available in the shop to help; students were not required to wear safety goggles while operating power equipment nor did Respondent use them while operating the equipment; The student projects assigned or approved by Respondent were too simple and provided no challenge; The quality of the finished product turned out by Respondent's students was poor; Grading of student projects was accomplished on the basis of negotiation with the student and not on accomplishment or work quality; Once the student had completed the basic project, Respondent had no follow-up projects for them to do to use up the remainder of the school year. He, allowing them to occupy themselves with "busy work," showed to Davenport a lack of commitment to planning; Respondent was observed and overheard by Davenport to chastise a student by threatening to destroy the student's project, resulting in failure. This observation, which Respondent admitted to Davenport, is contrary to a school policy which prevents discipline from affecting an academic grade; and, In one particular class observed, Respondent came to class late. He had allowed a student to take roll, a function required of the teacher, and evidence available to Davenport, led him to believe this was a repeated- occurrence; Respondent's absence allowed students to engage in horseplay and rowdy behavior and, even when Respondent came into class, he chastised the wrong student. As to the type of instruction Respondent was observed to give, when a student would bring a project to him and ask a question, he would answer. For the most part, however, he stayed at his desk while the students worked unsupervised in the shop. He showed no initiative and did not even require students to draw plans or prepare material lists before starting work on a project. On one occasion, a student was injured in the shop. Respondent merely washed the injury, wrapped it, and sent the student back to work. Davenport, who observed this incident, told Respondent on the spot that the student should go to the office for first aid and that Respondent should file an accident report on the incident. The report was not filed by Respondent and the student went to the office at the direction of Davenport, not Respondent. This showed a complete lack of concern, according to Davenport. Davenport counseled the Respondent on the above deficiencies but observed no immediate response. He went back to Respondent's class 5-7 times subsequently for follow-up visits of from 20 minutes to an hour in duration and found little change for the better. He repeatedly offered Respondent assistance in any area to correct the shortcomings and got no response until in March, 1982, when Respondent found out he was going to get an unsatisfactory rating. He had been notified in writing, on January 8 end again on February 5, 1982, by his principal Mr. Shanklin, in addition to others, including an evaluation on January 13, 1982 by Mr. Lowell T. Hudson, supervisor of industrial arts for the school board, that his performance was deficient. These warnings could have left little doubt as to the fact his performance was below standard. Finally, on March 15, 1982, Mr. Shanklin rendered an evaluation on Respondent which showed an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Of the six areas rated in classroom management, two were satisfactory and four were unsatisfactory. Of the twenty- one areas rated in teaching effectiveness, one was satisfactory, nine were rated as needing improvement, and eleven were rated unsatisfactory. Seven of the nine areas of professional/personal characteristics were rated satisfactory, one needed improvement, and one was unsatisfactory. Even after this unsatisfactory report, the school administrative staff still tried to help Respondent. They offered him direct help themselves and, in addition, the services of county in service resource personnel to help with planning. Respondent was receptive to this verbally, but never took any steps to use them. As a result, there was no improvement in Respondent's performance but merely a maintenance of the status quo. There were some minor improvements in the condition of the shop but these were merely cosmetic and did not, in any way, relate to the quality of instruction. In Davenport's opinion, Respondent does not meet the minimum standards of competency for teachers nor can he be trained to meet these standards. He is convinced, and it is so found that Respondent's race played no part in the evaluation process. The principal at KSJHS during this period, Mr. Jack H. Shanklin, agreed with and amplified on Davenport's analysis of Respondent. His first difficulty with Respondent came in October, 1981 when the Dean of Girls wrote him a memorandum stating that Respondent had struck a student with a dowel rod. This was not the first instance of Respondent's striking students. Since Respondent was not designated as one to administer corporal punishment, she had previously warned him to send all disciplinary problems to the office. When Shanklin discussed this with Respondent, he said he did it to control the class. Shanklin did not personally evaluate Respondent until early January, 1982, after Davenport's evaluation. Prior to going to the class, he reviewed Respondent's lesson plans and found them to be sketchy. In his opinion, a substitute teacher could not have taught from them and they were "totally unacceptable." When he went into the classroom, he found the Respondent lecturing end he could not understand what Respondent was trying to get across. Respondent mumbled, was hard to understand, and used few, if any, visual aids. It was obvious to him that the students were bored, confused, and were getting nothing from the presentation. In addition, he observed the shop and found it to be dingy, dirty, and a safety hazard. Mr. Shanklin discussed these deficiencies with Respondent a few days later when he gave him the letter regarding the observation. He went into these deficiencies, and recommendations to correct them, quite thoroughly. He made suggestions as to resource people available to help and pointed out specific references to the teachers' manual. In each case, Respondent always indicated he understood and would try to comply. However, in the succeeding month leading up to the February letter, there were no signs of improvement at all nor was there any indication he had utilized the resource people. Follow-up visits to the classroom showed no change and no indication Respondent was getting anything across to the students. After the February letter was given to Respondent by Mr. Shanklin personally, they had a conference in which Shanklin discussed Respondent's deficiencies and he was told what he had to change to get a favorable evaluation. The most critical areas for improvement identified were: lesson plans safety conditions, and classroom appearance, as well as Respondent's personal untidy and nonprofessional appearance. After this discussion, Shanklin made several visits to Respondent's classroom prior to the March evaluation and did note some improvements in classroom appearance and safety, but not in lesson planning or teaching. Even after the March evaluation, up to the end of the school term, he noted no improvement. On March 29, 1982, he gave Respondent a third letter outlining areas for improvement. Respondent finished out the 1981-82 school year but because of the unsatisfactory evaluation he received, requested a transfer to a different school for the 1982-83 school year. In Shanklin's opinion, Respondent did not meet minimum standards of competency nor could he achieve them because of a lack of effort to improve. Shanklin feels Respondent does not care about the education of children and would make only superficial efforts to be trained. Race is not a factor in this evaluation. At least 50 percent of Shanklin's staff is black. He has 85 teachers on his staff and in the last three years, he has rated 13 teachers unsatisfactory. Of these, 8 or 9 were black. Therefore, of the 255 teacher evaluations he has rendered in three years, 8 or 9 unsatisfactory's were given to black teachers. Dalton D. Epting, Director of Certified Personnel for the school board, talked with Respondent about his evaluation on several occasions when Respondent was at Wolfson High School. If a teacher is on tenure status and received an unsatisfactory evaluation, he may request a transfer to a different school for a second year during which efforts are made through counseling, training, and other assistance, to help him become satisfactory. When Respondent, due to his unsatisfactory evaluation at KSJHS requested a transfer, he was assigned for the second year, to Wolfson High where, for reasons cited below, he was rated unsatisfactory for the second year in a row. Respondent was sent to Wolfson for his second year because there was no vacancy for IA teachers in the system. Even though Wolfson was also full, rather than send Respondent back to KSJHS, they sent him to Wolfson, with all its teachers, so he could have the benefit of other good teachers. Race was not a factor in this decision. It is not automatic that a teacher who receives a second consecutive unsatisfactory rating is discharged. The system looks to see if the teacher was given every assistance to improve; to ensure that everything reasonable was done by way of counseling, resource help, training, and the like, to help him. If it was and the teacher did not improve, he is discharged. Here, school officials looked at all evaluations for both years, considered the discussions held with Respondent, and the input from cadre and resource personnel, and decided that Respondent was incompetent. The decision was made, therefore, to discharge the Respondent and this action was taken. During the 1982-83 school year, after his first unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent worked for David E. White, principal at Wolfson High School. Immediately White sat down with Respondent, along with the IA supervisor to let him know what was expected of him and what help was available to him. He observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions and, based on these and other factors in accordance with school board rules, in an effort to let the teacher know how he or she is doing, rendered an unsatisfactory rating on Respondent on October 30, 1982. Among the examples of Respondent's incompetence which led up to this evaluation were progress reports, discipline referrals, notes, and tests prepared by Respondent, some of which went home to parents, that contained obvious spelling, grammatical, and syntax errors. At first, White became aware of concern by students and their parents about Respondent's performance. When these complaints first began, White called in the IA supervisor for the school district, Mr. Hudson, to evaluate Respondent. He began evaluating Respondent himself when the complaints continued. These complaints were to the effect, basically, that the students could not understand Respondent. (It is noted here that Respondent suffers from a slight speech impediment). He would merely read from the textbook with no teacher-student interaction. There was little lab work - mostly lecture or reading. This was not appropriate in the Graphic Arts area which consists of such skills as printing, photography, silk-screening, and the like. Consistent with the notes, reports, end referral slips prepared by Respondent, White noted a lack of grammatical correctness in his oral presentations as well. In addition, White observed that the Respondent's students were not being motivated by him and spent little time on their classroom tasks, and he also observed that Respondent's presentation was lacking in technological detail. For example, on one occasion, Respondent was discussing a box camera and failed to detail the advantages and disadvantages of this type of camera, the type of films available for it, and the merits of each. When the class period was over, White discussed the above with Respondent, suggesting how the lecture could be improved. The following day White came back to class to see how Respondent carried the discussion forward and it was as if White had not said anything. Respondent continued to omit from his lecture the substantive technological information White, as principal, felt should be taught. White concluded that Respondent was not at all familiar with the subject matter he was teaching. 1/ Respondent was also considered to be deficient in his administrative skills. He lost (or had stolen) his grade book as well as his computer worksheets twice during one 9 week period. This created seven extra hours work for the curriculum office, with 3 additional hours by Respondent, to reconstruct, his grades. The fact that Respondent had to help in this project meant someone had to cover his classes for him. It also created a lot of inquiry by parents who, on learning of the lost grade book, questioned the validity of grades given their children. In addition, Respondent's attendance registers were not turned in on time notwithstanding frequent reminders in advance of due dates. At the end of the first semester, White had a conference with Respondent about the above. Respondent began being absent due to sickness in January, 1983 and went on sick leave on 9 February, 1983 which extended through the remainder of the school year. It is important to note that Respondent's absence at this time was valid and there is no inference or insinuation to the contrary. While he was absent, on March 8, 1983, Respondent was given a notice of intent to render an unsatisfactory evaluation report which was, in fact, issued on April 15, 1983. Here it must be noted that there could have been no improvement in performance between the notice and the evaluation as Respondent was not present for duty but was on sick leave. In any event, White contends that as a result of Respondent's teaching, the school's IA program has been seriously damaged, but that has not been shown. While Respondent's classes did net prepare his students for the second year curriculum in those areas, there is no evidence that the school's program has been seriously damaged. Nonetheless, it was shown be that, as white contends, Respondent did not meet minimum county standards and could not be improved to meet them. Consequently, on August 15, 1983, the superintendent of the Duval County public schools, by certified letter, notified Respondent that because of the two years of unsatisfactory evaluations, indicating professional incompetence, he was recommending the School Board discharge Respondent from employment. Thereafter, on January 16, 1984, the Duval County School Board, by Final Order, sustained the charge of professional incompetence, and discharged Respondent as a teacher. Race was definitely not an issue in White's evaluation. In his school, at which the student body comes from the upper level socioeconomic group, and which has rated first in Area Scholastic Aptitude Test scores for the past five ears, White has no black administrators or department chairmen on his staff. One black former department chairman was promoted to vice-principal at another school. His choices for personnel are based on qualifications, not race. At the present time, 12 percent of the teachers on staff are black and over the six years White has been principal at Wolfson High, only 3 black teachers have transferred out. While at both KSJHS and Wolfson High, Respondent was encouraged to consult with Everett T. Hudson, IA supervisor for the school board, and was, in fact, evaluated by him in both settings. He evaluated Respondent first on January 14, 1982, at the request of the Principal at KSJHS end observed Respondent during his 8-9 a.m. first period class. His conclusions were: classroom and shop cleanliness were poor; it appeared that activities were winding down shop organization was poor (no clean-up schedule was posted and metal stock was laying everywhere; the students' projects were not meaningful or of a quality nature; respondent spent too much time lecturing and did not allow for sufficient shop time, and, respondent's lesson plans were not available. When seen, it was obvious Respondent had not used the curriculum guide to draft the few plans he had. When Respondent transferred to Wolfson High, the Principal there also asked Hudson to come out and evaluate Respondent on a more frequent basis. Consequently, because of this request and because of the fact that due to Respondent's previous unsatisfactory rating he was on probation, Hudson evaluated Respondent ten times, at least once in each month, between September 8, 1982 and January 5, 1983. As a result of these evaluations, it appeared to Hudson that Respondent did not know how to: plan a project; lay out equipment; identify woods and where they came from; use certain equipment. It further appeared to Hudson that Respondent's lectures were poor in that he mumbled and he didn't seem to know what he was talking about. Further, his lesson plans were poor, and he failed to keep up with an appropriate time schedule for class. As a result, Hudson ended up, himself, helping the students rather than evaluating. When these observations were made, Mr. Hudson would go over them with Respondent and give Respondent a copy. Notwithstanding he pointed out these deficiencies repeatedly, there appeared to be no improvement at all. The school system here has a remedial program for teachers to use to improve their performance. There are resource teachers to provide assistance and there are also "in service" programs for teachers. Mr. Hudson suggested Respondent take some, one of which he was teaching right at Respondent's school. As he recalls, Respondent came twice out of 15 sessions. As a result of the above, Hudson does not believe that Respondent meets minimum competency standards and could not meet them. In his opinion, Respondent: suffers from a lack of organizational ability; has lackadaisical attitude toward improving the program; would not spend the necessary time to upgrade his skills, and has a weak knowledge of the subject matter. Here again, race was not an issue in these evaluations. Hudson supervises 95 IA teachers in the Duval County school system and is the only administrator. Of these teachers, approximately 25 are black. Over 13 years, he has been called in to evaluate, like this, 5 or 6 teachers, only one of whom was black, and of this number, only 2 have been discharged. Respondent has a Bachelor of Science decree in Education and a Masters degree in Industrial Education, both from Florida A & M University. In addition, he has attended a leadership development course at Michigan State University, military classes in the same while in the army at Ft. Dix, New Jersey, and numerous workshops in Florida at his own expense. It was his hope, when he started working in Duval County, to develop some feel for the IA field in that school system As a result of his experience there, he is of the opinion that the entire IA program is underfunded. Students have to pay for the wood and metal materials they use to build a prefect. He urges that without materials and equipment, a teacher cannot teach, a point concerned by Mr. Davenport, and that was the reason he submitted the purchase orders he did at KSJHS. In that regard, it would appear that about the time Respondent was teaching at KSJHS in 1981, a report by an Inspector (Jenkins) from the school district offices, reflected that materials and equipment in Respondent's class area did not meet minimum state requirements. In addition, there was some problem regarding the excessive size of the class. This problem was immediately corrected end certification in this area was restored. He also contends that a teacher's teaching style may differ from that of his principal's and still be correct. With regard to the April 15, 1953 unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent contends, in an attempt to contest his rating, that since he was out sick much of the month of January, 1983, and all of the time from February 9, 1983 to the end of the school year, a rating dated in mid April would cover as large a period of time when he was not there as when he was. The Teacher Tenure Act under which this system operates provides for a second full year of evaluation before discharge. Since he was sick for half the second year, he contends, his discharge was not valid. He wants to fulfill his probationary period to prove he is a worthy teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, William Wyche's teacher certificate issued by the State of Florida be revoked for a period of three years, with provision for reinstatement as provided for by statute. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk with the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1984.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Leon County School District has just cause, as defined in Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), to end the Respondent's tenured employment as a teacher, due to allegedly deficient performance.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mr. Waters, has worked as a Special Education Teacher in Leon County for approximately 13 years. He most recently has worked in the field of Special Education at Oakridge Elementary School (Oakridge), starting in the school year 2001-2002 and ending in December 2005. Mr. Waters is married and has two children by a former wife, with whom he shares custody of his children. He has volunteered for 18 years as a Troop Leader for a troop of disabled Boy Scouts in Tallahassee. He has been recognized for those efforts by being the recipient of the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital Foundation's "everyday hero" award. He has also been a finalist for the Tallahassee area "volunteer of the year award" in 2005. When Mr. Waters was hired at Oakridge Elementary School he was interviewed by the head ESE teacher or "team leader", Donna George. He was chosen for the available position from three or four final applicants, based upon her favorable view of the qualities he could bring to the position, which she still believes to be the case. During the 2001-2002 school year the principal at Oakridge was Michelle Crosby. Ms. Hodgetta Huckaby was the Assistant Principal. Sometime during that school year Mr. Waters encountered a problem involving two of his students being engaged in an after school fight. He apparently referred the students for discipline to the Assistant Principal, Ms. Huckaby, and she sent the students back to his class. He disagreed with this disciplinary decision and appealed the matter to the principal, Ms. Crosby. Ms. Crosby resolved the disciplinary matter in favor of Mr. Waters' position. Ms. Huckaby thereupon called Mr. Waters to her office to upbraid him and express her anger at his having "gone over her head." After a heated exchange between the two she told the Respondent to "never come back into my office for any reason." Thereafter, for the remainder of his tenure at Oakridge their relationship was very strained, especially during the time Ms. Huckaby was Principal, which began at the beginning of the following year, the 2002-2003 school year, after Ms. Crosby left Oakridge and was replaced by Ms. Huckaby. In order to replace Ms. Huckaby's vacant former position as assistant principal, the District assigned Kim McFarland as the new assistant principal in the fall of 2002. Prior coming to the assistant principalship at Oakridge, Ms. McFarland had served as a fifth grade regular classroom teacher for 10 years in the District. She had no prior administrative experience and had no experience in Exceptional Student Education. Her degree field is in the area of elementary education. After the events at issue in this case, Ms. McFarland left Oakridge, on July 1, 2006, to become the assistant principal at Swiftcreek Middle School. Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland jointly performed the annual evaluation of the Respondent for the 2002-2003 school year. They used the "Accomplished Teacher Performance Feed Back Summary Form." Mr. Waters's overall rating for that year was "at expectancy level." Ms. McFarland wrote several positive comments concerning his performance on that document, but he also received ratings of "below expectancy" in two areas, teacher performance improvement and professional development. Also, in the Spring of 2003, Ms. McFarland observed his class on or about April 23, 2003. She was positive about that evaluation and wrote Mr. Waters a note wherein she indicated that he had "presented a great lesson" and that his students were engaged and on task. She praised him for monitoring student behavior using a behavior management point system and found his room "exciting" because he displayed a great deal of students work on the walls. In the 2003-2004 school year, specifically in November 2003, Ms. McFarland informed Mr. Waters that his lesson plans were not adequate because he was failing to incorporate a new component which required that notations of student remedial reading levels be made, represented by "lower case" roman numerals. She required him to submit his lesson plans to be reviewed each Monday while he was seeking to improve his lesson plans. Thereafter, on April 26, 2004, Ms. McFarland notified the Respondent that he had satisfactorily complied with lesson plan requirements and no longer needed to submit lesson plans for review each Monday. She also emphasized in that letter of April 26, 2004, that he should adhere to his lesson plans, as prepared, in his teaching presentation to the extent possible, so that when administrators observed his room they would be able to determine exactly what he was performing at the time simply by looking at his lesson plan book. In the meantime, Mr. Waters was given an improvement notice on February 20, 2004, by Ms. McFarland. This was because of her concern that he was not fully cooperating with procedures and recommendations concerning behavior management; recommendations made by behavior management consultants on contract with the School Board. Those consultants were working with him and his emotionally handicapped (EH) student class at that time. During their meetings and contacts with Mr. Waters and his EH student class that year he had exhibited a good level of agreement and cooperation with their recommendations to him regarding changes in behavior management methodologies for his class, but the consultant, Dr. Adams, perceived that he was slow or reluctant to actually carry them out. Later in the spring of that school year, Dr. Adams took Mr. Waters on a tour at Kate Sullivan Elementary and another school, to observe how behavior management models or methodologies were employed in EH classes at those schools and which Dr. Adams opined he was later reluctant to implement in his own class. They communicated these concerns about his perceived intransigence in changing his behavioral management style or methodology to the administration at Oakridge, which resulted in the February 20, 2004, improvement notice from Ms. McFarland. Significantly, however, Ms. Haff, in her observations of the Respondent's performance during the following school year found that he had received the higher level of training in the "Champs program" concerning behavioral management, and had been and was successfully implementing it in his class and with his students to a great degree, although, of necessity, adapting it to the needs of his students and his role then as a resource teacher, rather than as a discrete EH classroom teacher during the following 2004-2005 school year. Ms. Huckaby changed his assignment from duty as a direct class EH teacher to that of "resource teacher" after the 2003-2004 school year. Mr. Waters had a meeting with Ms. McFarland on February 20, 2004, to discuss that improvement notice, and her concerns that he was not fully cooperating with the recommendations of the behavior management consultants in terms of not carrying out their recommendations. During the course of that meeting she stated, "You know its not me that’s behind this" implying to him that Ms. Huckaby was actually the instigator of the improvement notice concerning this subject matter. Apparently Mr. Waters contacted union officials for the Leon County Teachers Association (LCTA) complaining that the improvement notice was too general and did not specifically point out what must be done to correct the perceived problem. In response to those concerns, in part, Ms. McFarland issued a subsequent improvement notice on April 27, 2004, with a few more specific expectations and which updated the status of Mr. Waters's efforts to address the concerns raised in the February 20th revised improvement notice. Ms. McFarland observed Mr. Waters' class on March 11 and March 16 and did a "part A" teacher's assessment document for each observation. Mr. Waters was due to be evaluated using the Accomplished Teacher Summary Form for 2003-2004 and so the assessment part A form was not required to be completed for him. Nonetheless, Ms. McFarland told Mr. Waters that these were really informal observations and she was completing these observation forms in order to get some practice using them since it was her first year as an administrator, formally observing and evaluating teachers independent of Ms. Huckaby. The Respondent did not get a copy of these assessment part A documents until June of that year and did not get an opportunity to discuss them with Ms. McFarland. Ms. McFarland also completed the Accomplished Teacher Feedback Summary Form for the 2003-2004 school year. That form states that overall assessments must be satisfactory if all the required areas are completed. Ms. McFarland described Waters' performance unfavorably in the "comments" section of the form and gave him an overall performance rating of "below expectancy level." He received this Accomplished Teacher Summary Form rating document on or about September 22, 2004. During the month of October he inquired of Ms. McFarland, union officials, and school district officials concerning the meaning of his overall "below expectancy" rating for the 2003-2004 school year. Apparently an attorney for the school district informed him that the evaluation was considered satisfactory on the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form, unless school administrators produced an evaluation document that indicated an overall "needs improvement" rating. Ms. McFarland had informed him that the Accomplished Teacher document reflecting the below expectancy rating was his only official evaluation. Although Mr. Waters received confirmation that the use of the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form rendered his 2003-2004 evaluation to be automatically a satisfactory one, it is also clear that Ms. McFarland intended to give him the below expectancy rating and for some reason mistakenly used the wrong form and procedure. During October 2004 the Respondent met with Ms. Huckaby to discuss some matter unrelated to his performance rating. During the course of that meeting, at which only Ms. Huckaby and the Respondent were present, Ms. Huckaby became angry at the Respondent and engaged in a tirade, calling him "the worst teacher she had ever seen, as well as making other unprofessional comments." Mr. Waters then stated to the effect that he did not think he was such a bad teacher since he had consistently received satisfactory evaluations. Ms. Huckaby then indicated that she felt he had received a needs improvement evaluation for the 2003-2004 school year, to which Mr. Waters retorted that based upon the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form being used his evaluation was deemed to be satisfactory overall. Ms. Huckaby then angrily threatened him with an unsatisfactory evaluation for the upcoming 2004-2005 school year. Only a week or two elapsed after this meeting and comment by Ms. Huckaby when, at Ms. Huckaby's behest, Mr. Waters inclusion class was changed to a "pull-out reading group," meaning that he then had to work with a new reading curriculum and plan his own reading lessons using that curriculum instead of relying upon and carrying out the regular classroom teacher's daily lesson plan reading goals, which had been the program he had been instructed to perform previously. Ms. Eydie Sands was dispatched by Ms. Huckaby to observe Mr. Waters' reading class and made critical observations during follow-up meetings with Mr. Waters and Ms. Huckaby; the team-taught writing group jointly taught by Mr. Waters and Ms. Wacksman, which had worked well in rendering progress to the students in writing, was abruptly separated into two sections by Ms. Huckaby with no explanation or apparent reason; thereafter on approximately November 6, 2004, Ms. Huckaby gave Mr. Waters a lengthy letter of harsh criticism as to almost all aspects of his teaching performance and directed him to immediately comply with 13 directives contained in the letter. Additionally, Mr. Waters' 2004-2005 school year resource teacher schedule was changed five times, adding further confusion to an already difficult year, which started with a new classroom assignment. The new room was piled high with boxes of materials for many teachers and classrooms other than his own. This circumstance required him to spend his entire pre-planning time moving and clearing out his newly assigned room so that he could use it. Significant changes and requirements were imposed for lesson plans, student progress monitoring requirements, and the new A3 computerized IEP technology, as well as a substantially increased amount of related paperwork burdens placed upon all teachers at the school, including Mr. Waters, through Ms. Huckaby's policy directives. One directive in the November 6, 2004, letter from Ms. Huckaby required Mr. Waters to again submit weekly lesson plans to school administrators by 8:00 a.m. every Monday morning. The normal procedure provided for having lesson plans to be examined from time to time, after advance administration notice to the faculty of their lesson plan review dates. Despite lesson plan component changes made unilaterally by the administration in both the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years which added several time-consuming, ill-defined requirements to the previous less formal structure for lesson plans, the Respondent's lesson plans during those years remained detailed and organized when compared to those of his fellow special education teachers who apparently were deemed to have performed this task appropriately. In carrying out this instruction Mr. Waters tried to obtain model lesson plans and to incorporate the new requirements into his plans. They were consistently unacceptable to Ms. Huckaby, however, and ultimately cited as one of the reasons for his termination recommendation. Similar, and even less detailed lesson plans of his colleagues that had been found acceptable, were not reviewed or remained the same even after administrators provided plan improvement instructions, without those teachers being subjected to discipline therefor. In an effort to comply with the directive concerning his lesson plans and because the new lesson plan components imposed were difficult to understand and reasonably apply, especially for an ESE teacher and students, Mr. Waters sought to obtain model plans and lesson plan advice, but received little or no meaningful help. His mentor teacher assigned for 2004-2005, Michelle Smith, did not respond to his request for samples of her lesson plans. The Oakridge administration gave him only limited excerpts of two teachers' lesson plans for 2004-2005, which were confusing and did not themselves comply with the new lesson plan format imposed that year. In the 2005-2006 year the Respondent was not asked to submit lesson plans on a weekly basis and received no assistance with lesson plans until Ms. Palazesi, who was observing his class or classes that fall, in early November, wrote a model lesson plan, adapted from one of his actual lessons. Ms. Palezesi, however, was not aware of the lesson plan requirements in place at Oakridge then, and even her lengthy lesson plan sample, for just one class period, did not meet all of Oakridge's lesson plan criteria imposed for 2005-2006. It is noteworthy that the lesson plans for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 of teacher Charles Robshaw, also a resource teacher for Special Ed at Oakridge clearly do not comply with the lesson plan requirements. This fact serves to corroborate the Respondent's contention that only he was held strictly accountable for the administration's excessively detailed and to some extent non-germane lesson plan requirements. In both pertinent school years the Respondent was deemed deficient by Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland in terms of timely or fully complying with student progress monitoring test data compilation requirements. The Respondent did keep abreast of his students daily classroom progress and maintained files on their work and test papers. In the 2004-2005 school year, however, in the early part of the year (September thorough mid- November) he encountered problems in timely complying with submitting the "cover sheet" student progress test data information as part of the curriculum notebook he was required to supply the administration, through the mechanism of either monthly or bi-weekly progress monitoring meetings between teachers and the administration. He was given a needs improvement notice as to this issue, and as the year progressed, he complied with these requirements. In the 2005-2006 school year he inadvertently missed the initial progress monitoring meeting because he became confused as to when his fourth grade team was supposed to meet for the progress monitoring session and he candidly admitted that was his own mistake. Ms. McFarland did not criticize him for that, but simply reminded him that he had missed the meeting. A subsequent meeting early in the fall of 2005 was scheduled with Ms. McFarland and he did attend with his notebook (or other required data) for a 3:00 p.m. meeting. He had an pre-existing appointment after school at 3:30, which he could not miss, and he informed Ms. McFarland of that fact. She excused him from the meeting. After those two early progress monitoring meeting discrepancies in September 2005, however, the Respondent complied with his progress monitoring requirements and those issues were not again raised with him, until raised as one of the reasons in Ms. Huckaby's final decision in late December 2005 as to why she recommended his termination. Significantly, the school administration only checked to see that teachers other than Mr. Waters had completed similar student data compilations only once or twice early in each school year. Subsequently, each year the administration was less interested in actually inspecting such data and course test score charts plotted on spread sheets/graphs by most teachers. In neither of the two school years in question was Mr. Waters given a full planning period or a week after students arrived to prepare for his resource assignment ESE students. These are privileges which were customarily given to resource teachers in prior years. Despite the meager planning time he was accorded on the administrator's schedule, in reality he lost significant valuable planning time by escorting students to and from classes and due to his morning duties. Adequate planning time is crucial to the work of special education teachers, particularly if one is deemed to be struggling with lesson planning, IEP preparation and timeliness issues, and related A3 IEP technology time demands. The Respondent asked for schedule changes to improve his ability to meet the new administration demands, as, for instance, to allow time during the day to input IEP requirements into the A3 system to prepare IEP documents, instead of at the end of the school day when all the ESE teachers were on the A3 system, which slowed it down drastically. Ms. Huckaby, however, never agreed to provide such schedule changes so that he could more efficiently use his planning time. Indeed, in the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Huckaby scheduled Mr. Waters to spend 26.25 hours teaching students each week which is more than the 25 hour per week maximum teaching time provided by the collective bargaining agreement while still providing him less than a full class period of uninterrupted planning time. Sometime in the 2003-2004 school year the system for generating individual education plans (IEP) changed from paper IEPs or the so called "gibco" IEP system (apparently a school based software operated system) to a district-wide computer net system called the "A3 IEP." This was a difficult system to learn and to use in completing IEP's without mistakes in the first effort. The District made training available in 2004, particularly in the summer of 2004 and subsequently. It can take as much as three hours to create IEP's "from scratch" on the A3 system and to input all the necessary student demographic and test score history data to upgrade a previously hand-written or gibco-generated IEP in converting it to an A3 IEP. This is especially so for newly trained or partially trained teachers. Complicating these time constraints were the Respondent's limited planning time, with competing meetings being held in the conference room area where cumulative ("cume") folders were housed at Oakridge, which are necessary to the student data research required to generate the IEP's. Thus teacher access to the demographic and testing information needed for IEP completion was somewhat restricted at times. Moreover, Mr. Waters had his only significant block of continuous planning time, when he could work on IEP's, immediately after school. This is the time of day when the A3 IEP computer network operates very slowly because most of the ESE teachers in the entire district are attempting to use it immediately after school hours. These factors are part of the reasons Mr. Waters in the Spring of 2004 had an occasion when IEP's were prepared somewhat late and computer-generated progress reports on one occasion were submitted several days late. It is also true that the Respondent and Ms. Wacksman were not formally trained on the A3 system until late January 2005. This delay in receiving the A3 system training appears to have been due to both the Respondent's and Ms. Wackman's delay in seeking the training and the district's and the school's inattention to scheduling the training sessions. With regard to the occasion testified to by Ms. Petrick concerning his late preparation of, or need to correct mistakes in some IEPs, the Respondent established that he immediately corrected the minor mistakes in several of the IEPs he prepared and that, when Ms. Petrick contacted him about the need for him to make corrections, in several instances the corrections had already been made on the original IEP in question but had not gotten corrected on her copy. Moreover, four or five of the students who had to have corrected IEPs, or whose IEPs were submitted slightly late were students who the Respondent himself had identified to his administration as being wrongly placed by the administration. The students were supposed to have been in a fourth grade level program and instead were in a first or second grade level program. This necessitated re-constituting their IEPs. The Respondent, after alerting the administration to its error also completed the new IEPs on these students. In any event, it is true that Mr. Waters could have begun sooner and more timely prepared the IEPs involved and the same is true of the occasion when the somewhat late progress reports caused his reprimand by Ms. McFarland. It is also true, however, that the requirement of using the cumbersome A3 system to prepare IEPs, more particularly the lack of adequate usable planning time, and the somewhat chaotic effects of five schedule changes during that school year imposed by Ms. Huckaby also contributed to the issue encountered near the end of that year concerning timeliness and corrected IEPs. Although the Respondent received less than satisfactory evaluation ratings as to professionalism and ethics because of the issue regarding delays and mistakes in the IEPs described above, these were a small number of occurrences, concerning very few students, at one particular period of time in the school year. They did not cause any delay or other adverse effect in the provision of ESE services to students nor the loss of any federal, state, or other special education funds, or adverse effects on the school's rating. Moreover, this aspect of Mr. Waters' performance improved after this occasion. Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland made significant changes in required lesson plan and progress monitoring formats, and student progress charting. These requirements were considerably more time demanding and were accompanied by rigid reliance on upgraded, scripted reading and standardized math curricula with the advent of the 2005-2006 school year. These new requirements were to be applied by all ESE teachers for their students. Ms. Huckaby imposed a severely time-constrained, scripted reading curriculum for Mr. Waters' class and also a mandatory new vocabulary program that took up to 15 minutes more of his reading class time block each day. She also required an additional fluency probe-recording requirement to be carried out weekly in all reading classes, including Mr. Waters', which required an average time for completion of five minutes per student. Mr. Waters' reading mastery (RM) curriculum required class time scheduled during the first ninety minutes of his day in the 2005-2006 year. This was clearly impossible to carry out and remain consistent with the RM program's lesson sequence requirements, particularly with the addition of the fluency probe and vocabulary project requirements that Mr. Waters and all teachers were required to include in their reading classes that year. In fact, the reading mastery schedule for Mr. Waters was impossible to carry out within the allotted time period, even when one was not additionally delivering the required vocabulary project lesson and doing the reading probe requirement. In this regard one of the individuals asked to assist Mr. Waters in the 2005-2006 school year was Donna Haff, of the FDLRS staff. Ms. Haff, in working with Mr. Waters, tried to develop a better means for him to address the RM scheduling problem. She began that effort by "model teaching" his scripted RM classes in order to better understand his problem. This means that she simply tried to teach the RM class herself to see if it could be done within the mandatory curriculum and time period in which Mr. Waters was required to do it. Despite her extensive experience and familiarity with RM curriculum and her experience teaching it as a trainer for teachers, Ms. Haff was unable to complete the RM lesson in the time allotted to Mr. Waters, even without performing the mandatory new vocabulary program or any reading fluency probe requirements. She concluded that his RM schedule could not reasonably be carried out. She informed Ms. Huckaby of that conclusion. Ms. Huckaby expressed her frustration to Ms. Haff concerning this problem by asking, "Do you realize how much time we have put into this?" Ms. Huckaby decided not to act on Ms. Haff's advice and decided not to make any changes in Mr. Waters' 2005-2006 RM schedule. On or about June 3, 2005, Ms. Huckaby imposed an improvement notice on Mr. Waters, listing items in his instruction and teaching management that she felt needed improvement and concomitantly imposing a 90-day probationary period running from a date in September through early December 2005. Making only two observations of Mr. Waters' teaching herself, she relied upon reports of Margot Palazesi's 13 observations of Mr. Waters' classroom and teaching during the 2005-2006 school year from generally September through December. Ms. Palazesi's primary expertise, however, was in IEP compliance, IDEA compliance and grant funding compliance. She has a great deal of training in exceptional student education including a PHD degree, but she was not trained or qualified to work within and with regard to Leon County's performance observation and assessment for teacher evaluation, as either an administrator or a classroom mentor. Ms. Palazesi was unfamiliar with the lesson plan requirements at Oakridge and with the CHAMPS behavioral program requirements. She acknowledged that she understood Mr. Waters had the CHAMPS program implemented in the behavioral management aspect of his class and teaching, but she had little familiarity with what it entailed. She did acknowledge, however, that he had an award system for behavior and academic performance for his students built into and actively followed in his classroom. Ms. Palazesi also was not certified in reading and had not taught a reading mastery class in 20 years. Nonetheless, she made 8 of her 13 observations of Mr. Waters' teaching in his RM class. She did not have any understanding of the impossible double-scripted reading class schedule for his two reading groups that he was required by Ms. Huckaby to execute within the 90 minute time block. Through her interaction with Mr. Waters she came to understand from him that there was more material in the double-scripted reading curriculum than could be delivered in the 90 minute period, as Ms. Haff's testimony also showed. Ms. Palazesi, nonetheless, criticized his lecture teaching style, without acknowledging that that teaching method might have been effectively imposed on Mr. Waters in large part due to the impractical time constraints placed upon his delivery of the reading program, the vocabulary requirement and the reading fluency assessment requirement, imposed on him by Ms. Huckaby. Ms. Palazesi also noted, early in her observations, that Mr. Waters did not, in her view, engage in a review of material previously instructed, as, for instance, the day before, or inform the students what they would be learning in the lesson that day. Concerning one or more of her October observances, however, she acknowledged in her testimony that he had done that or started doing that. Moreover, one of her notations was acknowledged by her to be inaccurate in that she criticized him for not doing an introductory portion to his lesson, but then acknowledged that she had arrived some 10 minutes late, missing that portion of his lesson for that day. She also acknowledged that he was receptive to following her suggestions for improvements she thought should be made in his classroom management, in terms of assigning student desks, changing the arrangement of the room as to where a work table was placed, etc., and he did so. Ms. Palazesi also noted that he had a very good rapport with his students, and that his students behaved well and did their work in his classroom. They were on task much of the time. Although she criticized him for departing from his lesson plan on her first observation, in later observations she acknowledged he appeared to adhere more to his lesson plan. Ms. Palazesi was ostensibly dispatched to Mr. Waters' classroom to provide him technical ESE department-type assistance. However, she primarily engaged in making suggestions concerning ways that Mr. Waters could improve otherwise acceptable lessons and lesson plans and make improvements to his classroom management and the physical layout of his classroom. She acknowledges in her testimony that this was an exercise that she could have undertaken in any teacher's classroom and instructional regimen, and could have found ways to suggest improvements. Her suggestions, however, to the extent they were criticisms, appeared to have been relied on, and, inferentially, used to corroborate Ms. Huckaby's negative findings. During the second part of the 2004-2005 school year and the first half 2005-2006 school year Mr. Waters used computer technology in his classroom. He received advice from Ms. Donna Haff on how to incorporate it as a relevant and exciting way to reinforce his course curriculum and began doing so. In each of the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, he used power point technology in the form of game show question and answer formats ("Who Wants to be a Millionaire," "Jeopardy," and "Hollywood Squares/Tic Tac Toe"). He also employed other types of computer technology in his classroom on a regular basis, whether or not they were also noted in his lesson plans or were specifically observed by Ms. Huckaby, Ms. McFarland, or Ms. Palazesi. He demonstrated an ability to incorporate technology into his classroom instruction at least as effectively as most of his colleagues. Despite this fact and Ms. Huckaby's own praise for Mr. Waters' use of power point technology as a reinforcement tool in her December 14, 2005, observation, Ms. Huckaby still asserted to the Superintendent of the District in her letter recommendation for his termination that Mr. Waters did not adequately incorporate technology into his teaching and claimed that the December 14, 2005, lesson where she observed his use of technology marked "the first and only time he has integrated technology in the teaching and learning process." If Ms. Huckaby had made adequate observations of his teaching and his classes, or had even adequately conferred with Ms. Haff, she would have known of the extent of his use of technology in the classroom (or else perhaps she knew it and disregarded it). This statement to the Superintendent is one of the indicators of the level of bias Ms. Huckaby bore towards Mr. Waters. Most of the ESE teachers, including Ms. George, Mr. Waters, and Ms. Wacksman customarily do not employ computerized grading of their students because of the unique, singular nature of each ESE student's problems, learning styles, abilities, and each ESE student's goals and the varying curriculum and social needs of each ESE student. These and the other individualized differences among ESE students render a hand-written old fashioned grade book the most effective way to make a record of each student's progress toward that student's IEP- codified goals. Ms. Huckaby gave Mr. Waters a negative rating in the area of technology use partly because he did not use a computerized grading system, but neither did any other ESE teacher at Oakridge. Mr. Waters was singled out for criticism for that aspect of his teaching and the others were not. All teachers at Oakridge, particularly ESE teachers, during both the relevant school years, worked under increasing lesson plan requirements and student performance monitoring and documentation requirements and changes, as well as curriculum changes and related paperwork and time constraints. These were very stressful and no doubt were related in a significant part to the fact that the school had slipped from a "C" rating to a "D" rating on Ms. Huckaby's watch as principal. This no doubt caused significant tension and anxiety for all concerned on the instructional staff and in the administration. Only Mr. Waters, however, was held strictly accountable to all deadlines and all aspects of the burdensome documentation requirements and time constraints imposed during those two school years. In the context of his limited planning time, the excessive student contact time scheduled for him in 2005-2006, the delays he encountered in getting A3 IEP System training (some of which were self-inflicted), the difficulties encountered in gaining sufficient access to the conference room where the cume folders were maintained in order to comply with progress monitoring requirements, as well as the repeated schedule changes to his 2004-2005 assignment schedule and the time constraints of his 2005-2006 reading mastery schedule, put the Respondent in a position where it was impossible for him to timely and fully comply with every requirement imposed on him. Ms. Huckaby's close monitoring of the Respondent, as compared to other teachers, under such circumstances, is reflective of her bias in favor of a recommendation of termination. It impelled her, Ms. McFarland and Ms. Palazesi to document and exaggerate the significance of every minor error or omission that involved Mr. Waters. Arranging for ESE meetings, monitoring and complying with deadlines related to IEP's, monitoring ESE consult situations and completing all IEP-related paperwork are the responsibilities of the assigned ESE teacher. The carrying out of these tasks, however, often involves frequent communications among, and timely cooperation with several other people, such as other ESE teachers, regular classroom teachers, school administrators, the District Staffing Specialist, and the ESE students' parents. Mistakes, delays, and miscommunications concerning these ESE teacher responsibilities will occur and while they are not desirable they are not unusual. When such problems arise they are normally corrected by all persons involved as quickly and cooperatively as possible without resort to blame. Although Ms. Petrick became critical of paperwork problems and delays Mr. Waters was responsible for in the last half 2004-2005 school year, Oakridge school lost no federal funding because of them nor was it shown that any students suffered in academic or behavioral progress because of them. It is noteworthy that the IEP-related deficiencies concerning Mr. Waters began to arise only in the second half of the 2004- 2005 school year around the same time that critical memoranda from both Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland were becoming the norm. In any event, Mr. Waters improved in these areas in the 2005-2006 school year. Mr. Waters received little of the help promised him in the September 2005 revised improvement notice document. He did not have a national board-certified mentor assigned him for 2005- 2006, did not get to meet with consultants from the Reading Mastery Plus Program, "Open Court," the "Great Leaps," or the Harcourt Brace Mathematics Programs. He did not meet with anyone from the Florida Inclusion Network. The administration did not provide adequate or meaningful assistance to him in either school year, but rather denied, delayed answering, or ignored his specific requests for more planning time, model lesson plans which would comply with Ms. Huckaby's lesson plan changes and requirements, relief from his impossible RM schedule for 2005- 2006, and his request for a transfer to another school. Instead of providing practical help to him (with the exception of Dr. Adams), the District focused its "assistance" mostly upon sending more staff and district employees to observe him and provide resulting reports to Ms. Huckaby. (Ms. Smith and Ms. Sands in 2004-2005 and Ms. Palazesi in 2005-2006.) During the 2005-2006 school year Mr. Waters work was being scrutinized over the 90 day performance improvement probationary period imposed by Ms. Huckaby which ended on December 8, 2005. During that time, however, his classroom activities were observed only once by Ms. Huckaby, on November 8, 2005. Ms. Huckaby's second observation of him took place nearly a week after the end of the probation period and was two and one- half hours long. It resulted in a critical observation report based primarily upon the last third of that classroom time when Mr. Waters had a formal lesson plan to take his writing class students to a "writing boot camp" session to be attended by all fourth grade teachers and students. Ms. Huckaby, however, refused to let him follow his lesson plan for that day's writing class and insisted that he teach the group there in his room. It was the last day his writing class would meet before the Christmas break which is why he planned to let them go to the writing boot camp with students from other classes on that day. There were no lesson plans for the rest of that week that he could adapt to the remaining one- third of his class that day, with the students unexpectedly present because of Ms. Huckaby's order; it was the last day of school before the Christmas break, and lesson plans for the next day or other days remaining in the week were thus unnecessary. Nevertheless, Ms. Huckaby made negative comments concerning allegedly inadequate planning for his writing group for the class that day after she concluded her observation. Ms. Huckaby had access to Mr. Waters' lesson plans for his December 14, 2005, class and before her observations that day. She had previously reviewed his lesson plans while observing his class to be sure he was precisely following those plans as he had often been instructed to do. She no doubt reviewed his plans for the December 14th lesson and had to have seen the writing boot camp entry. Nevertheless, she refused to let his students attend the writing boot camp. It was by this means that she was able to document a purportedly inadequately planned writing class activity for that day and then relied upon those negative comments in support of her termination recommendation to the superintendent which, inferentially, she had already decided to write. Ms. Huckaby only observed Mr. Waters classroom activities one time during the probationary period. Her only other observation of his classroom activities occurred on the December 14, 2005, occasion, approximately a week after the probation period ended. School administrators, however, are required to periodically evaluate and apprise teachers of their progress during such a 90-day probationary period, which Ms. Huckaby did not do.1/ The Respondent was confronted with a significant increase in time consuming paperwork/reporting requirements lesson plan requirements and the other burdens depicted in the above findings of fact, which Ms. Huckaby placed upon him. Other teachers and ESE teachers had to contend with some of these as well, although to a lesser extent and with less micro- management by Ms. Huckaby. Nonetheless, the Respondent made significant improvements in teaching methods, lesson plan quality and organization, classroom organization, the variety of planned classroom activities and his technology-supported lesson delivery methods. Mr. Waters was effective enough in his teaching and had made sufficient progress so that he received the second highest number of votes for "teacher of the year" from Oakridge's faculty and staff. He thus only ranked behind one revered teacher who had received the award before and who had more recently received the most votes, but declined the award in order to allow someone else to get it. Mr. Waters complied with all reasonable requests made of him, by and large, and in those areas of less than acceptable compliance made the necessary improvements in his compliance. He satisfactorily executed his job duties in both 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years as long as he was at Oakridge. Notwithstanding those improvements in performance, Ms. Huckaby continued to evaluate him as if he had made no improvements, pronouncing in June 2005 the results she had angrily promised him in their October 2004 meeting. She re- confirmed that negative assessment in December 2005 with her termination recommendation, made with only one observation by her during the actual period of his 90-day probationary status. Mr. Waters' teaching and classroom management performance in 2004-2005 as well as 2005-2006 and Ms. Huckaby's and Ms. McFarland's criticism of it, culminating in the termination recommendation by Ms. Huckaby, did not result and was not predicated on his students' FCAT scores. Ms. Huckaby admitted as much in her testimony as to both relevant years. The Petitioner attempted, in its rebuttal case only, to introduce test-related evidence that students of Mr. Waters in the 2004-2005 school year did not do well on standardized tests. That exhibit, and the information it was prepared from, however, were not made available at the hearing, during discovery, were not disclosed in the pre-hearing stipulation, and were not disclosed as a reason for Mr. Waters' performance criticism and termination by any charging document, notice or pleading by the Petitioner made a part of this record. The Petitioner in essence was using or attempting to use the proffered Exhibit 46 to buttress its case-in-chief because it was not rebuttal of anything raised or offered in the Respondent's case. Therefore, it was excluded on the basis that it constituted improper rebuttal evidence and, moreover, because of the non-disclosure problem referenced above, was not admissible on due process of law and "notice pleading" principles. Moreover, the information included in the charts in Petitioner's proffered Exhibit 46 is misleading with respect to comparative student progress issues by teacher. There is confusion as to which student was the pupil of Mr. Waters or another ESE teacher or teachers. It is difficult to determine based upon that exhibit, and the testimony proffered concerning it, an accurate comparison of student progress by the students depicted under Mr. Waters's teaching performance versus that of other teachers. Further, the "Writes Upon Request" chart comparison contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 48 and the testimony related to it, was clearly not a reason used or considered in lodging performance-related criticism against Mr. Waters or ultimately in the decision to terminate him. It clearly could not have been considered until several months after Mr. Waters had been removed from the Oakridge school. Had those Writes Upon Request chart results been considered by Ms. Huckaby in the context of this case, they would not serve as preponderant evidence of sub- standard performance by Mr. Waters, considering the other evidence of the circumstances and abilities of his students in conjunction with his performance. Mr. Waters is at minimum an adequate teacher and in some aspects of his performance a superior teacher, as, for instance, in his ability to advance his students' performance in writing and in terms of his ability to motivate his students and establish a good rapport, with an interest in learning, in his students. His classroom management skills, instructional methods and classroom demeanor fall within the parameters of acceptable performance and behavior as a teacher and an ESE teacher. He consistently and successfully relied upon his own behavior management reward system for his students, employed the Champs Program in his classroom and was successful at motivating his students to enjoy learning. In demonstrating a very good rapport with his students, he always created a classroom environment of mutual respect that is conducive to student learning and his students were learning. His overall performance for both school years at issue was objectively satisfactory despite Ms. Huckaby's biased assessment of his performance during those years and in her ultimate termination recommendation. In fact, the excessive number of areas of criticism by Ms. Huckaby concerning Mr. Waters job performance made it quite difficult to demonstrate mastery of every criticized area, much less to demonstrate it all in only two formal observation attempts by Ms. Huckaby. Ms. Donna George is a 21-year career ESE teacher. She has a master's degree in the areas of learning disabilities, emotional handicap, and varying exceptionalities. She has spent 13 of her teaching years at Oakridge school. She is the ESE Department Team Leader at Oakridge, as well as the "technology contact" teacher, who trains and assists other teachers in implementation of technology programs and equipment at Oakridge. She assists in teacher technology training. She is also a National Board Certified ESE Teacher. Ms. George is thus a leader on the staff at Oakridge. She has observed in ESE meetings and in school-wide faculty meetings, throughout Ms. Huckaby's tenure as Principal, that Ms. Huckaby has an autocratic, dictatorial management style, and an aversion to allowing commentary or questions regarding her policies, directives or programs at Oakridge. Ms. Huckaby has demonstrated little tolerance for questions or comments she perceives to reflect less than complete agreement with her positions or policies. Indeed, although Ms. George is the ESE team leader, she seldom has asked questions or sought clarifications of Ms. Huckaby during such meetings, because of her fear that she would be yelled at, treated with disdain, anger or even with reprisal. Such has also been the experience of Ms. Wacksman and others. Ms. George established that Ms. Huckaby's management style had driven many good teachers away from Oakridge. A survey by the district staff concerning long-term teacher retention rates showed that Oakridge had the lowest retention rate at 17 percent. The next lowest school in the survey had approximately 30 percent retention rate. This survey encompassed the period beginning with the 1999-2000 school year to present. Ms. George observed that Ms. Huckaby often responded to questions or comments from Mr. Waters with both verbal and non-verbal ques, such as eye rolling or turning away or other mannerisms, that generally showed disdain for his questions or his opinions. Ms. George unequivocally opined upon cross- examination by the Petitioner that Ms. Huckaby clearly does not like having Mr. Waters on her staff and was "out to get him." According to Ms. George, Mr. Waters asked questions more frequently than others in faculty meetings, but his questions generally were reasonable ones. He apparently also would attempt to make humorous comments, at times which often irritated Ms. Huckaby and other teachers as well. It is likely that some of his motivation to question Ms. Huckaby and her motivation to treat him with disdain, stemmed from their strained relationship starting with the student disciplinary incident described above. In any event, Ms. George's testimony is accepted in establishing that Ms. Huckaby had a bias in favor of removing the Respondent from her staff, which colored her judgment in making many of her criticisms of his teaching, which long pre-dated his probationary period and which, along with her scant actual observations of his instructional prowess, caused some of his improvements to be overlooked or disregarded, and which caused him to be evaluated more critically than his colleagues as to some performance requirements. In fact, the preponderant evidence establishes that in an objective sense his performance as a teacher, although not flawless, was acceptable and improved in a number of areas. As found in more detail above, in consideration of the circumstances imposed on him by the school administration, in his capacity as a resource teacher, with the time and schedule constraints and disadvantages that status entails, he performed in at least a satisfactory way in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 years at issue.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Leon County School Board re-instating the Respondent to a similar special education teaching position, with reimbursement for lost wages and benefits, in a manner so as to be "made whole" from the date of termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2007.
Findings Of Fact David B. Clark, Respondent, is employed by the Leon County School Board on continuing contract and was so employed at all times here involved. By Request for Leave dated May 31, 1978 (Exhibit 2) Respondent requested leave without pay from August 1978 through June 1979 for the purpose of continuing education. The request was forwarded approved by the Respondent's principal and approved by N. E. (Ed) Fenn, Petitioner. The principal who recommended approval of Respondent's leave request testified he would not have recommended approval had he not believed Respondent would pursue graduate studies. At the time Respondent submitted his application for leave he had been assured of financial assistance from his family to provide him the necessary funds to be a full-time student at Florida State University in the Masters program in public administration. In July Respondent learned he would be unable to get the financing he had expected to allow him to attend school full time. He proceeded to the school personnel office, advised the personnel director of his dilemma and requested advice. She advised him to go to the school at which he was employed the past school year and ask for his position back for the 1978-79 school year. When he did so he found a new principal had been appointed who was unsure of the job availability but he advised Respondent that his previous year's position had been filled by someone else. Respondent went back to the personnel officer for Leon County School Board where he learned there were no jobs available but he could be listed on the rolls as a substitute. He also was told that he should attempt to take some graduate courses even if he couldn't afford to go full time. Respondent agreed to try and do so. By letter dated 31 July 1978 (Exhibit 5) Respondent applied to be placed on the rolls as a substitute teacher for the 1978-79 school year. Respondent then took a sales job at which he worked in the late afternoon and early evening while also working as a substitute teacher. After the first semester, Respondent quit his sales job and worked full-time as a substitute teacher until the end of the school year. He was then offered a summer job on a construction project in Georgia, which he took. After Respondent reapplied and was employed for the 1979-1980 school year, the charges of gross insubordination and misconduct in office followed. Respondent's evaluation reports (Exhibit 4) contain a satisfactory rating in all categories for the past three years. Only in the year 1974-1975 was a "needs to improve" rating given in any of the categories for evaluation. Subsequent to the 1974-1975 evaluation year Respondent was placed on continuing contract status.
The Issue This case concerns the propriety of Respondent's abolishment of Petitioner's position of Occupational Specialist within the Gilchrist County School System. In particular, it is to be determined whether Respondent has failed to meet requirements of law in that its action of abolishing the position was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to Petitioner's constitutionally protected rights to free speech and assembly.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the holder of a Rank 111 Teaching Certificate, issued by the State of Florida. The certification recognizes her as an Occupational Specialist. On July 8, 1974, she was granted a continuing contract of employment with the Gilchrist County School Board as an Occupational Specialist in the Trenton and Bell schools within the Gilchrist County School District. A copy of that contract may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. The contract by its terms states at Paragraph 9, "This contract shall not operate to prevent discontinuance of a position as provided by law." It is the discontinuance or abolishment of the position of Occupational Specialist held by the petitioner that occasioned the formal hearing in this cause. Since being granted the position of Occupational Specialist in permanent status, Petitioner has performed those duties described in the job description, a copy of which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Those functions include career planning for students, considering their personal problems, preparing them for assessment tests and the execution of job application forms. In the school year 1981-82, Petitioner worked three- fifths of her time in Trenton High School and two-fifths in Bell High School. In her capacity, Respondent considered her to be acting as the equivalent of a guidance counselor. She has never been certified by the State of Florida as a guidance counselor. Around the beginning of April 1982, the superintendent of Schools in Gilchrist County, Ray Thomas, decided that the position of Occupational Specialist held by the petitioner should be abolished. At that time, and at all relevant times, this position of Occupational Specialist was the only position of its type in the Gilchrist County School System. The basis for the abolition or discontinuation of the position concerned anticipated revenue shortfalls or budget inadequacy for the upcoming school year 1982-83, pursuant to information from persons within the State of Florida responsible for educational funding. In arriving at his decision, Thomas sought comment from Robert Ervin, the principal at Hell High School and James Surrency, the principal at Trenton High School. Ervin was asked if the guidance responsibility at Bell High School could best be achieved by the provision of a full-time guidance counselor. Thomas gave the impression to Surrency that the basis for requesting the discontinuation of the position of Occupational Specialist pertained to funding. No particulars were revealed to the two principals on the question of the financial position of the school system facing the advent of the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, admitted into evidence, are the comments of the Trenton and Bell principals on the subject of the abolition of the position of Occupational Specialist. Ervin accepted the idea of abolishing the Occupational Specialist position based upon his belief that a full-time guidance counselor would be provided to his school, as contrasted to the half- time guidance counselor and two-fifths time work of the Petitioner during the school year 1981-82. In his remarks, Surrency indicates reconciliation to the idea of losing the three-fifths time that the Petitioner was spending at Trenton High; however, he indicates his preference to have the Occupational Specialist position remain if it could be afforded. In the school year 1981-82, Trenton had a full-time guidance counselor in addition to the work being done by the Petitioner. After receiving the comments of the principals and in keeping with his choice, the Superintendent of schools wrote to the petitioner on April 21, 1982, advising her that he would recommend to the School Board, effective the beginning of the school year 1982-83 that the position of Occupational Specialist not be filled and offering Bowdoin a leave of absence without pay for one year. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. On April 22, 1982, the recommendation of the Superintendent was presented to the School Board and in the course of that meeting, the Petitioner was represented by counsel. Action on this recommendation by the Superintendent was tabled. On May 3, 1982, the Superintendent wrote the School Board and modified his position on the question of Occupational Specialist from one recommending that the position of Occupational Specialist not be filled in 1982- 83 school year to one of recommending the discontinuance of the position for economic and curriculum reasons, stating that the duties of that position could be assumed or transferred to the guidance counselor at each school in Gilchrist County. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. On May 4, 1982, consideration was given to the suggestion of total abolishment of the position of Occupational Specialist and the School Board in a 3 to 2 vote determined to abolish the position of Occupational Specialist. This action was in keeping with Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. Prior to the vote, no specific information was imparted by the Superintendent or other school officials as to the financial benefits to be derived from the action or effect of the abolishment in terms of curriculum changes. The school board simply accepted the Superintendent's word that it was necessary to abolish the position for financial reasons. (The Superintendent, since taking office in 1981, has abolished other positions within the Gilchrist County School System, such as assistant principal at Trenton High School, general supervisor of instruction, food services supervisor, brick and block masonry teacher, librarian at Trenton High School and has left vacant teacher's aide positions.) At the May 4, 1982, meeting, Petitioner asked for and the Board agreed to afford a formal hearing to the Petitioner to challenge the abolishment of the Occupational Specialist position. Again, on June 1, 1982, a request was made in the Petitioner's behalf to have a grievance hearing before the board concerning the board's decision to abolish the job and it was determined that grievance hearing should be held on July 6, 1982. On July 6, 1982, the Board requested the Superintendent to prepare a list of vacancies which Mrs. Bowdoin might be certified for, the salary schedules related to those positions, a list of programs offered other than K-12 and the state certification requirements for those positions and the name of those persons filling the positions at the time. On July 20, 1982, the Board considered the level III grievance of the Petitioner in the presence of the Petitioner's attorney on the topic of an alternative placement of the Petitioner and the salary associated with that placement. On August 3, 1982, the Board entered a written resolution of decision pertaining to the level III grievance pertaining to the Petitioner, a copy of that resolution being found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. In this resolution, the School Board properly identified that the Petitioner could not be placed as a guidance counselor in that she did not hold a master's degree required for such position. In lieu of the position of Occupational Specialist which had been abolished by the School Board on May 4, 1982, by its August resolution, the Board offered the position of Teacher's Aide at Trenton Elementary School, with a substantial reduction in salary from approximately $15,000 a year to approximately $6,300 a year. This position of Teacher's Aide was reserved until August 16, 1982. Petitioner did not elect to accept the position of Teacher's Aide and has been unemployed since August 1982. In the course of an August 11, 1982 meeting, the Superintendent reported to the Board that the petitioner had "responded" at a level IV grievance procedure. On August 31, 1982, the Board was asked to consider litigation which had been presented to it by the Superintendent. On September 2, 1982, in an Executive Board session of the School Board of Gilchrist County, discussion was made of certain civil litigation brought by Petitioner against the Board. On October 5, 1982, an update was given to the Board concerning that case of the Petitioner versus the Board. Another update was made on October 5, 1982. On December 7, 1982, the Board was made aware of the fact that the case was to be considered in arbitration. (Various minutes of School Board meetings as described in this paragraph are more completely set forth in Respondent's Exhibit No. 8, admitted into evidence.) The matter was presented before the American Arbitration Association and the Arbitrator in his report absolved the Board of any violation related to the job abolition. The copy of that report may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence. The date of the report is July 21, 1983. As stated before, the Bell High School in 1982-83, employed a full-time guidance counselor in substitution for an approximately half-time guidance and two-fifths time from Bowdoin the prior year. The Trenton school went from a 1981-82 school year in which a full-time counselor and three-fifths of Bowdoin's time was devoted to counseling activities to a full-time counselor, an aide working two-thirds time mostly in a clerical capacity and some assistance by a vocational teacher in school year 1982-83. Bad Bowdoin returned as an aide to the Trenton school in 1982-83, she would have been used in the guidance department in the same role as she had been given as Occupational Specialist. There was a revenue surplus left at the end of the 1982-83 school year and it was sufficient to have allowed the funding of the position of Occupational Specialist for the 1982-83 school year; however, that surplus was less than the 1981-82 school year by approximately 65,000. This funding difference in the face of providing essentially the same services in the school system, pointed out the more difficult economic circumstance that Thomas had made mention of in his initial decision to abolish the position of Occupational Specialist. In the 1982-83 School year, employees in the school system received salary increases. At the conclusion of the 1981-82 school year, there were approximately 900 students at the Trenton school which included grades K-12. According to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, excerpts from the standards of the Commission on Secondary Schools of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, schools of a population of 750-999 need two guidance professionals. Therefore, the reduction of one and three-fifths counselors in 1981-82 to one counselor and something less than three-fifths in 1982-83 was contrary to the statement of standards. This excerpt is at 4.10.0, Figure 1, minimum personnel requirements. Respondent replies to that assertion through its Exhibit No. 9, which are excerpts of the standards for unit schools by the Commission on Secondary Schools and Commission on Elementary Schools of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. At Page 9, 9.16.0-9.16.2, Respondent argues that one guidance counselor suffices for any school with a membership of 500 or more students up to 999 students. Without determining which of these guidelines related to accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is correct, it suffices to say that the changes that were made by the School Board in abolishing the position of Occupational Specialist as it might affect accreditation were made in good faith in that it can arguably be said that Trenton school, having 900 students, only needed one guidance counselor to meet conditions of accreditation. There were no curriculum changes made in the 1982-83 school year as a result of abolishing the Occupational Specialist position. There were curriculum changes but they were not the result of any influence provided by the abolishment of the Occupational Specialist job.
