The Issue The issue is whether the School Board policy that requires full-time non-degreed teachers of vocational programs to pass a basic skills test as a condition of being certified by the School Board and as a condition of continued full-time employment in such programs is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the School Board of Hillsborough County, Florida (School Board or Respondent), employs non-degreed persons to teach certain vocational subjects, including, health occupations and cosmetology. In or about May 1990, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001), which authorized school boards to establish qualifications for substitute teacher, teachers of adult education, and non-degreed teachers of vocational education. By virtue of that provision, which became effective in 1990, non-degreed vocational teachers are not required to obtain state-issued teaching certificates required of teachers of non-vocational subjects in Florida public schools. Pursuant to Subsection 231.1725(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), school boards, including Respondent, are required to establish the minimum qualifications for non-degreed teachers of vocational programs. The School Board has established requirements for the employment and certification of persons seeking to be employed as non-degreed teachers of vocational programs. The requirements for certification include requirements not identified as the minimum requirements in Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001). On or about May 22, 1991, the Division of Personnel and Human Resources submitted Agenda Item 3.02 for approval to the School Board. According to the "Agenda Item" form submitted to School Board members, the proposed policy concerned non-degreed full-time vocational instructional personnel, part-time vocational instructional personnel and adult education personnel. The form indicated that the proposed policy was required because Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes (2001), "absolved the state of responsibility of issuing state certificates for non-degreed full-time, part-time vocational and adult education teachers" and each school district was "responsible for determining both eligibility and district certification requirements for non-degreed vocational and adult part-time teachers." The rationale for the proposed policy was that "recent legislation [Section 231.1725, Florida Statutes] has resulted in the need to create a district certification process" for non-degreed full-time personnel, part-time vocational instructional personnel, and adult education instructional personnel. On or about June 11, 1991, the School Board held a public meeting in accordance with its policies and procedures, and state law and approved "the proposed policies concerning certification for non-degreed full-time vocational, part-time vocational, and adult education teachers, as necessitated by recent legislation (F.S. 231.1725) which shifts responsibility of issuing eligibility certificates for such personnel." The 1991 Agenda Item 3.02 consisted of three separate policies that were being recommended for approval by the School Board, for the following separate and distinct categories of employees: non-degreed full-time vocational instructional personnel; part-time vocational personnel; and adult education instructional personnel. The proposed policy and procedures for non-degreed full-time vocational instructional personnel provided the following: Policy: The School Board authorizes the employment of personnel to teach full-time in non-degreed vocational programs to comply with Section 231.1725(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Procedures: An applicant must hold at least a high school diploma or the equivalent and meet the established minimum competency in the area of assignment. The minutes of the June 11, 1991, meeting state that "the proposed rules will now go through necessary process including advertising and public hearing per Administrative Procedures Act," with a notation to "See minutes of July 16, 1991." There is no indication that this process was not carried out as noted. On August 6, 2002, at a regular meeting, the School Board considered and unanimously approved School Board Policy 6.25. Section 2 of School Board Policy 6.25, addresses certification of full-time and part-time teachers of non-degreed programs. The policy provides in pertinent part the following: FULL-TIME TEACHER CERTIFICATION (Non-degreed programs): The Office of Teacher Certification issues an initial 3-year nonrenewable temporary certificate in the same manner that state-certified teachers are certified. During the validity period of this temporary certificate, the teacher must produce documentation of the following to qualify for the professional certificate: Successful completion of the district's Preparing New Educators (PNE) Program. Successful completion of the State Professional Educator's Exam. A minimum of three years successful teaching experience. Successful completion of the (4) district certification courses listed below or their university equivalents. [1.] Surviving the First Year of Technical Teaching [2.] Special Teaching Methods for Technical Teaching [3.] Special Needs Student for Technical Education [4.] Philosophy, Practices and Management of Technical Education. Verification of basic skills by successful completion of the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) at or exceeding the profile established for the area of certification, or successful completion of another recognized test of basic skills accepted for state-certificated teachers. Upon receipt of the above documentation and of the appropriate application fee, the Office of Teacher Certification issues the full-time technical and career education teacher the 5-year Professional District Certificate that is valid for five years from July 1st of the school year it was issued. This certificate must be renewed in the identical manner that a state-issued certificate is renewed. According to School Board Policy 6.25, the School Board's requirements for certification as a non-degreed teacher of vocational programs include the successful completion of the Test of Adult Basic Education ("TABE") or successful completion of another recognized test of basic skills accepted for state certificated teachers, and successful completion of the Professional Education Examination. The School Board does not require the passage of these tests in order to meet the minimum qualifications for initial employment. The executive summary which describes the purpose of the superintendent's recommendation regarding School Board Policy 6.25, states in pertinent part the following: In 1990, by legislative action, districts assumed responsibility and authority for establishing employment and credentialing qualifications for teachers of non-degreed vocational programs and of part-time adult programs. The School Board originally adopted procedures in 1991 to address these matters. Various improvements and refinements to these procedures, many of which have paralleled provisions provided by statute to state-certificated teachers, have been adopted as sound practices over the years. The enclosed manual, "Guide to Hiring Teachers: Technical & Career and Adult & Community Education Programs," reflects these improvements and modifications. In accordance with School Board Policy 6.25, the School Board issues three-year temporary teaching certificates to full-time non-degreed vocational teachers upon their hiring. During the first three years that a full-time non-degreed vocational teacher is employed, the teacher must produce the documentation enumerated in Section 2 of School Board Policy 6.25 and listed in paragraph 10 above, to qualify for the district professional certificate. The School Board's requirement that non-degreed full- time vocational teachers successfully complete a basic skills test and the Professional Educator Examination is not a requirement of initial employment, but is required in order to obtain a district teaching certificate. The district-issued teaching certificate is a prerequisite for a non-degreed vocational teacher to continue full-time employment in such capacity. Non-degreed vocational teachers employed by the School Board on a full-time basis for three years may not continue such full-time employment unless they obtain a district-issued professional certificate by meeting the requirements of School Board Policy 6.25, which includes successfully completing the basic skills test. The School Board employs non-degreed vocational teachers on a part-time basis. Part-time non-degreed vocational teachers are not required to take a basic skills test under the School Board's current policy, and those teachers were not required to do so prior to 1990, when the State issued teaching certificates to this category of teachers. Pursuant to the School Board's current policy, non- degreed vocational teachers may be hired by the School Board to teach vocational courses on a part-time basis, and there is no requirement that they ever take or successfully complete a basic skills test. However, in order to continue full-time employment as a non-degreed vocational teacher beyond the initial three years of employment, the teacher must successfully complete the basic skill test. If the non-degreed vocational teacher fails to do so, that individual may no longer work as a full-time non- degreed vocational teacher. Petitioners are non-degreed teachers of vocational subjects who were formerly employed by the School Board as full- time, non-degreed teachers of vocational programs. Petitioners are affected by the challenged rule because each has been deemed ineligible for a district-issued certificate and for continued employment as a non-degreed teacher of vocational programs due to his or her failure to comply with one or more of the School Board's requirements for certification as a non-degreed teacher of vocational programs. Here, Petitioners failed to successfully complete at least one part of the required basic skills test. Non-degreed vocational teachers who are terminated or not rehired as full-time teachers because they failed to successfully complete the basic skills test may be employed by the School Board as part-time vocational teachers or as substitute teachers. The School Board employs substitute teachers in vocational subjects in the same fashion it employs substitute teachers for academic subjects. The only requirement to become a substitute teacher is a high school diploma and the completion of a ten-day training program. Although Petitioners failed to successfully complete the basic skills test requirement of School Board Policy 6.25, they are eligible for employment as part-time non-degreed vocational teachers or as substitute teachers. Petitioner McNeeley is currently employed as a part-time vocational teacher, and Petitioner Kennedy is employed as a full-time substitute teacher in a vocational program. Prior to 1990, non-degreed vocational teachers were employed in the same manner as degreed teachers. During that time period, the State of Florida issued certificates to both degreed teachers and non-degreed teachers. The State of Florida required all teachers, degreed and non-degreed, to take and pass the FUCOSE exam, which later became the Florida Teachers Certification Exam, ("FTCE"). From 1990 through 1991, Janice Velez, general director of Human Resources for the Hillsborough County School District, was part of a consortium of Florida school districts that worked together to develop a policy for the employment and certification of non-degreed vocational teachers. As a result of the work of the consortium, the School Board developed its current policy and procedures, which require non-degreed vocational teachers to take and pass a basic skills test.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate number 375765, covering the area of journalism. Petitioner's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. The Respondent was employed by the Gulf County School District during the school years of 1983-1984, 1988-1989, 1989-1990 and 1990-91. During the 1983-1984 school year Respondent was employed by the District on a part-time basis as a physical education instructor at the Port St. Joe Elementary School. During the 1988-1991 school years the Respondent was employed by the District as an alternative education teacher at the Port St. Joe Junior/Senior High School. The alternative education class was created to function as a dropout prevention program. The students who were placed in the alternative education program were placed in the program because the regular education system was failing them and because the students grades or attendance indicated that the student was likely to drop out of school. In general, these students lacked motivation, had poor attendance, poor attitudes and often came from homes with serious familial problems. Mr. Langston did not receive any particular training to fulfill his role as the alternative education teacher. However, he felt that a program which included aspects of the discipline and self-motivation he learned from his college and pro basketball career would be beneficial to such alternative education students. Additionally, Respondent believed that the students would not benefit from having the nastier side of life outside school glossed over, but believed frank discussions of such things as well as using outside life examples and models would help motivate alternative education students to beat the odds and overcome life's obstacles. Mr. Langston also wanted to impart to each student that he was there for them. In that regard, Mr. Langston gave each student his telephone number and had each student give him their telephone number or a number where the student could be reached. Mr. Langston would use this information to contact any student who was missing too much school in order to ascertain why and to encourage him or her to return. To his credit, even though some may disagree with some of Mr. Langston's methods as not being politically correct, Mr. Langston was very successful with his alternative education students and caused them to stay in school and improve their grades. During the 1990-91 school year at Port St. Joe Junior/Senior High School, the Respondent showed movies, such as "Die Hard", "Witness", "Platoon", and "Lean on Me". Some of the movies had themes of violence with explicit language. "Platoon" was about Vietnam and was shown during a time when the class was studying about Vietnam. "Lean On Me" was a movie about students who were similarly situated to Respondent's students and the favorable relationship they developed with the principal of the school. Both movies had educational value. The movies were generally shown for either entertainment or education as part of the class' reward system known as "recreation time". Occasionally, Respondent would also allow the students in his class to turn the television on during recreation time or other class breaks. Sometimes, during these breaks, the students elected to watch the soap operas on the television. Again these breaks were part of the reward system used in the class. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that the system was overused or substituted for teaching. Additionally, the evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent tried to hide either the movie showing or television watching from other teachers or administration personnel. An "R" rated movie is recommended to be restricted to anyone over the age of 17 years old unless they have adult supervision. The evidence did not demonstrate which of the above-listed movies were "R" rated. Admittedly, however, some of the movies may have had an "R" rating from the movie industry. The movie industry rating system was not shown to be mandatory and all of the listed movies have been shown on television with a little editing for any age viewer to watch. Indeed at least one, if not all, of these movies had been seen on television or VCR by the students who testified at the hearing and probably by most of the students in the class. In fact, the movies are so common Respondent did not check the rating of any of the movies he showed to his class, did not know what an "R" rating was and did not think to inquire whether the School Board had any rules about showing movies to eighth-grade students without prior approval from the principal and parents. At least one of the movies had been shown in another teacher's class. The School Board did have a policy which allowed the showing of "R" rated movies if approved by the Principal and parental approval was sought before airing the movie. Respondent admitted to unknowingly violating the School Board's rules since he did not ask permission to show some of the films in his class. Respondent was disciplined for this violation by the School Board as outlined later in this Recommended Order. More importantly, however, the evidence did not even remotely demonstrate that the Respondent's showing of movies or the viewing of television, either for education or entertainment, was detrimental or potentially detrimental to any student in his class in any way. Nor did the evidence show a violation of any other statute or rule governing the teaching profession. In fact, the evidence showed that the Respondent's system of rewards involving recreation time and breaks worked and served to enhance and encourage the students' performance. Therefore the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint involving the above facts should be dismissed. The Respondent, on a very few occasions, used the words "damn" and "hell" in his class. The evidence did not show that Respondent used the words "shit", "ass" or "motherfucker" in his class. When put in context, Respondent did not use the words "damn" or "hell" as swear words. Nor were they used in a foul or vulgar manner. Nor were they directed at any student or cause harm to any student. The context of the words was quite ordinary and did not violate any rules of the EPC. Therefore the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint involving Respondent's use of language should be dismissed. Because the Respondent was close to some of his students and wanted to relate to them he gave some of the students nicknames after they gave him a couple of nicknames. The nicknames were used occasionally in class but never in a derogatory manner. For example, Antoine Allen, an African-American student of Respondent, was called "Black Moses" by Respondent. Heavenly Bailey was called "bull dog" or "wally gator" by Respondent. "Black Moses" was actually a compliment and was perceived as such by Mr. Allen and those who understood the nickname's meaning. The nicknames were not considered inappropriate by either the nicknamed students or the other students in the class and were seen as terms of affection and not as terms of derogation. The evidence did not demonstrate that the nicknames used by Respondent harmed or were potentially harmful to any students in any way. The evidence did not show that any student was embarrassed or likely to be embarrassed by the nicknames. Likewise, no other violation of a statute or rule was shown by the evidence. Therefore the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint involving Respondent's use of nicknames should be dismissed. There was no evidence that Respondent slept during or in his class. Respondent did read the newspaper during his class, but only when the class was engaged in other individual activities and only to find material to use in the current affairs portion of the alternative education class. Respondent did on occasion find it necessary to leave the classroom for either a restroom break or at the request of another teacher. However, Respondent always tried to use the "buddy system" of having a teacher next door keep an eye on his classroom when he had to step out. If Respondent left the classroom with no other adults to monitor the students it was only for a few minutes at a time while the students were engaged in other activities. There was certainly nothing in the record which suggests that such behavior was improper or even comes close to violating any statute or rule governing the teaching profession. Therefore the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint involving Respondent's classroom conduct should be dismissed. Respondent separated the students in his class whose work was unsatisfactory to one side of the classroom. The section of the classroom where the students were placed whose work was unsatisfactory was called the "ghetto". The seating arrangement was used solely as a motivational tool for students to perform their school and class assignments. The evidence demonstrated that only one student was placed in the "ghetto" for a very short period of time until that student worked his or her way out. There was no evidence that the Respondent mistreated or ignored the educational needs of the one student assigned to sit in the "ghetto". Likewise, there was no evidence that the seating arrangement was made on any criteria other than performance. In short, the technique worked and served to maintain an appropriate level of performance in his class. Furthermore, the evidence did not show that any student was harmed or could be harmed in any way by Respondent's motivational technique. The evidence did not show any other violation of a statute or rule governing the teaching profession. Therefore the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint involving Respondent's classroom conduct should be dismissed. On or about March 27, 1991, Respondent received a Statement of Complaint from the Gulf County School Board for using profane language and showing unapproved and inappropriate movies to students. The complaint did not contain any specific facts regarding the charges. The complaint therefore grossly overstated the ultimate charges of misconduct (misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty as defined in Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes) with which Respondent was charged. However, the charges generally involved the facts outlined above. The facts did not involve any of the facts involving the allegations of sexual misconduct related to Sabrina Warren. However, by the time of the complaint, the allegations of Ms. Warren were known and more than likely caused the eventual result discussed below even though no hearing or evidence was ever held on the Warren allegations of sexual misconduct. On April 8, 1991, Respondent was suspended with pay by the Gulf County School Board as a result of the incidents outlined in the above Findings of Fact. Respondent did not contest the underlying facts of the complaint and no hearing with appropriate evidence was held on the complaint. Therefore, on April 10, 1991, Respondent was suspended without pay for the remainder of the 1990-91 school year and his annual teaching contract with Gulf County schools was not renewed. From April 10, 1991, until sometime in September of 1991, Respondent was without employment in any school district in the State of Florida. However, the evidence did not show that Respondent was seeking employment as a teacher during this time period or that such employment was available. The evidence did show that Respondent had decided to take some time off and was not actively seeking employment. Later when Respondent did decide to return to teaching he was employed in the Levy County School System. Moreover, the evidence was clear that Respondent was an effective teacher and many of his students and parents want him to return because of the improvement he achieved with their children. There was no evidence that Respondent lost his effectiveness as a teacher because of the uncontested disciplinary action of the Gulf County School Board. Therefore the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint involving Respondent's classroom conduct should be dismissed. Around the beginning of March, 1991, the Respondent taught a student by the name of Sabrina Warren in his eighth-grade alternative education class at Port St. Joe Junior/Senior High School. Ms. Warren had been placed in the alternative education class because she was chronically and frequently absent for weeks at a time from school and other less intense interventions to improve her attendance had failed. Her grades were not good and she had an attitude that was not conducive to improvement or attendance. She had a great deal of experience in sexual matters and therefore had a considerable amount of knowledge in that regard. She also had a reputation of being untruthful and clearly embellished facts during the hearing especially when she felt that was the answer someone wanted to hear. Ms. Warren was then 13 years old at the time she was enrolled in Respondent's class and was in Respondent's class for the majority of the day but alternated class periods with Respondent's class. Upon being placed in Respondent's class, Mr. Langston gathered the biographical information including phone numbers he needed from Ms. Warren and gave her his phone number in case she needed to talk to him. Ms. Warren attempted to remind the Respondent that she had been enrolled in one of his physical education classes when she was either in first grade or kindergarten at Port St. Joe Elementary School. The Respondent had only taught such classes during the 1983-1984 school year, but did not recall teaching Ms. Warren in one of those classes. Ms. Warren indicated that she looked different from when she was in Respondent's physical education class since she had worn glasses at the time. Respondent still did not recall her being in his class and asked Ms. Warren to bring pictures of herself from that time period to his class. Ms. Warren said she would. The discussion was an ordinary discussion which occurred in front of the whole class. Respondent frequently talked to his students because he was interested in them and wanted to develop a rapport with them as well as allow the other students in the class to interact with each other. Ms. Warren brought some pictures of herself from when she was younger and wore glasses. Again the discussion occurred in front of the class. The Respondent showed the class the pictures of Sabrina Warren when she was younger. The pictures did not make an impression on anyone else in the class. However, at the hearing, Ms. Warren claimed she was embarrassed that the Respondent showed the pictures to the class. Clearly, this claim of embarrassment by Ms. Warren is not credible. There was nothing in this so-called picture incident that even suggests a person would likely be embarrassed and it is highly unlikely that Ms. Warren was embarrassed by the pictures being shown. Many of these kids had grown up together, had been in Ms. Warren's grade school class and knew she had worn glasses. Additionally, Ms. Warren's demeanor did not appear to be one of high embarrassment potential. If anything, Ms. Warren had a great need for attention. Finally, Ms. Warren's complaint about the pictures was not even raised until after she had made other more serious charges against Respondent and only serves to illustrate Ms. Warren's general lack of credibility throughout this case. Ms. Warren alleged that in March of 1991, while in the Respondent's class, the Respondent had taken Ms. Warren's notebook pad and wrote to ask permission to ask Ms. Warren some personal questions. Ms. Warren allegedly wrote back on the same pad that he could and that she did not mind. Ms. Warren allegedly then gave the notebook pad back to the Respondent. The Respondent allegedly wrote back and asked her if she ever went to bed with anybody. Ms. Warren wrote back and told him that she had been to bed with one person. Ms. Warren handed the notebook pad to the Respondent, and he wrote back asking if she enjoyed it. Ms. Warren then wrote back that it was all right. She wrote that it was all right because it was her boyfriend. The Respondent allegedly then wrote a statement on the pad that he wanted to go to bed with her. Ms. Warren claimed she was shocked and embarrassed when the Respondent wrote that he wanted to go to bed with her and she allegedly wrote back, "No." All of this note writing allegedly took place during several noncontiguous class periods with Mr. Langston or during a class break when Mr. Langston was cooking hamburgers for the class. Ms. Warren was very vague on the time period. Ms. Warren claimed that she covered the pad while she wrote on it and when the bells were ringing between class periods. She also claimed that the Respondent would keep the pad covered on his desk when he had it and wrote a note on the pad telling her not to let anybody else see the pad or see the notes. Ms. Warren claimed that the Respondent kept the notes and notebook pad and subsequently threw the notes away. She also claimed that the Respondent eventually gave her notebook pad back by way of another student. The other student did not testify at the hearing as to whether she had taken a notebook to Ms. Warren from Mr. Langston. Likewise, no other student in the class testified that they witnessed any exchange of notes between Respondent and Ms. Warren even though at least one student could have readily observed the note-passing incident if it had occurred. Importantly, on the same day Ms. Warren created the above story Mr. Langston had critiqued Ms. Warren for her continued poor attendance, admonished her to improve and informed her that if she did not he would have to report her to the main office. In her next class, Ms. Warren told her earth science teacher a somewhat but materially different story about how Mr. Langston allegedly came to show interest in her. The earth science teacher did not believe Ms. Warren but did advise Ms. Warren to tell her parents and that if she had a problem to go see the guidance counsellor. Again Ms. Warren's testimony of her conversation with the earth science teacher differed materially from the teacher's testimony and serves to highlight Ms. Warren's lack of credibility in this case. Ms. Warren did not return to school the next day and for several days thereafter. At this time, Ms. Warren was living with an Aunt on Port St. Joe beach. The Respondent called one of Ms. Warren's aunts at home and inquired as to why Ms. Warren had not returned to school. Her mother was at the hospital with her father in Tallahassee. Ms. Warren did not tell her aunt of the incident and did not inform either of her parents until approximately ten days to two weeks later and only after Ms. Warren discovered that another aunt and the aunt she was staying with were inquiring as to why she was not at school. After Ms. Warren told her mother, her mother made an appointment to talk with a child abuse investigator with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), Jim Boseman. Mr. Boseman and Ms. Warren's mother informed the Superintendent of the Gulf County School Board of the alleged incident. The Superintendent of the Gulf County School Board, Walter Wilder, gave Ms. Warren permission to stay out of school until this situation was addressed and straightened out. After Mr. Langston was suspended, Ms. Warren eventually went back to school but soon became tired about everyone asking her what was going on between her and the Respondent. In reality Ms. Warren simply did not want to go to school. As a result, Ms. Warren was enrolled at Faith Christian School in Port St. Joe, Florida by her mother. She stayed at Faith Christian for a short period of time and then was enrolled in the adult school in Panama City, Florida because she was pregnant. Mr. Langston has continuously denied the note-writing incident with Sabrina Warren ever occurred and the resolution of this case involving Sabrina Warren turns on the credibility of Ms. Warren. As indicated, Ms. Warren's testimony has not been consistent with her other statements and with other witnesses in this case. Her testimony is neither reliable or credible. Therefore, the facts involving the allegations of sexual misconduct contained in the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. In June of 1990, the Respondent was investigated by Professional Practices Services (PPS) for allegedly making inappropriate comments to students and committing acts of misconduct. On or about June 5, 1990, the Respondent and the Petitioner entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. According to the Agreement, the deferral period was to last through the end of the 1990-91 school year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of violating Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, or Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e), and (h), Florida Administrative Code and the Administrative Complaint is dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO DOAH CASE NO. 92-5336 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 36, 39, 53, 55, 60, 62, 63, 64 and 65 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 57 and 59 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 23, 32, 33, 48, 52, 54, 56, 58 and 61 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, second paragraph 11 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs first paragraph 11 and 18 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire BOND & BOYD, P.A. 411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Dave Kundin, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Department of Education 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Raphu Williams, presently holds Florida Teacher's Certificate Number 3436, Life Graduate State, Rank 3, and is employed in the public schools of Dade County, Florida. By way of background, Respondent was a teacher employed in the public schools during 1937 through 1942 and from 1961 to the present time. He attended Tuskegee Institute, where he received a Bachelor of Science degree. Respondent is presently certified in the fields of Auto Mechanics, Industrial Arts, Business Administration, and Guidance and Counselling. During his educational pursuit, he attended Boston University, Pittsburgh State, FAMU, Harvard, Suffolk Law School, and the University of Miami. When Respondent was re-employed as a teacher during 1961, he taught at Mays for approximately five years and returned to Booker T. Washington High School, where he was employed through school year 1970. At the end of the 1970 school year, he was transferred to Riviera Junior High School, where he remained until 1975. Throughout his career, he always taught "trainable" students. This, according to Respondent, is a student classification based on students whose IQ's range from 55 down to 30. During the 1975-76 school year, he served as an itinerant teacher receiving assignments from his supervisor, Mrs. Wylamere Marshall. Pauline A. Young, an educational specialist for Dade County for approximately eight years, met Respondent while he was employed at Riviera Junior High School. Miss Young was called upon to observe the vocational unit as a liaison from the area office; and in her opinion, Respondent's performance was inadequate. This opinion rested upon her observation that when she visited the Respondent's classroom, he was asleep. She observed the Respondent asleep on two occasions. On the first occasion, she awakened him and the second time, she browsed around his room for several minutes; and he never knew that she was there. She testified that the students were "just milling round the room -- doing nothing in particular". She testified that when she awakened the Respondent on the first occasion, he acknowledged the fact that he was asleep, and Respondent said "What can you expect? They can only do so much". The Respondent was then teaching trainable mentally-retarded students. While observing Respondent's class, Miss Young requested that Respondent show her his lesson plans, whereupon he responded that he had no lesson plans, his plans were in his head and that he had no plans for Mr. Jones, Mr. Whigham, or Mr. Turner. Respondent advised Miss Young that the "white man owed him this salary and that he was going to continue to stay on even though he made more money on other jobs and, in fact, did not need this job". Miss Young further testified that when Respondent was presented with new reading techniques, he resisted change. Respecting Respondent's classroom contact with students, Miss Young observed that Respondent opened the class by calling the class roll and thereafter, he had no structured format to conduct his class. Miss Young observed Respondent criticizing a student, Darlene Mickens' dress complaining that "she should not wear tennis shoes because she was black and further that because she was black, she need not look bad". In Miss Young's opinion, the student was neat and appropriately dressed. Finally, she testified that she never observed Respondent doing anything productive during her observation of him during his classes. Dora Whitaker Wright, an instructor employed by the Dade County School Board for approximately 21 years and presently the Assistant Principal and teacher at Richmond Heights in charge of guidance, testified that she has known the Respondent for approximately two years. During this period, she visited Respondent's classroom to observe on one occasion, and she also noted that his classroom was unsupervised on approximately three occasions. She further testified that the Respondent failed to report for duty when scheduled. On the three occasions in which Respondent left his class unsupervised, she remained with the students for approximately 15 minutes on the first occasion; approximately 20 minutes on the second occasion; and on the third occasion, the students were left unsupervised and roamed the halls without a pass. She examined Respondent's lesson plans and noted that they contained little, if any, guidance in which to advise emergency substitute teachers or administrators what the teacher (Respondent) was teaching his students. She, thereafter, gave the Respondent sample lesson plans that were submitted by other instructors as a guide to prepare his lesson plans. When Mrs. Wright advised Respondent that he would be held accountable for the return of the classroom books, he rebelled in front of students complaining that it was not his responsibility to account for books given to students. He also contested Mrs. Wright's authority stating that he, like Mrs. Wright, had a Master's degree and had taught as much as she. He further remarked that he had more teaching experience than anyone presently teaching in that school. Among other things, Mrs. Wright's duties include the proper classification and testing of "trainable students" and to ascertain that the instructors are utilizing proper teaching methods. When she discussed the "core" lesson plans systems with Respondent and the teaching guidelines that were published and approved by the school district, the Respondent objected to the use of such plans. Additionally, she testified that he refused to accept the textbooks for each student based on his position that he would not be held accountable for the textbooks under any circumstances. She testified that the School Board, although desirous of giving each student an individual textbook, instructional level, lacked the funds for such an expenditure. Respondent threatened to hurt a student (Lorenzo Richardson) if he was not removed from his class. When cautioned that the supervisor would be visiting his classroom on various days, Mrs. Wright testified that the Respondent rebelled, stating that "he would teach things the way he wanted". Respondent advised Mrs. Wright that he was hit with a soda can while he was laying his head down on his desk. She testified that during her observance of the Respondent, she noticed him playing checkers with students and offered them one dollar if they beat him in a game of checkers. Helen Gentile, the curriculum secretary, who is responsible for calling substitutes, maintaining inventory records, ordering materials and maintaining emergency lesson plans, testified that she received two complaints from substitute teachers regarding the failure of Respondent to provide adequate emergency lesson plans. She examined the Respondent's lesson plans and the only thing contained therein was "personal philosophies of what Respondent noted about each student, with no direction for course structure for students". She recalled Respondent being tardy on at least three occasions and that he failed to call to advise that he would be late. She testified that from time to time, it was necessary that she call upon instructors to cover for classes during the "free period" but that when she would ask Respondent to do this, he yelled at her, stating that it was not his responsibility to cover classes. She did, however, testify that after Respondent shouted to her, he later apologized. Zackery Lee Hagen, a 14-year-old student of Respondent for approximately two years, testified that he was struck by a desk that was pushed by Respondent. Hagan recalled incidents in which the Respondent slept in class and recalled one instance in which he awakened the Respondent by banking on his desk. He also recalled the Respondent using profanity, such as "damn" in class. Hagen testified that his reading skill level had improved under the Respondent's teaching. Jane Boyer, secretary to the principal, Lonnie Coleman, testified that the Respondent failed to follow the established policy of the School Board. Specifically, she testified that he would not timely call to advise of his absence which created hardships in locating substitute teachers. She recalled instances in which students were locked out of their classrooms and were sitting in the hall approximately eight to ten times. On the other hand, she testified that when Respondent wanted requests, he wanted an answer the very instant in which the request was made. Mrs. Boyer observed the Respondent using profanity on at least two occasions. On one occasion, she recalled the Respondent using profanity while escorting a student to Mr. Coleman's office, and the second occasion occurred during a telephone conversation with a parent. She testified that the Respondent, on the second occasion, was talking to a neighbor of a parent and wanted the neighbor to summon the student home "before he killed him". She testified that the Respondent indicated to her that the student had struck the Respondent with a book, whereupon the Respondent called the student a "little bastard". Cynthia Grace, a 13-year-old student of Respondent, also recalled instances in which the Respondent used profane language when the class was unruly. Students, Charles Gardner and Oscar Bryant, also recalled the Respondent using profanity during his teaching. Gardner also confirmed earlier testimony that the Respondent was asleep when he was struck on the head by a coca-cola can. Mitchell Watson, a student, also recalled an instance in which the Respondent fell asleep in class. He testified that the Respondent observed a fight between two students and made no attempt to control the situation or to halt the fight. Clarence H. Gilliard, an instructor and department chairman for special education at Richmond Heights, explained his difficulty in receiving emergency lesson plans and Respondent's failure to accept responsibility for textbooks. He also testified that the Respondent continuously balked when requested to follow established procedures set forth by the school board. Donald Helip, an Assistant Principal at Richmond Heights Junior High School, was called upon to try to resolve the differences which Respondent was having in following procedures. He testified that in so doing, he observed the Respondent's classroom; and on several occasions, the students were left unsupervised. When he cautioned Respondent regarding this problem, the Respondent balked. He testified that after repeated requests, Respondent ultimately turned in emergency lesson plans which were inadequate inasmuch as they only contained "philosophical statements", as opposed to directives that substitute teachers could follow during the Respondent's absence. He recalled one instance in which the Respondent reported late for work and his students had to be reassigned to another instructor. Immediately thereafter, he passed the teacher's lounge and the Respondent was there talking to another instructor. Mr. Helip counselled the Respondent about this problem whereupon the Respondent advised that "he was new and a nice guy and that he should not be used by the system". He further cautioned Mr. Helip that he should not "cross him or if he did, he would be crushed". Mr. Helip perceived these remarks as a threat. Finally, the Respondent advised Mr. Helip that he should advise what kind of flowers he liked so that he would receive them if he, in fact, got hurt. Mr. Helip also voiced his opinion that the Respondent was not an effective school board employee inasmuch as he (1) failed to report timely for work, (2) enjoyed a poor relationship with students, including sleeping while on duty, and (3) based upon his failure to follow established procedures. Lonnie C. Coleman, the principal of Richmond Heights Junior High School for approximately three years, testified that the Respondent was assigned to his school as an itinerant school teacher (surplus) during the past school year. During October, he was assigned classes. Coleman testified that Respondent repeatedly balked at assignments and due to his repeated protests, he removed him from the class due to the number and magnitude of problems he encountered from Respondent. Specifically, he testified that the Respondent averaged two to three disciplinary referrals to him daily and Respondent continuously ejected students from his class because they did not have writing paper. He testified that when this problem increased, he had to issue a directive to Respondent that students were to be kept in class despite the fact that they did not have writing paper. He testified as to the inadequacy of the Respondent's emergency lesson plans which were submitted only due to repeated requests from his department head. He testified that when the Respondent was provided a sample lesson plan as a directive in preparing his plans, the Respondent refused and based on the repeated problems from Respondent, he requested and was granted permission to remove him from the classroom. He termed the Respondent's attendance as being "spotty" and recalled an instance in which the Respondent attended a meeting away from his assigned area without permission. Based thereon, in his opinion, the Respondent's effectiveness had been reduced and should not be permitted to remain an instructor in the Dade County School System. He denied that he and respondent had any personal problems or personality clashes and, in fact, testified that when he confronted the Respondent with procedural problems and afforded the Respondent an opportunity to correct such, the Respondent failed to take any corrective action. Wylamere Marshall, area director and coordinator for the Guidance Division, testified that she offered Respondent a position in order that the could tap his resources as an employability skills teacher to work with special education students. Initially, she assigned the Respondent as an itinerant teacher and experienced problems with him reporting to duty as assigned. She indicated that the Respondent was generally irresponsible and repeatedly slept on the job. She testified that the Respondent requested and was, in fact, granted a transfer during 1975-76 to Richmond Heights Junior High School. She testified that some of the deficiencies in the Respondent's performance included his failure to plan or supervise class activities. He also permitted students to randomly select class assignments. She testified that although the Respondent had numerous shortcoming as a teacher-educator, she felt that he was an able administrator. As to her opinion of Respondent as a teacher, she testified that he was totally inefficient and was not an effective teacher in the educable mentally-retarded program (special education). Bennie Pollock, a Social Studies teacher at Richmond Heights Junior High School during the school year 1975-76 and the beginning of the school year 1976-77 and presently employed as a bargaining agent representative for United Teachers of Dade, testified that he met Respondent during his tenure at Richmond Heights Junior High School. He testified that during the fall of 1976, while the Respondent was serving as a surplus teacher, he had a conversation with Lonnie Coleman regarding the Respondent. He had been approached by the United Teachers of Dade to accept a position which he ultimately accepted around October 13, 1976. He testified that Coleman told him "Bennie, I've got a problem, they want me to take Ralphu (Respondent) in another teacher's place, who had recently resigned (Diana Hunt). I don't want the man. I am going to do everything I can to get rid of him if they make me take him." Pollock responded "We have a contract; it's not a buffet table. There are ways of doing things." He testified that Coleman indicated to him that "We might have to clash on this", whereupon Mr. Pollock replied "Make sure you've got yourself right and do it because if, you know, I'll go by the contract 100 percent." The Respondent expressed his opinion that he was not an administrator but was, rather, a teacher, a profession which motivates him. He recalled that one instructor, Diana Hunt, also had no teaching plans. He testified that, initially, he conducts an orientation in his class to determine the category in which students should be placed. He prefers individual assignments for each student, as opposed to the "core" system, wherein all students are taught around the "core". While he agreed that students are permitted to come in class a certain way, for example, wearing jeans, sneakers, etc., he wanted students to come to school looking and smelling clean before he could teach them. He also indicated that he wanted three or four instructional level texts for each student, whereas the county only gave one book to each student. He expressed his opinion that this thwarted growth and did nothing to stimulate students to read. He expressed the belief that he was being singled out because he was called in without exception to report his lateness. He recalled only one instance in which he was "tied up" and, therefore, called in late. He testified that during school year 1976-77, while assigned teaching duties, he was absent approximately four days. Respondent voiced the opinion that there was no difference in the emergency lesson plan submitted by him as compared to that of instructor Gilliard, who is also an instructor at Richmond Heights Junior High School (Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3). Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Coleman for the school year 1975-76, at which time he received an average score of 3.8 out of a possible 5.0. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 1). Based upon the evidence adduced herein, including the conflicting testimony of the various witnesses, I find that there is sufficient substantial and competent evidence to conclude that the Respondent, on numerous occasions, failed to follow established guidelines and, therefore, ran afoul of the dictates of Chapters 232.27 and 231.09(2), (3), (4), and (6), Florida Statutes. Additionally, by striking the student with the desk, he ran afoul of Chapter 232.27, Florida Statutes, respecting corporal punishment, and he failed to follow Chapter 231.28, Florida Statutes, by his failure to follow State Board of Education Rules contained in Chapter 6B-5, which are entitled "Standards for Competent Professional Performance". Numerous witnesses testified that the Respondent was asleep in his classroom on various occasions. Chapter 231.28, Florida Statutes, provides that an educator's certificate may be revoked or suspended on several different grounds. The evidence here reveals that the Respondent repeatedly refused to follow written directives from administrators regarding corporal punishment, the filing of lesson plans, his use of abusive language during his classroom instruction, the use of threatening language to other instructors and/or administrators, and the striking of another student, apparently innocent, with a desk, and his eviction of students from his classroom constitute conduct from which sanctions should flow based on the department's rules. It is true that almost all of the student witnesses who testified indicated that their reading level had improved under the Respondent's instructions. They all consistently testified that he used abusive and profane language during class time and fell asleep during class periods. I have also considered the Respondent's contention that he is a victim of a disparity of treatment in that other teachers file similar lesson plans without criticism by administrators. However, in proving a case of disparity, it must be shown that other instructors were permitted to file plans and that they were not counselled and failed to take other corrective steps to remedy the stated deficiencies. In this regard, no such showing has been made and, therefore, the proof falls short. I shall, therefore, recommend that the Respondent be found guilty of unprofessional and unethical acts and conduct based upon testimony which revealed that he pushed and hit a student in an effort to evict a student from his classroom in violation of Subsection 232.27, Florida Statutes, and 6B5.07.1 and (4) of the Rules of the Board of Education. I shall further recommend that the Respondent be found guilty of using abusive, inappropriate, profane and threatening language, as set forth in detail above, in violation of Chapter 239.09(2), (3), (4) and (6), Florida Statutes, based on conduct set forth in detail above. In consideration of the Respondent's total dedication to the teaching profession and his educational pursuits, I shall only recommend that his teacher's certificate be suspended for a period of two years.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I hereby recommend: That the Respondent's teacher's certificate be suspended for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 E. College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida Elizabeth J. DuFresne, Esquire 1809 Brickell Ave., Ste. 208 Miami, Florida Honorable Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Tom Benton Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a consumer’s certificate of exemption from sales and use tax.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida not-for-profit corporation. At all material times, Petitioner has qualified as a Section 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code. Since March 1992, Petitioner has also held the sales and use tax exemption that it seeks in this case. Pursuant to a change in law requiring all exempt organizations to reapply, Petitioner submitted an Application for Consumer’s Certificate of Exemption dated February 1, 1997. By stipulation, the parties agree that, for the purpose of this case, the sole legal basis for the application is Section 212.08(7)(o), Florida Statutes, and, if Petitioner fails to prevail in this case, it may immediately file an application seeking the same exemption under another statute, such as Section 212.08(7)(n). Petitioner was incorporated in 1989. It was first incorporated in 1975, but its corporate status lapsed. Petitioner has been in operation for 40 years. In broadest terms, Petitioner’s purpose is to assist social-studies education in Florida. Petitioner’s major activities involve training teachers of social studies. The most important annual activity of Petitioner is to sponsor a statewide conference that gives social-studies teachers a chance to receive inservice training. This inservice training satisfies, in whole or in part, each teacher’s requirement to obtain inservice training credits in order to maintain her teaching certificate. Petitioner conducts the conference in October during inservice days on which public-school teachers statewide are generally relieved from classroom duties. Between 600 and 1200 teachers participate in this annual conference. The conference runs two days, but Petitioner offers preconference institutes for a day or two prior to the start of the conference. These institutes, which are held at the same location as the conference, provide social-studies teachers with more specialized training in social studies. Petitioner also assists four regional affiliates in conducting inservice training to social-studies teachers. These affiliates are the Southwest Florida Coalition for the Social Studies, Big Bend Council for the Social Studies, Central Florida Coalition for the Social Studies, and Northeast Florida Council for the Social Studies. Petitioner works with various organizations, including the Florida Department of Education, ensuring that these organizations are aware of the interests of social- studies teachers and that the teachers are aware of the activities of these organizations. Petitioner quarterly publishes Trends in Social Studies, which provides useful, current information to social- studies teachers. Petitioner sells advertising space in the journal, mostly to educational publishers. Petitioner provides free space to the Florida Department of Education, state universities, state community colleges, the Holocaust Center, and African-American educational centers. Partly through the use of an endowment fund, Petitioner also provides additional funding for the development of social-studies teachers and the promotion of social-studies education. Petitioner provides awards, including small monetary sums, for exceptional social-studies teachers in Florida, and recognizes, at the annual conference, the outstanding social-studies teacher from each of Florida’s 67 districts. Petitioner’s major sources of income are membership fees and conference registration fees. Individual teachers pay membership fees. Conference registration fees are paid by checks from individual attendees, school districts, archdioceses, and the State of Florida. Educational vendors pay Petitioner fees for the privilege of showing their products and services at the conference. Vendors’ fees typically make up the margin by which Petitioner’s revenues exceed expenses for the conference. Petitioner does not have any paid employees. Dr. Theron Trimble, who started teaching social studies in Florida in 1966, is the executive director of Petitioner and has been associated with Petitioner for 30 years. Dr. Trimble’s full-time employment is in the Collier County School District, where he is director of Fulltime Equivalents and Resource Allocations. All persons working for Petitioner are, like Dr. Trimble, volunteers with full-time educational employment throughout Florida. Petitioner pays small sums to instructors or presenters at the annual conference and pre- conference institutes, but these payments are strictly for their services in conducting their seminars. Petitioner intends to continue helping social- studies teachers meet students’ changing needs in social- studies education. For example, Petitioner recently sponsored an inservice program designed to help teachers incorporate computers in social-studies education. At a time of reduced state involvement, Petitioner has tried to fill the gaps in funding and curriculum control. Petitioner’s funding efforts are directed toward schools and teachers, rather than school districts. Three years ago, Petitioner started an endowment fund to establish a long-term mini-grant program for social- studies teachers. According to the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the first definition of “office” is “a special duty, charge, or position conferred by an exercise of governmental authority and for a public purpose: a position of authority to exercise a public function and to receive whatever emoluments may belong to it <hold public ~> [and] a position of responsibility or some degree of executive authority.” The fourth definition is “something that one ought to do or must do: an assigned or assumed duty, task, or role [and] the proper or customary action of something: FUNCTION.” The fifth definition includes: “a place in which the functions (as consulting, record keeping, clerical work) of a public officer are performed [and] the directing headquarters of an enterprise or organization.” The last definition is “a major administrative unit in some governments <British Foreign Office [and] a subdivision of some government departments <Patent Offices>.” According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the second and third definitions of “office” are “[a] duty or function assigned to or assumed by someone: “the maternal office was supplied by my aunt (Gibbon) [and] “[a] position of authority, duty, or trust given to a person, as in a government, corporation, or other organization: the office of vice president.” However, the fourth definition is: “[a]ny of the branches of the Federal government of the United States ranking just below the departments [and a] major executive division of the British national government, often headed by a cabinet minister.” And the fifth and seventh definitions are “[a] public position: seek office" [and] [o]ften plural[; a]n Act performed for another, usually beneficial: a favor: 'The projected duel . . . was halted by the offices of friends on both sides.' (Katherine Anne Porter).” Webster’s second and third definitions of “administration” are “performance of executive duties: MANAGEMENT [and] the execution of public affairs as distinguished from policymaking.” The fourth definition includes “a governmental agency or board.” American Heritage’s first definition of “administration” is “[t]he management of affairs.” However, the second definition is “[t]he activity of a sovereign state in the exercise of its powers or duties.” The fourth definition is “[t]he management of any institution, public or private.”
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order granting Petitioner’s application for a consumer’s certificate of exemption from sales and use tax. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Theron Trimble 3710 Estey Avenue Naples, Florida 34104 Kevin J. O’Donnell Assistant General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for the suspension and termination of the employment of Respondent, Curtis Sherrod, for failing to correct teaching deficiencies sufficient to warrant a satisfactory performance evaluation.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Palm Beach County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"), is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) and support facilities within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Palm Beach County School District (hereinafter referred to as the "School District"). Respondent, Curtis Sherrod, at all relevant times, was licensed by the State of Florida to teach Social Studies for grades five through 12. Mr. Sherrod's certification authorized him to teach political science, economics, psychology, U.S. history, cultures, world geography, and contemporary history. Mr. Sherrod received a Bachelor of Arts degree, with a major in history and a minor in education, from Winston-Salem State University, formerly known as Winston-Salem State Teacher's College. At all relevant times, Mr. Sherrod was employed as a classroom teacher by the School Board. He was employed initially by the School Board from 1980 to 1983. He returned to employment with the School Board in January 1993 and received a Professional Services contract in August 1996. Mr. Sherrod's Employment at Olympic Heights High School. Beginning with the 1995-1996 school year, Mr. Sherrod was employed by the School Board at Olympic Heights High School (hereinafter referred to as "Olympic Heights"). Francis P. Giblin served as principal of Olympic Heights during the times relevant to this case. Until his last evaluation for the 2001-2002 school year, Mr. Sherrod received overall satisfactory performance evaluations. For the 1999-2000, 1996-1997, and the 1995-1996, school years, Mr. Sherrod, while receiving overall satisfactory ratings, had a few "areas of concern" noted. The deficiencies in those noted areas of concern were, until the 2001-2002 school year, corrected by Mr. Sherrod. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mr. Sherrod taught a world history class. After the school year began, several letters were received by Mr. Giblin from parents expressing concern over the content of the material being taught in Mr. Sherrod's world history class and documents which Mr. Sherrod had sent home to parents.1 Mr. Giblin requested that Dr. Christine Hall, an assistant principal at Olympic Heights look into the parental complaints concerning Mr. Sherrod's class. Dr. Hall was responsible for the Social Studies department, of which Mr. Sherrod was a teacher, at Olympic Heights. Dr. Hall spoke with Mr. Sherrod about the complaints. Dr. Hall met with Mr. Sherrod on September 4, 2001, and summarized their conversation in a memorandum of the same date. See Petitioner's Exhibit 27. The complaints, however, continued, with some parents requesting a class change for their children. Dr. Hall again discussed the matter with Mr. Sherrod, but the complaints continued. In approximately October 2001 Dr. Hall began to make informal observations of Mr. Sherrod's class in a further effort to resolve the problem. Toward that end, on October 10, 2001, Mr. Giblin visited Mr. Sherrod's class.2 Dr. Hall also observed a class during which Mr. Sherrod gave a standardized examination.3 At the conclusion of the test, Dr. Hall collected the "Scantrons" and determined the grade each student should have received. These grades were then compared to the final grades given the students by Mr. Sherrod. Due to a significant number of discrepancies in the grades given by Mr. Sherrod and the grades which they should have received based upon the Scantrons, Mr. Sherrod was asked to produce the Scantrons for his other classes. Mr. Sherrod was unable to produce the requested Scantrons because he had, contrary to School Board policy, disposed of them. As a result of his failure to produce the Scantrons Mr. Giblin became even more concerned about Mr. Sherrod's performance and ordered further observations of his classes.4 On November 27, 2001, Dr. Hall informed Mr. Sherrod in writing that she intended to conduct an observation of his class sometime during the "week of December 3-7." Mr. Sherrod wrote back to Dr. Hall and indicated that any day that week was fine, except for December 3 because "I will be collecting homework that day." Dr. Hall conducted observations on December 3 and 5, 2001. She conducted the observation on December 3rd despite Mr. Sherrod's suggestion because she did not believe it would take the entire class for Mr. Sherrod to collect homework. By memorandum dated December 11, 2001, Dr. Hall provided Mr. Sherrod with a discussion of her observations and suggested improvement strategies. Dr. Hall found deficiencies in the areas of management of student conduct; presentation of subject matter; human development and learning; learning environment; communication; and planning.5 On December 18, 2001, Mr. Giblin, Dr. Hall, Mr. Sherrod, Jerilyn McCall, Jeanne Burdsall, and Diane Curcio- Greaves participated in an "investigative meeting" to "discuss concerns regarding failure to perform professional duties, insubordination and unprofessional behavior." That meeting was summarized in a Meeting Summary provided to Mr. Sherrod. See Petitioner's Exhibit 32. On January 7, 2002, Mr. Giblin, Dr. Hall, Mr. Sherrod, Ms. Burdsall, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, Esther Bulger, Margaret Newton, and Debra Raing met "to provide information on benchmarks, curriculum and to insure [sic] students are prepared with information to take the district exam." A Meeting Summary was provided to Mr. Sherrod. On April 30, 2002, Mr. Giblin again observed Mr. Sherrod's class. Mr. Giblin's written observations are contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 34. Mr. Giblin found concerns in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, and learning environment. A summary of his concerns and recommendations for improvement were provided in writing to Mr. Sherrod on or about May 15, 2002.6 On May 16, 2002, Mr. Sherrod was given an overall unsatisfactory performance evaluation. Seven areas of concern were noted. Under Section A, Teaching and Learning, the following areas of concern were noted: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; and planning. Under Section B, Professional Responsibilities, the following areas of concern were noted: record keeping; working relationships with coworkers; and policies/procedure/ethics. Mr. Giblin did not specifically review the grades of students in Mr. Sherrod's classes before giving Mr. Sherrod his final evaluation. On May 29, 2002, Mr. Sherrod was provided with a School Site Assistance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "SAP"), "to be initiated August 7, 2002." The SAP was scheduled by agreement to begin at the beginning of the next school year (2002-2003), because the 2001-2002 school year was about to end. Mr. Sherrod was also provided at the same time that he was given the SAP with "workbooks" by Dr. Hall which she indicated were "to be used for fulfilling your plan's suggested activities." During the 2001-2002 school year, Mr. Sherrod was adequately advised of his areas of concern and, despite being given sufficient time to do so, failed to remedy them. Olympic Heights administrators complied with all procedural requirements for the issuance of the SAP. Mr. Sherrod's Employment at Suncoast High School. Prior to the end of the 2001-2002 school year, as the result of meeting with School District Assistant Superintendents, Mr. Sherrod was transferred from Olympic Heights to Suncoast High School (hereinafter referred to as "Suncoast"), on September 23, 2002. For the school year 2002-2003, Kay Carnes was the principal of Suncoast. Kathleen Orloff served as an assistant principal. Upon his transfer to Suncoast, Mr. Sherrod was provided with a two-week orientation period before being assigned teaching responsibilities. Following this orientation period, classes, including some honors classes, were assigned to Mr. Sherrod. On September 30, 2002, a meeting was conducted "to discuss the status of Curtis Sherrod's Assistance Plan." The meeting was attended by, among others, Ms. Carnes and Ms. Orloff. While the Conference Notes of the meeting indicate that Ms. Orloff was to "create a school-site assistance plan" the evidence failed to prove that a "new" SAP was developed.7 On October 21, 2002, the SAP developed at Olympic Heights was modified primarily to reflect that the SAP would be administered at Suncoast (hereinafter referred to as the "Suncoast SAP"). The dates of the SAP were modified to reflect that it had been agreed to in October 2002 with the names of relevant individuals modified. Finally, the improvement strategies of videotaping and audio-taping a lesson were eliminated.8 The Suncoast SAP was provided to Mr. Sherrod during a School-Site Assistance Plan Meeting. During the meeting, which was memorialized in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, additional assistance review days (October 31, November 12, and November 22, 2002) were agreed upon. The second School-Site Assistance Plan Meeting was held on October 31, 2002.9 Mr. Sherrod was informed that Ms. Orloff would observe his class on November 5, 2002, at 1:00 p.m., and that Ms. Carnes would observe him on November 13, 2002. That meeting was memorialized in a Meeting Summary, Petitioner's Exhibit 38. Ms. Orloff, who was primarily responsible for implementing the Suncoast SAP, had been conducting informal observations of Mr. Sherrod's class before scheduling formal observations. The next School-Site Assistance Plan Meeting was held on November 12, 2002. The meeting was memorialized. Mr. Sherrod was informed that planning, presentation of subject matter, communication, learning environment, record keeping, and polices/procedures/ethics were still areas of concern. He was also told that working relations with co-workers was no longer an area of concern. Ms. Orloff conducted observations of Mr. Sherrod on November 5, 2002, and on November 7, 2002. Her observations were summarized in a memorandum to Mr. Sherrod dated November 12, 2002. She noted concerns in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, planning, and learning environment. Recommended actions to be taken with regard to each area of concern were also suggested. Although the Suncoast SAP was only required to last for a minimum of 30 days, the plan was continued until February 2003. School-Site Assistance Plan Meetings were held on November 22, 2002, January 7, 2003, and January 16, 2003. Observations of Mr. Sherrod's classes were also conducted by Ms. Orloff and summaries of her findings were provided to him along with suggestions on how to improve. Observations were conducted on November 19, 2002, January 15, 2003, January 27, 2003, and February 6, 2003. From the moment the Suncoast SAP was initiated, Suncoast personnel, including Ms. Carnes and Ms. Orloff, evaluated Mr. Sherrod and attempted to assist him to improve in the areas of concern they noted. Mr. Sherrod was allowed to observe other teachers, the chair of his department worked with him on planning, a teacher who also taught American History worked with him, he was allowed to attend workshops, he was provided the assistance of a peer assistance and review, or "PAR," teacher, and he was provided with documentation as to what was expected of teachers at Suncoast. He was also allowed to teach Contemporary History in substitution for American History. The curriculum of the teacher who had previously taught the class was provided to Mr. Sherrod for his use. At no time did Mr. Sherrod complain to anyone involved in the implementation of the Suncoast SAP that the assistance he was being provided was inadequate or that he desired any additional help. Nor did Mr. Sherrod or his union representative suggest at any time that the procedures required to be followed up to that point were not being adhered to. While a SAP is required to last 30 days, the Suncoast SAP began October 21, 2002, and did not end until February 6, 2003. During this time, he was observed on six different occasions. Additionally, after beginning to teach at Suncoast, Mr. Sherrod was informally observed until the Suncoast SAP began. While Mr. Sherrod corrected the concern over his interaction with co-workers which had been noted at Olympic Heights, Ms. Carnes found through her observations that he continued to be deficient in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, learning environment, planning, record keeping, and policies/procedures/ethics. Therefore, on February 6, 2003, Ms. Carnes gave Mr. Sherrod an overall unsatisfactory Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS) evaluation noting these areas of concern. Ms. Carnes informed Arthur C. Johnson, Ph.D., the Superintendent of the School District, of the remaining areas of concern and concluded that "a sufficient number of these deficiencies still exist to warrant an unsatisfactory evaluation." She requested, therefore, by letter dated February 6, 2003, that Mr. Sherrod be placed on Performance Probation for 90 calendar days (hereinafter referred to as the "90-Day Plan"). Mr. Sherrod was provided with a copy of the letter. The basis for the unsatisfactory evaluation and the continuing deficiencies in the areas of concern noted are accurately summarized in the various School-Site Plan Meeting Summaries and the memoranda summarizing observations conducted during the 2002-2003 school year. Some of the most significant problems involved Mr. Sherrod's excessive and inappropriate use of R-rated videos, his failure to timely post student grades,10 and his failure to provide instruction in a manner which was consistent with time-lines suggested for teachers to complete instruction on all materials that were supposed to be covered. By letter dated February 10, 2003, Superintendent Johnson notified Mr. Sherrod in writing that he was being placed on a 90-Day Plan and that it would begin February 20, 2003, and conclude on June 4, 2003. Assistance reviews were scheduled to be held on March 31, May 5, and June 4, 2003, the last day of the 90-Day Plan. Dr. Johnson's letter was provided to Mr. Sherrod on February 19, 2003, at a School-Site Assistance Plan Meeting. The first observation to be conducted pursuant to the 90-Day Plan was to be conducted the week of February 24-28, 2003, by Diane Curcio-Greaves, Instructional Specialist, Professional Standards. This observation was made by Ms. Curcio-Greaves on February 27, 2003. A summary of the observation was provided by Ms. Curcio-Greaves to Mr. Sherrod on March 7, 2003. Ms. Curcio- Greaves noted deficiencies and recommended improvement strategies in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, learning environment, and planning. The second observation to be conducted pursuant to the 90-Day Plan was to be conducted the week of March 10-14, 2003, by Wanda Hagan, Area 5 Coordinator. This observation was made by Ms. Hagan on March 13, 2003. A summary of the observation, dated March 25, 2003, was provided by Ms. Hagan to Mr. Sherrod on March 28, 2003. Ms. Hagan noted deficiencies and recommended improvement strategies in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, planning, policies/procedures/ethics, and record keeping. She commended him in the area of learning environment. Mr. Sherrod did not attend, due to illness, the first Assistance Review meeting which had been scheduled as part of his 90-Day Plan for March 31, 2003. The remaining scheduled observations did not take place either. On April 14, 2003, Mr. Sherrod broke his knee cap. As a consequence, he did not return to Suncoast High for the remainder of the 2002-2003 school year. By memorandum dated April 30, 2003, he informed Ms. Carnes that he would not be returning to Suncoast that school year and requested a transfer to a school closer to his home. Mr. Sherrod, for the first time, also raised a number of concerns he had not previously expressed about his perceived lack of assistance and fair treatment at Suncoast. While the evidence proved that Mr. Sherrod may have had a genuine belief that he was not being provided effective assistance, the evidence failed to support his perception. Mr. Sherrod's Employment at Roosevelt Middle School. Mr. Sherrod was reassigned to Roosevelt Middle School (hereinafter referred to as "Roosevelt") effective October 3, 2003, after Marcia Andrews spoke with Gloria Crutchfield, principal of Roosevelt, about the availability of a position for him.11 Mr. Sherrod was assigned to teach 7th grade social studies classes, a couple of which were honors classes. On November 3, 2003, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, from Professional Standards, reviewed the 90-Day Plan with Ms. Crutchfield. Ms. Crutchfield did not, however, immediately institute the Plan. Rather, because Mr. Sherrod had begun teaching in mid-term and was new to Roosevelt, Ms. Crutchfield gave him additional time to become familiar with the new school before reinstating the remainder of the 90-Day Plan. A District Assistance Plan Meeting, which Mr. Sherrod attended, was held on December 2, 2003, to discuss reinstatement of the 90-Day Plan. It was necessary to revise the Plan to reflect Mr. Sherrod's unavailability to complete the Plan at Suncoast. It was agreed by all in attendance at the meeting, including Mr. Sherrod, that Mr. Sherrod had 44 more days to complete the 90-Day Plan, and that the Plan would be restarted December 3, 2003. The "evaluation from February 6, 2003, the assistance plan, the original calendar of 90 days, the revised calendar, and the 90-day timeline" were distributed during the December 2, 2003, meeting. The 90-Day Plan, as revised (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Plan), provided that the "1st Assistance Review" would be held on December 2 and 5, 2003,12 the "2nd Assistance Review" would be held on January 6, 2004, and the "3rd Assistance Review" and "Final Evaluation Conference" would be held on the 90th day, February 6, 2004. Having had two formal observations under the 90-Day Plan, additional formal evaluations were scheduled for the week of December 8-12, 2003, and January 12-16, 2004. The first evaluation under the Revised Plan was conducted on December 12, 2003, by Frank Rodriguez, Assistant Principal, Forest Hill Community High School. His observation notes and suggested strategies were provided to Ms. Crutchfield and Mr. Sherrod by Memorandum dated December 15, 2003. Mr. Rodriguez noted deficiencies in the areas of presentation of subject matter, classroom management, planning, and assessment. Mr. Sherrod submitted a written rebuttal to Mr. Rodriguez's Memorandum. The next scheduled formal evaluation was conducted on January 21, 2004, by Dr. Mary Gray. Ms. Gray's written observations were provided to Mr. Sherrod on or about January 29, 2004. Dr. Gray noted deficiencies in the areas of presentation of subject matter, learning environment, and planning. Mr. Sherrod provided a verbal rebuttal to Dr. Gray. The "2nd Assistance Review" meeting, which had been scheduled to be held on January 6, 2004, was held on January 29, 2004. The meeting was held late because Mr. Sherrod had been absent between January 6 and 12, 2004 (four school days), due to the passing of his mother. It was not held until January 29th out of respect for his loss. The meeting was memorialized in a Meeting Summary, Petitioner's Exhibit 56. During the January 29, 2004, meeting, Ms. Crutchfield suggested to Mr. Sherrod and his representative that he agree to an extension of the Revised Plan to February 10, 2004,13 due to Mr. Sherrod's absence. Mr. Sherrod agreed. The evidence failed to prove whether Ms. Crutchfield had the authority to grant this extension. The next and final evaluation conference was scheduled for February 10, 2004. The same day the "2nd Assistance Review" meeting was held, January 29, 2004, Ms. Crutchfield informed Mr. Sherrod verbally and in writing that she would conduct a formal and final evaluation during the week of February 2-6, 2004. This observation had been scheduled originally for the week beginning January 27, 2004, but was moved back due to Mr. Sherrod's absence during January and Ms. Crutchfield's absence. When informed verbally of the observation, Mr. Sherrod indicated that it was likely that he would be going out on leave in the near future and asked if Ms. Crutchfield could specify the exact date of his evaluation. Ms. Crutchfield indicated she could not. Petitioner's Exhibit 56. By letter dated February 20, 2004, Ms. Curcio-Greaves informed Mr. Sherrod by letter that the final evaluation conference scheduled for February 10, 2004, was being rescheduled to February 16, 2004. Although Ms. Crutchfield had indicated that she would wait until February 10, 2004, to complete the Revised Plan, Mr. Sherrod, as he had advised, left Roosevelt on leave before that date and before Ms. Crutchfield was able to conduct a formal evaluation of him. Based upon her informal evaluations of Mr. Sherrod conducted during the 2003-2004 school year and the formal observations conducted by others during the 90-Day Plan and the Revised Plan, she issued a final evaluation of Mr. Sherrod on February 9, 2004. This reduced the amount of time that Mr. Sherrod had been given to improve his noted deficiencies from approximately 94 days to 93 days: 44 under the 90-Day Plan at Suncoast; 46 under the Revised Plan at Roosevelt; and an additional three days from February 6 to February 9, 2004, at Roosevelt. Ms. Crutchfield found in her final evaluation of Mr. Sherrod that he still had the following areas of concern: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; planning; record keeping; and policies/procedures/ethics. Four of the areas of concern were in "Teaching and Learning" and two were in "Professional Responsibilities." Three concerns in Teaching and Learning alone is sufficient for an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory. Mr. Sherrod's overall evaluation was unsatisfactory. Ms. Crutchfield provided her evaluation of Mr. Sherrod to Dr. Johnson and recommended that his employment be terminated. By letter dated February 25, 2004, Dr. Johnson informed Mr. Sherrod that he would be recommending to the School Board that Mr. Sherrod's employment be terminated. A copy of Ms. Crutchfield's letter of recommendation and Mr. Sherrod's final evaluation were provided to Mr. Sherrod with Dr. Johnson's letter. Mr. Sherrod was also informed of his right to request an administrative hearing, which he exercised. Mr. Sherrod's Performance was Unsatisfactory. Beginning with the 2001-2002 school year and ending with his final evaluation on February 9, 2004, Mr. Sherrod was formally evaluated by nine different School District employees, all of whom were professionally trained to conduct evaluations of teaching personnel on behalf of the School Board. All of those evaluators, while finding Mr. Sherrod deficient in a number of areas, attempted to offer assistance to him which, if followed, could have corrected his deficiencies. During the three school years for which Mr. Sherrod was found to be deficient, all required assistance was provided to Mr. Sherrod to assist him in correcting his deficiencies. Indeed, more assistance than was required was provided to Mr. Sherrod. Mr. Giblin concluded that Mr. Sherrod, for his final evaluation, had evidenced four areas of concern under Teaching and Learning: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; and planning. Except for planning, Dr. Hall found the same areas of concern. Mr. Giblin also concluded that Mr. Sherrod evidenced the following areas of concern under Professional Responsibilities: record keeping; working relationships with coworkers; and policies/procedures/ethics. At the conclusion of the SAP, Ms. Carnes concluded that Mr. Sherrod, for his final evaluation, had evidenced the same areas of concern under Teaching and Learning found by Mr. Giblin: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; and planning. Ms. Orloof had found the same areas of concern during two prior evaluations. Ms. Carnes also concluded that Mr. Sherrod evidenced two of the same areas of concern under Professional Responsibilities found by Mr. Giblin: record keeping; and policies/procedures/ethics. At the conclusion of the 90-Day Plan, Ms. Crutchfield concluded that Mr. Sherrod, for his final evaluation, had evidenced the same areas of concern under Teaching and Learning found by Mr. Giblin and Ms. Carnes: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; and planning. Ms. Crutchfield also concluded that Mr. Sherrod had evidenced the same areas of concern under Professional Responsibilities found by Mr. Giblin and Ms. Carnes: record keeping and policies/procedures/ethics. Ms. Crutchfield, while performing informal evaluations of Mr. Sherrod, did not perform a formal final evaluation of Mr. Sherrod. Instead, she relied heavily upon her informal evaluations and the evaluations of Ms. Curcio-Greaves, Ms. Hagan, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Gray. Those evaluators, while all finding that presentation of subject matter and planning were areas of concern, were not consistent in their findings concerning the areas of communication and knowledge of subject matter. Ms. Hagan commended Mr. Sherrod in the area of knowledge of subject matter and Mr. Rodriguez failed to note the area of knowledge of subject matter as an item of concern. Ms. Gray and Mr. Rodriguez, the last two individuals to formally evaluate Mr. Sherrod before Ms. Crutchfield's evaluation failed to conclude that communication was an area of concern. It is, therefore, found that Ms. Crutchfield's conclusion that Mr. Sherrod had not corrected his deficiencies with regard to the areas of communication and knowledge of subject matter was arbitrary and not supported by the weight of the evidence. Despite the foregoing finding, Ms. Crutchfield's overall evaluation that Mr. Sherrod's performance was unsatisfactory was reasonable and supported by the weight of the evidence. Mr. Sherrod continued since the 2001-2002 school year and, more importantly, throughout the 90-Day Plan to evidence concerns in the areas of presentation of subject matter, planning, record keeping and policies/procedures/ethics. Thus, he evidenced two areas of concern in Teaching and Learning and two areas of concern in Professional Responsibilities, which were not corrected during the 90-Day Plan, despite efforts to assist him to improve. Ms. Crutchfield's final evaluation, with the exceptions noted, accurately reflected Mr. Sherrod's areas of concern and his unsatisfactory performance at the end of the Revised Plan despite the reasonable assistance provided to him. Those areas of concern were consistently found by nine evaluators over three school years and at three different schools. No credible evidence was presented to counter the conclusions reached by the individuals who evaluated Mr. Sherrod or to prove that their conclusions were based upon anything other than their professional judgments concerning Mr. Sherrod's performance. Failure to Prove Bias on the Part of the School Board. While at Olympic Heights, Mr. Sherrod wrote to Dr. Johnson once, the chairman of the School Board twice, and filed a "petition" with the School Board. The subject of the correspondence was Mr. Sherrod's perception of his treatment by officials at Olympic Heights. He believed that he was being harassed and discriminated against. It has been suggested that Mr. Sherrod's correspondence accurately reflects why his performance was found unsatisfactory at Olympic Heights and evidences a bias toward him on the part of all those who evaluated him. This suggestion is not supported by the evidence. At best, Mr. Sherrod's correspondence evidences the poor working relationship between Mr. Sherrod and some of his coworkers. This poor working relationship was noted as an area of concern on his final evaluation by Mr. Giblin. It is not necessary to decide who was the cause of the poor relationship between Mr. Sherrod and others at Olympic Heights. First, the area of concern, to the extent it was Mr. Sherrod's fault, was corrected by Mr. Sherrod and formed no basis in the ultimate finding that Mr. Sherrod's performance, uncorrected by the 90-Day Plan and the Revised Plan, was unsatisfactory. Additionally, the evidence failed to prove that anything which occurred while Mr. Sherrod was teaching at Olympic Heights had any influence on the conclusions concerning his performance at the two schools to which he transferred for the two school years after he sent the correspondence to Dr. Johnson and the School Board. Indeed, the fact that he did not send any further correspondence after the 2001-2002 school year further supports this conclusion. Dr. Dunn's Conclusions. Dr. Dunn opined at the final hearing that Mr. Sherrod did not over-infuse African-American history into his course materials. Dr. Dunn's opinions, however, are entitled to little weight. Most importantly, Dr. Dunn, unlike the nine individuals who evaluated Mr. Sherrod, did not actually observe Mr. Sherrod teaching during the times relevant to this case. In fact, Dr. Dunn has never observed Mr. Sherrod. Additionally, the content of Mr. Sherrod's classes, while the catalysts of the greater scrutiny afforded Mr. Sherrod's classes, was not the basis for the conclusion of those who evaluated Mr. Sherrod that his performance was unsatisfactory. The School District's Appraisal System. The School District's Instructional Performance Appraisal System was approved the then-Commissioner of Education in 1999. The Appraisal System has not been further reviewed since 1999.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered ratifying Mr. Sherrod's suspension and discharging him from further employment in the Palm Beach County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Myers holds teaching certificate number 329276. The Respondent's certificate is a Rank 3 covering the area of elementary education. The Respondent Myers holds a fourth annual contract as a teacher with the Dade County public schools which expires at the end of the 1983-84 school year. During the 1982-83 school year, she was employed at North Hialeah Elementary School as a second grade teacher. Allen C. Starke was the principal of that school. Mr. Starke and Ms. Myers met during the first week of the school term when Starke asked Myers to balance a student's grades, which Myers had neglected to do the previous year. A student's grade is balanced when the teacher gives a final grade balancing all four nine-week reporting period grades. The Respondent took the student' file home and notwithstanding that there was nothing in the file to warrant a failing grade, gave the student all F's. Starke requested that the Respondent regrade the project, giving the appropriate grades. The task was accomplished. The 1982-83 school year was the Respondent's third year of service with the Dade County public schools. Had her performance that year been satisfactory, she would have been eligible for continuing contract (tenure) status. As a third year teacher, she was subject to being observed in the classroom by her supervisors. Maria Pernas, the assistant principal at North Hialeah Elementary School, scheduled such an observation of the Respondent for October 5, 1982. However, when Ms. Pernas arrived in the classroom, it was in such a state of chaos and confusion that she approached the Respondent and told her that she would come back at a later date, hoping to give the Respondent the benefit of the doubt. Ms. Pernas returned to Respondent's classroom on November 2, 1982, but found the same state of affairs which she had observed on October Again she decided to give the Respondent another chance and did not officially observe her on that date. Ms. Pernas' official observation of the Respondent took place on November 18, 1982. The classroom climate was again chaotic and confused. The Respondent, however, appeared unaware of the lack of student interest or of the difficulties being encountered by her students. When students raised their hands, the Respondent either did not notice or paid no attention to them. The Respondent was attempting to conduct a reading lesson but she lacked the basic elements for implementing the same. It is an accepted technique in the teaching of reading for the teacher to physically divide the class into approximately three ability groups. The teacher then conducts approximately 20 minutes of teacher-directed lesson with one of those groups while the other groups do independent, previously assigned work. The teacher concludes with the first group, assigns them independent study, moves to the next group, etc. until the School Board mandated one consecutive hour of reading is complete and she has conducted a teacher-directed lesson with each group. The Respondent conducted no teacher-directed reading lesson and assigned no independent work. She did not have appropriate lesson plans and the class did not last the required one hour notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent was aware of this requirement. Ms. Pernas recommended several sources of help to the Respondent, including books and documents. Subsequent to this observation, Mr. Starke, Ms. Pernas and the Respondent participated in a conference-for-the-record held on November 30, 1982. The Respondent was advised to study various texts and to enroll in a course in "techniques of instruction" through the Teacher Education Center. The Teacher Education Center is an educational center mandated by the Florida Legislature. Its purpose is to provide in-service staff development courses and workshops for instructional personnel. Cathia Darling had also been called in to assist the Respondent. Ms. Darling is a teaching specialist who implements workshops for beginning teachers in the Dade County school system who may be having difficulty. On October 18, 19, and 21 1982, she had been at North Hialeah Elementary School providing teachers an update on the PREP program, a Dade County program designed to give students expanded services, both academically and physically, in the classroom. She was called back by Ms. Pernas on November 4 and 10 to go over the implementation of a reading program (RSVP) 1/ with two of the teachers at North Hialeah Elementary School who required further help. The Respondent was one of those teachers and Ms. Darling met with her for approximately one-half hour to 45 minutes at that time. Ms. Pernas observed the Respondent again on January 21, 1983. At that time she was teaching a science class and the topic was "Body Temperature." Pernas noted that the Respondent had insufficient visual aids and/or manipulative devices. Further, she did not appear to understand the substance of what she was teaching. She wrote a "102 degree Fahrenheit temperature" as "1.02." Pernas advised her that there should be no decimal point when recording such a temperature. When a student answered a question in Celsius (the student was Hispanic and accustomed to Celsius), the Respondent said the answer was wrong. Pernas suggested that the Respondent review literature regarding Fahrenheit and Celsius. She also recommended that the Respondent attend a TEC workshop in preparation and planning. The Respondent did not attend the prescribed workshop on preparation and planning, because the course was too far away from her home. Another course was offered but she did not attend that one either, stating that her sister was ill. Subsequent to Pernas' second evaluation, the Respondent told Mr. Starke that she believed Ms. Pernas was being unfair. Accordingly, Starke offered to observe the Respondent and she agreed. The observation took place on February 11, 1983. Starke found the classroom to be disorganized and confused. When he entered the classroom, the Respondent picked up a book and began to read. The children did not have their books open. They were walking about the classroom, generally entertaining themselves. They were not involved in the lesson and they were not paying any attention to the Respondent who continued to read verbatim from the book. From time to time, she would say "Sit down, sit down, can't you hear I'm reading?" The children continued to walk about. Starke felt they exhibited this behavior because they didn't know what they were supposed to be doing. After observing the classroom for a period, Starke began to check the Respondent's student folders. Teachers in the Dade County school system are required to keep folders to show samples of students' work. He found that as of February 11, 1983, no papers had been graded and placed in the folders since November 18, 1982. Starke pointed out that if the children's work had not been graded, a diagnostic, prescriptive approach to teaching could not be utilized. In short, the Respondent could not possibly have known at what level her students were functioning if she did not grade their papers. Accordingly, she could not teach them what they needed to know. Starke made several suggestions in his recommended prescription as to how the Respondent could improve her performance. He asked her to become familiar with the lesson before attempting to deliver it and he told her to read the teacher's guide and use it throughout the period as appropriate. He prescribed that in order to cut down on classroom disruption, she obtain the children's attention before attempting to introduce a lesson and that she distribute the books and other needed materials before the class activities began. He asked her to use the grade level chairperson as a resource. She was directed to report back to Mr. Starke and let him know what she had done. The Respondent did not report back to Mr. Starke and let him know what she had done. The Respondent did not report back to Mr. Starke and did not see the grade level chairperson. The Respondent was also told to correct and grade the students' papers as mandated and to place at least two graded papers per student per subject matter per week in each work folder. She did not comply with this directive, nor did she comply with Starke's repeated direction to contact the TEC to enroll in the course. At this point, Starke advised the Respondent that since her teaching performance had been unsatisfactory during that school year, he would not recommend her for continuing contract for the school year 1983-84. He did state, however, that he would recommend that she be granted a fourth year annual contract. He had not given up on her at that time and wanted to give her all the possible assistance he could. Starke observed the Respondent again on March 24, 1983. According to Starke's master schedule, the Respondent was to be teaching a reading lesson. However, when he entered the class- room, she was not teaching reading. Again, the class was chaotic. The students were unprepared for work. The Respondent herself had no lesson plans for the lesson. The students in the Respondent's class never moved into reading groups and she never gave a teacher-directed lesson to any group. Instead, she called on four students to read orally out of four different texts, each book representing an ability group. The students who were not studying a particular book derived no benefit from the reading. After 30 minutes, the Respondent asked the students to put their reading books away, and started a spelling lesson. Starke noted that she had only one grade in her record book for eight weeks of instruction. She should have had 16 or 18 or at least one grade per week per subject. Additionally, the Respondent had not graded any papers since November 18, 1982. Starke gave her another prescription telling her to have lesson plans before attempting to teach and to arrange her students into reading groups. He asked that she introduce all lessons and make sure materials were in place before instructions were given. She was told again to teach reading for 60 consecutive minutes and she was directed to grade her students' papers -- at least one grade per student per subject per week. Starke, at that point, kept eight of the folders that he had been going through in Ms. Myers' room. Subsequently, he replaced five of them, and three were introduced into evidence in this case. A review of these files indicates that when the papers were graded (prior to November 18, 1982), they were graded incorrectly. Credit was given for obvious errors. Sometimes the corrections themselves were incorrect. Corrections were written as "Not rite," or "Not finiseb." A math paper was graded A when 6 of the 15 problems were done incorrectly. Incorrect answers were marked "correct," correct answers were marked "incorrect," and some answers were not marked at all. The Respondent testified that all of the grades which appear in Exhibits 10A, B and C are marks which she did not personally put there and that she does not know who graded those papers or when. The Hearing Officer finds that the Respondent's explanation lacks credibility and that the Respondent graded the papers incorrectly. Another conference-for-the-record was held on March 30, 1983. At that time, the Respondent and Starke discussed her inadequate lesson plans. The Respondent stated, "I had lesson plans, but they did not represent what I was teaching." When questioned about not grading her students' papers, the Respondent stated that some of the papers were graded but that she didn't have time to grade them all. At that conference, Starke also noted that he had come upon the Respondent sitting with her grade book in front of her and placing grades in that book. He noted that there were no papers in front of the Respondent from which she could be recording the grades. When he inquired about it, she said that she was putting grades in the book. He asked how she could put grades in her book with no papers to copy from and she said she just knew what the children had done. Starke believed that this was impossible, considering the size of her class. Subsequently, at the conference of March 30, the Respondent said that, in fact, the grades had always been in the book but that she just hadn't seen them, and that when Starke had come upon her she was just checking students present or absent. Starke advised the Respondent that based upon her total performance, he was changing his recommendation from an extended annual contract to dismissal for cause. Notwithstanding this recommendation, Starke testified that if the Respondent had suddenly given some evidence that she was going to become a competent teacher, he would have changed his recommendation. On April 5, 1983, Mr. Starke gave the Respondent a memorandum from John N. Ranieri, the director of the Dade-Monroe Education Center, outlining numerous courses which Starke felt would be of benefit to Ms. Myers in improving her deficiencies. These were courses which he had prescribed for her and which she had not taken. John Ranieri testified that the Respondent did in fact enroll in three TEC courses during the 1982-83 school year. She enrolled in Techniques of Instruction twice and she enrolled in a class in Classroom Management. The system does not permit credit for taking a course over, therefore she did not get credit for the second time she took the Techniques of Instruction course. She did receive credit, however, for taking that course once. The Respondent failed the Classroom Management course. The records of the Teacher Education Center indicate that she did not turn in her assignments, she did not pass the test (she received the second lowest test score in a class of 90) and she was late to class three out of the four times the class met. Each time she was late over twenty minutes. The Respondent had numerous excuses for her lack of success in this class. She stated that she was late for the first class because the traffic was heavy. She stated that even though Starke had told her she could leave school 15 minutes early, her relief teacher did not show up on time and she therefore did not leave on time. She testified that she told Starke about her problem with the substitute teacher, but Starke testified that this was not so. The Respondent said that she failed the test in the course because the instructor gave her the wrong test and that when he gave her the right test, she only had 20 minutes left out of an hour class to take the test. The Hearing Officer finds this testimony by the Respondent not credible. On April 29, 1983, Cathia Darling returned to North Hialeah Elementary School to once again attempt to assist the Respondent in establishing a reading program. While Darling had been working with the Respondent in November, she had explained how to initiate the pre-testing, instruction, and, finally, post- testing. When Darling returned in April, the Respondent had still not mastered what she had been taught in November, and the process had to be started over again. Darling returned again in May to follow up, and the Respondent still had not implemented any of the testing. This testing should have been started at the beginning of the school year. At that point, Darling implemented the Respondent's testing program and charted the results. In Darling's opinion, the Respondent never implemented a reading program in her second grade classroom. In an attempt to explain her failure to implement the program, the Respondent stated that she asked for an RSVP kit four or five times but was never given one. Allen Starke testi- fied that the Respondent never asked him for any instructional materials and that he had never denied her request for an RSVP kit at any time during the 1982-83 school year, nor to his knowledge had anyone ever denied her access to the kit. Cathia Darling noted that the booklets necessary to implement the program were in the school, although they were not in Daisy Myers' classroom when Darling visited that classroom. No teacher at North Hialeah had complained to Darling about not having access to the RSVP kits or booklets. On May 5, 1983, Eneida Hartner, a school system area director who supervises 18 schools including North Hialeah Elementary School, observed the Respondent teach a reading class. Hartner was called in to observe the teacher as an objective outside observer. She noted for the record that it is always possible that an outside observer might feel that a teacher could improve her performance. Hartner observed that a significant amount of class time was wasted by students talking to each other. This occurred because they had not been given any clear direction as to what they were to do, The Respondent was not using a lesson plan nor was she using the teacher's guide for the reading lesson. She interacted with the children for a very limited amount of time when she should have worked with each group of children for 20 minutes. She was not teaching decoding skills, which she should have been teaching (decoding teaches the sound a letter makes). Ms. Hartner looked at the student folders and found that the answers in the fo1ders were not marked right or wrong. Grades were given to the students but there was no indication as to whether the answer to the question was correct. When Ms. Hartner asked the Respondent about her diagnostic/prescriptive folders (testing, teaching, testing) which every teacher is required to maintain, Myers said that she did not have any. She had no records of what the children knew or what they did not know. Hartner saw no visible evidence that any child had learned anything from the Respondent. Subsequent to her observation of the Respondent, Ms. Hartner gave Mr. Starke a prescription to be delivered to the Respondent. The prescription consisted of a group of activities having to do with self-assessment, self- analysis, making changes and trying them out in the classroom. The Respondent did not fully comply with the prescription, and Hartner testified that it was her opinion that no further remediation would he successful in making the Respondent a competent teacher. The Respondent was observed one more time during the 1982-83 school year. On June 9, 1983, Maria Pernas observed what was scheduled as a reading lesson. In fact, the Respondent was teaching writing. Pernas noted that the Respondent's plans did not match what she was teaching. She also found that the Respondent continued to be unacceptable in teaching techniques, assessment techniques and professional responsibility. Pernas testified that if she were to rank all of the teachers that she has evaluated during her years as an assistant principal, the Respondent would be in the very last place. She does not believe that the Respondent's students gained anything by being in her class during the 1982-83 school year. Allen Starke agreed with Ms. Pernas' evaluation. In fact, he felt that the Respondent's second grade students had learned so little during their year in Respondent's class that he broke the class up into smaller groups, assigning them to numerous other teachers for the third grade. He did this because he felt that the students might learn more from other students who had had a successful experience in the second grade than if they were all kept together. Starke does not believe that the Respondent should be a classroom teacher. The last witness to testify for the Petitioners was Patrick Gray, Executive Director of the Division of Personnel Control for the School Board of Dade County, Florida. He stated that having reviewed the file of the Respondent, based on his extensive experience in the field of personnel control and education, it was his judgment that she had been provided every opportunity to demonstrate competence or to become competent in an instructional capacity in the public school system, that she had failed to evidence the required standard of instructional competence and that she should therefore not be licensed to teach children by the State of Florida; neither is she competent to be employed by the school in the Dade County public school system. Dr. Gray testified that the Respondent had been ranked acceptable for her performance for the 1980-81 school year and the 1981-82 school year; however, that both of the principals who evaluated her those years noted that there were categories which required improvement. He also noted that in a letter from the Respondent's 1980-81 principal, Ms. Culver, the principal declined to testify on her behalf at this hearing. She stated that she recalled that the two areas in which the Respondent required improvement as a teacher in 1980-81 were preparation and planning and classroom management and that her reviews of the observations of Myers' teaching made during the 1982-83 school year showed that time and time again the same areas were listed as unacceptable. Ms. Culver felt that the Respondent's planning should have been greatly improved by the end of her second year of teaching. She also noted that during the 1980- 81 school year, she had released the Respondent on several occasions to observe and work with other classroom teachers who excelled in the area of classroom management. Both Ms. Culver and the assistant principal had recommended books in both areas to the Respondent. Ms. Culver observed that the Respondent had taken courses in RSVP as early as 1980-81, which she felt should have benefited her in teaching reading. Yet, the 1982-83 observations showed that the Respondent lacked competence in the area. Ms. Culver concluded that the Respondent is a fine person but, apparently, she lacks the basic skills to be a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that: The teaching certificate of Respondent Daisy Myers be permanently revoked; and The suspension of the Respondent, Daisy Myers by the School Board of Dade County, Florida, be sustained, and that Respondent Myers be dismissed from employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, and any claim for back pay be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1985.
Findings Of Fact On September 9, 1982 Petitioner filed an application with the Teacher Certification Section of the Florida Department of Education to be re-certified as a teacher in the State of Florida. He was previously certified as a teacher in Florida from September 3, 1974 until 1979 in the field of cooperative distributive education. Mr. Hill is a graduate of the University of South Florida with a bachelor's degree in distributive education and he has 20 to 25 hours of credit towards his master's degree in administration Supervision. From 1974 until 1977 he successfully taught school in the Orlando area. In December of 1979 Petitioner had an argument with his father. During the course of that argument Mr. Hill picked up a 12 gauge shotgun and hit his father in the stomach several times. Petitioner was arrested, charged with aggravated assault, and subsequently adjudicated not guilty by a reason of insanity. The court order adjudicating him not guilty found that "At the time of the alleged offense, defendant's psychological condition caused him to function under paranoid delusions and persecutory relations. He not only had such thoughts and beliefs, but they were held so firmly that he was acting upon them." After the entry of that order on March 24, 1980, Petitioner was found to meet the criteria for involuntary commitment to a state mental hospital pursuant to the provisions of the Baker Act. He was treated at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital until June 1980 and then released to the Peace River Center for Personal Development as a resident there. In either October or November 1981 Mr. Hill ceased taking the psychotropic medication which had been prescribed for him. By March 1982 he was again readmitted as an involuntary patient at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital and after treatment there he was released in August 1982 back to the Peace River Center. Dr. M. Saleem Jeewa has been his treating psychiatrist since June of 1980. At the present time Dr. Jeewa prescribes Mellaril, a major tranquilizer, and Pamelor, an anti-depressant medication for Petitioner. Mr. Hill now visits Dr. Jeewa on a monthly basis unless something unusual happens in the interim. Additionally Petitioner attends group therapy three times a week and lives in one of the satellite apartments at Peace River Center. The satellite apartments are an arrangement where three or four patients live together to share expenses and help each other as a peer group. The satellite apartments are not part of a residential facility but are leased out in the community by the Peace River Center. In April 1983 Petitioner began working at American Building Maintenance, a Tampa janitorial service. His other employment history subsequent to his arrest, but prior to this hearing, includes janitorial work for Goodwill Industries. This employment was terminated when, due to an automobile accident, Mr. Hill was injured and physically unable to perform his job. Prior to that employment he worked for a CETA program where he assisted in locating jobs for handicapped persons. With respect to Mr. Hill's present psychological state he has no evidence of any thought disorder. His speech is logical, coherent and relevant. He has a fair amount of insight into his own condition and his judgment is adequate. No psychosis is apparent. He continues however to display a mild form of mixed anxiety and depression. At the present time it would be difficult however, for Mr. Hill to handle a job where he is fairly independent, must be flexible with considerable responsibilities and handle a variety of tasks. In order for Mr. Hill to be a successful teacher in a classroom situation with responsibility for 15 to 20 children, he would initially need some additional assistance and support over and above that normally required by a new teacher. It is unlikely that due to Mr. Hill's present condition he would cause any harm or be dangerous to students or other people around him. While it is within the realm of possibility that Petitioner, if certified, could successfully handle the responsibilities of a distributive education teacher, that possibility is not probable in view of Petitioner's present fragile psychological state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the State Board of Education as the head of the Department of Education, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a teacher in the field of distributive education. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 4th day of November, 1983.
The Issue May Petitioner be recognized by Respondent School District as a professional teacher association, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Despite any typographical or other errors in the Petition, the parties are agreed that this cause is brought solely pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, effective June 21, 1999, reads as follows: 231.6075 Rulemaking authority; professional teacher associations. The State Board of Education shall adopt such rules as necessary to ensure that not-for-profit, professional teacher associations which offer membership to all teachers, noninstructional personnel, and administrators, and which offer teacher training and staff development at no fee to the district shall be given equal access to voluntary teacher meetings, be provided access to teacher mailboxes for distribution of professional literature, and be authorized to collect voluntary membership fees through payroll deduction. On July 7, 1999, Betty Coxe, Division Director, Human Resources Development, Florida Department of Education (DOE) wrote to Florida's District School Superintendents, advising them of the enactment of the statute and that DOE had identified "one statewide organization" which met the criteria to be a professional teacher association under this statute. That association was the Professional Educators Network of Florida, Inc. (PEN). Petitioner TEA was incorporated as a not-for-profit Florida corporation on September 22, 1999, by Jack Daniels as Chairman, Helen Heard as secretary-treasurer, and Daryl Grier as vice-chairman. The president, vice-president, and secretary- treasurer are elected by the Board of Directors. Currently, Chairman Daniels is also president. On October 25, 1999, Dean Andrews, Deputy General Counsel for DOE, issued a legal opinion on the following question: Must the State Board of Education adopt rules prior to school district implementation of Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, relating to professional teacher associations? Mr. Andrews answered the question in the negative, concluding that "Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, is self-executing." On December 20, 1999, David Ashburn, Director, Division of Human Resources Development, DOE, sent a letter to Florida's District School Superintendents "to provide further clarification for district level implementation" of Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. That letter read, in pertinent part: It has come to the attention of the Department that there may be several associations that may meet the criteria for recognition in a district, and thus shall be afforded access to mailboxes, meetings, and payroll deduction as provided in the law. The professional association must provide documentation of compliance with the law and provide training in the district to establish recognition on an individual district by district basis. Therefore, a statewide listing or identification of the associations will not be possible. Implementation and compliance are to be at the local level. (Emphasis supplied) Sometime in January 2000, but before January 10, 2000, Mr. Daniels orally requested that Respondent Duval County School District recognize TEA as a professional teachers association, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. His request was directed to Vicki Reynolds, Executive Director, Office of Policy and Compliance for the Duval County School District, who had been delegated the responsibility for handling this matter by Respondent's Superintendent of Schools. Ms. Reynolds has an extensive background with the Respondent School District. She was an elementary classroom teacher for eight years; served nine years as legal affairs liaison for the District; served as School District general counsel for two and a-half years; and has been in her present position for approximately one year. The record is silent as to whether she continues to be a certified or licensed professional teacher. In two trips to see Ms. Reynolds, Mr. Daniels delivered to her a copy of TEA's Articles of Incorporation and a copy of an October 13, 1999, letter from Buddy Worwetz, President of Worwetz Education Systems. According to Mr. Worwetz's testimony, Worwetz Education Systems is a "training, consulting, technology firm" which "mostly does adult basic training" and some "teacher training." Mr. Worwetz would expect to be paid for such services. The October 13, 1999, Worwetz letter indicated that Worwetz Education Systems had presented many workshops in "educator training" and "staff development," such as "drop out prevention and classroom management," which had been personally taught by Mr. Worwetz in Respondent's School District, and that the company had the capacity to provide workshops in "curriculum and instruction, various subject matter, technology, exceptional student education, communications, diversity, community relations, and the school improvement process," plus two, six- hour courses, taught by Dr. Kyker and Carla Jones, entitled "Introduction to Cooperative Discipline" and "Student-Centered Leadership." TEA contended that these courses constituted appropriate continuing education courses for professional teachers. In January 2000, when she reviewed TEA's Articles of Incorporation and the October 13, 1999, Worwetz letter, Ms. Reynolds accepted them at face value, but Ms. Reynolds could not identify any of the members of TEA's Board of Directors as teachers or educators. She also was not familiar with any of the names or the specifically-titled courses in Mr. Worwetz's October 13, 1999, letter. She was familiar with Mr. Daniels' background, which was primarily in insurance and union organization and litigation. On or about January 10, 2000, she orally denied TEA's recognition request. On January 11, 2000, Mr. Daniels wrote a letter to Respondent's Superintendent of Schools, requesting recognition of TEA. The Superintendent did not write him back, but that day, or shortly thereafter, Ms. Reynolds orally conveyed the Superintendent's denial to Mr. Daniels. On January 26, 2000, TEA filed a Petition for Formal Hearing, which was not acted upon by Respondent. TEA next filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the First District Court of Appeal, requesting that court to compel Respondent School District "to either grant or deny" TEA's request for formal hearing. Respondent opposed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus. On July 12, 2000, the First District Court of Appeal issued an Order, providing in pertinent part, as follows: We issued an order to show cause and find that respondent's arguments in opposition to the petition might ultimately prove to be valid reasons to deny the request for formal hearing or, if a hearing is held, to support the district's decision to decline to authorize TEA. They are not, however valid reasons to fail to act on the petition for formal hearing in a timely fashion. . . . Accordingly, we grant the petition and issue our writ of mandamus, directing the district to act on TEA's petition for formal hearing . . . . Respondent did not deny TEA's request for formal hearing. Rather, Respondent granted TEA's request for formal hearing, in effect declining to recognize TEA, and referred the case to DOAH, on or about August 17, 2000, for a hearing on the merits of recognition, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. In either September or October 2000, Respondent, through Ms. Reynolds, accepted submittals from PEN (see Finding of Fact No. 3) at face value. She reviewed a four-page document provided by PEN, which listed all PEN's teacher education and staff development courses with course descriptions and objectives and named some of the instructors. Ms. Reynolds also reviewed a brochure naming PEN's Board of Directors and stating PEN's mission and vision, and a brochure listing the services PEN offers its members in exchange for their dues, which services include legal representation, insurance, and a statewide networking procedure.1 Ms. Reynolds was able to identify teachers and "educators" certificated and/or licensed by DOE on PEN's Board of Directors and certificated and/or licensed teachers named for its courses. Some of these persons she knew personally and others she knew by reputation from her nearly 20 years as a teacher and/or administrator in Respondent School District. Ms. Reynolds identified a former superintendent of Gadsden County Schools and a former president of Florida State University as being these "educators." She identified the courses offered by PEN as having some value to continuing teacher education. She also accepted that PEN was a statewide professional teacher association which presumably had DOE's imprimitur. (See Finding of Fact No. 3.) Thereafter, Respondent recognized PEN, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, and Respondent now deducts PEN members' dues from Respondent's payroll. Ms. Reynolds also testified that representatives of a union, Duval Teachers United (DTU), had asserted that Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, was unconstitutional and that they had urged that Respondent therefore not recognize any professional teacher associations, including PEN and TEA. It is unclear whether DTU has any affiliation with the AFL-CIO. At hearing, Jack Daniels testified and presented TEA's Articles of Incorporation, demonstrating that TEA is a not-for- profit corporation which offers membership to all teachers, non- instructional personnel, and administrators of all Florida School Districts. TEA apparently operates out of Mr. Daniels' home. TEA is not affiliated with the AFL-CIO. There are no professional (certificated or licensed) teachers on TEA's Board of Directors. It is not necessary to determine if an "educator" also may be a person trained in school administration, teacher qualification, and similar educational support services without also being a licensed or certificated teacher, because TEA's Board does not contain any of these professionals either. TEA did not demonstrate that any of its Board members had any education, training, or experience which would equip him or her to offer appropriate teacher training or staff development. Mr. Daniels has a background in insurance and union organization and litigation. Ms. Heard's qualifications were never clearly revealed. It was disputed whether or not Daryl Grier remained on TEA's Board of Directors as of the date of formal hearing, but in any case, TEA never affirmatively demonstrated that Mr. Grier has any background or qualifications as a teacher or "educator." In fact, his qualifications, if any, were never revealed. Buddy Worwetz testified concerning the courses described in his October 13, 1999, letter to Mr. Daniels (see Finding of Fact Nos. 10 and 11), but he never clearly explained the content of any course offered by his company, including those he has taught in the District. The other instructors available and named in the letter, Dr. Kyker and Carla Jones, were trained and "certified" by contributing authors, Pete DeSisto and Ken Blanchard, of a book with a title similar to one of the course titles, "Introduction to Cooperative Discipline." One of the proposed instructors, Dr. Kyker, reputedly is a "professor," but a professor of what discipline and where she serves as a "professor" was not explained. No mention was made of whether any of these people are certificated or licensed by DOE. Other qualifications, if any, of these proposed instructors were not explained. It was not demonstrated that Mr. Worwetz is a licensed or certificated teacher. Also, the cost and objectives of Worwetz's courses were not explained. However, evidence of Worwetz instructors and courses is essentially moot, since any planned collaboration between TEA and Worwetz Education Systems had ended before formal hearing. Effective May 26, 2000, Mr. Worwetz wrote Mr. Daniels that Worwetz Education Systems would no longer be available to contract with TEA for educational services. Mr. Worwetz's reasons for rescinding his October 13, 1999, offer to deal with TEA were his "gut feeling" that his organization "was being used to bolster TEA's eligibility and capability"; because Mr. Daniels had not contacted him in more than 30 days; and because he believed contracting with TEA would hurt his business with an AFL-CIO rival of TEA. It is clear from Mr. Worwetz's candor and demeanor while testifying that AFL-CIO members had influenced his decision to distance himself from TEA, but there is no evidence of any efforts of the Respondent School District in that regard. TEA currently has no employees, agents, or contractors who can offer continuing teacher education. TEA presented no evidence it currently has any members besides its three Directors, let alone any members who are professional teachers in Respondent's school district who might value receiving TEA materials in their mailboxes and deductions for TEA dues from their paychecks. TEA presented no evidence concerning the content or credit-hour value of educational courses it currently intends to offer. Apparently, TEA expects Respondent to list courses Respondent considers acceptable for teachers' continuing education and staff development and then Mr. Daniels, on behalf of TEA, will try to contract with some entity to produce these courses or will try to contract with an entity already offering such courses. Such a scenario hardly seems feasible, and TEA offered no evidence that any qualified entity exists which is willing to contract with TEA for this service. TEA presented no evidence that it has operating funds with which to provide the educational programs contemplated by the statute. Respondent School District, as represented by Ms. Reynolds, is aware of a prior labor dispute decided by the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) which partially went against Respondent and in favor of a non-AFL-CIO union which Mr. Daniels represented. There also has been litigation before PERC which required Mr. Daniels' union "client" to pay money to Respondent, and the money has not been paid. Despite Ms. Reynolds' denial, her candor and demeanor when testifying suggests that she and her advisers have a concern that Mr. Daniels has a secret union agenda connected with TEA and that this concern was a component of Respondent's denial of recognition to TEA, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. Respondent School District, as represented by Ms. Reynolds, views access to teachers' mailboxes and use of payroll deductions as having fiduciary overtones. She and her advisers have reservations about Mr. Daniels' fitness to administer such activities and funds on behalf of TEA. It is feared that programming into Respondent's system a payroll deduction for TEA may cause some of Respondent's employees to believe that Respondent has checked TEA's reliability in fiscal matters and is endorsing TEA in that regard. Respondent does do such checks on the tax-sheltered annuity firms for which Respondent makes payroll deductions. Supporting its concerns about union agitation and fiscal responsibility, Respondent had admitted in evidence PERC Show Cause Order Docket No. RC-99-014; Order No. 99E-070, dated March 18, 2000, found at 6 FPER paragraph 31099. That Order, in pertinent part, found as fact as follows: In 1990 Florida American Union (FAU) . . . through Daniels, filed an unfair labor practice charge which it knew was frivolous or groundless and ordered FAU to pay the [Duval County] School District its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Commission approved this recommendation. See Florida American Union v. Duval County School District, 16 FPER ¶21150 (1990). In 1993, . . . Daniels [as lay representative of a union] filed a motion asserting racial allegations against the Commission. That motion contained inaccurate and deceptively stated information and the Commission denied the motion as devoid of merit in form and substance. See Brotherhood of Black Custodial and Food Service Workers v. Duval County School District v. Florida Public Employees Council 79 AFSCME 19 FPER ¶24067 (1993). In 1994 . . . the hearing officer disqualified Daniels as a lay-representative for creating and using false evidence, presenting false testimony, and engaging in ex parte communications with the Commission. Recognizing the gravity of Daniels' misconduct in the ACE case, the Commission stated that in future cases Daniels would be subject to a show cause order when he asks to serve as a lay-representative. See Association of City Employees v. City of Jacksonville, 22 FPER ¶27052 (1996) appeal dismissed, No. 96-168 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 30, 1996). In 1996, . . . [w]hen Daniels sought to act as JETs lay-representative, the hearing officer issued an order to show cause why he should not be disqualified. Jacksonville Employees Together (JET) v. Jacksonville Housing Authority v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME Case No. RC-96- 054 (Fla. PERC HOO Dec. 13, 1996). The hearing officer noted Daniels' flagrant misconduct in the ACE case and that Daniels' response only attacked Commissions ACE decision; thus, according to the hearing officer, Daniels failed to provide sufficient reasons why he should not be disqualified to serve as JET's lay- representative. Jacksonville Employees Together v. Jacksonville Housing Authority v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, Case No. RC-96-054 (FLA. PERC H00 Dec. 19, 1996); see also Jacksonville Employees Together v. Jacksonville Housing Authority v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, 23 FPER ¶28109 (1997). On appeal, the court affirmed the hearing officer. Jacksonville Employees Together v. Jacksonville Housing Authority, Case No. 97- 1784 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 19, 1998). In 1997, . . . the hearing officer disqualified Daniels as JET's lay- representative because he engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 28- 106.107(3)(b) . . . See Jacksonville Employees Together v. City of Jacksonville v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Case No. RC-97-034 (Fla. PERC H00 July 24, 1998, appeal withdrawn, Case No. 98-0343 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 4, 1999); see also Jacksonville Employees Together v. City of Jacksonville v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, AFL- CIO, 25 FPER ¶30047 (1999). On August 31, 1998, . . . [t]he circuit court . . . adjudged Daniels in contempt for failing to honor a lawfully issued subpoena. . . . In re: The Petition of Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, Case No. 98- 4935-CA (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Nov. 16, 1998). [Bracketed material added for grammar and clarity.] The PERC Order gave Mr. Daniels 10 days in which to respond. TEA presented no evidence that the foregoing PERC Order to Show Cause had been responded to, reconsidered, vacated, set aside, or even appealed. Mr. Daniels testified, without refutation but also without any subsequent PERC Order to support his testimony, that, due to a change of PERC Commissioners, he has been re-admitted to practice before PERC. This evidence, even if believed, does not alter the facts as previously found by the PERC Order in evidence.2
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Duval County School District enter a final order denying Teachers Education Association's request for recognition pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, as of the date of the final order.5 DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the stipulations of the parties, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 254645, which covers the areas of administration and supervision, health education, adult administration, and physical education, and is valid through June 30, 1997. Following his graduation from Florida A&M University in 1969, Respondent obtained a teaching position with the Dade County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). Respondent remained in the employ of the Board as a teacher and then as an administrator until he retired effective May 28, 1992. During the 1990-91 school year, Respondent was the assistant principal for community education at L.C. Evans Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Evans"), a position he had held since November of 1987. Dorothy Mindingall was the principal at Evans and Respondent's immediate supervisor. Among Respondent's responsibilities as the school's assistant principal for community education was to bring to the school adult education classes, offered by the Miami Northwestern Adult Center (hereinafter referred to as the "Center"), that the community wanted. During the 1990-91 school year, adult education sewing classes taught by Irlina Moore, adult education parenting classes taught by Joni Singleton, and adult education GED classes taught by Bertha Cochran and Sophia Ann James Hall were offered at Evans in the evening hours. As the only school administrator on duty at Evans that time of day, Respondent was responsible for monitoring the activity that was then taking place in the building, including that related to these adult education classes. The adult education teachers viewed Respondent as their immediate supervisor, even though it was actually Betty Major, the Center's assistant principal for adult education, not Respondent, who had been assigned that supervisory responsibility. Major had little or no contact with the teachers. The adult education classes at Evans had been established only after Respondent had approached the principal of the Center, Will Miller, and requested that Miller authorize the establishment of the classes. While Miller did not exercise any supervisory authority over Respondent, the classes could not be offered at Evans without Miller's authorization. Miller gave his authorization and hired the teachers Respondent had recommended to teach these classes. He did so, however, with the caveat that the classes would be discontinued if they had enrollments of less than 25 students. After their hiring, Respondent told the teachers to recruit students for their classes and to assist the students in the registration process. In addition, he suggested to Moore that she pay for the registration of students who were unable to afford the registrations fee. Moore did as she was told. She was subsequently reimbursed by only a few of the students. The adult education classes held at Evans during the 1990-91 school year were poorly attended. Many students who were registered, including those whose registration fee had been paid by Moore, rarely, if ever, showed up for class. Generally, only two or three students were actually present for Moore's sewing classes. Cochran and Hall, on the average, had eight to ten and four to eight students, respectively, attend their GED classes. Respondent was aware of these attendance problems. He also knew, as did at least some of the adult education teachers teaching these classes, that if a student was marked absent for six consecutive days the student would no longer be considered enrolled in the class for purposes of determining whether class enrollment was sufficient to justify the continuation of the class. Respondent instructed Moore to mark students present who were actually absent from class. Thereafter, at a meeting held in November of 1990, the subject of which was the recruitment and enrollment of adult education students, Respondent gave similar instructions to the teachers in attendance-- Moore, Cochran and Singleton. Moore and Cochran acted in accordance with Respondent's instructions and intentionally falsified their class attendance records. Cochran, though, did so for only approximately one month before deciding to resign her position at Evans. Hall was not present at the November, 1990, meeting. On two or three different occasions, however, in the hallway outside of her classroom, Respondent advised her to mark students present who were actually absent from class. In or around January of 1991, Hall began following Respondent's advice and, as Moore and Cochran had already done, and Moore was continuing to do, started submitting attendance records that she knew overstated the number of students actually attending her classes. She continued to do so until March or April of that same year. In submitting falsified attendance records, Moore, Cochran and Hall were motivated by a desire to retain their jobs teaching at Evans-- jobs they knew were at risk because of the relatively small number of students who were regularly attending their classes. Respondent used these attendance records, which he knew were inaccurate, to prepare the community school activity reports it was his responsibility, as assistant principal for community education, to submit to his supervisor his each month-- in particular, those portions of these reports which reflected the number of enrolled students in Moore's, Cochran's and Hall's classes and the number of "participant hours" purportedly generated by these classes during the reporting period. Accordingly, these reports, as Respondent was aware, made it appear that more students were participating in the adult education program at Evans than was actually the case. Had the truth been revealed in these reports, it may very well have raised questions as to whether Respondent was satisfactorily performing his responsibility of providing the community with what it wanted in the way of adult education classes. Respondent therefore had a motive to keep the truth from his superiors and to mislead them regarding the actual extent of community participation in the adult education program at Evans. Respondent's superiors, however, ultimately uncovered the truth following an investigation into the matter. During the investigation, Moore, Cochran and Hall were each questioned on more than one occasion by Michael Malone, the Board's police coordinator. Initially, neither of them specifically admitted falsifying attendance records. Cochran and Hall, in fact, specifically denied engaging in such activity. Subsequently, however, they all told Malone the truth and in so doing implicated Respondent. Moore and Hall did so only after they had met with Cochran, who had already revealed the truth, at Cochran's home to discuss the matter. Neither Moore nor Hall told Malone about the meeting. Hall did mention to Malone, though, that she had attended a meeting at the Center at which "Miller had told everyone present about the investigation and how four teachers were in serious trouble" and that, as a result, "she now realized how serious this matter [wa]s." After Respondent was formally advised of the results of the Board's investigation at a March 11, 1992, conference-for-record, he decided to retire. His retirement as an employee of the Board was effective May 28, 1992.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations found above and disciplining him for having committed these violations by suspending his teaching certificate for a period of three years and placing him on probation, subject to such conditions as the Commission may deem appropriate, for a period of two years following the end of his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of November, 1993. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1993.
