The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has sufficient grounds to support dismissal of Respondent from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher by the School Board and currently holds a professional services contract. He began working for the School District on or about March 2007, in the middle of the 2006-2007 school year. His first assignment was at Holmes Elementary School where he worked on a “waiver,” since he did not have an elementary education certification. The principal asked him to get his certification in elementary education, which he did. According to Respondent, he was asked to start working early because the principal did not have enough teachers. During that year, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas of evaluation and was rehired for the 2007-2008 school year. Prior to becoming a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Respondent served in the United States military from 1978-1985, and had worked as a registered nurse. He holds an associate’s degree from Miami-Dade College, a bachelor’s degree from Florida International University (“FIU”), two master’s degrees from FIU, an academic certificate in gerontological studies from FIU, and an academic teaching certificate from FIU. For the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent worked at Little River Elementary School (“Little River”). The principal at Little River asked Respondent to work on another “waiver,” this time for teaching English as a Second Language students (“ESOL”). After completing the necessary coursework, Respondent received an ESOL certification. Respondent remained at Little River through the 2008-2009 school year until he was involuntarily transferred to Scott Lake Elementary School (“Scott Lake”) for the 2009-2010 school year. During the latter two years at Little River, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas. According to Respondent, he was transferred to Scott Lake because the administration of Little River objected to the number of student discipline referrals (“SCMs”) he was writing on students. Respondent reports having written somewhere between 600 and 700 SCMs on students over the years. Respondent freely admits he wrote many SCMs at every school he worked at and highlights that fact as an excuse for why he performed poorly. During Respondent’s first three years of employment at Holmes Elementary and Little River, he was evaluated across the board on his annual evaluations as “Meets Standards.” During this period of time, the only other rating an employee could receive was “Does Not Meet Standards.” During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent’s principal for his first year at Scott Lake was Valerie Ward. During the 2009-2010 school year, the School District made changes to the teacher performance evaluation system. Use of the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (“IPEGS”) was implemented. The IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluations (“SPEs”) were now comprised of eight Performance Standards, where a teacher could be rated “Exemplary,” “Proficient,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In her first year with Respondent, Ms. Ward rated him “Proficient” in all eight standards. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Ward placed Respondent on a 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34. During this 90-day probation process, he was observed by administration on at least five different occasions, was put on several improvement plans, and had several meetings with administrators. The 90-day probation process is very time- consuming for both the subject employee and the employee’s administration. In other words, it is not the preferred task of a busy principal, unless he or she must, and then only when it is warranted by poor performance. Respondent believes Ms. Ward placed him on performance probation to retaliate against him because he complained about the temperature in his classroom. This is the first of many excuses and justifications Respondent has offered to explain criticisms of his performance by administrators. For the 2010-2011 school year at Scott Lake, Respondent was again evaluated as proficient in all areas. On or about April 2012, Principal Lakesha Wilson- Rochelle assumed Ms. Ward’s role at Scott Lake. Principal Rochelle signed off on Respondent’s summative evaluation during the 2011-2012 school year, but did not fill it out, since it had already been completed by someone else. The score placed Respondent in the “needs improvement” category. She signed it only because she was required to do so, and the summative evaluation rating she gave him for the next school year was even worse by several points. It was also during the 2011-2012 school year that IPEGS underwent another change. Now there were seven professional practice standards on which teachers were evaluated and one standard that was based on actual student data. Use of IPEGS IPEGS was approved by the Florida Department of Education (“FDOE”) for all years relevant to this case. The IPEGS processes from the 2013-2014 school year forward consisted of the following: Each teacher that had been teaching for more than two years received one formal observation. If during that observation the teacher’s performance was sufficient, nothing more need be done, outside of a summative evaluation at the end of the year. However, informal feedback is given to teachers throughout the year after classroom walkthroughs and through other means. If a teacher was observed to be deficient in one or more standards during the formal observation, the teacher and administration would engage in something called “support dialogue” in which support in various forms is provided to the teacher, so that the deficiencies can be remediated. If the teacher still exhibits performance deficiencies after the support dialogue, they are placed on the 90-day performance probation. While on performance probation, the teacher is observed another four times after the initial observation. After the second, third and fourth observations, if the teacher has not remediated, the administration develops an improvement plan, which must be followed. The improvement plan gives the teacher assignments and assistance to aid him or her in remediating any deficiencies. Also, each teacher, regardless of whether placed on performance probation, receives an SPE, as well as a Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (“SPE Rating”) of either “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In addition to the seven professional practice standards, a data component is also factored into the SPE Rating known as the VAM. The VAM As explained by Director of Research Services Dr. Aleksander Shneyderman (“Dr. S”), the VAM is a statistical model that attempts to measure a teacher’s impact on student learning growth through the use of a multi-level lineal regression. Dr. S has been working with the VAM, since its inception in 2010-2011. He has studied it and keeps abreast of Florida’s rules and regulations of how to calculate it. Dr. S and his office calculate what is called “Local VAM” for the School District. He also provides trainings to School District employees on the use of the VAM. Dr. S was tendered and accepted in this proceeding as an expert in VAM calculation. Local VAM is usually calculated in September/October by his office after the previous year’s testing data become available. Various assessments are used to create the Local VAM. It is calculated in compliance with state statutes, and the methodology is approved each year by FDOE. Also, the methods for calculating the Local VAM are bargained for and ratified by the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”) teacher’s union. The Florida VAM is calculated by the State using a model that is approved by the Florida Commissioner of Education. The results of the Florida VAM are given to Dr. S’s office by the State. The Florida VAM is created using the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”). In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, Respondent’s Local VAM scores were calculated by Dr. S’s office and based upon his students’ results on the Stanford 8 Achievement Test, 10th edition. UTD approved the methodology in VAM calculation for both of these years. For the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent’s VAM score was the Florida VAM in English language arts for fifth grade. The goal of the VAM is to measure a teacher’s effectiveness on student learning growth. In order to do this as accurately as possible, students are compared to similar students for an “apples to apples” comparison. Only students with the same demographic characteristics, as well as the same prior year’s test scores are compared to one another. The demographic factors considered are English Language Learner (“ELL”) status, gifted status, disability status, relative age (which considers whether a child was retained in a previous grade), and attendance (which was added in 2014-2015). Student demographics and the prior year’s test scores must be exactly the same. Based on these demographics and past scores, an expected score is created for each student. If the student exceeds that score, the credit for that success is given to the teacher. The School Board and Dr. S concede that the VAM does not account for every possible student performance variable, because, simply put, this would be impossible, since there are a limitless number of factors that could be considered. Moreover, certain factors are forbidden to be used by the Legislature, including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and ethnicity. (See § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.). Respondent argues that because not every imaginable factor that might affect a student’s grade is captured, that the VAM is not useful. Respondent claims that factors beyond the teacher might be causing poor performance, for example: lack of parental engagement. While levels of parental engagement could impact student performance, the School Board states that it is following state statutes to the letter and doing the best it can within the applicable statutory framework. Moreover, just as factors outside of consideration might hurt student performance, other factors might enhance performance, and the teachers receive those possible benefits as well--for example, if parental engagement is good. Those benefits would flow to the teacher, despite not having earned them through his or her personal efforts. Moreover, the VAM score ranges that are used to classify teachers are bargained for with UTD. The ranges have confidence intervals developed through the application of margin of error calculations that mitigate uncertainty to protect and “safeguard” teachers from unfair classifications. In many instances these safeguards give the teachers the benefit of the doubt to make sure they do not fall into the lowest category, which is “unsatisfactory.” Noticeably absent from these bargained for “safeguards” is any mention of how much instructional time a teacher must have with a class before those students’ data can be used to calculate a teacher’s VAM score. UTD has not bargained for any special rules designating when teachers can and cannot be held accountable for their class’ data based on the time they have instructed that class. As such, the only relevant inquiry is whether those students are with that teacher during the FTE period in February. Also, the law (see § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.) makes no mention of any minimum length of instructional time necessary to hold a teacher accountable for his or her students. The 2013-2014 School Year at Scott Lake Refusal to teach basic Spanish In May 2013, near the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Rochelle advised Respondent that he would be teaching a kindergarten class for the 2013-2014 school year and that he would be required to teach them one hour of introductory Spanish. In an email to Principal Rochelle, Respondent asserted that he believed he was being assigned to teach Spanish to the kindergarteners in retaliation for his extensive reporting of student SCMs. In that same email, he advised her that he did not want to teach Spanish. Prior to being advised of this assignment, the School District conducted a language proficiency assessment for Respondent with both a written and verbal component, which he passed. Principal Rochelle had personally seen Respondent speak fluent Spanish to her school secretary and the art teacher. Because Respondent spoke fluent Spanish, or, at least, “conversational” Spanish (as admitted by Respondent’s counsel in his opening), she gave him the assignment. Moreover, as a principal, she had the right to assign Respondent as she saw fit. School Board Policy 3130 - Assignments reinforces this assertion stating, in relevant part, “Instructional staff members may be reassigned to any position for which they are qualified in order to meet needs of the District and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.” In order to teach the one-hour basic Spanish component of the class, Respondent did not need to be certified to teach Spanish. He only needed an elementary education certification, which he had. He even attended a training class on the implementation of the Spanish program. Respondent admits he can speak Spanish, write basic Spanish, has taken Spanish classes and passed the School District’s proficiency exam. Curiously, he objected to them giving the proficiency exam to him based on the grounds he was “singled out” for having a Hispanic last name, having been overheard speaking the language, and because he is not from a Spanish-speaking country. These are not reasonable objections when the School District explained the objective reasons listed above regarding Respondent’s qualifications to provide the basic- level Spanish instruction. Respondent persisted in his belief that he is “not qualified” to teach kindergarten Spanish despite all the evidence to the contrary. Respondent simply refused to do something that he was entirely capable of doing and that was within his ambit of responsibilities. He described one of the lessons he was allegedly incapable of teaching as follows, “You put a CD in the player. The kids sing songs in Spanish. The kids cut out pictures of objects and match them to a picture with the word in Spanish.” The kindergartners in his class did not speak Spanish; they spoke English. The Spanish component of the class was very basic and involved things like vowels, colors, puppets, basic books, and vocabulary words. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, no complex grammar or sentence structure was involved. Such things are not even part of ordinary English kindergarten instruction, as admitted by Respondent. Moreover, he was provided with materials from which to draw the instruction. Principal Rochelle does not speak Spanish herself, yet believes she could teach the Spanish component, as it is a “piece of cake.” Respondent filed a grievance regarding the Spanish assignment. In order to appease and accommodate Respondent, Principal Rochelle eventually sent a Spanish teacher to his room to teach the Spanish component. However, Respondent then complained that the grades she was entering still had his name attached to them in the computerized grading system. Finally, the principal decided to move him to a first-grade class in early November 2013. Undoubtedly, the requests of Respondent led to this assignment change. Formal IPEGS observation On March 11, 2014, Principal Rochelle performed her formal observation of Respondent pursuant to IPEGS. On that day, no performance deficiencies were noted. However, throughout the year, Principal Rochelle had conducted many informal observations and walkthroughs of his classroom and had already provided him feedback regarding his performance and her expectations. Examples of that feedback can be found in an August 27, 2013, email from Principal Rochelle to Respondent. Moreover, according to Principal Rochelle, teachers tend to be on their best behavior during these observations–-which makes sense, because they know the boss/evaluator is watching. The formal observation is also only a snapshot in time of the teacher’s performance on a particular lesson; it is not a reflection of the entire year’s performance. Respondent has argued that Principal Rochelle has retaliated against him. If that were the case, this observation would have been a perfect opportunity to retaliate against him. However, she found no deficiencies in his performance on this day. Scott Lake SPE—Professional Practice Throughout the rest of the school year, Principal Rochelle made other credible observations regarding Respondent’s performance. Despite her counseling that he meet with parents, he refused to do so. He refused to participate in activities, including field trips, school celebrations, and award ceremonies. Other teachers actually had to hand out awards for him at the ceremony. He refused to implement group instruction techniques and did not take advantage of the presence of reading and math coaches. He refused to implement progressive discipline and “red, green, yellow” behavior management techniques. He refused to implement various discipline strategies laid out in the Student Code of Conduct and school-wide discipline plan prior to writing SCMs on students. Principal Rochelle recalls that he wrote approximately 25 SCMs on one student within the first nine weeks of school and made no attempt to address the behavior issues with the student’s parents. At one point Principal Rochelle accommodated his request to have a student removed from his class. Since this was only Principal Rochelle’s first full year as principal of Scott Lake, and she was still new to the school, she tended to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt when completing their SPEs. She also had a few teachers who had to be terminated for lack of professionalism that were more of a priority for her than Respondent. As such, she rated Respondent as “effective” in six standards on his SPE and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Communication standard. In her view, “effective” is akin to a “C” grade, whereas “highly effective” is “A plus/high B” status, “developing/needs improvement” is a “D,” and “unsatisfactory” is an “F.” When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he testified he would have given himself five “highly effectives” and two “effectives.” He believes Principal Rochelle rated him lower than she should have as a result of retaliation against him for him not wanting to teach Spanish. This is Respondent’s second claim of retaliation against Principal Rochelle, and third claim of retaliation overall. Principal Rochelle’s denial of such retaliation is credited based upon her testimony at hearing and the exhibits offered in support. Despite the fact that Respondent’s 2013-2014 SPE seemed adequate to a casual observer (with the only obvious blemish being the “developing/needs improvement” in the Communication standard), when compared to his peers, a different story emerges. His professional practice points total put him in the bottom .8 percentile for all teachers district-wide and in the bottom 2.6 percentile for all first-grade teachers district-wide. Without belaboring the data, Respondent’s professional practice scores are at the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how you spin them. Scott Lake VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 12.5 points–-the lowest possible score. He was one of 11 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2013-2014 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 29 percent of his first-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent’s VAM was based on the performance of his first-grade students. Respondent believes that, since he was moved to the class in early November 2013, and the SAT exam was given in April, he should not be held accountable for their performance. In order for him to have a fair shake, he claims he would have had to be there instructing the students on week one. Respondent says the amount of time he was given was not fair because, “if I’m the lowest teacher in Miami-Dade County, and here for termination, no, sir, I don’t think it was fair.” If the rule Respondent proposes were implemented as policy, any teacher could simply avoid responsibility for their student’s performance by requesting a transfer sometime after the first week of the year. It is also not uncommon for teachers to have students added or subtracted from their classes throughout the year for a multitude of reasons. This is a fact of life that teachers have to be able to cope with in the ordinary course of business for the School District. Moreover, and somewhat ironically, if another teacher had been teaching Respondent’s students for a portion of the year, based on his SPE Ratings and student achievement data, Respondent probably would have had better scores. The students would likely have been getting a more effective teacher than he. Respondent also claims Principal Rochelle gave him a lower functioning group of students, who were behind in their learning. He explained that he knew they were low-functioning because he gave them “STAR tests” to gauge their ability levels. When pressed on cross-examination, Respondent admitted that he only tested his own students and never anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to know whether his students were any lower-functioning or further behind than any other teachers’ students. Respondent’s doubtful claim is further undercut by Principal Rochelle’s credible testimony that she selected the members of his first-grade class at random from overcrowded classrooms. Respondent’s claims that he was robbed of instructional time by field trips and fundraising activities, matters that are required of all teachers, are unconvincing excuses for his students’ poor performance. The 2014-2015 School Year at Norwood Shortly after the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent requested a hardship transfer to Norwood Elementary School (“Norwood”) because the school day at Scott Lake was going to be increased by one hour. Despite the fact that he would have been compensated approximately $4,500.00 for this time, he chose to transfer schools. Principal Kevin Williams (or Dr. Williams) had a teacher on leave so he assigned Respondent to fill that gap. Respondent started teaching a kindergarten class, but was moved to a second-grade class during the first week of school. Prior to conducting a formal IPEGS observation of Respondent, Dr. Williams had performed several walkthroughs of his classroom. Based on these walkthroughs, Dr. Williams advised Respondent that he was not properly implementing the school discipline plan. Respondent also refused to implement “grouping” of the students during instruction time. Dr. Williams also had a reading coach model lessons for Respondent and assigned him a teaching assistant. Respondent was the only teacher who received this level of assistance. Dr. Williams even went so far as to have two meetings with UTD prior to his formal evaluation of Respondent in order to help him. By October 2014, Dr. Williams had already explained his expectations to Respondent. Formal IPEGS observation On October 1, 2014, Principal Williams performed the formal IPEGS evaluation of Respondent. Principal Williams noted no deficiencies on that day. Generally speaking, Principal Williams does not view these observations as punitive. Over the years, Dr. Williams has conducted approximately 240 observations of teachers, and, generally, the employees are “on point” when being watched. Moreover, like Principal Rochelle, Dr. Williams views these observations as a snapshot of teacher performance while the SPE captures the year- long performance. In the report of the observation, Dr. Williams suggested that Respondent promote interactions with students, encourage more student participation, connect to prior student knowledge and interests, and present concepts at different levels of complexity, among other items. Norwood SPE—Professional Practice After the formal observation, Dr. Williams continued to conduct walkthroughs of Respondent’s class. He observed the same issues with refusing to use “grouping” and refusing to properly implement the discipline plan. Respondent never took advantage of the modeling techniques that were provided for him. He also was not implementing differentiated instruction. Dr. Williams himself held a professional development class on campus for the school discipline plan, which, instead of attending, Respondent attended a social studies class off campus. Instead of following the prescribed discipline plan, Respondent was trying to control the behavior of his students with treats. Similar to his time at Scott Lake, he refused to participate in field trips, staff gatherings, award assemblies, and student activity days. Respondent had lesson plans, but did not always follow them. He would spend an inordinate amount of time on vocabulary. He gave some tests, but would refuse to grade other tests. The pattern of his teaching was inconsistent, at best. On his SPE, Principal Williams rated Respondent as “effective” in five standards, “highly effective” in one, and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Learning Environment standard. Dr. Williams’ rating for Learning Environment was lower because Respondent failed to implement appropriate discipline strategies despite being told to do so. In eight years of being a principal, this was the first time he had ever given a teacher a “needs improvement” rating. He mostly gives his teachers combinations of “highly effective” and “effective,” if they do what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Dr. Williams testified he still went easy on Respondent because he was new to the school. In terms of his SPE professional practice points, Respondent scored in the bottom two percentile for second-grade teachers district-wide and was the worst rated second-grade teacher at Norwood. Instead of following the discipline plan, Respondent was using the emergency call button, writing SCMs, and writing to the superintendent to have ten students removed from his class. Another teacher at the school, Mr. W, had the exact same set of students as Respondent, only he taught them in the afternoon and not in the morning. He had none of the same behavior management issues Respondent had with this same group of children. Respondent claimed that Mr. W was able to manage the children better because, like the students, he was African-American. When asked how Respondent would have rated himself in these seven SPE standards, he would have given himself six “highly effectives” and one “effective.” He believes Principal Williams rated him lower than he should have as a result of retaliation against him for writing SCMs and because he complained about the size of his initial kindergarten class. This marked Respondent’s fourth claim of retaliation overall. Principal Williams credibly denied such retaliation at the hearing. Norwood VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 8.75 points-–the lowest possible score, again. He was one of 50 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only six percent of his second-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from Norwood should not be considered because of his students’ behavioral issues. He also stated he did not have enough textbooks to send home with students. Much like at Scott Lake, he believes he was intentionally given bad students. This is peculiar for two reasons. First, Dr. Williams first tried to assign Respondent another class, but Respondent complained that one was too big. To accept this argument, the viewer would have to believe Dr. Williams knew Respondent would reject the larger class, and the principal had another one in the wings filled with “bad” students to make Respondent look ineffective. Second, Mr. W had none of the same problems Respondent did with this same group of students in the afternoon. To accept this contention, Principal Williams’ plan only “worked” on Respondent, since he was singled out for retaliation. This line of argument is nonsensical, at best. The 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 School Years at Aventura Waterways K-8 In looking for the right fit, Respondent was sent to Aventura Waterways K-8 (“AWK8”) for the 2015-2016 school year. He remained there for the 2016-2017 school year until he was dismissed from his employment in March 2017. As at his previous school assignments, the administrators at AWK8 tried to work with Respondent and the UTD to let him know their expectations prior to the formal observations. During these two school years Respondent was observed formally by Principal Luis Bello and Assistant Principal Ileana Robles on no less than nine occasions. In both years, during his initial observations, his performance was found to be deficient; and he was immediately placed on support dialogue and, eventually, 90-day performance probation. During these two probationary periods, he was provided assistance through improvement plans and completed all his improvement plan assignments. The goal was to help him remediate his deficiencies. The only change he ever implemented was switching from block to weekly lesson plans. Both his instructional delivery and the learning environment never improved. During these observations, Principal Bello and Assistant Principal Robles both observed the same repeated deficiencies, which they described in meticulous detail at the hearing. Summarizing their testimony, the issues concerning Respondent were: Pacing. Respondent spends too much time on issues and did not complete entire lesson plans. Questioning students. Respondent only uses basic, easy to answer questions; does not ask enough questions; or is dismissive of questions. Failing to properly explain concepts to students or to activate prior knowledge. Respondent fails to prompt students in order to generate interest in the subject matter and holds no conversations about the material in class. Not using challenging enough material. Respondent’s material was so basic that parents were concerned their children were getting grades they did not deserve and not learning grade- appropriate material. Principal Bello described Respondent’s instruction as “robotic” and lacking any semblance of “passion.” AWK8—Professional Practice On his SPE, Principal Bello rated Respondent as “effective” in two standards, and “unsatisfactory” in five standards. Principal Bello’s ratings were in line with the repeated deficiencies discussed above. He awarded Respondent “unsatisfactory” ratings because Respondent never remediated his deficiencies. Principal Bello credibly stands by his SPE Ratings as honest and admits to spending a great deal of time on them. In terms of his SPE professional practice points for 2015-2016, Respondent scored in the bottom (0) percentile for fifth-grade teachers at AWK8, all teachers at AWK8, fifth-grade teachers district-wide, and all teachers district-wide. When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he would have given himself seven “highly effectives.” He believes Principal Bello rated him lower than he should have been rated, but could not say why. AWK8 VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s State VAM score for learner progress points was 8.5 points-–the lowest possible score, for the third year in a row. He was the only one of 98 fifth-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 32 percent of his fifth-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from AWK8 are not legitimate for a variety of reasons, none of which relate to his own shortcomings. Respondent’s excuses and the reasons not to credit those excuses are as follows: Respondent argues that his VAM cannot be counted against him because his afternoon class of fifth graders were ELL, and they spoke a variety of languages, including French, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. His theory was that they performed poorly because of their poor grasp of the English language. For VAM scoring purposes, this excuse should not be credited because the VAM already takes into account their ELL status by comparing them only to other ELL students with identical demographics and prior test scores; and they are not expected to perform as well as non-ELL students. However, by Respondent’s own admission his afternoon ELL class was the best class he had had in ten years of teaching. He said they had emotional balance, presence of mind, and good parental engagement. He even explained how his ESOL certification assisted him in understanding how to teach them. According to him, by the end of the year, the students were at the level where they would be having conversations. Respondent also had another ESOL-certified teacher assist him for a portion of the year, which was a standard practice. Finally, ELL students, who are brand new to the country, are not calculated into the VAM because there are no prior year scores for which they can be compared “apples to apples.” Respondent himself testified that the lowest level ELL students did not get graded. This makes sense because Respondent testified that his afternoon ELL class was 31 students-–yet only 15 ELL students were factored into the data used to calculate his VAM score for 2015-2016. In sum, the grades of the lowest English language functioning students were not even held against him. Respondent next argues that the numbers of students in both his morning and afternoon classes at AWK8 exceeded class size restrictions. Respondent “believes” his morning class had 24 or so students, but only 18 after the special education students were removed. When the student data is examined, it appears that Respondent only had 15 non-ELL students factored into his VAM score. As for the afternoon ELL class, otherwise considered by him the best class he has ever had, Respondent claims there were 31 in that class. Even assuming Respondent’s numbers are accurate (and they do not seem to be, given the VAM data), these class sizes do not run afoul of class size restrictions and are commonplace at AWK8. The School District operates on averages for class size compliance and everyone teaching fifth grade at AWK8 had similar class sizes. None of those other teachers had the same problems Respondent did. Moreover, Respondent reported the alleged class size violations to the FDOE, and they did nothing about it. Respondent further argues that his morning group of students was once again a “bad” group that did not give him a “fair shot.” According to Respondent, he had a student who would sit in a garbage can and another that would tell him “F_ _k you” every day. He had behavior concerns with four to five students in the morning class. Eventually, the student who sat in the garbage can was removed from the class. Respondent then testified that these behavior issues were exacerbated by his absence from the classroom when he was performing his improvement plan activities. He now appears to be placing his behavior concerns on the administration for doing their job by trying to assist him and by remediating his deficiencies. Behavior management is integral to being a teacher. A teacher must not be allowed to escape his or her own responsibility for performance shortcomings by blaming it on the students. At every school where Respondent has taught, he has admittedly written a large number of SCMs, had behavior issues with his students, and believes he was purposely given “bad” students. The only common thread among these schools is Respondent. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge that he might possibly be even a part of the problem and believes he has done nothing wrong. Respondent also blames his poor VAM on the fact that fundraising activities, book fairs, student activity days, and dances all detracted from instructional time at AWK8. This is the same excuse he used for his poor VAM at Norwood and holds no weight, since these are activities that all teachers at all schools must cope with as part of the instructional process. Respondent’s Termination by the School Board Respondent’s case was the first of its kind brought pursuant to section 1012.33(3)(b) (“3-year provision”), since this was the first time the School District had the requisite number of years’ data available. Of the thousands of teachers working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Respondent was part of a singular group of seven to nine teachers who fell into the three-year provision of the statute having the necessary combination of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” final overall SPE Ratings. Of that handful of teachers, Respondent was the single worst. Respondent’s performance actually declined each year despite the assistance provided for and made available to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate the professional service contract of Respondent due to a failure to correct performance deficiencies during the 90-calendar-day probationary period.
Findings Of Fact Respondent entered the teaching profession after working 17 years as a bartender. She earned her undergraduate degree in education--specifically, learning disabilities and varying exceptionalities--and obtained her first teaching job at Gulfstream Elementary School in 1995. For her first eight years at Gulfstream, Respondent taught a physically impaired class. These are small classes of less than ten students with health or medical disabilities. Many of the students cannot walk or talk. With a paraprofessional and sometimes a fulltime aid, Respondent taught substantially the same students from year to year. The focus of much of the instruction was upon daily living skills, such as reading the signs on restrooms and businesses. In 1996, Respondent developed inoperable Stage IV nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eight months of radiation therapy scarred Respondent's airway. When Respondent returned to school after a five-month leave of absence, she, like many of her students, wore a feeding tube and relied on a vocal amplification device. Respondent made the most of these characteristics that she now shared with some of her students, encouraging them to overcome their disabilities as she was doing. In the physically impaired class, Respondent taught most of the students on a one-on-one basis. Rarely did she have to address the entire class as part of classroom instruction. For this reason, Respondent was little handicapped by her speech difficulties, which arose due to the cancer treatment. Even today, loud speech is nearly impossible for Respondent, who, to generate speech, must press against her throat to produce a gaspy speech that requires close attention to understand. A new principal arrived at Gulfstream for the 2002-03 school year. The new principal, who had previously been an assistant principal for eight years and a teacher for nine years, found Respondent's performance unsatisfactory in several respects. Respondent was often late arriving to school and failed to perform her duties on the bus ramp. Respondent often left her paraprofessional alone with the physically impaired class. To monitor the behavior of the child, Respondent sometimes brought her high-school aged daughter to school without permission. Overall, the principal found that Respondent seemed unenthusiastic about teaching. Believing that Respondent might have been depressed, the principal referred Respondent to the Employee Assistance Program. Thinking that a change in assignment might rekindle Respondent's enthusiasm for her job, for the 2003-04 school year, the principal switched the assignments of Respondent and another teacher, so that the other teacher would teach Respondent's physically impaired class, and Respondent would teach a varying exceptionalities class. Neither teacher had requested a new assignment. Respondent's varying exceptionalities class began the 2003-04 school year with 14 students. Eventually, the principal reduced the class to nine students. Respondent had the help of only a part-time paraprofessional. The wide range of cognitive abilities of the students meant that some students could only identify their names in print, and some students could read and write. Students in the varying exceptionalities class were in several classifications, such as educably mentally handicapped, traumatic brain injury, and autistic. By sometime in October 2003, the assistant principal had twice observed Respondent teaching her class. The assistant principal had concerns about Respondent's classroom management and recordkeeping. The assessments and evaluations in this case are based on the Petitioner's Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System (PACES). In conjunction with the statutory 90-calendar-day probationary period, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the PACES assessments follow a format. A PACES-trained evaluator conducts an initial observation not of record. If the teacher fails to meet standards, the evaluator goes over the findings with the teacher, offers a Professional Growth Team to provide assistance in eliminating any deficiencies, and advises that she will conduct another evaluation in a month. If the teacher meets standards on the second evaluation, which is known as the first observation of record, the teacher reverts to the normal evaluation scheme applicable to all teachers, and the first negative observation is essentially discarded. If the teacher fails to meet standards on the first observation of record, she is placed on performance probation for 90 days. The evaluator conducts a Conference for the Record and gives the teacher a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP). During the probationary period, the evaluator conducts other observations, and, at the end of the period, the evaluator conducts a final observation. If the teacher still fails to meet standards, then the evaluator conducts a confirmatory observation within 14 days after the end of the probationary period. If the teacher still fails to meet standards, the principal may recommend termination to the Superintendent. PACES assessments cover six domains: Planning for Teaching and Learning (Domain I), Managing the Learning Environment (Domain II), Teacher/Learner Relationships (Domain III), Enhancing and Enabling Learning (Domain IV), Enabling Thinking (Domain V), and Classroom-Based Assessments of Learning (Domain VI). Each of these domains comprises three to five components, for which the evaluator determines whether the teacher meets standards. If the evaluator determines that the teacher fails to meet standards as to a component, the evaluator circles a listed indicator, so that the teacher may readily identify authoritative sources of information, such as the PACES binder provided to each teacher or videotapes in the District office, that will assist her in curing a particular deficiency. The assistant principal conducted the initial observation not of record on October 14, 2003. She determined that Respondent failed to meet standards for 18 of the 21 components. Respondent met standards only in Components III.A, IV.C, and VI.A. Respectively, these are Interpersonal Relations, which is the teacher's respect for the students; Resources for Learning, which is the teacher's use of teaching aids and learning materials; and Monitoring Engagement and/or Involvement in Learning, which is the teacher's monitoring of the student's engagement during learning tasks. Among the more significant deficiencies reflected in the October 14 evaluation are that Respondent lacked lesson plans and failed to manage the learning environment. To help with these and other deficiencies, the assistant principal offered Respondent a Professional Growth Team and referred her to her PACES binder, which would describe each deficient item and suggest strategies to eliminate each deficiency. For her part, Respondent had tried to deal with her new assignment by grouping the children, where appropriate, by cognitive ability. In September or October, she was able to send one student to regular education. On November 5, 2003, the assistant principal returned to perform the first observation of record. She found Respondent reading a Thanksgiving story to the eight students who were present in her class. Respondent would read one sentence and ask a question about it. By using this approach, Respondent took one hour to read a story that should have taken five minutes to read. Each time that she stopped and asked a question about the preceding sentence, Respondent undermined the continuity of the story. Also, all of her questions tested the students' memory; none of them required higher-order thinking, as would be required by questions asking how or why something happened. Despite these shortcomings in Respondent's teaching, the assistant principal determined that Respondent had met standards in all of Domains I, II, III, and VI. However, Respondent failed to meet standards in all components of Domains IV and V, including the one component in Domain IV for which she had previously met standards. However, Respondent performed considerably better in this observation than in the previous observation--meeting standards in 13 of 21 components as opposed to meeting standards in 3 of 21 components three weeks earlier. In the ensuing Conference for the Record, the assistant principal prepared a PIP for Respondent and again recommended that she take advantage of the Professional Growth Team for assistance in eliminating the deficiencies. Dated November 14, 2003, the PIP is a detailed documentation of each deficiency noted in the November 5 observation. The November 14 PIP describes what Respondent did or did not do, as to each deficiency. The PIP also contains specific recommendations to eliminate each deficiency. The number of deficiencies is misleading, at least as an indicator of the scope of the teaching that was subject to the evaluation. The Thanksgiving story, described above, spawned all eight of the observed deficiencies. Respondent's reliance exclusively upon simple recall questions yielded five deficiencies. (One of these deficiencies also relies on Respondent's failure to correct a child who replied to the question of what sound that turkeys make, by answering, "quack, quack." Absent more context, it is possible that Respondent's failure to correct this answer was an attempt not to reward attention-getting behavior.) One of the remaining three deficiencies criticizes Respondent for introducing the Thanksgiving story with an open-ended question, "This is November. What do you think happens in November?" Another deficiency, which focuses on the one-sentence, one-question approach of Respondent to the story, faults Respondent for omitting hands-on activities. The last deficiency notes that Respondent held up a small piece of paper showing the months of the year, but she failed to post the paper for the children to see. (This deficiency implies that Respondent's classroom lacks a posted calendar.) The detail of the November 5 PACES evaluation and November 14 PIP are undermined by the oddly narrow factual basis upon which they rest. Intended as a comprehensive statement of the deficiencies of an experienced teacher, these documents reveal that Petitioner has placed Respondent on probation because of an awkward reading of a Thanksgiving story to eight students over a period of about one hour. On December 11, 2003, the principal performed an observation. The principal found that Respondent met standards in Domains I, II, III, V, and VI, but not in three components of Domain IV: Initial Motivation to Learn, Teaching Methods and Learning Tasks, and Clarification of Content/Learning Tasks. Respectively, these components involve the identification of the learning objective, the use of logically sequenced teaching methods and learning tasks, and the use of different words or examples when clarification is required. The two components within Domain IV for which Respondent met standards are: Resources for Learning and Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy. The former component involves the use of learning materials to accommodate the range of individual differences among learners, and the latter component involves the creation of an opportunity to allow different learners to learn at different cognitive levels. The basis of the deficiencies was in Respondent's presentation of another story, Little Miss Muffet, although, this time, the problems centered more around her lead-in and follow-up activities. The PIP, dated December 17, 2003, which the principal prepared, notes that the pace of a writing activity worksheet was too slow for four of 11 students, who sat with nothing to do for ten minutes while waiting for their peers to finish; Respondent failed to correct a student who answered the question, "what are you afraid of," with "sock" (perhaps the same child who had said that turkeys quack); Respondent failed to correct a student who said that a paper was missing words when it was missing only letters; and Respondent failed to identify tasks associated with the story that would challenge all of the students, although Respondent used two worksheets-- one with missing words (presumably for the higher-functioning group) and one with missing letters (presumable for the lower- functioning group). On February 4, 2004, the assistant principal performed the next observation. She found that Respondent met standards in Domains I and III. She found that Respondent failed to meet standards in Components II.D, III.A, IV.A, IV.B, and VI.B. Respectively, these are Managing Environment in Learning, Interpersonal Relations, Initial Motivation to Learning, Teaching Methods and Learning Tasks, and Informal Assessment. During this observation, Respondent read a story on how to build a house. The reading level of the story was at least third-grade, but the students were in kindergarten and first grade. For 40 minutes, Respondent used actual house blueprints as a visual aid. As another visual aid, Respondent used blocks to depict a house, but she lacked sufficient blocks to finish the project. The story took one hour when it should have taken ten minutes. Consequently, students were out of their seats and trying to find something to do. On February 10, the assistant principal prepared a PIP. Although the contents of this PIP were not dissimilar to the contents of the previous PIPs, one new deficiency was Component III.A, Interpersonal Relations. The notes in the February 10 PIP state: "One learner was ridiculed by the teacher making remarks about her behavior to the classroom paraprofessional. Her remarks included, 'She's totally off the wall' and 'She has been horrendous today.' She also said to other learners not paying attention, 'I'm not going to talk to the air' and 'I'm waiting in case you didn't notice.'" The comments to the individual student were sarcastic and derogatory. In general, the principal found Respondent to be more enthusiastic in the 2003-04 school year than she had been in the previous school year. Respondent showed an improved attitude, but her classroom remained disorganized. Respondent had received considerable assistance from her Professional Growth Team, but the principal concluded that Respondent had still failed to meet standards. From Respondent's perspective, she felt that the principal had prejudged her and was running through the 90-calendar-day probationary period as an empty exercise. Respondent became increasingly nervous, as she repeatedly tried, and failed, to please the principal and assistant principal. At one point during the 90 days, Respondent restated her desire for a transfer, as she had made such a request the prior summer when she had learned of her new assignment, but the principal refused to give the request any consideration or determine if a transfer were feasible. At least once during the 90 days, Respondent's union representative asked the principal to transfer Respondent, but the principal refused, again without giving the request any consideration. In the meantime, Respondent's difficulties in the varying exceptionalities classroom were exacerbated by the removal, by October 2003, of her voice amplification system. On March 2, 2004, the principal, having determined that the 90 calendar days had expired, performed what she believed was the confirmatory observation. She found that Respondent failed to meet standards in eight components in Domains I, II, IV, and VI. Two days later, the principal informed Respondent that she would be recommending that the Superintendent terminate Respondent's professional service contract. Unfortunately, the principal had miscalculated the 90 days. Learning of this error, the principal discarded the March 2 evaluation and performed a new confirmatory observation on March 14 and again found that Respondent failed to meet standards. Two weeks later, Respondent failed to meet standards in six components in Domains II, IV, and V. Only three of the six deficiencies covered the same components in the March 2 observation: Components II.D, II.E, and IV.D, which are, respectively, Managing Engagement in Learning, Monitoring and Maintaining Learner Behavior, and Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy. In general, these were deficiencies at the start of the 90-day probationary period, but were eliminated during the 90-day probationary period, only to return again at the end. Following the March 14 confirmatory observation, the principal recommended that the Superintendent terminate the professional service contract of Respondent. On March 19, 2004, the Superintendent advised Respondent that he was going to recommend to Petitioner that it terminate her contract, and, on April 14, 2004, Petitioner did so. A recurring issue in this case is what is meant by failing to meet standards and, more importantly, unsatisfactory performance. Based on the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses, Petitioner contends that the failure to meet any single component within any of the domains of PACES is the failure to meet standards, and a failure to meet standards is invariably unsatisfactory performance, sufficient to place a teacher on 90- calendar-day performance probation or, if already on performance probation, sufficient to terminate a professional service contract. However, the PACES form does not so indicate, nor do Petitioner's online rules, of which the Administrative Law Judge has taken official notice. Petitioner has failed to prove what is an unsatisfactory performance under the PACES evaluation system. Absent the adoption of a rule to this effect, the isolated omission of a teacher, during a single observation, to provide suggestions to improve learning (Component VI.C) or to start a class or lesson precisely on time (Component II.A) would not constitute unsatisfactory performance, at least for the purpose of initiating the 90-calendar-day probationary period or terminating the professional service contract of a teacher already on performance probation. In this case, undermining the observations of the principal and assistant principal, especially where they appear to be based on discrete failures by Respondent, are the facts that neither supervisor has any significant training in exceptional student education, the principal has no experience teaching in exceptional student education, and the assistant principal has limited experience in teaching exceptional student education. By granting Petitioner's Motion for Official Recognition, the Administrative Law Judge acknowledges that, by letter dated September 24, 2001, the Florida Department of Education has approved PACES. (The identification of PACES is missing from the letter, but the Administrative Law Judge accepts the representation of Petitioner's counsel that PACES was the subject of this letter.) However, this letter approves PACES on its face, not as applied, and may have been based on more than two-page PACES evaluation form. The present record contains only the two-page form and testimony, unsupported by any documentation, that a single deficiency means that a teacher fails to meet standards and may be placed on probation, if the deficiency arises when the teacher is not on probation, or may be terminated, if the deficiency, even if different from the one that initiated probation, is present at the confirmatory observation. The record does not document the extent to which Respondent was in attendance at school during her 90-calendar- day probationary period. By her count, Respondent missed seven or eight workdays due to illness. Petitioner's calculation does not account for these missed days, and, if it had, the second confirmatory observation was premature too. The record contains some evidence of student achievement. As noted above, one student was transferred early in the 2003-04 school year from Respondent's varying exceptionalities class to a regular education classroom, but the proximity of this event to the start of the school year suggests that the student was probably misclassified at the start of the year. The mother of another student testified that Respondent helped her daughter make considerable academic progress. The student had undergone a tracheotomy and, consequently, speech delay. While in Respondent's class, the student was eager to attend school and learned to write her name for the first time. For the first time in school, the student was progressing. When the mother learned that Respondent was being terminated, she tried to contact the principal, but the principal declined to see her, claiming it was a personnel matter and implying that a parent had no role in such matters. The record contains the individual education plans (IEPs) of nine students. Typically, IEPs are prepared in the spring of each year, and, prior to the preparation of the next year's IEP, the IEP team closes out the preceding IEP by marking the extent to which the student has achieved the goals of his IEP. The IEP team also indicates progress during the year with respect to specific goals. A mark of "1" means mastery of the goal, a "2" means "adequate progress made; anticipate meeting goal by IEP end," a "3" means "some progress made; anticipate meeting goal by IEP end," and a "4" means "insufficient progress made; do not anticipate meeting goal by IEP end." The last relevant marks for some of the IEPs were January 2004, but some of them bore marks for March 2004. For all of the IEPs, exclusive of physical or occupational therapy, with which Respondent was not substantially involved, 11 goals were marked 2, 39 goals were marked 3, and 15 goals were marked 4. Five of the nine students for whom Petitioner produced IEPs received a mark of 4 on at least one goal in his or her IEP. But 11 of the 15 4's went to two students: one had four 4's, one 3, and one 2; and the other had seven 4's, two 3's, and one One student had two 4's, but also six 3's. Another student had one 4 and six 3's, and the fifth student had one 4 and three 3's. Thus, only two of the nine students were not making satisfactory progress while Respondent was teaching the class.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order rejecting the Superintendent's recommendation to terminate Respondent for unsatisfactory performance during the 2003-04 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Randolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
The Issue The issues in this case revolve around the question whether Respondent's employment as a teacher in the Broward County Public School System should be terminated either for failure to correct identified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, or for just cause as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Clemons is an elementary school teacher. She entered the profession in 1972 after graduating from Florida A&M University. In addition to her bachelor's degree, Clemons holds a Teacher's Certificate from the Florida Department of Education. From 1972 until 1988, Clemons taught both in Florida public schools and (for seven of those years) in Department of Defense schools overseas. After a hiatus from teaching, 2/ Clemons returned to the classroom in October 1990 as a substitute teacher in the Broward County Public School System. She performed well enough in that capacity to be offered a full- time teaching position at North Side Elementary School ("North Side"), beginning in January of 1994. The following school year, Clemons transferred to Lauderdale Manors, joining the instructional staff in August of 1994 as a second grade teacher. There, she soon attracted the attention of Doris Bennett ("Bennett"), the school's new principal. Bennett, a classroom teacher for approximately 13 years before spending six years as an assistant principal at several Broward County elementary schools, had assumed the position of Lauderdale Manors' principal on July 1, 1994. By the end of September 1994, she was growing concerned about Clemons' apparent inability to control and manage her classroom. By law, each public school teacher in the state must be assessed at least once a year to determine how his or her performance measures against criteria that are required to be communicated in advance to all personnel. 3/ To perform this assessment, performance evaluators in the Broward County Public School District use a tool called the Instructional Personnel Assessment System ("IPAS"). The IPAS requires that a teacher be rated in ten "performance areas": "instructional planning," "lesson management," "lesson presentation," "student performance evaluation," "communication," "classroom management," "behavior management," "records management," "subject matter knowledge," and "professional competencies." A teacher's categorical ratings of "S - Satisfactory," "N - Needs Improvement," or "U - Unsatisfactory" are based on the assessor's determination of the teacher's compliance with various "performance indicators" prescribed for each performance area. In addition to, and based upon, the several categorical ratings, the teacher is assigned a single "overall performance rating." Bennett testified that one categorical rating of "U" would result in an overall "unsatisfactory" performance rating. In April 1995, toward the end of the 1994-95 school year (Clemons' first at Lauderdale Manors), Bennett completed Clemons' annual evaluation. Using the IPAS, Bennett rated Clemons "unsatisfactory" in two performance areas, namely, classroom management and behavior management. These negative marks resulted in Clemons receiving an overall performance rating of "U." Bennett recommended that Clemons be dismissed. Clemons' employment might have been terminated in 1995 but for the fact that on March 10, 1995, Bennett had signed a Final Assessment form attesting that, in her "professional opinion," Clemons had "successfully completed the Professional Orientation Program" for first-year teachers. Because Bennett's recommendation of dismissal followed so closely after a favorable assessment of Clemons' performance, it was not approved. Bennett assigned Clemons to a fifth grade class for the 1995-96 school year, reasoning that she might succeed with older children. Although Bennett and former Assistant Principal Roach both testified at hearing that Clemons' problems persisted, 4/ a contemporaneous record suggests that the teacher performed better in her second year at Lauderdale Manors than she had during her first. On May 31, 1996, Bennett signed an IPAS instrument showing that Clemons had received a "satisfactory" rating in all categories, earning an overall performance rating of "satisfactory." Bennett qualified this positive evaluation, however, with a recommendation that Clemons be offered another annual contract, rather than the more favorable professional service contract for which she was then eligible. The reason, Bennett wrote on the IPAS form, was that Clemons still needed "to work on improving classroom and behavior management skills." Bennett's recommendation was not approved. Instead, Clemons was promoted to professional service contract status for the 1996-97 school year. That year, Bennett put Clemons in charge of a fifth grade "drop-out prevention" class. The drop- out prevention class had about half as many students as a regular class (14-18 as opposed to 32-35) and afforded the teacher greater flexibility with the curriculum. For these reasons, Bennett believed that the drop-out prevention class might be more suitable for Clemons. William Roach, who was the Assistant Principal at the time, explained that “this was done as an effort or a plan, if you will, to really give Ms. Clemons an opportunity to maybe come out of the classroom for awhile, get a perspective, maybe, you know, have a chance to be successful.” (T. 187.) On the other hand, Bennett acknowledged that the children in this special class were "academically challenged," "less motivated," and hence more difficult to teach than other students. 5/ The IPAS form containing Clemons' assessment for the 1996-97 school year, which Bennett signed on May 30, 1997, and Clemons refused to sign, reflects a deterioration in Clemons' performance. She received a "needs improvement" rating in the categories of lesson management and student performance evaluation. Clemons was rated "unsatisfactory" in the areas of classroom management and behavior management. Her overall performance rating was a "U." Clemons filed a grievance with the Broward Teachers' Union to protest this negative evaluation. Interceding on Clemons' behalf, a union representative requested that Bennett produce documentation supporting her unfavorable assessment of Clemons' skills. Bennett could not do so. Consequently, at the union's suggestion, Bennett changed Clemons' overall performance rating to "satisfactory" for the 1996-97 school year. Clemons continued to teach in the fifth grade drop-out prevention class during the 1997-98 school year. And she continued to have problems. For example, after personally observing Clemons in her classroom on February 23, 1998, Bennett wrote: “Have noticed some, slight improvement this year, but still not enough to warrant upgrading overall evaluation to satisfactory.” Roach, the Assistant Principal at Lauderdale Lakes from 1993 through the end of the 1997-98 school year, was less generous: Q [by Mr. Pettis]. During that four academic school year period [1994 through 1998], give me an overall assessment as to how Ms. Clemons’ behavioral management that was reflected in her classroom progressed? A [by Roach]. I felt that it did not progress. In fact, if anything, it digressed or regressed. As I said, the frequency of going down to the room for problems became more. (T. 186.) And then a new layer that was added as the [sic] was the fact that parents were complaining about the classroom and asking to have their children taken out of the room. There seemed to be just a total lack of respect, students for teacher, but I also observed sometimes that Ms. Clemons’ respect for the students was also lacking and I felt that sometimes there was an unhealthy situation and there were occasions in support of her that we did move children out. Nevertheless, the IPAS form that Bennett signed on May 29, 1998, reported that Clemons was performing satisfactorily in all areas; her overall performance rating for the 1997-98 school year was “satisfactory.” Thus, contrary to Roach’s recollection, the contemporaneous IPAS evaluation shows that Clemons’ performance did improve in her fourth year at Lauderdale Manors. The following year, 1998-99, Clemons was assigned to a regular fifth grade class. She did not do well. Here is how Keith Miller, who started as Assistant Principal that year, described his initial observations of Clemons: Q [by Mr. Pettis]. With regard to your first year as AP at Lauderdale Manors, '98 to '99, during the course of that year, did it come to your attention any performance concerns or deficiencies with regard to Ms. Clemons' classroom? A [by Miller]. Yes. Q. And what were those areas of deficiency that you were aware of in '98/'99? A. [T]he reason . . . Ms. Clemons was brought to my attention . . . was parental complaints. As I stated in my deposition, I wanted to seek out and find out for myself if these parental complaints were warranted as a concern for our classroom management. Q. So, how would you seek that out? A. By going into the classroom and observing. * * * Q. What types of things were you looking for . . . in '98/'99 during your observations? A. Initially, as I've stated earlier, my concern was to see if the parental complaints were warranted as it pertains to classroom management and the concern with parents saying the children were coming home and saying one thing. And, you know, as a teacher and an educator and also as a parent we know that the children sometimes will extend the truth to get what they want. But I wanted to find out if that was the case. Well, after doing my observations in the classroom, also on a formal observation, which you all have, often times I would walk up to a classroom that was chaotic with the noise. There are different types of noise. There is an active learning noise, let's make no mistake there, and there is a noise where there is disruption. And often times, one particular observation I went in, there were students out of their seats, there were paper airplanes thrown, Ms. Clemons yelling. And one of the things was, "You need to sit down," without a consequence being rolled out or dished out or implemented at that time. And it was very evident early on that the parental complaints and the student responses were, in effect, true with regards to classroom management. (T. 194-97.) Bennett also observed Clemons at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year. The principal noticed problems with behavior management, and also deficiencies relating to the delivery of instruction, such as incomplete lesson plans, blank student writing journals, falling behind in teaching the prescribed math curriculum, and failure to put subject "openers" (e.g. math and reading assignments) on the chalk board in the morning so that students could begin working immediately upon arrival. After an IPAS evaluation for the period from August 25 to October 1, 1998, Clemons was rated "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. As a result, effective October 2, 1998, Bennett placed Clemons "on documentation," meaning that she would have 90 days in which to correct the identified performance deficiencies, pursuant to Section 231.29(3)(d)2.a., Florida Statutes. In Bennett's opinion, Clemons did not correct the identified deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. Therefore, she recommended that Clemons' contract be terminated. The superintendent, however, did not timely act on Bennett's recommendation. 6/ Consequently, Clemons could not be dismissed. Returning to Lauderdale Manors for the 1999-00 school year, Clemons was assigned to teach a regular third grade class. By design, she was placed in a classroom located close to the administrative office, for support and assistance. Assistant Principal Miller visited her class on September 17, 1999. As he remembered: When . . . I walked into the room, one of the first things I noticed she was doing was reading, but it took her 10 minutes just to get her started when I walked in. That's noted here [on a Classroom Observation/Feedback Form prepared by Miller and signed by him and Clemons on September 17, 1999]. The lesson was broken up with student interruptions and lack of preparation. * * * One of the other things prior to walking in the classroom, I would stand outside the classroom and I heard children screaming, yelling. And I used the word, I felt chaos when I walked in. And you have to understand, when I walk into the classrooms immediately the tone is going to go down because of my presence in the classroom. So when I walked in, it did calm down. There were five students after I sat down when I circulated the room sleeping while she was attempting to teach reading. And my question to her was, How are you keeping track of misbehavior? Because she was telling people to do things, but not monitor[ing] it properly. (T. 202-04.) Bennett continued to observe and evaluate Clemons as well. On September 27, 1999, Bennett met with Clemons to discuss several classroom observations, including one that had been made on that day. Bennett remained concerned about Clemons' deficiencies in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. Bennett approved Clemons' request to observe two other third grade teachers, to learn from them. Bennett also decided to place a paraprofessional (teacher's aide) in Clemons' classroom for assistance. Bennett observed Clemons' class on October 20, 1999, and saw no improvement. Previously identified deficiencies in the areas of student discipline and presentation of subject matter persisted. Indeed, by this time, Clemons' class had dwindled to 11 students — and even these few were misbehaving. On October 22, 1999, Bennett placed Clemons on 90-day performance probation, effective immediately and ending February 11, 2000. Bennett notified Clemons of her decision, as well as the statutory procedures applicable to a performance probation, by memorandum dated October 22, 2000. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. As explained in a separate memorandum dated October 22, 2000, Bennett placed Clemons on probation due to her ongoing and documented concern about Clemons' performance in the areas of behavior management and instructional planning. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. Additionally, by yet another memorandum dated October 22, 2000, Bennett scheduled a conference with Clemons for October 27, 2000, to discuss the preparation of a Performance Development Plan. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. When a Broward County public school teacher's performance is determined to be unsatisfactory, a Performance Development Plan ("PDP") is prepared for, and with input from, the affected teacher. The purpose of the PDP is to assist the teacher in correcting identified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. On October 27, 2000, two PDPs were executed by Bennett and Clemons. One addressed Clemons' identified deficiencies in the area of behavior management. The other dealt with her deficiencies relating to instructional planning. The PDP concerning behavior management included a the following description of Clemons' perceived shortcomings: The teacher fails to: maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice by: establishing routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students. formulating appropriate standards for student behavior identifying inappropriate behavior and employing appropriate techniques for correction. Under the heading, "Strategies for Improvement, Correction, and Assistance," this PDP enumerated the following interventions: To date (10/27/99), by parental requests, a total of five (5) students have been removed from teacher's classroom to assist in alleviating severe disciplinary concerns. Teacher will be provided with an aide to assist with classroom behavior management. (This strategy will be in place during the week of November 1, 1999.) Alliance Coach will observe teacher and provide suggestions and feedback on effective classroom behavior management techniques. Curriculum Facilitator will observe teacher and provide specific suggestions and feedback on routines and procedures teacher can implement on effective transitioning techniques. Teacher will be afforded the opportunity to observe exemplary classroom teachers to identify and implement best practices for behavior management strategies. Grade 3 Team Leader will assist teacher in developing and implementing a classroom discipline plan. Team Leader will demonstrate, model, plan, and provide feedback. Outside Consultant will observe teacher and provide specific support and assistance in effective behavior management strategies. Teacher will attend a behavior management workshop, review observations with administrator, and implement appropriate strategy(ies) in own classroom. The PDP document advised Clemons that if she failed to correct all areas identified as deficient by February 11, 2000, she would receive an "Unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation," and a "recommendation for termination of contract" would be made. The PDP for correcting Clemons' problems in the area of instructional planning described her identified deficiencies as follows: The teacher fails to: select, adapt or develop, and sequence instructional materials and activities for the designated set of instructional objectives and student needs. create interest through the use of materials and techniques appropriate to the varying abilities and background of students. use individual student interests and abilities when planning and implementing instruction. The prescribed interventions for these deficiencies were: Alliance Coach will assist in providing appropriate materials, orienting techniques, demonstrating and modeling instructional strategies, transitioning techniques, and improving the overall learning environment of the classroom. Alliance Coach will meet weekly with teacher to provide specific support and assistance with feedback. Grade 3 Team Leader will review strategies and provide intensive support and assistance in areas of aligning objectives with lesson plans which focus on content, materials, lesson presentation, and student activities. Curriculum Facilitator will model and demonstrate a reading lesson, provide feedback, observe teacher presenting a lesson, and provide feedback of reading lesson to teacher. This process will be repeated on a weekly basis through November 18, 1999. Teacher will be afforded the opportunity to observe exemplary classroom teachers to identify and implement best practices for instructional planning and lesson management. Outside Consultant will observe teacher and provide specific support and assistance in effective instructional planning. Like the other PDP, this one notified Clemons that failure to correct all identified deficiencies by February 11, 2000, would result in a recommendation that her contract be terminated. As Miller testified, "this [the coordinated intervention strategy set forth in the PDPs] wasn't an afterthought where we just patchwork everything together. We worked together as a team in order to help [Clemons] meet with success." (T. 209.) Jounice Lewis is a Coach with the Alliance of Quality Schools (the "Alliance") in Broward County. The Alliance is a local program that provides assistance, in the person of coaches such as Lewis, to teachers in low performing schools. 7/ Alliance coaches help teachers with curriculum instruction. They are not invited into a school except upon the vote of 80 percent of the faculty. Taking part in the implementation of the PDPs that Clemons had approved, Lewis observed, counseled, and assisted Clemons while she was on 90-day performance probation during the 1999-00 school year. Lewis remembered a teacher who was having difficulties: "Often [Clemons'] class was disruptive, and I think that this may have been because there was not a routine." (T. 162.) The reading center was "not inviting." (T. 165.) The physical environment was not "conducive to learning;" one time, Clemons' students "were all around the classroom rather than in one area." (T. 166.) "Ms. Clemons' classroom was not organized, it was in disarray." (T. 167.) In Lewis's opinion, the behavior of Clemons' students did not seem to improve during the 90-day probation period. Further, Lewis observed at hearing that although Clemons had been receptive to Lewis's suggestions, she nevertheless had failed to improve her performance in the area of classroom control or management. Lewis was sure that Clemons had the "content knowledge" but felt that Clemons was unable to teach what she knew because her classroom was not under control. Bennett continued to observe and evaluate Clemons during the probation period. Using the IPAS instrument, Bennett rated Clemons "unsatisfactory" in the categories of instructional planning 8/ and behavior management 9/ for the period from October 22, 1999 through November 10, 1999. On this same IPAS, Bennett also assigned Clemons a rating of "needs improvement" in the area of records management. 10/ Bennett and Clemons both signed this IPAS form on November 15, 1999. Between November 11, 1999 through December 1, 1999, Bennett again assessed Clemons using the IPAS, rating her "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. In this period, Clemmons improved her rating in the records management area to "satisfactory," but slipped to "needs improvement" in the category, lesson presentation. 11/ Bennett and Clemons signed this IPAS evaluation form on December 9, 1999. On December 10, 1999, Clemons met with Bennett for a mid-point evaluation. Also in attendance was Valerie Proffer, a union representative. Bennett called this meeting to inform Clemons of progress achieved, as well as to make recommendations for correcting deficiencies that persisted. The minutes of the mid-point review meeting report that the participants discussed the many types of assistance that already had been provided Clemons, which included the services not only of Coach Lewis, but also input from the school's Curriculum Facilitator (who had provided suggestions and feedback on effective transitioning techniques) and the Grade 3 Team Leader (who had helped Clemons develop and implement a classroom discipline plan). Bennett notified Clemons that classroom behavior management remained a major area of concern and that deficiencies relating to instructional planning still needed to be corrected. The principal made specific recommendations for curing these problems and prescribed additional interventions, including the retention of an outside consultant to videotape Clemons for a self-critique. By memorandum dated February 3, 2000, Bennett notified Clemons that she had scheduled a conference for February 11 (the last day of the 90-day probation period) to discuss the final IPAS evaluation of Clemons, which would cover the period from January 27, 2000 to February 11, 2000. Also on the agenda for discussion were Clemons' PDPs and her "continued employment at Lauderdale Manors Elementary School." Clemons acknowledged receipt of this memorandum by signing it on February 3, 2000. On an IPAS form dated February 11, 2000, Bennett recorded her final assessment of Clemons. She concluded that Clemons' performance was "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. The ratings of "U" in these two categories compelled an overall performance rating of "unsatisfactory." Clemons received a "satisfactory" rating, however, in the eight other performance areas identified on the IPAS: lesson management, lesson presentation, student performance evaluation, communication, classroom management, records management, subject matter knowledge, and professional competencies. Thus, while the final IPAS evaluation of Clemons showed, on the one hand, that she had not corrected all identified performance deficiencies, it did demonstrate, on the other, that the teacher had improved during the 90-day probation period in the areas of records management and lesson presentation, and also that she was performing satisfactorily in most of the rated performance areas. Clemons attended the meeting on February 11, 2000, that Bennett had scheduled. At the meeting, Bennett provided Clemons with her final IPAS evaluation. Clemons disagreed with the evaluation and refused to sign it. Bennett informed Clemons that because performance deficiencies remained, she would recommend termination of Clemons' contract. Dwight Hamilton, a BTU representative who attended the meeting, explained the termination process to Clemons. Bennett told Clemons that the next Monday, February 11, 2000, she was to report to the Media Center rather than her classroom, from which Clemons was now being removed. Clemons became angry with Bennett and Assistant Principal Miller (who was also present) and apparently made some intemperate remarks, but these were not the subject of formal charges. By memorandum dated February 11, 2000, Bennett notified the superintendent of her recommendation that Clemons be dismissed immediately, pursuant to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, for failure to correct performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. The superintendent accepted Bennett's recommendation and so informed Clemons by letter dated February 16, 2000. The superintendent advised Clemons, "[p]ursuant to Florida Statute ," that he would recommend to the Board, at its meeting on March 7, 2000, that she first be suspended without pay and, thereafter, dismissed from employment. He expressly predicated the recommendation of suspension without pay on "unsatisfactory job performance." As apparent additional legal authority for his intended recommendations to the Board, the superintendent cited to, and quoted from, Section 230.33(7)(e), Florida Statutes. The superintendent closed his letter by notifying Clemons that the Board would act on his recommendation to dismiss her at its meeting on April 4, 2000, unless she made a written request for formal administrative proceedings before the close of business on March 22, 2000. Clemons timely requested a hearing by letter dated March 2, 2000. The Board met on March 7, 2000, and suspended Clemons without pay pending termination of her contract. A memorandum dated March 15, 2000, to the Supervisor of Personnel Records confirms that Clemons was suspended without pay effective March 8, 2000. Clemons has not complained about any alleged defects in notice or other procedures. Clemons does contend, however, that the assistance afforded her at times interfered with her ability to teach and was not always helpful. 12/ The preponderance of evidence showed, however, that the interventions prescribed for her benefit were appropriate and designed to help Clemons overcome her noted performance deficiencies. In short, the greater weight of the evidence established, as fact, that the Board followed the procedures and met its substantive responsibilities under Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Clemons did not correct all of the performance deficiencies that were identified at the outset of her performance probation in October 1999. At hearing, Clemons admitted that deficiencies in the area of behavior management had not been "totally corrected" by the end of the 90-day probation in February 2000. (T. 134.) While Clemons maintains, with some evidentiary support, that she made progress during the probation period, the established fact is that performance deficiencies, at least in the area of behavior management, remained as of February 11, 2000. In sum, the greater weight of the evidence established, as fact, that Clemons' performance deficiencies were not "satisfactorily corrected" during the 90- day probation, as that phrase is used in Section 231.29(3)(d)2.b., Florida Statutes. The greater weight of the evidence failed to show, however, that Clemons was guilty of any "just cause" for dismissal within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 13/ Specifically, as will be discussed below in the legal conclusions, a preponderance of evidence did not show, as fact, that Clemons either committed "misconduct in office" or demonstrated "incompetency" as those terms are defined in Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board: (1) reinstate Clemons and pay her back salary from March 8, 2000, through the date of reinstatement, pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes; and (2) terminate Clemons' employment pursuant to Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2000.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether Respondent committed the offenses enumerated in the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a valid Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 514964, covering the area of elementary education, which is valid through June 30, 2007. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Moton Elementary School in the Hernando County School District. She is admired and respected within Moton Elementary and is considered by her principal to be an excellent teacher. Her performance evaluations consistently reflect that she exceeds expected performances levels in every category. Her honesty and integrity are unquestioned. Respondent is viewed as the quintessential teacher who teaches simply because she loves working with children, watching them learn and grow. Students in the State of Florida are administered a standardized test known as the FCAT. A portion of that test is known as the norm referenced test, or NRT. The NRT is used to compare students in Florida with the achievement of students in other states. It can also be used, as a secondary tool, in the placement of individual students. Teachers are forbidden to give direct assistance to students on the FCAT and the NRT portion of the FCAT, although they can give general encouragement to a group of students. Respondent’s practice, during normal testing in the course of the school year, is to circulate throughout the classroom. If she sees a student that has incorrectly dealt with a problem, she will direct the student to review the problem, and to think about the answer. Respondent was trained in how to administer the FCAT, including the NRT portion. Specifically, she was told she was not to give assistance to students as they were taking the test. On the afternoon of the day in March of 2002 when concerns were raised about Respondent having assisted at least three students on the NRT portion of the exam, Principal Donnie Moen summoned Respondent to his office to ask her if anything unusual had happened during the test. Respondent told him nothing unusual had happened. Later that evening, Respondent wondered out loud to her husband whether she had provided any assistance during the test. The next day, Respondent got the class together and asked the students whether she had provided any directions or assistance on any specific questions. Three students raised their hands and told Respondent she had provided assistance on a specific question. Respondent then realized and now concedes that during the test, while circulating throughout the class, she told K.M. to check her answer to a certain question; told S.H. to go back to a certain question she had skipped over and check the answers to the questions that followed; and told F.M. he needed to check the aquarium problem. When she realized she had given these students assistance on specific questions, she told the students she had to go to the principal to report what she had done. The students asked whether she would get in trouble. She reminded the students she had always thought that honesty was the best policy, no matter what happened. Respondent then reported to the principal to tell him she had provided some assistance to three different students on specific questions. While Respondent avows she did not intentionally provide assistance to any students, Respondent did fail to distinguish between normal classroom testing procedures and standardized testing procedures. Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has not been diminished by her actions. She continues to enjoy widespread support from staff, parents and school administration, although, as a result of the incidents in the NRT portion of the FCAT, Respondent accepted a "last chance agreement" with the local school district. Part of that agreement was a 10-working day suspension without pay, and probation for a period of one year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order retroactively suspending Respondent's certificate for a 10-working day period, coupled with probation for a period of one year. Such recommended penalty should run concurrently with discipline imposed by the Hernando County School District upon Respondent in April of 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. 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 29th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Bruce Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2014)1/; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission (Commission).
Findings Of Fact During all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the areas of elementary education and social science, and she held Florida Educator's Certificate 842941, which expired June 30, 2016. Respondent first entered the teaching profession in 1999. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Hillsborough County School District (HCSD). During the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, Respondent taught social science at Madison Middle School. During the years in question, HCSD had a written system for evaluating the classroom performance of its teachers. The evaluation system was reviewed and approved by the Florida Department of Education. The evaluation system consists of multiple components which, when combined, result in a final teacher evaluation performance rating. In its broadest sense, the system used by HCSD to evaluate teacher performance relies on input from a teacher’s supervising principal, input from a teacher’s peers and/or mentors, and a value-added measure (VAM) score, which is based on student achievement. According to the Teacher Evaluation Handbook for the HCSD, the principal’s evaluation accounts for 35 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score, the peer/mentor’s evaluation accounts for 25 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score, and the VAM score accounts for 40 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score. Observation and Written Evaluation Throughout the course of a school year, an evaluating principal and peer/mentors (collectively referred to as evaluators) conduct a number of formal and informal classroom “observations” of the teacher being evaluated. Findings from formal and informal observations are characterized, based on a framework of four “domains,” as highly effective, effective, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory. The observations are memorialized and feedback is regularly provided to the teacher during the school year. At the conclusion of the observation cycle, the evaluators, based on the formal and informal observations, prepare a written “evaluation” which summarizes and quantifies (assigns a numerical value) the teacher’s performance for the entire school year. The framework for rating observations and scoring evaluations consists of four domains, each of which has five to six components. According to the teacher evaluation instrument, the domains and their components are as follows: Domain 1: Planning and Preparation. The components in Domain 1 outline how a teacher organizes the content and plans the instructional delivery. (1A) Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy (1B) Demonstrating Knowledge of Students (1C) Setting Instructional Outcomes (1D) Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources and Technology (1E) Designing Coherent Instruction (1F) Designing Student Assessments Domain 2: The Classroom Environment. The components in Domain 2 address the learning environment. This includes the interactions in the classroom, the classroom culture, the teacher’s use of physical space, and established routines and procedures. (2A) Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport (2B) Establishing a Culture for Learning (2C) Managing Classroom Procedures (2D) Managing Student Behavior (2E) Organizing Physical Space Domain 3: Instruction. The components of Domain 3 embody the core of teaching –the engagement of students in activities that promote and foster learning. (3A) Communicating with Students (3B) Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques (3C) Engaging Students in Learning (3D) Using Assessment in Instruction (3E) Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities. The components of Domain 4 represent the wide range of a teacher’s responsibilities outside the classroom. These include reflecting on teaching, maintaining accurate records, communicating with stakeholders, contributing to the school and district, growing and developing professionally, and showing professionalism. (4A) Reflecting on Teaching (4B) Maintaining Accurate Records (4C) Communicating With Stakeholders (4D) Participating in a Professional Community (4E) Growing and Developing Professionally (4F) Showing Professionalism The weight assigned to each domain (within either the principal or peer/mentor category) is 20 percent, with the exception of Domain 3, which is weighted at 40 percent. Domain components 4B through 4F are only reviewed by the teacher’s principal. Domain 1 addresses “planning and preparation,” and “[t]he components of Domain 1 outline how a teacher organizes the content and plans the instructional delivery.” Domain 2 addresses “classroom environment,” and “[t]he components of Domain 2 address the learning environment [which] . . . includes the interactions in the classroom, the classroom culture, the teacher’s use of physical space, and established routines and procedures.” Domain 3, which again is weighted twice as much as the other domains, addresses “instruction,” and “[t]he components of Domain 3 embody the core of teaching–the engagement of students in activities that promote and foster learning . . . [and the] components include: communicating clearly and accurately, using questioning and discussion techniques, engaging students in learning, providing feedback to students, and demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness.” Domain 4 addresses “professional responsibility,” and “[t]he components of Domain 4 represent the wide range of a teacher’s responsibilities outside the classroom . . . include[ing] reflecting on teaching, maintaining accurate records, communicating with stakeholders, contributing to the school and district, growing and developing professionally, and showing professionalism.” For purposes of scoring a teacher’s evaluation, a zero point value is assigned whenever a domain component is given a rating of “requires action,” a single point is given whenever a domain component is rated as “progressing,” two points are given whenever a teacher is rated as “accomplished,” and three points are given for an “exemplary” rating. Value Added Measure According to the Teacher Evaluation Handbook for Hillsborough County, VAM is: statistical model that uses a variety of variables to estimate the expected one year learning growth of each student. The growth expectation estimate is then compared to actual growth, as measured by relevant course and content assessments. In order to measure a teacher’s impact on student achievement, the model controls for variables that are outside of the teacher’s control, such as past years’ learning growth trajectory, and special needs. In doing so, the teacher’s impact on student growth can be isolated and calculated. The VAM score is 40 percent of the teacher’s overall annual evaluation. 2012-2013 Observations and Evaluation Respondent, during the 2012-2013 school year, had one formal and two informal observations conducted by peer/mentors, and one formal and two informal observations conducted by her principal. Respondent, at the end of the 2012-2013 school year, was evaluated by both her peer/mentor and her principal. Katherine Hodges is one of the peer/mentors who observed and evaluated Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Ms. Hodges was a teacher in the HCSD from 2005-2015 where she taught eighth grade U.S. history, humanities, and served as a middle school social studies peer/mentor evaluator. Twanya Hall-Clark is another individual who conducted observations of Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Ms. Hall-Clark has been employed by HCSD as an educator for more than 20 years and has served as a school administrator since 2000. Ms. Hall-Clark has been trained in the use and implementation of the HCSD teacher evaluation system and has conducted hundreds of teacher observations and evaluations. Jeffery Colf also served as a peer/mentor and observed Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Joseph Brown served as the school principal where Respondent worked during the 2012-2013 school year, and was responsible for observing and evaluating Respondent’s performance. Dr. Brown became an educator in 1986 and a principal in 1998. Dr. Brown was trained in the use and implementation of the HCSD teacher evaluation system and has observed and evaluated hundreds of teachers during his tenure as an administrator. In determining a teacher’s evaluation rating, evaluators consider observation ratings and information provided by the teacher who is being evaluated. After considering these factors, Respondent’s peer/mentor evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was “requires action” for component 2C; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2B, 2D, and 3A through 3E; and “accomplished” for components 1D, 2E, and 4A. Respondent’s principal evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was a rating of “progressing” for every component except 4A, for which she received a rating of “accomplished.” When quantified, Respondent’s 2012-2013 peer/mentor evaluation score was 8.80 and her principal evaluation score was 12.00, which resulted in a combined total evaluation written score of 20.80. The HCSD mean (average) for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 36.86. For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent’s written evaluation score gave her a percentile rank of 1.70 percent. In other words, 98.30 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2012-2013 school year had a higher written evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s 2012-2013 VAM score was 18.7201. The HCSD mean for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 24.14. For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent’s VAM score gave her a percentile rank of 2.30 percent when compared to her peers. Stated succinctly, 97.70 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2012-2013 school year had a higher VAM score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2012-2013 school year was 39.3. The HCSD mean for all teachers evaluated during the 2012-2013 school year was 61. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2012-2013 school year resulted in her achieving a percentile rank of 0.89 percent, meaning that 99.11 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD during the 2012-2013 school year scored higher than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score of 39.3 resulted in Respondent receiving an overall evaluation rating of “unsatisfactory” for the 2012-2013 school year. For the 2012- 2013 school year, Respondent would have needed an overall evaluation score of 40 in order to secure the next highest evaluation designation of “needs improvement.” By letter dated September 18, 2013, Respondent was notified of the deficiencies in her performance and advised that she would be placed on a teacher assistance plan for the 2013- 2014 school year. Teacher Assistance Plan Respondent, as a consequence of receiving an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year, was placed on a mandatory teacher assistance plan during the 2013- 2014 school year. The stated goal of the plan is “[t]o assist teachers who earned a previous overall Unsatisfactory evaluation so that their performance reaches a satisfactory level for the current school year.” Teachers who are placed on a teacher assistance plan are assigned a support team which is composed of experienced educators. Teacher assistance plans have “areas of focus” which correspond to the four domains covered by the annual evaluation. The teacher assistance plan developed for Respondent focused on the domains of “planning and preparation (Domain 1)” and “instruction (Domain 3).” Respondent first met with her support team on October 15, 2013, where “assistance strategies” were developed for Domains 1 and 3. The specific strategies set goals of “designing coherent instruction (component 1-e)” and “improving feedback practices (component 3-d).” During the support team meeting on October 15, 2013, Respondent explained that her unsatisfactory rating for the 2012- 2013 school year was largely attributable to the fact that she “floated” between classrooms, and that she expected improvement in her performance for the 2013-2014 school year because she had her own classroom. Support team members provided Respondent with “a packet of resources” and arranged for Respondent to observe a high-performing teacher in an instructional setting. On December 18, 2013, Respondent met with members of her support team to discuss and review Respondent’s progress towards achieving the goals established in her teacher assistance plan. A summary report from the meeting provides as follows: The meeting began with a review of the Oct. 2013 action plan meeting and an update of the action steps. Ms. Patti also presented her summary notes of the observations and action she has taken since October. Those notes are included in her folder. Ms. Patti said that she observed Mr. Kline in his science class. She liked how each student had an assigned role while in group work. Ms. Patti also showed a teacher[-]made quiz she designed based off information from the LDC lesson. For the quiz she prompted students to use text marking and identify the key concepts not just the action (such as describe or discuss). Ms. Patti is using a website titled floridacivics.org for lesson plan ideas and resources. Ms. Patti also wants to observe another teacher. Dr. Brown will ask Mr. Sullins if he is willing to have Ms. Patti observe during the third nine weeks. Suggestions were made to either have another teacher observe or have a lesson video-taped for Ms. Patti to watch herself. She did not want to pursue either option at this time. Dr. Brown will follow up to set a date for the February Action Plan review. On March 27, 2014, Respondent again met with her support team. A written summary of the meeting notes that Respondent did not meet the goal of observing another teacher’s class as discussed during the meeting on December 18, 2013. 2013-2014 Observations and Evaluation Respondent, during the 2013-2014 school year, had two formal and three informal observations conducted by peer/mentors, two formal and three informal observations conducted by her principal, and one formal observation by her supervisor. Respondent, at the end of the 2013-2014 school year, was evaluated by both her peer/mentor and her principal. As previously noted, when determining a teacher’s evaluation rating, evaluators consider observation ratings and information provided by the teacher who is being evaluated. After considering these factors, Respondent’s peer/mentor evaluation for the 2013-2014 school year was “requires action” for component 3E; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2D, 3A through 3E, 4A; and “accomplished” for components 1D and 2E. Respondent’s principal evaluation for the 2013-2014 school year was “requires action” for components 4F; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2B, 2D, 3A through 3E, and 4B through 4E; and “accomplished” for components 1D, 2C, 2E, and 4A. When quantified, Respondent’s 2013-2014 peer/mentor evaluation score was 8.35 and her principal evaluation score was 11.90, which resulted in a combined total evaluation written score of 20.25. The HCSD mean (average) for teachers during the 2013-2014 school year was 36.86. For the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent’s written evaluation score gave her a percentile rank of 1.47 percent. In other words, 98.53 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2013-2014 school year had a higher written evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s 2013-2014 VAM score was 17.4192. The HCSD mean for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 24.04. For the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent’s VAM score gave her a percentile rank of 0.85 percent when compared to her peers. Stated succinctly, 99.15 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2013-2014 school year had a higher VAM score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2013-2014 school year was 37.66. The HCSD mean for all teachers evaluated during the 2013-2014 school year was 60.94. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2013-2014 school year resulted in her achieving a percentile rank of 0.24 percent, meaning that 99.76 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD during the 2013-2014 school year scored higher than Respondent. Stated differently, in Hillsborough County public schools for the 2013-2014 school year, there were only 28 teachers of 12,068 who had a worse evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score of 37.66 resulted in Respondent receiving an overall evaluation rating of “unsatisfactory” for the 2013-2014 school year. For the 2013- 2014 school year, Respondent would have needed an overall evaluation score of 42 in order to secure the next highest evaluation designation of “needs improvement.” Despite being on a teacher assistance plan, Respondent’s performance, relative to her peers, actually declined during the 2013-2014 school year when compared to the previous school year. By letter dated July 10, 2014, Respondent was advised that because she received unsatisfactory evaluations for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, HCSD was notifying the Department of Education of her poor performance and that she was being reassigned pending confirmation of her VAM scores for the year. By order dated April 6, 2016, the School Board of Hillsborough County terminated Respondent’s employment. Domain 3 and VAM As noted previously, Domain 3 embodies “the core of teaching.” The peer/mentor and principal comments for Domain 3 components for the 2012-2013 school year provide as follows with respect to Respondent’s performance: (3A) The teacher’s attempt to explain the purpose/relevancy of the lesson’s instructional outcomes has only limited success, and/or directions and procedures must be clarified after initial student confusion. The teacher’s explanation of the content may contain minor errors; some portions are clear; other portions are difficult to follow. The teacher’s explanation consists of a monologue, with no invitation to the students for intellectual engagement. The teacher’s spoken language is correct; however, vocabulary is limited or not fully appropriate to the students’ ages or backgrounds. (3B) The teacher’s questions lead students through a single path of inquiry, with answers seemingly determined in advance. Alternatively the teacher attempts to frame some questions designed to promote student thinking and understanding, but only a few students are involved. The teacher attempts to engage all students in the discussion and to encourage them to respond to one another, with uneven results. (3C) The learning tasks or prompts are partially aligned with the instructional outcomes but require only minimal thinking by students, allowing most students to be passive or merely compliant. Learning activities are not sufficiently challenging and lack the rigor to promote intellectual engagement. The pacing of the lesson may not provide students the time needed to be intellectually engaged. (3D) Assessment is occasionally used in instruction, through some monitoring of progress of learning by teacher and/or students. Feedback to students is uneven, and students are aware of only some of the assessment criteria used to evaluate their work. (3E) The teacher attempts to modify the lesson when needed and to respond to student questions with moderate success; however, alternate instructional strategies are limited and minimally successful. The teacher accepts responsibility for student performance. In response to student progress data, the teacher re-teaches, as appropriate. Because Respondent received an overall unsatisfactory performance rating for the 2012-2013 school year, she was evaluated by her principal mid-way through the 2013-2014 school year, and again by both her principal and peer/mentor evaluator at the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Respondent, for each of the evaluations performed during the 2013-2014 school year, received identical marks for the Domain 3 components, with the same deficiencies noted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(c). It is further recommended that, pursuant to section 1012.796(7)(g), Respondent be prohibited from applying for a new certificate for a period of at least five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and her husband, Dr. Henry S. Pennypacker developed a precision teaching process designed to facilitate learning by the students exposed to this process. It was first used at the University of Florida in 1972 under contract between the corporation formed by the Pennypackers, viz, Precision Teaching, Inc. of Florida, and the University of Florida Athletic Association. This contract with the Athletic Association continued through fiscal year 1973-74. By 1974 the system had acquired wider acclaim and the University of Florida decided to try this process on entering students who were below the academic average. Since the project was expected to grow it was decided that Susanne Pennypacker would be employed full time to manage the activities of Precision Teaching, Inc. of Florida. The University of Florida entered into a contract with Precision Teaching, Inc. to conduct the program in fiscal year 1974-75 and Petitioner served as Director on the staff of, and was paid by, Precision Teaching, Inc. During this contract period the University determined that it would prefer to operate the program as a university project rather than under a contractual arrangement with Precision Teaching, Inc. Negotiations were conducted with the Pennypackers and it was agreed that Petitioner would be employed by the University to run the project which would be called the Personalized Learning Center. Several letters passed between Dr. Webb and Petitioner and her husband as the negotiations respecting the budget for fiscal year 1975-76 progressed. On June 3, 1974 Dr. Webb submitted a proposed budget for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1975 to the Pennypackers. A copy of this letter was not offered into evidence. By letter of June 19, 1975 the Pennypackers reminded Dr. Webb that the contract with Precision Teaching would expire on June 30, 1975 and a management contract to continue the opera-tion of the Personalized Learning Center had not been executed. It was further stated that they had agreed to operate the center at the budget figure presented on June 3, 1975, but it appears that the University was unable to commit $7,000 of the proposed far amount. Dr. Webb was advised that the Pennypackers' continued participation in the project was dependent upon written assurance that the shorted funds become available by January 1, 1976, and that "we will regard failure to provide (at least written assurance) the full amount requested and agreed to as a signal that our services are not longer desired and, accordingly, will, with great reluctance, terminate completely our association with the center on July 1, 1975." By letter dated June 30, 1975 (Exhibit 15) Dr. Webb submitted the budget for the operation of the Center for the FY 75-76 to Dr. Pennypacker. Therein the full amount for salaries contained in Petitioner's proposed budget of June 5, 1975 (Exhibit 13) was approved. No formal contract was entered into between Ms. Penny-packer and the University, but the discussions were memorialized in a letter from the University representative, Dr. Jeanne Webb, to the Pennypackers dated June 30, 1975 (Exhibit 4). Petitioner became an employee of the University on July 1, 1975. The terms and conditions of this employment are contained in the University' s Notice of Appointment (Exhibit 18) dated November 25, 1975 which was executed by Petitioner on December 15, 1975. In late November or early December, 1975 Petitioner was notified that her contract with the University would not be extended beyond June 30, 1976. Within ten days of receipt of that letter Petitioner requested reasons for not being reappointed for the forthcoming year. Neither of these letters was offered into evidence. Response to Petitioner's request for reasons were contained in Dr. Webb's letter of December 17, 1975 (Exhibit 16). Although reasons indicating dissatisfaction with Petitioner's performance as Director of the Personalized Learning Center are contained in Exhibit 16, Respondent took the position that satisfactory performance of duty by Petitioner was not an issue in this case, and offered no evidence to support the bare allegations contained in Exhibit 16. Upon completion of Petitioner's case Respondent submitted a motion for directed verdict, and an argument on said motion. Petitioner replied thereto and thereafter Respondent rested without presenting evidence.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Cynthia A. Foy (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint; whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of Subsection 1012.795(1)(b), (c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2003),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e) and (5)(d); and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed on Respondent's teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent, Cynthia Foy, holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 468641, covering the areas of early childhood education, elementary education, and English to speakers of other languages, which is valid through June 30, 2007. Respondent had been employed with the Hillsborough County School Board 17 years as of the 2002-2003 school term. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a first-grade teacher at Colson Elementary School (Colson) in the Hillsborough County School District (School District). Respondent worked as a teacher at Colson for about five years, beginning the 1998-1999 school year. During her employment in the School District, including her employment at Colson, Respondent never had any disciplinary action taken against her. From 1986 through 1996, Respondent consistently received satisfactory ratings on her annual teacher evaluations, except for one school year when she had three deaths in her family, including the sudden death of her father and of her 38-year-old brother. Respondent's Absences Respondent was absent from work 22 days during the 1998-1999 school year, her first year at Colson. Some of the absences were related to Respondent's health issues. However, most of Respondent's absences were related to her mother's illness. During the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent's mother was confined to a nursing home and had become very ill and frail. Due to her mother's failing health, Respondent wanted to be with her mother, to watch and take care of her. Also, even though Respondent's mother was in a nursing home, Respondent was responsible for taking her mother to her own doctors to make sure she got the proper care. During the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent was absent from work 13.5 days. Respondent's mother died during that school year. As a result, Respondent missed 13.5 days to deal with matters related to her mother's death. During the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years, Respondent was absent from school for 19.45 and 16 days, respectively. These absences were because of Respondent's own health issues. During these school years, Respondent was under an extreme amount of stress due to what she perceived to be a hostile work environment at school. Mary Clark, principal of Colson, was concerned about Respondent's absences and specifically noted this concern on all of Respondent's evaluations, which are at issue in this proceeding. The reasons for Respondent's absences were not disputed, and there is no assertion that the absences were unauthorized. However, Mrs. Clark believed that Respondent's absences resulted in the lack of continuity of instruction and negatively impacted the learning of students in Respondent's first-grade classes. Mrs. Clark testified that because of their concern about their children's progress, some parents requested that their children be transferred from Respondent's class to another first-grade class. Records of such requests and actual transfers were not presented at hearing. However, Mrs. Clark recalled that at least one student had been transferred from Respondent's class. Whether the only reason for the transfer was Respondent's absences is unclear. Notwithstanding Mrs. Clark's concern and belief that Respondent's absences had a negative impact on the students in her class, no basis for this concern was established. To the contrary, during Respondent's tenure at Colson, her students consistently performed well academically as reflected by their scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, a nationally normed test. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Stanford Achievement Test was used by the School District to assess first-grade students' achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the test was administered to first-grade students at Colson in March or April of each school year. In March 2000, there were four first-grade classes at Colson. Of those four classes, Respondent's students made the highest scores in both the reading section and the math section of the Stanford Achievement Test. The results of the Stanford Achievement Test administered in April 2001, reflect that of the four first-grade classes, the students in Respondent's class made significantly higher scores in both reading and mathematics than the students in the other three first-grade classes. As of April 2002, Colson had six first-grade classes. Of the six first-grade classes, Respondent's class ranked first on the reading section and second on the mathematics section of the Stanford Achievement Test. Respondent's Annual Performance Evaluations The School District utilizes the Classroom Certificated Instructional Effectiveness Evaluation Form (Evaluation Form), which has been approved by the Hillsborough County School Board (School Board) as the instrument by which its teachers are evaluated. Typically, tenured teachers with professional service contracts are evaluated annually, but if the tenured teacher is experiencing difficulties in the classroom, the school administrator may evaluate the teacher more than once a year. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Evaluation Form consisted of the following categories in which teachers are evaluated: Category I, Planning and Preparation, which includes six subsections or areas; Category II, Professional Behaviors, which includes 12 areas; Category III, Techniques of Instruction, which includes 15 areas; Category IV, Classroom Management, which includes seven areas; and Category V, Instructional Effectiveness, which includes one area. The Evaluation Form requires that the teacher's performance in each area be rated as "satisfactory," "needs improvement," or "unsatisfactory." The highest possible rating is "satisfactory," and the lowest rating is "unsatisfactory." In addition to the areas under the various categories in which teachers are rated, the evaluation requires that the teacher be given an "overall rating" of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory." As principal of Colson, one of Mrs. Clark's responsibilities was to supervise and evaluate the teachers at the school. Consistent with that responsibility, Mrs. Clark supervised and evaluated Respondent. Mrs. Clark evaluated Respondent once in the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 school years, usually in April. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mrs. Clark evaluated Respondent twice, in December 2001 and in March 2002. Mrs. Clark decided to evaluate Respondent twice in the 2001-2002 school year. Given Respondent's status as a tenured teacher and Mrs. Clark's "concerns over the years with her performance," by evaluating Respondent in the fall, Mrs. Clark would be able to give Respondent notice of the areas in which she still needed to improve. During the period between the fall evaluation and the spring evaluation, Respondent would have an opportunity to work to improve in those areas.2/ The ratings assigned to Respondent's performance on each of the Evaluation Forms are based on data that is collected by Mrs. Clark through her observations and while "walking into [the] classroom on a regular basis." The Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 through the 2001-2002 school years indicated that she needed to improve in specified areas under the following categories: Category II, Professional Behavior; Category III, Techniques of Instruction; and Category IV, Classroom Management.3/ Although Respondent worked at Colson during the 2002-2003 School year, there is no evidence that she was evaluated that year as required by law. If an evaluation was completed for that school year, the Administrative Complaint does not allege that the evaluation indicated any areas in which Respondent needed to improve. Professional Behavior The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received several evaluations from 1999 through 2002 that indicated she needed to improve in the following areas under the Professional Behavior category: 1) observes confidentiality related to students; 2) works cooperatively and supportively with school staff; and 3) responds reasonably to and acting appropriately to constructive criticism. With regard to the first area of concern, "observes confidentiality related to students," none of Respondent’s evaluations for the relevant time period, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years, indicated that she needed to improve in that area. In fact, contrary to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, all five of Respondent's evaluations for that time period indicate that her performance in that area was rated as "satisfactory." The second area under Professional Behaviors in which it is alleged that Respondent's evaluations indicated she needed to improve is "works cooperatively and supportively with school staff." Respondent's evaluations for her first three school years at Colson--1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001--reflect that her performance in the area, "works cooperatively with school staff," was "satisfactory." However, after receiving "satisfactory" ratings in this area for three consecutive years, for the first time, Respondent's evaluation for the 2001-2002 school year indicated that Respondent needed to improve in this area.4/ The evaluations gave no reason for the "needs improvement" rating in the area, "works cooperatively with school staff," on Respondent's December 2001 and April 2002 evaluations. Although no specific basis for the rating is given on the evaluation, it is noted that these evaluations coincide with the area supervisor's observations. The third area under the Professional Behavior category in which it is alleged that Respondent received several evaluations that indicated she needed to improve is the area, "responds reasonably to and acts appropriately upon constructive criticism." Contrary to this allegation, none of Respondent's evaluations indicated that she needed to improve in this area. Rather, Respondent's performance in the area, "responds reasonably to and acts appropriately upon constructive criticism," was rated as "satisfactory" on all five of the evaluations she received during the relevant time period. Techniques of Instruction The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received several evaluations that indicated she needed to improve in the following areas under the Technique of Instruction category: (1) uses instructional time efficiently; presents subject matter effectively; and (3) uses praise appropriately. Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years indicated that Respondent needed to improve in the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." As a possible rationale for the rating assigned in the 1998-1999 evaluation, Mrs. Clark wrote on the evaluation, "I am concerned about the slow pace of her lesson as well as the pacing through reading." The evaluations for the 2000-2001 and the 2001-2002 school years gave no rationale for the "needs improvement" rating in the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." Additionally, there is no indication that Mrs. Clark told Respondent the basis of the rating or offered any recommendations as to how Respondent could improve in this area. Upon Respondent's receiving the December 2001 and the March 2002 evaluations, she requested, in writing, a detailed written explanation of the basis for each of the "needs improvement" ratings, which included the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." There is no evidence that Mrs. Clark ever provided the requested explanation. Additionally, the evidence does not establish a basis for the "needs improvement" rating in this area. The next area at issue under the Techniques of Instruction category is, "presents subject matter effectively." Respondent's evaluations for the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 school years indicate that Respondent needed to improve in this area. However, neither the evaluation, nor any evidence at the hearing, offered or established a basis for this rating. On Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 school year, and most recently for the 2001-2002 school year, her performance in the area, "presents subject matter effectively," was rated as "satisfactory." Clearly, the "satisfactory" ratings on the December 2001 and March 2002 evaluations, which were for the 2001-2002 school year, marked an improvement over Respondent's ratings in that category for the immediate prior two school years. Finally, it is alleged that the third area under the Techniques of Instruction category in which Respondent's evaluations indicated she needed to improve is, "uses praise appropriately." Respondent's evaluation for 1998-1999, her first year at Colson, indicated that she needed to improve in this area. The next three school years, however, Respondent's performance in this area improved to "satisfactory," as reflected by the four evaluations for the 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years. Classroom Management Under the category, Classroom Management, it is alleged that Respondent's evaluations indicated that she needed to improve in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self- esteem." On Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 school years, her first two years at Colson, Respondent's performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was rated "satisfactory." Respondent's evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year indicated that her performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was unsatisfactory. It is specifically found that the Administrative Complaint makes no allegations regarding the "unsatisfactory" rating. Accordingly, except for limited purposes, issues related to that rating will not be addressed. Respondent's performance in the area, "enhancing and maintaining students' self-esteem," improved in the 2001-2002 school year from "unsatisfactory" to "needs improvement," as reflected in both her December 2001 and April 2002 evaluations. Instructional Effectiveness The Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent's evaluations reflect that she needs to improve in the Instructional Effectiveness category. However, in order to present a more complete picture of Respondent's performance, as rated on her evaluations, this category and Respondent's ratings thereunder are considered. The Instructional Effectiveness category includes only one area, "promotes academic learning which results in improved student performance."5/ This area is concerned with and assesses whether actual learning is taking place as a result of the teacher's instruction. 39. For the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years, Respondent's performance in the area, "promotes academic learning which results in improved student performance," is rated as "satisfactory." Overall Rating Category Respondent's "overall rating" in all five of her evaluations for the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001- 2002 was "satisfactory." 6/ Transfer of Student to Respondent's Class (January 2001) In January 2001, a student, F.R., was transferred to Respondent's class from another first grade class because of his behavioral problems. When such a transfer takes place, the teacher to whom the student is being transferred is given prior notice that the student is being assigned to her class. In this instance, that was not done. Respondent was not informed in advance that F.R. was being transferred to her class. On the first day the students returned to school from winter break, F.R. just "showed up" in Respondent's class. Later, Respondent was told that the child was transferred to her class because he was having peer conflict problems, and, as a result, he was acting out. Respondent was told that the student’s acting out behavior included such things as spitting on children, stabbing children with forks, knocking things off the children's desks, and having outbursts. Respondent thought this was a new chance for the child, and she attempted to make the new class assignment work. For example, rather than isolate the child, as his former teacher had recommended, Respondent assigned F.R. to a seat between two very well-behaved little girls, who she knew would never say anything mean to him. Despite Respondent's efforts to work with F.R., he exhibited lashing out and angry behaviors. Due to F.R.'s exhibiting lashing out behavior, Respondent was concerned for the safety of the other students in the class. In January or early February 2001, Respondent shared her concern with Mrs. Clark and asked that F.R. be removed from her class. Mrs. Clark responded that F.R. was just a little boy and said, "Let's see how he does." No offers for assistance were made, and Respondent felt that her request was simply ignored. Later, in January or early February 2001, as Respondent's class lined up and walked to the lunchroom, F.R. deliberately "high stepped and slid on the heels" of the child in front of him. When Respondent asked F.R. to stop, he just laughed, looked at Respondent, and repeated the behavior. Respondent told F.R. to stand out on the side of the line and walk with her. At first he complied, but then he started to get back in the line. Respondent then told F.R., "You're walking with me." After F.R. ignored Respondent, she took his hand so that he could walk with her. F.R. then yanked and pulled Respondent's fingers back, kicked Respondent "really hard" in the upper ankle, and "took off running." Respondent reported the incident to Mrs. Clark and the vice-principal and completed an incident report, reporting her injury and indicating her belief that F.R.'s behavior described in paragraph 44 constituted an assault/battery. After the incident, Respondent again asked Mrs. Clark to transfer F.R. from her class. Mrs. Clark never responded to Respondent's request. In fact, Mrs. Clark never talked to Respondent about the incident. Some time after the February 21, 2001, observation discussed below, there was a second incident where F.R. was physically aggressive toward Respondent. F.R. ran out of the lunchroom to return to the classroom to get the check he had forgotten. Concerned about his past behavior of destroying and "messing up" the other children's belongings, Respondent went to get F.R. Before Respondent could get to the classroom, F.R. had gotten the check and was running back to the lunchroom and toward Respondent. Respondent stuck her arm out to stop him and he continued running around her. Once in the lunchroom, Respondent "pulled" or "grabbed" the check from F.R.'s hand and asked the aides in the lunchroom to call Mrs. Clark. F.R. then seemed to explode, and he began punching Respondent with his fists and biting her. By the time the assistant principal got to the lunchroom, four students had pulled F.R. off Respondent, and Respondent was holding F.R.'s hand. When the vice-principal arrived, she did not discuss the incident with Respondent, but began screaming and told Respondent, "Go, get out of here, leave!" Following the lunchroom incident, Respondent filed another assault report and, for the third time, asked Mrs. Clark to transfer F.R. from her class. After there was no response to her verbal request, a union representative advised Respondent to make the request in writing. Initially, Mrs. Clark denied the request because it was not on the proper form, but once Respondent made the request on the appropriate form, F.R. was transferred from her class. Prior to the requests related to F.R., Respondent has never requested that a student be transferred from her class. Observations of Area Supervisor Ms. Daryl Saunders, an area supervisor for the School District, went to Respondent's classroom on five different occasions between February 21, 2001, and March 21, 2002, twice during the 2000-2001 school year, and three times during the 2001-2002 school year, to conduct observations. On a visit in February 2002, Ms. Saunders did not conduct an observation. With the exception of the first visit to Respondent's classroom, all of Ms. Saunders' visits were for the purpose of observing Respondent. Of the four times Ms. Saunders went to observe Respondent, she actually conducted observations three times. First Observation (February 21, 2001) Ms. Saunders' first visit to Respondent's classroom was on February 21, 2001. At the request of Mrs. Clark, Ms. Saunders went to Respondent's classroom to observe a student, F.R., who had been displaying inappropriate behavior in class and is described above.7/ During the time Ms. Saunders observed F.R., he did not have any outbursts, engage in any physically aggressive behavior, or display any disruptive or inappropriate behaviors. Ms. Saunders noted that the student delayed starting his assignment and took breaks between work, but did not bother any other student. Based on her observation of F.R. and the manner in which Respondent communicated with him, Ms. Saunders wrote in the summary letter to Mrs. Clark, "I believe F.R. is trying to survive in a room where he feels he is not valued." While Ms. Saunders was observing F.R., she also observed Respondent teaching and interacting with the students. Ms. Saunders was particularly concerned with Respondent's frequent verbal reprimands that were audible to the entire class. During the observation, Ms. Saunders also noticed that Respondent seemed to be easily frustrated and that when communicating with students, her voice vacillated between a friendly tone to an aggressive tone. Ms. Saunders expressed this and other concerns, not relevant to this proceeding, to Mrs. Clark in a letter dated February 22, 2001. According to the letter, a verbal reprimand to a particular student in front of the entire class is "damaging to [a] student's self-esteem." Ms. Saunders further noted that "considering the environment, I was surprised there were no behavioral issues while I was present." In the February 22, 2001, letter to Mrs. Clark, Ms. Saunders recommended that "we provide [Respondent] with some assistance so that the classroom environment is more conducive for instruction and learning." As a means of supporting Respondent in this effort, Ms. Saunders recommended that Mrs. Clark "have [Respondent] take two courses through the staff development office." The two classes that Ms. Saunders recommended were Cooperative Discipline and Effective Teaching Strategies. Finally, Ms. Saunders' letter stated, "the Language Arts Frameworks document should be reviewed with [Respondent]." There is no indication that Mrs. Clark discussed these recommendations. Second Observation (May 7, 2001) At Mrs. Clark's request, Ms. Saunders visited Respondent's classroom on May 7, 2001, to observe Respondent's teaching practices. This was about two weeks after Respondent received her evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year, which had rated her performance as unsatisfactory in the area of "enhancing and maintaining student's self-esteem." Pursuant to an earlier suggestion by Ms. Saunders, Respondent allowed herself to be videotaped in order that she could better critique her own behavior in the classroom. To implement this recommendation, the school's media specialist was in the classroom to set up the video equipment on the day of Ms. Saunders' observation. Soon after Ms. Saunders arrived, the media specialist asked Respondent if she should put the tape in the video recorder. Respondent answered, "Please, I don't want to be accused of using three minutes of my time up." Ms. Saunders believed that Respondent's tone of voice was "unprofessional" and that the comment was directed at her. During the May 7, 2001, observation, a student who was speaking to other students in a group had her back to them. Respondent's voice "became aggravated" as she told the student to turn around. Respondent placed her hands on the student's shoulders and physically turned her, but did not do so forcibly. During the May 7, 2001, observation, Ms. Saunders noted improvement in Respondent's communication with her students. In her written summary of the observation dated May 16, 2001, Ms. Saunders wrote: Based on that first encounter [February 21, 2001], I would say my greatest concern was how you communicated with both students and adults. However, this time your demeanor in front of the children was quite different than when I last observed in your classroom. I believe having the video camera present helped to keep you focused on appropriate communication with the children. I was pleased to hear more of a pleasant tone. Ms. Saunders' summary also stated that she counted four times when Respondent appeared to become frustrated and her tone of voice changed to a negative one. Ms. Saunders' summary of the May 7, 2001, observation included the following recommendations: One way to support and assist you regarding classroom environment, instruction and planning would be to have someone review with you, the six domains from the Florida Performance Measurement System. This information is based on research and would be beneficial to again cover. In addition, I recommend that you attend training provided by the elementary education department specifically in the area of writing. Enrollment can be done on-line. . . . There are many courses offered this summer. The Language Arts Frameworks document should also be reviewed. This will provide information about our district's curriculum and the writer's workshop model. Other staff development offerings related to classroom management are offered periodically through the staff development office. I suggest you take one of their courses to assist you with classroom management. You can register on line any time. . . . In the May 16, 2001, summary, Ms. Saunders notified Respondent that she planned to observe Respondent's classroom again soon. Additionally, Ms. Saunders indicated that she expected to see "appropriate and timely instruction and activities based on student need and planned from grade level expectations." Third Observation (December 6, 2001) Ms. Saunders conducted the third observation on December 6, 2001, seven months after the previous observation. Ms. Saunders summarized her observations in a letter dated December 17, 2001. In the letter, Ms. Saunders advised Respondent, for the first time, that the December 6, 2001, observation was part of a plan to assist Respondent with teaching practices. On December 6, 2001, Ms. Saunders arrived at Respondent's classroom at 8:30 a.m. and stayed until 9:10 a.m., when the children left the room for an activity. During the 40-minute observation, Ms. Saunders heard Respondent communicating with students and observed her conducting a review of telling time. Ms. Saunders was complimentary of Respondent's review of telling time. In the written summary to Respondent, Ms. Saunders wrote: You try hard to provide ways for students to remember abstract concepts. You use pneumonic devices, short stories, rhymes and other ways to assist with memorization. By calling the numbers bases and relating the time to the name of the base they passed, students more accurately read time when the short hand falls somewhere between two numbers. This seemed quite effective. Ms. Saunders observed an incident which she perceived to be negative. There was a student who was off task. Respondent directed her attention to the student and asked the student, "Would your mother [or family] be proud of you?" Ms. Saunders believed that when Respondent made this statement, her voice "sounded with disapproval." Ms. Saunders suggested that in the situation described in paragraph 66, Respondent should have "encouraged" proper behavior by asking the student a question that would have him participate so that he becomes on task rather than off task. In another situation, Ms. Saunders observed Respondent interact appropriately and effectively with a student she was reprimanding. In that case, Respondent asked the student, "What time is it?" Before that student could answer, another student shouted out the answer. Recalling Respondent's positive response in that situation, Ms. Saunders stated the following in the December 17, 2001, summary: A boy shouted out the answer and you began to reprimand him. You began to speak, stopped yourself, and continued with this carefully crafted sentence. "Tell me the rule about calling out." It was nice to see you stop yourself in mid-stream, rethink a way to correct this misconduct while still preserving the child's dignity. Based on the December 6, 2001, observation, Ms. Saunders had two areas of concern, only one of which is relevant in this case. That area relates to Respondent's "appropriate use of instructional time." Ms. Saunders' concern is stated in the summary as follows: In my opinion, a second area of concern relates to planning and appropriate use of instructional time. I entered your room at 8:30 and the instructional day begins at 8:00 a.m. Instruction in your room did not begin until 8:44 and the fifteen minutes suggested for calendar math was stretched to 21 minutes. I suggest you utilize time more wisely by beginning calendar math immediately after announcements. Then spend the rest of the morning on shared, guided and independent reading when youngsters are fresh and ready to learn. Beginning instruction nearly 45 minutes after the day begins will allow you to cover all the curriculum. Although the "instructional day," to the extent that term refers to Respondent's teaching a lesson to the class, did not begin at 8:00 a.m., or soon thereafter, there was a reasonable explanation for the delay. First, three students were assigned to Respondent's class that day because their regular teacher was absent. Prior to beginning instruction, Respondent met with those students, asked them their names, assigned them desks, and explained her classroom management system. Respondent's classroom management system involved giving each student a certain number of clothes pins at the beginning of the day. During the school day, the students could lose and/or earn clothes pins, depending on their conduct. The second reason for the delay in beginning the instructional day was that several students in Respondent's class had been allowed to go to the media center to "Santa's Book Fair." As Ms. Saunders noted in her written summary, several of Respondent's students did not return to the classroom from the book fair until 8:36 a.m. In light of the foregoing circumstances, it was reasonable that Respondent did not begin the "instructional day" at 8:00 a.m., or immediately after announcements were made. Admittedly, Ms. Saunders did not know what, if any, instructions or directions Respondent gave to students prior to 8:30 a.m. However, when Ms. Saunders entered Respondent's classroom, the students were actively engaged in various activities. For example, one student was working on math worksheets. Another student was at the computer taking an Accelerated Reading test. Respondent was working with the student at the computer. In addition to Ms. Saunders' concern that the instructional day did not begin until 8:44 a.m., she believed that Respondent spent too much time teaching the "calendar math" activity. Respondent began the activity at 8:44 a.m., and completed it at 9:05 a.m. Even though Ms. Saunders complimented Respondent on her presentation of the activity, as discussed in paragraph 65, she criticized Respondent for spending too much time teaching or reviewing the lesson. According to Ms. Saunders, the "suggested" time for "calendar math" was 15 minutes, but Respondent "stretched" the activity to 21 minutes, which was six minutes longer than the "suggested" time. Ms. Saunders offered no explanation of why or how Respondent's extending the calendar math activity by six minutes was not an "appropriate use of instructional time." At 9:10, a.m., five minutes after the calendar math lesson, Respondent's students had to leave the classroom to attend a health presentation. The five minutes between the end of "calendar math" and when the children left the classroom for the health presentation, allowed time for the children to return to their seats and for Respondent to pass out name tags to the students and have them line up before leaving the room. Ms. Saunders offered no suggestions as to a more appropriate or acceptable way Respondent could or should have used the extra six minutes that Respondent used teaching the calendar math activity. Ms. Saunders summarized the December 6, 2001, observation and made recommendations in a letter dated December 17, 2001. Based on Ms. Saunders' concerns about Respondent's teaching practices, Ms. Saunders recommended that Respondent "have someone review with [her] the six domains from the Florida Performance Measurement System." Also, she recommended that Respondent take training provided by the elementary education department and a classroom management course, both of which were offered "periodically" through the staff development office. Attempted Observation (February 2001) On an unspecified day in February 2002, Ms. Saunders went to Respondent's classroom to conduct her fourth observation. After Ms. Saunders entered the classroom, Respondent told her that she had no notice of the observation. Ms. Saunders then advised Respondent that Mrs. Clark knew that Ms. Saunders would be observing Respondent's class that day, but that "neither of us [Saunders nor Clark] chose to make you [Respondent] aware of the visitation." Respondent espoused the view that she should have received notice of the observation. Ms. Saunders disputed Respondent's view that she should have been given notice and indicated that the observation was part of the assistance plan laid out in May 2001. Respondent replied that an assistance plan could only last 90 days and, thus, this observation could not be part of any such plan. Ms. Saunders then asserted that she could do an observation any time as part of her normal duties. Respondent disagreed and requested that Ms. Saunders provide her with a written explanation of the reason why Ms. Saunders was visiting the class, the instrument she would be using, what she would be observing, and how long she would be staying. As the verbal interchange proceeded, Ms. Saunders thought that Respondent's voice became more aggressive and that she was also getting upset. Because Respondent's students were in the classroom, Ms. Saunders decided to leave the classroom and return at another time. Although students were in the classroom during the verbal exchange concerning whether Ms. Saunders' visit was authorized, there is no evidence that the students heard the conversation. Fourth Observation (March 21, 2002) On March 21, 2002, Ms. Saunders conducted an observation in Respondent's classroom. Upon Ms. Saunders' entering the room, Respondent advised her that she had no notice that Ms. Saunders was coming to her class. Respondent also told Ms. Saunders that the students were taking a school-wide writing assessment. Ms. Saunders acknowledged that, but still indicated that she would be seated and conduct an observation. Respondent then approached Ms. Saunders and asked why she was in the class, what instrument she was using, and what she was observing. Ms. Saunders reiterated her prior position that she was there as part of the assistance plan and that she would be taking anecdotal notes. Respondent then asserted her earlier position, that an assistance plan was only for 90 days. Consistent with Ms. Saunders' previous recommendation that Respondent tape herself in class as a way to critique herself, Respondent told Ms. Saunders and the class that she was turning on the tape recorder. Ms. Saunders began the observation at or about 8:58 a.m., and ended it at 9:16 a.m. In all, the observation lasted only about 18 minutes. During most of that time, Respondent's students were completing a school-wide writing assessment. As students finished the writing assessment, Respondent gave them books to read silently, while the other children continued to work on the writing assessment. Ms. Saunders summarized the March 21, 2002, observation in a letter dated April 18, 2002. Due to the duration of the observation, 18 minutes, and the fact that the students were taking a writing assessment, Ms. Saunders reported only a few specific observations. None of those observations concerned or were related to Respondent's teaching techniques or classroom management.8/ In the April 18, 2002, letter, Ms. Saunders summarized the March 21, 2002, observation and made conclusions. In the letter, Ms. Saunders stated she continued to see the "same behaviors" from Respondent. She further stated, Each time I visit your classroom I continue to see the same behaviors from you. Though discussion has occurred regarding ineffective practices, visitation were made to a number of other classrooms at Yates Elementary, suggestions regarding inservice courses have been made, yet your practices have not changed. I continue to see an emphasis on students being silent unless called upon. I continue to hear you speak gruffly to students. I continue to see you punish students for very minor infractions like wiggling or whispering. I continue to see you isolate students from the group. I continue to see you go over concepts, like vocabulary orally in order for students to memorize things rotely. I continue to see calendar math exceed the 15 minutes it is intended to occupy of the mathematics instructional time. I continue to see only one student engaged at a time. It was the intention of the assistance plan to have you reevaluate some of your ineffective practices and work to make some changes. I have yet to witness any of that nor do I think you are even trying to make strides toward improvement. Despite her recitation of areas in which Respondent still needed to improve, Ms. Saunders offered no recommendations in the April 18, 2002, summary letter to assist Respondent. However, Ms. Saunders stated that she "plan[ned] to make an unannounced observation in [Respondent's] class again soon," but she never did. The conclusions in Ms. Saunders' April 18, 2002, letter are inconsistent with some of her earlier observations discussed in paragraphs 59, 65, and 68 above. Moreover, there was no connection between the conclusion Ms. Saunders articulated in the summary letter and what she observed on March 21, 2002. Area Supervisor's Criticism of Respondent's Reprimand Method Ms. Saunders was critical of the way Respondent reprimanded students. During Ms. Saunders' observations, Respondent sometimes would call the name of the child who was being reprimanded and tell him what he should or should not be doing. At the hearing, Ms. Saunders testified to maintain order in the classroom, Respondent should have used "public praise" and "private criticism." Notwithstanding this position, Ms. Saunders admitted that this method or principle is not an established policy and procedure of the School District. While Ms. Saunders testified that the "public praise, private criticism" principle is simply an "educational belief that many people subscribe to," she acknowledged that other models exist. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Ms. Saunders ever specifically discussed the "public praise, private criticism" philosophy that she believed Respondent should have used in the classroom. Observations of the School Principal Mrs. Clark frequently observed Respondent in the classroom as part of her routine of visiting all the classrooms at Colson. During her observation of Respondent, Mrs. Clark saw and heard Respondent sometimes use a "harsh desist" in reprimanding students. According to Mrs. Clark, the term "harsh desist" means "harshly reprimanding a child to stop doing something." Mrs. Clark described an example of a "harsh desist" by Respondent's saying, "Shhhh" to the class in a loud way, and talking to children in a way that was "derogatory." Mrs. Clark believed that the children were impacted by the way Respondent spoke to them. She based this belief on the expressions she saw on some of the children's faces. Mrs. Clark testified, "In some instances, they [the students] would cringe." Mrs. Clark testified that she talked to Respondent about her "harsh desist," but Respondent did not change this classroom management method. These discussions were not documented, and no reference to this issue was ever noted on Respondent's evaluations. The record fails to establish when or how often Mrs. Clark observed Respondent engaging in a "harsh desist," to whom any particular "harsh desist" was directed, and if and how the "harsh desist" affected the student. Mrs. Clark testified that she observed situations in which she observed Respondent talk to students in a derogatory manner. In one instance, the student referred to in paragraph 41 above, who had been transferred to Respondent's class because of behavioral problems he was having in another class, left Respondent's classroom without permission and was returned to the room by Mrs. Clark. The student told Mrs. Clark that he had left the room to look for a pencil or scissors. Mrs. Clark asked Respondent if the student could borrow one from another student or if she would give him the tool that he needed. Respondent said she would not give him the particular tool. Respondent continued, "He breaks them all the time. He doesn't deserve them." Although students were in the classroom when Respondent made the comments, there is no evidence that they heard the comments. The other incident in which Mrs. Clark described Respondent as using derogatory language when talking to a student involved T.B., a student in her class. On an unspecified date, Respondent was walking down the hallway with her students, taking them to the buses. Respondent was holding T.B. by his arm, presumably for misbehaving. At the time, Mrs. Clark was in the hallway, but some distance away. When Respondent saw Mrs. Clark in the hallway, she told T.B., "If you don't behave, you're going to get a referral to that lady over there," pointing to Mrs. Clark. Mrs. Clark testified that there is nothing wrong with reminding a child that he could have to go the principal's office if he or she misbehaves, "if it [is] handled in the appropriate way." The clear implication was that the manner in which Respondent handled the situation described in paragraph 98 was inappropriate. However, no evidence was presented to establish the appropriate way to remind the student that his behavior needs to improve and that there are consequences for misbehavior. Recommendations of Mrs. Clark Respondent's 2000-2001 evaluation indicated that her performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was unsatisfactory. To address this rating, Mrs. Clark issued a letter to Respondent which made two recommendations to assist Respondent in improving in this area. The letter is referred to on the evaluation and was given to Respondent on or about April 24, 2001, the day she received the 2000-2001 evaluation.9/ The first recommendation was that Respondent attend a Cooperative Discipline Workshop that was offered by the School District or "something similar to that that was offered by the district." The other recommendation was that Respondent go and observe behavior management in classrooms at other schools. No specifics were given as to who would schedule the time, place, and number of observations. With regard to the classroom management course, no information was provided as to what, if any, approval would be needed prior to taking the course. In neither instance was a time specified that Respondent would have to complete the observations and/or the classroom management course. During Respondent's tenure at Colson, the only written recommendations she received from Mrs. Clark were the two made in the letter issued to Respondent. As reflected on the 2000-2001 evaluation, Mrs. Clark issued the letter to address the "unsatisfactory" rating Respondent received in that evaluation. In such a case, a tenured teacher who receives an "unsatisfactory" rating, a letter and/or form of assistance is required to be provided pursuant to Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent's Efforts to Comply With Assistance Plans and/or Recommendations In an effort to comply with Mrs. Clark's recommendation that she observe other classes, Respondent asked several teachers on her first-grade team, including one who was nationally-certified, if she could observe them. Some of these teachers had been held out by Mrs. Clark as using behavioral models that were ones that Respondent might use in her class. All of the teachers agreed to allow Respondent to observe their classes, but Mrs. Clark denied Respondent's request to observe any of the teachers at Colson. Eventually, someone, likely Ms. Saunders or Mrs. Clark, scheduled an observation for Respondent at Yates Elementary School (Yates). On an unknown date between May 7, 2001, and December 6, 2001, Respondent went to Yates to observe several first-grade classes pursuant to Mrs. Clark's April 24, 2001, recommendation. Ms. Saunders accompanied Respondent to the class for the observations. As Respondent and Ms. Saunders went to observe in the various classrooms, it appeared to Respondent that the teachers in those classrooms had no prior knowledge of the observations. During the observations at Yates, Ms. Saunders directed Respondent to write down anything positive she saw regarding classroom management, as well as anything she found pedagogically unsound.10/ Ms. Saunders referenced and discussed Respondent's observations at Yates in the summary letter dated December 17, 2001. In that letter, Ms. Saunders recalled the following: During the visit to Yates, we witnessed some wonderful classroom strategies and we also saw some things that perhaps would not be helpful. I know, based on our conversation, that you saw some things that you might like to try implementing. I hope that you will continue to reflect on that day and try some of the things you think might work well in your room. Ms. Saunders also noted in the December 17, 2001, letter that at the time of the visit to Yates, she asked Respondent to write a plan that included trying or applying some of the classroom management strategies that they witnessed. Respondent complied with this directive as reflected in Ms. Saunders' letter in which she stated, "A copy of that plan was to be given to Mrs. Clark[,] and I am aware that you submitted something to her." As requested by Ms. Saunders, Respondent submitted a classroom management plan to Mrs. Clark based on what she observed at Yates that she could implement in her classroom. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate whether Respondent's plan was ever reviewed or critiqued by either Mrs. Clark or Ms. Saunders. After Mrs. Clark recommended that Respondent take a classroom management course, she attempted to do so, but was unsuccessful. Respondent's initial failure to take the classroom management course after the April 2001 evaluation, was based on a misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or no communication between Mrs. Clark and Respondent. Later, Respondent's efforts to take a classroom management course were thwarted by Mrs. Clark. The misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or lack of communication between Mrs. Clark and Respondent is evident. Almost eight months after Mrs. Clark initially recommended that Respondent take a classroom management course, she wrote in the "comment section" of Respondent's December 19, 2001, evaluation that she was "not sure" if Respondent had taken the course. In response, Respondent wrote on the same evaluation, "It was my understanding that a workshop would be scheduled for me during the school year." Mrs. Clark testified that Respondent had "repeatedly kept asking" for which workshop Mrs. Clark had signed her up. Based on the apparent misunderstanding discussed in paragraph 109, Respondent selected at least two different classroom management courses. She then requested Mrs. Clark's consent, because the course required payment of a fee and a substitute teacher for the time Respondent would be attending the course. Both courses were approved by the Hillsborough County School Board. Although in the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent made several requests to take a management course, Mrs. Clark denied all the requests, indicating that no money was available. In one case, a person from the School District office called Respondent and told her that no money was available for her to attend the courses she had requested. The payment for one of the courses was about $135.00 and required that a substitute teacher be hired to cover Respondent's class on the day of the course. Having been unsuccessful in obtaining permission or approval to attend two School Board-approved courses, on September 20, 2002, Respondent wrote an e-mail letter to Mrs. Clark regarding Respondent's efforts to take a classroom/behavior management course. In the e-mail, Respondent indicated that she had looked to take the recommended course on a professional study day (when students are not present), but had not found any such course being offered. In light of Mrs. Clark's and/or the School District's failure to approve a course for Respondent to take, Respondent requested that Mrs. Clark provide Respondent with the name of the classroom/behavior management course that Mrs. Clark wanted her to take and the date and time of such course. There is no evidence that Mrs. Clark ever responded to Respondent's September 20, 2002, e-mail or ever provided Respondent with the name of a classroom management course to attend. Moreover, no evidence was presented that the School District actually offered the recommended classroom management course during the relevant time period. Despite the recommendation that Respondent take the classroom/behavior management course, she was not provided with the assistance and in-service opportunity to help correct or improve the noted performance deficiency. Nonetheless, through her own effort, she increased her performance area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," from "unsatisfactory" in the 2000-2001 school year to "needs improvement." Incidents Involving Respondent and School Principal and Staff First Incident (January/February 2001) In January or February 2001, during the lunch break, Vicki Davis, one of the other first-grade teachers, was sitting near Respondent and noticed that Respondent was writing in a notebook. Ms. Davis then asked Respondent, "What are you doing? Writing about kids or something?" Respondent did not elaborate, but told Ms. Davis that it was a behavior book. Ms. Davis was concerned because she saw her name in the book, but beyond that, she could not say what was in the book. Exactly what Respondent was writing in the "behavior book," is unknown, but this incident occurred soon after the student referred to in paragraph 41 was transferred from Ms. Davis' class to Respondent's class. Respondent implied that she was writing down observations about the child. Even though the precise contents of the "behavior book" were not clearly visible, Ms. Davis felt uncomfortable when she saw what she believed to be her name in the "behavior book." Second Incident (July 2001) In July 2001, when school was not in session, Respondent telephoned the school and asked Mrs. Clark to provide her with a report that Ms. Saunders had prepared. Before leaving the school, Mrs. Clark advised Jennifer Connolly, her secretary, that Respondent was coming to get the report and told Ms. Connolly to put the report in Respondent's mailbox. When Respondent arrived at Colson, she checked her mailbox, but did not see the report that she had come to retrieve. At the time, no one was in the front office area so Respondent went into Mrs. Clark's office and looked on her desk for the document. While Respondent was in Mrs. Clark's office looking through papers in an effort to locate Ms. Saunders' report, Ms. Connolly saw Respondent and asked why she was in the office. After Respondent explained that she was looking for Mrs. Saunders' report, Ms. Connolly told Respondent the report was in Respondent's mailbox and to leave Mrs. Clark's office. Ms. Connolly left the office and walked down the hall. After Ms. Connolly left Mrs. Clark's office, Respondent turned out the light in Mrs. Clark's office and closed the door to the office as she exited. By the time Respondent got to her mailbox, Mrs. Saunders' report was on top of the stack of mail in Respondent's mailbox. After being informed about Respondent's going into her office, Mrs. Clark contacted the School District's Professional Standards Office. An investigation was conducted and based on the findings, a letter was issued to Respondent. It is unknown if the letter was a warning, reprimand, or other type of communication since the letter was not offered as evidence at this proceeding. There is no indication that Respondent was doing anything in Mrs. Clark's office other than looking for the report that she came to the school to retrieve; the report that Mrs. Clark had expected her to pick up. Nonetheless, Respondent's decision to go into the principal's office, without permission, reflected poor judgment on her part. This, however, was an isolated incident and is not indicative of Respondent's usual judgment. Except for this incident, Respondent's record indicates that she usually exercised good judgment as shown by her evaluations for the relevant time period. For example, for the three school terms immediately prior to the July 2001 incident, Respondent's performance in the area related to a teacher's judgment under the Professional Behavior category, "demonstrates logical thinking and makes practical decisions," was rated as "satisfactory."11/ The only evaluation that indicated Respondent "needed to improve" in that area was the December 2001 evaluation, the first evaluation she received after the July 2001 office incident. However, in Respondent's very next evaluation dated April 24, 2002, her performance in the area, "demonstrates logical thinking and makes practical decisions," was rated as "satisfactory." Third Incident (2001-2002 School Term) In or about the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent brought a tape recorder to a team meeting. When Ms. Davis, one of the team members, saw the tape recorder, she felt uncomfortable and told Respondent to turn off the tape recorder.12/ Ms. Davis knew that "something was going on between [Respondent] and Mrs. Clark" and seemed to suspect that Respondent's bringing the tape recorder into the meeting was somehow related to that. However, Ms. Davis did not want to be a part of that and told Respondent, "This [meeting] is not about anything. We're working together as a team." Respondent immediately complied with Ms. Davis' request and turned off the tape recorder. After that one incident, Respondent never again brought a tape recorder to a team meeting. Fourth Incident (February 25, 2003) On or about February 25, 2003, as part of her usual routine of visiting classrooms, Mrs. Clark went to Respondent's classroom, entering from the back door. At the time, Respondent was sitting with two students, working with them. When Respondent saw Mrs. Clark, she got up from her seat and walked over to where Mrs. Clark was standing. Respondent then asked Mrs. Clark, "Did you leave right after us?" Mrs. Clark correctly understood, and Respondent confirmed that the question referred to Respondent's grievance hearing that was held the previous day and attended by Respondent and her attorney, as well as Mrs. Clark and the area supervisor. Respondent apparently thought Mrs. Clark indicated that she had left immediately after the grievance hearing. Respondent challenged Mrs. Clark and indicated that Respondent and her attorney had waited outside for Mrs. Clark for 15 minutes. Respondent then moved closer to Mrs. Clark and whispered in her ear. Mrs. Clark understood Respondent to say, "You're a liar. You're devious. There is a God. I'm not through with you yet." Respondent denied that she made these statements. Given the conflicting testimony of Mrs. Clark and Respondent, both of whom appeared to be credible witnesses, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made the statements. Nonetheless, it is found that Mrs. Clark understood and believed that the statements in paragraph 130 were the ones Respondent whispered to her. Mrs. Clark responded to Respondent's statements in a voice that was not a whisper by asking, "You're not through with me yet?" According to Mrs. Clark, during this incident, she repeatedly kept turning to Respondent and kept telling her, "If you have something to say to me, we can meet in my office." There were children in Respondent's classroom during the incident described in paragraph 130, but Mrs. Clark's credible testimony was that the children could not hear Respondent's comments. Mrs. Clark described the comments Respondent whispered in her ear as "quite upsetting." While Mrs. Clark might have been upset, her conduct clearly indicated that she did not feel threatened by Respondent's comments. After the exchange between Respondent described in paragraphs 130 and 131, Mrs. Clark stayed in Respondent's classroom to continue her visit and look at the children's work. In fact, Mrs. Clark took time to talk to a student in the class who she believed was not working. Later, she asked the children about a large crayon that was on the floor. At some point during the visit, Respondent noticed that Mrs. Clark was holding something in one of her hands, both of which were behind her back. Believing that the object in Mrs. Clark's hand was a tape recorder, Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand and splayed it open in an attempt to completely display the object. As Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand, she asked Mrs. Clark if she had a tape recorder and if she were recording Respondent. Mrs. Clark stated that the object she was holding was a two-way radio. Even though the object Mrs. Clark was holding was a two-way radio, Respondent did not believe Mrs. Clark's explanation. After or as Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand, Mrs. Clark told Respondent, "Get your hands off me! Get away from me!" Respondent believed Mrs. Clark was going to strike her so she moved back, away from Mrs. Clark. Undoubtedly, Respondent's conduct, described in paragraph 134, grabbing her supervisor's hand, was inappropriate, unprofessional, and disrespectful. However, based on the record, this was clearly an isolated incident. Moreover, this conduct does not constitute any of the statutory or rule violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Mrs. Clark then left Respondent's classroom and continued visiting other classrooms. After completing her routine classroom visits, Mrs. Clark called the School District office to report the February 25, 2002, incident in Respondent's classroom. Respondent also called the School District office to report the incident. In addition to calling the School District Office, Respondent called a friend who was a retired teacher and reported that she believed Mrs. Clark had tried to record her and asked for advice on what she should do if Mrs. Clark returned to her room. The following day, an investigator with the School District went to the school to investigate the matter. School District Request for Fitness for Duty Evaluation By letter dated April 30, 2003, the School District referred Respondent to Dr. James Edgar, M.D., a psychiatrist, for an evaluation. In the referral letter, Linda Kipley, the general manager of the School District's Professional Standards Office, stated that the referral was due to the School District's "concerns for a pattern of personal and professional behavior which has negatively impacted her capability and competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of teaching." Ms. Kipley's letter went on to say, "After reviewing our most recent investigative report, there is a question if she is fit for her teaching responsibilities and to teach minor children." Also, Ms. Kipley requested that Dr. Edgar provide a written report of his assessment of Respondent's "capability to make sound professional judgments and her capability to safely instruct children." Opinion of James Edgar, M.D. Dr. James Edgar, who was qualified as an expert in the field of psychiatry, conducted an independent medical (psychiatric) evaluation of Respondent. Based on information provided to Dr. Edgar by School District staff, there were questions raised about Respondent's ability to safely instruct minor children and about her general mental health status. Along with the request for the evaluation, the School District provided Dr. Edgar with copies of all of Respondent's evaluations since she was employed by the School District and the February 22, May 16, and December 17, 2001, letters/reports from Ms. Saunders. For some reason, Ms. Saunders' last report dated April 18, 2002, and discussed in paragraphs 85 and 86, was not provided to Dr. Edgar. Dr. Edgar found that Respondent had normal motor activity and normal facial expressions; that she was polite and her appearance was neat; and that she was calm although anxious (which Dr. Edgar indicated was a natural reaction under the circumstances of an evaluation being ordered by her employer). He also found that Respondent's intelligence was normal, her memory was intact, her senses were good, her affect was appropriate, and there was no evidence of hallucinations. Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusions, in the "summary and recommendation" section of his report, Dr. Edgar opined, I do not feel [Respondent] is currently capable of safely instructing young children." As the basis for this conclusion, Dr. Edgar stated that when Respondent is stressed by routine events, such as constructive criticism, her ability to keep things orderly and controlled is impaired and she becomes anxious and depressed. He further stated that the combination of Respondent's "major depression and pre-existing personality disorder interfere with the usual psychological functions (i.e. judgment and problem solving ability, emotional stability, ability to conform to societal standards of behavior, interpersonal skills, integrity, responsibility, ability to cope with stressful situations, and decision making in a crisis). In the "summary and recommendation" section of Dr. Edgar's written report, he prefaces the above-quoted opinion by stating, "This summary is provisional because I have not had an opportunity to review medical records or mental health records." At the end of the report, Dr. Edgar states that "I may amend my report after reviewing the previously mentioned records." As of the date of this proceeding, Dr. Edgar had not yet reviewed any of Respondent's medical records and mental health records, although Respondent advised him that she was being treated for depression by a psychiatrist and was in counseling with a licensed mental health professional. Contrary to the School District's concern for Respondent's "competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of teaching," Dr. Edgar testified that his report made no finding that Respondent was incompetent to teach. Opinion of Gerald Mussenden, Ph.D. Dr. Gerald Mussenden was qualified as an expert in the area of psychology. On September 5 and 12, 2003, Dr. Mussenden conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Respondent to determine her overall mental functioning (i.e., whether she was mentally stable, well adjusted, and/or if she is a threat to herself or others). As part of the evaluation, Dr. Mussenden administered, among other instruments, the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, which has been developed and standardized since 1982. The Child Abuse Potential Inventory is valid in terms of content validity, construct validity, and predictive validity and is a tool used by psychologists who do testing specializing in abuse propensities. Based on the results of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, Dr. Mussenden concluded that Respondent had no child abuse potential characteristics and was not a danger to children. Moreover, Dr. Mussenden opined that Respondent was emotionally stable, had good skills by which to relate and interact with others, and had no problems or difficulties that would endanger others around her. Dr. Mussenden's evaluation report accurately notes that at the time of the evaluation, Respondent was under the treatment of a psychiatrist and in counseling with a licensed mental health counselor. Dr. Mussenden's opinion is that this course of treatment contributed to Respondent's mental health status at the time of the evaluation. In his report, Dr. Mussenden states, "Due to their success [the psychiatrist and mental health counselor], [Respondent] is relatively well adjusted and without signs of mental difficulties." Dr. Mussenden's credible testimony was that a person can suffer from depression and still be competent to handle one's duties as a teacher. When Respondent was evaluated by Dr. Mussenden, she was taking medication for depression. The purpose of such medication is to help people suffering from depression become well-adjusted. The fact that there was no evidence that Respondent was suffering from depression during the September 2003 evaluation indicates that the medication she was taking was effective in that it masked any depression that may have been present. Dr. Mussenden saw Respondent within 60 days of the hearing and based on that visit, he did not change his opinion that Respondent posed no risk of harm to children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered that finds Respondent not guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint and dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 12th day of April, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent's continuing contract of employment with the Petitioner should be terminated for incompetency or for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as an elementary school classroom teacher pursuant to a continuing contract of employment. Respondent is 57 years of age and has been a classroom teacher for a total of 29 years. She began working for Petitioner during the 1975-76 school year and has worked under a continuing contract since August 1980. Prior to that time, she was a classroom teacher in Winter Park, Florida. In 1980, Respondent's principal observed that Respondent was habitually tardy at the work site and had difficulty accepting criticism. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent's principal found Respondent to be deficient in classroom management, student-teacher relationships, instructional techniques, and supportive characteristics. Efforts to have Respondent correct these deficiencies were unsuccessful. A prescription of assigned activities was developed in an effort to help Respondent to correct these deficiencies. Respondent was required to attend a teacher education course in classroom management to obtain ideas on how to better manage her class. Respondent failed to complete that course. She also failed to follow administrative directives that she arrive at school on time and that she maintain anecdotal records for students. Respondent's poor teaching performance and insubordinate behavior in failing to follow directives led Respondent's principal to recommend that her employment be terminated. No action was taken on that recommendation. There was no evidence as to Respondent's job performance between the 1983-84 school year and the 1991-92 school year. From 1991 through 1993, Respondent was assigned to teach a second grade class at Palm Springs North Elementary (Palm Springs). Dawn Hurns was the Respondent's principal at Palm Springs and Raquel Montoya was her assistant principal. Respondent frequently took her class to lunch earlier than scheduled and picked her class up from lunch after the period had expired. Ms. Montoya directed Respondent to adhere to her lunch schedule. Respondent failed to comply with that directive. On February 6, 1992, Ms. Montoya advised Respondent that her continued failure to adhere to administrative directives would result in formal disciplinary action being taken against her. During the 1992-93 school year, Ms. Hurns observed Respondent's performance and noted deficiencies pertaining to record keeping, attendance, tardiness, and organizational skills. After formally observing Respondent's deficient classroom performance, Ms. Hurns met with Respondent and gave her an opportunity to work on her deficiencies. In subsequent observations, both Ms. Hurns and Ms. Montoya found Respondent's performance to be deficient. In an attempt to remedy her unacceptable performance in the classroom, Respondent was provided prescriptive activities designed to improve her classroom management. On November 2, 1992, Ms. Hurns issued Respondent a memorandum addressing her chronic tardiness to school and her failure to notify the school of her expected tardiness in violation of her professional responsibilities. As a result of frequent tardiness, Respondent's students were often left unattended on the basketball court where they assembled before school began. Ms. Hurns often had to escort Respondent's students to their classroom in the absence of the Respondent. Ms. Hurns held a "Conference for the Record" (CFR) with Respondent on December 10, 1992, to address her unacceptable performance and to notify her that continued unacceptable performance would yield an unacceptable annual evaluation. Ms. Hurns also offered Respondent assistance in correcting her deficiencies, including a referral to the Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Although two meetings were scheduled for Respondent at the EAP, Respondent did not attend either meeting and did not take advantage of the EAP. By December 21, 1992, Respondent had received two unacceptable observations, which yielded an unacceptable summative assessment as established by Petitioner's Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). 2/ On January 13, 1993, Ms. Hurns completed a TADS summative assessment form that found Respondent's classroom performance unacceptable in three out of seven categories. The first category was "Knowledge of Subject Matter" with the observed deficiency being ineffective presentation of the subject matter. The second category was "Teacher-Student Relationships" with the observed deficiency being the failure to attempt to systematically involve all students in class activities. The third category was "Assessment Techniques" with the observed deficiency being the failure to properly record grades for students. Ms. Hurns observed Respondent's grade books and discovered that, except for one or two grades in reading, there were no grades or other assessment of the students' work over a period of nine weeks. Respondent was directed to follow the prescribed grading policy, which required a teacher to have at lease one grade per week for each subject area. It was impossible to adequately assess students' work with such few grades or with no grades at all. In addition to the foregoing, Respondent continued to be absent or tardy without excuse. On January 14, 1993, Ms. Hurns held a CFR with Respondent to discuss Respondent's lack of compliance with her professional responsibilities, her irregular attendance, and her frequent tardiness. At the CFR, Respondent was directed to notify an administrator of her intent to be absent or tardy to school, to provide lesson plans for her substitutes, and to provide grades for her students. By memorandum dated February 17, 1993, after a prolonged absence by Respondent, Ms. Hurns advised Respondent of her continuing failure to complete her prescribed activities, and her continuing lack of attendance. Ms. Hurns directed Respondent to either take a leave of absence and notify the school when she expected to return or to resign. On March 8, 1993, Ms. Montoya notified Respondent of her continued disregard for administrative directives. After a parent requested to see proof of her daughter's lack of academic progress in Respondent's classroom and complained of Respondent's refusal to assist the parent in improving her child's performance, Respondent was directed by Ms. Montoya to provide the parent with a daily progress report on the student's performance. Respondent failed to comply with this directive. On March 11, 1993, Ms. Hurns formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and noted that Respondent had not complied with School Board rules, labor contract provisions, and school site rules. Respondent did not maintain accurate student records pertaining to grades for her students, she had not completed her prescriptive activities, and she continued to be absent on a frequent basis. Ms. Hurns held another CFR with Respondent on March 11, 1993, and told her that her continuing failure to comply with the administrative directives given January 14, 1993, constituted gross insubordination. As a result of Respondent having obtained two unacceptable summative assessments, Ms. Hurns requested that Petitioner send to Palm Springs a trained observer to conduct an observation of the Respondent's performance. In response to that request, Norma Bossard, a Language Arts supervisor who had been trained as a TADS observer, was sent by Petitioner to observe the Respondent. Ms. Hurns was present when Ms. Bossard conducted her formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance. Both Ms. Hurns and Ms. Bossard found Respondent's performance to be unacceptable in the following categories: "Preparation and Planning," "Knowledge of the Subject Matter," "Techniques of Instruction," and "Assessment Techniques". During the external observation, Respondent gave a lesson on spelling that lasted approximately an hour longer than it should have. Respondent also failed to give her students a pretest to determine whether the spelling lesson was even necessary. The external review by Ms. Bossard was consistent with the observations made by Ms. Hurns as to deficiencies in the Respondent's job performance. Ms. Bossard concluded that Respondent was wasting the time of her students. Ms. Bossard observed that Respondent appeared to be very wide-eyed and disoriented. On April 19, 1993, a CFR was held with Respondent at the Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards to address her unacceptable performance in the classroom, her insubordination in the form of her continued noncompliance with directives relating to her assigned prescriptive activities, and her excessive absences and chronic tardiness. At this CFR, Respondent was again directed to comply with previous administrative directives, and was informed that such compliance had become a condition of her continued employment. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, Respondent had been absent at least 59 days and had been tardy on at least 31 occasions. Despite being specifically told to do so, Respondent frequently failed to call the school and inform school administrators that she would either be absent or tardy. Although Respondent was chronically absent from the work site, she failed to provide lesson plans for substitute teachers. Respondent's persistent absenteeism, failure to provide lesson plans, and lack of assessment of students' work had a detrimental impact on the students assigned to her classroom. As a result of Respondent's continued unacceptable classroom performance, her failure to remediate her deficiencies and her failure to comply with administrative directives, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation by Ms. Hurns. Ms. Hurns submitted a recommendation that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Ms. Hurns had intended to hold a CFR with Respondent to address her unacceptable annual evaluation, but Respondent was absent from school for an extended period of time and the CFR was not held. On July 7, 1993, Petitioner suspended Respondent's employment on the grounds of gross insubordination and incompetency and instituted these proceedings to terminate her continuing contract. Petitioner established that there was a continuing refusal to comply with administrative directives by Respondent and that she failed to abide by procedures for maintaining adequate grading of the work of her students, did not provide appropriate lesson plans, and failed to take advantage of the prescriptive activities assigned for her performance improvement. Respondent's considerable and excessive absences from the classroom and her failure to provide lesson plans and properly grade students' work resulted in a failure to communicate with and relate to her students to such an extent that Respondent failed to provide her students with a minimum educational experience. Despite the fact that Respondent was given ample opportunities to correct her behavior, she constantly and intentionally refused to obey direct orders to contact administrators when she was going to be absent or tardy, to provide lesson plans for her substitutes, and to maintain grades for her students. Ms. Hurns and the other administrators involved in evaluating Respondent's performance, took reasonable measures to communicate directly with Respondent about her classroom deficiencies and her attendance. At the formal hearing, Respondent testified that she became confused and disoriented and conceded that she had difficulty working. Respondent introduced evidence in an attempt to establish that her poor job performance was caused by medical problems. Under the Respondent's health care system, Respondent was required to obtain a referral for health care services from her primary physician who was, at the times pertinent hereto, Dr. Olive Chung-James. Dr. Chung-James saw Respondent several times starting in February 1993, for various symptoms and illnesses. In May 1993, Dr. Chung-James, who had been treating Respondent for respiratory problems and vomiting, recommended that Respondent seek psychological counselling because she thought the Respondent was stressed out. After the suspension of her employment in July 1993, Respondent met by coincidence a certified psychologist named Lani Kaskel. Respondent called Dr. Kaskel several times before she was able to arrange an appointment. Because Respondent had not been referred to Dr. Kaskel by Dr. Chung-James, the Respondent's health insurance did not pay for her visit to Dr. Kaskel. When Dr. Kaskel examined the Respondent, the Respondent was in a weak condition, somewhat disoriented, and clearly depressed. Respondent was seeking help and appeared overwhelmed. Dr. Kaskel suggested to Respondent that she might have an organic feature to the depression she was experiencing and referred her to Luis Escovar, a clinical psychologist who had been approved by Respondent's insurance plan. Respondent was referred to Dr. Kenneth Fischer, who is board certified in neurology by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Dr. Fischer's records reflects that Respondent presented herself with a history of personality disorder and headaches. Dr. Fischer conducted a series of tests to determine if there was a physical cause for the headaches she was experiencing, including a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) test, which was abnormal. The MRI revealed an area of the brain with decreased density which was interpreted by the consulting radiologist to be a low-grade tumor. Following his examination of the Respondent, Dr. Fischer was of the opinion that Respondent had either an ischemic process stroke or a brain tumor. His tests were inconclusive, and he could not testify that Respondent's poor performance and her failure to follow directives were attributable to organic causes. Respondent testified that during the 1992-93 school year she got behind in her work and she had trouble finishing her work and the prescriptions mandated by the school administrators. She testified that she did not willfully fail to meet the performance expectations, but that she could not do so because she was ill. Dr. Luis Escovar, a psychologist who treated the Respondent and who performed a series of psychological testing, expressed the opinion that on February 14, 1994, the Respondent was physically and mentally able to return to her employment as a classroom teacher. Respondent asserts that Respondent's poor classroom performance was due to an illness and that she should have been placed on sick leave. Respondent's assertion is rejected for two reasons. First, the medical testimony is speculative and does not establish that Respondent's poor job performance and failure to follow directives were caused by a stroke or by a brain tumor. Second, while Respondent testified that she sought sick leave, she offered no evidence as to whom this request was made, the date the request was made, the duration of the leave requested, the manner in which the leave was requested, or any other circumstances of the request. In light of the many offers of assistance that were made to the Respondent, which she repeatedly declined, it is found that Respondent did not establish that she made a proper request for sick leave that was refused by the administrators of Palm Springs. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order which adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which terminates the Respondent's continuing contract of employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 28th day of July 1994.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence submitted at hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner was a candidate for the Cosmetology Instruction Examination (Examination) given by Respondent on March 12-13, 1988. The Examination consisted of a written portion and a classroom presentation portion. Petitioner is not contesting his passing score on the written portion of the Examination. The classroom presentation portion of the Examination is divided into two parts, the lecture and demonstration portions. Respondent's notification to Petitioner indicated that he had obtained the score of 76 on the demonstration and a score of 63.6 on the lecture portion when, in fact, the Petitioner had scored just the opposite, 76 on the lecture and 63.6 on demonstration. The parties stipulated to this at the hearing. However, the correction of this error did not change Petitioner's overall grade of 70 on the classroom presentation portion of the Examination since the two scores are added together and divided by two to obtain the overall score. The minimum passing score for licensure in Florida is 75. Lecture On criteria number 5: Explained technical words, none of the graders gave Petitioner any points. Petitioner contends that he explained the necessary technical terms of words and points out places in the transcript of the tape where he explained certain terms. However, these was insufficient evidence to show those terms or words to be the technical terms or words required to be explained or if he used the required terms or words elsewhere in his lecture. On criteria number 12: Presented with minimal notes, grader 14 did not give Petitioner any points because he felt that Petitioner read from his notes and visual aids. Petitioner contends that because graders 4 and 6 gave him 2 and 4 points, respectively, on the same criteria, then grader 14 should have given him at least 2 points. There was insufficient evidence to support this contention. Demonstration On criteria number 6: Discussed safety precaution, Petitioner received 5, 2 1/2 and 0 points from graders 23, 19 and 18, respectively. Petitioner contends that he should have received 5 points from each grader and points to certain portions of the transcript of the tape to support this contention. A review of those portions of the transcript indicates that Petitioner discussed safety precautions under certain situations. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner covered all areas of safety precautions required by the examination. Therefore, there is no basis for changing the scores given by graders 19 and 18. On criteria number 7: Discussed sanitation and sterilization, Petitioner was given 0 points by all of the graders. Petitioner contends that he should have been given 5 points by each of the graders. However, there was insufficient evidence to support changing all three, or any one of the graders' score. On criteria number 11: Outlined stems to perform, Petitioner received 0, 5 and 2 1/2 points from graders 23, 19 and 18, respectively. Petitioner contends that he should have received 5 points from each grader and points to portions of the tape transcript to support such contention. A review of those portions does not reveal sufficient evidence to support Petitioner's contention or to warrant changing the grades given by graders 23 and 18. On criteria number 14: Presented with minimal reference to notes, Petitioner received 0, 5 and 0 points from graders 23, 19 and 18, respectively. Petitioner contends that the points given by graders 23 and 18 should be changed from 0 to 2 1/2 points each, and points to certain portions of the tape transcript to support his position. A review of that portion of the transcript does not reveal sufficient evidence to support changing the points given by graders 23 and 18. On criteria number 16: Summarized topic, Petitioner received 0, 5 and 0 points from graders 23, 19 and 18, respectively. Petitioner contends that his summary should have gained him 5 points from each grader and points to what he considers summarizing the topic in the tape transcript. A review of Petitioner's summary does not reveal evidence sufficient to support changing the grades of graders 23 and 18. On criteria number 19: Presented in interesting manner, Petitioner received 0, 4 and 0 points from graders 23, 19 and 18, respectively. Petitioner contends that because grader 19 found it interesting enough to give him 4 points, then graders 23 and 18 should have given him at least 2 points. There was insufficient evidence to support this position. On criteria number 21: Lesson plan followed, Petitioner received 0, 5 and 0 points from graders 23, 19 and 18, respectively. There is insufficient evidence to show that graders 23 and 18 were incorrect in assigning 0 points for Petitioner's efforts in regard to this criteria. Petitioner's lesson plan did not conform to the instructions to the candidates for the lesson plan preparation in the notice to appear and, as a result, Petitioner's lecture and demonstration were difficult to reconcile with the grading criteria in the instructions to the graders. The graders' scores were within an expected deviation and were fair a representation of Petitioner's performance.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition and finding that the Petitioner has failed to make a satisfactory score on the Classroom Presentation portion of the Cosmetology Instructor Examination. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED IN CASE NO. 88-2464 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Not a finding of fact but rather a discussion of matters presented. Not a finding of fact but rather a discussion of matters presented Not material or relevant. Not material or relevant. Not material or relevant or is stated as a conclusion. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1-2. Covered in Background material. 3. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. COPIES FURNISHED: Vincent Turano 212 Dune Circle New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069 William A. Leffler, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
