The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2012), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 739881, covering the areas of Physical Education and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2015. He has held a certification in Florida since 2005. Respondent is African- American. At all times relevant to the charges in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been employed as an In- School Suspension (ISS) Teacher at the CARE Program in the Calhoun County School District (District). The CARE acronym is shorthand for character, achievement, respect, and education. The CARE Program is a second-chance school for students who have been suspended for more than ten days, have been suspended for drug offenses, or who are currently in a juvenile facility. The first time a student is assigned to the CARE Program, it is for a 90-day term. If the student does well, he or she returns to their regular school. The second referral is for a period of 180 days; the third for a year. The CARE Program generally has approximately 30-40 students at a time. In November 2012, the program had approximately 31-32 students. The CARE Program is located at a facility that used to house a vocational complex, next to the adult school. Also housed in this complex is the In-School Suspension (ISS) class, where students serve in-school suspensions of less than ten days. Students are referred to the ISS class for behavior such as tardiness and being disruptive in the classroom. The number of students in the ISS classroom varies, because it depends on how many students have been referred. There is a limit to how many students can be in the ISS class, because each school has a cap on the number of students it can refer at any given time. Testimony varied as to how many students were present at the time of the incident giving rise to this case. The most reasonable and credible testimony indicates that on November 14, 2012, there were approximately 15-20 students in the ISS class. There was adequate room in the ISS classroom for the number of students in the class. Some time prior to the incident giving rise to this case, part of the complex where the CARE Program and the ISS class were housed underwent construction. As a result, several staff members working in the complex had tires punctured because of construction debris in the area. The District would reimburse employees for repairs to tires that were punctured if the employee submitted the documentation related to the repair. Respondent had requested two new tires, as opposed to repair of his tires. Although the record is not clear when Respondent made his request, there was some delay in any action being taken to address it. Wilson McClellan was the superintendent of the District from 2000 to 2004, and then again from 2008 to 2012, after which he retired. Mr. McClellan, who is Caucasian, was an educator in Calhoun County for approximately 25 years. He had worked with Respondent in a summer recreation program at some point before Respondent was hired by the District. Mr. McClellan had told Respondent that if there was an opening in Calhoun County, he would give Respondent a call and let him know. On November 13, 2012, Mr. McClellan was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent. The next day, he visited the CARE Program and spoke with several of the staff there, presumably to touch base with people with whom he had worked. He came to the CARE Program around midday, and class was in session. While he was there, Mr. McClellan went to speak with Respondent about Respondent’s pending request for reimbursement for his tires. While repairs had been authorized, no other staff member had requested new tires. Mr. McClellan told Respondent that he would need to submit documentation for the reimbursement for action by the School Board, as opposed to the superintendent, because Mr. McClellan did not feel comfortable authorizing the expenditure when no one else had requested reimbursement for new tires instead of repair of existing ones. Mr. McClellan knocked on the door to the ISS classroom and he and Respondent went into the small office adjacent to it. When he told Respondent about the need to submit the reimbursement matter to the Board, Respondent became angry and walked back into his classroom. Respondent told McClellan, in the presence of his students, that if he had a different last name and a different color, then the results would have been different. McClellan denied Respondent’s claim and left the classroom. Mr. Thomas’s classroom had an inside door, going into a hallway, and an outside door that led to a covered pavilion area with picnic tables. Also adjacent to the area with the picnic tables is Barbara Hathaway’s office. Ms. Hathaway served as the Dean of Students for the CARE Program, a position that functions much like a principal does in a traditional school. When Mr. McClellan left the classroom, he went to the area with the picnic tables. Ms. Hathaway saw him there and came out to speak with him. While Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan were speaking, Respondent came out of his classroom and asked Ms. Hathaway to get someone to cover his class because he was “pretty hot” and needed to walk. According to Ms. Hathaway, Respondent was agitated and upset. She did not understand him to mean he was overheated based on temperature, but rather that he was upset or angry, and her testimony is credited. Without waiting for coverage for his class, Respondent walked away from the classroom and the area where Mr. McClellan and Ms. Hathaway were standing and up the sidewalk. Ms. Hathaway left to ask another staff member to cover the classroom and was going to walk back outside when she heard Mr. Thomas speaking loudly. She could not hear what Mr. Thomas said, but his tone was agitated. She noticed that the ISS classroom door to the outside was open, and the students could hear the heated conversation between their instructor and the superintendent, so she opened the inside door and told a student to shut the outside door. Ms. Hathaway thought from the students’ reactions that they were enjoying the interchange between Mr. McClellan and Mr. Thomas. She used her phone to call for a resource officer because she felt the situation was agitated and that someone should be present to intervene. After Ms. Hathaway walked inside to arrange for coverage for the classroom, Mr. Thomas had walked back down the sidewalk to Mr. McClellan. He repeated to Mr. McClellan that in this county, if he had a different last name and a different color, it would probably be a different result. Mr. McClellan became impatient and said, “shut up Ed, I am just not wanting to hear any more about that.” Mr. Thomas walked closer to him, glared and said, “if you ever say shut up again to me, I will be the last black man you ever say that to.”1/ Mr. Thomas is a large, imposing figure, and according to Mr. McClellan, he spoke in a loud, angry voice and “bowed up” in a threatening gesture; however, he was never close enough to the superintendent to actually strike him. While Ms. Hathaway could not hear the actual language being used, both Ms. Barbee, who came to cover the ISS classroom, and the students in the classroom were able to hear the colorful exchange. Ms. Barbee testified that she did not remember the actual conversation, but that there was “some cussing and hollering.” Her statement written the day of the incident indicates that Mr. Thomas used the term “f**k.” Likewise, P.G., one of the students in the classroom, testified that Mr. Thomas told Mr. McClellan, “don’t tell me to shut the f**k up,” and for him to “shut the f**k up.” P.G. believed the students in the room were shocked at the interchange.2/ After this exchange, Respondent once again walked away from Mr. McClellan and up the sidewalk away from his class. On both occasions, Respondent was five to six classroom lengths away from his classroom, and unable to monitor in any way the actions of his students. Ms. Hathaway, as noted above, was not present for this heated exchange and did not hear what was said. When she returned outside, Mr. Thomas was standing on the sidewalk up the hill from the classroom. She spoke to Mr. McClellan, who told her about the conversation with Mr. Thomas. What he told her involved the reimbursement issue and not any complaint about overcrowding. About that time Warren Tanner, the school resource officer, came around the corner. When he arrived, he saw Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan sitting on a bench under the pavilion, and Mr. Thomas was standing at the end of the driveway at the end of the building. Mr. Tanner asked what had happened, and Mr. McClellan told him that Mr. Thomas had threatened him. Mr. Thomas walked back down the hill to where the others were standing, and Mr. McClellan told him to go home for the rest of the day. Mr. Thomas went into his classroom briefly, then came out and asked Mr. McClellan if he was sending him home for the rest of the day, and was told, “yes.” Mr. Thomas got in his truck to leave, then got out and asked Mr. Tanner if this was going to be a complaint, and Mr. Tanner told him, not at this time. Mr. McClellan returned to his office and called David House, the school board attorney. He related the events of the morning and told Mr. House that, in light of past behavior by Mr. Thomas and the current incident, he was considering terminating Mr. Thomas. Later that afternoon, Vicki Davis, assistant superintendent for the District, called Mr. Tanner and asked him to collect statements from those who witnessed or heard the morning’s events. Mr. Tanner got statements from Mr. McClellan, Ms. Hathaway, Ms. Barbee, and several students in Mr. Thomas’s class.3/ On Thursday, November 15, 2012, Mr. McClellan wrote to Mr. Thomas advising him that he was suspended with pay, effective immediately. Respondent had been the subject of discipline previously, and there had been concerns expressed about his behavior during his employment in Calhoun County. For example, in January 2008, he received a formal reprimand for allegedly confronting a fellow teacher in front of students in a loud, belligerent, and profane manner.4/ On June 3, 2008, Respondent received a second reprimand for allegedly leaving a magazine with an unclothed woman on the cover in the Health Building bathroom where it could be viewed by students. On January 13, 2011, Neva Miller, the principal of Blountstown Middle School, wrote a lengthy letter to Superintendent McClellan detailing several alleged incidents involving Mr. Thomas that caused her to “express concerns that I have as to the effectiveness and concerning anger control abilities of Edward Thomas.” A two-page document titled “Ed Thomas Issues Calendar Year 2011” was placed in his personnel file, recounting a series of concerns regarding alleged deficiencies in his performance. On February 23, 2012, Ms. Hathaway, as Dean of the CARE Program, documented an alleged incident involving a ninth-grade student.5/ On December 11, 2012, Mr. McClellan’s successor, Superintendent Ralph Yoder, issued a Notice of Charges for Dismissal to the Calhoun County School Board, recommending Respondent be suspended without pay and dismissed from employment by the District. The Notice of Charges stated, “Mr. Thomas has a history of engaging in insubordinate, hostile and confrontational behavior toward faculty members and administrators, which began in 2007 and culminated in an incident that occurred on November 14, 2012, involving the former Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Tommy McClellan. Mr. Thomas has been repeatedly instructed by persons in authority to correct his behavior, but he has failed to do so.” The Notice goes on to describe 13 separate incidents and references several others. Only the incident involving Mr. McClellan on November 14, 2012, is alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and Petitioner presented no evidence to prove what happened with respect to the other incidents. No findings are made concerning the validity of the other allegations in the Notice of Charges. It is considered solely to show that the District took action with respect to Respondent’s employment. Likewise, it is unclear what, if any, proceedings were conducted with respect to the Notice of Charges before the school board. Respondent acknowledged that his employment was terminated as of December 11, 2012, the day the Notice was issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), as well as Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondent’s teaching certificate for one year; that he submit to an evaluation for anger management by the Recovery Network on terms to be set by the Education Practices Commission; and that upon re-employment as an educator, Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years, with terms and conditions to be set by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Lee County School Board, may terminate Respondent's employment as an instructional employee based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by the School Board as an instructional employee since August 21, 1998. He is a member of the Teachers Association of Lee County ("TALC"), the collective bargaining unit for instructional personnel, is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and TALC, and holds a professional service contract with the School Board At the time of his hiring, Respondent was assigned to the dropout prevention program at Academy High School, where he taught for one year. On August 17, 1999, Respondent began teaching at High Tech Central, a vocational/technical school. High Tech Central's student body includes both high school students and adults seeking to obtain job skills. A large percentage of the adults attending High Tech Central receive assistance from the Pell grant program, a need-based undergraduate financial aid program funded by the federal government. During the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years, Respondent taught the second semester of the personal computer ("PC") support services class, sharing a large classroom with Beth Ames, the teacher who taught the first semester of the same class. During the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent taught a web design class. During the 2002-2003 school year, Respondent taught CET in a co-teaching arrangement with Jeff Ledger, who had taught the CET class for the previous six years. At the end of that school year, Mr. Ledger moved to Ohio. From the 2003-2004 school year until the time of his suspension, Respondent alone taught the CET class. Throughout his period of employment with the School Board, Respondent also taught computer, business, and accounting courses as an adjunct professor at Edison College in Fort Myers. Until the 2003-2004 school year, Respondent received nothing less than satisfactory performance assessments. For the 1998-1999 school year, his performance was graded as satisfactory in each of the twelve criteria listed on the performance assessment form.2 His assessor at Academy High School wrote in the comment section of the assessment that "Mr. Nevins is well versed in technology and vocational skills," and commented favorably on Respondent's flexibility and cooperativeness in meeting the needs of students. For the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent's performance in teaching the PC support services class at High Tech Central was graded as exceeding expectations in five of the twelve criteria listed in the performance assessment form and as meeting expectations in the remaining seven criteria. High Tech Central's assistant director Susan Cooley prepared the assessment and wrote that Respondent "has done an outstanding job with collaboration with teachers and staff here at [High Tech Central]. He is very creative and strives to produce projects and alternative techniques for student achievement." For the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent's performance was graded as exceeding expectations in five of the twelve criteria and as meeting expectations in the remaining seven criteria. Ronald Pentiuk, the director of High Tech Central, prepared the assessment and offered no written comments. For the 2001-2002 school year, when Respondent moved from PC support services to web design, Respondent's performance was graded as exceeding expectations in three of the twelve criteria, and as "meets expectations" in the remaining nine criteria. Mr. Pentiuk commented that "Mr. Nevins has performed in an outstanding manner-- really super job in preparing the new CET lab." For the 2002-2003 school year, when Respondent moved from web design to co-teaching the CET class with Mr. Ledger, Respondent's performance was graded as exceeding expectations in three of the twelve criteria and as meeting expectations in the remaining nine criteria. Mr. Pentiuk performed this assessment and offered no additional written comments. For the 2003-2004 school year, when Respondent began to teach the CET class alone, Respondent received a grade of meeting expectations in eight criteria. In the criteria titled "Planning for Student Achievement" and "Subject Matter," Respondent received a grade of "exceeds expectations." In the criteria titled "Assessment of Student Achievement" and "State, School & District Requirements," Respondent received a grade of "below expectations," meaning that his performance was unsatisfactory. Mr. Pentiuk performed this assessment and offered no additional written comments. The record established at the hearing shows that High Tech Central's administrators expressed concern about Respondent's teaching and record keeping practices as early as May 2002. Ms. Cooley testified that, at the conclusion of the 1999-2000 school year, Ms. Ames had approached her with a request that she be permitted to teach both sections of the PC support services class alone, rather than splitting the course with Respondent. Ms. Ames stated that she was doing all the work anyway and felt it would be better for the students if she handled the class without Respondent. Ms. Cooley left matters as they were for the 2000-2001 school year, but then moved Respondent into the web design class for the 2001-2002 school year. As the 2001-2002 school year progressed, Ms. Cooley became concerned that Respondent was not properly tracking the progress of his students. She recognized that this was the first time that High Tech Central had offered a web design course and there would be a "learning curve" for everyone involved, including the instructor. Thus, the school's administration gave Respondent time over the course of the school year to work out the problems. In particular, Ms. Cooley was concerned that Respondent was not using lesson plans or a "career map" in his class. Each technical program at High Tech Central consists of a progression of competencies. To complete the program, or to pass from one phase of the program to the next, a student must demonstrate mastery of a certain set of competencies. An "occupational completion point" ("OCP") is a cluster of related competencies that a student is able to demonstrate and perform. A career map is a written chart completed by the instructor and used by the student to track the student's progress through the OCPs of a given program. Ms. Cooley testified that during the spring of 2002, three or four students in Respondent's class came to her to complain that there were no lectures or structured class work in the web design class and that the students in the class were left to do whatever they wanted. In early May 2002, a substitute teacher in Respondent's class came to Ms. Cooley to complain that Respondent left no lesson plan, despite the fact that his absence had been scheduled. The substitute teacher told Ms Cooley that the web design students appeared to be doing as they pleased in the class, including playing games on their computers. On May 5, 2002, Ms. Cooley and Mr. McCormick had a meeting with Respondent to discuss the lack of structure, discipline, and record keeping in Respondent's class. Ms. Cooley stated that every time she talked with him, Respondent would say he was going to do things better. Her concern was that she never saw any evidence of Respondent's performance matching his words. When queried as to the positive performance assessment authored by Mr. Pentiuk for the 2001-2002 school year, Ms. Cooley testified that she and Mr. Pentiuk had "agreed to disagree" about Respondent. Mr. Pentiuk was a "very, very accommodating" and "very, very patient" administrator who believed that Respondent was trying to do things the right way.3 Ms. Cooley had many conversations with Mr. Pentiuk about Respondent, but Mr. Pentiuk's philosophy was to give Respondent time, talk to him, and let him try to turn things around. Mr. Pentiuk also believed that Respondent's contacts in the business community were an asset to his students. Mr. Pentiuk testified that, due to lack of enrollment in the web design class, Respondent was moved into the CET class with Mr. Ledger for the 2002-2003 school year. Ms. Cooley testified that the administration believed that Respondent and Mr. Ledger could share each other's expertise in the same class for one year, then the CET program could be expanded by splitting it into two classes. The Department of Education standards state that the purpose of the CET program is to prepare students for employment or advanced training in the computer electronics industry. The Department's curriculum framework set forth the program structure as follows: This program is a planned sequence of instruction consisting of five occupational completion points as follows: (1) End User Support Technician, Level I Support Technician, Help Desk Specialist; (2) PC Electronics Installer; (3) PC Technician, Field Technician, Level II Support Technician; (4) Computer Support Specialist, Level I LAN Technician, Field Service Technician; (5) PC/Network Technician (Digital Electronics Repairer, proposed name change for 2005). When the recommended sequence is followed, the structure will allow students to complete specified portions of the program for employment or to remain for advanced training. A student who completes the applicable competencies at any occupational completion point may either continue with the training or become an occupational completer. The courses [sic] content includes, but is not limited to, installation, programming, operation, maintenance and servicing of computer systems; and diagnosis and correction of operational problems in computers arising from mechanical, electrical or electronics, hardware, and software malfunctions. The course content includes, but is not limited to, communication, leadership skills, human relations, and employability skills; and safe, efficient work practices.4 Respondent testified that things went well with Mr. Ledger because their skills complemented each other. Mr. Pentiuk testified that Respondent told him that Mr. Ledger provided most of the computer training in the CET class, and Respondent mostly taught employability skills, such things as the ability to get and keep a job, communication skills, and getting along with co-workers. Respondent agreed that he taught these employability skills, but emphasized that he also taught operating systems, and other software, whereas Mr. Ledger was a "hardware guru." At the end of the 2002-2003 school year, Mr. Ledger resigned his position and moved to Ohio, leaving Respondent as the sole instructor in the CET program. Upon learning that he would be teaching the class alone, Respondent told Mr. Pentiuk that he would require a new co-teacher or at least an assistant for the class and that he would need help in "getting up to speed with the gap" in his teaching knowledge of computer hardware. Mr. Pentiuk testified that Respondent also expressed insecurity about the returning students. Respondent feared they would be loyal to Mr. Ledger and would not accept Respondent as their sole teacher. In light of Respondent's expressed uncertainty about teaching the CET class alone, Mr. Pentiuk had discussions with Respondent in June 2003 regarding Respondent's teaching alternatives for the upcoming 2003-2004 school year. Mr. Pentiuk was interested in starting a business management and supervision program and moving Respondent into a teaching position in that program. However, this placement would have required Respondent to obtain state certification in business education at his own expense, and Respondent told Mr. Pentiuk he could not afford it because he was paying for a daughter to attend an Ivy League college. Mr. Pentiuk sought the advice of Mr. McCormick regarding Respondent's situation. In an e-mail to Mr. Pentiuk dated July 8, 2003, Mr. McCormick wrote, in relevant part: The tone of what [Respondent] is saying here [in an e-mail exchange with Mr. Pentiuk] indicates to me that giving him the CET class would be a recipe for disaster, especially given its current size. He is apparently looking for a way to continue doing not much of anything. For whatever reason, he does not believe he can handle the class or the curriculum by himself, even though that is what his current certification is in. I'm not sure about hiring him an assistant . . . even though Darryl is a good guy and I am sure he would be great with the students, I don't believe he has the technical background in networking that would be required. Any assistant teamed with Barry is going to end up doing the lion's share of the work, and I think that would be wrong-- especially if the assistant is not certified and qualified in this highly technical field. I think the bottom line is that Barry only wants to teach the soft "business employability skills," and really has no interest in CET. If he wants to teach the business curriculums, he needs to get off the dime and get certified! That is his responsibility, not ours. The fact [that] he feels that "it is really not the right time" and that he "really can't afford it right now" is his concern, not ours. There has been, and continues to be plenty of opportunity for him to do this. It would seem to me that with his future employability in the balance, he would not be fighting us on this issue. I don't know what else we can do to accommodate this teacher. If he is "uncomfortable" with either of the two options you presented to him, then perhaps we should try to find a teacher elsewhere who can meet our needs. I know this sounds cold, but after all, the goal is to provide our students with the best possible instruction . . . not make sure that our teachers don't feel "uncomfortable." This guy needs to get real. We have gone way beyond what is fair in offering him these options. He needs to decide if he wants to work here or not. My suggestion would be to place him in the business class this year, with the understanding that in order to maintain his teaching position, he must get certified in business, or at least be well on the way to getting certified, by next summer. In the meantime, we could advertise for a CET instructor who would be willing to take on the entire curriculum, not just the "employability skills." [ellipses in original] Mr. Pentiuk replied to Mr. McCormick that he shared many of the same feelings. At the hearing, Mr. Pentiuk testified that his reply did not mean that he agreed Respondent was not "doing much of anything," but that he did have concerns about Respondent's ability to pick up the CET class and teach it alone. Mr. Pentiuk ultimately did not follow Mr. McCormick's suggestion that Respondent be placed in the business class for the 2003-2004 school year, in part because the business class had not been advertised and the CET program had an ongoing enrollment. Mr. Pentiuk placed Respondent in the CET class, hoping that the training he had obtained in working with Mr. Ledger, along with formal training at the Cisco Systems Networking Academy program in the fall of 2003, would enable Respondent to handle the program. The School Board paid for Respondent to obtain Cisco training in Tampa and arranged for substitute teachers to take over the CET class on those days Respondent was in Tampa for training. Respondent completed the Cisco Certified Network Associate 1 ("CCNA"), Networking Basics, course of the Cisco Networking Academy Program on October 31, 2003. Respondent completed the CCNA 2, Routers and Routing Basics, course on December 9, 2003. Two more courses were required to obtain CCNA certification. Respondent testified that School Board policy required an instructor to take the first two courses then teach that material for a year before taking the second two courses and that he was never given the opportunity to complete the CCNA program. Mr. Pentiuk testified that problems began in Respondent's class at the outset of the 2003-2004 school year. Several students approached Mr. Pentiuk with complaints about the quality of Respondent's teaching. One irate adult student told Mr. Pentiuk that he intended to leave the CET program because he was not getting his money's worth.5 Late in the fall of 2003, near the Christmas break, Mr. Pentiuk contacted Georgianna McDaniel, the School Board's director of personnel services, to express his concerns that Respondent was not turning in his attendance records in a timely fashion, that Respondent did not have control of the students in his class, and that Respondent was not following the school's standard practices in preparing grades and documentation of his students' progress in the CET program. Ms. McDaniel directed Mr. Pentiuk to follow up on these matters and to note them on Respondent's final performance assessment for the school year. Respondent conceded that during the 2003-2004 school year, he was getting up to speed on the technology that he was supposed to be teaching to the students and often had to write down their questions so that he could research them and come in with answers the next day. In early 2004, the High Tech Central administration began to conduct informal observations of Respondent's class and to meet with him about his procedures, particularly as to taking attendance. Tracking attendance was a critical matter at High Tech Central because of the high percentage of its students who received Pell grants. Pell grants are calculated based on how many hours a student is in class, not merely on the number of days the student is present. Thus, teachers at High Tech Central were required not only to take attendance at the beginning of their classes, but to have students sign in and out of the classrooms in order to track their activities throughout the day.6 On the morning of February 19, 2004, Ms. Cooley was working in the front office when Respondent phoned in to say that he was running late. Ms. Cooley said that she would open Respondent's classroom and substitute until Respondent arrived. In a statement dated November 30, 2004,7 Ms. Cooley described her experience in Respondent's class as follows, in relevant part: While I was subbing in Barry Nevins' class one morning last year, as he was late coming to school, I noticed students were not focused on any assignments. I felt there was very little productive work being accomplished. One student pulled up the Internet and was reading current events; another one was checking the weather. I circulated to every student and simply asked what they were working on. Most students would responded [sic] they were working on projects. I asked if I could see the project information sheet, assignment sheet, project criteria sheet or rubric for the projects. None of the students had any written project direction sheets. I could not find any lesson plans or grade book. Two students walked in after 8 a.m. I asked if they would go to the office for a tardy slip. They responded that Mr. Nevins gives them extra time to start class.[8] I noticed the lab was full of pop bottles, food wrappers, and trash. While circulating, I asked each student if they had a career map or competency sheet. Not one student had a career map, assignment sheet, list of assignments, or any other tracking system. Students were not aware the program was divided into occupational completion points. As I approached two high school students sitting in the back room, I asked what they were working on. I noticed a small book placed inside the large textbook. I asked to see the book, and it was a hackers handbook.[9] One student in particular stood up-- in my face-- and yelled at me. I felt threatened; I felt he was rude and disrespectful. I radioed for the Student Affairs Specialist to discipline the student. Soon after the Student Affairs Specialist and this high school student left the room, Mr. Nevins arrived. I was scheduled to give an Employability Seminar to another group of students across campus, so I was in a hurry to leave Mr. Nevins' room. I thought he would have called me later in the day to find out what happened. He never talked to me until days later. He stated the students were upset and wanted to come talk to me. I told him I would be happy to schedule appointments for each one. He said they wanted to come as a class. I responded I felt it would be better to have a conversation with each student-- one on one; but, I never heard from Mr. Nevins about the students. I never received a copy of the letter until Ms. Garlock allowed me to read it last week.[10] * * * After this visit, I became very concerned about the lack of educational focus in the classroom. I visited his classroom a couple of weeks later, and I saw the same types of things happening. This time I asked Mr. Nevins about my concerns, and his responses made me question classroom management skills, paperwork, curriculum, lesson plans, etc. Every instructor has a student tracking system they use to maintain the data on each student. Whether they use competency lists, career maps, list of class assignments, etc. Every teacher does it a little bit differently. I do become concerned when a teacher does not have a tracking system or it is not consistent for every student in the class . . . . In a memorandum to Respondent dated February 26, 2004, titled "Classroom Management/Record Keeping Concerns," Ms. Cooley wrote as follows, in relevant part: The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize our conference held at 3:00 p.m. on February 20th, 2004 concerning issues related to your classroom management and basic record keeping practices. As you recall, Mr. Ronald Pentiuk, Director, High Tech Central, and Mr. Bill McCormick, Assistant Director, Operation, High Tech Central, also attended this meeting. During the conference, the following conduct was discussed: Improper attendance documentation on student tardies and early releases. Lack of up-to-date and complete career map documentation on each student. Lack of complete and accurate lesson plans. Lack of on task work demonstrated by students. Non-enforcement of school policies evidenced by not beginning class on time and allowing students to arrive late without proper sign-in documentation. I have reviewed your conduct as it relates to the established expectations as provided by our school's faculty handbook, our standard operating policies, and The School District of Lee County student attendance policies. This information was provided to you during new teacher orientation and training, standard in-service session, and at the beginning of each academic year during the pre-school sessions. I informed you that your conduct negatively impacted your students and our school in as much as inaccurate or incomplete recordkeeping and attendance documentation jeopardizes our ability to maintain federal Pell financial aid. This conduct also exposes the school to many unforeseen liabilities when we are unable to produce accurate student attendance records. And finally, non-enforcement of school policies on your part undermines the maintaining of good order and discipline throughout our campus by breeding contempt and noncompliance with school rules. During the conference, I provided you with the following directive(s) and assistance to take effect on or before Monday, February 23rd, 2004 and to continue throughout the remainder of the school year. Use/set up a teacher hard-copy grade book using the materials given to you 3 weeks ago. Keep accurate track of all tardies and early dismissals by documenting exact arrival and departure times. Print out all daily lesson plans. Update and maintain daily career maps for all students. Monitor students for on task behavior and use of proper classroom materials. I also informed you that your failure to comply with any of the above directives will result in another formal counseling meeting and letter, as well as placement on intensive assistance. In March 2004, the school's attendance secretary complained to Mr. McCormick that Respondent was not following the school's prescribed attendance procedure. On March 26, 2004, Mr. McCormick sent Respondent an e-mail reminding him of the correct procedure and directing him to follow it. On March 30, 2004, the attendance secretary complained to Mr. McCormick that Respondent had not turned in his attendance sheets by 9:00 a.m., as required by school procedure. Mr. McCormick sent an e-mail to Respondent, who wrote back to apologize, stating that he "got busy teaching a lesson and dealing with some interesting problems" and forgot to turn in his attendance. On April 14, 2004, Mr. McCormick observed Respondent's class. The CET lab was a large L-shaped room, approximately 800 to 900 square feet. There was a central open area with computer tables and computers and four auxiliary rooms each sectioned off by a solid half-wall from the floor up to about waist-level and a chain link fence from the top of the half-wall to the ceiling. These auxiliary rooms were generally referred to as "cages." The CET class was conducted for five hours each weekday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., with a half-hour lunch break. The students were required to remain in the classroom at all times, except during the lunch recess. There were rest rooms and a water fountain inside the CET classroom, and the school's administration expected that any short breaks from class work should take place inside the classroom. After his observation, Mr. McCormick sent an e-mail to Respondent with the following "feedback": As I arrived at about 8:30, you were obviously involved in taking care of a student issue in your back cage. However, the majority of the remainder of the class did not appear to be actively engaged in much useful learning activity. A group of 5 students were huddled up to the front right of the class visiting with each other. 4 other students were on their computers. At least two of them did appear to be viewing the online Cisco curriculum, the other 2 seemed to be surfing the web. 2 other students were setting up one of the back cages that had been disturbed by the maintenance men who are fixing your counter tops. At about 8:35 you assembled a group of students to the white board and began a discussion presentation on the different types of business models such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc. . . . You tried to engage the students in a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each. It did not appear to me that the students had any prior background prep on this subject such as a reading assignment. Although it could be argued that some knowledge of this topic might be useful to your students, I question the immediate relevancy of it given the wealth of more concrete and practical technical material available in the CET curriculum. I do commend you on getting the most out of what appeared to me to be a group of disinterested and unengaged students. You did your best to try to keep their focus. While you engaged these students in your discussion, two other students continued to work independently on their computers. I assume on the online curriculum. You also gave instructions to two other students to continue setting up the back cage. The two students in the back cage did not continue to set up the cage as you had instructed, but instead sat down in the back corner by a computer. They positioned a CPU so that it hid the monitor from my view. It was obvious to me that they did not want me to see what they were doing, although mainly what they were doing was visiting. Shortly before I left, I walked back unexpectedly to them, and saw that the one on the keyboard was attempting to log into the computer as an "administrator" but apparently did not know the correct password. They said they were attempting to get the computer connected to a nearby switch or server. Was this correct? I concluded my observation of your class at about 9:15. A few suggestions: Prior to a discussion presentation, make sure to give a prior preparation assignment so that the students can participate more fully in the discussion. If you are going to give a presentation on such a broad-based general knowledge topic such as the different types of business models, involve everyone in your class, regardless of their current place in the curriculum. There is no reason why the four other students should have been excluded from your discussion, even if they were not in the curriculum group you had assembled. Do not allow students to reposition computer equipment so as to mask observation of the monitors. Even if they were not up to anything inappropriate, it sure looked like it. Give desk work requiring a written assignment when you are tied up with a student issue in your office-- or at any other time you want to refocus their attention. Something as simple as completing the questions at the back of chapter xxx in their textbook would at least keep them somewhat focused on something other than visiting with each other. Focus your discussion presentations on the concrete technical material more directly relevant to the CET curriculum. Although what you covered does have some use and interest as background information, your time with the students in actual presentation should be devoted to your core curriculum material. I know it is sometimes difficult and frustrating to have someone come into your class for 45 minutes and make a few critical comments and suggestions based on that brief visit. Please take them in the [spirit] they are intended... as observations and suggestions. Later that day, Respondent sent the following response to Mr. McCormick's e-mail: Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the time and effort you put into this. The student issue was quite urgent and unexpected. I had the class together and ready to go when [J.] showed up and we had to have the talk right away. It threw us off considerably as did the fact that . . . we weren't sure whether the counter-top guys were coming back today or tomorrow. Obviously the equipment they usually have to work with wasn't available. I purposely had a non-technical topic picked because I didn't know if I would have access to hardware for demonstration or practice. Also, business ownership is part of our curriculum (16.06)[11] and a very important part. I like your idea of a reading assignment to go along with it. I'll have to find something at the right level. The two students in the back were setting up the Cisco equipment (yes-- that involves connecting to the switches and routers) and were having some password issues with the computers (nothing major-- just a bit confusing). They would have been administrators on those computers. By the way, the computers in the cages don't go to the network or the Internet so they are "relatively" low risk. I also purposely wanted those low powered computers for this because they also won't run any popular games. Not much harm they can do in there. Interesting note-- I always tell them that hiding monitors is the quickest way to get me to come over. They sort of have the idea it doesn't work. The five students "visiting" in front would probably have been working with equipment in the cages under normal circumstances but knowing those guys I'm 99% sure they were talking about computers anyway. Lastly, this topic was covered by last year's students so there was no need for them to go through it again. When I do the A+ materials,[12] everybody participates because the advanced students need the review. The Cisco stuff can't be done by the beginners because they aren't ready so I give them something to read, review, research, etc. Quite a juggling act. Thanks again. It's great to have constructive feedback. On May 6, 2004, the day before he signed Respondent's 2003-2004 performance assessment, Mr. Pentiuk wrote a letter to Ms. McDaniel requesting that Respondent be placed on "performance probation." The letter noted that Respondent would receive "below expectations" ratings in "Assessment of Student Achievement" and "State, School and District Requirements," then stated: During this school year, Mr. Nevins has meet [sic] with me, Sue Cooley, Assistant Director for Curriculum, or Bill McCormick, Assistant Director for Operations, on numerous occasions and discussed the concerns relating to the above mentioned Accomplished Practices. The dates of these meetings, as well as observations were, January 13, 2004, February 20, 2004, March 24 and 26, 2004, March 30, 2004, April 15, 2004, April 2, 2004, and May 5, 2004. Administration has offered a myriad of suggestions and support to assist Mr. Nevins in improving his classroom environment, teaching techniques, teacher duties, and student assessment responsibilities. Attached is correspondence that has been conducted to show a flow of conversations reaping no positive changes in performance. In fact, unfortunately, there have been excuses and rebuttals, but performance has not changed. Ms. Cooley testified that Mr. Pentiuk consulted with Mr. McCormick and her when considering the request for performance probation. Ms. Cooley further testified that she and Mr. McCormick concurred with Mr. Pentiuk that Respondent needed to be placed on probation because Respondent continued to get the same things wrong and his performance was not improving. After receiving his performance assessment, Respondent contacted Donna Mutzenard, the president of the Teachers Association of Lee County to act as his union representative in a meeting with Mr. Pentiuk and Ms. Cooley about the assessment. Shortly after this meeting, Respondent learned of Mr. Pentiuk's letter to Ms. McDaniel requesting performance probation, which would include the initiation of the School Board's "intensive assistance program." The intensive assistance program ("IAP") is designed to rehabilitate poorly performing teachers. When the principal of a school determines that a teacher is experiencing difficulty in some area of performance, the principal must inform the teacher of these performance problems and provide assistance in the area of deficiency. Frequent feedback, peer coaching, and opportunities for training and development, such as peer observation and outside training courses, are among the items of assistance the principal is expected to provide and document. If assistance at the school level does not solve the problem, then the superintendent of schools authorizes Ms. McDaniel to appoint an IAP team, which includes the teacher's immediate supervisor and other persons with knowledge of the curriculum and of the teacher's deficiencies. Ms. McDaniel testified that she also tries to appoint one person without personal knowledge of the teacher. The IAP team's first task is to meet with the teacher in order to review: the nature of the program; the teacher's job expectations and performance standards; past performance assessments and other documentation of performance concerns and assistance; and the teacher's experience, certifications, and current assignment. The team also schedules individual diagnostic performance observations and conferences with the teacher followed by meetings of the entire team. At the conclusion of the IAP team's eighth meeting,13 the team makes a recommendation for action to the superintendent of schools, who must decide whether the teacher has raised his performance to standards, requires continued assistance, should be reassigned to a more appropriate position, or be dismissed from employment with the School Board. Ms. Mutzenard discussed the matter with Ms. McDaniel, arguing that there was insufficient documentation to justify appointment of an IAP team for Respondent. Ms. Mutzenard felt that one final performance assessment with two grades of "below expectations" did not meet the criteria for the IAP. Ms. McDaniel consulted with the superintendent of schools, reviewed the record, and ultimately agreed with Ms. Mutzenard. By letter to Mr. Pentiuk dated June 10, 2004, Ms. McDaniel denied the request for performance probation. The letter stated, in relevant part: It is clear by the documentation you presented that there are performance issues regarding Mr. Nevins' deficiencies in Accomplished Practice Indicators 2 and 12 (Assessment of Student Achievement and State, School & District Requirements) as indicated by the Below Expectations ratings he received on this year's Final Performance Assessment. It is also noted that the school could receive audit findings in the accreditation process for the incomplete Career Maps and attendance records. As Mr. Nevins has been put on notice regarding his need for improvement in these areas, it is my recommendation that you give him every opportunity to correct these deficiencies for the first quarter of the 2004-05 school year. Please continue to monitor and document his performance on a regular basis. If there is not a complete turnaround in the fulfillment of professional obligations expected of Barry, he will be placed on performance probation in the second quarter. Despite his belief that Respondent needed the assistance of the IAP immediately, Mr. Pentiuk accepted Ms. McDaniel's decision and set out to help Respondent at the school level during the first semester of the 2004-2005 school year. Mr. Pentiuk discussed matters with Respondent, whom Mr. Pentiuk described as "always [having] an answer for everything," meaning glib excuses for poor performance and a refusal to accept fault in his performance. Mr. Pentiuk advised Respondent to "buckle down and do your job" during the upcoming semester. Mr. Pentiuk assigned Ms. Cooley and Mr. McCormick to advise, assist, and observe Respondent. All three administrators conducted observations of Respondent's class and met with him to share their observations. Ms. Cooley worked with Respondent on his career maps and his overall assessments of student performance. In his observations, Mr. Pentiuk was disturbed by the fact that Respondent's students, though they always appeared to be working on projects, never seemed to know where they were on their career maps. Some students were not even aware that they had career maps. Mr. Pentiuk also observed a student sleeping in Respondent's class. Respondent was not aware of the sleeping student until Mr. Pentiuk pointed him out. Mr. Pentiuk's overall impression was that "not a lot of structured instruction is taking place" in Respondent's class. These incidents and observations further convinced Mr. Pentiuk that Respondent required more help than could be provided at the school level. During the first semester of the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Cooley continued to work with Respondent to assist his job performance. She lent Respondent an instructional videotape keyed to the Florida Performance Measurement System's "summative observation instrument," a chart used by classroom observers in the Lee County school system to chart instances of positive and negative teacher performance. The tape discussed the document step by step, showing examples of an effective teacher at work in the classroom. Ms. Cooley described it as a "wonderful, wonderful tape" to show a teacher the right way to run a class. Ms. Cooley told Respondent to watch the tape, then to sit down with her and talk about it. Five days later, Ms. Cooley needed the tape to show to a group of beginning teachers. She went to Respondent's classroom to retrieve the tape and asked him if he had watched it. Respondent told her that he "never got to it." On October 6, 2004, Ms. Cooley conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom. She entered the class at 12:15 p.m. and stayed for about 30 minutes. Ms. Cooley's notes of the observation read as follows, in relevant part: Upon entering, I noticed one student reading the "Life Styles" section of the newspaper. Mr. Nevins quickly got up from his lap top and told me he was helping the student find a job. Mr. Nevins stated he was preparing this student's resume. When I questioned why Mr. Nevins was writing the resume, Mr. Nevins stated the student needed a job as he had been in this program a short time. When I approached another student and asked what he was working on, he stated he was waiting until 1:30 p.m. I found out he was not a current student in class without the proper visitor's pass. When asked, none of the students saw their career maps. Some have been in the program for two semesters. Chips, muffins, gatoraide [sic] bottles were at the computer stations and throughout the lab. When I asked students what they were working on, all the responses were the same. They all responded by telling me they were working on projects. I asked Mr. Nevins about the various projects. I asked for a copy of the project assignment sheets, criteria sheets, or rubrics. Mr. Nevins replied that the students were developing their own projects. My observation was the students were doing whatever they wanted and were given no direction or instruction. Checkmarks in grade book were used for attendance, but no tardies or leave earlies were noted . . . I am concerned the students lack direction, instruction, and detailed curriculum assignments. In late October 2004, Ms. Cooley contacted Bob Gent, the CET program teacher at High Tech North, another Lee County school, and asked him to visit and observe Respondent's class. Ms. Cooley thought it would help Respondent to discuss his class with a successful teacher whose program mirrored his own. Arrangements were made for Mr. Gent to visit Respondent's class on November 3, 2004. On November 2, 2004, less than 24 hours before Mr. Gent's scheduled visit, Respondent e-mailed Ms. Cooley with the following message: "I've rethought the situation and I'd rather not go through with this tomorrow. I will let you know if I decide to reschedule." Ms. Cooley testified that Respondent never provided a real explanation for his sudden cancellation of Mr. Gent's visit. On November 3, 2004, Cathy Race, High Tech Central's information technology specialist, sent an informational e-mail to all personnel of the school regarding several computer- related issues. Ms. Race reminded the school's staff that they should not bring in personally owned computers for use on the school's network because of the risk of viruses, nor should they allow non-district computers belonging to contractors, vendors, auditors, or partnering agencies onto the network before Ms. Race verified that the computer has modern, updated anti- virus software and up-to-date patch levels. The next day, November 4, 2004, Respondent allowed a student to connect his personal computer to the district network, resulting in the importation of a virus into the network. Mr. McCormick sent an e-mail to Respondent about the incident that concluded: "This incident reflects poorly on our school and your ability to adequately control and monitor your classroom, or at the very least, your inability to understand the District computer use policy. Please provide an explanation as to why you allowed this to occur and how you intend to prevent it in the future." Later on November 4, 2004, Respondent sent the following answer to Mr. McCormick: I have already talked to Cathy Race about how this has happened. A student brought in a computer of his own to work on and another student was helping him fix it. A part of this problem was that drivers had to be located. The student, against the policy, but with good intentions got online and located the drivers but apparently got more than he bargained for. I talked with Cathy Race about setting up a meeting with [district director of information technology support] Dwayne Alton about the difficulties the computer use policies are causing in running my program. My policy at the beginning of last year was to not allow students to bring in computers to work on. You changed it after a student came to see you and complained. I wouldn't have had this problem if we kept my original policy. "your ability to adequately control and monitor your classroom, or at the very least, your inability to understand the District computer use policy?" Do you really think that every time there is a computer use problem that this is what it means? You were at a meeting last year where Dwayne Alton said that we were not considered a real problem for the district. Put a bunch of computer geeks together and some "challenges" are inevitable. Ask any computer teacher in the district. I find the whole statement-- but especially the "your inability to understand" line very insulting and disrespectful. Expect to be hearing more about that sort of usage and tone very soon. If we were so inclined there were two commands we could have used to release the IP address and you never would have found the computer in here. The students and I took immediate responsibility for what happened. I bring that up because I'm not so sure that taking responsibility for unfortunate events that take place under you is very popular around here. Mr. McCormick testified that he did not know what to make of Respondent's statement that he should expect to hear more about his usage and tone, and that it was not his intent to insult Respondent. Later on November 4, 2004, Mr. McCormick responded to Respondent as follows: Was the student aware of the policy at the time, and is he/her now? If the student was aware of the policy, but choose [sic] to ignore it, I would expect some sort of discipline action or referral. If the student was not aware of the policy, I would want to know why. I understand the unique challenges faced by your class, however I don't know how much clearer the district policy could be with regards to connecting "guest computers" to the network. The resulting manhours and resources needed to remedy these types of problems leave us no choice but to treat them serious [sic]. If you feel that you are unable to [adequately] monitor your students when they are working on their computers they have brought in, I certainy [sic] agree that we should revisit the policy of allowing them to do so. I'll let you make that call and will support you if you decide against it. Respondent did not directly respond to the questions raised by Mr. McCormick's second November 4, 2004, e-mail. However, on November 8, 2004, Respondent filed with the School Board an equity complaint, alleging that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his religion and his sex.14 In the narrative portion of the complaint, Respondent recited his work history at High Tech Central, including the allegation that except for the Cisco training, he had received "no support or encouragement from the administration" upon taking over the CET program after Mr. Ledger's departure. The following excerpt from the complaint set forth Respondent's essential allegations: The problems developed last year when [Ms. Cooley] had to watch my class for thirty minutes one morning and she did not do a very good job (see attachment).[15] I have been an express target of Administration's negative attention since then. They are often very confrontational and negative toward me and completely ignore points I make to show my efforts. My lessons and class work in [CET] fully correlate to the State Standards for my course. Administration has received lesson plans, unit planning documents, and assessment information to support this. My grading and progress reports are up to date. Furthermore, several of my students have been placed in industry related employment which is the ultimate goal and stated mission of the school. This information has not showed up in any documentation I have received from administration. Administration has gone to great lengths to reprimand me for not utilizing career maps (a particular tracking device) on a day to day basis in my class. I update them periodically based on unit completion but do not place a strong day to day focus on them because students are more interested and motivated by Industry Certification requirements which also very strongly relate to the career map's requirements. Students are made aware of the link. The case has been made by Administration that because I do not utilize and emphasize these career maps my teaching is unstructured and of low quality. A particular technique that has been used to evaluate my job performance is for an Administrator to come in to my classroom, seek out a student who may be having a bad day, may have just gotten reprimanded, may be somewhat overwhelmed by a particular section of material, etc. and badgering that student for negative information about me and the class. I don't think the proper way to judge our Administrators would be to go to a Faculty meeting and seek out the teachers who are rolling their eyes and snickering. I have been told that I am being judged on this "measure of satisfaction." Besides being a contract violation the selection and measurement technique used is highly subjective and arbitrary. Again, the case has been made, without logical connection, by Administration that because I do not meet these satisfaction standards my teaching is unstructured and of low quality. In my Department (Business Technology) the Department Chair and two other teachers who are National Board Certified (all three with twenty plus years of experience-- and all female) have not been required to work with the career maps. They have not been using them for at least the last several years and they have not received any type of reprimand. They use "competency sheets" which is quite similar to the system I use (and I also utilize the periodically updated career maps). In addition, these teachers are not subject to the same degree of scrutiny, evaluation, and criticism as has been shown in my case. Students are not encouraged to "snitch" and basically proper procedure is followed. The Administrators have little trouble in treating these other teachers with respect. Therefore I am asserting that Mrs. Cooley has selected me for "attention" based on my being male and Mr. Pentiuk and Mr. McCormick has [sic] been supportive of her. I do not rule out that my being Jewish, a New Yorker, and a Union Rep had an effect on their decision making. Administration has used this as the cornerstone of an overall effort to undermine and discredit my teaching efforts and abilities. The remainder of the complaint catalogued the negative effects "this situation" has had on Respondent, including stress and being treated as "a slacker and unprofessional." Respondent also discussed the "highly insulting and disrespectful" e-mail exchange of November 4, 2004, with Mr. McCormick. At the request of Becky Garlock, a School Board investigator, Mr. Pentiuk, Mr. McCormick, and Ms. Cooley prepared written statements in answer to Respondent's allegations.16 Mr. Pentiuk's statement was as follows, in full: This letter is in reference to the equity complaint filed by Barry Nevins. I regret that Mr. Nevins has these strong feelings about being picked on. The administration at High Tech Central is concerned about the structure of his program and his delivery relating to the competencies and Career Map for the [CET] program. We have recommended that Mr. Nevins be placed in the intensive assistance program and feel that he has the ability to become an effective teacher. We have also asked for a fellow [CET] instructor from High Tech North to come, and Mr. Nevins felt that it was not a good time. We are ready for Mr. Nevins to find the time to become a good teacher. I feel that these allegations are with no credibility and I wish that Mr. Nevins would exert the energy toward his program that he has toward this complaint. Mr. McCormick's statement discussed Respondent's problems in complying with attendance reporting policies, and further discussed the November 4, 2004, e-mail exchange regarding Respondent's student introducing a virus into the computer network. As to Respondent's main point, that his class was being unfairly singled out for administrative attention, Mr. McCormick wrote: As I recall, the administrative team began looking more closely at the CET program during the 2nd semester of the 03/04 school year when an adult student withdrew from the program and made some disturbing statements concerning the quality of the instruction and classroom management practices of the instructor. The student was being given a withdrawal interview by Ms. Soto, one of our guidance counselors. Because of the veracity of the comments made by the student, she referred the student to me. I interviewed the student and determined that he should make his comments known to Mr. Pentiuk, which he immediately did. Mr. Nevins was informed of the statements and given a chance to respond. He immediately dismissed the student as being unreliable and not trustworthy. His comment was "students will say anything." Nonetheless, the student appeared to be credible and this was our first real indication that the CET program may need some monitoring. Further discussions with the guidance department revealed other students had in recent months been dissatisfied in much the same way. On another front, Mr. King, the Student Affairs Specialist had also been indicating problems with attendance not being accurately recorded in CET. For example, he indicated that tardies and absences were not being recorded when necessary. This was confirmed with the attendance secretary. These indicators pointed to the fact that the quality of instruction and classroom management practices warranted some attention on the part of the administration. Upon some cursory reviewing of Mr. Nevins' academic and attendance records, it was apparent that he was in need of some assistance. Any inference that Mr. Nevins is being singled out for unwarranted attention by the administration of this school for any other reason but for legitimate concerns about classroom management practice and the quality of the instruction, is completely false. This administration wants Mr. Nevins to be successful, and we have demonstrated that through our actions. Most of Ms. Cooley's statement was devoted to explaining the events of February 19, 2004. Besides her version of those events, detailed at Finding of Fact 32 above, Ms. Cooley made the following general statements about Respondent and the school's administrators: Administration has supported Mr. Nevins in numerous ways. Thousands of dollars went into his lab for new desks and equipment. It was a state of the art lab. In fact, he even mentioned it was better than Edison College's computer lab. Administration sent Mr. Nevins to Cisco training (in Tampa, I think). This training took weeks and was very expensive. The school paid for his travel, food, lodging (if needed) and his class in order to help support him in his teaching efforts. Mr. Nevins even commented that some of the students would be upset with his teaching methods when the other teacher moved away. Mr. Pentiuk was extremely understanding, patient, and supportive of Mr. Nevins. * * * This is my 29th year in education. I have never had a teacher file a grievance. I feel my role is that of a support system for the instructors in my school. I share with the instructors when they are doing a good job and I remiss [sic] in my duty if I did not share my concerns. I believe Mr. Nevins is a very intelligent man. I believe he is very knowledgeable about computers. My objective is to help him be successful in the classroom, so he can help students be successful in the workforce. At the hearing, Respondent at least implied that the decision to recommend that he be placed in an IAP, and the ultimate decision to recommend his dismissal, was in retaliation for his filing an equity complaint against the three named High Tech Central administrators. The evidence does not support such a suggestion. Mr. Pentiuk, who in any event retired before the completion of the IAP process, had only a vague recollection of the complaint's allegations. Mr. McCormick never saw the equity complaint before he testified in this proceeding and knew none of its details, or even whether he was named in the complaint. His statement, described at Finding of Fact 64, was written at Ms. Garlock's request and was not based on Mr. MCormick's having read the complaint. Ms. Cooley was "shocked" by the equity complaint because she believed that her actions toward Respondent, while sometimes critical, had always been professional. Respondent's allegation of retaliatory intent on the part of anyone in the administration of High Tech Central is not credible. By letter to Ms. McDaniel dated November 15, 2004, Mr. Pentiuk renewed his request that Respondent be placed on performance probation. The letter reviewed the administration's efforts to assist Respondent during the first semester of the 2004-2005 school year, including Respondent's refusal to cooperate in Mr. Gent's visit to his class. By letter dated December 16, 2004, Superintendent James Browder informed Respondent that, pursuant to the recommendation of Mr. Pentiuk and Ms. McDaniel, Respondent would be placed on a plan of assistance. Mr. Browder wrote that he would appoint an assistance team to work with Respondent during the second semester of the 2004-2005 school year. Mr. Browder informed Respondent that the first meeting would take place in early January 2005, and that he could name a representative to attend the meetings on his behalf. On the same date, Ms. McDaniel hand-delivered the superintendent's letter to Respondent in Mr. Pentiuk's office. The superintendent delegated to Ms. McDaniel the task of choosing the members of the IAP team. She selected Mr. McCormick and Ms. Cooley, because they were Respondent's direct supervisors at High Tech Central and were aware of the curriculum and Respondent's deficiencies. Ms. McDaniel testified that she had appointed six IAP teams before this one and that her standard procedure was to appoint both assistant directors of the school. Ms. McDaniel also chose Suzanne Roshon, the School Board's coordinator for technical and career education, as an objective outsider without prior knowledge of Respondent, or his classroom setting. Ms. McDaniel acted as coordinator and facilitator for the IAP team meetings. Ms. Mutzenard was an observer at the IAP team meetings as Respondent's representative.17 The IAP team held its organizational meeting on January 13, 2005. Respondent and Ms. Mutzenard were present. In her role as coordinator, Ms. McDaniel chaired the meeting, explaining the steps in the IAP process. There would be seven weeks of observations in Respondent's class with three observations taking place each week. The observations would be unannounced. Not more than one observation could take place in a single day. The observers were not to talk to Respondent or the students during the observations, and Respondent was to act as though the observer were not present. The observers were not to discuss their observations with each other prior to the weekly team meetings. Respondent was directed to turn in his lesson plans each week so that the observers would know what to expect when they came into the classroom. Ms. McDaniel's role was to determine whether the observers had common concerns about Respondent's classroom methods, and to ensure those common concerns received emphasis at the team meetings. Ms. McDaniel testified that, at this initial meeting, it was clear that Respondent was not happy to be involved in the IAP process. He believed that he could document his program's success and that he should not be there.18 Ms. McDaniel emphasized the need to maintain a "positive attitude in a positive learning environment" because it was clear to her that Respondent did not have a positive attitude about the scrutiny he was receiving. Ms. Cooley conducted the first recorded observation, on January 21, 2005, at 12:30 p.m. As she entered the classroom, Ms. Cooley noted that two students were sitting at picnic tables outside the classroom and that Respondent walked to the door and told them to return to class. One student left the classroom carrying a length of cable then returned for a bowl of water and left again. A second student walked in and took another bowl of water out of the classroom. Ms. Cooley testified that the students had caught a stray dog on campus. They used the cable to tie the dog to a tree until school was out. Respondent knew what was going on with the dog and was not requiring the students to sign in and out of the class. Ten students were watching a video about the founder of Apple computers and events in the industry during the 1980s. Two students were working on a computer in the back of the room and another was working in one of the cages. Later, one of the two students in the back put his head down on the desk. After the video, Respondent asked the students what had changed over the years. Students shouted out answers, and Respondent corrected them for talking all at once. Respondent then asked another question. One student, Keith McNeil, dominated the discussion. One student received a call on his cell phone and walked out of the classroom. Another student was using his Palm Pilot and another was reading a book. Though the class would not be dismissed until 1:30 p.m., Respondent stopped teaching and ordered the students to clean up the classroom at 1:05 p.m. Ms. Cooley was surprised that Respondent had not prepared his class to be on its best behavior given that he knew there would be three observations that week. In her follow-up notations and recommendations to Respondent, Ms. Cooley observed that there were too many distractions in the classroom, that not all the students were focused on the video, that the video itself was too long and too old for meaningful use in the CET program, that a couple of questions were insufficient after spending over 30 minutes watching the video, and that 25 minutes was too much time for classroom clean-up. Ms. Cooley later testified that a computer class is a clean environment that should take only a few minutes to clean up at the end of the class session. Mr. McCormick conducted his first observation on January 24, 2005, at 8:00 a.m. He noted that only ten out of the fifteen students present had signed in on the attendance log. Respondent divided the class into three groups. While Respondent worked with one group, the students in the other two groups had no direction. One student took a phone call during classroom instructional time. While Respondent was reviewing material with one group, some students in that group were surfing the Internet.19 There were vending machines just outside Respondent's classroom door, and students from the class were going out to buy food and drink from the machines. Respondent had complained about the location of the machines, and they were later moved a bit farther away from the classroom door. Mr. McCormick conceded that the machines were too close to the classroom, that they were a temptation to Respondent's students and that they were a distraction to the class when anyone used them. However, Respondent was nonetheless remiss in allowing students to freely go in and out of the classroom except during the lunch break. Ms. Roshon made her first observation at noon on January 26, 2005. Ms. Roshon disclaimed any expertise in the CET program, but testified that she has observed the classes at both the High Tech Central and High Tech North campuses and was familiar with the CET performance standards. When she entered the classroom, Ms. Roshon saw no structured activities taking place. Several students were sitting around talking in the middle of the room and others were in two of the cages. Shortly thereafter, Respondent walked over to the group in the middle of the room and told them they were going to discuss Chapter 13, which caused some grumbling among the students. Respondent began his lecture with ten students, one of whom was reading a book and one of whom was writing. Ms. Roshon observed that no one was taking notes on Respondent's lecture. Respondent asked questions in an effort to engage the class, and there was some give and take among Respondent and two or three of the students. Several times during his lecture and PowerPoint presentation, Respondent told the class, "You won't need to know this" or "This isn't important." Ms. Roshon questioned why Respondent would teach material that was not important. One of the students asked a question. Respondent suggested that the student do some research on the topic. The student got up to go to a computer. Respondent asked him to do the research later, but the student ignored this instruction and went to the computer. He looked up and printed some information, then handed the printout to Respondent, who thanked him. Ms. Roshon observed one student sleeping during the lecture. Respondent made no effort to wake up the student. Several students were wearing hats, which is forbidden by School Board policy. Several students had sodas in the class. High Tech Central has a policy prohibiting food and drink (except for bottled water) in the classroom.20 Students seemed to come and go as they pleased during the lecture, without signing in or out of the classroom. The students in one of the cages were talking, laughing, and walking around throughout Ms. Roshon's observation, leading her to wonder if they were engaged in any sort of educational activity. One of the students in the cage laughed loudly after looking at someone else's computer screen. On February 1, 2005, at 8:30 a.m., Ms. Cooley conducted her next observation. There were fifteen students in the class, one of whom remained in one of the cages throughout the observation. As Ms. Cooley entered, she observed that Respondent was just starting a PowerPoint presentation on "Objectives, Attitude, Generic Troubleshooting," comprising issues such as not overlooking the obvious, performing research, checking simple things, and writing things down. Respondent read the PowerPoint slides to the students and asked questions such as, "Why would you need to write things down?" Respondent was still going through the PowerPoint presentation when Ms. Cooley left the classroom at 9:10 a.m. In her written report, Ms. Cooley noted that one student had his shoes off and another yawned very loudly during Respondent's presentation. Ms. Cooley recommended that Respondent reduce the time he spends on PowerPoint and get the students actively engaged in the class. She expressed a concern that everything she observed in the class was "generic, low level, basic material . . . I have not observed a lesson on A+, Cisco, or any specific networking material." She observed that the PowerPoint material was far below the level of the majority of the class who were returning students and that nothing she witnessed in the class corresponded to the lesson plan filed by Respondent. 85. On February 3, 2005, from 12:50 to 1:30 p.m., Ms. Roshon conducted her next observation. When she entered the classroom, Ms. Roshon noted that the students were sitting in groups talking, but not about anything related to their class work. Respondent was in one of the cages, but came out into the classroom when he saw Ms. Roshon. Respondent directed one group of five students to work on their class work, which they did. Respondent answered some of their questions. Ms. Roshon observed that students in the back cage became very loud. One student walked out of the classroom, bought a candy bar, then walked back in without asking Respondent's permission, or signing the attendance log. Students were eating and drinking at their computer stations. At 1:15 p.m., Respondent told the class to begin cleaning up. The clean-up was finished by 1:20, and the students spent the remaining ten minutes standing around talking about extraneous matters. Ms. Roshon observed that there was very little structure in the classroom, and students did not appear to know what they were supposed to be working on. She suggested that Respondent require the students to keep a daily journal of what they did in the class, and that Respondent should regularly check the journals and provide feedback to the students. Respondent did not implement this suggestion. 88. On February 4, 2005, from 9:20 to 10:00 a.m., Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation. Mr. McCormick initially criticized Respondent's weekly lesson plan as simply a list of topics with no detail as to how Respondent intended to teach those topics. Mr. McCormick noted that thirteen students were present, but that he could not determine whether they had signed in because Respondent had no sign-in sheet posted at the classroom door. For security purposes, High Tech Central required all staff, faculty, and students to wear photo identification badges around their necks or clipped to their clothing. During Mr. McCormick's observation, a school security guard entered the classroom to check the identification badges. Of the thirteen students present, five did not have their badges, leading Mr. McCormick to conclude that Respondent had not checked the students' identification at the beginning of class as required by school policy.21 Mr. McCormick noted that three students were working independently on computers in the main part of the lab, and that each student was on a different web site. One of the students was looking at telephones on Best Buy's web site, which Mr. McCormick believed could have been related to a class assignment. However, another of the students was looking at a "Twilight Zone" web site, clearly unrelated to the CET class. One of the three students left the classroom for ten minutes without signing out or obtaining a pass from Respondent. Another group of three students was working in the right-side cage. Two were on web sites and one was working on a curriculum test program. One of these students left class for twenty minutes without signing out or obtaining a pass. The remainder of the class was in the left-side cage, engaged in a group discussion. Mr. McCormick described it as follows: I was unable to determine the subject of discussion as it was unfocused and was not being led in any discernable or deliberate way. Students wandered in and out of the cage at random during the discussion. Overall impression of this activity was that it was unfocused and random. Students did not appear engaged in any meaningful way. At about 9:40 a.m., Respondent asked the group of students in the lab to "come up with some good scenarios and good stuff for the students in the cage." Mr. McCormick assumed that Respondent wanted to give some direction to the discussion going on in the cage and was relying on other students to supply the scenario. Mr. McCormick testified that he thought it showed poor preparation for Respondent to ask students to make up scenarios on the spot for a class discussion. Mr. McCormick noted that students were still making frequent trips outside to the vending machines and that Respondent allowed food and drink in the classroom. Mr. McCormick testified that the prohibition on food and drink is in the faculty handbook, and that the administration "harp[ed] on it" at every faculty meeting. Besides the potential for spilling food or drink on the computers, food and drink created a sanitation and pest control problem. In his written observation report, Mr. McCormick concluded that Respondent's classroom "presents a very unprofessional appearance." At the hearing, Mr. McCormick called the classroom "a mess." It was disorganized, strewn with snacks and drinks and littered with computer parts. On February 7, 2005, the IAP team met with Respondent, Ms. McDaniel and Ms. Mutzenard to review the observations made by the team members up to that point. The team members shared their observations with Respondent, including positive feedback and suggestions for improvement. Ms. McDaniel summarized the suggestions as follows: Lesson Plans need to be detailed so an observer or substitute can clearly determine who does what when. Classroom Rules need to be addressed and maintained including sign in/sign out, food and drink not allowed, students focused on time on task, cell phone use, students walking in and out of classroom for snacks, etc. in order to assist with classroom management strategies. Organizational tool to be created/maintained for student progress-- career map. Mrs. McDaniel will email Mr. Nevins a template of a lesson plan. Mr. Nevins can take advantage of other options; such options might include Mr. Nevins observing other instructors at other schools teaching similar programs or someone observing Mr. Nevins. At the hearing, Ms. McDaniel testified that Respondent was very defensive about the observations. He was argumentative and disagreed with what the observers said they saw in his classroom. Respondent refused to sign the summary minutes of the IAP team meeting. Rather, he requested an opportunity to respond to the minutes with additional information. Ms. McDaniel could not recall that Respondent ever followed up with any additional information. On February 9, 2005, at 12:55 p.m., Ms. Cooley conducted her next observation. As she entered the classroom, Ms. Cooley saw a student talking on a cell phone. Respondent called out to the students to be seated so that he could go over their test answers. Of the eleven students present, two remained in the back cage area. Respondent read out the first test question and several students called out answers. Respondent asked them not to shout out the answers. He read the next question, and several students called out answers. This time, Respondent did not correct the students, nor did he correct them when they shouted out answers to the next five questions. Finally, Respondent said, "Guys, one at a time." A student yelled out, "Clean up." Respondent continued talking, but students talked over him. Some students began standing around, waiting for class to end. In her comments, Ms. Cooley wrote that Respondent "needs to be consistent with his classroom policies and procedures." She noted that the seven minutes allotted for end-of-class cleanup was more appropriate for a computer class than the fifteen minutes she noted in an earlier observation. On February 10, 2005, from noon to 12:40 p.m., Ms. Roshon conducted her next observation. Respondent called the class to attention to hear a lecture by a fellow student, Keith McNeil, on the Linux operating system.22 Ms. Roshon acknowledged that the student appeared to be very knowledgeable, but she was uncomfortable with his "lording it over" the other students that he knew this material and they did not. She also wondered if all the students were required to give such lectures, or if this student was lecturing for some particular reason. Ms. Roshon noted that Respondent's questions made it apparent that he did not know the software or the material the student was presenting. She was concerned that this made it appear to the class that Respondent knew less about the class subject matter than did the student. She was more concerned that Respondent had not reviewed the software for appropriateness before he allowed the student to teach it to the class. Ms. Roshon noted that the student giving the lecture was drinking from a bottle of soda in front of the group. She commented that if Respondent was going to give students leadership opportunities, he should require them to act as role models. She also noted that students "still get up, move around, use the rest room, etc. at random. Seem to come and go as they please." In her written report of the observation, Ms. Roshon stated to Respondent: "You are very fortunate to have a student with so much knowledge and what appears to be a good rapport with your class. BUT, this student was doing EXACTLY what I have been waiting to see YOU do-- TEACH." Ms. Roshon saw Respondent go around the classroom and speak to individual students, but did not observe Respondent teaching the class as a whole. 104. On February 11, 2005, from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m., Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation of Respondent's class. When Mr. McCormick arrived in the class, Respondent was grading tests that the students had just taken. Mr. McCormick noted that the students appeared "unengaged" in any activity related to the CET curriculum. One student was talking on the phone to a Staples store, with a sales brochure in front of him, and three other students were playing "Doom 2" on an old Macintosh computer. Respondent returned the tests to one group of students then commenced an oral review of the questions and answers. Mr. McCormick noted that Respondent conducted the review in distracting proximity to another group of students. Mr. McCormick also noted with disapproval that Respondent referred to the multiple choice test as "multiple guess." One student left the class early without signing out. Another student had a two-liter bottle of soda on his desk, which Respondent eventually asked the student to remove. Clean-up activity began at 1:16 p.m., fourteen minutes before the end of class. The clean-up consisted of about one minute of straightening chairs, after which the students were unengaged until 1:30 p.m. Earlier in the day, Mr. McCormick had received a report that someone in Respondent's class had visited a pornographic web site. Mr. McCormick decided to investigate the matter because the school district's firewall filter should have prevented such activity. After the class was dismissed, Mr. McCormick asked a student in Respondent's class to show him the web site. The student did so and arrived at a site displaying what Mr. McCormick described as pornographic photos. Mr. McCormick realized the site was available because the web address did not contain the key words that the district's firewall is set up to block. At the hearing, Mr. McCormick emphasized that he did not believe Respondent would knowingly allow his students to access pornographic web sites. Mr. McCormick's criticism was that Respondent did not know, which was emblematic of Respondent's inability to maintain control of and know what was going on inside his classroom. Mr. McCormick suggested that Respondent position the computer monitors in the class to give himself maximum observation ability from a central position. Mr. McCormick testified that many students would position themselves so that their monitors could not be seen unless an observer was standing directly behind them. On February 16, 2005, the IAP team met with Respondent, Ms. McDaniel, and Ms. Mutzenard. At the outset, Respondent stated that he would submit his written responses from the previous team meeting at the next team meeting on February 28, 2005. As Ms. McDaniel testified, no such written responses were ever supplied by Respondent. Ms. Roshon then gave a summary of her February 10, observation and also stated that she had observed the CET teacher at High Tech North. Based on these observations, she had the following suggestions for Respondent: require students to prepare a notebook based on the chapter notes and software the students use on a daily basis, which could be used as a trouble-shooting reference; require students to sign in and out for bathroom breaks; and require students to keep a daily log of their work, upon which Respondent could check and comment. Respondent defended himself regarding some aspects of Ms. Roshon's observation. Mr. McNeil, the student who gave the Linux lecture, was fighting a sore throat and had asked Respondent for permission to drink a soda during his talk. Respondent also stated that he trusted the student not to do anything inappropriate and, thus, felt no need to preview the software prior to the student's lecture. Mr. McCormick then described his observation of February 11, 2005. He agreed with Ms. Roshon that a daily log would be helpful for Respondent to keep track of his students' progress. Mr. McCormick also agreed with Ms. Roshon's suggestions that students be required to sign in and out for restroom breaks and that they be required to keep trouble-shooting notebooks. Respondent disagreed with requiring students to keep a notebook. Ms. Cooley described her observation of February 9, 2005, and made a particular point of her concern that Respondent was inconsistent on the matter of allowing students to shout out answers. Ms. McDaniel summarized the deficiencies in Respondent's performance as noted by the IAP team, including: lack of consistency with rules and procedures; lack of consistency with students signing in and out; removal of all games from classroom computers; and arranging the classroom computers for maximum viewing capability by Respondent. Mr. McCormick stated that there were students still in the CET program who had completed all their occupational completion points and a lengthy discussion ensued regarding Respondent's tracking of students' progress. Ms. Cooley stated that Respondent had not turned in revisions to a Council on Occupational Education program reports that were due during the previous school year.23 Respondent promised to turn in the revisions on February 22, 2005. Respondent also promised to bring to the next IAP team meeting his grade book and all the career maps, or other tracking devices for his CET class, neither of which the IAP team had seen at this point. He also committed to removing all games from the computers in his classroom. Ms. McDaniel testified that by the time of the February 14, 2005, meeting, she perceived that Respondent was angry about the IAP process. It appeared to Ms. McDaniel that Respondent did not believe that he or his students needed to follow the rules and procedures established by the School Board or High Tech Central. Mr. McCormick testified that by this time he was "astounded" that the IAP team's observations and comments were the same every week. Respondent was not correcting the items noted by the team and was very defensive in the team meetings. 117. On February 22, 2005, from 8:15 to 8:45 a.m., Ms. Cooley conducted her next observation of Respondent's classroom. Respondent was working on computer assembly with five students in one of the back cages. Three students were in the other back cage. One of these students was looking up computer parts prices on the Internet and told Ms. Cooley he was seeing where the market was going. Thirteen students were present in the class, but only eleven had signed in. Two of the eleven had not indicated the time they arrived. No students were wearing identification badges. Six students were in the main computer lab. Two of them were reading the novel Great Expectations for another class and continued reading throughout Ms. Cooley's observation. Ms. Cooley asked them about their career maps. They replied that they knew nothing about career maps. When Ms. Cooley asked them how they knew which competencies they were working on, they told her they went "chapter by chapter." Ms. Cooley tried to redirect the students who were doing outside work. Respondent was so focused on the group he was working with that he did not notice what the other students were doing. Ms. Cooley noted that, based on Respondent's lesson plans, she could not tell one group of students from another. Not one student was working on assignments identified in the lesson plan. She concluded that the students "are not on task, not on track." 121. On February 23, 2005, from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m., Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation. A music video, bearing no apparent relationship to CET class work, played over and over again on a classroom projector throughout the observation period. Three students were on shopping web sites and one was on E-Bay. Respondent had assigned them to learn how to acquire computer parts and build the best computer possible for $1,500. Mr. McCormick noted that this was legitimate CET class work. Respondent was circulating through the room. Mr. McCormick observed that it was still difficult to see the computer monitors in the back cages from the main part of the classroom. One student was reading a booklet that was not related to the CET program. A two-liter bottle of soda was on the classroom floor and an open bottle of soda was on a student's desk. Once more, all work stopped at 1:15 p.m. for clean-up activity that took about one minute. In the follow-up remarks to his written observation report, Mr. McCormick noted the unprofessional appearance and distracting effect of playing music videos in the classroom. He again suggested that Respondent stop wasting the last fifteen minutes of class and plan activities to keep the students busy until the dismissal bell. Mr. McCormick again told Respondent that he must enforce the rules against food and drink in the classroom. 125. On March 2, 2005, from 10:10 to 10:50 a.m., Ms. Roshon conducted her next observation of Respondent's class. When she walked into the classroom, Ms. Roshon noted that Respondent was sitting and talking with a group of four students. The conversation was apparently not related to class work because Respondent jumped up when he saw Ms. Roshon. He told her that half the class was "missing," without explaining where the students were, and that two of his students had placed in the "Skills USA" competition.24 Respondent announced that it was time to go over the test. Some students asked, "What test?" It transpired that not all of the students present had taken the test. Respondent spent eight minutes looking for the test. The group who had been talking with Respondent when Ms. Roshon entered continued their conversation about the relative merits of "a small house" versus "a condo." Three other students were working in the back cage, and Ms. Roshon noted that she still could not see their monitors from the classroom. When she approached the students, one of them turned off his monitor. Ms. Roshon also noted that the sign-in sheet was still not being used. Respondent gathered two students to go over their tests. They discussed the questions and answers aloud although another group of students was still taking the test. Ms. Roshon noted that Respondent told a student who was withdrawing from the class to take the test "for old times sake." Respondent then had this student correct his own test and those of the other students. Ms. Roshon observed that the student made some critical remarks about his classmates' performance on the test. Ms. Roshon positively noted that, when one student was confused about an issue, Respondent had the students go on their computers to find the answer. However, she also noted that one student appeared to become bored with the test review, rolled his chair away from the group, and turned on his MP3 player with earphones. The student even played "air guitar" near the group reviewing the test, and Respondent said nothing. In her written comments to Respondent, Ms. Roshon wrote, in relevant part: One big concern I have with the structure of today's activity is that you have this huge classroom and yet all of your students were packed into one small area at the back of the room. It would have made more sense to me that you would have taken the students you were going over the test with to an area of the classroom that would have been quieter and would have caused less distraction to other students. It was also a VERY relaxed atmosphere and not as conducive to feedback and interaction from students as it could have been. * * * I did have trouble following your lesson plan . . . . Once again, I don't know how the students know what they are to be doing. I didn't see any evidence of log books or checklists. * * * My concerns still are: How do students know what to work on. Class activity seems to start AFTER I walk into the room. Students seem to wander around however they feel like. On March 3, 2005, at 8:15 a.m., Ms. Cooley performed her next observation of Respondent's class. When she arrived, a film on PC navigation and commands was being shown. One student was working on his laptop computer. One student was reading sports web pages on his computer, while another surfed web pages on computer parts. A group of students worked in the back cage. Respondent's lesson plan stated only "lab work," which was so vague that Ms. Cooley could not tell one group from another. Respondent showed the film throughout Ms. Cooley's observation, which prompted her to suggest that Respondent show films in shorter segments and get the class actively engaged sooner. Also on March 3, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., Ms. Cooley attended an "attendance hearing" for one of Respondent's adult students. High Tech Central policy regarding adult attendance provides that after four absences, the student is to be advised that his absences jeopardize his financial aid. After five absences, the teacher is to have a conference with the student. After eight absences, the teacher is to advise the student that two more absences will result in an administrative review and possible withdrawal until the start of the next semester. After ten absences, the teacher is to complete an attendance documentation form and give it to the school's student affairs specialist, who then schedules an administrative review, or "attendance hearing." An adult student with ten accumulated absences may be withdrawn and lose credit for that semester, depending on the outcome of the attendance hearing and the reasons established for the absences. Dan King, the student affairs specialist, convened the hearing with an adult CET student who had 16 absences since January. Respondent was not present at the hearing, but sent to Mr. King the student's career map and an adult attendance documentation form. Mr. King asked the student why he had missed so many days, noting that the student was on kidney dialysis. The student stated that he goes to dialysis before and after school and that Respondent never asked for notes regarding his absences or even asked why he was absent so frequently. Mr. King directed the student to go back and retrace his steps regarding the dates he had missed because many of those absences could have been excused because of illness. Ms. Cooley criticized Respondent for his failure to hold the required conferences with the student, or to make the required referral to Mr. King after the tenth absence. At the attendance hearing, the student told Mr. King that the CET class was completely different when an observer was in the classroom. Mr. King showed the student his career map. The student stated that he had seen the blank career map back in August when he started the CET program and that this was just the second time he had seen it. The student stated that Respondent had never reviewed it with him, although Respondent had checked off many competencies as completed. The student was surprised to see everything he had accomplished. Ms. Cooley noted that the career map is supposed to be a motivator for students to show their accomplishments and track their competency completions and that it was improper for Respondent not to review the career map with the student. 135. On March 4, 2005, from 12:50 to 1:30 p.m., Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation of Respondent's class. He saw four students grouped together in the front of the class. One was working on a laptop computer, one was working on class-related questions, one was using a cell phone, and the fourth was playing with a portable CD player in his lap.25 Some students were working in the back cage on projects though it was still difficult to observe their monitors from the classroom. Respondent was circulating around the classroom. Mr. McCormick observed five cups and soda bottles throughout the classroom, including one on Respondent's desk. One student had an entire fast food meal of a sandwich, French fries, and a soft drink spread out at his computer workstation. The student ate and drank throughout Mr. McCormick's observation. Mr. McCormick observed one student get Respondent's attention by calling out, "Nevins!" After discovering they had mistakenly printed a document to another teacher's printer, two students left the CET classroom to "apologize" to the other teacher. These students did not sign out or inform Respondent that they were leaving. Work stopped and "clean up" commenced at 1:00 p.m., a full half-hour before the end of class. Mr. McCormick's written comments on this observation were as follows: Mr. Nevins must design teaching activities so that students are engaged in learning activities throughout the day. No visible order to the way the material is presented. Much too much wandering, visiting and playing has been observed in this classroom. Suggest planning activities that will keep students busy until dismissal bell. Clean- up in this class only takes about 1 minute (as it is now structured), so save this until a few minutes before 1:30. Mr. Nevins must enforce classroom rules about food and drink-- but apparently is unable or unwilling to do so. Mr. Nevins must also enforce school District policy on using portable music devices on campus, especially during class. Mr. Nevins must never allow students to address him by his last name only. This shows a complete lack of respect for the status of the teacher in the classroom. At the hearing, Mr. McCormick testified that he was "incredulous" that the problems with food and drink were still going on. The problem was so easily corrected that he had to conclude Respondent could not, or would not enforce the rule. Mr. McCormick believed that such simple classroom management issues were the last thing that should be dominating discussion in the IAP team meetings, but that the IAP team could never get past enforcement of the most basic classroom rules and employment of the most basic classroom management skills in attempting to assist Respondent. The IAP team met on March 7, 2005, to review the team's observations since the last meeting and to offer recommendations to Respondent. Ms. McDaniel and Ms. Mutzenard were present. Mr. McCormick, Ms. Cooley, and Ms. Roshon each gave an oral report of the observations described above. After Mr. McCormick described the playing of music videos in the class, Respondent stated that the music was "something different" for the students in the afternoon and that it was not distracting. He cited "brain based research" to the effect that music helps set the tone for the class and assists in learning. Ms. McDaniel pointed out that there is a difference between music and music videos and that the latter are not to be played in the classroom. Respondent also stated that he felt he was being picked on about the question of sodas in the classroom. Mr. McCormick stated that it was simply a question of school policies that Respondent must enforce, and that Respondent's classroom was so relaxed and uncontrolled that Respondent had difficulty maintaining order and focus. Respondent acknowledged that bending the rules causes problems, but also contended that students sometimes learn more in his relaxed environment. Respondent was once again asked to bring his grade book and career maps, or other student tracking system to the next IAP team meeting. He had been asked to bring these items to the March 7, 2005, meeting but failed to do so. At the hearing, Ms. McDaniel testified that after the March 7, 2005, IAP team meeting, she continued to feel that Respondent did not have a positive outlook on the process. Of greater concern was her growing conviction that Respondent was deliberately not following the instructions and recommendations of the IAP team. She did not share this conviction with the IAP team because she did not wish to influence the objectivity of their observations. Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation on March 10, 2005, between 12:40 and 1:30 p.m. Twelve students were present in the classroom. Five students were working on computers in the main lab, three students were working on projects on the back cage, and two were working with Respondent in a side cage. Two students were asleep in the front of the classroom with their textbooks open and their heads down on their desks. Mr. McCormick testified that the students woke up at some point during his observation. When Respondent saw Mr. McCormick enter the classroom, he left the cage and came out into the main lab and began circulating among the students. Mr. McCormick noted that the monitors in the back cage were still positioned to make observation difficult from the main lab. He also noted that the "Doom 2" game was still loaded on the old Macintosh computer in the classroom. Student Keith McNeil approached Mr. McCormick and was "very forceful" in trying to determine why Respondent was being observed. Mr. McNeil explained at length that MP3 players were integral to the CET program and could be used as data storage devices. Mr. McCormick noted that every student he had observed using an MP3 player in Respondent's class was listening to music. Mr. McCormick also observed that Mr. McNeil was a very bright student and that Respondent seemed to employ him as an informal teacher's aide, helping Respondent to run the CET program. Mr. McCormick's written comments on this observation were as follows: No visible order to the way material is presented. Too much wandering, visiting, and playing going on in this classroom. Students don't seem to ever be on task at anything for more than a few moments. Mr. Nevins must also enforce school District policy on using portable music devices on campus, especially during class. On March 11, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., Ms. Cooley attended an attendance hearing for another of Respondent's CET students. This student had 14 absences. Respondent did not attend the meeting, but provided the student's career map and certificates of completion to Mr. King before the meeting. As did the student at the previous attendance hearing, this student told Mr. King that he had not seen his career map since Respondent showed him a blank one at the beginning of the course. The student stated that Respondent never reviewed his progress with him. He had never received any certificates of completion, although the career map submitted by Respondent showed that the student had completed three occupational completion points meaning that he should have had three certificates. The student felt unmotivated. He believed he was wasting his time and not accomplishing anything in Respondent's class. He told Mr. King that he might have felt more motivation had he known his progress in the program. The student told Mr. King that he wanted to make up some of the time he had missed, but that he could never get Respondent to commit to a specific date and time. After a while, the student became discouraged and stopped asking Respondent about making up the time. Ms. Cooley testified that by now she had conducted five observations and attended two attendance hearings, and she was frustrate d because the same things cropped up at every observation: food and drink, name badges for students, the failure to keep career maps, or some other tracking device for student progress. Ms. Cooley performed her next observation of Respondent's class on March 22, 2005, at 8:45 a.m. She noted that while Respondent lectured on how to set up a parts table on Microsoft Access, one student was typing, one student was sleeping, two were looking at a computer board, and one was playing with his cell phone. Students were calling out numbers and items to place in the Access spreadsheet. Food wrappers were on the desks. Respondent was wearing an MP3 player around his neck. He told the students to get started on their assignment, but they walked to the back cages and did not work on the assignment. Mr. McCormick observed Respondent's class on March 23, 2005, between 9:15 and 10:00 a.m. Twelve students were present in the class. Three students were working on projects in the cages. The other nine students were clustered around six computers. Mr. McCormick noted that there were plenty of computers in the classroom and that each student should be assigned his own computer. He observed that when students gather around a few computers some are just watching rather than actively participating in the class activity. In this instance, only two of the nine students appeared to be on task. The others were talking and "wandering around." Mr. McCormick noted that students were leaving the CET classroom to attend other classes, but were not signing out on the classroom attendance log. He checked the log and found that it had not been used since March 14, 2005. Mr. McCormick noted that at 9:30 a.m., a student walked into the classroom with a bag of chips and began eating them while working with another student. Respondent did nothing, although he did later pick up a soda bottle from a workstation and dispose of it. Another student listened to an MP3 player during the entirety of the observation. Mr. McCormick did note that all the old Apple computers had been disconnected thus, disposing of the "Doom 2" game problem. In his written comments to this observation, Mr. McCormick yet again stated that Respondent must enforce School Board policies on food and drink in class, the use of portable music devices in class, and the use of the attendance log. The IAP team convened its next meeting on March 24, 2005.26 Also present were Ms. McDaniel and Ms. Mutzenard. As in the other meetings, the three IAP team members reviewed their observations and made comments and suggestions to Respondent for improving his performance. As in the other meetings, Respondent reacted defensively. When Mr. McCormick commented that there was too much "wandering, visiting, and playing" going on in the classroom, Respondent asked Mr. McCormick not to say that his students did not appear to be learning because there was no data to prove that assertion. The lack of structure in Respondent's classroom was a common criticism. Ms. McDaniel attempted to explain to Respondent the need to draft and use coherent, detailed lesson plans, if only for the eventuality that a substitute would need such a plan in Respondent's absence. Ms. McDaniel told Respondent that a substitute would be "clueless" if forced to use Respondent's lesson plans.27 Using Respondent's method of teaching Microsoft Access as a point of discussion, the team attempted to make Respondent understand the need for some tangible artifact to demonstrate that the students have mastered a given OCP. Respondent answered that the majority of students were pleased with his methods. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. McDaniel once again reminded Respondent to bring his grade book, career maps and tracking sheets to the next meeting. Ms. McDaniel testified that at every meeting, Respondent had an excuse for not bringing these materials. He would say that the files were at his home, or back in his classroom. On April 4, 2005, at 12:20 p.m., Ms. Roshon conducted her last observation of Respondent's class. She observed six students in the main lab, one of whom was sleeping. Respondent walked over to the sleeping student and woke him. Three students in the back cage were talking about "witnesses" and "getting caught." Respondent approached Ms. Roshon and explained what each group was doing. She noted several soda bottles, cups, and chips around the room. Ms. Roshon observed a student go to the back cage to get Mr. McNeil to come out and assist him. She thought this remarkable because Respondent was circulating through the classroom and would logically have been the person to approach. Ms. Roshon later concluded that Mr. McNeil's assistance was needed because the question had to do with the Linux system, about which he had lectured during Ms. Roshon's February 10, 2005, observation. Ms. Roshon observed a conversation among several students regarding the capacity of an iPod to download the music on the computer. She noted that a student had his iPod plugged into the computer leading her to conclude the student was downloading music during class. One student did not seem involved in the class. Respondent engaged this student by demonstrating how to share files between computers. Ms. Roshon was favorably impressed by Respondent's method in this instance. Some students knocked at the locked back door of the classroom and were let in by students inside. The students did not sign in, which led Ms. Roshon to wonder whether the attendance log was being used at all. She checked and saw that the sign-in sheet had not been used since March 14, 2005. Mr. McNeil approached Ms. Roshon and attempted to discuss a letter he had sent to the school district's administrators in defense of Respondent. Ms. Roshon told him that she was not at liberty to discuss the matter.28 Mr. McNeil then proceeded to complain about the "new rules and regulations" in the class, by which he meant the long-standing but seldom enforced prohibition on food and drink in the classroom. On April 5, 2005, Mr. McCormick conducted his last observation of Respondent's class. Mr. McNeil approached Mr. McCormick and attempted to question him about his situation with Mr. Wiseman, as described in footnote 28 above. Mr. McCormick told Mr. McNeil that he was there to observe the class and would speak to Mr. McNeil at another time. Though he still noted sodas and a bag of chips in the classroom, Mr. McCormick observed that the activity for the day seemed to be well planned and that the students appeared to be actively engaged and on task. One student was working on an assignment for another class that was related to his high school graduation requirement. Ms. Cooley conducted her last observation on April 6, 2005. She noted soda bottles and drinks in the class and saw one student drinking a soda. Mr. McNeil was teaching the class along with Respondent. On April 6, 2005, at 1:45 p.m., the last IAP team meeting was convened. Ms. McDaniel and Ms. Mutzenard were present. This meeting was held in the CET lab, so that Respondent would have no excuse for failing to produce his grade book and career maps. After the observations were reviewed with Respondent, Ms. McDaniel asked Respondent to show the team his career maps, grade book, and tracking sheets. One member of the team asked Respondent how often he went over the career maps, and he stated that he did so every two weeks. Ms. Cooley asked Respondent why neither student at the two attendance hearings had ever received or reviewed a career map in Respondent's class. Respondent stated that every student had the opportunity to ask him for a copy, but that he did not give them out to everyone. Ms. McDaniel expressed concern that the Council on Occupational Education would review the school in November and would have to be shown these career maps and this grade book. The school's accreditation and its Pell grants would be placed at risk if it could not document what is being taught in the classroom. Ms. McDaniel noted that all the career maps were written in the same color ink. She testified that the maps looked as though they had all been completed at the same time, rather than at different points during the semester as students completed their various OCPs. The minutes of the meeting indicate the concerns raised as the team reviewed Respondent's materials: Mrs. McDaniel made numerous attempts to see if the career map matched and aligned with the gradebook and tracking sheets. Mrs. Roshon and Mr. McCormick would check the gradebook while Mrs. McDaniel would check the career maps. OCP completions were not recorded in gradebook. Quarter grades were missing. No actual dates were written in the career maps. Dates did not aligned [sic] in gradebook with career maps. Yellow attendance sheets were not found.29 Some tests did not have a grade on them. Only chapter test grades were recorded in gradebook. No lab work grades were recorded. No rubrics were used to grade projects. There were numerous questions on the correlation of grades. Mrs. McDaniel stated the career maps should prove the competency completed; but these competencies recorded with a month and year did not align with the gradebook. Some career maps were missing. Mr. Nevins stated he might have left them at home. The gradebook did not reflect what was in the student folders and career maps. . . . Ms. McDaniel testified that it was not possible to look at Respondent's grade book and correlate the numbers therein with any OCP. There were test grades, but no indication of what test was given. The tests in the student folders did not align with anything in the grade book. Ms. McDaniel concluded the meeting and stated that the team would schedule a meeting to make a recommendation to the superintendent as to Respondent's status. In fact, the team met with Ms. McDaniel and the school's new director, Robert Durham, in the administrative offices of High Tech Central immediately after their meeting with Respondent and unanimously recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. As to her recommendation, Ms. Roshon testified that she told Respondent "that if I were a teacher and I knew I was being observed and that I had an opportunity to make . . . some pretty simple changes to my classroom and what went on in it, that I would have made every effort possible to do that, and that I felt like Mr. Nevins hadn't done that." At the final meeting, Ms. McDaniel presented the option of extending the IAP process, but Ms. Roshon did not believe that more time would make any difference in Respondent's classroom. The IAP process had already lasted for eight weeks, and Ms. Roshon had seen no difference "in classroom management, in teaching style, in anything within the classroom." She believed that Respondent had been given a full and fair opportunity to make significant changes and either chose not to make those changes, or was unable to change. In any event, she believed that Respondent was not an effective teacher. Mr. McCormick testified that Respondent is a very intelligent man, understood the purpose of the IAP process, and further understood the criticisms and advice he was receiving from the observers. However, Respondent did not accept the legitimacy of the criticism, or the need to change his classroom methods. Mr. McCormick recommended termination because he believed that Respondent's classroom shortcomings were very serious, and he did not see any evidence of improvement during the IAP process nor any willingness to make changes in the classroom. Mr. McCormick agreed with Ms. Roshon that extending the IAP process would be extremely unlikely to make any difference in Respondent's job performance. Ms. Cooley recommended termination and testified that she "felt bad about it, because I felt that I honestly tried to help change the situation by the many attempts of telling him what I saw and what I observed." She believed that Respondent is a very intelligent man, but not a teacher. By letter dated April 11, 2005, Mr. Browder notified Respondent that he was being suspended with pay and benefits, effective immediately, pending the outcome of a School Board investigation.30 A predetermination conference was held on April 28, 2005, to give Respondent an opportunity to respond to the IAP team's concerns regarding his competency to teach. Present at the conference were: Respondent and his legal counsel, Robert Coleman; Cynthia Phillips-Luster, the School Board's director of professional standards, equity, and recruitment administrator; and Paul Carland, then the School Board's attorney. By letter dated May 3, 2005, Mr. Carland notified Mr. Coleman that the School Board had found probable cause to terminate Respondent's employment. In his defense, Respondent raised several issues, both substantive and procedural. Respondent alleged in his equity complaint that he had been "an express target" of negative attention since Ms. Cooley substituted in his class on February 19, 2004. At the hearing in the instant case, Charlotte Rae Nicely, the former financial aid administrator at High Tech Central, testified that Ms. Cooley was "very vengeful" and "had it in" for Respondent. However, Ms. Nicely had been reassigned to a teaching position following the federal audit of the school's Pell grant program and believed she had been made a scapegoat by the High Tech Central administration. Ms. Nicely did not believe that Ms. Cooley was a good administrator and alleged that she carried grudges against other teachers. Though she claimed she had "chosen to forgive" the High Tech Central administration for its treatment of her, Ms. Nicely was a less than credible witness, not only because of her personal feelings about Ms. Cooley, but because of her limited knowledge of Respondent's teaching practices. The evidence did not establish that any administrator at High Tech Central, or the School Board had any personal animus against Respondent for his union activities, his religion, his place of origin, or any other reason. The school's administrators were concerned about Respondent's performance well before Ms. Cooley's experience substituting in Respondent's class, and the evidence was persuasive that Respondent was in no way "singled out" for any reason other than his job performance.31 Respondent contended that the process did not give him adequate notice of the areas of his performance requiring improvement or correction that there were no "uniform scoring criteria" used by the IAP team to evaluate Respondent's performance. This contention is without merit. While the observers used different instruments to record their observations, and their observations varied in some particulars simply because the observers came into the class on different days, there was a remarkable overall consistency in the observations and recommendations. Respondent did not enforce classroom discipline regarding such matters as food and drink and MP3 players. He did not follow proper administrative procedures in monitoring attendance. He did not file proper lesson plans. If he did track his students' progress and performance, he did not do so in an intelligible, coherent fashion, and he did not keep his students aware of their progress in any consistent way. Too often, no teaching appeared to be taking place at all in Respondent's classroom. Students appeared to be doing as they pleased. Any claim that Respondent did not know what was required to improve his performance is disingenuous and cannot be credited.32 Respondent notes that Subsection 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes,33 provides that a teacher holding a professional service contract who is charged with unsatisfactory performance must be notified he is being placed on performance probation for the following 90 calendar days during which he is expected to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are expressly excluded from the 90-day period. Throughout the 90-day period, the teacher must be evaluated periodically and apprised of the progress achieved, and provided assistance and in-service training opportunities to help correct the performance deficiencies. Respondent further notes that, at the initial IAP meeting, Ms. McDaniel stated that Respondent would be the subject of observations for seven weeks, that there would be three observations per week, and that the observations would be 30 to 45 minutes in length. She also told Respondent that the IAP team would meet weekly and he would receive a signed copy of the minutes of the meeting. Respondent states that the IAP process lasted only 84 calendar days, from January 13 to April 6, 2005, and that nine of those days were school holidays. The IAP team met only six times, on January 13, February 7, February 16, March 7, March 24, and April 6, 2005. The IAP team failed to conduct three observations each week and at least two of the observations exceeded 45 minutes in length. The IAP team did not meet with Respondent every week of the process, and Respondent did not receive signed minutes of the meetings every week. Respondent claims that the School Board's failure to comply with the legal requirements for termination of a teacher on a professional service contract were not followed and failure to follow its own IAP procedures necessitate dismissal of the Petition. In fact, Respondent was provided notice that he was being placed on performance probation via Dr. Browder's letter dated December 16, 2004. Thus, the period of evaluation lasted a period of 93 calendar days, from December 16, 2004 to April 6, 2005, excluding 18 days for winter break, Martin Luther King Day, Presidents' Day, and spring break. The School Board complied with the express requirements of Subsection 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The School Board also substantially complied with the procedures described by Ms. McDaniel at the first IAP meeting and set forth in its written IAP materials. The IAP team members conducted a total of 20 observations (not counting Ms. Cooley's attendance at two student attendance hearings), rather than the 21 observations promised by Ms. McDaniel. This was due to the fact that Ms. Roshon broke her arm and missed one week's observation. The IAP team met only six times because Respondent called in sick on March 16, 2005, forcing the cancellation and rescheduling of one meeting. Neither of these minor deviations from the schedule of events had a substantial impact on the IAP process. Neither Respondent nor his representative, Ms. Mutzenard, lodged a contemporaneous protest regarding these alleged procedural failings. In fact, they agreed to combine two weeks of observations into one IAP meeting in order to make up for the cancelled meeting. Ms. Mutzenard, who has represented union members in at least ten IAPs, testified that, although seven weeks of observations with three observations per week is the officially stated practice, this practice "has not always worked. Because of scheduling conflicts with the teacher and with other members of the team and myself and with meetings and conferences and all of that type of thing, there is [sic] some weeks we just can't schedule something." The process is sometimes extended to accommodate schedules. Ms. Mutzenard testified that the 45-minute limit on observations is simply a time management issue: if one person conducts a two-hour observation, another observer could be hampered from coming into the classroom. Ms. Mutzenard was positive about the flexibility of the process. She testified that scheduling was freely discussed at the meetings and that neither she nor Respondent objected to the dates of the meetings or the number of observations. Ms. Mutzenard testified that the IAP process is usually successful so long as the teacher follows the IAP team's suggestions. She has been involved in other IAPs that resulted in transfers and terminations, but stated that in the case of termination recommendations, the teacher usually resigns. Ms. Mutzenard believed that the IAP process would be extended for another eight weeks after April 6, 2005, to give Respondent more time to work on "a few minor things" such as the food and drink problem and to correct his record keeping. Her view was that, aside from being disorganized as to paperwork, Respondent presented no insurmountable problems and should have been given more time in the IAP process.34 Ms. Mutzenard stated that record keeping is unrelated to a teacher's competence and that Respondent's students were doing well in obtaining jobs. However, she conceded that she had seen no objective data regarding the employment rate of Respondent's students and that Respondent himself was her source of information.35 Ms. Mutzenard also conceded that Respondent did not really believe he should have to stop his students from bringing food and drink into the classroom. She discussed the issue with Respondent and he agreed that he should follow the school policy though the testimony from the IAP team members makes it clear that Respondent never seriously enforced the prohibition on food and drink.36 Respondent presented the testimony of several witnesses besides Ms. Mutzenard and Ms. Nicely. Richard Kennedy, now retired, was a School Board employee for 29 years and ran a special needs exploratory after school program at High Tech Central. This program brought students identified as high drop-out risks to High Tech Central to explore the option of vocational education. The population in the program consisted mostly of middle school special education students ranging from educable mentally handicapped to intellectually above average. Respondent was a paid volunteer in the program for about five years, teaching a web design class. Mr. Kennedy conducted no formal observations of the class, but did drop in on the class frequently. Mr. Kennedy testified that Respondent was a good teacher and was popular with the students. However, Mr. Kennedy conceded that his special needs program was very different from the regular day programs such as CET and that he had very little knowledge of why Respondent was suspended or of the IAP process in which Respondent was involved. Dennette Foy is the district coordinator for business and technology programs at Edison College and is responsible for hiring adjunct instructors such as Respondent. She is Respondent's immediate supervisor at Edison College, in charge of assessing his performance and offering him contracts for successive semesters. She opined that Respondent is a "very adequate teacher." Greg Meisel is a technology teacher for the School Board and runs a computer lab supporting the instructors at Edison College. Mr. Meisel was Respondent's lab assistant at Edison College. Mr. Meisel believed that Respondent was a competent, effective teacher. Respondent's delivery was good and he respected and cared about his students. Mr. Meisel's only knowledge of Respondent was in a college setting. He was not aware of Respondent's classroom management skills at High Tech Central, how Respondent tracked attendance in his classes, or whether Respondent enforced School Board policies in his classroom at High Tech Central. Ms. Foy's and Mr. Meisel's testimony is of limited use because of the differences between teaching at the college and high school level, particularly in a vocational education program such as the CET class. Ms. Cooley pointed out that many of the students at High Tech Central could never meet the academic requirements to be admitted to college, and have in fact been unsuccessful in a traditional high school setting. Students in a college classroom are self-selecting, highly motivated, independent thinkers, whereas students at High Tech Central tend to require greater supervision, discipline, and one-on-one assistance. The same teacher may be highly successful at the college level and be unfit to teach vocational educational classes. Richard Oglesby was a student in Respondent's CET class during the 2004-2005 school year. At the time of the hearing, he worked in the television department at CompUSA and credited Respondent with telling him about the job opening and for giving him the skills necessary to obtain the job. While a student in the CET class, Mr. Oglesby competed in the Skills USA competition and made it past the regional to the state level. He testified that he considered Respondent a friend and had recently attended a movie with Respondent. Mr. Oglesby called Respondent a very good instructor, who followed the textbook, gave tests, kept the students apprised of their academic progress, and managed the class well. Mr. Oglesby testified that Respondent made some attempts to forbid students from listening to MP3 players, or having food or drink in the class. However, he also admitted that students in fact brought MP3 players and food and drink into the class with virtual impunity, and that he never saw Respondent discipline a student for these violations. Mr. Oglesby stated that he always signed in and out of class, but could not say whether other students did. He could not remember seeing anyone sleeping in the class. Keith McNeil, as noted above, was a student in Respondent's CET class during the 2004-2005 school year. At the time of the hearing, Mr. McNeil was the head of the software and video game department at CompUSA. Respondent helped Mr. McNeil obtain his job. Mr. McNeil's loyalty to Respondent was evidenced by the fact that three days after Respondent was suspended, Mr. McNeil received a two-day out-of-school suspension for spinning a glass table 180 degrees and chipping it after Respondent's replacement asked Mr. McNeil to stop sitting on the side of his desk. Mr. McNeil attributed this outburst to the tension and frustration he and the rest of the class felt after Respondent left. During the 2005-2006 school year, Mr. McNeil was officially disciplined twice for insubordinate, disrespectful behavior toward Respondent's successor. Mr. McNeil testified that Respondent was the best teacher he ever had. He described Respondent's technique as nontraditional and "rather lenient." Respondent told the students not to bring food and drink into the class, but the students ignored this admonition and brought the food and drink into the class anyway. Respondent would "chastise" the students, but did not otherwise discipline them. Similarly, Respondent told students not to use cell phones in the class, but students would take calls and walk out of the room to speak. Mr. McNeil testified that students would work on material for other classes in Respondent's class. Some people listened to MP3 players. Students would play computer games during class. Respondent would not discipline these students beyond turning off their computers. Mr. McNeil testified that Respondent "made a big point" of having students sign in and out of the class, which directly contradicts the observations and testimony of every member of the IAP team. Mr. McNeil denied that he ever took on the role of teacher in the class, or that Respondent allowed him to take over the class. People "flocked" to him to ask questions because of his greater knowledge: And so a lot of times I would come up with something, I would realize something; and in the time when, you know, if somebody was done with their work and Barry wasn't giving any form of instruction or anything, then I would say, "Oh, hey, check this out or check this out," and then sometimes like two or three other guys would comment and listen and we'd talk and stuff. * * * It wasn't that frequent. It was just, you know, sometimes like-- sometimes like, you know, we'd finish up and then we'd have like an hour or so or sometimes we might only have a couple minutes or something like that. It wasn't like I would be able to give keynote speeches. (emphasis added) While Mr. McNeil was conducting these sessions, Respondent would be doing "paperwork or something off to himself," or perhaps circulating among the students. In summary, Respondent would forego "an hour or so" of teaching time to allow the students to do as they pleased. This testimony confirms the observations of the IAP team regarding the rudderless appearance of Respondent's classroom. Both Mr. Oglesby and Mr. McNeil appeared to be highly motivated students who succeeded in spite of Respondent's lack of effort in the classroom. They liked the very aspects of the class that the IAP team found most problematic such as the lack of discipline and structure. While such a free-form atmosphere might not prove detrimental to bright, self-motivated students such as Mr. Oglesby and Mr. McNeil, the evidence established that the majority of students in the CET program required a structured classroom that Respondent was unable or unwilling to provide. Respondent testified on his own behalf, recounting his educational experience, employment history, and his certifications. He reviewed his evaluations and described the CET class. However, Respondent was silent as to the IAP process, leaving unrefuted the testimony of Ms. McDaniel, Mr. Pentiuk, Ms. Cooley, Mr. McCormick, and Ms. Roshon. In summary, the School Board established that Respondent was unable or unwilling, when charged with running a classroom unassisted, to maintain student discipline, enforce well-established School Board and High Tech Central rules, teach in a coherent, organized fashion, or perform the administrative duties required of faculty at High Tech Central.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order upholding the suspension of Respondent and terminating Respondent from his position as a teacher with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 31th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and administrative rules or section 1012.795(1)(a),1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Mr. Richardson holds Florida Educator's Certificate 696450, covering the areas of Elementary Education and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all pertinent times, Mr. Richardson was employed as a fourth and fifth-grade reading teacher at WHE. As Ms. Kristen Rodriguez later testified, during the 2012-2013 school year, she encountered several students who asked her to let them remain with her in the media center at WHE rather than return to their scheduled class with Mr. Richardson. Based upon their accounts of Mr. Richardson's behavior in the classroom, she took the students to the school office and asked them to talk to the principal. The Broward County School District (District) subsequently conducted an investigation. Student A.C. credibly testified at hearing that during the 2012-2013 school year, when she was a fourth-grade student in his class, Mr. Richardson would sometimes scream at students who were not behaving, but did not scream at the well-behaved students. She testified that on a loudness scale of 1 to 10, he was a "7," while she rated other teachers at "5." Student A.C.'s testimony was supplemented and explained by the written statements of other students in that class: Student G.R. wrote that Mr. Richardson screamed at him close to his face; Student H.T. wrote that Mr. Richardson would scream if he was mad; Student J.G. wrote that when Mr. Richardson yelled at some students, he put his face within inches of the students' faces; Student T.W. wrote that he would yell in students' faces; and Student M.D. wrote that Mr. Richardson would yell in students' faces from inches away. The evidence was clear and convincing that when students were misbehaving, Mr. Richardson would sometimes yell or scream at them, placing his face close to theirs. Student J.G. credibly testified that if a student "wouldn't do like the work or behaved bad, he [Mr. Richardson] would grab them by their shoulders and yell at them and shake them." Student J.G. went on to clarify, "I mean not that bad, but like to get ahold." Student J.G.'s testimony was supplemented and explained by the written statements of other students: Student G.R. reported that Mr. Richardson "grabbed this kid and shook him"; and Student A.C. wrote that Mr. Richardson would shake students who were being bad, writing that "[w]hen he shaked [sic] kids he would shake them by the shoulders, on a scale from 0 to 5 he would shake kids like about a 2." The Department of Education (DOE) was notified of the allegations against Mr. Richardson. On or about April 5, 2013, Mr. Richardson received notice from Chief Marian Lambeth that the Office of Professional Practices of DOE had opened a case for purposes of investigating Mr. Richardson's alleged inappropriate conduct; and, if founded, the allegations could lead to disciplinary action against Mr. Richardson's Florida Educator's Certificate. On April 18, 2013, Mr. Richardson's attorney sent written notice to Chief Lambeth informing the DOE of her representation of Mr. Richardson in their investigation and requesting a copy of their investigative report upon its completion. Mr. Richardson was copied on the correspondence. As documented by letter later sent to Mr. Richardson, the Professional Standards Committee of the Broward County Public Schools met on May 8, 2013, and determined that there was no probable cause to support a charge of battery. However, the letter stated, "[l]et this correspondence serve as reprimand that any future violation of the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession will result in a recommendation for further disciplinary action up to and including termination."2/ Mr. Richardson successfully filed a grievance regarding the letter of reprimand imposed by the District. By letter dated March 26, 2014, Mr. Lerenzo Calhoun, employee and labor relations specialist of the District, advised the Broward Teachers Union, "[I]t has been determined that the written reprimand issued to the grievant be rescinded." On April 16, 2014, Mr. Richardson completed a "GC-10R Renewal Application Form rev 06/10 Legal Disclosure 1 - District Version" to initiate renewal of his Florida Educator Certificate, which was due to expire on June 30, 2014. Instructions on the bottom of the form direct the applicant to provide additional detailed information on a Legal Disclosure Supplement if any of the preceding 21 questions on the page are answered affirmatively. Mr. Richardson, having correctly answered "no" to 20 of these questions that deal with sealed records, criminal records, and license sanctions, but "yes" to the single question that asks if there is a "current investigative action" pending, turned to the supplementary page, "GC10R Application Form rev 06/10 Legal Disclosure 2 - District Version." Other than the applicant's name, however, the supplementary form solicited information about only three topics, each in its own section: "Sealed or Expunged Records"; "Criminal Offense Records"; and "Professional License or Certificate Sanctions." Mr. Richardson had no sealed or expunged records and so could not provide any supplementary information in response to the questions in that section. He had no criminal offense records and thus similarly could not provide responses to the questions in that section. He had no professional license or certificate sanctions and so could not answer those questions either. There were no questions pertaining to ongoing investigations. He logically left the supplementary page blank, and submitted the renewal application to the District's office, which was authorized to reissue the certificate. On the application, he made full disclosure of the pending investigation, complete with a handwritten notation indicating that there was no decision as of yet and including the investigation case number for easy reference (he volunteered this, for remarkably there is no question or blank space to include this information anywhere on the forms). The renewal application was reviewed on behalf of the District by Ms. Sheila Gipson, a certification specialist for the District. Ms. Gipson, dutifully implementing the policy reflected in the form's directions to complete the supplemental disclosure, refused to process the renewal application, deeming it incomplete. On April 23, 2014, Ms. Gipson sent an e-mail to Mr. Richardson illogically repeating the instruction on the form that if any question on page 4 was answered in the affirmative, that page 5 (the supplement) must be completed, and directed him to do so. If Mr. Richardson—eager to have his license renewed—was baffled by Ms. Gipson's e-mail and nonplussed at the impossible guidance it contained, his bewilderment might be excused. As previously noted, he had already provided complete details about the ongoing investigation to the District and could provide absolutely no information responsive to any of the supplemental questions. In any event, it is clear that strict enforcement of this "catch-22"3/ has the practical effect of preventing anyone under investigation but awaiting determination from completing an application at all. It is not clear if this structure results from accident or disingenuous design. Mr. Richardson testified that he telephoned Ms. Gipson and explained his dilemma. According to Mr. Richardson, Ms. Gipson concluded that he should not have said "yes" to the investigation question if no sanctions had been imposed, again explaining to him that any "yes" response meant that the application could not be processed without sanctions information. He testified that she directed him to change his answer on page 4 and resubmit the application so it could be considered complete. Mr. Richardson's testimony as to what Ms. Gipson told him was unrefuted. Ms. Gipson's instruction to Mr. Richardson did not make sense, any more than the form itself did. Mr. Richardson did as Ms. Gipson had instructed and filled out a second application form, which he dated April 26, 2014, indicating no "current investigative action pending" as he was told to do. He executed the Affidavit, which in bold print states: "Giving false information in order to obtain or renew a Florida Educator's Certificate is a criminal offense under Florida law. Anyone giving false information on this affidavit is subject to criminal prosecution, as well as disciplinary action by the Education Practices Commission."4/ On or about April 23, 2014, notice had been sent to both Mr. Richardson and his attorney that the DOE's preliminary investigation was completed and available for review. An Informal Conference was scheduled for May 22, 2014. Both Mr. Richardson and his attorney acknowledged receipt of the notice on April 28, 2014. After some delays, reflected in e-mail communications, Mr. Richardson hand-delivered the second application to Ms. Gipson, who received it on May 2, 2014. The Commissioner has failed to show that Mr. Richardson gave false information with the intent to deceive or defraud the District or DOE. Mr. Richardson's alternative explanation of his intent is plausible given the irrational structure of the application form and the fact that he had already fully disclosed the existence of the investigation to the District in the earlier application dated April 16, 2014. His insistence that his only intent was to break the bureaucratic logjam and allow his application to be considered complete, as the District's certification specialist, Ms. Gipson, advised him to do, is plausible. Mr. Richardson's testimony that Ms. Gipson advised him to fill out the second application as he did was not a new assertion: he had said so nearly two years prior to the hearing in his deposition. The Commissioner did not list Ms. Gipson as a witness, and she did not testify. Mr. Richardson's testimony regarding the April 26, 2014, application was unrefuted. The Commissioner failed to prove fraudulent intent. There was no competent evidence presented at hearing that Mr. Richardson ever used profanity in the classroom. Although there was considerable testimony at hearing about a clinic pass associated with an injury to Student N.M. on an occasion when Mr. Richardson's class was engaged in "indoor P.E.," it was not shown that Mr. Richardson in any way caused that injury, and he was not charged with doing so in the Administrative Complaint. There was no competent evidence that Mr. Richardson or any other person ever threw a book at Student N.M., as was charged. Mr. Richardson has been employed by the District for almost 21 years. He has never before had any discipline imposed against his license. He has taught successfully at Challenger Elementary School for almost five years after the 2012-2013 school year, without incident. Ms. Kalima Carson testified that she co-taught with Mr. Richardson. As she testified, he was a good classroom manager. Ms. Carson also credibly testified that he was a good teacher and that his students showed tremendous academic gains. As Ms. Diane Velasco-Ortiz credibly testified, Mr. Richardson was good at motivating his students, and he did well with students who faced challenges at home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Mr. Elijah Mark Richardson in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through his violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e); issuing him a letter of reprimand; and placing him on probation for a period of one employment year. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 16th day of April, 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment as a continuing contract teacher should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the public schools within Nassau County, Florida. Respondent graduated from the University of Florida in 1978 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English. She began working for Petitioner in the 1980/1981 school year at Emma Love Hardee Elementary School. That year, Respondent gave Petitioner an out-of-field assignment as a teacher of emotionally handicapped students. Respondent received her Master of Arts degree in Special Education from the University of North Florida in 1985. She began working as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) instructor at Fernandina Beach High School in the 1983/1984 school term. Beginning with the 1999/2000 school year, Respondent's primary teaching assignment was as a performing arts instructor at Fernandina Beach High School. Respondent worked in that capacity until the 2006/2007 school year when she became a full- time English and ESE co-teacher. For the 2007/2008 term, Respondent taught English III and English IV. In 2008/2009, Respondent worked as a regular education English teacher. She also served as an ESE co-teacher for intensive language arts. Jane Arnold began working as Principal at Fernandina Beach High School for the 1998/1999 school term. Ms. Arnold completed a performance appraisal of Respondent in 1999 that resulted in an overall unsatisfactory rating. Of particular concern to Ms. Arnold in the 1998/1999 appraisal was Respondent's problem with completing documentation of lesson plans, including daily instructional strategies as well as specific examples showing how the subject matter would be delivered. The failure to provide proper lesson plans made it difficult to know whether Florida's Sunshine State Standards were being met. Respondent was also having problems with grading students' work and recording the grades. Student work papers were disorganized and some papers were missing. Therefore, it was hard to discern what work was completed and when it was completed. The failure to timely grade and record students' work made it difficult for students to know what they needed to do to improve. Ms. Arnold subsequently placed Respondent on a professional development plan (PDP). The one-page PDP required Respondent to improve three job-service categories. After Respondent satisfactorily completed the PDP within the prescribed 90-day period, Ms. Arnold recommended that Respondent's employment continue. Respondent received a satisfactory or above- satisfactory rating on all of her teacher performance evaluation from the 1999/2000 school year through the 2006/2007 school year. However, Respondent admits that she has had consistent problems with time management and organization throughout her career. In October 2007, Respondent received a mini-grant from the Fernandina Beach High School Foundation. Respondent used the grant to provide her students with novels she used to teach literature. Additionally, in October 2007, Respondent earned continuing education credits toward recertification by attending a conference sponsored by the Florida Association for Theatre Arts. During the conference, Respondent participated in the "In Search of Shakespeare" workshop, which she hoped would prepare her to introduce Shakespeare as part of the British literature curriculum. Respondent's problem with providing focused instruction became critical during the 2007/2008 school year. Students in Respondent's classes were receiving failing grades and did not know why. Respondent made errors when reporting grades and had difficulty submitting them on time. Respondent was easily upset in the classroom. She would become emotional, lose her temper, and say things that were less than professional. Ms. Arnold heard disruptions in Respondent's classroom, which was behind a curtain, behind a stage, and behind double doors. Curtis Gaus was the assistant principal at Fernandina Beach High School from 2004 to 2008. Mr. Gaus also witnessed periods with the level of noise in Respondent's classroom was so loud that it could be heard in the cafeteria during lunchtime. Respondent was frequently tardy. As a result, Mr. Gaus would have to unlock Respondent's room and wait with her students until Respondent arrived. In October 2007, Respondent was required to complete progress monitoring plans and schedule parent conferences. The conferences were scheduled on October 14, 15, and 16, 2007. Petitioner did not turn in the progress monitoring plans until two months after holding the conferences. As observed by Ms. Arnold and Mr. Gaus, Respondent frequently failed to provide her students with any explanation of expectation as to a lesson or any modeling of what it was she expected the student to do. She provided no immediate feedback or clarification for the work they were attempting. In January 2008, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent using instructional time to read questions to students, expecting them to write the questions as she read them. Ms. Arnold advised Respondent that she should not use class time to dictate questions. On January 31, 2008, Ms. Arnold met with Respondent and gave her type-written comments, suggesting areas for Respondent to improve classroom instruction. Mr. Gaus observed teacher classroom at least once a month. Many times Respondent would be unaware that Mr. Gaus was in her classroom. For the majority of Mr. Gaus' visits, Respondent's students were off task. On one occasion, while Respondent was handing out notebooks, the students were playing video games and talking to each other. In February 2008, Respondent's English IV students presented a Renaissance Faire. The students researched and prepared exhibits, presented projects, and competed in a soliloquy contest sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts to earn extra credit toward their semester grade. In support of the Renaissance Faire, Respondent wrote lesson plans, developed a project rubric, implemented classroom assignments and kept a record of student project grades. Respondent invited parents, current and former teachers, as well as community leaders to act as judges for an evening program presented by the students. Respondent took a six-week medical leave effective March 5, 2008. On March 8, 2008, Respondent attended a teacher's conference entitled Super Saturday. As a result of participation at the conference, Respondent earned the points she needed to renew her teaching certificate. Petitioner's Classroom Teacher Assessment Handbook for the 2007/2008 school year states that a continuing contract teacher must receive one formal observation, followed within 10 days by a post-observation conference. During the post- observation conference, a PDP must be developed for teachers receiving unsatisfactory performance appraisal reports. The formal observation must be completed by March 14. Performance appraisals are required to be completed and submitted to the Superintendent no later than April 7. However, Petitioner was on medical leave on these dates. In May 2008, Respondent provided Petitioner with a physician's written recommendation for extension of Respondent's medical leave. Petitioner approved extension of the leave through August 11, 2008. On May 29, 2008, Ms. Arnold wrote a letter to Respondent, who was still on medical leave. A Notification of Less Than Satisfactory Performance was included with the letter. The May 29, 2008, letter reminded Respondent that they needed to arrange a time in July to complete Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal and to discuss the implementation of a PDP for the 2008/2009 school year. The letter refers to written comments that addressed Respondent's performance and that were provided to her earlier in the school year. In July 2008, Petitioner sponsored vertical and horizontal curriculum development workshops for English teachers of advanced placement and honors students. Some English teachers of regular/average students also attended the workshops. Respondent did not receive this training. On July 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent met to discuss Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal and PDP. The evaluation rated Respondent unsatisfactory with a total overall score of four out of a possible 100 points. Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal contained Ms. Arnold's comments in each of the performance categories as follows: Planning/Preparation: Lack of long and short term planning[.] Detailed lesson plans must identify learning objective and the instructional strategies/activities/assessment planned to accomplish the objective. Work should be clear, compelling and engaging and include representative works and genres from the Anglo Saxon period through the present day. Feedback to students should be timely and specific. Documentation should be organized and accessible. Classroom Management: Classroom environment hostile, negative and chaotic. 3-step discipline procedure not documented. Records not accurate or timely. Classroom procedures lack organization. School & Board policies not consistently enforced. Room in disarray with papers, books, and materials in haphazard piles throughout the room. Assessment/Management: Interventions for academic, attendance and behavioral problems lacking. Parent contacts inconsistent and not documented. 3-step discipline procedure not implemented. Effective instructional strategies lacking. Work is frequently not meaningful or relevant to unit of study. Intervention/Direct Services: Teacher read test questions to students, refused to repeat questions, and subtracted points from students who requested additional clarification. Papers are frequently "lost," performance expectations for assignments not clearly defined, and grade information not easily available to students and parents. Technology: Teacher web site/Edline not utilized[.] Frequent errors in grade reporting[.] Difficulty meeting deadlines[.] Collaboration: Frequently alienates students and parents by failing to produce documentation for grades or clarification of assignments[.] Does not follow Board Policies for make-up work, and fails to communicate problems to parents to seek their assistance. Staff Development: While Ms. Autry has participated in numerous professional development activities for effective instruction, the strategies identified and recommended have not been implemented with any consistency in her classroom. Parental Input: Parents express frustration and impatience with the problems encountered by their students in Ms. Autry's class. Clear communication of academic and behavioral expectations needs to be provided to all stakeholders. Complaints about "disparaging comments" made by Ms. Autry about the students in her classes are frequent, both from students and teachers. Professional Responsibilities: Ms. Autry must learn to maintain a professional demeanor at all times in the classroom, and must avoid making negative comments about the students with whom she works. Improvement of instruction must become a priority. Extra-curricular involvement should be limited as it appears to interfere with time that should be devoted to her classes. Deadlines need to be met. Grading and attendance should be timely and accurate. Curriculum deficiencies must be addressed. Interim Student Growth: Academic interventions should be provided and documented for students experiencing difficulty in successfully completing the coursework[.] Parents must be notified and encouraged to participate in the intervention strategies. Grades should be fair, consistent, and easily available to students and parents. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Ms. Arnold's comments on the 2007/2008 performance appraisal accurately summarized Respondent's professional deficiencies. Many of Ms. Arnold's comments show the same types of problems that Respondent has experienced for years. In 1984, Respondent used sarcasm towards students and failed to submit paperwork on time. In 1988, Respondent had problems with organization, submitting timely grades, and completing paperwork accurately and on time. In June 1998, Respondent was disorganized, late to work, and untimely in submitting paperwork. In August 1998, Respondent had trouble with accurate and punctual recordkeeping, using varied and appropriate educational strategies, and demonstrating effective classroom management. In the 2001/2002 school term, Respondent had trouble submitting grades on time. The final comment of Ms. Arnold on the last page of the 2007/2008 performance appraisal, states as follows: As a result of an unexpected medical leave, this evaluation and resulting professional development plan can not be completed until Ms. Autry's return to work. Ms. Arnold and Respondent signed the evaluation on July 21, 2008. Also on July 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent reviewed a 32-page PDP plan. The PDP was designed to meet each area of deficiency on Respondent's 2007-2008 performance appraisal. Respondent did not take advantage of the opportunity to request any specific strategies or otherwise provide input regarding the PDP on July 21, 2008. However, the next day, Respondent sent Ms. Arnold an e-mail, requesting Ms. Arnold to review a folder of documentation to support Respondent's performance in certain areas. Ms. Arnold responded in an e-mail dated July 22, 2008. Ms. Arnold agreed to review the materials provided by Respondent. She also stated that "evaluation specific activities" might help them revise the PDP as needed. Ms. Arnold also invited Respondent to utilize the "Comments of Evaluatee" section of the performance appraisal. In subsequent e-mail, Respondent and Ms. Arnold agreed on a time to meet. Sometime after receiving the 2007/2008 performance appraisal, Respondent performed a self-assessment on all essential performance functions. She gave herself an overall rating of "needing improvement," with 30 of 100 points. For the 2008/2009 school year, Ms. Arnold assigned Respondent to teach four sections of English IV, first through fourth periods. Respondent had some regular education students and some ESE students in these classes. With only one preparation, Respondent did not have and should not have needed a co-teacher to assist her in teaching four classes of English IV. Respondent also was assigned as a co-teacher in two intensive language classes, fifth and sixth period. Anita Bass, a Reading Coach, was primarily responsible for planning and teaching the two intensive-language classes. Respondent, as a co-teacher, was supposed to provide assistance in general and to specifically provide help to ESE students. When Ms. Bass was absent, Respondent would teach the intensive-language class. On one occasion, Respondent taught a lesson on fables. On another occasion, Respondent taught a lesson on neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson. In August 2008, Respondent was assigned a new classroom. She moved her materials from the room behind the cafeteria to a more traditional classroom. On September 12, 2008, Ms. Arnold visited Respondent's classroom for 15 minutes. During that time, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent reading from a text. Only three students had their books open and there was very little student participation. On September 15, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e-mail, advising that her lesson plans and weekly course outline were past due. On September 16, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e-mail regarding her classroom observation on September 12, 2008. The message also requested submission of Respondent's lesson plans and weekly course outline along with a written explanation as to Respondent's reason for not meeting the deadline. On October 13, 2008, Ms. Arnold visited Respondent's classroom. Ms. Arnold found the students talking, sleeping, and watching CNN because the movie described in Respondent's lesson plan was over. None of the students had books or papers on their desks. Respondent stayed behind her desk for approximately ten minutes then handed some graded brochures back to the students. Respondent spoke to her students for about five minutes during the 22 minutes of Ms. Arnold's visit. The students did nothing during that time. In an e-mail written later on October 13, 2008, Ms. Arnold noted that Respondent's weekly syllabus dated October 13, 2008, showed that the students were scheduled to watch a movie then complete a reading guide and a quiz. The e- mail discussed Ms. Arnold's observations earlier in the day and requested revised lesson plans for the week. Referring to the lesson observed that morning, Ms. Arnold also requested an explanation of the learning objectives and teaching strategies employed by Respondent. Ms. Arnold reminded Respondent that required tasks were to be completed in a timely and accurate fashion. A subsequent e-mail dated October 13, 2008, stated that Ms. Arnold had received Respondent's ESE Mainstream Report for four students. According to the message, the reports were given to Respondent on September 29, 2008, were due on October 3, 2008, and not given to the teacher of record until October 7, 2008. Because the Mainstream Reports were incomplete for several students, Mr. Arnold requested Respondent to review her Professional Growth Plan, requiring tasks to be completed in a timely and accurate fashion. Ms. Arnold also requested Respondent to provide the missing information. On October 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e- mail, requesting lesson plans that were due on October 17, 2008. Joyce Menz is Petitioner's Director of Staff and Program Development. In November 2008, Ms. Menz provided Respondent with an opportunity to attend a workshop related to classroom management. Petitioner did not attend the workshop. In the fall of 2008, Ms. Menz hired Jimi Buck, a retired language arts resource teacher and reading curriculum specialist, to sit and plan a lesson with Respondent. Ms. Buck then demonstrated instruction of the lesson plan in one of Respondent's classes. Ms. Menz arranged for Respondent to observe Ms. Drake, an English IV teacher at another school. Respondent and Ms. Drake spent some time going over Ms. Drake's yearlong plan of how and what she would be teaching. Ms. Menz hired a substitute for Respondent's classes so that she could consult with Ms. Drake. Ms. Menz hired Ms. Mealing, another consultant, to meet with Respondent and work on a week of lesson plans. During their time together, Respondent and Ms. Mealing viewed and discussed a DVD entitled "Strategies for Secondary English Teachers." Ms. Menz purchased the DVD specifically for the purpose of helping Respondent. Ms. Menz provided a substitute for Respondent's classes while she reviewed the materials with Ms. Mealing. Ms. Arnold made it possible for Respondent to observe Ms. Barlow's classes at Fernandina Beach High School, by hiring a substitute for one-half day. Ms. Barlow taught Advanced Placement and English IV Honors. Ms. Arnold also provided additional help to Respondent when school began in the fall of 2008. First, Ms. Arnold did not assign Respondent as a teacher of record for any ESE students. As a teacher of record, Respondent would have been required to keep track of what was happening with her ESE students. Ms. Arnold also excused Respondent from participating in any extracurricular activities. Ms. Arnold hoped that Respondent would devote all of her energy to improving her instruction. At times, Ms. Arnold would go into Respondent's class to get it under control in response to disruptive behaviors. Ms. Arnold then would make suggestions to Respondent about how to keep control, reminding her of the need to use the three-step discipline procedure. On November 6, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent signed a performance appraisal. Respondent's overall rating on the evaluation was unsatisfactory. Respondent indicated that she thought her overall rating should have been "needs improvement," which would have still required a plan of assistance. Mr. Gaus observed Respondent during the PDP period and completed a performance evaluation. Mr. Gaus found that there was no improvement in keeping students on task. During the post-observation conference with Respondent, she continually acknowledged that she had problems with administrative tasks, lesson plans, submitting grades and managing the behavior of her students. On November 17, 2008, Ms. Menz observed Respondent's classroom. Ms. Menz found that Respondent's overall planning was not based on students' needs and was not clear and engaging. Ms. Menz observed two students who appeared to be sleeping and another texting. While Ms. Menz was in Respondent’s class, six students lost their early-lunch privilege. On the November 17, 2008, performance appraisal prepared by Ms. Menz, Respondent received an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Respondent made a comment on the evaluation form, indicating that she had learned a lot from the post- observation conference with Ms. Menz and looked forward to receiving further assistance. On November 21, 2008, Mr. Gaus, sent Respondent an e- mail. The message advised that Respondent had not posted her grades on Edline since October 21, 2008, and should do so as soon as possible. Edline is the computer program that Petitioner uses to record grades. Despite the PDP, Respondent's deficiencies did not improve. In her semester exam, she used materials that the students had not read. When the students questioned Respondent, she told them, "If you want to read it, look it up on the internet." In response to the PDP, Respondent developed a behavioral incentive plan to implement in the reading classes where she was the co-teacher. Respondent sent a letter to inform parents about the plan. The behavior incentive plan sought to reward positive student behavior with bathroom passes, snacks, and paper money. However, there were school rules against having food in the classroom and allowing bathroom passes except for emergencies. Moreover, the plan was not well received because the students thought Respondent was tallying their actions. As a co-teacher, Respondent was required to help implement a computer-directed reading program. Because Respondent was unable to provide assistance with the program, a third person had to be called in to perform the task for Respondent. An additional concern of Ms. Arnold's was that Respondent continued to ignore Petitioner’s policy regarding makeup work. Ms. Arnold was also concerned that Respondent was losing her temper and taking points from students who asked for clarification on assignments. In January 2008, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent's classroom again. Her comments on the performance appraisal were as follows: Planning/Preparation: Second 9-weeks spent on "Pygmalion" [.] Based on lesson plans, there were no novels, short stories, or poems by British writers included in the material taught (See eval. #1)[.] Classroom activities lack relevance and timeliness. (See eval. #2) Strategies and Objectives listed in lesson plans were not reflected in actual classroom activities. Classroom Management: Inappropriate student behavior during classroom observation was addressed and corrected by instructor. Developed behavioral incentive plan for students in Reading Classes with reward system for positive student behavior and achievement (bathroom passes, snacks, paper money)[.] Assessment/Management: Portions of the semester exam do not correlate to stated learning objectives, learning strategies, or class activities listed in the semester outline, lesson plans, or weekly syllabus. Students have not read "Julius Caesar" or "Heart of Darkness." Neither have they studied the three poems they are to compare. Students were told to "look up" the meaning of the literary terms that they were given to use in analyzing the poems on the exam. Many questions given to student in advance. Intervention/Direct Services: Ms. Autry does not demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the English IV curriculum. Significant works by British writers have not been taught. (See observation #1) Pacing is slow, with 9-weeks spent on "Pygmalion" to the exclusion of British novels, short stories and poems. Activities are not aligned with student needs. In- depth skills development is lacking. Technology: Ms. Autry utilizes technology for administrative and instructional tasks[.] However, on December 16th, Edline grades had not been updated since 10/23[.] Also on that date, the last weekly syllabus posted was for week 11. Collaboration: Ms. Autry's written complaints about ESE co-workers in which she stated the need for colleagues to provide accommodation for her [medical condition] resulted in strained working relationships. Ms. Autry attends department meeting and faculty meetings as outlined in the Plan of Assistance. Staff Development: Completed training in ESE/IEP, Tablet PC, Edline/Grade Quick and ELMO. Received direct training by Ms. Menz, Ms. Mealing & Ms. Buck to address instructional deficiencies. Declined suggested training opportunities in Discipline & Motivation Strategies, Behavior Management Strategies, Classroom Management, Lesson Planning, Parental Input, Classroom Assessment and Professional Responsibilities. (Based on identified needs in PDP and classroom observations.) Parental Input: Edline/Grade Quick posting irregular. Few documented parent contacts. Professional Responsibilities: Ms. Autry is teaching four sections of English IV and is the co-teacher in two sections of Reading taught by the Reading Coach. She in (sic) not the teacher of record for any ESE students. During the 90- day plan of assistance, lesson plans were submitted late 15 out of 18 weeks. Grades were not posted in a timely fashion on Edline. (Ms. Autry was excused from participating in extra curricular activities in order to focus on her plan of assistance. Interim Student Growth: Students who had not passed the FCAT were assigned to the Reading Coach who provided individual/group instruction during the first 9-weeks. 96% of Ms. Autry's students received semester grades of 70% or higher. No other assessments are available at this time. Ms. Autry and Ms. Arnold signed the performance appraisal dated January 7, 2009. Ms. Autry requested that Ms. Arnold attach information about a disability and its accommodations to the evaluation. Ms. Arnold complied with the request. Two weeks before the expiration of the PDP, Respondent requested a two-month extension because she could not comply with the plan. Respondent's request was denied. Petitioner's Superintendent, Dr. John Ruis, placed Respondent on paid suspension when she did not improve. Dr. Ruis then recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay pending termination.
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 22nd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the offense(s) charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 1091499, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Exceptional Student Education, and Autism Spectrum Disorder, which is valid through June 30, 2016. The Commissioner of Education is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding a Florida Educator's Certificate. Respondent is an experienced teacher, having taught for 22 years, the last ten in Florida. Respondent has a post- bachelor's degree in Special Education, and a second bachelor's degree in English, and a master's degree in Special Education. Respondent began his career teaching emotional behavioral students, and did that for a few years. He later worked at a residential school, then transferred to teaching those with intellectual disabilities, and later focused his time and professional efforts on autistic students. Respondent decided to teach Special Education students because he had himself been a Special Education student. The incidents complained of in the Amended Administrative Complaint are alleged to have taken place over a three-month period at Olympic Heights High School in Boca Raton, Florida, where Respondent was employed as the emotional behavioral teacher and provided math support. Respondent testified that students with emotional behavioral disorders that interfere with their learning, need a support system to help them learn how to better handle their emotional and behavioral states in order to learn. His job was to oversee that system and to direct a classroom where he could teach them those skills. In addition to his special needs classes, Respondent would "push into" math classes, to teach Special Education students that were in the general education community. In this case, Petitioner outlined several rule and statutory violations by Respondent in its Amended Administrative Complaint including: Violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct. Failing to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. Unreasonably restraining a student from independent action in pursuit of learning. Intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The factual allegations underlying these violations were as follows: During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent improperly and aggressively handled T.C., an eighteen year old, male student with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ADF). On or about January 27, 2015, when T.C. grabbed Respondent's coffee cup, Respondent improperly restrained T.C. by placing T.C. in a headlock. On three (3) other occasions during the 2014/2015 school year, Respondent pulled T.C. to the floor, squeezed his cheeks and yelled at him. Respondent would often put his hands on a student when unnecessary and yell at them calling them names. Further, in November of 2014, the Respondent left a student, P.M., unattended in the classroom for twenty (20) minutes while he used the bathroom facilities. Facts Regarding Aggressive Handling and Improper Restraint of T.C. Nicole Ben-Hamo was a speech pathologist doing contract work for the Palm Beach County School District at Olympic Heights High School, in Boca Raton, Florida. She testified that on January 15, 2015, she observed an incident between Respondent and T.C., a student. The incident occurred in what she described as "an amazing small classroom" (referring to its physical size). The classroom was full of other staff members who were in a position, she felt, to observe what she observed. Ben-Hamo saw what she described as "a little wrestle," when student T.C. "grabbed" Respondent's coffee cup. T.C. was tall, heavy, and a big guy. She observed Respondent move forward from behind T.C. to try to reclaim his coffee cup. She claimed that Respondent was standing up behind T.C. and both had their feet on the floor. Respondent reached over the shoulder of T.C. and around him as he tried to take back the coffee cup. Ben-Hamo later wrote a statement in which she claimed that Respondent's arm was around T.C. in a "headlock." Pet. Ex. 2. In her hearing testimony, she described the action as Respondent reaching with one hand to reach the coffee cup, and reaching around T.C. to restrain him with the other hand. In her prior deposition testimony, she noted that it was probably not the right terminology to say a "headlock," but said that Respondent was holding the student's head in a restraint while reaching for the cup. She conceded that she was not familiar with wrestling moves or any kind of move that would be called a "headlock." She testified that she does not know if that is what the move is called, or if it was intended to be a headlock.1/ Ben-Hamo tried to clarify that what she actually observed was Respondent's arm extending from T.C.'s clavicle to his neck area. She could not tell if Respondent was squeezing T.C. In both her deposition testimony and at the hearing, she indicated that she could not imagine that he was squeezing or trying to hurt T.C. In her written statement, given a day or so after the event, Ben-Hamo wrote that she did not believe that Respondent's actions constituted intentional abuse. Pet. Ex. 2. In an effort to further clarify what she thought she saw, Ben-Hamo explained that she did not think that she had witnessed intentional abuse. She felt that Respondent was trying to get the coffee cup back and calm the student.2/ Pet. Ex. 2. Ben-Hamo testified that the entire incident took a "short time" and that none of the other adults who were present intervened. Because she felt that the incident was not "proper interaction," she reported it to an assistant principal. Sarah Borah, the assistant principal; Sharon Dix-Stark, the ESE coordinator; and David Clark, the principal, all were called to testify by Petitioner.3/ Mary Beth Hall, who was present in the room, reported that Respondent sat next to T.C., as he often did. This was done to keep T.C. from jumping up to be disruptive or grab the food of others. While they were seated, she saw T.C. grab Respondent's coffee cup off the table. In turn, Respondent took T.C.'s hat, telling T.C. that "if you take something of mine; I'll take something of yours." Hall reported that nothing she saw about the interaction was extraordinary. She felt that by the time an investigator was called in "things had been kind of blown out of proportion" and the incident between T.C. and Respondent was more a matter of "perception." She felt Respondent worked well with the students. He was more "hands on" with T.C., with whom he got along well. Respondent served as a needed male role model to T.C. Hall recalled that Respondent and T.C. remained seated throughout the incident. Contrary to the testimony of Ben-Hamo, Hall never saw T.C. or Respondent stand during the incident. Hall gave a statement months later in which she used the term "chokehold." Pet. Ex. 3. However, she unequivocally explained at the hearing that she did not see Respondent actually choking T.C., using a chokehold on T.C., or restraining T.C. Hall testified, instead, that the two were "wrestling with their arms" over the items (the cup and hat) and reaching over and around each other, as would two children tussling for the same toy. They both remained seated during the incident and their respective desks never moved or were jostled out of position. Respondent never stood behind T.C. during the incident. According to Hall, the entire incident was two people sitting next to each other and wrestling with their arms. She used the term "wrestling" to indicate two people reaching around each other. Hall testified that she saw Respondent's actions as a means for him to teach T.C. not to grab something that did not belong to him and belonged to someone else. After what she described as a very quick incident, Hall reflected that Respondent got his coffee mug, T.C. got his hat back, and they both seemed happy after the incident concluded. Hall did not find it necessary to intervene in the incident, as there was no violence between Respondent and T.C. Hall observed several paraprofessionals in the room. None intervened, or put down their cell phones during the incident. According to Hall, T.C. was not harmed in any way. Hall testified that no noises or sounds were made by T.C. during the incident that indicated he was in any pain, distress, or discomfort. Hall never saw Respondent mistreat T.C. in any way. Respondent appeared to treat all children respectfully and attentively, and she never saw him use his hands improperly on any student in the classroom. Respondent testified on his own behalf. He felt he had a "wonderful" relationship with T.C. He described T.C. as a physically 18-year-old adult, who was large and strong. However, his emotional development was at the pre-kindergarten level. T.C. was over six feet tall, and weighed 250 to 260 pounds. T.C. was obsessive compulsive and had a short attention span. He had certain behavioral problems, which were accentuated because he never learned proper replacement behaviors for his maladaptive kindergarten behaviors. These behaviors were not appropriate for an 18-year-old. T.C. always needed to be escorted because he liked to run, look, investigate, and discover. Whether it was in front of a car or whether it was a trash can, he just always wanted to do things. For safety reasons, an adult was always required to be with him. Assistance was provided to help steer T.C. to more appropriate behavior and activities. Occasionally, T.C. would put Respondent's hand on his shoulder for Respondent to rub his shoulder. It was a method that Respondent used to soothe T.C., which they called "tickles." On the day of the incident, Respondent sat down next to T.C., who had finished lunch. Respondent placed his coffee cup on the dining table some three feet away. Without warning, T.C. lunged across Respondent to grab Respondent's coffee cup. He did not reach it the first time. Respondent began massaging T.C.'s arm and said, "Do you want tickles, or do you want the coffee cup?" T.C. calmed for a time, and then reached for the cup again. T.C. reached and got his hand on Respondent's cup. While doing this, he was leaning into or on Respondent's lap. He eventually reached and grabbed Respondent's cup. Respondent took T.C.'s hat from the windowsill, and asked if T.C. wanted his hat given back. T.C. reached for his hat with his other hand. As the incident unfolded, T.C. held the cup and reached over Respondent trying to grab his hat back from Respondent. The two were right next to each other, reaching back and forth. Respondent extended his hand out, so that T.C. would see that he was waiting for his cup to be exchanged. Eventually T.C. got bored of the cup and gave it back to Respondent. When T.C. gave Respondent the cup, Respondent gave him back his hat. The more persuasive and credible testimony regarding the classroom incident was that T.C. impulsively grabbed Respondent's cup while they were seated next to each other. Respondent then attempted to make a teaching point with T.C. about not taking the things of another, by taking his hat. In the process, T.C. and Respondent reached over and around the other in an effort to retrieve their item from the other. There was physical contact between the two, but it was not inappropriate, or unduly rough.4/ There was no credible proof that Respondent intended to harm, restrain, or injure T.C. Ben-Hamo's testimony and conclusions regarding the extent, type and nature of the contact and interaction between T.C. and Respondent is rejected as unpersuasive and implausible.5/ The undersigned finds that Respondent did not place or restrain T.C. in a "chokehold," "headlock," or other improper restraint. Based on this record and the circumstances, there was no clear and convincing evidence to support Petitioner's allegation that Respondent violated any statute, policy, or rule in the incident with T.C. regarding the coffee cup. Allegations Reported by Shannon Lewis Shannon Lewis, a paraprofessional, testified by deposition. Pet. Ex. 11. She described T.C. as being 6'5" tall and weighing 250 to 280 pounds. She noted that he had very little impulse control, and that when he saw something of interest, he impulsively went to get it. Lewis testified that one day when Respondent took T.C. to physical education class, T.C. wanted to put his tooth on the doorway when he exited the gymnasium.6/ According to Lewis, Respondent grabbed T.C. by one arm, then pulled him away and yanked him. She testified that Respondent put his foot behind T.C.'s foot, so that T.C. would have to go to the ground. According to Lewis, Respondent did that three times before he would relent.7/ Lewis testified that the students in the physical education class and two paraprofessionals, including Pedro St. Jacques and Illiana Girtman, were present when the incident occurred and saw it. She testified that St. Jacques was the aide assigned to T.C. Lewis testified that while T.C. was on the ground, Respondent squeezed his face and made his lips pucker and yelled, "No, T. No." No student or other teacher testified that they saw or witnessed the actions described by Lewis. St. Jacques executed an affidavit admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 3.8/ Resp. Ex. 3. However, he never witnessed anything inappropriate between Respondent and any students, including T.C. St. Jacques never witnessed Respondent throw T.C. to the ground and never saw him treat T.C. badly.9/ St. Jacques testified that sometimes it was necessary to approach T.C. in a different manner because of his size and to prevent him from getting hurt. It was sometimes necessary to physically guide T.C. away from whatever activity he became fixated on. St. Jacques never observed Respondent use any unnecessary or questionable force on T.C. in those instances. He knew that Respondent was working with T.C. to have him stop biting the door frames as he walked through the halls. He heard Respondent tell T.C. not to bite them and saw him maneuver T.C. away from them. No undue force was used by Respondent. Girtman was also present during this incident, according to Lewis. She was a paraprofessional with Respondent at Olympic Heights High School. She never saw Respondent touch a student in a way that she thought was unnecessary or improper. Respondent was always gentle with T.C. She never saw Respondent squeeze T.C.'s face or yell at him. Another paraprofessional, Alvaro Rodriguez testified. He was also identified by Lewis as being present during the door- biting incident. He never saw Respondent use physical methods or force on T.C. in a way that he thought was improper. He never saw Respondent pull T.C. down to the floor. He never saw Respondent squeeze T.C. by the cheeks or yell at him. Respondent denied that the hallway incident occurred, as described by Lewis. He testified that the banging of T.C.'s teeth on a piece of metal was part of his obsessive-compulsive disorder.10/ Respondent was not big enough to pull T.C. down to the floor, and never did so. When T.C. was agitated or running around, Respondent would ask him to sit, but he never pulled him to the floor. Respondent explained that sometimes T.C. needed gentle pressure on his arm or something to reinforce what it means to go down or to go in one direction or the other. Respondent denied that he yelled into T.C.'s face or yelled at him, and that T.C. did not respond to yelling, he only responded to quiet talking. Respondent testified that he never grabbed T.C. by the cheeks and squeezed. Respondent's testimony concerning this incident, and the testimony from St. Jacques, Girtman, and Rodriquez was more persuasive and credible. There simply was no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent improperly, violently, or forcefully threw or took T.C. to the ground, yelled at him, squeezed his cheeks or handled him in an inappropriate way. Further, the proof was insufficient to prove any unreasonable restraint was used by Respondent during this incident with T.C. Incident Involving P.M. Lewis described P.M. as a non-verbal and out of control student, who destroyed his home and wiped feces everywhere. Lewis claimed that Respondent decided to work with P.M. in his classroom one-on-one during lunch.11/ One day Lewis walked into Respondent's classroom and saw P.M. sitting on a yoga ball with no teacher in sight.12/ She then heard the toilet flush, and Respondent walked out of the bathroom. The aides were instructed that no student should ever be left alone. St. Jacques' statement indicates he (St. Jacques) was always assigned to supervise P.M. when Respondent was at the school, and that he (St. Jacques) was supposed to be with P.M. on the day in question. Apparently, P.M. was another student who needed full-time supervision. Evidently, P.M. liked to walk around the classrooms and would walk into Respondent's classroom on occasion. St. Jacques would always redirect him. When P.M. wandered into Respondent's classroom, it would only be for about 30 seconds. There was never a time that Respondent was responsible to supervise P.M. during his planning period, or at any other time. It was always the responsibility of the paraprofessional to supervise and attend to P.M. Even if Respondent was working with P.M., St. Jacques was responsible to be with him. Respondent testified, consistent with St. Jacques, that he never worked with P.M. without the aide present. He was never assigned to supervise P.M. in lieu of the aide, because that would have changed P.M.'s Individualized Education Program. Students were not allowed in Respondent's classroom during his planning period, except to be escorted to use the bathroom. Respondent testified that there were times that he would transition back from a class and P.M. would be in his room using his sensory equipment, but he would always be with St. Jacques. One time when he came out of the bathroom during his planning period, he observed P.M. in his room with Lewis, who sometimes covered for St. Jacques during the other paraprofessional's break. During the period of time that Respondent was in the bathroom, he was not assigned or supposed to be supervising P.M. He was surprised to see P.M. when he came out of the bathroom during his planning period. The allegation that Respondent failed to properly supervise P.M. and left him alone while Respondent used the bathroom was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. The more persuasive evidence at the hearing indicated that Respondent was not assigned to supervise P.M. at the time of this particular incident. The testimony of St. Jacques supports Respondent's version and this finding. Whatever Lewis saw, or thought she saw, was not persuasive or sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent left P.M. unattended in his classroom for 20 minutes or failed to supervise a student assigned to him. Exposing a Student to Unnecessary Embarrassment or Disparagement Lewis further testified that there was an incident involving students who wanted to use calculators during math class. J.M. wanted to use the calculator, but Respondent would not let her use it. The student had to be taken from the room because she screamed and carried on when not permitted to use the calculator. Apparently, Respondent wanted her to learn to do math without a calculator. There were two other students who Respondent also did not allow to use the calculator. In response to the various requests, Respondent commented, "This is ridiculous. You guys are stupid if you can't do this without a calculator. You need to have life skills in order for you to be successful outside of the classroom." There was not a shred of proof offered or adduced at the hearing that Respondent "put his hands on" any of these students.13/ Furthermore, there was no clear and convincing proof that Respondent intended to expose these math students to unnecessary embarrassment. See Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Respondent denied that he ever called any of the students a derogatory name or called any of them "stupid." Lewis agreed that it was Respondent's role as the teacher to determine whether a calculator was used. She claimed that St. Jacques was in the room when Respondent called the girls stupid and heard him say it. St. Jacques' attested in his written statement in a contrary manner. Resp. Ex. 3. He said that he never witnessed anything inappropriate between Respondent and any students, including the girls involved in the calculator incident, J.M. and Rebecca. St. Jacques never witnessed Respondent mistreat the math students referred to by Lewis. Respondent was always respectful to the students and he never saw Respondent embarrass or ridicule any of them. Respondent testified that he treated the students in general with compassion and respect. He denied he ever called them names other than their own and never embarrassed any student or called them names because they wanted to use the calculators. Based upon the more persuasive and credible evidence adduced at the hearing, the allegations of belittling the math students and calling them "stupid" were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. There was insufficient proof to establish that Respondent intended to unnecessarily ridicule, demean, or belittle any particular student The testimony of St. Jacques bolsters Respondent's testimony on this point. The undersigned credits Respondent's testimony and finds it more persuasive. The undersigned finds that there was no clear or convincing evidence to conclude that Respondent's actions or statements to the girls regarding the use of the calculator, constituted a violation of any statute, policy, or rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Jeffrey Voner. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2018.
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Alternative Learning Center Respondent In 1974, at 22 years of age, Respondent earned his Bachelor of Science degree in social studies from Florida Memorial College, an historically black college in Miami. In his freshman year, he was named the Outstanding Freshman from Southwest Florida attending historically black colleges. At various times during his last three years of college, Respondent worked in inner-city ministries in St. Louis and New Orleans. For about five years following graduation, Florida Memorial College employed Respondent, first as Associate Director of Admissions and then as Director of Alumni-Church Relations, assistant basketball coach, head baseball coach, and head volleyball coach. After moving from Miami to Lee County, Respondent worked for a short time outside of education. At the start of the 1986- 87 school year, Respondent returned to education by accepting employment with the Lee County School District (District) as a social studies teacher at Cypress Lake High School, where he remained for two years. While at Cypress Lake High School, Respondent also served as head girls' basketball coach, head girls' track coach, assistant volleyball coach, and assistant baseball coach. While employed by the District, Respondent helped with the fathers' program at LAMP, which is an educational program operated by the District at the New Directions Center. The LAMP program provides high-school instruction for teenage mothers. Respondent also headed the District's first mentor program, which finds mentors, without regard to race, to encourage minority students to excel in an academic setting, such as in gifted and honors courses. In 1988, Respondent earned his Master of Science degree in educational leadership from Nova University. Then-Superintendent Engle named Respondent to serve as principal-on-assignment for the 1988-89 school year to recruit minority teachers for the District. Respondent was the second minority person assigned to an administrative position in the District. At the time, a federal court had entered a desegregation order against the District. In the ten years prior to Respondent's new assignment, the District had hired about a dozen minority teachers. In one summer, Respondent recruited 30 minority teachers. After completing his assignment in minority teacher recruitment, Respondent returned to Cape Coral High School as Dean of Students. He served in this position for the 1989-90 school year. Following the 1989-90 school year, Respondent was appointed the Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, in which capacity Respondent served for five years. When he assumed the job, he received a $5000 raise to about $40,000 annually. A coordinator is the lowest level of management in the District office. Coordinators are subordinate to assistant directors or, if none, directors. Directors are subordinate to assistant and associate superintendents, who are subordinate to the Superintendent. The Superintendent is appointed by the Lee County School Board. As Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, Respondent monitored the district's desegregation efforts. Due to the nature of his responsibilities, Respondent, even though only a coordinator, had direct access to the Superintendent and School Board attorney. Working closely with then-Superintendent Adams, who became Respondent's mentor, Respondent helped redraw school- attendance zones to desegregate schools. Respondent also handled racially based complaints from staff, including teachers, and generally tried to assure that poorer schools received the same resources as those enjoyed by wealthier schools. Respondent became the focus of considerable controversy while Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments. One day, his young daughter answered the phone at home and heard an unidentified caller threaten, "Your nigger father is a dead man." Shortly after the murder of Superintendent Adams, Petitioner, then serving as Interim Superintendent, informed Respondent that she was removing him from his coordinator position. She created a new position for Respondent as Director of Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received a raise from $48,000 to $55,000 annually and assumed his new duties in November 1994. Petitioner disclosed that she made the change based on concerns for Respondent's safety and complaints that she had received from the School Board and parents related to Respondent's rezoning decisions. Three months after Petitioner created Respondent's new position, she eliminated it and suggested that Respondent apply for other administrative positions with the District. Respondent and Petitioner discussed an opening at the New Directions Center. The New Directions Center occupies a three-year old facility owned and operated by the Lee County School Board. The New Directions Center comprises three separate programs: the LAMP program, the Academy, and the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The Academy, which includes the Employment Skills Program, provides alternative education by offering its students different types of teaching strategies than are typically available at conventional schools. Academy students are not behaviorally much different from students attending regular schools in the District. Prior to the 1995-96 school year, each program at the New Directions Center had an assistant principal, and a supervisory principal was in charge of the entire New Directions Center. When she mentioned the opening at the ALC, Petitioner informed Respondent that she intended to appoint a separate principal for each of the three programs starting the 1995-96 school year. In May 1995, Petitioner appointed Respondent to serve as the new ALC Principal, starting July 1. As ALC Principal, Respondent was also the head District administrator at the juvenile detention center, Price Halfway House, and Lee County boot camp. At the time of assuming his new responsibilities, Respondent had served nine years in the Lee County School system: two years in the classroom, one year in administration at a school, over five years in administration involving minority matters at the District office, and less than one year in Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received no training in preparation for his new assignment as a school principal. As of February 19, 1996, Respondent's District personnel file contained nothing negative, aside from some isolated suggestions recorded on classroom observation sheets. This was the file that Respondent and his attorney examined after giving the District three days' notice of their intent to examine and copy Respondent's personnel file. Discussed below is Petitioner's contention that two missing items should have been included in the file. Respondent's evaluation for his first year of teaching notes: "Excellent start as a beginning teacher in Lee County." This 1987 evaluation states: "Outstanding teacher. Should be considered for advancement to administration as soon as possible." The 1988 evaluation reports: "Excellent year-- Promoted to dean of students, Cape Coral H.S." The first administrative evaluation of Respondent is in 1989 and covers his work in minority-teacher recruitment. The 1989 evaluation states that Respondent is "an asset to our team." The 1990 evaluation, which addresses Respondent's year as Dean of Students, reports: "Charles has demonstrated his concern for young people and has spent many hours above and beyond the call of duty working with and for kids." For the first year in which Respondent was responsible for desegregation efforts, the 1991 evaluation notes that Respondent has only partially achieved a goal--namely, learning desegregation issues. However, the 1991 evaluation, which was prepared by Dr. Mary Nell Gunter, states: "Charles Daily [sic] demonstrates talent and skill in dealing with people. He is eager to do a good job and I appreciate his professional outlook." A memorandum from Dr. Gunter commends Respondent for his "positive attitude" and work in specific programs. The memorandum suggests, though, that Respondent needs to develop his skills in "facilitative leadership," which he demonstrates in "many instances," but perhaps insufficiently when dealing with "principals and school-based people." Respondent's evaluation for the 1991-92 school year is missing from Respondent Exhibit 13, which is his District personnel file. The missing evaluation apparently was completed with no remarkable comments. Respondent's evaluation for the 1992-93 school year is noteworthy because it was prepared by Petitioner, who was not yet Superintendent. This 1993 evaluation finds that Respondent has fully achieved all of his goals, one of which is: To establish effective communication to the public that would assist in dealing with the increasing cultural, demographic and social change effecting [sic] our students and community. Petitioner's narrative comments on the 1993 evaluation are: Charles Dailey is an extremely valued and important member of the Division of Administrative Operations. He has demonstrated outstanding leadership during the Desegregation process. He is a role model for every administrator in his work ethic, committment [sic], teamwork and educational values. Petitioner found that Respondent reached an effective level of performance (the only satisfactory rating offered on the evaluation form) in all categories. Categories include judgment issues, including making good decisions based on law and policy, and sensitivity issues, including tact, effective dealing with people over emotional issues, exhibiting a positive professional attitude, and perceiving the needs and concerns of other persons. Petitioner concluded the 1993 evaluation as follows: Charles must work under stress everyday in his office due to our desegregation process. He has handled this in an outstanding manner. The evaluation for the 1993-94 school year should have been performed by Dr. James Browder, who is now principal of Cypress Lake High School. Dr. Adams was murdered on February 7, 1994. Another administrator was responsible for Respondent's evaluation until April or May of 1994. Given the understandable disruption resulting from the sudden death of Dr. Adams and the administration reorganization that followed, Respondent's evaluation for the 1993-94 school year was never prepared. However, Dr. Browder testified that he had perceived no problems with Respondent of sufficient seriousness to document in an evaluation. The evaluation for the 1994-95 school year should have been performed by Assistant Superintendent Dr. Mary Santini. She assumed that position in January 1995 and may have felt unable to evaluate Respondent by the time the evaluations are due in May. Respondent has been recognized repeatedly in the educational community. The past three years, Respondent was a finalist for the Ida S. Baker award, which is given to the outstanding minority educator in Florida. Respondent was named in 1995 the administrator of the year for the southeastern United States by the Southeast Desegregation Assistance Center. During this period, Respondent has been serving as a consultant and expert witness in the Rockford (IL) School District desegregation case. The ALC In general, the ALC is the District's last-chance school for students whose disciplinary problems have resulted in their removal from their geographical schools. ALC students are the most difficult to manage in the District. Nearly all ALC students are enrolled in the ALC as an alternative to expulsion from the Lee County School System. A few students are assigned to the ALC through the juvenile justice system. Almost all of the ALC students have had serious problems with criminal activity, seriously disruptive behavior in school, and school attendance. At any given time, roughly 10-20 students attending the ALC have been convicted of felonies. On a cumulative basis for the 1995-96 school year, excluding exceptional student education (ESE) students, 80 students enrolled in the ALC sometime during the 1995-96 school year were guilty of felonies, 91 were guilty of the possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, 29 were guilty of armed burglary or grand theft, 36 were guilty of assault or battery against a teacher or administrator, 68 were guilty of fighting with other students, 38 were guilty of possession of weapons, and numerous others were guilty of other offenses ranging from "sexual misconduct" (7) to "peeing in a bottle" (1). (Some of these students were guilty of more than one offense, and some students entered the ALC more than once during the school year, so their offenses would be counted more than once in each category.) Prior to the 1995-96 school year, the Supervisory Principal of the New Directions Center was Jeananne Folaros. The ALC Assistant Principal was Richard Hagy. The LAMP Assistant Principal was Carolyn McCollum. And the Academy Assistant Principal was John Wortham. For the 1995-96 school year, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham retained their prior positions except they became principals, and Mr. Hagy and Ms. Folaros were reassigned. Respondent and the ALC When Respondent arrived at the ALC, student behavior and academics were both in need of improvement. Perhaps the most dramatic indicator of the situation was that in the prior school year Mr. Hagy had twice required hospital treatment for injuries he had received from being struck by ALC students. The school was the scene of frequent fights with students wandering in the halls and often in possession of drugs, making it hard for motivated students to work. In an effort to reduce the number of suspensions, the ALC had retained some extremely disruptive students, who sometimes threatened even the teachers. Frightened by these students, some teachers had resorted to a policy of appeasement, allowing difficult students to sleep or play cards in the classroom with academic activity going on around them, or sending these students to a separate timeout room, where they slept and played cards without the distraction of academic activity going on around them. When Respondent was first appointed as ALC Principal, he spoke with middle- and high-school principals and learned of their concerns that the ALC was a "revolving-door" program. They said that the ALC disrupted regular academic programs at their schools and inadequately served the needs of the students assigned to the ALC. District principals and ALC teachers and students reported that the ALC offered a poor educational program where students could easily avoid academic challenge. One of Respondent's first moves was to select Beth Smith as the assistant principal for the ALC. Respondent recognized that their strengths and weaknesses were complementary. She was a curriculum specialist, and he was an effective disciplinarian. After hiring Ms. Smith, Respondent formed a curriculum team consisting of her, a guidance counselor, a school psychologist, and a peer-counseling teacher to address curriculum changes. Respondent reimplemented the 45 good-day policy. This policy meant that the ALC would not return a student to his geographical school until he had 45 days of punctual attendance, good behavior, and successful academics. Respondent developed and enforced a dress code, prohibited sleeping and card games in class, and required teachers to stiffen their academic requirements. Respondent's disciplinary plan eliminated the separate timeout room, where misbehaving students had enjoyed freedom from academics. Respondent instead introduced a multi-step intervention system where the teacher first warned the misbehaving student in the classroom, then warned the student in the hallway, then placed the student in timeout in the classroom, and then sent him to Respondent, who would warn the student, assign cafeteria duty, or suspend him, depending on the seriousness of the offense. In all senses of the word, Respondent was a "hands-on" principal. Sondra Saldana, an ALC guidance counselor, best described Respondent's style when she testified that he meets students where they are. Undoubtedly, Respondent models good behavior in numerous ways. But he does not stop there. With passionate intensity, Respondent readily reveals his love and expectations for each student and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each student's behavior. Respondent is direct and frank, not oblique or diplomatic. He demands the respect of all of his students, and he earns the respect of nearly all of them because they see that he cares about them in a vital and effective way. Many of the ALC students probably would not have responded to Respondent's disciplinary innovations without clear evidence of Respondent's belief in their academic potential. More than anything else, Respondent wanted "to keep turning on lights for students," according to his favorite expression. Refusing to allow ALC students to think of themselves or be treated like academic or cultural outcasts, Respondent made the ALC more like a regular school, not so that he could have the experience of running a regular school, but so that the ALC students could have the experience of attending and succeeding at a regular school. In giving ALC students more positive opportunities than they had had in the past, Respondent introduced to the ALC student assemblies, a literary magazine, school plays, and other activities typical of regular schools. Respondent ordered the physical education teacher to make the ALC students play sports besides basketball, just like the physical education students were doing at the regular schools. (After hearing the concerns of the physical education teacher about placing bats in the hands of certain students, Respondent agreed to drop softball.) Respondent personally conducted entrance interviews, so he could explain the rules and purpose of the ALC to each new student and any parents or guardians accompanying him. Respondent made the exit process--merely an exercise in paperwork in prior years--an experience that would bring some closure to the ALC experience and prepare the student for a more successful reentry into his geographical school. There is no doubt that Respondent was markedly successful in improving the atmosphere at the ALC. Respondent's immediate supervisor, Herbert Wiseman, the District Director of Secondary Operations, twice during the fall of 1995 complimented Respondent on how well run the ALC was. The latter compliment took place on December 15, 1995, when Mr. Wiseman, with whom Respondent had a good relationship, told Respondent that he was running the ALC well. Mariner High School Principal Michael McNerney described in detail a visit he made to the ALC in November 1995. He was greeted quickly and professionally at the office, rather than allowed merely to walk into the school. Respondent took him to 8-10 classrooms where Respondent and students spoke freely. Respondent knew each of his students and which of them were from Mariner High School. He even knew when each student was due to return to his geographical high school. Jill Culligan, an ALC teacher who was disaffected with Respondent, noted the positive changes in writing on December 5, 1995: Under [Respondent's] system of discipline interventions and sensitivity to individual student needs, the students appear to be exhibiting the better behavior expected of them. Fights are no longer tolerated. More opportunities for assemblies are getting them ready for re-entry into the regular schools. But Respondent always balanced his academic innovations with disciplinary innovations, recognizing that behavior and academic achievement among ALC students are inextricably linked. Respondent personally led the effort to restore and maintain order at the ALC. It was a considerable, ongoing effort, made more difficult by the fact that the most troublesome students were no longer warehoused in the timeout room or banished from school by suspension. A key element of Respondent's relationship with the most difficult of these most difficult students is that he literally was not afraid to touch a student. Respondent was unafraid to place an arm around such students and hug them close to his body. The hug conveyed affection and physical constraint. While holding the child firmly, Respondent would then typically say that he had to calm down. In many instances, this approach was successful; in some instances--disproportionately represented in the next section--this approach was not. There were always clear limits to Respondent's disciplinary efforts. As noted below, he did not believe in striking students, and never did so except one time at the behest of a parent, who sought to avoid the more burdensome punishment of a suspension. Respondent scrupulously tried to get all significant information before taking any disciplinary action. Though a strong believer in discipline, Respondent was never inflexible. To the contrary, it appears he was always willing to fashion the most appropriate penalty under the circumstances--such as pushups or cafeteria duty--and was often willing to modify a penalty upon request of a parent or guardian or even the student himself. During Respondent's tenure, which ended with his suspension on January 11, 1996, there was a fight every three weeks among students. After his suspension, there was a fight everyday. During Respondent's tenure, the police were present at school every other week. After his suspension, the police were present every other day. Despite Respondent's success at the ALC, he encountered some resistance and engendered some resentment among staff. Clearly, disgruntled staff was the source of many of Respondent's problems, causing management problems at school and, more importantly, conveying misinformation to the District office. In general, at least two-thirds of the ALC staff supported Respondent even after he was suspended. Some staffmembers were neutral. Among staffmembers vocally opposed to Respondent, some were doubtlessly put off by Respondent's assertive personality. But there were other reasons for the vocal disaffection of some staffmembers, and some of these reasons have a material bearing on the credibility of these persons as witnesses and the weight accorded their testimony. In some cases, the source of staff disaffection may have been professional, such as when Respondent selected Ms. Smith over Jim Nassiff, an ALC teacher, for the position of assistant principal. Mr. Nassiff was unhappy with Respondent for choosing Ms. Smith over him. Most disaffected staffmembers had job-performance problems, which were exacerbated by the demands that Respondent placed upon them in terms of academics and discipline. Teachers in this category included Kenneth Vitale, Pamela Minton, Cheryl Gruenefeld, and Ms. Culligan. To varying degrees, teachers in this category manifested an unwillingness or inability to adapt to the changes implemented by Respondent. The sources of disaffection of Mr. Vitale and Ms. Culligan are described in connection with incidents involving them. However, two staffmembers were involved in a number of incidents. Lisa Krucher, a security guard, was notable for the extent of her dissatisfaction with Respondent and her inability to perform her job. She defied Respondent's efforts to ban smoking from the ALC building. She was unable to break up fights and lax in enforcing discipline. She eventually became the eyes and ears of Petitioner by daily reporting incidents to Mr. Wortham, who passed them on to Dr. Santini. Her job-related deficiencies were such that--despite her loyalty--Ms. Krucher was transferred to the Academy after Respondent's suspension. Ms. Smith offered a more balanced perspective on Respondent than did Ms. Krucher, and the source of Ms. Smith's disaffection with Respondent is more professional. Previously a guidance counselor in a middle school and dropout prevention program, Ms. Smith is an articulate exponent of the modern disciplinary theories of positive reinforcement and behavior modification. She deemphasizes more traditional, coercive methods of discipline, such as punishment for wrongs-- which of course awaits those ALC students who, having already failed to take their behavioral cues in the setting of the regular schools, continue misbehaving until they encounter the criminal justice system. Respondent does not advocate the more traditional, coercive disciplinary method of punishment for wrongs to the exclusion of more modern techniques of behavior modification. However, his more intense style of personal involvement with misbehaving students bore little resemblance to Ms. Smith's more restrained style. Ms. Smith was disturbed by her perception of how Respondent handled certain misbehaving ALC students. The record is less clear in revealing her methods of modifying the behavior of such students. In any event, her reactions to the misbehavior and Respondent's attempts to correct it were entirely sincere. She was frustrated to the point of tears at times, believing at times that students who continued to misbehave simply had not been exposed to sufficient positive reinforcement. The problem is that Ms. Smith lacked experience with the kinds of students who can be found at the ALC. She was still developing effective means of handling the most dangerous and disruptive of these students when Respondent was suspended. At that time, Ms. Smith still had nothing approaching Respondent's experience in dealing with young persons who, with little if any warning or provocation, explode into a violent frenzy, seriously injuring anyone in their immediate vicinity. Following Respondent's suspension, Petitioner appointed Ms. Smith as Acting ALC Principal. On February 20, 1996, Petitioner replaced Ms. Smith with Mr. Hagy as Acting ALC Principal. Respondent and Students Spring 1995 Visits to ALC: Paragraphs 33 and 35 At the urging of Petitioner, Respondent visited the ALC shortly after Petitioner named him the new principal. He visited the school three times in the spring of 1995 before assuming his duties there on July 1, 1995. On his first visit, Respondent met briefly with Mr. Hagy and discussed how the school operates. On this visit, Respondent saw students loitering in the halls and cursing loudly. Respondent saw the timeout room, where staff had hung plastic to cover the holes that students had punched in the walls. Respondent saw students were sleeping rather than studying. Respondent and Mr. Hagy came across a student who was walking out of the class during the school day very upset, using abusive language. Mr. Hagy asked him to stop, but he ignored Mr. Hagy and walked out. In another class, taught by James Nassiff, Respondent found the class watching an entertainment movie. Mr. Hagy escorted Respondent into several classrooms. These visits were brief. Respondent later made a second visit, without Mr. Hagy, to observe the classes in session. These visits were somewhat longer. In each classroom during the second visit, Respondent introduced himself as the new ALC principal. He warned the students that things would be changing. He promised that he would suspend any student who talked back to a teacher, swore, or fought. Respondent ordered the students not to call male teachers "man" and female teachers "woman"; teachers would be called "Mr." and "Mrs." Respondent told the students that he would not tolerate sleeping or card playing in class. In a lighter tone, Respondent added that the students should tell their friends and family that there was a new sheriff in town and the ALC was going to be about education. Respondent then flashed his badge. The badge is a small shiny badge that designates Respondent as an Honorary Deputy Sheriff for the term of Sheriff McDougal, who remains in office. Respondent understands that the badge confers on him no special power to arrest persons. He has never tried to arrest anyone using the badge, and he has never displayed the badge on the occasions that he has actually summoned law enforcement officers. In Ms. Gruenefeld's class, Respondent found students sleeping. He approached one student who had his head down on the desk and did not look up when Respondent entered the room. Respondent told him to look at Respondent when he was speaking, or Respondent would suspend the student. Ms. Gruenefeld tried to justify the student's behavior on the grounds that he was a good student and had been working very hard. She believed that the student, who was Hispanic, did not engage in eye contact for cultural reasons. Nothing in the record supports the assertion that Hispanics disfavor eye contact. Absent an undisclosed medical condition, the student should have been able to raise his head off the desk and make eye contact with the new principal, who had entered the classroom to introduce himself to the students. There is no indication that Respondent's first or second visits to the ALC destroyed any instructional momentum in the classrooms. Obviously, the students were off-task for the time that Respondent was in the classroom, in most cases due to Respondent's presence. However, the students did not remain off-task for long and soon returned to whatever they were doing before Respondent entered the classroom. At most, Respondent's comments about changes at the ALC might have caused some harmless confusion among those students who were about to be returned to their geographical schools. There is no evidence that students were intimidated by Respondent's announcement or his display of a badge. Some students laughed after Respondent's announcement. Some responded more seriously, wanting to know if he were really going to be the new principal. In general, the students listened thoughtfully to Respondent's statement. Respondent made a third visit to meet with the faculty at the request of an ALC guidance counselor, who had called Respondent and told him that the faculty wanted to meet him. In this meeting, Respondent repeated the ground rules that he had given the students a few days earlier. Respondent invited each teacher to prepare a wish list for the ALC and a list of any concerns that he or she may have. Ending a positive meeting, Respondent introduced the teachers to his favorite expression, "We need to turn lights on for kids." Following Respondent's visits, Ms. Folaros telephoned Respondent and asked him what had taken place. He explained that he wanted to meet the students at that time because summer school would start before he assumed the role of principal. Respondent added that he wanted the students whom he met to tell other students that he would not tolerate students sleeping and misbehaving, as they had been doing in the past. Other Incidents of Flashing the Badge: Paragraph 33 In September or October, 1995, M. P. enrolled at the ALC. M. P. is a 14 year-old ninth grader, who started the year at Lehigh High School. M. P. was sent to the ALC after he urinated in the middle of class into a glue bottle because his teacher had refused him permission to use the bathroom. M. P. was accompanied by his mother and sister on the day that he enrolled--a process that took about 20 minutes. During the entrance interview, Respondent informed M.P. of the rules of the school. They discussed the dress code, the prohibition of drugs on campus, and M. P.'s misbehavior at Lehigh High School. During the conversation, Respondent flashed his badge and warned M. P. not to do anything wrong. M. P. testified that he was scared at the sight of the badge. This testimony is discredited. It takes more than a badge to frighten M. P.. M. P.'s mother saw Respondent flash the badge, and she decided, based on this meeting, that Respondent would be a good role model for her son. Respondent flashed the badge on other occasions. One time, four middle-school girls assaulted another student in the cafeteria. They ignored Respondent when he tried to talk to them, so he flashed the badge and warned them that he could have them arrested. They took him more seriously and listened after that. Another time, Respondent displayed the badge to a boy who was misbehaving in Respondent's office. Again, Respondent warned that he could have the student arrested. Respondent displayed the badge several other times and warned misbehaving students that he could have them arrested. Some of the students took him seriously; others did not. The ability of Respondent to have students arrested did not depend on his possession of the badge, and ALC students understood that. Flashing the badge unlikely intimidated anyone. M. P.'s Other Incident: Paragraph 29 After the entrance interview, M. P.'s mother spoke privately with Respondent about M. P. She described him as emotionally troubled over her recent divorce. She warned that he was quick to anger and especially intolerant of females because he blamed the divorce on his mother. He also resented females because of a gender issue in the family and the teacher who had refused him permission to go to the bathroom at Lehigh High School was a female. While in April Pepin's class, M. P. walked out of the classroom without permission. Ms. Pepin sent him to Ms. Smith's office. Talking to Ms. Smith, M. P. denied that he had left the classroom without permission and gave Ms. Smith trouble. Ms. Smith determined that he had misbehaved in Ms. Pepin's class, decided to suspend M. P. for one day, and called M. P.'s mother. M. P.'s mother asked Ms. Smith to have Respondent reinforce the point with M. P. Ms. Smith preceded M. P. to Respondent's office and explained the situation to Respondent, stating that M. P.'s mother wanted Respondent to talk to her son and that Ms. Smith was having trouble dealing with him. Respondent summoned M.P. into the office, leaned over his desk toward M. P., and raised his voice in an authoritative manner. Respondent warned M. P. that he could not act up at Respondent's school and that, if Ms. Smith told him something, it was like Respondent telling him something. M. P. elected not to listen to Respondent either and tried to walk out of his office. When he turned to walk around the chair, Respondent stopped him by grabbing his arm. Respondent was worried that he might be going after Ms. Smith. Respondent was also intent on not allowing M. P. to disobey Ms. Smith and Respondent by coming and going as he pleased, especially after his mother had asked repeatedly for Respondent's help in dealing with her son. After grabbing M.P.'s arm, Respondent told him to go up against the wall for a search, and, when he did not do so, forced him up against the wall. When Respondent tried to pat down M. P. for weapons, M.P. lost his composure and began to fight with Respondent. M.P. brought his arms down hard on Respondent and struck him. Respondent wrestled M. P. down to the floor and shouted for someone to call the police. Arriving a few minutes later, the police officers had to bind M.P. by the ankles and drag him to the police car, where he tried to kick out the car window. M. P.'s mother then had M. P. admitted to Charter Glades Hospital, a psychiatric treatment facility. M. P. remained hospitalized for ten days and remained on homebound instruction for two months. Charter Glades treated M. P. for an anger disorder. M. P.'s mother blames Respondent for M. P.'s hospitalization. She is understandably worried about her son, but the evidence does not in any way suggest that Respondent initiated, and the greater weight of the evidence does not prove that Respondent exacerbated or unreasonably triggered, M. P.'s obvious behavior disorder, which had manifested itself before his assignment to the ALC. Ms. Smith felt that Respondent overreacted to the situation, but she was unaware of the details or extent of M.P.'s behavior disorder prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, Respondent was justified in reacting quickly to prevent M. P. from leaving the office and precluding the possibility that the student might strike Ms. Smith. Pushups: Paragraphs 20 and 21 Respondent sometimes gave the option of pushups to male students whose misbehavior otherwise warranted suspension. (For female and other male students, Respondent would sometimes offer cafeteria duty.) On at least two occasions, students chose to do the pushups. Respondent demanded 50 pushups and sometimes called out the count himself, starting fast and ending slow. If a student could not do 50 pushups, Respondent allowed him to do as many as he could; in no event would Respondent suspend him for failing to reach 50. On one occasion, three students were doing their pushups in Respondent's office when a faculty meeting was about to start. The teachers were supportive of the students, cheering them on. When finished, the students, taking the matter in good humor, thanked Respondent for not suspending them. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the students choosing to do pushups were humiliated, injured, or exposed to a risk of injury. Presumably, as alleged by Petitioner, their arms shook and, for the white boys, their faces reddened. These things happen with pushups. Spankings: Paragraphs 18 and 19 There were two student spankings during the fall of 1995. One of them took place in October 1995 and involved O. B., who is 13 years old. O. B. lied to Respondent about not being involved in a fight. Based on O. B.'s word, Respondent was about to suspend another boy. After discovering the truth, Respondent went down to O.B.'s classroom and found the class watching a movie. Respondent said, loud enough for the teacher, Mr. Vitale, and other students to hear, "Son, you've lied to me. You've lied to me." O. B. answered, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about." Respondent then grasped O. B. firmly by the back of the neck and walked him down to Respondent's office. In the office, Respondent suspended O. for five days, called O. B.'s father (his biological grandfather who had adopted O. B.), and told him that he needed to pick up his son. O. B.'s classmates already knew that O. B. had lied about the incident. O. B. was not embarrassed by the manner in which Respondent removed him from class, nor was he hurt by the grasp of Respondent. When O. B.'s father arrived, he said to Respondent that O. B. had just been suspended and had been out of school more than he had been in. The father asked Respondent if there were another alternative, like a spanking, and suggested that Respondent spank the child. Respondent said he did not like to spank students. The father asked if he could, in order to avoid another suspension. Respondent said that was acceptable to him, so the father took his belt and applied it to O. B.'s buttocks five or six times. O. B. cried a little, so Respondent suggested that the father take him home for the rest of the day, rather than return to the classroom after having cried. The father did that. Respondent, O. B., and O. B.'s father were the only persons present during the spanking. The blinds were drawn in Respondent's office during the spanking. The other spanking involved J. N., who is also 13 years old. One day, J. N. repeatedly misbehaved. His teacher, Mr. Nassiff, talked to him several times without effect. J. N. got angry at another student and was about to get into a fight. Another teacher told him to be quiet and he refused. School Resource Officer Fred Jackson and Ms. Krucher also intervened, but failed to calm J. N. J. N. demanded to talk to Respondent. After a brief discussion, Respondent said that he was going to have to suspend J. N. if he misbehaved again that day. Respondent allowed J. N. to return to his class. J. N. returned to class and immediately caused trouble by getting into an argument with another student. Mr. Nassiff sent him back to the office. Respondent called J. N.'s mother and said that he was being suspended. J. N.'s mother asked Respondent to spank her child instead. She explained that she could not afford to arrange for someone to care for J. N. while he was out of school. He had just finished a suspension two or three weeks earlier, and his mother lacked the funds to hire another babysitter. After expressing some reluctance, Respondent agreed to the spanking, but required J. N.'s mother to come to the office to serve as the witness. She did, and Respondent, behind closed blinds and a closed door, hit J. N. six times with a belt on the buttocks. The spanking did not hurt and J. N. did not cry out. Lee County School Board Policy 5.16 addresses corporal punishment as follows: Subject to the provisions of law, if a teacher or school administrator feels that corporal punishment is necessary, at least the following procedures shall be followed: Reasonable alternatives have been used and documented. Written permission has been obtained from the student's parent or guardian at the beginning of each school year, and a call to the parent or guardian for each specific incident involved prior to using corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment shall be approved by the principal or designee before it is used. The use of corporal punishment shall be administered only in the presence of the principal, another administrator, or a teacher. The principal, other administrator, or teacher shall, in the presence of the student, be informed of the reason for the punishment before it is administered. A principal, or designee who has administered corporal punishment shall, upon request, provide the student's parent or guardian with written explanation of the reason for the punishment and the name of the administrator or teacher who was present. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the O. B. spanking because O. B.'s father, not an employee of the District, spanked the child. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the J. N. spanking because--consistent with his disciplinary philosophy--Respondent never determined that corporal punishment was necessary. Such a determination is the precondition stated in the flush language of Policy 5.16 for the remaining conditions to apply. Respondent had determined to suspend J. N. Policy 5.16 governs spankings initiated by District employees, not by parents. Respondent merely acceded to the mother's requests that he substitute for suspension the lesser punishment of a mild spanking and that Respondent perform the spanking for her, in her presence--in effect as her agent and not an agent of the School Board. Violation of Dress Code: Paragraph 31 In September 1995, Respondent noticed an unidentified female student exiting a school bus on her way to class at the ALC. She was wearing a top that exposed her midriff, in violation of the ALC dress code. In the presence of District Transportation Coordinator Janet Harris, Respondent told the girl, "Get your ass into my office and call your mother. We don't allow those kinds of tops." Petitioner did not call the improperly clad student as a witness. There was no sexual content to Respondent's ill- chosen word, voiced in the presence of a female employee of the School Board who was a stranger to Respondent. Ms. Harris was not so startled by the comment as to report it at the time to anyone. She first mentioned it the next month to Mr. Wortham. Absent additional proof of the circumstances surrounding Respondent's isolated remark, including the student's reaction, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's momentary lapse disparaged and embarrassed the student. C. L. Incident: Paragraph 22 C. L. was a 200-pound female student at the ALC with a history of violent outbursts where she would leave school and not return home for a couple of days. C. L.'s mother asked Respondent, when he became principal, not to allow C. L. to continue to leave school whenever she wanted. Previously, if she were resolved to leave school, no one would try to stop her. One day at school in September or October 1995, C. L. was out of control, trying to leave the school. Gerald Gilmore, a security guard, was trying to stop her when Respondent approached. Respondent took one of C. L.'s arms, and she suddenly dropped on him. Respondent and Mr. Gilmore each took an arm and walked her to the office, talking to her the whole way in an attempt to calm her. Respondent summoned Officer Jackson to help calm C. L. In the office, Respondent and Mr. Gilmore placed C. L. in a chair. Each time she popped out of the chair, they returned her to the chair. Eventually, C. L. calmed down, and they let her return to class. D. C. Incident: Paragraph 26 One morning in October 1995, Respondent saw D.C. smoking marijuana off-campus before school. When D. C. entered the school, Respondent asked him to come down to the office. D. C. was belligerent. Respondent placed his right arm around the back of the D. C., who was about Respondent's height, and grabbed his right arm, while holding his left arm close to the boy's side. Respondent then walked D.C. down the hall, side-by-side, to the office. Respondent frequently used this hold on students who were noncompliant. It does not hurt the student, but gives Respondent control over the student's movements. In particular, Respondent can sense immediately if a student is going for a weapon. Respondent's use of this hold and his readiness to search students (which is also part of his effort to keep drugs off campus) are prompted by Respondent's justified concerns for the safety of students and staff. The ALC has no metal detector and weapons are a constant worry. In the fall of 1995, Respondent found one student at school carrying a .25 caliber pistol with 18 rounds of ammunition in it. Once in the office, D. C. voluntarily leaned against the wall in Respondent's office so Respondent could search him with an electronic beeper. Respondent did not find any marijuana, but found a tobacco cigarette with half of the tobacco removed from the cigarette. Students smoking marijuana often removed part of the tobacco from a tobacco cigarette and replaced it with marijuana to avoid detection. Respondent suspended D. C. from school and contacted D.C.'s probation officer. D. C. subsequently violated the conditions of his probation and is now missing. ESE Student and Housing Project: Paragraph 32 In November 1995, Respondent spoke to an unidentified female student who was repeatedly being suspended for disciplinary reasons. The student lived in a public housing project. Respondent warned the student that, if she continued to get suspended, stay home, and cause trouble around the project during school hours, she and her mother could be evicted from the project. The student calmed down and behaved appropriately after that. Respondent was a commissioner of public housing for the City of Fort Myers at the time. He understood the rules of the housing projects, which permit the eviction of tenants whose unsupervised school-age children cause trouble in a project during school hours. Slightly Built Child: Paragraph 25 Petitioner presented no significant evidence on this allegation. It probably refers to another incident, such as the S. P. incident discussed below. M. B. Incident: Paragraph 28 In November 1995, M. B. was involved in a fight in the classroom. Respondent gave him the option of a suspension or working in the cafeteria, where he would clean up trays and take out the trash. He chose cafeteria duty. Shortly after arriving in the cafeteria, M. B. so infuriated the cafeteria manager that he called Respondent and told him that M. B. was the most arrogant boy he had ever seen, and he did not want the student back in the cafeteria again. Respondent left his office to retrieve M. B. and found him walking toward the office. Respondent said, "Son, come here." M. B. approached Respondent, who asked him what was his problem. M. B. said that he refused to empty any "God damned" trash. Respondent placed his arm around M. B.'s back and escorted him to the office. M. B. wanted to go straight home, and Respondent would not allow him. Respondent asked him to lean against the wall so Respondent could check him for weapons and drugs. M. B. did so. Respondent then called M. B.'s grandmother and warned her that, if M. B. continued to fight, he could be expelled for two years. She asked him not to suspend him. Respondent agreed not to suspend him, and M.B. completed the school day without further incident. L. S. P. Incident: Paragraph 23 S. P. is a 12 year-old male. He is about five feet one inch tall and is slightly built. He fights constantly. S.P. was sent to the ALC last year for fighting and insubordination. He was transferred from the ALC to his geographical school last Christmas, but, by the time of the final hearing in the present case four months later, he was back at the ALC. On the day of his testimony, S. P. had a black eye from fighting. On his first day at the ALC, S. P. got into a fight. He had not even reached his classroom when he started fighting with another student while still in the office. Respondent saw the fight and put his arm around the child's back, grasped the student's right arm, and hugged the boy close to Respondent. Respondent tried to calm him, warning that he did not want to have to suspend S. P. before he was even enrolled. S. P. tried to escape Respondent's grasp, but Respondent would not release him until S. P. said that Respondent was choking him. Respondent released him then, even though he was not choking the student. When S. P. remained noncompliant, Respondent grasped him again in the same manner as before. Respondent warned S. P., as he hugged him close to Respondent, "Son, you can't continue to fight. You're going to force me to suspend you." However, S. P. swore at Respondent, who replied that S. P. was suspended for the day. After telling S. P. that he was suspended, Respondent walked S. P. to the bench outside Respondent's office and sat him down. S. P. was upset and, after Respondent walked away, began crying. M. T. R. Incident: Paragraph 27 J. B. is an 18 year-old female who attended the ALC in the fall of 1995. From the third day of her attendance at the ALC through the remainder of the fall term, she was sexually harassed and physically threatened by T. R., who is another student at the ALC. On three occasions, J. B. complained of the harassment and threats, including actual touching, to Ms. Krucher, who did nothing about J. B.'s complaints. The first two complaints were early in the fall term and the last complaint was in January 1996. The day after her last complaint to Ms. Krucher had resulted in no action, J. B. complained directly to Respondent. After interviewing J. B., Respondent sent her back to class and summoned T. R. from his class. Terry Smith, a security guard, escorted T. R. to the office. Respondent told T. R. that he should not talk to or look at J. B. If he saw her walking down the hall, he should go in a different direction. Above all, T. R. was not to touch her anymore. T. R. denied any knowledge of who J. B. was. Respondent sent for J. B., who came to Respondent's office and stood in the doorway. When T. R. was told this is who was complaining about him, he jumped up, screaming to J. B., "What the hell are you doing telling people I did this?" He then lunged toward a visibly frightened J. B. Ms. Krucher pushed J. B. safely out of the doorway and escorted her back to the classroom. Respondent got to T. R. before he got to J. B. and pinned him against the wall. T. R. struggled, hitting Respondent while he tried to control T. R.'s arms. Mr. Smith assisted Respondent, who had T. R.'s upper body, by grabbing T. R.'s legs, and the two men wrestled T. R. to the floor. Ms. Krucher returned, and Respondent told her to call the school resource officer, so T. R. could be removed from the campus. In the meantime, Respondent and Mr. Smith tried to calm T. R. by talking quietly to him. Before the school resource officer arrived, T. R. calmed down and pleaded with Respondent not to send him to jail. T. R.'s girlfriend was pregnant, and he had criminal sex abuse charges pending. Respondent agreed to suspend T. R. for the rest of the day and not have him arrested. Respondent and Teachers Culligan Incident: Paragraph 41 At a faculty meeting early in the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan addressed Respondent's decision to eliminate the timeout room. Ms. Culligan endorsed the previous policy where a teacher sent a student to the timeout room for a short period the first time, a longer period the second time, and the remainder of the day the third time on the same day. She said that she typically would not have to send a student back a second or third time. Respondent answered that that was not what the records showed. He implied that teachers had routinely sent students to the timeout room for long periods of time. He did not state that Ms. Culligan had resorted to the timeout room more than did the rest of the teachers, although she likely had. Respondent had considerable difficulty with Ms. Culligan. At the start of the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan sent more students to the office for minor offenses than did other teachers. By memorandum dated September 21, 1995, Respondent directed Ms. Culligan to follow the interventions that "have been explained to you countless times." The memorandum reviews the intervention plan in detail and concludes: Failure to follow this directive violates the rights of the student in the academic setting when it has been clearly stated in writing, that this school will follow that particular policy. This is the third occasion that I've had the opportunity to address this particular policy with you and am therefore directing you to follow this policy to the letter. If I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me. After receiving this memorandum and the assistance of Ms. Smith in improving her cultural sensitivity, Ms. Culligan reduced her office referrals to an acceptable level. But her claims of humiliation and embarrassment over Respondent's informative reply at the faculty meeting, as well as her testimony concerning other incidents, are largely the product of the early difficulties that Ms. Culligan experienced with Respondent's new, more demanding discipline plan. Nassiff Incident: Paragraph 41 During another faculty meeting, Respondent was discussing an assembly that was to take place in the next day or two. The assembly, which featured drug-detecting dogs from the Port Authority, would be attended by ALC students. This was to be the first assembly ever for ALC students. Respondent was discussing the logistical aspects of moving the students into and out of the assembly and explaining how the assembly was part of the academic rehabilitation of ALC students. Suddenly, Mr. Nassiff raised his hand and asked who would be responsible for watching his students. They were in physical education at the time of the assembly, and Mr. Nassiff thought that the physical-education teacher should continue to watch Mr. Nassiff's students during what was Mr. Nassiff's planning period. Respondent had told the teachers that they could leave school early that day to make up for their lost planning time. Upon hearing Mr. Nassiff's question, some teachers groaned audibly. Respondent replied by asking Mr. Nassiff, "You're an administrator-in-training. How would you respond to that question?" Mr. Nassiff answered Respondent's question by saying, "I'd give me my planning period." Respondent replied, "That's not an appropriate answer. If you want to be an administrator, you wouldn't ask a question like this. Let me see you after the meeting." After the meeting, Respondent explained to Mr. Nassiff the importance of teamwork. Mr. Nassiff conceded that he had said the wrong thing and knew it the moment he had said it. Respondent first gave Mr. Nassiff an opportunity to extricate himself gracefully from the awkward situation created by his question. When Mr. Nassiff persisted, Respondent answered him, directly but not in a hostile tone. Most teachers found nothing inappropriate in Respondent's handling of this situation. Mr. Nassiff and the few teachers who felt otherwise evidently preferred that Respondent handle privately an issue that Mr. Nassiff raised publicly. But Mr. Nassiff invited a public response, and Respondent's handling of the matter was entirely suitable. Announcement Incident: Paragraph 39 One day early in the 1995-96 school year, the students misbehaved badly. The next morning, during the morning announcements, Respondent stated that he expected students to act appropriately in an academic setting. He noted that too many students were coming down to his office and that they needed to do what teachers tell them to do. Respondent added words to the effect that teachers would continue to follow the intervention plan. The effect of such an announcement, nominally addressed to the teachers, was to notify the students that their teachers had no choice but to follow the intervention plan and, if the students objected to the plan, their problem was with Respondent, not with individual teachers. By this comment, Respondent was trying to take some of the pressure off the teachers for enforcing the new intervention plan, which, as noted above, imposed greater burdens on teachers than the previous policy with its excessive reliance on the timeout room and suspension. The meaning of Respondent's announcement does not lend itself to contrary interpretations. Two of the three witnesses who testified that the announcement demeaned the teachers testified about a number of incidents. The testimony of these witnesses--Ms. Culligan and Ms. Minton--must be doubted based in part on the fact that their claimed reaction to Respondent's announcement appears disingenuous. Holzborne Incidents: Paragraphs 36 and 37 Kathleen Holzborne is the lead communications teacher at the Academy. One school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent opening classroom doors in the Academy looking for someone. This was innocuous. Respondent was likely looking for someone or checking on nearby classrooms after a disturbance. Another school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent admitting drug dogs and their handlers into Academy classrooms while Mr. Wortham was elsewhere in the building. Respondent was doing this under the authority of Mr. Wiseman, who was also in the building. Another school day, Respondent and Ms. Holzborne were in the cafeteria while the Academy students were eating lunch. Respondent said she did not need to stay, adding, "Daughter, everything will be fine here." Respondent is from a family of ministers. He sometimes speaks of persons as sons and daughters, meaning they are sons and daughters of God. He used "daughter" in speaking to Ms. Holzborne in a personal, nonsexual manner not intended to intimidate or offend. Had she objected, he would have apologized and explained his innocent use of the word. However, Ms. Holzborne did not complain to Respondent or anyone else until, months later, she mentioned the comment during Petitioner's investigation. Testifying, Ms. Holzborne seemed much more upset over Respondent's alleged failure to return promptly a piece of a tripod, but Petitioner has not charged Respondent with this omission. Intimidation Incident(s): Paragraph 38 Respondent did not intimidate his teachers or staff. To the contrary, he was supportive of teachers and staff, although he demanded that they work hard and smart. At the time of Respondent's suspension, faculty morale was good. A small number of teachers were dissatisfied with Respondent, but not many. The greater part of the faculty got along with each other and Respondent. A reliable portrayal of Respondent's supportiveness comes from Lisa McKeever, an ALC teacher who displayed an unusual degree of independence for a witness in this controversial case. She testified to tell the truth, unaffected by any fear of retribution from Petitioner or Dr. Santini or from the community of supporters of Respondent. Answering a question about whether she supported the Charles Dailey Foundation, which was organized to help pay Respondent's legal fees, she testified that, if she had money to give away, she would first give it to her children and then to literary or musical organizations before she would give it to the Dailey Foundation or any political organization. On two occasions, students threatened Ms. McKeever while she was seven months pregnant. In one case, a boy pushed her up against a chalkboard. Respondent asked Ms. McKeever what she wanted him to do about it. Ms. McKeever did not want him suspended, so Respondent dealt with him, but did not suspend him. In another case, a girl approached her with a clenched fist, threatening Ms. McKeever by saying, "You stupid flat-assed white bitch. Get out of my fucking face." Ms. McKeever was frightened by this assault, and Respondent expelled the student, who that night was arrested after attacking family members with a knife. Respondent and Administrators, Law Enforcement Officers, Guardians, and School Board Policies A. Overenrollment: Paragraph 51 The overenrollment issue arose at the start of Respondent's tenure as ALC Principal. Dr. Santini arranged a meeting on June 20, 1995, among the three new principals at the New Directions Center. The purpose of the meeting was to divide responsibilities among the principals. Ominously, Dr. Santini testified that she had had lots of experience with Respondent not cooperating. It is not entirely clear what specific ALC enrollment policies were advocated by Dr. Santini and Respondent at the June 20 meeting, or even that either of them advocated a specific policy. Dr. Santini stated that the ALC was a short-term program. Respondent wanted the same flexibility that the ALC administrators had had in the past in deciding when to return students to their geographical schools. The ALC enrollment policy from the preceding school year had been the 45 good-day policy described above. In general, Dr. Santini wanted to limit enrollments due to safety considerations. Overcrowding at the ALC became a bigger problem once the new school year got underway due to the introduction of more students from regular schools, as a result of a new zero-tolerance policy in the regular schools, and increased referrals from the juvenile detention center. Respondent's argument for greater enrollment flexibility was based on behavioral and academic factors. Behaviorally, an ALC student might need more than 45 days before he is ready to return to his geographical school. Academically, an ALC student might have difficulty returning to his geographical school due to the differences in the calendars at the ALC and regular schools. The high schools are on a seven-period daily schedule, and the ALC is on an 18- day modular schedule where one class is taught for 18 days. A behaving, attending ALC student could only take two and one-half classes in 45 school days, so that, when returned to his geographical school, he would be behind his classmates in most of his classes. After the meeting, Dr. Santini spoke with Respondent privately and told him that his behavior during the meeting had bordered on the insubordinate. Respondent countered that Dr. Santini was discriminating against him on the basis of race. Respondent's continued implementation of the 45 good- day policy at the start of the 1995-96 school year did not violate any directive that Dr. Santini had given him. Their disagreement during the June 20 meeting was probably limited to a disagreement over general philosophy. Most likely, Dr. Santini had decided to see the effect on ALC enrollment levels of Respondent's implementation of the 45 good-day policy. On October 20, 1995, Dr. Santini conducted another meeting concerning ALC enrollments. This time she met with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman. She called the meeting after receiving a telephone call that a student had remained at the ALC since April 1995. She was also concerned with current ALC enrollment levels under Respondent's approach. During this meeting, Dr. Santini told Respondent that the ALC building was designed for a maximum of 270 students. She told him to cap enrollment at 250 students. Dr. Santini testified that she told Respondent that she approved of the 45 good-day policy. She also testified that Respondent was angry at the meeting. If Dr. Santini approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting, the only reason why Respondent would have angered at the meeting would have been a disagreement over the application of the policy; after all, Respondent wanted the 45 good-day policy. Perhaps, Dr. Santini believed that she was approving the 45 good-day policy, but in fact she was not, as evidenced by their closing comments and her October 25 memorandum, described below. At the end of the October 20 meeting, Dr. Santini promised written guidelines and asked Respondent if he wanted any input. Dr. Santini testified that Respondent said that the only thing that he disagreed with was, if a student must be returned to his geographical school at the end of 45 days, ready or not, that those schools would be prepared to help him in the transition. Mr. Wiseman promised to adopt or modify the PASS program to help with this transition. The significance of Respondent's comment, as recounted by Dr. Santini, is as additional proof that Dr. Santini had not approved the continuation of the 45 good-day policy and Respondent was resigned to following her new enrollment policy. The comment tends to prove the elimination of the 45 good-day policy because, if the ALC were permitted to retain students until they were ready to return to their geographical school, there would be little need for the geographical school to help with the transition. The comment proves the obedience of Respondent because he had disagreed was more than the issue of the preparedness of the geographical school to help the former ALC student. Respondent had tried and failed to win Dr. Santini's approval for the 45 good-day policy, so that the ALC students returning to their geographical schools would not need any special assistance from the geographical schools in the transition. But this comment proves that he was giving up on the 45 good-day policy. Dr. Santini sent a memorandum dated October 25, 1996, to Respondent with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and all principals in the District. The memorandum largely memorialized what Dr. Santini had said at the meeting five days earlier. Dr. Santini testified that the only change between the October 25 memorandum and what she had said at the October 20 meeting was that she had eliminated the 45 good-day policy. She explained that she did not want Respondent to be the sole person to decide what good days were. However, the omission of the 45 good-day provision from the memorandum is strong proof that Dr. Santini never approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting. There were less drastic means of eliminating Respondent's discretion in applying the 45 good-day policy, without eliminating the policy itself. Dr. Santini could have reserved such authority for these decisions to Mr. Wiseman, herself, the principal of the geographical school, or some combination of the above. The October 25 memorandum states in its entirety: The following plan is to be implemented immedi- ately as a result of our meeting on Friday, October 20, 1995. High school, middle school and ESE students will be returned to their home schools at the end of a quarter after approximately 45 days at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). In most cases, those students entering the ALC during the first three weeks of a quarter would be eligible for return at the end of that quarter. Those students entering after the first three weeks of a quarter would remain at the ALC until the end of the following quarter. In rare cases a student may be returned to a different high school when recommended by the home school principal and agreed to by the receiving principal. All high school principals have agreed to alter their PASS program to accommodate an orderly reentry of students into the high schools. The ALC will not exceed 250 students. When full capacity is reached the student who has made the most progress will be returned to his/her home school when a new student arrives at the ALC. The above procedures would not prohibit a principal from requesting an earlier return or an extended stay at the ALC. The ALC will continue to function in its capacity as a special center serving the high schools, middle schools and special schools with an ongoing influx and reflux of students. It is understood that the school principals and the ALC principal will main- tain open and direct communication in a spirit of cooperation to best help students. Ultimately, the length of a student's stay at the ALC is dependent upon the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals involved. There are two possible interpretations of the October 25 memorandum. Either it is a consistent expression of an inflexible enrollment cap with the final sentence as a general surplusage to other, more detailed provisions to the contrary. Or, if the last sentence is to be given real effect, the memorandum is contradictory and meaningless. Paragraph 1 of the October 25 memorandum states clearly that the duration of a student's enrollment at the ALC is 45 days. As mentioned above, there is no requirement that these be good days. The word "approximately" does not restore any discretion to the ALC principal or anyone else; rather, like Paragraph 2, the word "approximately" allows for some minor flexibility in shortening or lengthening the 45-day enrollment based on the end of the academic quarter. More importantly, Paragraph 5 of the October 25 memorandum unconditionally limits the enrollment of the ALC to 250 students and supplies a simple procedure for the release of students when the enrollment exceeds 250 students. The student making the most progress when enrollment exceeds 250 students is returned to his geographical school. The returned student is not necessarily prepared for the transfer; he is only the most prepared among the ALC students. Paragraph 6 grants some discretion to the principal of the geographical school, not the ALC, to shorten or extend the stay of a student at the ALC. But the provision gives no guidance as to when stays should be lengthened. Nothing in this provision conflicts with the preceding provisions of the October 25 memorandum. The last sentence of the flush language at the end of the October 25 memorandum seems to ignore the preceding, more- detailed provisions of the memorandum. The last sentence abruptly introduces some discretion to the ALC and geographical school principals as to the length of a student's stay at the ALC. Respondent could not afford to read his supervisor's memorandum as contradictory and meaningless. His reading of the memorandum was guided by what Dr. Santini had told him at the October 20 meeting, which was that the 45 good- day policy was no longer in effect. When enrollment reached 250 students, Respondent had to return the students who had made the most progress. As promised, Mr. Wiseman sent a memorandum dated November 1, 1995, to the eight high school principals stating: Please send to me immediately, above your signature, a statement that you will provide the opportunity for returning students from the ALC to make up their work, and not be denied the chance to pass their classes. Return your memo to me by Wednesday, November 8, 1995. The principals did so. Shortly after receiving the October 25 memorandum, in compliance with her directive, Respondent returned 75-80 students to their geographical schools. Included in this number was A.B., whom Respondent returned to Mariner High School. Respondent had serious reservations as to A. B.'s readiness to return to a less-structured school setting. Even the student shared these misgivings. When he learned he was to be returned to Mariner High School, A. B. told Respondent that he was worried that he was not ready to return to a regular school. He had been apprehended with drugs or drug paraphernalia twice previously and was undergoing counseling. Three weeks after he was returned to Mariner High School, A. B. was apprehended with marijuana. On December 13, 1995, a Board-appointed hearing officer conducted A. B.'s formal expulsion hearing. Witnesses at the hearing, including Respondent, were sworn to tell the truth and subject to cross examination. Petitioner was represented by counsel, and A.B. was represented by his father, who has been a law enforcement officer for 21 years and is currently employed with the Cape Coral Police Department. Petitioner charged that A. B. had been in possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia on November 28, 1995, and was a repeat offender. Petitioner sought to expel A. B. for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year and the following year-- evidently, the maximum penalty allowed by law. A. B. had attended the ALC on at least two occasions. His more recent ALC enrollment was from April 17, 1995, through November 6, 1995. In his opening statement at the expulsion hearing, A.B.'s father admitted that A. B. had been caught possessing marijuana and stated: But the point of the issue too is that he was sent back to Mariner. He was in the ALC. He was flourishing in ALC for the first time. Whatever Mr. Dailey sparked in him was the first time since he's ever been in school. He was bringing books home and everything else, which is not heard of from ALC. When he was alerted to come back to Mariner, he went to Mr. Dailey and told him he wasn't mentally or physically ready to go back. Because the other problem that if he's offered a joint, he can't say no. And Mr. Dailey agreed and that's when that fell apart less than four weeks later. The hearing officer asked A. B.'s father if he wanted A. B. to return to the ALC. The father responded by saying, "Yes, sir. I never wanted him to leave. . . . And the result of this too which I wish people would take into consideration, the night that this happened, because of this, my wife tried to commit suicide." A. B.'s father continued in his opening statement: In ALC Dailey sparked four point something and he was studying. He was getting high grades. His grade point average went up. He didn't want to leave. He did not have the problem. Four weeks--it wasn't even four weeks after he was back that this happened. .... I'm not totally blaming [Mariner High School]. A[.] is at fault with that too. And that's what we are addressing through the counseling. But to put him out in the street or expel him I don't think is the answer either. Especially since for the first time in his life he showed an interest in school. Petitioner's second witness in the expulsion hearing was an assistant principal at Mariner High School. He testified in response to a question directed toward the propriety of the handling of A. B. at Mariner High School: Our position there is that Mr. Dailey is a competent expert, that he handles the people and when he recommends for us to come--for someone to come back, we take that individual. . . . Answering the question whether he would have handled A.B. differently if he had known that he had not successfully completed the ALC program, the assistant principal testified: . . . You know, we have to accord him his rights like all the kids who complete the program at the Alternative Learning Center. Once he's paid his debt and satisfied them that he's capable, then they send him to us. I don't know of any students they send to us that they don't feel like has made the improvement that the school was set up to start with. Do you understand what I'm saying? So when they come to us, their staffing to exit over there is telling us that they feel like they had--now the kid has shown improvement and he's now corrected what it is and he's ready to return. Petitioner's last witness at the expulsion hearing, John Hennebery, who is the District Director of Student Services, testified that the ALC Principal determines when the student is to be returned to his geographical school. A. B.'s father called Respondent as his sole witness. In response to a question as to A. B.'s progress at the ALC, Respondent testified: . . . I noticed, number one, he tends to be completely honest and tells the truth. That's the experience I have had with him. He is begin- ning to come around in terms of when he feels someone is making up evidence or getting to that point, he would seek out--attempt to seek out in terms of trying to find some assistance rather than jumping in first. But that again is a kind of structured environment that we have at the Alternative Learning School. Q: In your professional opinion, do you believe that [A.] at this point in time still needs that structure of school? A: I most certainly do. Q: At the time when he was requested from the School Board to go back to Mariner, did [A.] approach you in reference to this? A: Yes, he did. Q: And in what aspect did he? A: The usual policy of the district was that on a first offense there was a 45 good day policy. That means that the student has the responsi- bility of spending 45 good days there, good days, which are defined as attendance, punctu- ality, academic and discipline. And on the second offense it's a ninety day offense. Q: Uh-huh. A: Then this year the rules are changed. In the middle of the semester. I was given a directive from the Assistant Superintendent, along with other Principals were informed of it; that the students were called by numbers. At the Alternative Learning School were addi- tional programs of juvenile justice, programs dealing with the number of felons that we were having come into school; that our numbers were getting too large and we had to--I had to send students back. [A.] was one of the students that had been there a period of time and that based on the period of--on the time that he had spent there, that we have to send him back to Mariner. [A.] had some concern about that and spoke with me in great detail about going back and being under those pressures. Now my conversation with [A.] was that because if he had done well at the Alternative Learning School, that my expectations with [A.] would be that he would go over there and do well and make good decisions at Mariner High School. So that in terms of that's the type of conversa- tion that we had and that's where it led. Now did [A.] complete his stay? No, he did not. And he is not one that I would have automatically sent back to Mariner because I was not yet convinced of his ability to deal with the pressures that he was going to have to face at Mariner High School. * * * Q: But your general concerns that the peer pressure is basically--or the pressures in the school itself that he couldn't handle was also [A.]'s concerns too when he came to speak to you about going back? A: Yes, those were [A.]'s concerns but those would be anyone's concerns as relates to going back to the regular school once you have been at the Alternative for a long period of time. You get the anxiety of going back and wanting to do well. So it's not out of the ordinary for students, I might say, to be excited. I have students right now that actually do something wrong so they won't have to go back. So [A.]'s concern or his emotions that he expressed were not unordinary. I felt at that time that because I was given a directive, that it was my responsibility as a Principal to assist him in moving in that direction and I had all the confi- dence in the world in the Mariner staff that they would assist him in moving in that direction. There is an issue that I must be very honest is that the decisions that [A.] makes is [sic] [A.]'s decisions and once in fact--and this is what we teach them at the Alternative School; that once in fact you see that kind of situation present, then you must not go to the situation. You must remove yourself from the situation. And, you know, I'm one that's trying to be very fair and equitable in this hearing and in telling you that this is a situation that, yes, he should have known not to go near that, should have backed off from it. Q: Did he? A: No, sir, he didn't. Was I ready to release him? No, I wasn't. I'd like to concur with Mr. McNerney. I'd like to see [A.] back at the Alternative Learning School for ninety days with the approval of the-- with some kind of documentation showing that he has completed his drug testing and after that, then backing up Mr. McNerney's decision in attendance at the school. And I'm being very honest. The preceding excerpts from the transcript represent all of Respondent's material testimony. Petitioner conducted limited cross examination, devoted to an exposition of the District's drug policy. A. B.'s father introduced into evidence a letter dated December 12, 1995, from Licensed Mental Health Counselor Beverly Barbato, Ph.D., stating that it is in A. B.'s best interest to return to the structure of the ALC. On December 18, 1995--working without a transcript in the interest of time--the hearing officer summarized the testimony of the witnesses, commending each of them for some aspect of their participation in the hearing. As to Respondent, the hearing officer stated: "Mr. Dailey should certainly be commended for his honesty and his ability to assess the situation in a very diplomatic manner." Acknowledging that Petitioner sought expulsion for the maximum time permitted by law, the hearing officer stated that he "sense[d] that both Mr. Hennebery and Mr. McNerney felt that reinstatement should occur in the 1996-1997 school year or upon [A.] completing a successful drug rehabilitation program pursuant to Florida Statutes." Never mentioning old or new enrollment policies at the ALC in his discussion, the hearing officer accepted the recommendations of Respondent, A. B.'s father, the treating health care professional, and A. B. that A. B. be placed on probation for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year at the ALC, subject to additional conditions. In no way did the hearing officer's recommendation rely on Respondent's brief testimony about the transfer of A. B. under the new ALC enrollment policy. The court reporter finished the transcript on December 26, 1995. In Exceptions filed January 8, 1996, Petitioner requested that A. B. be expelled at least for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year. The record does not indicate what action the School Board took on the hearing officer's recommendation. The expulsion transcript reveals that the Assistant Principal at Mariner High School construed the ALC enrollment policy to ensure that students would not be returned to their geographical schools until they were ready to return. The Director of Student Services shared this misinterpretation, at least to the extent of thinking that the transfer decision was made by the ALC principal. The expulsion transcript reveals that Respondent told the truth that B. had come to Respondent and said he was afraid he was not ready to return. Respondent told the truth that he too shared these concerns. And Respondent told the truth that the current policy was that he had no choice but to return unprepared students when ALC enrollments reached the cap. In one respect, Respondent's testimony may have reflected a misunderstanding of a portion of Dr. Santini's policy. He testified that the new policy meant that "the students were called by numbers." Numbers triggered the necessity to return some students. But the new policy did not require that students be returned on a first in, first out basis. Rather, the students to be returned were to be those most prepared to be returned. Respondent's testimony seems to indicate that he interpreted the new policy as providing that he return students on a first in, first out basis. He implied that he selected for transfer the students who had been enrolled the longest at the ALC. In his next sentence, Respondent mentioned "numbers" in connection with the enrollment at the ALC getting too high as trigger for the need to transfer some ALC students. This suggests that his reference to "numbers" was not to the determination of who to return to their geographical schools. But in his next sentence, Respondent implied that the decision to return A. B. was based strictly on how long he had been at the ALC. However, two sentences later, Respondent recounted how A. B. had done well at the ALC, implying that he had at least made some progress, although without any mention of his progress relative to the progress of the other ALC students. Close analysis of Respondent's testimony does not reveal the basis on which he selected the students to be transferred. However, even if Respondent returned A. B. on a first in, first out basis, this action, although not consistent with the better reading of the October 25 memorandum, would have been consistent with Paragraphs 1 and 2, which imply that the sole criterion of enrollment duration is the length of the student's enrollment. Although close scrutiny of the October 25 memorandum permits a reconciliation of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 5--though not also the last sentence of the flush language-- Respondent cannot be expected to perform such textual analysis to discern meaning from such careless wording. In any event, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing did not dwell on the inflexible enrollment cap ordered by Dr. Santini. He mentioned it briefly, then proceeded to describe, almost as briefly, his application of the policy in A.B.'s case. He cast his testimony in a light favorable to Petitioner by explaining that many ALC students are worried about their ability to survive in a regular school, A. B. had made some progress at the ALC, Respondent had encouraged A. B. to behave at Mariner High School, and A. B. must bear final responsibility for his poor choices. After receiving Dr. Santini's memorandum, Respondent was doing the best he could to implement the new enrollment policy. Probably unknown to Dr. Santini at the time, Respondent called Mr. Wiseman around Christmas vacation and asked if he should transfer 112 students then or wait until the end of the semester in January. Mr. Wiseman told Respondent to retain the students until the semester break. Dr. Santini never tried to clarify her confusing memorandum to Respondent or assist him in its implementation. In response to questioning during a School Board meeting from a School Board member concerning the conflict between Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the October 25 memorandum, Dr. Santini issued a memorandum of clarification dated January 5, 199[6.] The January 5 memorandum was issued to all middle- and high-school principals. The first four paragraphs are identical to the October 25 memorandum, except for the addition of a sentence to the fourth paragraph mentioning some new software to facilitate the transition of students back to their geographical schools. The new fifth paragraph states: The ALC will not exceed 250 students unless there are special circumstances with individual students that may warrant extended time. The principal of the geo-school will discuss these circumstances with the ALC principal. When extended time is recommended, the ALC principal will then compile a short report to the Secondary Operations Director that includes the following: the time already spent at ALC by that student, the original offense committed by that student, and any other justification that may warrant extended time (i.e., parent request). The Secondary Operations Director will consider all above factors and then give approval or disapproval on any requested extended time. Dr. Santini also revised the last sentence of the October 25 memorandum to reflect that the length of a student's assignment to the ALC is dependent on the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals and-- now--Director of Secondary Operations. The overenrollment issue did not end here. Dr. Santini conducted a meeting with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman on January 9, 1996, but this is addressed below in connection with another issue. However, one more fact has a bearing on the issue of overenrollment itself. Respondent never violated the ALC enrollment policy as Dr. Santini applied it to Respondent's immediate successors, Ms. Smith and Mr. Hagy. During the 77 days of Respondent's tenure, the average student enrollment was 265 students. During the 73 days of his successors' tenure, the average student enrollment was 253 students. After adjusting for actual attendance, there were 184 students present on average under Respondent's tenure and 189 students present on average under his successors' tenure. Improper Voluntary Enrollment and ESE Procedures: Paragraph 52 At the end of July 1995, Respondent called Mr. Hennebery and asked if he could voluntarily enroll two students. Mr. Hennebery explained that ALC administrators had made voluntary enrollments before deciding to discontinue the practice one or two school years ago. Since that time, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman had approved all voluntary enrollments. Mr. Hennebery was not Respondent's direct or indirect supervisor. Mr. Hennebery lacked the authority to accept voluntary enrollments, or to make policy on this issue. At no time did Respondent's direct supervisors, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman, instruct Respondent as to voluntary enrollments. The issue of voluntary enrollments is not, in any event, of major importance. Of the hundreds of students enrolled at the ALC during Respondent's tenure, not more than 18 of them were voluntarily enrolled. Most if not all of the students whom Respondent voluntarily enrolled were exceptional cases who were ineligible to return to their geographical schools or enter the Academy. During Respondent's tenure, six ESE students were transferred from the ALC without individual educational plans. Respondent relied on Mr. Vitale, who was the ESE department head, and Ms. Smith to handle ESE paperwork, as Respondent candidly admitted at the hearing that he was unknowledgeable about ESE procedures. Five of the six students left the ALC and entered Adult Education. These were obviously older students for whom an individual educational plan is of less importance than it would be for students with many more years in the educational system. Ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with ESE procedures at the ALC rests with Respondent. However, the circumstances suggest only an innocent mistake on Respondent's part, not incompetency, misconduct in office, or gross insubordination. Student Visits to Hi Tech Center Central: Paragraph 55 One day in late November 1995, Ms. Saldana had arranged for two students to visit the District's High Tech Center Central, which is a vocational school. When they returned, they told her that, at the end of the day, the counselor at High Tech Center Central had refused to talk to them because they were ALC students. Ms. Saldana called High Tech Center Central Director Ron Pentiuk, who confirmed that he would not allow ALC students to enroll directly from the ALC or even to visit his campus while still enrolled at the ALC. He said that this had been his agreement with Ms. Folaros. Ms. Saldana explained that, in the case of three to five students, they could not first return to their geographical schools because they were graduating early. If they could not enroll in High Tech Center Central directly from the ALC, they could not attend the vocational school. Mr. Pentiuk refused to consider the request, insisting the students still had to spend six to nine weeks at their geographical schools before they could enroll at the vocational school. He said someone in the District office told him not to accept any more ALC students. By letter to Respondent dated December 19, 1995, with copies to Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Wortham, and others, Mr. Pentiuk restated his position: "no ALC students will have direct access to High Tech Central programs. . . . [A]ll visitations shall come from the student[']s geo school and not ALC directly." The letter cites as authority for this policy a meeting that took place at the start of the 1994-95 school year between representatives of High Tech Center Central and the New Directions Center. The implicit reason for this policy is that Mr. Pentiuk wanted someplace to send a student if he failed to perform at High Tech Center Central. By memorandum dated January 10, 1996, to Mr. Pentiuk, Respondent memorialized a discussion at a principals' meeting earlier that day. The agreement appears to allow ALC students who are ready to be returned to their geographical schools, but have not yet been returned, to visit the High Tech Center Central. The record reveals only that Respondent tried to send ALC students to the High Tech Center Central for visits. When they were treated rudely by Center personnel, Respondent and Ms. Saldana discovered an unreasonable policy that emanated not from the District office, but from an understanding reached by Mr. Pentiuk and Respondent's predecessor. This agreement had little logic to commend it. It delayed and, in some cases, denied ALC students access to important vocational training. Mr. Pentiuk explained that he could not deal directly with ALC students because he needed to have a place to which to return them if they misbehaved. However, his concern does not address the aspect of the policy prohibiting even campus visits by ALC students. And his concern fails even to address the remainder of the policy, as the record does not explain why Mr. Pentiuk could not expel students back to the ALC as easily as to their geographical schools. In any event, Respondent and Ms. Saldana rectified the situation, achieving a much-improved policy than the one that preceded Respondent's involvement. Refusal to Reenroll J. M.: Paragraph 50 In September 1995, Respondent refused to reenroll J.M. when his grandmother brought him back to school after an unexcused absence. J. M.'s father had called Respondent and complained that his mother was interfering with J. M., her grandson. The boy was skipping school with the father's brother, who was also of school age. J.M. asked Respondent not to let the grandmother return the boy to school or supply a legal excuse for his absence. When J. M.'s grandmother brought the boy back to school one day, Respondent did as the father had directed him. Respondent told the grandmother, "Ma'am, you can't bring your child back. I got a call from your son, and he is the legal guardian. Call your son and get it straight with him. I shouldn't even be talking to you about J. M." E. Arrest of W. S.: Paragraph 49 On November 1, 1995, W. S. tried to leave the cafeteria without permission. She has a history of violent outbursts. Riley Ware, a teacher, tried to stop her. W. S. asked him who he thought he was with that crooked gold tooth. Mr. Ware responded by telling her to sit her "big-lipped" self down. (Respondent later reprimanded Mr. Ware for this comment.) W. S. swore at Mr. Ware, calling him, among other things, a "black bitch." Teacher Christine Peete then intervened. She said, "Young lady, you've been very inappropriate." Gently placing her arm on W. S.'s shoulder, Ms. Peete added, "Come with me until you cool off." W. S. angrily responded by slinging Ms. Peete's arm off of her shoulder. She shouted, "Get your hands off me, bitch. I'll dip on [beat up] all of you. Ms. Peete had to return to her class, so she asked Ms. Krucher to escort W. S. to the office. Ms. Peete found Respondent in the middle-school area and told him that he needed to deal with W. S. Respondent returned to his office to find W. S. leaving. He greeted her by saying, "Well, daughter, Ms. Peete tells me that you called her a bitch." S. said she called Mr. Ware a bitch, but she did not call "that bitch" (Ms. Peete) a bitch. Respondent told her she was suspended for five days, and W. S. replied, "I don't give a fuck about five days." Respondent raised the suspension to seven days, and W. S. lunged toward Respondent and Ms. Peete, who was standing next to him. W. S.'s initial lunge threw Respondent, herself, and a computer to the floor. Respondent wrestled his way to the top, and W. S. demanded that he get his "big belly" off her. She scratched him or snapped his suspenders, causing his chin to bleed. She grabbed his tie and choked him. She tried to bite and kick him. Respondent ordered a nearby staffperson to call the police. Officer Garrett Kusienski of the Fort Myers Police Department responded to the call and arrived at the school in a three or four minutes. When he arrived at the ALC office, Respondent and W. S. had just gotten off the floor, and Respondent and several male staffmembers were escorting her into the office. Respondent approached Officer Kusienski and asked him to arrest W. S. Officer Kusienski asked why, and Respondent directed him to handcuff and remove her. Officer Kusienski refused to do so until Respondent explained why. Officer Kusienski's police report, which is credited, states Respondent answered that, if Officer Kusienski were not going to do his job, "I needed to get off his campus." Officer Kusienski asked again what happened, and Respondent "stated that he would give all the details to Chief Hart when he was contacted, to get the hell off his campus if I wasn't going to arrest anyone." Officer Kusienski left the building, but returned a few minutes later, spoke with W. S. and possibly others, and took her into custody. The police report notes that another officer, who had arrived on the scene as backup, took statements from witnesses. At the hearing, Officer Kusienski testified that Respondent said, "If I'm not going to do my fucking job to get the fuck off this campus." Officer Kusienski did not explain at the hearing why he deleted one "fuck" entirely and replaced another with "hell" in his police report. It is unlikely that Officer Kusienski was graciously sparing Respondent any embarrassment in the report because he also noted that Respondent became "very disorderly toward me." The only other evidence that Respondent said "fuck" is Ms. Krucher, who testified that Respondent said it to Officer Kusienski once, not twice as Officer Kusienski testified. However, her testimony is contradicted by numerous other witnesses, who testified that she was not there and they did not hear Respondent say "fuck" to the officer or otherwise during the incident. Ms. Krucher's testimony has not generally been credited on grounds, among others, that she harbored considerable ill-will toward Respondent. The testimony of Officer Kusienski is countered by the testimony of Officer Jackson, also of the Fort Myers Police Department. Officer Jackson testified that Respondent did not use foul language toward Officer Kusienski. There is no preponderance of the evidence as to what Respondent said to Officer Kusienski. Respondent Late to Work: Paragraph 54 On November 16, 1995, the parent of a student at Cape Coral High School called Respondent and asked him to attend a meeting for the purpose of determining whether to transfer the parent's child to the ALC. The parent did not want the child transferred to the ALC and asked for Respondent's help at the meeting. Seeing a chance to help control the ALC enrollment, Respondent agreed to attend the meeting, which was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and try to help the student remain at his geographical school. Respondent's intent was to speak first and then drive back to the ALC, which was about 20-30 minutes away at that time of day. Respondent reasonably expected that he would arrive at the ALC between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. Respondent typically arrived at school at 7:30 a.m. and took cafeteria duty until school starts at 8:00 a.m. The evening of November 16, Respondent called Mr. Ware and told him to cover the cafeteria the following morning in case Respondent was late. Ms. Smith was on personal leave on November 17. However, Respondent and LAMP principal McCollum had an agreement that, if one of them was absent from the campus, the other would serve as acting administrator to be called upon by teachers or staff as needed. Their agreement--which was a necessity for Ms. McCollum because she lacked an assistant principal--did not require that either give the other advance notice of his absence. Unfortunately, Respondent did not get to speak first at the meeting, which ran longer than Respondent had expected because the student had been charged with drug possession, not merely disrespect to a teacher, as Respondent had been told. From the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Respondent called someone--probably Mr. Ware--and told him that he would be later than he had anticipated the prior night. Respondent returned to the ALC between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. When Respondent did not appear at school by 8:00 a.m., Ms. Krucher told Mr. Wortham that Respondent had left the ALC without an administrator. Mr. Wortham called Dr. Santini and told her. The same afternoon, Dr. Santini or her designee called Respondent and asked him where he had been that morning. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman met with Respondent on November 20 to discuss Respondent's tardiness on November 17. This meeting is described in the following section. By memorandum to Respondent dated November 28, 1995, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, but not to Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini concluded as to the incident: As per our conversation of November 20, 1995, I am reminding you that I consider the fact that you were not in school on November 17, 1995 until 8:45 A.M. with no assistant present, a serious offense. The students at ALC need constant monitoring and supervision and to have the school unstaffed by any administrator, even for forty minutes, could lead to a catastrophe. I do not expect this to happen again. By letter dated December 8, 1995, to Dr. Santini, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, Respondent acknowledged receipt of her November 28 "letter relating to your concerns of me not being present in my building without an assistant." The letter explains that, once at the Cape Coral High School meeting, Respondent learned that the student had not only threatened a teacher, but had also used drugs. The letter states that Respondent had previously covered for Mr. Wortham and Ms. McCollum. Respondent's letter concludes: This is not to say that I don't concur with you. I most certainly agree with you whole heartedly that not only in ALC but all schools, we must have an administrator on duty. An administrator was on duty, as I had informed you verbally. Mrs. McCollum and I had total agreement relating to coverage without any problems. Your letter gives the perception that I was purposely avoiding my responsibility and was irresponsible in fulfilling my duty as a principal. I would like the record to show that I was fulfilling my duty as an educator, as a principal and as a community leader. Through my efforts, I was able to at least save the life of a young man that we could have possibly lost to drugs. This is one I don't have to look over and he not look back. Thank you for your concern and I accept your letter of concern and would vow that I will continue to work with you and to make the ALC the best learning environment that I can. Dr. Santini's November 28 letter is not a letter of reprimand, nor did she intend for a copy of the letter to be included in Respondent's personnel file. Her intent is inferred from the absence of the letter from Respondent's personnel file in mid-February, the omission from the letter of any express notation of copies to Respondent's personnel file (as contrasted to the January 2 letter described below), and the failure of Dr. Santini to respond to Respondent's subsequent characterization of the letter in his letter of December 8. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated any policy of the District in effect on November 17. The record reveals no prohibition against having another administrator, such as Ms. McCollum, cover for Respondent for a short time, even in the absence of advance notice. November 20, 1995, Meeting: Paragraph 42 Three days after Respondent was late to work due to the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman visited Respondent to discuss the incident, as well as charges of heavy-handed dealing with students, yelling at teachers, and leaving campus early. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman dismissed as unfounded all charges except for Respondent's tardiness on November 17. Around this time, Ms. Krucher, who had been talking to Mr. Wortham daily, began contacting Dr. Santini and possibly Petitioner, whom Dr. Santini testified that she had suggested Ms. Krucher call. The purpose of these calls was to supply, on a confidential basis, unfavorable information about Respondent. If the information resembled her testimony, nearly all of it was unreliable. One incident illustrates the lengths to which unidentified persons would go to fabricate evidence unfavorable to Respondent. By two-page, handwritten letter dated February 17, 1996, from Ms. Pepin to Ms. Minton, Ms. Pepin objected to a statement attributed to Ms. Minton in the newspaper to the effect that she spoke for all of the ALC staff when she criticized Respondent. In her letter, which is entirely supportive of Respondent, Ms. Pepin admitted that, last June, she had not much liked Respondent entering her classroom and giving his "new sheriff in town" speech. But the letter continues to state that she now understands the effectiveness of Respondent's style. Someone--not in the office of Petitioner's counsel-- fraudulently altered Ms. Pepin's letter and sent it to Petitioner's counsel. By careful folding, whiting out, and photocopying, this person reduced the two-page letter to five and one-half lines and moved Ms. Pepin's signature beneath these lines, so as to make the letter look like a short note objecting to the "new sheriff" speech. This person then passed the counterfeit note as a gross distortion of Ms. Pepin's views-- literally out of context. It is highly unlikely that such fraud would be perpetrated by someone in the District office. The record does not reveal who had access to the letter after it was received by Ms. Minton. But the incident reveals indisputably the unreliability of at least some of the information that Dr. Santini and Petitioner received about Respondent. In any event, toward the end of the November 20 meeting, Respondent demanded that Dr. Santini tell him who had made the allegations against him. The request was not unreasonable given the inaccuracy of most of the charges. Dr. Santini refused to divulge the name or names of these persons. She explained reasonably that, if she were going to do something about the charges, she would tell him, but she was not going to do anything about them. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was rude in the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's November 28 memorandum makes no mention of any rudeness. Petitioner's counsel did not inquire of Mr. Wiseman as to Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's testimony was not detailed in its description of Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. On direct, she testified only that Respondent exhibited an "insubordinate attitude," and "we couldn't talk to him for his continuing to talk to us." Dr. Santini did not use the word "shout" or "yell" to describe Respondent's manner of speaking. On cross, Dr. Santini added only that Respondent was "insubordinate, rude, and unreceptive." Gate Incident: Paragraph 43 Immediately after school on December 12, 1995, a boy hit a girl near the front gate of the New Directions campus. Respondent, Mr. Ware, Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Smith, Ms. Krucher, Mr. Nassiff, Mr. Wortham, and other adults immediately went to the scene. At first, the two students refused to tell Respondent what had happened. A group of boys outside of the gate had seen the altercation. Respondent motioned them to enter the school grounds, but, before he could talk to them, Mr. Nassiff told Respondent that he had seen the altercation. Not needing to speak to the group of boys, Respondent motioned them to go back. However, two or three of them were already inside the gate. A security guard was in the process of locking the two front gates, so Respondent told Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to escort the two or three boys off campus through the back gate, which was closer to their homes. Unknown to Respondent, the remaining boys from the group had just told Mr. Wortham that they were going to beat up the next student whom they saw. Respondent, the two students involved in the altercation, and other staff, except for Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith, walked toward the ALC where Respondent could deal with the two students. Respondent saw Mr. Wortham signalling to Ms. Krucher, and Respondent asked her what he wanted. She replied that he wanted her to close the back gate. Respondent told her not to close the back gate because he had just sent Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith with some students to let them out the back gate. He reminded her that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss. At the time, Respondent was unaware that some Academy students were preparing Christmas decorations inside the back gate, which typically remained open before and after school for deliveries. Respondent was also unaware that Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith had not gone to the back gate because they had been able to get the students through one of the front gates before it had been locked. After Respondent returned to the ALC building, the group of students walked around the side the school to the back gate, where one or more of them beat up an Academy student so badly that he required hospitalization. As soon as Respondent learned of the incident in the back, Respondent called Mr. Wortham, who said he was angry and had some concerns. Respondent invited him to discuss them, but he declined, saying he would instead call Dr. Santini. Respondent suggested that he take his concerns directly to Petitioner in that event. Respondent then found out from Mr. Nassiff and Ms. Krucher what had happened. Respondent asked Mr. Nassiff to explain to Mr. Wortham that Respondent had not known that there were students in the back inside the gate and that Respondent had sent two teachers back there to escort students out of the campus. Shortly after that, Respondent went to the Academy building to speak to Mr. Wortham. Respondent explained what had happened from his perspective, and Mr. Wortham acknowledged that he had later found that out, but, by that time, he had already called Dr. Santini. Petitioner did not call Mr. Wortham to testify about the gate incident, even though Petitioner claims it was his order that Respondent countermanded. Under the circumstances reasonably known to him at the time, Respondent behaved responsibly throughout the gate incident. He did not know he lacked crucial information when he told Ms. Krucher not to go to the back gate. But he reasonably assumed that he had more information than did Mr. Wortham. He knew that he had already sent two men to the back. Even had he known that the boys wanted to beat someone up and that an Academy student was in the back, Respondent would reasonably have relied on Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to prevent the attack. When Respondent told Ms. Krucher that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss, he was merely emphasizing his direction that she not close the back gate. He was not stating the cause for the direction. The cause was that he had sent two men to the back gate. Respondent's comment about who was Ms. Krucher's boss was thus not an act of insubordination or lack of cooperation. I. Respondent's Police Interview About Gate Incident: Paragraph 48 Mr. Nassiff witnessed the police interview of Respondent concerning the gate incident. In the interview, Respondent did not state that he countermanded Mr. Wortham's order to Ms. Krucher to go lock the back gate. Respondent did not withhold material information from the police, who were investigating the beating of the Academy student, not Respondent. The direction that Respondent gave Ms. Krucher was entirely appropriate under the circumstances as reasonably understood by Respondent at the time that he told her not to close the back gate. There was no reason for Respondent to mention this minor point to the police. J. January 9, 1996, Meeting: Paragraph 44 Three days after the gate incident, Dr. Santini asked Respondent to come to her office that day. He said that he was helping students deliver Christmas food baskets to the needy and could not, so they set up a 7:00 a.m. appointment for the following Monday, December 18. When Respondent arrived at the meeting, expecting it to be between him and Dr. Santini, he found Mr. Wiseman and Mr. Wortham, who had prepared a written statement. Dr. Santini said she wanted to hear both sides of the gate incident. Respondent objected that the meeting was unfair because he had not had the chance to prepare a statement. Dr. Santini replied that she had not asked Mr. Wortham to prepare a statement, and Respondent said that at least he had known what the meeting was about. Mr. Wortham and Respondent each stated what happened. Mr. Wiseman asked Mr. Wortham if he had disclosed to Respondent the threat by the group of boys in the front, and Mr. Wortham admitted that he had not. Dr. Santini said that she would speak to Ms. Krucher to obtain a statement, but refused Respondent's request that she also speak to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was worried that he was being set up and informed Dr. Santini that he would be requesting a meeting with Petitioner to complain about the discriminatory treatment that he was receiving. Respondent contacted Petitioner's office to set up a meeting. Petitioner contacted Respondent during Christmas break, and, at her request, the two of them met for two hours on December 28 at a local restaurant. They discussed the ALC enrollment policy, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing, Respondent's claims of harassment by Dr. Santini, Dr. Santini's practice of invariably bringing Mr. Wiseman with her on visits with Respondent, Respondent's good relationship with Mr. Wiseman whenever he was separated from Dr. Santini, and the gate incident. Petitioner told Respondent that he needed to return to school after Christmas break and work more closely with his supervisors, as well as Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham. Petitioner promised to set up a meeting among her, Respondent, and Dr. Santini. This meeting was later scheduled for January 9, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. By letter to Respondent dated January 2, 1996, with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini stated that she had completed her investigation into the gate incident and had spoken with Respondent, Mr. Wortham, and Ms. Krucher following the meeting of December Dr. Santini concluded: the key issue is the fact that after Mr. Wortham asked your security guard, Lisa Krucher, to run to the back of the school and lock the gate because he felt the boys who were threatening to harm someone would come in through the back gate, you instructed Lisa Krucher not to lock the gate because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham. I consider this action on your part a poor judgment call and a lack of cooperation with other adminis- trators on campus. * * * I am directing you from this point on, to work together with Mr. Wortham for the benefit of the children in the school. The attitude that employees work for one principal and not another is an attitude that can cause disruption and, as we have seen with regard to this incident, harm to a student. Dr. Santini's letter misstates an important fact. Respondent did not redirect Ms. Krucher "because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham." He redirected her because he had sent two able staffpersons to the back gate, and there was no need to send a third person. Dr. Santini evidently discredited an important element of Respondent's version of the gate incident. She could not have determined that Respondent countermanded Ms. Wortham's order for the sole reason of showing Ms. Krucher who was her boss, unless Dr. Santini had eliminated the possibility that Respondent countermanded the order because he had already sent two men back there. Whether Respondent sent the two men to the back or not is a difficult fact question. Although Dr. Santini might reasonably have concluded that Respondent, Mr. Ware, and Mr. Smith were lying, her factual determination is deficient as long as she refused to talk to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was reasonably concerned with Dr. Santini's fairness when she talked to Mr. Wortham's corroborating witness, but refused even to talk to Respondent's corroborating witnesses. On January 5, 1996, which was the date that Dr. Santini issued her letter clarifying the October 25 memorandum on the ALC enrollment policy, Dr. Santini contacted Respondent's office to set up a meeting for January 8, which was the day prior to their meeting with Petitioner. She had by now seen the transcript of the expulsion hearing and wanted to discuss this matter with Respondent. Taking the advice of Dr. Cecil Carter, an administrator in the District, Respondent called Dr. Santini's office back and asked the purpose of the meeting. Dr. Santini relayed the information through someone in her office that they were going to discuss Respondent's "deposition." The only deposition with which Respondent was familiar was in connection with his testimony in the Rockford, Illinois desegregation case. Dr. Santini inadvertently used "deposition" to mean Respondent's testimony at the A. B. expulsion hearing. However, Respondent assumed that she was going to discuss some aspect of desegregation with him. Around 2:00 p.m. on January 8, Respondent told his secretary to call Dr. Santini's office and cancel the meeting. He told his secretary that he was ill and going home directly after school, but told her to tell Dr. Santini that she could call Respondent at home and they could at least talk on the phone. Dr. Santini did not call Respondent at home. Instead, she and Mr. Wiseman appeared, without prior notice, in Respondent's office between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. on January 9, 1996, which was the day of the meeting with Petitioner. Respondent said he was busy with school duties, and they waited until he could see them. In a few minutes, Respondent, Dr. Santini, and Mr. Wiseman met. Dr. Santini started the meeting by saying, "Charles, I'm going to talk to you about this deposition." She showed him the transcript of the A. B. expulsion hearing. She stated, "The way this looks, I'm going to have to write you up." Understandably worried that Dr. Santini had already made her decision to discipline him, Respondent asked for permission for his secretary to attend the meeting as a witness. Dr. Santini said no. Respondent then asked to tape the meeting. Dr. Santini agreed. As Respondent left to find a tape recorder, Mr. Wiseman said, "Mary, you're going to have to give him a chance to tell his side of the story." Unable to find a tape recorder, Respondent returned to the meeting. Dr. Santini pointed to a page of the transcript and, without discussing the testimony directly, declared that Respondent had testified that numbers were more important than students. Respondent tried to interrupt, but Dr. Santini would not allow him. Respondent stated, "You can't accuse me of things and expect me not to respond." Dr. Santini replied, "You are going to listen to me." Dr. Santini accused Respondent of talking to A. B.'s father. In fact, Respondent had told him to work with Mr. Hennebery's office. Suddenly, Respondent told her that the meeting was over until we meet Petitioner. Dr. Santini slammed a book and told Respondent that he had "disrespected me and Mr. Wiseman." Respondent answered, "My dear friend, how have I disrespected you?" Dr. Santini stated, "That's it." She turned and walked out the door. Mr. Wiseman was still seated when she left. He then jumped up, shook Respondent's hand, and said, "See you later, baby boy." Alone among the key participants in this case, Mr. Wiseman appears to have maintained his sense of humor. During this brief meeting, for example, Mr. Wiseman was the only person not to have raised his voice. Later on the day of January 9, the meeting with Petitioner took place with Respondent, Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Dr. Carter, Dr. Counsel, and an administrative assistant in attendance. Respondent began the meeting by reading a letter from him to Petitioner dated January 8, 1996. The letter reviews the condition of the ALC when he was appointed principal, the changes that he has made, and the problems posed by the ALC enrollment policy stated in the October 25 memorandum. The participants discussed the ALC enrollment policy. Respondent objected that it appeared that they had met with other principals and not him. Mr. Wiseman admitted that they had met and had excluded Respondent because he had threatened another principal. There is no evidence of such a threat. After the discussion about ALC enrollments ended, Petitioner said that she was out of time and everyone would have to return to finish their discussion. Petitioner told Respondent that she had sent Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman to see him, and she did not want him calling off meetings with her staffmembers, such as he had done that morning. Respondent understood that he should not do that. Respondent complained that he had thought that he was doing an outstanding job and could not understand what the problem was with his job performance. Dr. Santini disagreed with him about the job he was doing. Respondent stated that no one had ever sufficiently spelled out a problem so that he could address it. He asked who was complaining about what. He asked Dr. Santini directly if she had any complaints. Dr. Santini said she had one complaint, but would not disclose it to Respondent, even after being urged to do so by all of the other participants, except the administrative assistant. Dr. Santini said that the attorneys had told her that she did not have to disclose it. She then said to Petitioner, "Bobbie, the problem is he will listen to you, not me." Respondent and Dr. Santini began to argue about the meeting earlier in the day. In anger, Respondent said he would not follow Dr. Santini's directions, but go directly to Petitioner. He also admitted that he was afraid of Dr. Santini. Petitioner closed the meeting by promising to check with the attorneys and see if she could supply Respondent with a copy of the complaint to which Dr. Santini had referred. Two days later, on January 11, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent suspending him with pay due to "your conduct in a meeting with Mr. Herb Wiseman . . . and Dr. Mary Santini on January 9, 1996." The letter adds: "you should know that other allegations have been made against you that are currently being investigated by the District." V. Conclusion Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, or immorality. Petitioner never trained Respondent to serve as a school principal. Respondent's previous administrative roles provided valuable experience, but they had also permitted Respondent to become accustomed to serving in a close relationship with a Superintendent who was also a mentor, working outside the normal hierarchical channels of the District office, and alienating numbers of parents, teachers, and administrators in making tough rezoning and equity decisions. But Respondent's qualifications were obvious. As Petitioner wrote in one evaluation, Respondent was a "role model" for other administrators in, among other things, teamwork. Despite the gaps in his experience, Respondent employed vast stores of energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to make the ALC work for its students. He intelligently assessed the situation at the ALC and devised strategies for exploiting the available resources. Fully aware of his own limitations, for instance, he hired Ms. Smith for her knowledge of curriculum. In a short time, he had produced dramatic results at the ALC. Respondent complied with Dr. Santini's directives, although before adoption he argued with those of them with which he disagreed. The October 25 memorandum, as well as the October 20 meeting, set an enrollment cap. Respondent acceded to Dr. Santini's decision. He closed the October 20 meeting with a plea that geographical schools be prepared to finish the job that the ALC would not have time to finish. He transferred 75-80 students out by early November. He asked Mr. Wiseman around Christmas break if he should transfer another 112 students back to their geographical schools. And his average enrollment exceeded the enrollment of his successors by 13 students--while his average actual attendance was five students less than the average actual attendance of his successors. By mid-December, Dr. Santini, misinformed by unreliable information from Ms. Krucher and possibly other informants at the ALC, was concerned about whether Respondent would work out as the ALC Principal. This concern may have influenced her gate investigation and reaction to Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing. The situation rapidly deteriorated when Dr. Santini visited Respondent, unannounced, on the morning of the day that they had a meeting with Petitioner and began the meeting by saying that she would probably have to write up Respondent for his testimony. A supervisor should always be able to conduct a meeting with a subordinate. Respondent should not have abruptly terminated the meeting with Dr. Santini. Supervisors terminate meetings, not subordinates. However, this was an isolated action by Respondent, who had never before terminated a meeting with a supervisor. Respondent had understandably felt that Dr. Santini had treated him unfairly in the gate incident, heard her announce at the start of this meeting what looked like a decision, and decided to deal with all of this at the meeting with Petitioner later that day. Under the circumstances, Respondent's imprudent decision to end the meeting did not rise to gross insubordination. In the final analysis, as Petitioner testified, it is good practice to document problems with employees before terminating them. And, as Petitioner testified, her staff did not do so here. Clearly, Respondent and Dr. Santini have a serious communications problem, for which each bears some responsibility, even though, by the nature of things, a communications problem is typically a bigger problem for the subordinate employee than it is for his boss. But as Dr. Council and Dr. Gunter testified, there was no reason for this case to proceed this far. And the case would not have come this far if District staff had tried to help Respondent or even treated this case as a performance case--where, under the law, District staff would have had to identify Respondent's deficiencies and help him eliminate them.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County enter a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating Respondent, and awarding him back pay as provided by law. ENTERED on June 28, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 28, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance except as to date of initial employment. 2-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, to the extent of the implication that these behaviors were more than isolated or represented significant problems. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 6-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, as to the back of the neck. 10 (remainder)-12: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13 (through "end"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "classroom"): adopted or adopted in substance, except as to throwing C. L. into the chair. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "credited"): adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18 (first sentence): rejected as subordinate. 18 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that O. B. complied with Respondent, who did not apply force to move him. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The testimony of Ms. Culligan is not credible. 22 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 23: rejected as subordinate. 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not witness the entire incident. 26: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not step between J. B. and T. R., nor did she witness the rest of the incident. She prevaricated the portion of the incident that she missed while returning J. B. to her classroom, J. B. testified that Ms. Krucher returned her to her classroom. J. B. also testified that Ms. Krucher even tried to convince her than T. R. had not lunged at J. B. Ms. Krucher's credibility as a witness is very poor. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that T. R.'s testimony was stricken after several vacillations demonstrated that, as to this incident, he could not distinguish between the truth and fiction. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 29 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 30 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 31: Respondent's testimony that he feared M. P. was on drugs is not credited, at least to the extent of attempting to create a well-founded fear in Respondent's mind that the mental state of M. P. was so altered as to render him dangerous. However, Respondent intervened with M. P. to stop him from leaving and preclude the possibility that this student, who obviously is afflicted with a serious behavior disorder, might strike Ms. Smith. The remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. There is no need to resort to Ms. Keel's testimony about the "rat's ass" remark. 33 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: adopted or adopted in substance, except as to crediting Ms. Krucher's testimony and as to any harm to the student's mental health. 35 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except that the displaying of the badge never frightened or intimidated anyone and no student believed that Respondent had extraordinary arrest powers by virtue of the badge. When Respondent spoke to the class, they presumably were off-task, but he did not destroy any instructional momentum. 35 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Respondent did not badger the student or mistreat him in any way. 37: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 38: adopted or adopted in substance, although Respondent appropriately dealt with the student, who should have raised his head to meet the new principal. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent threatened the student with suspension if he did not make eye contact and listen to him. 40 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 40 (third sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40 (fourth sentence): rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 41: rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that on rare occasions Respondent opened doors to Academy classrooms. 43-45: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 46: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except to the extent of findings in the recommended order. 47-48 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except Respondent did not say, "her record." (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 49 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 50-51 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 51 (remainder)-52: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 53: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 54 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 54 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Respondent had not made a prior arrangement with Ms. McCollum, but Petitioner failed to prove that he was required to. 55: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 56 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 56 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 58: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent terminated the meeting. The behavior was inappropriate, but did not constitute either insubordination or, more to the point, gross insubordination. 59 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 59 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to no reason to arrest W. S. at the time. However, the altercation had ceased, and Respondent should have answered the reasonably inquiry of the officer. But his behavior did not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency, or immorality. 62: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner never accounted adequately for Officer Kusienski's omission of the word "fuck" from his police report or, less importantly, the discrepancy between Ms. Krucher and Officer Kusienski as to the number of times that Respondent uttered the expletive. Another problem for Petitioner was the contrary testimony of another officer of the Fort Myers Police Department. 63: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 64 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, at least as to the effect that the grandmother could not serve as the legal guardian of J. M. because she was not. 64 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and hearsay. 65-66: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 67 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 67 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent voluntarily admitted up to 18 students. 68: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 69 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to Respondent's role in the failure to obtain individual educational plans constituting misconduct in office, incompetency, or gross insubordination. 70-71: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance, although there is some uncertainty as to the dates of Respondent's early employment with the District. The findings in the recommended order are guided by the dates and job descriptions contained in the evaluations. 13A: rejected as irrelevant. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance, except that M. P. was not fearful. 16-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The incident did occur. 30A-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: adopted or adopted in substance, but Respondent's brief conversation with Ms. Krucher more closely resembled the version in the recommended order, rather than the more elaborate version in the proposed finding. 45-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Dr. Santini never reviewed several lines of the testimony. She focused only on one phrase. (remainder)-48 (through "Wiseman"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance, although it is unclear the extent to which they discussed the January 5 memorandum itself, as opposed to the ALC overenrollment issue generally. 49-55: adopted or adopted in substance. 56-57: rejected as subordinate, except to the extent described in the recommended order. 58-62: adopted or adopted in substance, although the fact that Respondent's enrollments were no higher than the enrollments of his successors suggests that Respondent's enrollments did not exceed the cap or the cap as applied. 63: rejected as subordinate. 64-68: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Bobbi D'Allessandro The School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament Kunkel, Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 882 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Blair & Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 The Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent has been licensed in the fields of elementary education and exceptional student education. Her Florida education certificate number is 840291. Her certificate expires on June 30, 2010. Respondent was employed by the Bradford County School District from 1994 to 1996, from 1998 to 2001, and finally from 2004 to 2007. She has worked as a substitute teacher, a parent specialist, and a teacher of varying exceptionalities. At the time of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the principal and teacher at Believer's School of Learning (Believer's School) in Bradford County School District. Believer's School was a charter school, for grades K-3, meant to give alternatives to traditional public school. Charter schools fulfill various purposes such as improving student learning and increasing learning opportunities. With respect to the Believer's School, a special emphasis was placed on low- performing students and reading. An "exceptional student" is defined by Section 1003.01(3)(a), Florida Statutes, as: ny student who has been determined eligible for a special program in accordance with rules of the State Board of Education. The term includes students who are gifted and students with disabilities who have an intellectual disability; autism spectrum disorder; a speech impairment; a language impairment; an orthopedic impairment; an other health impairment; traumatic brain injury; a visual impairment; an emotional or behavioral disability; or a specific learning disability, including, but not limited to, dyslexia, dyscalculia, or developmental aphasia; students who are deaf or hard of hearing or dual sensory impaired; students who are hospitalized or homebound; children with developmental delays ages birth through 5 years, or children, ages birth through 2 years, with established conditions that are identified in State Board of Education rules pursuant to s. 1003.21(1)(e). Respondent had Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students in her school. Believer’s School was required to follow federal and state guidelines with respect to ESE students. Those requirements include keeping complete, current and accurate records with respect to exceptional education students. These recordkeeping requirements are required by federal and state law and are necessary for the school system of Bradford County, of which Believer's School was a part, to remain eligible for federal and state funds allocated to pay costs associated with educating exceptional students. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 6.03028(3), Respondent was required to prepare an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each ESE student attending Believer's school. Rule 6A-6.03028(3) states: (3) IEP Requirements. An IEP or individual family support plan (IFSP) must be developed, reviewed, and revised for each eligible student or child with a disability served by a school district, or other state agency that provides special education and related services either directly, by contract, or through other arrangements, in accordance with this rule. Parents are partners with schools and school district personnel in developing, reviewing, and revising the IEP for their student. An IEP is necessary to evaluate the student's educational level, to establish short and long-term educational objectives, to develop alternative ways to accomplish those objectives, and to record the progress of the plan and establish a means for review of the student's educational progress. The proper preparation and maintenance of an IEP is a basic responsibility of the Respondent for exceptional education students at Believer's School. An improperly prepared IEP is potentially harmful to the learning of an ESE student because services and accommodations must be listed on the student's IEP before they can be provided. IEP’s are created by an IEP Team during a meeting involving the parties as set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(c) as follows: (c) IEP Team participants. The IEP Team, with a reasonable number of participants, shall include: The parents of the student; Not less than one (1) regular education teacher of a student with a disability... Not less than one (1) special education teacher of the student, or where appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the student; A representative of the school district who is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities, is knowledgeable about the general curriculum, and is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the school district. . . An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results who may be a member of the IEP Team as described in subparagraphs (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., of this rule;. . . Upon completion, the IEP is signed by the regular education teacher, the ESE teacher, the local education agency (LEA), and the parent or guardian of the student. The LEA is ultimately responsible for what goes into the IEP. If something is in the IEP it is because the LEA determined that it was feasible to carry out. The ESE teacher examines the psycho-educational reports and the specialized needs of the student. He or she often provides strategies to the regular education teacher to use with the ESE student. The regular education teacher is the most familiar with the curriculum being used for the student’s grade level. He or she provides insight as to how that curriculum can be adapted for the ESE student. Members of the IEP Team for an ESE student are supposed to be teachers and individuals associated with the student’s current grade level and involved in the student's education, in order to provide accurate curriculum and services for the student. The IEP Team is supposed to review the child’s test scores or have access to the child, know about the curriculum being used, and what types of accommodations an ESE student of the particular grade level would need. By signing the IEP, the individual team members are stating they met to discuss the ESE student, to develop goals and objectives and services for the student, and that they will follow up on making sure those goals and objectives are met. IEP's are updated on an annual basis. The annual IEP conference is mandatory, and failure to provide such a conference is a violation of federal, state, and School Board rules and policies. Failure to hold such a conference deprives the parents of the exceptional student any meaningful participation in determining the student's educational goals and may deprive the child of the assistance to which he or she is entitled. It also jeopardizes continued state and federal funding of the School Board's exceptional education program. Respondent was instructed, as were other teachers of exceptional students in the school district, that every IEP must be reviewed at least once a year through an annual IEP conference. Respondent was trained in how to prepare IEPs by the Bradford County School District on July 19, 20, and 21, 2005. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b) requires that the school notify parents of an ESE student that an IEP meeting is scheduled prior to the IEP Team Meeting taking place. This notification is more than a formality; it is meant to insure meaningful participation by parents or guardians in the IEP process. Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b) states as follows: (b) Parental participation in meetings. Each school district shall establish procedures that provide the opportunity for one or both of the student’s parents to participate in meetings and decisions concerning the IEP for the student. Parents of each student with a disability must be members of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of their student. Procedures to ensure participation in meetings shall include the following: Notifying parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend; and Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place. A written notice of the meeting must be provided to the parents and must indicate the purpose, time, and location of the meeting, and who, by title or position, will be attending. . . . * * * A meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the school district is unable to obtain the attendance of the parents. In this case, the district must have a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as: Detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls; Copies of correspondence sent to the parents and any responses received; and Detailed records of visits made to the parents’ home or place of employment and the results of those visits. To comply with Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b), it is Bradford County School District’s policy to send out a Parent Notification Form 10 days prior to an IEP team meeting. A few days after the first notification was sent, a second notification is sent to the parent. After the two written notifications are sent, a phone call is made to the parent of the ESE student. Student S.B. began school in the Bradford County School District when she was in pre-K. She was identified as a student with developmental disabilities. In 2005, she was living in Richmond, Virginia, and found to be eligible for exceptional education services as a student with a developmental disability. Upon return to Florida, S.B. was enrolled in Southside Elementary on March 17, 2005. In May 2005, an IEP team met, determined that S.B. was a student with specific learning disabilities, and developed an IEP outlining the services required for S.B. Without those services, S.B. would not receive a free appropriate public education as contemplated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or Florida law regarding the provision of exceptional education. IEPs for exceptional education students are required to be completed every year before the prior year’s IEP expires. S.B.’s next IEP was due on May 17, 2006. On February 13, 2006, S.B. enrolled in Respondent’s charter school, Believer's School of Learning, approximately three months before S.B.’s next IEP was due. There was apparently some delay in providing S.B.'s May 2005 IEP to Respondent, but the length of the delay is unclear. In order for a school district to receive the extra funding for its ESE students all the ESE students’ IEP’s must be current by "FTE week." FTE week is when the schools determine a final head count of all the students that are in attendance. The FTE week for Bradford County School District in 2006 was October 13, 2006. All the ESE students within the school district had to have their IEPs in by that date or the schools would not receive the extra funding associated with that student. If S.B.’s IEP was not turned in before October 13, 2006, Believer's School would have only received its normal funding only instead of the additional ESE funding. As of the last week of September 2006, Respondent had not completed the IEP for S.B. In late September, Respondent called Verdell Long, and asked for some assistance in preparing an IEP for a third grader. On September 28, 2006, Respondent met with Verdell Long, at Bradford County High School, during Ms. Long’s lunch break, for assistance with preparing an IEP for a third grader at her charter school. Verdell Long was a high school teacher at Bradford County High School who had worked with ESE students, with a focus on mental retardation from grades K-12. She had assisted Respondent with IEPs in the past. She understood that she was assisting with a “sample” IEP to be used as a model. However, it was Respondent’s intention to use the product created as an IEP for the student S.B. The day of the meeting Verdell Long’s computer was not working so she could not access the IEPs she had on file. She asked another high school teacher, Dr. Vivian Haynes to assist in the meeting. Dr. Haynes was an ESE teacher at Bradford County High School in September 2006. She was very experienced with preparing and writing IEPs, having just completed a doctoral dissertation which included copies of third and fifth grade IEPs. Dr. Haynes had not previously met Respondent. Dr. Haynes brought several blank “dummy” IEPs with her to the meeting in order to have examples to show Respondent. The IEP prepared at the meeting included the various components of an IEP, such as the measurable goals and objectives for a third grader, but did not include the demographic information on any student. The document prepared at the meeting did not have a student’s name or test scores on it anywhere. Respondent did not bring the student S.B. or her test scores with her to the meeting. However, neither Ms. Long nor Dr. Haynes expected to see individualized information because they did not understand that an IEP for an actual child was being prepared. Verdell Long signed the IEP as the ESE teacher, Dr. Vivian Haynes signed as the LEA, and Respondent signed as the regular education teacher. Neither Verdell Long nor Dr. Vivian Haynes was contracted with Believer's School by the Bradford County School District to provide services as an LEA representative or an ESE teacher. Both Verdell Long and Dr. Vivian Haynes believed the purpose of the meeting was to construct a model IEP in order to assist Respondent with properly preparing an IEP for an ESE student. Neither expected the document created at their meeting to be submitted as an actual IEP for S.B., or any other student, and neither considered the meeting to be an IEP team meeting. Neither Verdell Long nor Dr. Vivian Haynes was shown a Parent Notification Form indicating that their meeting was to be an IEP team meeting. Neither would have signed the IEP if they had seen such a form because they did not believe that an IEP team meeting was being conducted. After the meeting on September 28, 2006, Respondent took the IEP form prepared with the help of Ms. Long and Dr. Haynes, and inserted information specific to S.B. She then submitted the form as S.B.’s IEP and turned in to the Bradford County School District. Submitted with the IEP form was a document which purported to be the Notification of Meeting Form for the IEP team meeting. Only one notification is referenced. The form was dated September 15, 2006, and identified Dr. Vivian Haynes and Verdell Long as participants in the meeting, notwithstanding Respondent's acknowledgement that she did not meet Dr. Haynes until September 28, 2006, and did not know until that time that Dr. Haynes would be participating in the meeting. The form also indicated that the IEP meeting would take place at the Believer's School, as opposed to the Bradford County High School, where the meeting between Respondent, Ms. Long and Dr. Haynes took place. There is no other indication of other attempts of notification. The signature line reserved for a parent or legal guardian is signed by a Rudolph Williams and dated September 29, 2006, the day after the meeting took place. Respondent claims that Mr. Williams is S.B.'s stepfather. However, there is nothing in the Bradford County School District's records to indicate that Mr. Williams is a parent or legal guardian of S.B., and school district officials were not aware of anyone by that name living in the home. By her own admission, Respondent did not keep "official records" for any of her students, including ESE students. She was not particularly concerned with who signed the IEP, because she apparently considered it to be simply a matter of paperwork to be filed with the School District. In her view, the person responsible for ensuring that a child is receiving the appropriate education is her teacher, regardless of the directives in the IEP. She felt that some of the things identified as required simply could not be done at a school her size. She did not consider the role of the LEA and the ESE teacher on the IEP to be all that important. To her, the real responsibility for the child's education lay with the teacher who worked with her on a daily basis. S.B. was later withdrawn from Believer's School and now attends Starke Elementary School. Believer's School has since closed and is no longer operating as a charter school.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent to be guilty of the violations alleged in Counts Two through Seven and dismissing Count One of the Administrative Complaint; imposing a fine of $500; suspending her certificate for one year and placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Manatee County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause to terminate the employment of Charles Willis (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a drama teacher employed by the Petitioner to work at BRHS pursuant to a professional services contract. During 2010, the Respondent had an account on Facebook, a social networking internet website. Facebook allows an individual user to create and maintain a personal "page" including text and photographs, which can be viewed by other users. Users can also provide links to content posted elsewhere on the internet, and viewers can access the linked information. Facebook allows users to establish privacy settings that restrict access to various types of content. Such privacy options include the identification of other Facebook users as "friends." Privacy settings can be established that prevent users from posting comments to content posted by a user, or from viewing comments posted by other users. Social networking websites are used by some teachers to communicate classroom assignments or other educational information to students. Social networking websites are widely used by students and, at least based on the testimony presented at the hearing, by parents and other adults as well. Prior to the allegations underlying this dispute, the Respondent's privacy settings permitted his Facebook "friends" to view all content posted by the Respondent. The Respondent had in excess of 100 BRHS students identified as friends on his Facebook account. At all times material to this case, the Petitioner had no policy, written or otherwise, that restricted an employee from having an account on a social networking website, or regulated the use of any social networking website by an employee. At various times during 2010, the Respondent posted remarks on his Facebook page that included certain acronyms. Such acronyms, and their commonly understood meaning, included the following: WTF (What the Fuck) OMFG (Oh My Fucking God) F'n (Fucking) LMAO (Laughing My Ass Off) ROTFLMFAO (Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Fucking Ass Off) At the hearing, the Respondent asserted that he intended the "F" in the above acronyms to be understood as "fricking." There was no credible evidence that any student or parent who read the Respondent's Facebook remarks understood the "F" to mean anything other than "fucking." On his Facebook page dated July 31, 2010, the Respondent posted a remark that stated "[I]t's not who you know, it's who you blow," in an apparently derogatory reference to the judging of a student competition. On his Facebook page dated March 30, 2010, the Respondent posted a photograph of a bumper sticker that read "[F]uck the man, become the man" that was taken by a student on a trip to New York. The Respondent explained his posting of the photo by claiming that the people on the trip had agreed that all photos taken on the trip would be posted without censorship and that he had posted several hundred trip photos onto Facebook. On his Facebook page dated August 7, 2010, the Respondent posted a photograph (titled "Accidental Porn") that he obtained from another Facebook user's page. The photograph displayed a television weatherman standing in front of a map showing an elongated weather system. Based on the location of the weatherman and the weather system, the image was perceived by some viewers as depicting the broadcaster holding his penis in a sexually-suggestive position. Comments on the Respondent's Facebook page made it apparent that his viewers were aware of the perception. On his Facebook page dated August 20, 2010, the Respondent posted a link to content titled "[I]t's a great day to whoop somebody's ass." On his Facebook page dated June 26, 2010, the Respondent, apparently intoxicated, posted remarks indicating that he'd consumed excessive alcohol one evening and then posted remarks on the next day indicating that he had a headache related to the consumption. Although the Respondent asserted that some of the posts referenced herein occurred during summer months when he was not "on contract" as a teacher, his students, past and future, were able to freely access the Respondent's Facebook pages during the summer. The Respondent also had an account on Formspring, another social networking internet website. Formspring presents user content in a "questions and answer" format. In an undated post to the Respondent's Formspring page, a student commented "[T]hanks for letting me skip your class today." The Respondent wrote in response, "[Y]ou're welcome, but now you owe me....LOL....just do an amazing job at the encore show." The Respondent acknowledged that he allowed the student to miss his class in order to attend a rehearsal. While the Respondent may have failed to comply with school attendance policy by permitting the student to miss class, the Petitioner's assertion that the posting created the impression of an inappropriate arrangement between a teacher and a student was not supported by credible evidence. In another undated post to the Respondent's Formspring page, an unidentified Formspring user asked "what happened with the whole UP dvd thing," apparently in reference to an incident wherein the Respondent played a movie in class. The Respondent replied, "I got areprimand [sic] for showing an unauthorized video and not following the counties [sic] video policy." The Petitioner's assertion that the Respondent's response was an inappropriate discussion of an employer/employee disciplinary matter with a student was not supported by credible evidence. The reprimand was public record. The identity of the person posting the question was unknown. Upon the initiation of this disciplinary action, the Respondent altered his privacy settings on the social networking sites to limit access of personal content to adults. There was no evidence that social networking internet websites cannot be used for appropriate educational purposes. On more than a few occasions, the Respondent was known in the classroom to use "spoonerisms" in speech, wherein letters in various words were deliberately switched to alter a verbalization of a phrase. While in class and in the presence of students, the Respondent used phrases such as "nucking futs" or "doggammit." The school received a complaint about the practice. On one occasion in the classroom, the Respondent referred to his former wife as a "bitch." On at least one occasion, the Respondent used a hand gesture in the presence of students to signify the word "bullshit." On April 30, 2010, the BRHS principal directed the Respondent to refrain from making such statements and gestures. There was no credible evidence that the Respondent continued to engage in such verbal or physical communication after the April 30, 2010, directive. At the start of the 2009-2010 school year, the Respondent approached the BRHS principal to inquire about organizing a theatre trip to New York for some of his drama students. The principal declined to authorize the travel as a school-sponsored event. The Respondent thereafter organized the trip on a private basis. Eight students expressed interest in going on the trip, and the trip ultimately occurred with a number of parents traveling as chaperones. At times, the Respondent discussed the proposed trip in his classes. The announcement of an organizational meeting occurred during class. The meeting was conducted on the school grounds at a time and place where play rehearsals were occurring, which had been previously arranged by the Respondent. There was no evidence that the Respondent mislead any participant to incorrectly presume that the trip was sponsored by the school. The participants in the trip were aware that the travel was not a school-sponsored event. There was no credible evidence that any participant or parent believed that the trip was a school-sanctioned event. The Respondent failed to comply with the school procedure for private use of the facility, which requires application and approval by school administration. Although execution of a facility lease may be required for larger groups, there was no evidence that such a lease would have been required for this meeting. There was no evidence that there was any adverse consequence to the Respondent's failure to seek permission to hold the organizational meeting in the previously-approved play rehearsal space. The time and location of the organizational meeting was not unreasonable, given the nature of the trip and the expected participants. Teachers who need to leave BRHS grounds during the workday are directed to obtain permission from a school administrator and then document the early departure in a log book maintained in the school office. The school administrators are the principal and the assistant principals, who are identified as such during formal meetings at the beginning of the school year. On September 2, 2010, the Respondent needed to go home on his lunch break and switch cars with his wife. The Respondent testified that he could not locate an administrator and that he thereafter went to the office of Bob McCabe, the BHRS "administrative parent liaison" and advised Mr. McCabe that the Respondent was leaving campus early. Mr. McCabe is not a school administrator and has no authority to approve a request to leave school grounds. Mr. McCabe works with parents and on student disciplinary matters. Mr. McCabe told the Respondent that he would tell the administrators, and the Respondent left the school. Mr. McCabe testified that shortly after the Respondent left, an assistant principal inquired as to whether the Respondent had left the grounds. Mr. McCabe also testified that the assistant principal had told him that she was present in her office at the time the Respondent claimed to be unable to find her, but the hearsay testimony was not otherwise corroborated. The evidence establishes that, had the Respondent requested to leave campus, the request would have most likely been granted, as such authorization, absent use of leave, was routinely granted by school administrators. There was no credible evidence that other teachers who have left school grounds without prior administrative approval have been subjected to discipline for the infraction. The Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Terry Osborn, dean of the University of South Florida College of Education, Sarasota-Manatee campus, who opined that some of the Respondent's social networking interactions could have had negative effects on the learning environment, could cause anxiety for some students, and potentially result in a loss of credibility by the educator. Mr. Osborne essentially based his opinion on very limited literature. There was no credible evidence that any of the adverse impacts identified by the witness has occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Manatee County School Board enter a final order, dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Charles E. Willis. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. Martin, Esquire Manatee County School Board 215 Manatee Avenue West, Second Floor Bradenton, Florida 34205 Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Tim McGonegal, Superintendent Manatee County School Board 215 Manatee Avenue, West Bradenton, Florida 34206-9069
