The Issue Whether the Respondent's professional services employment contract should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Petitioner's letter to the Respondent dated October 1, 2002, and in the Notice of Specific Charges of Unsatisfactory Performance dated October 25, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the Miami-Dade County school district and to provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (2001). At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. Stern was employed as a teacher with the School Board under a professional services contract. Ms. Stern is a member of the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"), and the terms of her employment with the School Board are governed by the Contract between the Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Ms. Stern first received her teaching certificate in 1952, and she began teaching in the Miami-Dade County public school system in 1987. The 2000-2001 school year was her first year teaching at Campbell Drive Elementary, and she was assigned to teach a regular second grade class. Campbell Drive Elementary was rated a "D" level school at the times material to this proceeding. Teacher Assessment and Development System. The Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS") had, prior to the 2001-2002 school year, been used in the Miami- Dade County public school system for 15 years to evaluate teachers employed by the School Board. The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation ("Joint Committee") decided in 1996 that TADS should be replaced with a new evaluation system.2 As a result, the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System ("PACES") was developed and has been in use in the Miami-Dade County public school system since the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. As will be discussed in more detail below, the observations and evaluations at issue herein were all performed using TADS. TADS is a performance-based evaluation instrument, which includes sixty-eight specific teacher behaviors that should be performed in the classroom. The TADS evaluation procedures set forth in the UTD Contract and established by the Joint Committee required that formal Classroom Assessment observations be performed, that any observed performance deficiencies be noted, and that professional growth opportunities be provided to teachers with noted deficiencies. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period for teachers with professional service contracts. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed by representatives of the Miami-Dade County public school system and the UTD to implement procedures for the new system. Pursuant to the procedures adopted in the Memorandum of Understanding, the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period is commenced the day after a conference-for- the-record is held with the teacher to advise him or her of classroom performance deficiencies. At least two observations must be conducted during the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, and the teacher must be provided assistance through prescription plan activities and through referrals to resource persons for further assistance. At the conclusion of the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, a confirmatory observation is conducted to determine if the performance deficiencies have been corrected. Prescription plan activities have the status of administrative directives.3 The principal of Campbell Drive Elementary at the times pertinent to these proceedings was Betty Thomas, and the assistant principal was Claudia Brown. Both were trained to observe and evaluate teachers using TADS. Ms. Stern was first observed at Campbell Drive Elementary on October 10, 2001, by Ms. Brown. Ms. Stern received an overall acceptable rating on the CAI (Classroom Assessment Instrument) Post-Observation Report, as well as acceptable ratings on each of the six TADS rating categories. February 5, 2001, observation. Ms. Thomas conducted her first formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on February 5, 2002,4 when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade math class from 12:30 p.m. until 1:35 p.m. Ms. Thomas completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Classroom Management and Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, during the observation, instructional time was lost while Ms. Stern sharpened pencils for several students and wandered around the room without giving instruction to the students and that instructional time was lost when Ms. Stern told the students to put their heads on their desks approximately minutes before they were to leave the classroom for Spanish and Physical Education classes. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students who were off-task and behaving inappropriately. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern ignored or failed to respond when two students yelled at one another during a test, when students talked and played with pencils during a lesson, when two students left the room and returned, when two students hit one another, and when a student crawled on the floor. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, when virtually everyone in the class was talking, Ms. Stern asked those students who were talking to raise their hands; Ms. Stern praised the students who raised their hands for their honesty but did nothing to cause the students to stop talking. Ms. Thomas also noted several instances in which Ms. Stern responded to students with remarks that were either ineffectual or not to the point. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.C.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide the students with clear expectations regarding appropriate behavior. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that no class rules were posted in the classroom and that Ms. Stern did not refer to any class rules. Ms. Thomas also noted that, while students were being sent to the board to work math problems, 75 percent of the students in the class were talking and several students were wandering around the room, all without correction from Ms. Stern. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.C.3. and 4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to respond quickly or appropriately to students who acted inappropriately or interfered with the work of others. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not respond, and actually ignored, most of the students' inappropriate behaviors, which included a student dancing around the back of the room, students laughing and playing with a hat, students loudly asking how to do the assignment, and students yelling to one another. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators IV.G.3. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to emphasize potential areas of difficulty, specifically with respect to the math problems involving "regrouping," by either verbal or non-verbal clues. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern failed to assist a student who had difficulty with a math problem at the board.5 Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators IV.H.1. and 2. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to clarify areas of potential confusion or to clarify areas of confusion after it became obvious that the students did not understand the assigned math problems involving "regrouping." Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern wrote problems on the board and directed the students to solve them without providing any explanation. When several students asked Ms. Stern how to do the problems, she told them she would go over it later, but she did not do so during the math lesson. It was Ms. Thomas's general impression during her February 5, 2002, observation, that Ms. Stern was unable to manage the students in her class. There were many disruptions in the classroom that distracted the students and made it difficult for them to learn. Ms. Thomas estimates that approximately 90 percent of the students in the class were off-task at some point during the observation. On February 20, 2001, Ms. Thomas held a Conference- for-the-Record with Ms. Stern.6 Also present at the conference were Ms. Brown, as well as Ms. Marcos and Ms. Rolle, Ms. Stern's union representatives. During the conference, Ms. Thomas discussed the February 5, 2001, observation with Ms. Stern, and they discussed the prescription plan activities that Ms. Thomas had developed to assist Ms. Stern in correcting the deficiencies identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement and the timelines for completion of the prescription plan activities. It was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all of the prescription plan activities by March 15, 2001. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers that were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. The Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record and Prescription dated February 20, 2001, reflects that Ms. Stern was advised during the conference that her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period would commence the day after the conference, on February 21, 2001. Ms. Stern was also advised by Ms. Thomas that, after the conclusion of the probation period, she would determine whether Ms. Stern had corrected the cited deficiencies during the probation period and would make a recommendation to the Superintendent at the conclusion of the probation period that could lead to the termination of Ms. Stern's employment. On February 20, 2001, Ms. Stern signed the CAI Post-Observation Report, the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, and the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record and Prescription, thereby indicating that she had seen and received a copy of these documents. Ms. Stern completed approximately 80 percent of the prescription plan activities in the February 5, 2001, Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement by the March 15, 2001, deadline. March 16, 2001, observation. Ms. Brown, the assistant principal at Campbell Drive Elementary, conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on March 16, 2001, when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade language arts class from 9:00 a.m. until 10:45 a.m. Ms. Brown's impression was that Ms. Stern was agitated and angry that day and was unable to control the class or to teach adequately. Ms. Brown completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Knowledge of Subject Matter, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Classroom Management, and Techniques of Instruction. The TADS Monitoring Committee reviewed the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement and gave Ms. Stern credit for indicators IV.F.1., 2., and 3.; this change resulted in Ms. Stern's being rated acceptable in the category of Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.A.1. of the Preparation and Planning category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern failed to include in her lesson plan assessment tools, homework, materials, and most of the lesson's objectives and activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.B.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern failed to prepare content and instructional activities to fill the allotted classroom time. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, although the language arts block of instruction was scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., Ms. Stern instructed the students to put their heads on their desks at 10:40 a.m., terminating the language arts instruction. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, throughout the observation period, Ms. Stern allowed unnecessary delays during instruction and transitions. The notes Ms. Brown included in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement reflect that Ms. Stern spent approximately 20 minutes of the language arts period making comments to the students about the quality of their work and attempting to get their attention. As reported by Ms. Brown: The teacher called out one comment and direction after the other, such as "I don't hear anything from table 4. excuse me, I just said your tables not talking. you did a beautiful job. thank you, Yrline, did you hear me?" "Salami, one, two, three, four. Now take your paper . . . everybody's eyes up here! Salami! Denise, table 1, your eyes up here, table 1, 2, 3, 4. Take your paper . . . Christian, Okoya, Desiree, Stanley, take your paper . . . excuse me." "Salame" is an acronym for "Stop and look at me," and its use is recommended as a technique for quieting students. Ms. Stern did not apply the technique correctly, however, because she talked very quickly and did not wait to give the students a chance to quiet down. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that students were talking and calling out to one another, making noises, and getting out of their seats while Ms. Stern read a story. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands, then accepted answers from students who had not raised their hands, and failed to correct a student who was out of his seat and sitting with a student who had been separated from the group for being disruptive. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that a student that Ms. Stern had separated from the class for being disruptive was allowed to spend 20 minutes building a house with word cards; that a student spent 15 minutes with his chin on his desk doing nothing without Ms. Stern's redirecting him, and, although she said she would return to help him, she did not do so; and that, in several instances, Ms. Stern either failed to correct students who were behaving inappropriately or ignored students when they failed to respond to her directions. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.C.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to make her expectations regarding appropriate behavior clear to the students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, although Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands to answer questions, she accepted answers called out by students who did not raise their hands and failed to call on students who had raised their hands; that Ms. Stern re-enforced inappropriate behavior by telling a student that he was doing well when he was not working but was turned around in his seat talking to a student behind him; and that, although class rules were posted in the classroom, Ms. Stern did not refer to them. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.C.3. and 4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to identify and deal quickly and appropriately with students who interacted with others inappropriately and interfered with the work of others. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern either did not notice, or ignored, students' inappropriate behavior, which included a student doing work in another student's phonetic workbook; students talking and making noises while Ms. Stern was talking or reading; students laughing at another student, who had been sent to the corner and responded to Ms. Stern's direction to get up by standing up and turning around and around. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern did not state the consequences for students who were continuously told to stop calling out or were continuously told to sit down. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.F.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, as noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to refer back to the objective of the lesson, to relate one part of the lesson to other parts of the lesson, and to summarize the lesson and apply it to past or future lessons.7 A conference was held on March 23, 2001, with Ms. Stern, Ms. Thomas, and Ms. Brown in attendance. No written summary of the conference was prepared, but Ms. Stern signed the CAI Post-Observation Report and the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement on March 23, 2001, acknowledging that she had seen and received a copy of the documents. At the March 23, 2001, conference, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Stern discussed the results of the March 16, 2001, observation and the prescription plan activities that Ms. Brown had developed to assist Ms. Stern in correcting the deficiencies identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, as well as the timelines for completion of the prescription plan activities. It was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all of the prescription plan activities by April 20, 2001. The April 20, 2001, deadline was extended until May 18, 2001, because of Ms. Stern's absences, as discussed below. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers that were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. May 17, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. In a memorandum dated May 7, 2001, and directed to Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, a District Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Ms. Thomas requested that Dr. O'Donnell take control of the "re-entry" of Ms. Stern. Ms. Thomas asked for Dr. O'Donnell's intervention because Ms. Stern had been absent a total of 22 personal and sick days and because Ms. Stern was on 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation. As a result of Ms. Thomas's request, Dr. O'Donnell sent a memorandum dated May 7, 2001, to Ms. Stern telling her that she needed to contact the Office of Professional Standards before she returned to work so that a clearance conference could be scheduled. The clearance conference was held on May 16, 2001, at the Office of Professional Standards. Dr. O'Donnell, Ms. Thomas, Clemencia Waddell, Director of Region VI, and Dia Falco, Ms. Stern's UTD representative, attended the conference. As reflected in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, the purpose of the conference was to address Ms. Stern's performance assessments, her attendance, and her medical fitness to perform her duties and to review Ms. Stern's record and her future employment status with the Miami-Dade County public school system. As of May 15, 2001, Ms. Stern had used more sick time than she had accrued, and Dr. O'Donnell advised her that her absences, which consisted of 21.5 sick and personal days and 1/2 days of unauthorized leave without pay, were considered excessive. Ms. Stern's performance evaluations were also discussed at the conference, and it was noted that she had been provided prescription plan activities to assist her in correcting the deficiencies identified in the March 16, 2001, observation report, which activities were to have been completed by April 20, 2001. Ms. Stern had not provided the required materials to Ms. Thomas or Ms. Brown, but, because she was absent beginning on April 18, 2001, Ms. Stern was directed to provide all of the required materials for the prescription plan activities to Ms. Thomas by the end of the workday on May 18, 2001. Ms. Stern was advised that the failure to provide these materials within the time specified would be considered a deficiency in Category VII, which is the Professional Responsibilities category of TADS, and that she would be placed on a Category VII prescription. Several directives were included in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, and Ms. Stern was advised that she was cleared to return to work on May 17, 2001. May 22, 2001, observation. Ms. Brown conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on May 22, 2001, when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade language arts class from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. Ms. Brown's overall impression was that Ms. Stern 's performance was worse than it was during the observation on March 16, 2001. Ms. Brown completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Teacher-Student Relationships and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, and Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.B.1. of the Preparation and Planning category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern had failed to plan content and instructional activities to fill the classroom time allotted for the language arts block. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern took the students to the library at 10:30 a.m., but had completed her planned classroom activities at 9:55 a.m. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to present information in a meaningful or orderly manner. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that "[t]he sequence of the ideas did not flow into one another. The teacher asked questions and talked about whatever came to her mind, . . ." Ms. Brown also noted that there was no logical sequence of activities or framework established for the activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to tell the students the most important topics in the lesson or various applications of the topics introduced in the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not tell the students what they would be doing and did not relate the lesson to the students' experiences. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to present information using analysis or comparisons. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not ask open-ended questions, that she limited her questions to those that were simple and basic, and that she failed to challenge the students beyond one cognitive level. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report. The notes Ms. Brown included in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement reflect that Ms. Stern wasted 12 minutes of instruction time because of delays attributable to her repeatedly consulting her lesson plan during class and failing to use student helpers to pass out papers to the class, causing the students to wait without instruction until she passed out all of the papers. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not notice or noticed but chose not to re-direct a student who was making a paper airplane and rearranging his desk and the inside of his book bag for a period of 15 minutes and that Ms. Stern did not speak to a student who, for a period of 10 minutes, sat with her knees to her chest. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern thanked two students for no apparent reason. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not notice for two minutes that a student had slid his chair halfway across the room to place it beside that of another student and that, when she noticed, she merely told the student to sit down. Ms. Brown also noted that a student fell asleep at 9:45 a.m.; after about 10 minutes, Ms. Stern noticed the student, asked if he had stayed up late the night before, and left him to sleep until he awoke at 10:25 a.m. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to make her expectations regarding appropriate behavior clear to the students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern told the students that she "love[d] the way everyone is talking at once but it doesn't help" and that Ms. Stern continued to accept answers from students who called out, accepting more answers from these students than from the students who raised their hands. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide the students with appropriate and correct verbal feedback regarding specific behaviors. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern ignored two students who had their hands up for several minutes and accepted answers called out by other students. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern praised the class for working well together when the activity was an activity that each student worked on alone. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to give the students necessary background about their activities. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not tell the students the ideas or skills they were to learn from the two stories that she read to them, one about a bear with a toothache and one about an octopus; she merely told the students that she was going to read a book. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to tell the students how each activity related to the other activities. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not emphasize the important topics in the two stories or link the topics in the stories to future activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to sequence activities and failed to point out any logic to the order in which she presented components of the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern went from one activity to the next without having an apparent goal or order to the lesson. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide closure to the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not summarize, recapitulate, or apply any of the concepts in the lesson to any past or future lessons. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.H.2. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to clarify the students' confusion. Ms. Brown relates in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern asked a student a question about an octopus; when the student answered, "The end of one of the octopus' tails is the mouth," Ms. Stern's only response was "OK. I don’t quite understand but OK." Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern passed out word cards to the students but never told them what to do with the cards. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.H.4. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to answer quietly the questions of individual students but would address the entire class when answering the questions of one or two students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern interrupted the entire class several times to answer the questions of two students, with the result that the class did not have enough quiet time to read and complete the activity. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on May 23, 2001, which was attended by Ms. Thomas, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Stern.8 During the conference, the deficiencies noted by Ms. Brown during her observation on May 22, 2001, were discussed, as well as the prescription plan activities that Ms. Stern was to complete to assist her in correcting the deficiencies. The timeline for completion of the prescription plan activities was also discussed, and it was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all the prescription plan activities by June 13, 2001. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers who were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. Ms. Stern's failure to complete the prescription plan activities included in the March 16, 2001, observation by the May 18, 2001, deadline was also discussed at the May 23, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. The Summary of the Conference-for- the-Record reflects that Ms. Brown went over with Ms. Stern the prescription plan activities that were not completed. As a result of her failure to complete the prescription plan activities, Ms. Thomas placed Ms. Stern on prescription for Category VII, the TADS Professional Responsibilities category. Ms. Stern had been advised at the May 17, 2001, Conference-for- the-Record at the Office of Professional Standards that a Category VII prescription would be the consequence if she failed to complete the prescription plan activities by the May 18, 2001, deadline. Ms. Stern ultimately completed the prescription plan activities in the March 16, 2001, Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, although Ms. Brown had a difficult time determining that Ms. Stern completed all of the activities because the materials she submitted to Ms. Brown were very disorganized. Ms. Stern also turned in by the June 13, 2001, deadline all of the written materials required in the prescription plan activities assigned as a result of the May 22, 2001, observation. She did not, however, turn in her weekly lesson plans to Ms. Brown prior to implementing them, as she had been instructed; rather, she turned in her lesson plans late, and, near the end of the 2000-2001 school year, she did not turn in any lesson plans. September 13, 2001, Confirmatory Observation. In a letter to Ms. Stern dated April 26, 2001, Dr. O'Donnell acknowledged having received a request for medical leave from Ms. Stern for the period extending from April 18, 2001, through May 4, 2001. In the letter, Dr. O'Donnell clarified for Ms. Stern the School Board's position with respect to the impact of her absences on the calculation of the days remaining in her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period. Dr. O'Donnell confirmed in the letter that Ms. Stern's probation period began on February 21, 2001, and that the prescription plan activities arising out of the March 16, 2001, observation were due to be completed on April 20, 2001. Dr. O'Donnell further advised Ms. Stern that the first 10 days of absence were included in the calculation of the 90 calendar days of the probation period and that, accordingly, the end of her probation period would be extended from May 31, 2001, to June 6, 2001, both of which dates fell within the final 10 days of the school year. Dr. O'Donnell acknowledged in the April 26, 2001, letter that, normally, no observations were performed during the first and final 10 days of a school year, but she advised Ms. Stern that her 90-day probation period must be concluded by June 16, 2001, because the Miami-Dade County public school system was to change from TADS to PACES for teacher performance evaluations, effective at the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. Accordingly, Dr. O'Donnell put Ms. Stern on notice in the April 26, 2001, letter that her confirmatory observation would take place after her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period ended on June 6, 2001. In a letter dated May 9, 2001, Ms. Falco, on behalf of the UTD, advised Dr. O'Donnell that, first, she had misstated the rule regarding the treatment of absences. According to Ms. Falco, the UTD Contract provided that the first 10 days of absence were not to be counted in calculating the 90 days. Nonetheless, Dr. O'Donnell's calculation of June 6, 2001, as the last day of Ms. Stern's probation period was correct. Ms. Falco also took issue with Dr. O'Donnell's decision to complete Ms. Stern's probationary period on June 16, 2001, and she advised Dr. O'Donnell that the then-current observation procedures prohibited any formal observations during the first and final 10 days of the school year and that the UTD would appeal any formal observation of Ms. Stern conducted during the final 10 days of the 2000-2001 school year. Finally, Ms. Falco advised Dr. O'Donnell that the Joint Committee had not yet determined how to treat teachers whose probation periods carried over into the 2001-2002 school year, when teachers were to be evaluated under PACES. The Joint Committee considered Ms. Stern's case individually and decided that Ms. Stern's confirmatory observation was to be conducted using TADS rather than PACES. Ms. Stern was not disadvantaged by having this observation conducted under TADS because it is easier for a teacher to get an acceptable evaluation under TADS than under PACES. In accordance with the position taken by the UTD and because Ms. Stern could not be observed during the first 10 days of the 2001-2002 school year, the end of Ms. Stern's 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period was finally determined to be September 10, 2001. On September 13, 2001, Ms. Thomas conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance when she observed Ms. Stern teach a second grade math class from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. This observation was the required confirmatory observation conducted to determine whether Ms. Stern had corrected the performance deficiencies identified in the February 5, 2001, March 16, 2001, and May 22, 2001, observations. Ms. Thomas completed a CAI Post-Observation Report in which she reported that she found Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in all five categories of TADS, Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, Techniques of Instruction, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Thomas based her determination that Ms. Stern's classroom performance was unacceptable on several factors. During the September 13, 2001, observation, Ms. Thomas noted that Ms. Stern was not teaching the lesson identified on her lesson plan; one of the students repeatedly threw paper across the room into a garbage can without re-direction by Ms. Stern; students were talking to one another and moving around the room during the entire lesson, to the extent that it was difficult for Ms. Thomas to hear Ms. Stern; Ms. Stern did not remind students who were misbehaving of the class rules; Ms. Stern appeared not to notice a student crawling around on the floor; Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands, but she did not call on the students who did so; and Ms. Stern had only two grades for the students in her grade book at a point in the school year when she should have had two grades listed for each student for each week of school in each the five subjects she taught in her second grade class, or over 40 grades. Recommendation for termination. On September 17, 2001, Ms. Thomas notified Ms. Stern that she had failed to comply with the Category VII prescription imposed on May 23, 2001, because she had failed to turn in any lesson plans during the first weeks of the 2001-2002 school year. On September 17, 2001, Ms. Thomas also presented to Ms. Stern for her signature a form that Ms. Thomas intended to submit to Dr. George M. Koonce, Regional Superintendent, containing Ms. Thomas's recommendation that Ms. Stern's employment contract be terminated because she had not satisfactorily corrected the noted performance deficiencies within the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period. Ms. Stern refused to sign the form to acknowledge that she was aware of the recommendation. Dr. Koonce indicated his approval of Ms. Thomas's recommendation and forwarded it to the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel and Management Services, who, in turn, forwarded the recommendation to the Superintendent of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. In a letter dated October 1, 2001, the Superintendent notified Ms. Stern that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated at its October 24, 2001, meeting. Ms. Stern timely contested the recommendation, and this administrative proceeding commenced. Summary The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Stern failed to correct the deficiencies identified in her classroom performance within the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, that School Board personnel adhered to the applicable evaluation procedures in assessing Ms. Stern's teaching performance and in reaching the decision to terminate her for unsatisfactory teaching performance, and that the School Board adhered to all statutory timeframes. Throughout the duration of Ms. Stern's 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Brown offered Ms. Stern assistance to help her correct the deficiencies in her classroom performance. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, although Ms. Stern completed many of the prescription plan activities identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement for the observations of February 5, March 16, and May 22, 2001, she was unable or unwilling to implement in the classroom the techniques and lessons included in the prescription plan activities and failed to correct the deficiencies in her classroom performance. In her testimony, Ms. Stern did not dispute any of the facts included by Ms. Thomas and Ms. Brown in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement for the formal observations of February 5, March 16, and May 22, 2001. Rather, Ms. Stern presented in her testimony justifications for and explanations of her classroom performance during the formal observations. This testimony has been considered and found insufficient to rebut the evidence of unsatisfactory performance presented by the School Board: Ms. Stern's second grade class was composed of students of varying abilities and ethnic backgrounds, but so were all of the second grade classes at Campbell Drive Elementary. Ms. Stern's classroom may not have provided an optimum environment for teaching, but the shortcomings of the physical and technological facilities provided to Ms. Stern do not justify the noted deficiencies in her teaching and classroom skills. Finally, Ms. Stern's laissez-faire attitude regarding the inappropriate behavior of her students is difficult to reconcile with her obligation as a teacher to maintain a classroom environment in which opportunities for learning are maximized.9
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order terminating the professional services contract of Joanne T. Stern. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 31st day of October, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Gloria E. Walker, holds Teaching Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of music education. Respondent has been employed as a Music Teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County since 1970. From 1973 until 1986, Respondent taught music at Dunbar Elementary School in the Dade County School District. During the 1970-71 through 1977-78 school years, Respondent received either unacceptable or marginally acceptable scores for five of the seven years on her annual evaluations. (Petitioner's Exhibits 29). During the 1973-79 school year, the School Board altered its evaluations System for instructional Personnel. During the 78-79 through 83-84 school years, Respondent's annual evaluations were rated as acceptable. However, during the school years 1981- 82 through 83-84, school and district Personnel made comments concerning Respondent's need to improve her performance and development in certain areas. (TR 298). Commencing with the 1973 school year, Respondent received assistance from Charles Buckwalter, music specialist for elementary schools for the Dade County School District. Respondent was initially contacted by Mr. Buckwalter that year because of concerns the school's Principal expressed regarding Respondent's lack of classroom management. During that year, Mr. Buckwalter visited and provided assistance to Respondent approximately seven (7) times. Mr. Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent continued during the following three (3) years. During the 1981-82 school year, Mr. Buckwalter assisted Respondent on more than four occasions during which time he attempted to demonstrate lessons concerning management techniques and the use of new materials; objectives of instruction and on January 26, 1982, Buckwalter, along with Dr. Howard Doolin supervisor of music for Dade County, visited Respondent so that Dr. Doolin could observe Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent. On April 26, 1982, Respondent and Mr. Buckwalter met for approximately three and one half hours. Buckwalter visited several of Respondent classes and demonstrated the use of certain new materials. As a part of that visit, he observed Respondent's teaching and noted that Respondent abandoned the new materials and returned to teaching the old curriculum. On November 11, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter spent approximately three hours with Respondent in which time he visited two classes and had a conference with Respondent concerning the new curriculum for level 1 students. On November 18, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter made a follow-up visit concerning Respondent's lesson plans and objectives. Additionally, he demonstrated a lesson to one of Respondent's classes. On or about November 29, 1982, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal, H. Elizabeth Tynes. Ms. Tynes has a wealth of experience lasting more than thirty years in both Hillsborough and Dade Counties. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship and in a subcategory of assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on a large number of disruptive students in her music class and Respondent's inability to control the students' behavior through either verbal or nonverbal strategies. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her failure to demonstrate consistency as concerns student behavior, failing to praise good behavior and reprimand students for disruptive conduct. On another occasion, assistant principal Tynes listened to a musical program Respondent's students were giving over the intercom system. Ms. Tynes rated the program a "total disaster". Ms. Tynes and the principal were "ashamed" of what they heard from Respondent's music class. Respondent demonstrated skills preparation for the program as observed by Ms. Tynes. On May 19, 1983, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Katherine Dinkin, who was then principal of Dunbar Elementary School. Following the observation, Respondent was evaluated unacceptable in areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship, and techniques of instruction. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17). Principal Dinkins observed that Respondent's students were not on task, the classroom was chaotic and the students only responded to directives of the Principal, as a Person of authority. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instructions based on Ms. Dinkin's observation that students were being taught at levels beyond their ability; class openings and closings were not done appropriately and Respondent failed to develop a plan for the individual needs, interests and abilities of students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of teacher/student relationships based on her failure to demonstrate warmth toward the students and her inability to command respect. During this period in 1983, principal Dinkins prescribed help for Respondent as concerns observing and working with other teachers for guidance. On April 12, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by principal Dinkins and rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instructions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on her demonstrated inability to keep students on task or to develop strategies to control their behavior. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of techniques of instructions based on an inadequately prepared lesson plan and an inability to deliver the instructional components to students. Principal Dinkins observed that the material Respondent attempted to teach was too complicated for the students and she failed to Properly sequence her instructions. Principal Dinkins, who was tendered and received as an expert in the areas of teacher observation and assessment, was unable to observe any continuum of improvement by Respondent over the extended period of Principal Dinkins' supervision. Principal Dinkins opined that Respondent deprived her students of the minimal educational experience in music. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again received help from Mr. Buckwalter. As part of this help, Mr. Buckwalter organized small study groups in order to improve instructions throughout the music education department. These groups met on September 28, October 19, November 9 and 30, 1983. Respondent was asked to become part of the study group. The study group was Particularly concerned with focusing on the scope and sequence of curriculum, students' achievement and implementation of certain aspects of the curriculum, particularly as concern level 1 and 2 students. On or about August 30, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter spent the day with Respondent and a new music teacher, Ronald Gold. On or about September 27, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately 3 and 1/2 hours in which time he visited three of her classes and again attempted to discuss some work with Respondent concerning student management techniques including the use of a seating chart. On or about October 18, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent approximately four hours during which time he visited several classes and observed her using ideas gleaned from the study group. On or about November 7, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter again visited with Respondent for approximately four hours. After the conference, he taught classes with her and implemented the use of instruments to enrich the class lesson as well as the implementation and use of progress charts. On or about December 9, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited with Respondent for approximately 3 hours. At this time, Mr. Buckwalter expressed concern in that Respondent was not clearly understanding the intent of the school board curriculum. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instructions, teacher/students relationships, assessment techniques and professional responsibility during her annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year. On or about October 29, 1984, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by assistant principal, Edwardo Martinez. Although Respondent was rated acceptable, this class was not a typical situation but rather a rehearsal of a specific program. On other occasions, assistant principal Martinez had opportunities to walk by Respondent's classroom. He often noted loud noises emanating from her classroom. During these instances, he would enter the room and immediately settle the students down. On March 26, 1985, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Maybelline Truesdell, Principal of Dunbar Elementary. Based on this formal observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, instructional techniques and teacher/student relationships. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). As a result of the unacceptable evaluation, Respondent was given a prescription form suggesting methods in which she could improve areas in which she was rated unacceptable. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of classroom management based on her inability to retain the students attention; her failure to open and close classes appropriately and her general observation of students being off task. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of instructional techniques based on the observation that she did not interact verbally with students; students were inappropriately excluded from participating in discussions of the lesson and Respondent did not use instructional methods/materials which were appropriate for the students' learning levels. (TR pages 30-35). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of student/teacher relationships based on her improper focusing on a small number of students; inappropriately criticizing a student assistant in the presence of other students, and a failure to use sufficient positive interaction to maintain class control. On may 3, 1985, Respondent was again formally observed by Maybelline Truesdell and rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management; instructional techniques; student/teacher relationships and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management as she failed to properly discipline students; failed to maintain classroom control and students were off task. In the area of techniques of instruction, Respondent received an unacceptable rating in one category which remained unremediated pursuant to a prior prescription issued by Ms. Truesdell. Respondent was again rated unacceptable in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her inability to display any of the indicators considered necessary to become acceptable and her continued rejection of students who volunteered or attempted to participate; her failure to involve the entire class by focusing her attention on a small number of students to the exclusion of others and her failure to appropriately address students by their name rather than "you." (TR 39-41). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of assessment techniques based on her failure to follow county and state guidelines for assessing students. Specifically, Respondent failed to provide substantial evidence of (documentation) to justify grades assigned to students and her grade books did not indicate if or when she was giving formal quizzes or tests. In addition, there was no letter grade or numerical indication in Respondent's grade books to gauge academic progress. Additionally, there was insufficient documentation in the student folders to back-up student progress or to otherwise substantiate the grades assigned to students. During the 1984-85 school year, Mr. Buckwalter returned to Dunbar Elementary to again assist Respondent. On September 6, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately three hours during which time he visited a class; co-taught a class and attempted to assist Respondent concerning improvement in areas of student behavior and management. On November 2, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited one of Respondent's classes. He thereafter visited Respondent on March 22, 1985 at which time he spent approximately two hours in her classroom. He taught five classes to demonstrate strategies of progressing students from one level to another. He thereafter conferred with Respondent concerning the need to reflect a positive attitude toward students.. On March 29, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter again visited Respondent. Respondent was then using materials suggested by Mr. Buckwalter although she utilized them in a "rote" manner and included too many concepts within a single lesson. On April 18, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter returned to observe Respondent. The students were going over materials that had been taught in past years and the new curriculum was not being taught. On May 23, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter spent four hours with Respondent. They concentrated on the development of lesson plans; planned activities concerning class objectives and stressed the need to remain-on one concept until it was understood by a majority of the class. Respondent's evaluation for the 1985-86 school year was unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge instructional techniques; teacher/student relationships; assessment techniques and Professional responsibility. On October 10, 1985, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal William J. Kinney. Respondent was rated acceptable in the area of assessment techniques. Mr. Kinney offered certain suggestions to Respondent including the fact that the lesson taught would be more beneficial by more student participation. Respondent was advised of a need to immediately cure problems respecting students who were observed hitting bells with pencils and pens and the need to immediately address problems when students were observed off task. During the school year, Mr. Kinney made numerous informal visits to Respondent's classroom at which times he observed loud noises coming from Respondent's classes, chanting, fighting, furniture pushed into the walls, student misbehavior and other indications that Respondent's classroom management was ineffective. On December 3, 1985, Respondent was officially observed by principal Truesdell and was rated unacceptable in the areas of instructional and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Respondent was made aware of her continuing problems and was provided with an acknowledged receipt of a summary of the conference-for-the-record dated Thursday, December 12, 1985. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Additionally, Respondent was given specific instructions in the form of a prescription concerning her grade book and instructed to strictly follow the conduct prescribed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). In the opinion of principal Truesdell (received as an expert in the area of teacher assessment teacher evaluation, teacher observation in the role of school principal) Respondent was unacceptable for further employment by the school district, was continuing to demonstrate ineffective classroom management, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and had done so for such an extended period of time that improvement appeared unlikely. Additionally, Ms. Truesdell considered that Respondent was unable to make sufficient competent analysis of students' individual needs and potential in the classroom; failed to ensure and promote the accomplishment of tasks to the proper selection and use of appropriate techniques; failed to establish routine and procedures for the use of materials and physical movements of students in her class; failed to employ the appropriate techniques to correct inappropriate student behavior; failed to demonstrate competence in evaluating learning and goal achievement by her students and failed to demonstrate appropriate interpersonal skills required of a teacher to maintain discipline and effectively teach in a classroom environment. On February 7, 1986, Respondent was officially observed in her class by Marilyn Von Seggern, music supervisor for Dade County and by Ms. McCalla, assistant principal at Dunbar, under the provision of the TADS program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). Following that observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and teacher/student relationships. In the Professional opinion of Marilyn Von Seggern, received herein as an expert in the areas of music education, teacher observation and assessment, Respondent was depriving students of the minimum educational experience and had serious problems concerning her ability to communicate and relate to students respecting the music curriculum. On January 16, 1986, Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Dunbar's assistant principal Carolyn Louise McCalla, and was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 24). Based on Mr. Buckwalter's repeated observation of Respondent's classroom and teaching techniques, Mr. Buckwalter opined that Respondent's students were not receiving the minimum education required by the Dade County School System as concerns the curriculum for music. As example, on one occasion Mr. Buckwalter observed Respondent presenting an organized lesson to students which was quite successful and upon his return approximately five minutes later, Mr. Buckwalter observed that Respondent was not teaching the new successful lesson but had instead reverted back to an old lesson and her students were observed inattentive and generally off task. (TR pages 250-254). On March 26, 1986, Respondent was having difficulty maintaining her students' attention to the point that the students were out of control. While Respondent was attempting to stop a certain student from chanting and beating on the desk, Respondent tried to restrain the student and in so doing, Respondent broke her watch band and scratched the student on her face. The student required hospitalization and although the injury was deemed an accident, Respondent's lack of classroom control and management played a major part in causing the incident. Pursuant to a request by the School Board, Respondent, on April 30, 1986, was evaluated by psychiatrist, Gail D. Wainger. Dr. Wainger took a medical history from Respondent which included Respondent's revelation of previous psychiatrist treatment. Dr. Wainger observed that Respondent had a very flattened, blunted affect with little emotional expression. She related that this was a sign of a patient who was recovering from a major psychiatric episode. Additionally, Respondent showed difficulty recalling recent events. Dr. Wainger diagnosed Respondent as having chronic residual schizophrenia with a possible personality disorder including impulsive and avoidance features. Dr. Wainger opined that a person with such diagnosis would have difficulty being an authority figure and that this would be especially Problematic for students who needed positive reinforcement. On April 28, 1986, Respondent attended a conference-for-the-record with the school board's administrative staff. A past history of performance and evaluations was reviewed. Additionally, the investigative report concerning the injury of the student which occurred March 26, 1986 was also reviewed. Respondent was informed that the matter would be referred to the School Board for possible disciplinary action. (Petitioner's Exhibit 31). On May 21, 1986, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent's employment and initiated the instant dismissal proceeding against her. (Petitioner's Exhibit 32). For the 1985-86 school year, Respondent's annual evaluation indicated that she was rated unacceptable in five of seven categories and was not recommended for re-employment. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, of Respondent, Gloria E. Walker and dismissing Respondent, Gloria E. Walker as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, entered a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity. It is further Recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida, for a period of three years based on incompetence and incapacity. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1987.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent's suspension should be upheld and whether his employment with Petitioner should be terminated, as set forth in Petitioner's action letter dated August 21, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board was a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2002). At all times material hereto, Mr. Moore was employed full-time with the School Board as a paraprofessional at Robert Renick Educational Center (Renick) and subject to the rules and regulations of the School Board in accordance with Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2002). The UTD Contract, between the School Board and UTD, also governs the terms and conditions of Mr. Moore's employment. In April 1977, Mr. Moore began his employment with the School Board and was assigned to Renick. He remained at Renick as a paraprofessional through February 9, 2003. In December 1996, prior to beginning his employment with the School Board, Mr. Moore was charged with possession of stolen property and driving with a suspended license and an expired registration. A few months later, on February 20, 1997, Mr. Moore completed an application for employment with the School Board and indicated on the application that he had no criminal charges pending. However, at the time that he made application for employment, the charges of December 1996 were pending. Mr. Moore does not contest several performance problems and deficiencies for the period October 19, 1998 through March 10, 2002. By memorandum dated October 27, 1998, Mr. Moore was notified by the assistant principal, James DeWitt, that he violated School Board policy on October 19, 1998, by allowing a student to be in possession of the key to his classroom. Mr. DeWitt advised Mr. Moore that a reoccurrence of the violation would lead to a conference-for-the-record. By memorandum dated October 17, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that he had arrived late at school that same day without notifying the main office of his tardiness in accordance with the UTD Contract. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the established work hours and advised Mr. Moore that further failure to adhere to his work schedule would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated November 2, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 1, 2000, he (Mr. Moore) was playing a game on his computer while the students were taking a test even though he was required to monitor the test; and that his (Mr. Moore's) failure to supervise and monitor the test resulted in a student writing the answers in the wrong section of the test. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that, among other things, his lack of supervision would not be tolerated and that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 5, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by the principal, Eugenia Smith, that, among other things, he was on leave without authorization for 17 days of the 2000-2001 school year, from February 8, 2001 through March 5, 2001. Ms. Smith directed Mr. Moore to, within three (3) days of the date of the memorandum, provide his intended date of return or resign from employment with the School Board. By memorandum dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on December 5, 2001, because of his (Mr. Moore's) lack of supervision, a student pushed the emergency call button twice even though no emergency existed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 8, 2002, Ms. Smith notified Mr. Moore that he had been tardy for several days, specifying the days of tardiness. On March 8, 2002, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore to address his tardiness, including noncompliance with verbal and written directives regarding his tardiness. Also present were, Ms. Smith, Mr. DeWitt, and a UTD representative. At the conference-for-the-record Mr. Moore was given specific directives regarding future tardiness, which were to be to work on time and to adhere to procedures in the UTD contract. A summary of the conference-for-the-record dated March 10, 2002, was prepared and was subsequently signed by Mr. Moore. By memorandum dated November 8, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 7, 2002, Mr. Moore's personal telephone was confiscated because it had been used in the classroom as an extension of the school's telephone system. By memorandum dated November 13, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that his (Mr. Moore's) use of his personal telephone as an extension of the school's telephone system was a violation of the School Board's policy prohibiting telephones in the classroom unless approved by the administration. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to School Board policies and advised Mr. Moore that failure to do so would result in disciplinary action. Mr. Moore does not contest violating the School Board's policy regarding the use of his personal telephone in the classroom. By memorandum dated January 17, 2003, Mr. DeWitt notified Mr. Moore that, on January 22, 2003, he (Mr. Moore) left the school for approximately one and one-half hour, from approximately 11:50 a.m. to 2:20 a.m., without signing-out as required by the School Board's policy. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the scheduled work hours and advised (Mr. Moore) that his failure to so adhere would result in further disciplinary action. On January 22, 2003, Mr. Moore was arrested based on an outstanding warrant for the December 1996 charges previously indicated. Renick is a special center for emotionally handicapped and severely emotionally disturbed students. The student's have emotional problems, which interfere with their ability to learn. The teachers, including paraprofessionals, at Renick are specially trained to deal with the behavior problems of the students. The School Board adheres to a graduated system of discipline for students, which consists of the following: first, student conferences are held, then parent conferences, and then parent-teacher conferences; and after the conferences, indoor suspension, then detention, and, lastly, outdoor suspension. Also, located in each classroom is a call button to call security for assistance if needed. The use of profanity and corporal punishment is prohibited by School Board rules. As a paraprofessional with the School Board for several years, Mr. Moore knew or should have known the School Board's graduated system of discipline, rules, and policies. Training is provided for teachers, including paraprofessionals, in the management of students at Renick, who are misbehaving. Also, in-house workshops are provided. The training is "crisis management," which was formerly safe physical management. In crisis management, physical restraint is the last resort; interventions are used instead. A student's parent must consent in writing for the use of physical restraint; however, even without consent, physical restraint may be used for situations that do not de-escalate. If physical restraint is used, the situation must be documented and the student's parent must be notified. One intervention is a prearranged intervention in which the student and teacher agree on a technique to be used by the teacher to make the student aware that his/her behavior is escalating. The prearranged intervention may be, for instance, a pulling of the student's ear. If the prearrange intervention fails to de-escalate the student's behavior, another intervention referred to as proximity control may be used. In this technique, the student feels the teacher's presence by the teacher moving towards the student, which interrupts the student's behavior. If no interventions, whether verbal or non-verbal, de- escalates the student's behavior, which begins to get out-of- control, forms of physical restraint may be used, as a last resort. One form of physical restraint is for the teacher to hold the student with his/her hand to communicate to that student that his/her behavior is escalating, with safety being the primary issue. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may resort to a more restrictive restraint such as the cradle. In using this technique, both the student and teacher are standing, with the student having his/her back to the teacher, and the teacher holding the student, with safety being the primary issue. Again, the teacher is attempting to have the student realize that his/her behavior is escalating. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may take the student to the floor. One technique used is the cradle assist. In this technique, the student is brought to the floor by the teacher and the student is held by the teacher in a cradle-like position. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher, with the assistance of a colleague, may hold the student to the floor. Using a colleague, assists the student in calming down. Whenever physical restraint is used, the parents of the student are notified. Furthermore, the student is counseled, and the student's file must be documented regarding the use of physical restraint. Mr. Moore received the training as to the interventions and the physical restraints. Furthermore, he attended at least one in-house workshop. Therefore, Mr. Moore had knowledge of the behavior techniques. A past performance problem involving Mr. Moore and a student was documented by a memorandum dated July 24, 1998 from Mr. DeWitt to Mr. Moore. The memorandum addressed "alleged misconduct" by Mr. Moore committed on July 20, 1998, in which Mr. Moore allegedly choked a student, when he was putting the student in time-out, and used inappropriate language by calling the student a "faggot." Although the memorandum indicated that Mr. Moore stated that he may have grabbed the student's neck, the memorandum did not indicate that the allegation was confirmed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to "refrain from using inappropriate procedures and language" while performing his duties. The statement by Mr. Moore showed that he admitted, not denied, that he did take some action with the student. Regarding incidents with students, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges a specific incident, occurring on December 19, 2002, between Mr. Moore and a student, J. G. Allegedly, Mr. Moore told J. G. that he "was going to kill him" and "for him [J. G.] to meet him [Mr. Moore] at the store in five minutes since he [J. G.] was bad, so they could fight"; and that he "was going to make him [J. G.] his girl"; Furthermore, Mr. Moore allegedly called J. G. a "fat bitch." Additionally, Mr. Moore allegedly told another student, X. W., that he would "fuck X. W.'s mother in the grave" and called X. W. a "faggot." Also, Mr. Moore allegedly grabbed another student, I. J., and subsequently, another student, M. S., and pulled their arms behind their backs and pushed them against a wall. Further, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges contains a general allegation of how Mr. Moore treated students, i.e., "Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, pushed students to the ground, picked a student up and slammed him to the floor, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay." As to the general allegation, student D. J. testified regarding Mr. Moore pushing a student to the ground. D. J. testified that he did not want to do his work and attempted to leave the classroom without permission from Mr. Moore; that Mr. Moore would not allow him to leave the room; and that Mr. Moore placed him on the floor, face first, with his (D. J.'s) arms behind his back in a manner that hurt him (D. J.). No one else was in the classroom to witness the alleged incident. No specific time period was provided for the alleged incident. Mr. Moore's testimony did not address this particular incident. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. D. J.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find D. J.'s testimony convincing. Even if Mr. Moore engaged in the physical restraint of D. J., the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. D. J. was attempting to force his way out of the class. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the incident and notify D. J.'s parents that physical restraint was used. Also, as to the general allegation, student M. L. testified regarding picking a student up and slamming the student to the floor. M. L. testified that, except for him, all the other students in the class had completed their work and were in the rear of the classroom with the teacher; that he had just completed his work and was walking to the rear of the class when Mr. Moore walked into the classroom; that Mr. Moore told him that he was out of his seat without permission; and that Mr. Moore picked him up and slammed him to the floor, placing his (Mr. Moore's) knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore testified that M. L. was out of his seat without permission and that M. L. was running in the classroom and would not sit down even though Mr. Moore asked him to sit down and stop running. M. L. admitted that he had been disciplined before for running around in the classroom. Mr. Moore admits that he put M. L. to the floor, which de-escalated the situation, and that he then allowed M. L. to get up. Furthermore, Mr. Moore admits that he did not document the incident and did not notify the parents of M. L. that physical restraint had been used on M. L. No testimony was presented from Mr. Moore's supervising teacher, Jaime Calaf, regarding the incident with M. L. No other testimony was presented. As to the incident with M. L., the only witnesses testifying were M. L. and Mr. Moore. In considering M. L.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. M. L.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, and his admission that he had been disciplined for the same action previously detracted from the credibility of his testimony. Specifically, the undersigned is not convinced that M. L. had completed his work, that he was not disruptive, that Mr. Moore slammed M. L. to the floor, and that Mr. Moore put his knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore admits that he put, not slammed, M. L. to the floor. The undersigned does not find M. L.'s testimony convincing. The evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the situation and failed to notify the parents of M. L. as required that physical restraint had been used with M. L. Regarding the general allegation that Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay, M. L. testified as to Mr. Moore punching students in the arm, who were misbehaving, and O. B. testified as to Mr. Moore hitting students with a broom. M. L. testified that, at times, Mr. Moore punched him and other students in the arm when they were misbehaving. The undersigned's decision as to M. L.'s credibility remains the same. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore punched students who were misbehaving. O. B. testified that Mr. Moore attempted to hit him once with a broom when he was misbehaving and, at times, hit other students with a broom when they were misbehaving. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. O. B. testified that he did not consider J. B. to be a disruptive student; whereas, the evidence presented, regarding J. B., clearly indicates that J. B. is a disruptive student. O. B.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, together with his unsupported conclusion that J. B. was not a disruptive student, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find O. B.'s testimony convincing. Further, Mr. Calaf testified that, on occasions, he observed Mr. Moore grabbing students in the back and getting rough with them. Mr. Calaf did not testify that he reported his observations to the principal or other person who could exact discipline upon Mr. Moore. Moreover, Mr. Calaf did not testify that what he observed was inappropriate or contrary to the established crisis management training. Consequently, Mr. Calaf's observations cannot be used to support the alleged inappropriate conduct by Mr. Moore. Regarding the specific incident involving J. G. in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges, according to the principal of Renick, Eugenia Smith, she would not have recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore if it had not been for the incident on December 19, 2002, involving J. G., a middle school student at the time. No dispute exists that the School Board uses progressive discipline. For Ms. Smith, the incident involving J. G. was the incident that triggered the dismissal of Mr. Moore. As a result, this incident is the defining incident for Ms. Smith's decision to recommend dismissal of Mr. Moore and, therefore, if this incident is not proven, the basis for her recommendation of Mr. Moore's dismissal no longer exists. As to the specific incident involving J. G., the witnesses to the incident are J. G., other Renick students in the class, and Mr. Moore. No dispute in the testimony exists that, on December 19, 2002, Mr. Moore and J. G. got into a shouting match and that Mr. Moore never touched J. G. At Renick, J. G. was disruptive in his classes and had had many discipline problems. One psychologist at Renick, Joseph Strasko, described J. G. as physically disruptive and aggressive. Another psychologist at Renick, Theodore Cox, Jr., had observed J. G. engaging in inappropriate behavior. Also, Mr. Strasko described J. G. as a student who would not tell the truth when it was detrimental to him (J. G.); whereas, Mr. Cox had not known J. G. to tell an untruth. As to whether J. G. would tell the truth, the undersigned finds Mr. Strasko to be more credible and, therefore, finds that J. G. will not tell the truth when it is detrimental to him (J. G.). As to what lead to the shouting match, only Mr. Moore was certain as to what happened. The undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony credible regarding this aspect of the incident. J. G. was bullying a new student in the class and had physically moved toward the new student. Mr. Moore interceded to stop the bullying by J. G. and to protect the new student, requesting J. G. to take his seat but J. G. refused. Mr. Moore kept himself between J. G. and the new student, thereby, preventing J. G. from advancing upon the new student. What Mr. Moore said during the shouting match is where the testimony differs. However, no dispute exists as to certain aspects of the incident: that J. G. became angry and disrespectful toward Mr. Moore; that J. G. stated to Mr. Moore that, if Mr. Moore put his hands on him, he (J. G.) would bring his father and brother to Renick and they would deal with Mr. Moore; and that J. G. used profanity with Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore denies that he used profanity or disparaging remarks during the incident with J. G. The crisis management expert, Mr. Strasko,2 testified that it is not appropriate for a teacher to shout profanities at a student who is shouting profanities at the teacher; and that a teacher is required to be professional even when students are being disruptive. X. W., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that Mr. Moore called J. G. a "fat bitch" and called him (X. W.) a "punk." X. W. is J. G.'s cousin. D. J., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that he did not hear about what J. G. and Mr. Moore were arguing. However, D. J. testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother and that he (Mr. Moore) would "lay him on the ground." O. B. a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother to the store and that they would deal with it then. O. B. further testified that J. G. and Mr. Moore were calling each other gay and other derogatory names. Further, regarding the incident on December 19, 2002, Mr. Calaf did not witness the incident. Mr. Calaf returned to the class after the incident had occurred and observed J. G. crying and Mr. Moore and J. G. shouting at each other. Mr. Calaf did not testify as to what Mr. Moore and J. G. were shouting but did testify that he advised Mr. Moore that he (Mr. Moore) should not shout at students and should always remain professional, not getting on the level of the students. As to J. G.’s being disruptive in the class, Mr. Calaf testified that J. G. was generally disruptive and that usually Mr. Moore could calm J. G. down. The undersigned finds Mr. Calaf's testimony credible. In considering J. G.'s credibility, the aforementioned factors describing J. G. must be considered. In considering X. W.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but also that teachers are required not to use profanity and to be professional. Further, the undersigned must consider the fact that X. W. is J. G.'s cousin, which was unbeknownst to Ms. Smith. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider the factor that D. J. complained that Mr. Moore used physical restraint against him in an earlier incident in which the only witnesses were he and Mr. Moore. The incident and D. J.'s credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider that O. B. complained that he observed Mr. Moore hitting students at Renick with a broom. The incident and O. B's credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering Mr. Moore's credibility, the character testimony provided by Mr. Strasko and the character letters provided by Mr. Moore's colleagues must be considered. Mr. Strasko and Mr. Moore's colleagues address, among other things, what they consider the appropriate manner in which Mr. Moore handled students who were having behavior problems. Further, Mr. Moore's length of employment with the School Board, and his aforementioned past performance situations must be considered, including the one documented alleged inappropriate crisis management technique and language used by Mr. Moore in July 1998. Taking all of the aforementioned factors of credibility into consideration, the undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony more credible than the students, the character testimony and letters persuasive, and the lack of evidence, as to what was said, by a witness who was not involved in the incident, i.e., Mr. Calaf. Therefore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Moore did not use profanity during the incident of December 19, 2002. Mr. Moore did not report the incident involving J. G. Mr. Moore did not believe that the incident rose to the level that reporting was necessary. Moreover, no physical restraint was used. On May 1, 2003, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore by the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to review his employment history and future employment with the School Board. Among those in attendance with Mr. Moore were a UTD advocate, Ms. Smith, and the assistant superintendent for the Office of Exceptional Student Education and Student/Career Services. By a summary of the conference- for-the-record, dated June 6, 2003, the conference-for-the record was memoralized. By memorandum dated May 28, 2003, Ms. Smith and the assistant superintendent recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore. By letter dated August 21, 2003, the School Board notified Mr. Moore that at its meeting on August 20, 2003, it took action to suspend him and initiate dismissal proceedings against him from all employment with it.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: Finding Algernon J. Moore, Jr. in violation of Counts I and IV in accordance with this Recommended Order. Dismissing Counts II and III. Upholding the suspension of Algernon J. Moore, Jr. Dismissing Algernon J. Moore, Jr. from all employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 30th day of December, 2004.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to terminate the Respondent's employment contract as a teacher. The grounds upon which the proposed action is based are alleged in a Notice of Specific Charges of Unsatisfactory Performance dated May 13, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was a duly-constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Michael J. Akpan, was an employee of the School Board of Miami- Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent possessed an annual employment contract as a teacher and was subject to the Memorandum of Understanding between United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was certified to teach middle grades science. This certification allows the Respondent to teach certain science courses to ninth and tenth grade students. During the 1997/1998 school year, the Respondent was teaching at North Miami Senior High School (NMSHS).1 The Respondent was placed in an alternative education assignment in which the students were at risk of dropping out of school. During that school year, the Respondent had difficulty controlling the conduct of students in his classroom. There were numerous instances of student misconduct and disruption of such gravity as to require intervention by school security personnel and assistant principals. Teachers employed by the Petitioner School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS has been approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between the Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). At all times material to this case, TADS was employed to evaluate the Respondent's performance. The same TADS documents are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers, whether new or veteran. TADS observers record deficiencies which are observed during the observation period and then provide a prescription for performance improvement.2 A post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. Then the cycle of assessment/prescription begins again. Under the TADS procedure as incorporated into the labor contract between the School Board and UTD, teachers who are in Annual Contract Two status, such as the Respondent, must have a minimum of two observations during each school year. One of those two observations must be done by the principal. During its 1997 session, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 1997, to provide for a 90-calendar-day performance probation for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. Because the statutory amendment impacted the implementation of TADS, the Petitioner and UTD negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the implementation of the new procedures required by the 1997 statutory amendments. The Memorandum of Understanding is an amendment to the labor contract between the Petitioner and the UTD. The Memorandum of Understanding reads as follows, in pertinent part: Performance Probation Period Upon identification of any deficiency, either through the observation/assessment process OR a Category VII infraction, the PRINCIPAL MUST, within 10 days, conduct a conference-for-the-record which addresses: results of the observation/assessment, or Category VII infraction, stipulations of the Performance Probation (90 calendar days excluding school holidays and vacations), which begins upon the employee's receipt of written plan of assistance (prescription), the plan of assistance and professional development opportunities to help correct documented deficiencies within a specified period of time, future required observations/assessments and possible employment actions. A minimum of two observations/assessments must be conducted subsequent to the completion of the initial prescriptive timelines and during the Performance Probation. The annual evaluation decision will be based upon the result of the last observation/assessment as illustrated in the chart titled, Examples of Assessments/ Observations and Annual Evaluation/Employment Contract Decisions for Employees on Performance Probation. In the event that an employee is absent on authorized leave in excess of 10 consecutive workdays, the Performance Probation is suspended until the employee returns to active duty, at which time it resumes. If the Performance Probation has not been completed during the current year of employment, the annual evaluation is withheld pending completion of the Performance Probation during the subsequent year of employment. Teachers who have not completed the requirements of the Performance Probation are ineligible for summer school employment. Within 14 calendar days after the close of the Performance Probation, the evaluator (principal) must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the Superintendent. Within 14 calendar days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the Superintendent must notify the employee in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the Superintendent will recommend that the School Board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the Superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 calendar days after receipt of the Superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. On October 13, 1997, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal Carrie Figueredo for one hour. The Respondent was found to be deficient in several categories and his performance was assessed as unsatisfactory. The observed deficiencies on this occasion included a failure to maintain appropriate classroom management. More than 90 percent of the students were "off task." Most of the students were either sleeping, filling out job applications, or otherwise inattentive. On October 20, 1997, Assistant principal Figueredo held a post-observation conference with the Respondent, discussed the Respondent's deficiencies with him, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities, which it was hoped would help him improve his performance as a classroom teacher. On November 21, 1997, the Respondent was formally observed in his classroom by Principal Charles Hankerson. Principal Hankerson assessed the Respondent's performance as unsatisfactory. Among other things, Principal Hankerson observed that the Respondent continued to have serious deficiencies in the area of classroom management. On December 2, 1997, Principal Hankerson held a conference for the record with the Respondent to address his unsatisfactory performance. During that conference Principal Hankerson made recommendations as to how the Respondent might improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and also discussed the Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner School Board. The Respondent was placed on a Performance Probation status in accordance with Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and he was provided with a plan of assistance to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed time frame. The Respondent's 90-day probation period began on December 8, 1997, which is the day on which he was furnished with a copy of the written plan of assistance. March 8, 1998. was the ninetieth day following December 8, 1997. During the Respondent's 90-day probation period there were at least 12 school holidays and school vacation days.3 Accordingly, the Respondent's probation period extended until at least March 20, 1998.4 On January 20, 1998, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal William Henderson. Assistant Principal Henderson observed the Respondent for 60 minutes. During this observation, the Respondent was found deficient in techniques of instruction. Assistant Principal Henderson observed that the Respondent was not addressing the needs of the students, that there was confusion as to the assignment, and that the Respondent wasted too much time initiating the lesson. On January 27, 1998, Assistant Principal Henderson had a post-observation conference with the Respondent, during which he discussed the Respondent's deficiencies, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities to assist the Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. Among those activities were, that the Respondent should meet with his department chairperson and review strategies which would be appropriate for the students assigned to the Respondent's classes. The Respondent was also directed to submit lesson plans to Assistant Principal Henderson. On February 27, 1998, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal Figueredo for two hours. Assistant Principal Figueredo found the Respondent to be deficient in several areas, including classroom management.5 This was Assistant Principal Figueredo's second observation of the Respondent. While she noted some minimal improvement since her earlier observation, the Respondent's performance on February 27, 1998, was still not anywhere near an acceptable level. On March 5, 1998, Assistant Figueredo held a post- observation conference with the Respondent, discussed the Respondent's deficiencies with him, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities in order to assist the Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. Among those prescriptive activities was a requirement that the Respondent develop lesson plans to be reviewed by Assistant Principal Figueredo's and by the Respondent's department chairperson. The Respondent was also directed to maintain a time log to determine when students arrived. Additionally, the Respondent was assigned several exercises in the Activities Manual to assist him in the area of teacher/student relationships. On March 27, 1998, Principal Charles Hankerson observed the Respondent in the classroom. On this occasion Principal Hankerson found the Respondent to be deficient in three categories: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher/student relationships. This was the confirmatory observation, which did not require a prescription. The assistance provided to the Respondent through his prescriptions was appropriate assistance related to the Respondent's observed deficiencies. The Respondent completed all of the prescriptions. Nevertheless, the Respondent continued to fail to plan for lessons, continued to fail to manage his students, and continued to fail to interact appropriately with his students. These continued failures resulted in a failure of the Respondent to meet the instructional needs of his students. As a result of the Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during each of the last three observations described above, Principal Hankerson notified the Superintendent of Schools that the Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during the probation period, and Principal Hankerson recommended that the Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 2, 1998, the Superintendent of Schools timely notified the Respondent that he was going to recommend that the School Board terminate his employment contract because he had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his period of probation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order sustaining the action to terminate Respondent's annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated due to two years of unsatisfactory and unacceptable performance.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, the Respondent, Robert Nolan, Jr., was employed as a seventh and eighth grade math teacher at Rockway Middle School ("Rockway"). Nolan has been employed by the School Board as a math teacher since the 1987/88 school year. The School Board has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, V., which provides: Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State and District Boards, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and by the Rules of the State Department of Education. Article XI of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part: Classroom teachers are required to develop weekly lesson plans which shall reflect one or more objectives, activities, homework assignments, and a way of monitoring student progress. Principals or supervising administrators may suggest, but not require, a particular format or organization. Only where a principal has documented deficiencies through classroom observation, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS), may a teacher be required to use a set form in preparation of lesson plans. Article XIII, Introduction, B., of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part: The parties agree to the continuation of a developmental approach to improving teaching performance, using the TADS. In accordance with Florida Statutes, no disciplinary action shall be taken, based on incompetence in the absence of documentation and procedures required by TADS. Article XIII, Section 2, of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part: Any teacher whose performance is assessed unacceptable in any observation category shall be entitled to a plan of professional growth practices which shall include reason- able timeframes for implementation. . . Teachers shall follow the growth practices required. Failure to implement required professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was required shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Contract. Where an administrator has substantiated, through two formal observations, as stipulated above, that teaching is unaccep- table in any of the observation categories, DCPS may utilize diagnostic tests and assessment techniques to identify teaching weaknesses and strengths and to assist in selecting appropriate professional growth practices to improve teaching performance. . . Where teaching deficiencies are diagnosed as a result of tests or assessment techniques, DCPS shall require professional growth practices which shall be obligatory on the teacher. Respondent's employment history with the Petitioner includes numerous instances of unsatisfactory and deficient classroom performance reflecting an unwillingness or inability to fulfill his teaching duties and responsibilities. On June 2, 1993, Carole Abrams ("Abrams"), an assistant principal at Rockway at the time, reviewed Respondent's grade book and noticed that Respondent did not have complete grades for the four nine-week grading periods; Respondent was placed on notice that he was required to have a completed grade book by the end of the school year. Even though Respondent was directed to complete his grade book by the end of the school year and was offered assistance so that Respondent may complete his grade book, Respondent failed to complete his grade book as directed. On October 13, 1993, Abrams formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent unacceptable in three categories of the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS"): preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and techniques of instruction. At the time of the observation on October 13, 1993, Abrams concluded that Respondent was not following a particular lesson plan. When Abrams asked to see Respondent's lesson plans during the observation on October 13, 1993, Respondent produced lesson plans that were two years old and belonged to another teacher. During the October 13, 1993 observation, Respondent appeared confused, spent the entire lesson on one mathematical problem, was not able to demonstrate to his students how to complete the problem mathematically, and was unable to accurately answer students' questions regarding the math problem. Respondent was found unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction due to his inability to answer students' questions, to demonstrate the mathematical process for arriving at the correct answer, or to address the necessary topics of the lesson that Respondent was attempting to give. As a result of Respondent's unacceptable classroom performance as demonstrated by the October 13, 1993 observation, Respondent was placed on prescription and was provided with assistance and activities for his performance improvement. Part of Respondent's prescription required that Respondent provide weekly lesson plans, but Respondent failed to do so, even after receiving memoranda from Abrams reminding Respondent of this requirement. On December 7, 1993, Respondent's classroom performance was observed by Patricia Duncan ("Duncan"), another assistant principal at Rockway; Duncan found Respondent unsatisfactory in the area of assessment techniques. Duncan found that Respondent's assessment of students' work was deficient because the grades in Respondent's grade book did not correlate with the days that class was in session, nor with work contained in the students' folders. During the December 7, 1993 observation, Duncan also noted that Respondent did not have the required work folders for some of the students listed in Respondent's classroom. In an effort to assist Respondent, Duncan provided Respondent with a prescription for Respondent's performance improvement which required that Respondent produce his grade book and student folders to Duncan for review and seek the assistance of the math department chairperson. On December 15, 1993, a mid-year Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), was held with Respondent and Jorge Sotolongo ("Sotolongo"), the principal of Rockway at the time, to address the results of Respondent's observations, Respondent's unsatisfactory performance, Respondent's failure to timely complete activities and assignments designed to help him reach an acceptable level of performance. At the CFR on December 15, 1993, Respondent was advised that if he had to remain on prescription, he would receive an unacceptable annual evaluation at the end of the 1993/94 school year. Although Respondent already had been reminded of the requirement that he complete his prescription, on February 4, 1994, Respondent again had to be notified of his failure to complete his activities and assignments as required by Respondent's prescription. On April 12, 1994, Sotolongo formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent's performance unsatisfactory and unacceptable under TADS in: preparation and planning; and assessment techniques. During the observation on April 12, 1994, Sotolongo noted: that Respondent did not have lesson plans for the class Respondent was teaching; that Respondent's grade book showed that Respondent did not have the required two grades per week for each student; that Respondent had failed to note assignments contained in the students' work folders in his grade book; and that Respondent had failed to properly identify students in his grade book. Including the observation on April 12, 1994, Respondent had been formally observed four times during the 1993/94 school year, and Respondent's classroom performance had been found unacceptable in three out of the four observations. (An observation by Sotolongo on February 10, 1994, scored Respondent's performance as satisfactory.) Since Respondent had received three unacceptable observations during the 1993/94 school year, on May 5, 1994, Sotolongo requested that the School Board perform an external review of Respondent's classroom performance. On May 16, 1994, an external observation of Respondent's performance was conducted by: Billy Birnie, the School Board's Regional Director of Instructional Support; and the principal, Sotolongo. The external observation of Respondent's performance concluded with Respondent being rated, by both observers, unacceptable under TADS in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and assessment techniques. The Respondent questioned whether Birnie and Sotolongo improperly collaberated in completing their TADS observation reports on the observation on May 16, 1994. But both explained that their reports were completed separately, after which they conferred, as contemplated (and, indeed, required) by the TADS procedures. There was no evidence of any improprieties. During the external observation on May 16, 1994, Respondent failed to, and did not even attempt to, follow the lesson plans he had prepared for that day. In addition, the Respondent's lecture was not directed towards any of the objectives listed in Respondent's lesson plans, and Respondent was unable to properly present a lesson on the metric system. A review of Respondent's student work folders during the classroom observation on May 16, 1994, revealed that Respondent did not employ a variety of test formats as required by TADS; rather, Respondent used only those tests contained in the student textbook. As a result of Respondent's unsatisfactory performance and unacceptable observation of May 16, 1994, Respondent was provided with additional activities to assist him in improving his performance. Respondent failed to complete the required assignments and activities related to his unacceptable external observation of May 16, 1994. On June 8, 1994, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's continuing unsatisfactory performance, Respondent's failure to complete assigned activities, and Respondent's annual evaluation. In accordance with TADS, Respondent also was placed on prescription in the area of professional responsibility due to his failure to comply with directives regarding his assigned activities and his failure to complete the assigned activities. At the CFR on June 8, 1994, Respondent was informed that due to his unsatisfactory performance, he would stay on prescription for the remainder of the 1993/94 school year and that he would start the 1994/95 school year on prescription. By the end of the 1993/94 school year, Respondent had been formally observed five times and Respondent's performance had been rated unacceptable in four out of the five observations. On June 8, 1994, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year, which reflected that Respondent had been rated unacceptable in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; assessment techniques; and professional responsibility. On June 17, 1994, Respondent was notified by certified letter that, because he had received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was entitled to request a review of the evaluation. Respondent started the 1994/95 school year on prescription. On October 11, 1994, Respondent was again formally observed by Sotolongo and, in accordance with TADS, was found unacceptable in knowledge of the subject matter and techniques of instruction. During the observation on October 11, 1994, Respondent was unable to provide a correct answer to a mathematical word problem even after resorting to a calculator; the incorrect answer to the problem remained on the board for the duration of the class. Respondent also was found unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction in the observation on October 11, 1994. Respondent failed to provide feedback to students who gave incorrect answers to the math problems being discussed. Respondent was prescribed activities to assist him in overcoming his deficiencies as identified in the classroom observation on October 11, 1994. He was directed to complete these activities by November 4, 1994. By November 22, 1994, Respondent still had not completed the activities. In a further effort to assist Respondent with his performance improvement, Respondent was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program after Sotolongo learned that Respondent had been arrested for possession of cocaine. On December 1, 1994, almost a year after Duncan first formally observed Respondent's performance, Duncan again observed Respondent's classroom performance. Duncan found Respondent unacceptable and unsatisfactory under TADS in knowledge of the subject matter after Respondent was unable to correctly present a lesson involving graphs (instead giving inaccurate information to his students.) On December 7, 1994, a mid-year CFR was held between Respondent and Carmen Marinelli ("Marinelli"), the new principal at Rockway, to discuss Respondent's two unacceptable observations during the 1994/95 school year and Respondent's failure to complete the prescription plan activities assigned him, and to offer Respondent assistance in remediating his unsatisfactory performance. At the CFR on December 7, 1994, Respondent again was reminded that completion of his assigned activities was part of his professional responsibility, and Respondent was advised that if he did not remediate all of his deficiencies by April, 1995, his Professional Service Contract (PSC) would not be renewed. On February 13, 1995, Marinelli performed a formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance and, in accordance with TADS, found Respondent unsatisfactory in: preparation and planning; and knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent was again prescribed activities to assist him in overcoming the deficiencies identified in the classroom observation on February 13, 1995. During the observation on February 13, 1995, Marinelli noted that Respondent did not have lesson plans for his class and that Respondent was unable to correctly present a lesson which required the use of fractions. As a result of Respondent having been formally observed three times during the 1994/95 school year and because Respondent's performance had been rated unacceptable in all three observations, Marinelli requested another external observation. On March 27, 1995, Marinelli and Dr. Hector Hirigoyen, a regional mathematics coordinator, conducted an external observation of Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent unsatisfactory in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and assessment techniques. During the observation on March 27, 1995, Respondent's lesson plans did not reflect any planned activities for his class, and Respondent's grade book did not contain any grades for a three-week period. Respondent also gave students incorrect information regarding a mathematics vocabulary lesson. After the observation on March 27, 1995, Respondent was prescribed still more activities to assist him in overcoming the deficiencies observed. He also was offered additional assistance from the district supervisor, assistant principal, or department chairperson. By letter dated March 28, 1995, Respondent was notified by the Superintendent of Schools that the deficiencies noted in Respondent's performance during the 1993/94 school year had not been corrected and that the Superintendent was recommending that Respondent not be issued a new PSC. Additionally, the Superintendent's letter of March 28, 1995, notified Respondent that assessment of Respondent's performance would continue for the remainder of Respondent's contract. On May 3, 1995, Marinelli held a CFR with Respondent to discuss the status of his prescription, to remind Respondent that if he remained on prescription he may not be reappointed, and to review Respondent's interim annual evaluation of unacceptable performance. On May 12, 1995, Martha Boden, an outside observer, conducted a formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent's techniques of instruction to be unsatisfactory. Boden cited Respondent's failure to allow students to answer questions and failure to determine whether students understood the lesson being given as the reasons for Respondent's unacceptable performance. During the observation on May 12, 1995, when the school year was close to ending, the outside observer also found that Respondent had only two grades per student in his grade book. On June 9, 1995, Marinelli held another CFR with Respondent to address Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during the 1994/95 school year and to advise Respondent that, since he had not remediated his deficiencies, he would receive an overall unacceptable annual evaluation, and that his PSC would not be renewed. On June 9, 1995, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1994/95 school year in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; techniques of instruction; and professional responsibility. The Respondent has argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of offense taken at his expression of "concern with the inadequacies of the textbooks that he was directed to use in his math classes." This argument is rejected. First, the Respondent's testimony on the textbook argument consisted of speculation that one assistant principal who evaluated him (Carole Abrams) might have taken offense when the Respondent went "over her head" and took direct action to have copies of textbooks delivered to the school. According to the Respondent's testimony, this argument would not apply to any of the other educators who observed the Respondent and judged his performance to be less than satisfactory. In addition, the Respondent did not testify that any offense was taken even by Abrams at the Respondent's insinuation that the textbooks were inadequate. There was no evidence that the textbooks were inadequate; rather, the evidence was that they were new and that the Respondent wanted to use his old textbooks because he was more accustomed to and comfortable with them. The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of envy on account of his successful application for grants from the School Board. Although this argument is based on testimony from the Respondent, that testimony is rejected. It is not found that any, much less all, of the educators who observed the Respondent and judged his performance to be less than satisfactory were envious of the Respondent's grants, or that any of their evaluations were affected by the Respondent's grant applications or grants. The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of TADS's inflexibility and inability to fairly evaluate the Respondent's performance under his grants. However, the Respondent's grants had no impact on lesson planning or grading, or on the evaluation of his performance in those areas under TADS. (Indeed, in response to criticism that he had no lesson plans, the Respondent produced another teacher's lesson plans from a time period that preceded the Respondent's grant by two years and claimed that he was following them. As for grading, the Respondent already had been cited under TADS for failing to maintain sufficient grades in his grade book during the 1991/1992 school year, which was before he started implementing his first grant.) As for teaching techniques, another area in which the Respondent consistently performed poorly, it is found that TADS was flexible enough to allow for a fair evaluation of the Respondent's performance under his grants. TADS was specifically formulated to allow for any type of effective teaching and for a variety of teaching methods, and the areas observed under the techniques of instruction category would not conflict with an individual teacher's teaching style or method. The problem was not that the Respondent was teaching under a grant; the problem was that he was not teaching well, grant or no grant. (Indeed, for most of the time the Respondent claimed to have been utilizing special teaching techniques under the grant to "teach down" to students in the "At Risk Program" to prevent them from dropping out, he testified that he actually was teaching mainstream students; the problem was the Respondent's inadequacies, not his students.) The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that he did not get the assistance to which he was entitled so as to improve his unsatisfactory performance. But the proof of the School Board's attempts to assist the Respondent was overwhelming. Indeed, in the face of the evidence, at final hearing, the Respondent testified to the exact opposite of what he then argued in his Proposed Recommended Order--he complained that he was given too much assistance, which hindered his attempts to improve his performance. 1/ Other arguments the Respondent attempted in the course of his testimony were not even argued in his Proposed Recommended Order. The Respondent testified that some of the people from whom he sought assistance seemed afraid to help, but he did not identify who these people were, and it is not found that anyone declined to help the Respondent out of fear of repercussions. He also testified that he was unable to take advantage of planning periods to prepare lesson plans because he was required to cover for other teachers who had to miss classes to coach softball, but softball season was in the spring and could not excuse the Respondent's failure to prepare lesson plans in the fall and winter. The Respondent also testified that he tried to avoid having to cover for teachers while he was on prescription and that the persistence of these teachers indicated that administrators had overridden the Respondent; but neither the teachers nor the admin- istrators were identified, and it is not found that any administrator required the Respondent to cover classes for those teachers while he was on prescription. The Respondent also testified that the grant required him to do extra work arranging field trips, leaving him less time for lesson planning, teaching and completing prescrip- tions; but, in the 1994/1995 school year, the Respondent used some of his grant money to hire a "para-professional" to help him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter the final order: (1) that Robert Nolan, Jr., not be issued a new Professional Service Contract; (2) that Robert Nolan, Jr., be dismissed as an employee of The School Board of Dade County, Florida; and (3) that Robert Nolan's suspension of April 12, 1995, be sustained and that he receive no back pay for the period of this suspension. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1996.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact One of the statutory duties of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") is to evaluate the performance of every teacher employed in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"), at least once per year. To accomplish this, the Board uses a personnel assessment system known as "PACES," which is an acronym for Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. PACES is the product of collective bargaining between the Board and the teachers' union, and it has been duly approved by the Florida Department of Education. The Board's evaluation procedure begins with an observation of the subject teacher, conducted by an administrator trained in the use of PACES. On a score sheet called the Observation Form for Annual Evaluation ("OFAE"), the evaluator rates the teacher's performance on 44 independently dispositive "indicators." The only grades assignable to the respective indicators are "acceptable" and "unacceptable"; thus, the evaluator's decision, for each indicator, is binary: yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down.1 A negative mark on any one of the 44 indicators results in an overall performance evaluation of "unsatisfactory." For the teacher under observation, therefore, each indicator constitutes, in effect, a pass/fail test, with his or her job hanging in the balance. If the teacher passes all 44 of the independently dispositive indicators, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory" and the evaluative process is complete. If, on the other hand, the teacher is given a failing grade on one or more of the 44 indicators and hence adjudged an unsatisfactory performer, then the initial observation is deemed to be "not of record" (i.e. inoperative) and a follow-up, "for the record" evaluation is scheduled to occur, upon notice to the affected teacher, about one month later. In the meantime, the teacher is offered the assistance of a Professional Growth Team ("PGT"), a group of peers who, having received special training in PACES, are in a position to help the affected teacher correct performance deficiencies in advance of the follow-up evaluation. The follow-up evaluation is conducted in the same manner as the initial "not of record" evaluation. If the teacher passes all 44 indicators, then his performance is deemed satisfactory and the evaluative process is complete. If he fails one or more of the indicators, however, then the teacher is placed on probation for a period of 90 calendar days (excluding vacations and holidays). The probation period is preceded by a formal Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), at which notice of the specific performance deficiencies is provided to the teacher. As well, the teacher is given a Professional Improvement Plan ("PIP"), wherein particular remedial tasks, intended to help the teacher correct the noted performance deficiencies, are assigned. During the performance probation, the teacher must be formally observed at least twice, by an evaluator using the OFAE. If, on any of these probationary observations, the teacher fails at least one indicator, then another PIP is prepared and offered. Within 14 days after the end of probation, a "confirmatory evaluation" is conducted, using the OFAE. The purpose of the confirmatory evaluation is to determine whether the noted performance deficiencies were corrected. If they were, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory." If not, the principal then makes a recommendation to the superintendent whether to continue or terminate the teacher's employment. As mentioned above, a PACES evaluation takes account of 44 crucial indicators.2 The indicators are organized under "components." The 44 outcome determinative indicators fall within 21 components, which are identified on the OFAE. These components are organized, in turn, under "domains," of which six are identified on the OFAE. Each domain has been assigned a Roman numeral identifier: I through VI. The components are distinguished alphabetically: A, B, C, etc. The indicators are numbered using Arabic numerals. Each specific indicator is named according to the Roman numeral of its domain, the letter of its component, and its own Arabic number. Thus, for example, the first indicator under Component A of Domain I is referred to as "I.A.1." Notwithstanding the PACES taxonomy, the classifications of "domain" and "component" are useful only as a means of organizing the indicators. This is because a teacher does not pass or fail a performance evaluation at the domain level or at the component level; rather, he passes or fails at the indicator level, for, again, each of the 44 indicators is independently dispositive under PACES.3 Thus, each of the determinative 44 indicators is of precisely equal weight. None is more important or less important than another.4 B. At all times material to this case, Respondent Sergio H. Escalona ("Escalona") was a teacher in the District. From 2000 until May 19, 2004, when the Board suspended him pending termination of employment, Escalona was a science teacher at Miami Springs Senior High School ("Miami Springs"), a typical high school in the District. During the 2003-04 school year, an evaluator observed Escalona in his classroom on five separate occasions, each time using the OFAE. The dates of these evaluations were, and the names of the respective evaluators are, as follows: Evaluation Date Evaluator November 5, 2003 Carlos M. del Cuadro, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs December 2, 2003 Mr. del Cuadro January 16, 2004 Douglas P. Rodriguez, Principal, Miami Springs February 17, 2004 Deborah Carter, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs April 5, 2004 Mr. Rodriguez The Board contends that Escalona failed all five evaluations; the first, however, was deemed "not of record" and thus is relevant only insofar as it opened the door to the process that followed. The following table shows, for each evaluation (including the first), the indicators that the respective evaluators thought Escalona had failed: IA1 IA2 IB1 IB3 IE3 IF1 IF2 IIA1 IIA3 IIB2 IIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x 01-16-04 x x x 02-17-04 x x x x 04-05-04 x x x IID1 IID3 IID4 IIE1 IIE2 IIE5 IIIA1 IIIA3 IIIB1 IIIB3 IIIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x 01-16-04 x x 02-17-04 x 04-05-04 x x x x x IVA3 IVA 5 IVA6 IVB1 IVB2 IVB 3 IVC2 IVD1 IVD3 IVD6 IVE2 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x 02-17-04 x x x x x 04-05-04 x ? x ? x ? x x IVE4 VA1 VA4 VB1 VB2 VC1 VIA2 VIB1 VIB3 VIC2 VIC4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x x 02-17-04 04-05-04 x ? ? ? x ? x x Because Mr. del Cuadro identified 10 performance deficiencies on December 2, 2003, Escalona was placed on performance probation, pursuant to the procedure described in detail above. Mr. Rodriguez held a CFR on December 9, 2004, to review with Escalona the identified deficiencies and explain the procedures relating to the 90-day probation. Following the CFR, Escalona was given written notice of unsatisfactory performance, in the form of a Summary of Conference-For-The-Record And Professional Improvement Plan (PIP), dated December 9, 2003 ("Summary"). In the Summary, Mr. Rodriguez charged Escalona with failure to satisfactorily perform the following PACES indicators: II.B.4, II.E.5, III.B.3, IV.A.5, IV.B.1, IV.D.1, V.A.1, V.A.4, V.B.1, and VI.A.2. (These 10 indicators are highlighted vertically in the table above.) At the same time, Escalona was given a PIP, and a PGT was assembled to provide assistance. Following the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, based on which Mr. Rodriguez identified 24 deficiencies as shown in the table above, Mr. Rodriguez notified the superintendent that Escalona had failed to correct noted performance deficiencies during a 90-day probation and recommended that Escalona's employment be terminated. The superintendent accepted Mr. Rodriguez's recommendation on April 12, 2004, and shortly thereafter notified Escalona of his decision to recommend that the Board terminate Escalona's employment contract. On May 19, 2004, the Board voted to do just that. C. Of the four evaluations "for the record," the two that were conducted during Escalona's probation (on January 16, 2004, and February 17, 2004) are presently relevant mainly to establish that the proper procedure was followed——a matter that is not genuinely disputed. The substance of these probationary evaluations cannot affect the outcome here because even if Escalona's performance had been perfect during probation, Mr. Rodriguez nevertheless found deficiencies during the post- probation, confirmatory evaluation, which is the only one probative of the dispositive question: Had Escalona corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period after the close of the 90 calendar days' probation? In view of the ultimate issue, the evaluation of December 2, 2003, is primarily relevant because it established the 10 "noted performance deficiencies" that Escalona needed to correct. For reasons that will be discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, the Board cannot terminate Escalona's employment based on other deficiencies allegedly found during probation or at the confirmatory evaluation; rather, it must focus exclusively on those 10 particular deficiencies which Escalona was given 90 calendar days to correct. Thus, stated more precisely, the ultimate question in this case is whether any of the 10 specific deficiencies identified in the Summary provided to Escalona on December 9, 2003, persisted after the 90-day probation. As it happened, Mr. Rodriguez determined, as a result of the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, that Escalona had corrected three of the 10 noted performance deficiencies, for Mr. Rodriguez gave Escalona a passing grade on the indicators II.B.4, II.E.5, and III.B.3. The remaining seven deficiencies upon which termination could legally be based are identified in the table above with the "?" symbol. It is to these seven allegedly uncorrected deficiencies that our attention now must turn. The Board contends, based on Mr. Rodriguez's confirmatory evaluation of April 5, 2004, that Escalona was still, as of that date, failing satisfactorily to perform the following PACES indicators: 5: The purpose or importance of learning tasks is clear to learners. 1: Teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. IV.D.1: Learners have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level or to integrate knowledge and understandings. V.A.1: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in developing associations. 4: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. 1: A variety of questions that enable thinking are asked and/or solicited. VI.A.2: Learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks is monitored. The only descriptive evidence in the record regarding Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004——and hence the only evidence of historical fact upon which the undersigned can decide whether Escalona failed adequately to perform the seven indicators just mentioned——consists of Mr. Rodriguez's testimony. Mr. Rodriguez, who had observed Escalona in the classroom for 50 minutes that day, recounted at final hearing what he had seen as follows: Again, there were students that were simply not engaged at all in learning. For example, there was a student that put his head down at a particular time. He slept for about fifteen minutes. Mr. Escalona never addressed the student, never redirected the learning, never tried to engage that student. Overall the students continued to pass notes in class. The students simply——there was really no plan at all. That was get up, give a lecture. Kids were not paying attention. No redirection for student learning. Questions again very basic. Most of the questions had no response from the students. And [they] just seemed very disinterested, the students did, and the lesson was just not acceptable. Final Hearing Transcript at 103-04. To repeat for emphasis, any findings of historical fact concerning Escalona's performance during the confirmatory evaluation must be based on the foregoing testimony, for that is all the evidence there is on the subject.5 Mr. Rodriguez did not explain how he had applied the seven indicators quoted above to his classroom observations of Escalona to determine that the teacher's performance was not up to standards. D. The seven indicators at issue in this case, it will be seen upon close examination, are not standards upon which to base a judgment, but rather factual conditions ("indicator- conditions") for which the evaluator is supposed to look. If a particular indicator-condition (e.g. the purpose of learning tasks is clear to learners) is found to exist, then the evaluator should award the teacher a passing grade of "acceptable" for that indicator (in this example, Indicator IV.A.5); if not, the grade should be "unacceptable." The indicator-conditions are plainly not objective historical facts; they are, rather, subjective facts, which come into being only when the evaluator puts historical facts against external standards, using reason and logic to make qualitative judgments about what occurred. Subjective facts of this nature are sometimes called "ultimate" facts, the answers to "mixed questions" of law and fact. To illustrate this point, imagine that the class Mr. Rodriguez observed on April 5, 2004, had been videotaped from several different camera angles. The resulting tapes would constitute an accurate audio-visual record of what transpired in Escalona's class that day. Anyone later viewing the tapes would be able to make detailed and accurate findings of objective historical fact, including words spoken, actions taken, time spent on particular tasks, etc. But, without more than the videotapes themselves could provide, a viewer would be unable fairly to determine whether, for example, the "[t]eaching and learning activities [had been] appropriate for the complexity of the learning context" (Indicator IV.B.1), or whether the questions asked adequately "enable[d] thinking" (Indicator V.B.1).6 This is because to make such determinations fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the rule of law requires the use of standards of decision, yardsticks against which to measure the perceptible reality captured on film. Another term for standards of decision is "neutral principles." A neutral principle prescribes normative conduct in a way that permits fair judgments to be made consistently—— that is, in this context, enables the reaching of similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time. A neutral principle must not be either political or results oriented. It must be capable of being applied across- the-board, to all teachers in all evaluations. In the unique milieu of PACES, neutral principles could take a variety of forms. One obvious form would be standards of teacher conduct. Such standards might be defined, for example, with reference to the average competent teacher in the District (or school, or state, etc.). In an adjudicative proceeding such as this one, expert testimony might then be necessary to establish what the average competent teacher does, for example, to monitor learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks (Indicator VI.A.2) or to create opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive level (Indicator IV.D.1).7 Other standards might be definitional. For example, to determine whether teaching and learning activities are appropriate (Indicator IV.B.1) practically demands a definition of the term "appropriate" for this context. Still other standards might be framed as tests, e.g. a test for determining whether a question enables thinking (Indicator V.B.1). However the neutral principles are framed, at bottom there must be standards that describe what "satisfactory" performance of the indicators looks like, so that different people can agree, most of the time, that the indicator- conditions are present or absent in a given situation——and in other, similar situations. Without neutral principles to discipline the decision-maker, the indicators can be used as cover for almost any conclusion an evaluator (or Administrative Law Judge) might want to make. In this case, the record is devoid of any persuasive evidence of neutral principles for use in determining, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether the conditions described in the seven relevant indicators were extant in Escalona's classroom on April 5, 2004, or not. E. In this de novo proceeding, the undersigned fact- finder is charged with the responsibility of determining independently, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether, as of the two-week period following probation, Escalona had corrected all of the performance deficiencies of which he was notified at the outset of probation. The only evidence of Escalona's post- probation teaching performance consists of Mr. Rogriguez's testimony about his observation of Escalona for 50 minutes on April 5, 2004, which was quoted above. Mr. Rodriguez's testimony gives the undersigned little to work with. His observations can be boiled down to four major points, none of which flatters Escalona: (a) Escalona lectured, and the students, who seemed disinterested, did not pay attention——some even passed notes; (b) Escalona asked "very basic" questions, most of which elicited "no response"; (c) one student slept for 15 minutes, and Escalona left him alone; (d) the lesson was "just not acceptable." On inspection, these points are much less helpful than they might at first blush appear. One of them——point (d)——is merely a conclusion which invades the undersigned's province as the fact-finder; accordingly, it has been given practically no weight. The only facts offered in support of the conclusions, in point (a), that the students "seemed" disinterested and were "not paying attention" to Escalona's lecture is the testimony that some students passed notes, and some (many?) did not answer the teacher's questions. But this is a rather thin foundation upon which to rest a conclusion that the students were bored because Escalona's teaching was poor. And even if they were (or looked) bored, is it not fairly common for teenaged high-school students to be (or appear) bored in school, for reasons unrelated to the teacher's performance? There is no evidence whatsoever that student boredom (or note passing or non- responsiveness) features only in the classrooms of poorly performing teachers. As for the supposedly "basic" nature of Escalona's questions, see point (b), the undersigned cannot give Mr. Rodriguez's testimony much weight, because there is no evidence as to what the questions actually were or why they were so very basic. Finally, regarding point (c), the fact that a student slept during class is, to be sure, somewhat damaging to Escalona, inasmuch as students should not generally be napping in class, but without additional information about the student (who might have been sick, for all the undersigned knows) and the surrounding circumstances the undersigned is not persuaded that the sleeping student is res ipsa loquitur on the quality of of Escalona's teaching performance. There is certainly no evidence that students doze only in the bad teachers' classes. More important, however, than the paucity of evidence establishing the objective historical facts concerning Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004, is the failure of proof regarding neutral principles for use in determining the existence or nonexistence of the relevant indicator-conditions. Even if the undersigned had a clear picture of what actually occurred in Escalona's classroom that day, which he lacks, he has been provided no standards against which to measure Escalona's performance, to determine whether the indicator- conditions were met or not. The absence of evidence of such standards is fatal to the Board's case. To make ultimate factual determinations without proof of neutral principles, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Escalona.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Florida Statutes. When a teacher contests a superintendent's recommendation of dismissal, as here, the ensuing hearing must be conducted "in accordance with chapter 120." See § 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Fla. Stat. A "chapter 120 proceeding [entails] a hearing de novo intended to 'formulate final agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily.'" Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So. 2d 831, 833 (Fla. 1993)(quoting McDonald v. Department of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)). Thus, the Board's burden in this case was not merely to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators sincerely believed, after conducting a legally sufficient assessment, that Young's performance was deficient, nor even to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators' judgment was factually and legally tenable. Rather, the Board's burden was to persuade the undersigned himself to find, independently, that Young's performance was deficient. Because this case is a proceeding to terminate a teacher's employment and does not involve the loss of a license or certification, the Board was required to prove the alleged grounds for Escalona's dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas County School Bd., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. School Bd. of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Bd. of Lake County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). B. Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, which governs the process for evaluating teachers, provides in full as follows: 1012.34 Assessment procedures and criteria.-- For the purpose of improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory services in the public schools of the state, the district school superintendent shall establish procedures for assessing the performance of duties and responsibilities of all instructional, administrative, and supervisory personnel employed by the school district. The Department of Education must approve each district's instructional personnel assessment system. The following conditions must be considered in the design of the district's instructional personnel assessment system: The system must be designed to support district and school level improvement plans. The system must provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous quality improvement of the professional skills of instructional personnel. The system must include a mechanism to give parents an opportunity to provide input into employee performance assessments when appropriate. In addition to addressing generic teaching competencies, districts must determine those teaching fields for which special procedures and criteria will be developed. Each district school board may establish a peer assistance process. The plan may provide a mechanism for assistance of persons who are placed on performance probation as well as offer assistance to other employees who request it. The district school board shall provide training programs that are based upon guidelines provided by the Department of Education to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities understand the proper use of the assessment criteria and procedures. The assessment procedure for instructional personnel and school administrators must be primarily based on the performance of students assigned to their classrooms or schools, as appropriate. Pursuant to this section, a school district's performance assessment is not limited to basing unsatisfactory performance of instructional personnel and school administrators upon student performance, but may include other criteria approved to assess instructional personnel and school administrators' performance, or any combination of student performance and other approved criteria. The procedures must comply with, but are not limited to, the following requirements: An assessment must be conducted for each employee at least once a year. The assessment must be based upon sound educational principles and contemporary research in effective educational practices. The assessment must primarily use data and indicators of improvement in student performance assessed annually as specified in s. 1008.22 and may consider results of peer reviews in evaluating the employee's performance. Student performance must be measured by state assessments required under s. 1008.22 and by local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the state assessment program. The assessment criteria must include, but are not limited to, indicators that relate to the following: Performance of students. Ability to maintain appropriate discipline. Knowledge of subject matter. The district school board shall make special provisions for evaluating teachers who are assigned to teach out-of-field. Ability to plan and deliver instruction, including implementation of the rigorous reading requirement pursuant to s. 1003.415, when applicable, and the use of technology in the classroom. Ability to evaluate instructional needs. Ability to establish and maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement. Other professional competencies, responsibilities, and requirements as established by rules of the State Board of Education and policies of the district school board. All personnel must be fully informed of the criteria and procedures associated with the assessment process before the assessment takes place. The individual responsible for supervising the employee must assess the employee's performance. The evaluator must submit a written report of the assessment to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee's contract. The evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the assessment takes place. The evaluator must discuss the written report of assessment with the employee. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the assessment, and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or her personnel file. If an employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination. The notice must describe such unsatisfactory performance and include notice of the following procedural requirements: 1. Upon delivery of a notice of unsatisfactory performance, the evaluator must confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance in helping to correct deficiencies within a prescribed period of time. 2.a. If the employee holds a professional service contract as provided in s. 1012.33, the employee shall be placed on performance probation and governed by the provisions of this section for 90 calendar days following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are not counted when calculating the 90-calendar-day period. During the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract must be evaluated periodically and apprised of progress achieved and must be provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies. At any time during the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract may request a transfer to another appropriate position with a different supervising administrator; however, a transfer does not extend the period for correcting performance deficiencies. b. Within 14 days after the close of the 90 calendar days, the evaluator must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the district school superintendent. Within 14 days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the district school superintendent must notify the employee who holds a professional service contract in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the district school superintendent will recommend that the district school board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the district school superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 days after receipt of the district school superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. The hearing shall be conducted at the district school board's election in accordance with one of the following procedures: A direct hearing conducted by the district school board within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of ss. 120.569 and 120.57. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain the district school superintendent's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment; or A hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services. The hearing shall be conducted within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal in accordance with chapter 120. The recommendation of the administrative law judge shall be made to the district school board. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain or change the administrative law judge's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment. The district school superintendent shall notify the department of any instructional personnel who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and who have been given written notice by the district that their employment is being terminated or is not being renewed or that the district school board intends to terminate, or not renew, their employment. The department shall conduct an investigation to determine whether action shall be taken against the certificateholder pursuant to s. 1012.795(1)(b). The district school superintendent shall develop a mechanism for evaluating the effective use of assessment criteria and evaluation procedures by administrators who are assigned responsibility for evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. The use of the assessment and evaluation procedures shall be considered as part of the annual assessment of the administrator's performance. The system must include a mechanism to give parents and teachers an opportunity to provide input into the administrator's performance assessment, when appropriate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant a probationary employee a right to continued employment beyond the term of his or her contract. The district school board shall establish a procedure annually reviewing instructional personnel assessment systems to determine compliance with this section. All substantial revisions to an approved system must be reviewed and approved by the district school board before being used to assess instructional personnel. Upon request by a school district, the department shall provide assistance in developing, improving, or reviewing an assessment system. The State Board of Education shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54, that establish uniform guidelines for the submission, review, and approval of district procedures for the annual assessment of instructional personnel and that include criteria for evaluating professional performance. (Underlining and italics added). Under Section 1012.34(3), school districts must establish a primarily student performance-based procedure (or system) for assessing the performance of teachers. In other words, the method of accomplishing the assessment must be tailored to meet the goal of forming evaluative judgments about teachers' performance based mainly on the performance of their students. In clear terms, then, the legislature has announced that the primary (though not exclusive)8 indicator of whether a teacher is doing a good job is the performance of his students. If a teacher's students are succeeding, then, whatever he is doing, the teacher is likely (though not necessarily) performing his duties satisfactorily. It is plainly the legislature's belief that if we do not know how the teacher's students are performing, then we cannot make a valid judgment as to whether the teacher is performing his duties satisfactorily.9 The statute further mandates that, in assessing teachers, indicators of student performance——which performance is assessed annually as specified in Section 1008.22——must be the primarily-used data. (In contrast, evaluators are permitted, but not required, to make use of peer reviews in assessing teacher performance.) Section 1008.22, which is referenced specifically in Section 1012.34(3)(a), requires that school districts participate in a statewide assessment program, the centerpiece of which is the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). See § 1008.22(3), Fla. Stat. The FCAT is a standardized test that is administered annually to students in grades three through 10. Id. Section 1008.22 is not concerned only with the FCAT, however. Subsection (7), for example, provides as follows: (7) LOCAL ASSESSMENTS.--Measurement of the learning gains of students in all subjects and grade levels other than subjects and grade levels required for the state student achievement testing program is the responsibility of the school districts. Thus, the school districts are charged with developing their own local assessment tools, to fill in the gaps left open by the statewide FCAT testing program. Section 1008.22(5) provides additionally that "[s]tudent performance data shall be used in . . . evaluation of instructional personnel[.]" Section 1012.34(3)(a) prescribes two and only two permissible measures of student performance for use in evaluating teachers: (a) the statewide FCAT assessments and (b) the gap-filling local assessments, both of which measures are required under Section 1008.22. It is clear that Sections 1012.34(3) and 1008.22 have at least one subject in common, namely, student performance-based assessment of teachers. Being in pari materia in this regard, Sections 1012.34 and 1008.22 must be construed so as to further the common goal. See, e.g., Mehl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 1993)(separate statutory provisions that are in pari materia should be construed to express a unified legislative purpose); Lincoln v. Florida Parole Com'n, 643 So. 2d 668, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(statutes on same subject and having same general purpose should be construed in pari materia). When the requirements of Section 1012.34(3) are read together with Section 1008.22, several conclusions are inescapable. First, FCAT scores must be the primary source of information used in evaluating any teacher who teaches an FCAT- covered subject to students in grades three through 10. Second, school districts must develop, and annually administer, local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT. Third, student performance data derived from local assessments must be the primary source of information used in evaluating teachers whose subjects are not covered on the FCAT and/or whose students do not take the FCAT. The absence of evidence in the record concerning the performance of Escalona's students either on the FCAT or on local assessments, as appropriate, see endnote 5, supra, deprives the undersigned of information that the legislature has deemed essential to the evaluation of a teacher's performance. Having neither state nor local assessments to review, the undersigned cannot find that Escalona's performance was deficient in the first place, much less whether he corrected the alleged performance deficiencies in accordance with Section 1012.34(3)(d). Without such findings, the Board cannot dismiss Escalona for failure to correct noted performance deficiencies. C. It was stated in the Findings of Fact above that the Board can terminate Escalona's employment only if, based on an assessment of his performance as of the two-week period following the 90 calendar days of probation, the teacher had failed to correct the particular performance deficiencies of which he had been formally notified in writing prior to probation; other alleged deficiencies, whether observed during probation or thereafter, cannot be relied upon in support of a decision to dismiss Escalona. Standing behind this observation is Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The pertinent statutory language instructs that a teacher whose performance has been deemed unsatisfactory must be provided a written "notice of unsatisfactory performance," which notice shall include a description of "such unsatisfactory performance" plus recommendations for improvement in the "specific areas of unsatisfactory performance." The statute then specifies that the teacher must be allowed 90 calendar days "following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance" to correct "the noted performance deficiencies." Clearly, the "noted performance deficiencies" are the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance described in the notice of unsatisfactory performance. Finally, the statute mandates that the teacher shall be assessed within two weeks after the end of probation to determine whether "the performance deficiencies" have been corrected. It is clear, again, that "the performance deficiencies" are "the noted performance deficiencies" described in the written notice of unsatisfactory performance. See § 1012.34(3)(d)1. & 2.a., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The reason why a decision to terminate a poorly performing teacher must be based solely on the specific performance deficiencies described in the pre-probation notice of unsatisfactory performance is plain: allowing the school district to rely on subsequently observed deficiencies would defeat the teacher's unambiguous statutory right to have 90 post-notice calendar days in which to correct the noted performance deficiencies that triggered probation in the first place. This case exemplifies the problem posed by post-notice deficiencies. The notice of unsatisfactory performance (the Summary) that gave rise to Escalona's probation, which was based on Mr. del Cuadro's evaluation of December 2, 2003, charged the teacher with 10 specific performance deficiencies. By February 17, 2004, when Ms. Carter formally observed Escalona for the last time before the end of probation, Escalona had corrected all but one (Indicator IV.A.5) of the noted performance deficiencies——suggesting that he had made significant improvement. Unfortunately for Escalona, however, Ms. Carter believed that the teacher had exhibited nine deficiencies besides the noted performance deficiencies, with the net result that, near the end of probation, Escalona still had 10 deficiencies. Of these nine post-notice deficiencies, four (Indicators I.F.1, I.F.2, II.A.1, and IV.B.3) were recorded for the first time ever on February 17, 2004. Obviously, Escalona was not given 90 days to correct these four alleged deficiencies. Yet another three of the post-notice deficiencies reported by Ms. Carter (Indicators I.A.1, IV.A.6, and IV.B.2) had not been seen since Mr. Cuadro's initial evaluation of November 5, 2003. This initial evaluation, being "not of record," cannot count as a notice of unsatisfactory performance to Escalona. Hence he was not given 90 days to correct these three alleged deficiencies. For that matter, the remaining two post-notice deficiencies alleged to exist on February 17, 2004—— Indicators II.D.4 and IV.A.3——had not been observed, post- notice, until January 16, 2004, which means that Escalona did not have 90 days to correct them, either. For the above reasons, when assessing whether, in fact, Escalona had corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period following probation, the undersigned focused, as he was required to do, exclusively on the 10 deficiencies described in the Summary, seven of which were alleged not to have been timely corrected. Having determined as a matter of fact that the evidence was insufficient to prove these seven alleged deficiencies existed or persisted, it must be concluded that the Board has failed to carry its burden of establishing the alleged factual grounds for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Escalona of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Escalona be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended; and (c) awarding Escalona back salary, plus benefits, to the extent these accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 2004.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's professional service contract should be renewed as provided in Subsection 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes. This requires a determination of whether the Petitioner provided sufficient assistance and in-service training opportunities and evaluated Respondent periodically to apprise him of his progress, and whether Respondent corrected certain noted performance deficiencies.
Findings Of Fact At the time that he was recommended for non-renewal, Respondent, James A. Conner, had been employed by the School Board of Seminole County (Board) as a graphic arts teacher at Sanford Middle School for approximately seventeen years. Daniel Pelham has been principal at Sanford Middle School for the past twenty-three years. On March 26, 1991, Pelham advised Conner, in writing, that he was being recommended for return to annual contract status for the 1991-92 contract year, based on unsatisfactory performance in the following areas: Deficient Classroom Management Failure to maintain established procedures. Failure to maintain appropriate and consistent disciplinary procedures. Failure to use clearly defined classroom procedures. Failure to utilize time efficiently. Deficient Teaching Skills Failure to promote effective classroom interaction. Failure to exhibit rapport and understanding with students. (Petitioner's Exhibit #4) The deficiencies noted by Pelham had been developing over a period of approximately four or five years and were pointed out on prior evaluation forms. In particular, Pelham was concerned that there were an inordinate number of student discipline referrals being made by Conner. Pelham also personally observed problems in classroom management in visits he made to Conner's classes. Conner's classes in the vocational program were typically smaller than those in the academic programs. Over a school day of five periods, he had a total of sixty to seventy-five students, and some of his classes contained only nine or ten students. As a result of proceedings not relevant to this case, the parties entered a stipulation that the March 26, 1991 recommendation would be considered a notice of unsatisfactory performance required to terminate a professional service contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1991). The effect of the stipulation was to provide Conner with an opportunity to remedy his deficiencies as provided in a new law governing employment rights of classroom teachers. By the time Pelham's recommendation was made, he felt that Conner had the capacity to improve, but the principal was not optimistic that the improvements would be made. As required by law, an assistance plan was developed to assist James Conner in correcting the deficiencies provided in the notice described above. Daniel Pelham assigned Roger Gardner, his assistant principal, to be a mentor to Conner; and he removed Gardner from any supervisory role in an attempt to make the relationship more helpful. The assistance team was comprised of Dan Pelham; Roger Gardner; John Reichert, the Board's Director of Personnel; Cliff Duncan, Director of Staff Development; and Betty Hogle, Director of Vocational Education. The plan was provided to James Conner in September 1991. Helene Samango was Conner's representative from the Seminole Education Association, the teachers union. She elicited the assistance of Linda Cronin- Jones, Ph.D., an associate professor of instruction and curriculum at the University of Florida College of Education, to review the performance assistance plan. Dr. Cronin-Jones provided a critique of the plan, with suggestions that were, in turn, provided to Mr. Reichert the second week of December 1991. Dr. Cronin-Jones' suggestions were incorporated in the plan at the next meeting of the assistance team on January 13, 1992. The additions to the plan included a peer teacher selected by Mr. Conner, in addition to the one already identified in the plan, and included videotaping Conner's class sessions to be used as a tool for Conner and his peers to critique his work and to make suggestions for further improvement. The content of the assessment documents used to evaluate Conner's performance was established by statute. The assessment plan itself was developed four or five years ago by a committee of school board staff, including teachers, principals and union representatives. The plan has been approved by the State Department of Education every year thereafter. The performance assistance plan developed for James Conner was adequate and appropriate to address the specific deficiencies previously noted in his performance. He took advantage of the required activities, including review of in-service training material. He was not, however, responsive to the guidance attempts by Roger Gardner, whose task, having known Conner for many years, was to help him with specific strategies to reach the goals set up in the plan. For example, Gardner gave Conner a few articles to read that supported some of the things he was being asked to do. The articles related to specific problems of middle school children and ways of dealing with their discipline needs. Conner was to respond back to Gardner after reading the articles. He apparently read them, but did not respond as asked. Another assignment to Conner was to draft his classroom management plan. He and Gardner met on preliminary drafts several times, but it was not finally completed until December 19, 1991. The meetings were scheduled by Gardner, and Conner simply did not take the initiative that would have reflected an effort to cooperate. James Conner was observed or formally assessed on several occasions over the remedial year. Bettie Hogle, Director of Vocational and Technical Education for the School Board, observed him from the beginning of the first period until 10:35 a.m. on October 28, 1991. She noted the following: There was no clear focus on the day's learning activities at the beginning of class. Student behavior was poor. One student was sent to the office for discipline at the start of class. I was not sure why he was singled out when others were misbehaving as well. Equipment and materials were stacked around the lab. This cluttered atmosphere is not conducive to student learning. On the positive side, Mr. Conner exhibited good questioning techniques in teaching the lesson. He complimented the students on the good behavior they demonstrated in groups earlier in the week. After students began working on projects, he circulated around the room and provided individual assistance. (Petitioner's Exhibit #11) Daniel Pelham observed Conner's seventh grade class for thirty-five minutes on November 11, 1991. There were five students in the class. The assessment form notes unsatisfactory ratings in six areas of classroom management and teaching skills. Two students were observed talking during most of the observation, without intervention by the teacher. The form also noted "not much change here" under the category, "Exhibits rapport and understanding with students", with the comment, "very high discipline referral. To date 11/11, total of 46". (Petitioner's Exhibit #12) On December 9, 1991, Pelham sent Conner a memorandum regarding the continued clutter in his classroom, storage room and office, and directed him to remove the items not in use in his program and to get the items off the floors. A follow-up memorandum was given to Conner on January 22, 1992, noting that the papers and boxes were still scattered on the floor of his office and storage room. The memorandum also noted a positive improvement in classroom management observed on January 9, 1992. The nine students observed that period were on task and behaved. Pelham's next assessment is dated March 24, 1992 and reflects a thirty-five minute observation of Conner's seventh grade graphic arts class on March 18, 1992. There were ten students present. Five areas under classroom management and teaching skills were found unsatisfactory. No significant change in management style was found. Students spent a lot of time just sitting. One student completed his project and sat for 30 minutes. The students were told "just follow directions". (Petitioner's Exhibit #8) Pelham's annual assessment of Conner is dated April 24, 1992 and finds him unsatisfactory in these four areas under classroom management and teaching skills: "Uses clearly defined classroom procedures"; "Disciplinary procedures established and used"; "Promotes effective classroom interaction"; and "Exhibits rapport and understanding with students". Four or more unsatisfactory ratings constitute an unsatisfactory evaluation according to the instructional personnel plan. (Petitioner's Exhibit #6) The areas found unsatisfactory are critical to the effective functioning of a teacher. The deficiencies noted in the above-described assessments or evaluations are evident in the videotapes of Conner's classes, recorded in December 1991 and March 1992. Those sessions are typical examples of Conner's performance at the time that they were taped; they reflect the methodologies and strategies he was using and attempting to implement from the assistance plan. The December session shows constant talking by the students, with Conner lecturing and attempting to demonstrate over the low din. The class was small, approximately ten students, but they were notably disengaged, except during brief periods when the equipment was plotting designs. Conner ignored the talking and forged on with the lesson. The March sessions were also small classes and the students were not as disruptive. Explanations and demonstrations of equipment were made with the teacher's back to the students. Again, the students were primarily disengaged, some with their heads on the tables. Several times, Conner urged them, "you might want to write this down", but not the first student picked up a pencil, and some seemed not to have pencils or materials on their tables. A child with his hand up was not recognized for an extended period and eventually Conner's response to his question was a flippant, "Because it's there". There was some attempt to engage the students in discussion about what was learned in other classes or about trips to Epcot or Busch Gardens, and there was some attempt to compliment students with, "Congratulations and a warm fuzzy to the stars who made 100"; but in spite of the size of the class, there was very little individual interaction. Students were rarely addressed by name or called to respond individually. For the most part, the students appeared unchallenged or simply bored. The Board's expert witness described the classroom style as lack of "with-it-ness". Although Conner was friendly or kind, class time was wasted and the students' education was not advanced. Over the 1991-92 school year, James Conner issued approximately 110 student discipline referrals, exhibiting some improvement over prior years, but still an excessive amount based on the number of his students, and reflective of a failure of classroom management and poor rapport with the students. His explanation that his students were particularly disruptive and he had to be strict to keep them from hurting themselves on the dangerous equipment, is not substantiated by the observations of the principal or by the compelling evidence of the videotaped sessions. The classroom unrest was more apparently the painful consequence of student boredom and failure of the teacher to engage his enviably small classes in the subject matter. Conner's theory that his principal gave up on him too early and failed to provide the equipment he needed, or had a personality conflict, was not developed with competent, credible evidence. The assistance plan, the suggestions and guidance offered by Roger Gardner, and the peer assistance of two outstanding teachers were appropriate and adequate. Daniel Pelham did not recommend Conner's transfer to another school because he properly wanted to avoid passing on a problem to someone else. James Conner did improve his performance over the remedial year. Six unsatisfactory charges were reduced to four. It is impossible to determine whether more improvement would have been made with more time. He was, however, given the time required by law, and was given the assistance required to make improvements. The principal's assessment was valid and the superintendent's recommendation that he not be issued a new professional service contract was timely and is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Seminole County enter its Final Order denying renewal of James Conner's professional service contract. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3012 The following constitute rulings made on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted substantially in paragraph 1. Respondent testified that he was employed 17 years (transcript, p.304). Included in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 17. Included in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Rejected as unnecessary. 9-10. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. (Second numbered paragraph 12) Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraphs 17 and 26. Adopted in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 12-16. Rejected as substantially unsupported by the evidence. He did make some effort and was moderately, but insufficiently, successful. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in paragraph 1. Adopted in part in paragraph 2. The proposed finding of personality conflict is rejected as unsubstantiated by competent, credible evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 4. Adopted in part in paragraph 5. The ultimate conclusion that he had "given up" is rejected as an overstatement of the substance of Pelham's testimony. 5-7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substantive part in paragraph 25. Adopted in paragraph 6. 10-12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 15-17. Substantially rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 18-22. Rejected as unnecessary. The testimony of the peer teachers neither supports nor rejects the position of Respondent. It is credible, but essentially neutral. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. The referrals played some part in the unsatisfactory assessments, but so also did Pelham's classroom observations. Rejected as unnecessary. The basic premise is accepted, but this was not the reason Respondent had problems with referrals. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 26-27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 18. 29-31. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Both parties' experts were impressive and credible. In her assessment of Respondent's performance, Dr. Cronin- Jones understandably concentrated on the positive aspects, which aspects were nonetheless outweighed by the negative overall lack of effective connection between teacher and his students. The marked efforts to "relate" are rote, and in some cases (the trips), detract from the learning process. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire STENSTROM, MCINTOSH, ET AL. Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848 Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire MEYER AND BROOKS, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's termination of employment by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, was proper.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed as a teacher at Charles R. Drew Middle School, pursuant to an annual contract and holds Florida Educators Certificate Number 188727. Respondent holds a bachelor of science degree from Florida Atlantic University. She was employed by Petitioner in 1997 and has worked in the teaching profession for approximately 30 years. Prior to 1997, Respondent was a substitute teacher in Broward County, Florida, and in other states. During the 1999- 2000 school year, Respondent taught eighth grade science. Teachers employed by the School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS"). TADS was approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between the School Board and UTD. The identical TADS evaluations are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers, whether new or veterans. TADS objectively measures 68 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. At all times material hereto, TADS was used to evaluate Respondent's performance. TADS includes the following factors in its assessment criteria: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and assessment techniques. All teachers are contractually required to be informed of the criteria and procedures. At the beginning of each school year, school principals are required to review the assessment criteria with all faculty. TADS observations and ratings are performed by school principals and assistant principals who are trained and certified. The TADS training encompasses four days and includes the following components: strategies for pre-observation, classroom observation, decision-making with the Classroom Assessment Instrument, post-observation interview, prescription/probation of professionals, recommendations for improvement (prescriptive activities), assisting teachers in the design of instruction and improvement activities, practical activities such as video assessment, and actual classroom teacher assessment under the supervision of a trainer. The trained observer is responsible for recording any deficiencies identified during the observation period and providing a prescription plan for performance improvement. Within five work days, a post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. The teacher has the right to provide a written response, either in the space provided in column 3 of the "Prescription for Performance Improvement" or by separate document that becomes part of the teacher's file. The teacher is required to comply with the activities provided in the prescription plan, which are usually obtained from the "Prescription Manual," and to meet the deadlines set forth in the column designated "Timeline" in the prescription performance improvement plan. As a result of the statutory amendments to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, the School Board and UTD executed a Memorandum of Understanding on December 4, 1997, for the purpose of amending the TADS procedures to comply with the new statutory requirements. Under the amended procedures, a "conference for the record" initiates a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. Each observation is independent, and there must be periodic observations during the performance probation period in which the employee is apprised of his or her progress and is provided assistance through prescription plans. After the performance probation period is concluded, a "confirmatory observation" occurs without a prescription plan. On November 8, 1999, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Paulette Covin during science class. Respondent received an unsatisfactory rating in Category III, Classroom Management; Category IV; Techniques of Instruction; and Category V, Teacher-Student Relationships. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she did not effectively use verbal or non- verbal techniques to redirect off-task learners. Several students continuously misbehaved and violated classroom rules. Four students were engaged in drawing during the lesson. One student slept throughout the entire observation which lasted over one hour. Six students talked throughout the observation period. Several students left their seats without permission and walked around the classroom during the observation period. Respondent did not use techniques effectively to maintain the attention of off-task learners. Clear expectations of student behavior and a systematic approach to proper classroom discipline were not evident. Respondent blew a whistle in an attempt to redirect off-task behavior, but there was no connection between the whistle-blowing and the expected behavior. The students did not react at the use of the whistle. Classroom rules were referred to; however, disruptive students were not dealt with quickly and appropriately. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because Respondent failed to provide background information explaining why the topic of waves was being discussed. Respondent asked students if they remembered what they had learned about waves and electromagnetic spectrum. A student responded, "You did not teach us that." Moreover, lesson components were not properly sequenced. Without any segue or introduction from one activity to another, Respondent told the students to engage in jump-in reading and later, buddy reading. Respondent did not provide students with examples of demonstrations for the lesson she was teaching. Respondent did not provide students with feedback. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because Respondent did not promote a positive interpersonal environment in her classroom. She did not encourage her students who had difficulty responding. She demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding for students who responded poorly during the observation, and did not solicit involvement from students who appeared reluctant to participate. She failed to take corrective action when one student gave a response and another student yelled out, "Dummy that's not right." During the post-observation conference for the record held on November 15, 1999, Respondent was advised that her performance was unacceptable, and effective immediately, was being placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. She was informed that, at the end of her probation period, it was her responsibility to demonstrate that she had corrected the identified deficiencies. On November 17, 1999, Respondent received a prescription for performance improvement. Assistant Principal Covin made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The plan included observing a lesson taught by a fellow teacher and submitting a summary of the verbal and non- verbal discipline techniques used by that teacher to redirect off-task learners. Respondent was directed to create a classroom management plan for implementing techniques to redirect off-task learners, chart implementation for one week, and then discuss the results with Assistant Principal Covin. In addition, Respondent was directed to review reading strategies learned during in-service training sessions and submit a paper describing ways in which Respondent could provide instruction accommodations for more than one learning style. Additional resources, including administrators and fellow teachers, were also made available to Respondent. Respondent submitted her completed prescription activities before the December 3, 1999, deadline. On December 13, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her science class by Assistant Principal Andy Granados as a subsequent evaluation to apprise Respondent of her progress. Respondent was found unsatisfactory in Category I, Preparation and Planning; Category III; Classroom Management; and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she had failed to develop written lesson plans, as required. Instead, Respondent advised Assistant Principal Granados that "the lesson plans were in her head." Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she was unaware that several students were engaged in off-task behavior. Three students left their seats without permission and went to other students' desks to talk casually. One student sat in his chair but did not attempt to complete any work. Seven students held private conversations and Respondent made no attempt to redirect them. Throughout the observation period, students walked aimlessly, sharpened pencils, visited with other students, and disturbed the class. Respondent failed to address their behavior. Although Respondent blew a whistle, there was no connection between the whistle blowing and any expected behavior. Respondent's use of verbal and non-verbal techniques to redirect the off-task behavior was completely ineffective. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she failed to provide any background for the lesson at hand. The lesson began without introduction and the activities in the class were unrelated. Respondent distributed two worksheets. The first worksheet involved an exercise comparing energy and the second was an isolated word game. She did not provide the students with any explanation about either sheet. Students repeatedly asked, "Why are we doing this?" Assistant Principal Granados held a post-observation conference with Respondent on January 10, 2000, to discuss his findings. Although the observation took place on Monday, December 13, 1999, Respondent, admittedly, was absent on December 14 and 15, 1999, and again on January 3-7, 2000. Furthermore, the holiday break extended from December 18, 1999, to January 2, 2000. Notwithstanding Respondent's testimony that she was present on two workdays, December 16 an 17, between the date of the observation and the post-observation conference held January 10, 2000, Petitioner complied with the five-work day time requirement for the post-observation conference. During their post-observation conference, Assistant Principal Granados made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The directions included writing and submitting daily lesson plans containing objectives, activities, procedures, assessments, and homework. Respondent was directed to observe a fellow teacher and identify instances where non-verbal techniques were used to maintain the attention of the students. She was also directed to prepare a plan for student behavior with rewards and consequences, to read specific pages for the TADS Prescription Manual, and to complete certain activities in that manual. Additionally, Respondent was directed to create a written outline with an introduction to each lesson indicating the relationship between the written instructional objectives, and the planned activities. The written outline was required to be attached to Respondent's lesson plans. Respondent's prescription plan activities were due on January 28, 2000. Respondent requested and received an extension of time to complete the activities until January 31, 2000, and completed the assigned activities on time. On February 8, 2000, Respondent was formally observed again in her science class by Assistant Principal Edward Bethel. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in Category III, Classroom Management, and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because there was no clear expectations for acceptable behavior. Students were engaged in off-task behavior. Four students left their seats without permission, while six students chewed gum and talked throughout the lesson. Respondent blew a whistle but the students continued to talk. Students who interacted inappropriately or interfered with the work of others were not disciplined appropriately. Two students fought over a stool, while a male student tried to remove a book from a female student. Respondent did not intervene. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because there was no background given for the lesson presented and lesson components were not properly sequenced. Respondent listed six unrelated activities on the board. The students were confused about the unrelated assignments and the relationship between the assignments and what they had learned in the previous lesson. In the middle of the lesson, Respondent interrupted the students and read to them about the life of Frederick Douglas. Respondent failed to explain the connection between the life of Frederick Douglas and the lesson objective of the day which involved an animal's environment influencing survival. During the post-observation conference on February 15, 2000, Assistant Principal Bethel made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The assistance included observing a fellow teacher and identifying five verbal and five nonverbal techniques to maintain specific behaviors of learners. Respondent was instructed to submit to Assistant Principal Bethel techniques that could be used to develop clear expectations to deal with students appropriately. Respondent was instructed to list the name of each student who acted inappropriately, and to submit a written plan to Assistant Principal Bethel as to how Respondent would handle negative behavior in the classroom. In addition, Respondent was directed to read specific pages from the TADS Prescription Manual, and to complete certain activities in that manual. Respondent was directed to create a written outline with an introduction to each lesson indicating the instructional objectives, the planned activities, and a description of how those activities will assist the students in reaching the instructional objective. Respondent submitted her completed activities in a timely manner. On March 9, 2000, two days after Respondent's 90-day performance probation period ended, Principal Ronnie Hunter performed a confirmatory observation to determine if Respondent's deficiencies had been corrected. Principal Hunter formally observed the Respondent in her science class and rated her unsatisfactory in Category II, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Category III, Classroom Management; Category IV; Techniques of Instruction; and Category VI, Assessment Techniques. After the confirmatory observation, Respondent was notified that she had failed to correct her performance deficiencies. Thereafter, on March 9, 2000, Principal Hunter forwarded to the Superintendent of Schools his recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated. By letter dated March 10, 2000, the Superintendent notified Respondent that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated because she failed to correct performance deficiencies during her 90-calendar-day performance probation period. The assistance provided to Respondent through her prescriptions was substantial and appropriate to remedy her cited deficiencies. Although she claims that in-service training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies were not provided, she was directed to and observed several fellow colleagues engaged in teaching. Dr. O'Donnell, a 31-year veteran with the school system and an expert in TADS and teacher assessment, specifically testified that in-service training is not limited to formal education or workshops, but includes observation of fellow teachers. Although the School Board provided sufficient and meaningful in-service training opportunities to Respondent, she failed to show improvement. Respondent further claims that the School Board failed to meet TADS requirements after she was placed on a 90 calendar- day performance probation in October 1999, following the initial and rescinded observation conducted by Principal Hunter on October 12, 1999. Respondent claims that after she was initially placed on probation in October, Principal Hunter failed to notify her that she was being removed from probationary status due to a procedural error. Principal Hunter testified he rescinded the October 12, observation and verbally told Respondent that he was removing her from the 90-calendar- day performance probation because he did not get a required signature on the post-observation report. Respondent on the other hand, claims she did not receive notification and, as a result, believed the observation conducted by Paulette Covin on November 8, 1999, and the subsequent observations conducted on December 13, 1999, and February 8, 2000, were observations within the 90 calendar-day probation period. Respondent's claim that she never received notice that she was no longer on probation following the October 1999 observation is disingenuous. Notwithstanding Principal Hunter's credible testimony that he verbally informed her that she was no longer on probation, Respondent was clearly placed on notice that she was on probation beginning November 17, 1999. Specifically, on November 15, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent following her unsatisfactory observation held on November 8, 1999, during which Respondent received a written prescription and was informed in writing that, as a result of that unsatisfactory observation, she was being placed on the 90-calendar-day performance probation period. Moreover, on November 17, Respondent signed the summary of the conference-for-the-record which clearly and unambiguously stated, "You were advised of the availability of personnel to assist you during the 90 calendar-day Performance Probation, which commences upon the date that you receive the written prescription." In addition, the School Board committed no statutory violation of any TADS procedures by rescinding the October 12 unacceptable observation. In fact, under TADS the School Board could not rely on the October 12 unacceptable observation to dismiss Respondent because the post-observation report lacked a required signature. The School Board correctly rescinded the October 12 unacceptable observation. The TADS' requirements and procedures were properly executed regarding the formal observations of Respondent and the evaluations of her teaching performance. Petitioner complied with all of the statutory time frames. Respondent also failed to demonstrate that Principal Hunter created a hostile environment toward Caucasian female teachers that resulted in the termination of Respondent's employment. There was no reliable evidence that Principal Hunter discriminated against Respondent at any time including his formal observations of Respondent pursuant to TADS. While Principal Hunter performed two formal observations noting Respondent's deficiencies including the rescinded observation on October 12, 1999, and the confirmatory on March 9, 2000, three different assistant principals also objectively evaluated and rated her unsatisfactory prior to Principal Hunter's confirmatory observation finding Respondent's performance unacceptable. Moreover, Principal Hunter interviewed and hired Respondent as a teacher in 1997. Finally, although the School Board's contract with UTD provides for a joint labor/management committee called the "TADS Monitoring Committee" to resolve evaluation and procedure disputes, Respondent never objected to the criteria, procedures, or assessments of the committee. In sum, Respondent failed to demonstrate that TADS procedures were not followed, or establish that she was harassed or discriminated against by Principal Hunter. On the other hand, Petitioner presented competent substantial evidence that Respondent consistently performed at an unsatisfactory level and failed to correct her deficiencies during the probationary period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Valerie Kiffin Lewis, Esquire Valerie Kiffin Lewis, P.A. 4801 South University Drive, Suite 102 The Atrium Centre Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33328 Timothy A. Pease, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Did the Hendry County School Board (Board) have just cause to terminate Respondent from her employment as a paraprofessional teacher's aide?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the HCSD as a paraprofessional teacher's aide at LMS. The employment relationship between the Board and Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article 8, Section 8.013, Collective Bargaining Agreement, provides that "when an employee has completed three (3) years of the past five (5) with satisfactory service with the Hendry County School Board . . . and has been appointed for a subsequent year, he [sic] will be eligible for continued employment status, which status will continue year to year unless the Board terminates the employee for just cause (Emphasis furnished). Respondent was first employed with the HCSD on August 18, 1986, and worked continuously through May 25, 1999, when she was terminated. Since Respondent achieved "continued employment status," she can only be terminated for "just cause." The Board terminated Respondent for "failure to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner" and "other sufficient cause" under School Board Policies and Procedures 218. There were no written evaluations of Respondent's performance accomplished during the first 9 years of Respondent's employment with the HCSD because the Board did not adopt its current policy until approximately 1996. However, there is no evidence that Respondent's work performance was unsatisfactory during the first 9 years of her employment with the HCSD. Respondent worked at LMS for each of those nine years of her employment with the HCSD and was routinely re-appointed for each ensuing year. The first 2 years of her employment, Respondent was assigned to work with students that were classified as "trainable mentally handicapped." Respondent had to assist these students in learning rudimentary skills such as brushing their teeth and changing their underwear. From the fall of 1988 until the spring of 1992, the equivalent of 4 school years, Respondent was assigned to the "Time Out Room." The assignment to the "Time-Out Room" was not punitive in nature, or the result of unsatisfactory work performance by Respondent. Disruptive students that caused a problem in the classroom were sent to the "Time-Out Room." The students went in the "Time-Out Room" for one period after which they usually would return to their regular class. Although Respondent was employed as a "Teacher's Aide" for exceptional education students with special needs she did not assist a teacher, but ran the "Time-Out Room" alone. After 4 years working in the "Time-Out Room," Respondent was assigned to Internal Suspension. The "Time-Out Room" was eliminated, and replaced with Internal Suspension. Internal Suspension was used as a form of discipline for students who violated school policy. Students were sent to Internal Suspension anywhere from 2 to 10 days. Internal Suspension was conducted in a double-wide trailer behind LMS. Respondent again was by herself in Internal Suspension and was not assisting a teacher. The first documentation of any performance deficiency by Respondent consists of a Procedure for Improvement form and a Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form, both dated January 22, 1996. The forms were prepared by James C. Allen, Principal of the LMS. The Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form indicated that out of 8 areas assessed, Respondent achieved a "satisfactory" designation for 6 areas and a "Needs Improvement" in "Quality of Work" and "Work Attitude." The deficiencies specified in the Procedures for Improvement form are: "Harshness in speaking with staff and students, assisting students with academic work, unacceptable activities in classroom, needlepoint, police scanner." The Procedures for Improvement form provided that Respondent had the "95/96 school year" to improve, and that Mr. Allen would "Recommend dismissal" if the deficiencies were not improved. Respondent successfully improved her performance. On March 21, 1996, Mr. Allen wrote a letter to Respondent's union representative, with a copy to Respondent, stating that "I too am optimistic that improvement has occurred." On April 1, 1996, Mr. Allen wrote directly to Respondent expressing concern about "complaints/concerns" received about her conduct on a Beta Club trip to Washington, D.C., but stating, in pertinent part: These concerns cannot be overlooked, however, since we initiated procedures for improvement January 22, 1996, which dealt specifically with harshness in speaking with students/staff. Improvement has been noted. It must also be pointed out that Ms Dankanich (Beta Club sponsor) and some staff members felt that you did a good job in controlling your students and watching out for their safety and welfare. (Emphasis furnished). The March and April 1996 letters from Mr. Allen were included in Respondent's personnel file. Also included in the personnel file were letters from the Beta Club sponsor for the Washington, D.C. trip and a chaperone. These letters stated that Respondent spoke to students and adults and conducted herself in an appropriate manner throughout the trip. Respondent's annual "Overall Evaluation" for the 1995-1996 school year was "Satisfactory." Mr. Allen checked the box entitled "Reappoint based on employee's willingness to improve job dimensions not satisfactory." Respondent attained a "Satisfactory" score on 6 out of eight areas listed for job dimension with "Quality of Work" and Work Attitude" checked-off for "Needs Improvement." Respondent was reappointed and returned to LMS for the 1996-1997 school year. Respondent was assigned to assist with the "trainable mentally handicapped" students after having been on her own in the "Time-Out Room" and Internal Suspension for 8 years and working with Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students. This assignment required an adjustment for Respondent. On February 11, 1997, Allen presented Respondent with another Procedures for Improvement form and Special Non- Instructional Personnel Evaluation form. As in the preceding year, the Special Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form indicated that out of 8 areas assessed, Respondent "Needs Improvement" in "Quality of Work" and "Work Attitude." The Procedures for Improvement form identified deficiencies as "failure to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner, harshness in speaking with students/staff; unacceptable activities in classroom," and afforded Respondent the 96\97 school year to improve or be recommended for dismissal. Respondent wrote on both forms that she did not agree with them. In April 1997, 12 professional colleagues of Respondent wrote letters of support. These letters were included in Respondent's personnel file. The letters vouch for Respondent's professionalism and many stated that Respondent never was observed to engage in improper conduct or exhibit inappropriate speech or tone of voice. Throughout the second semester of the 1996-1997 school year, Respondent worked 2 class periods as a teacher's aide for Erin Berg-Hayes. Ms. Berg-Hayes was a sixth grade ESE teacher. Ms. Berg-Hayes testified that Respondent's job performance during the 1996-1997 school year was satisfactory. Respondent did not receive annual evaluation for the 1996-1997 school year. Since Respondent was not told otherwise, Respondent assumed she had improved her performance to Mr. Allen's satisfaction. Respondent received a letter of appointment at the end of the 1996-1997 school year and was reappointed for the 1997-1998 school year. For the 1997-1998 school year, the sixth grade students at LMS were moved to the Sixth Grade Center (SGC). Jodi Bell assistant principal at LMS was assigned to administer the SGC. Mr. Allen remained as principal at the LMS which consisted of seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent worked as Erin Berg-Hayes' full-time aide for the 1997-1998 school year. Respondent and Ms. Berg-Hayes were assigned to the SGC. Ms. Berg-Hayes characterized Respondent's job performance during the 1997-1998 school year as "good." When Ms. Bell prepared Respondent's annual evaluation, Ms. Berg-Hayes advised Ms. Bell that she was "pleased" with Respondent's performance and "on the overall [Respondent's] performance was good and satisfactory." Ms. Bell prepared Respondent's 1997-1998 annual evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Bell checked off "satisfactory" in the 8 areas designated for assessment. There were no check marks in the "Needs Improvement" column. On the 1997-1998 annual evaluation, Ms. Bell checked the box for "Satisfactory" as Respondent's "Overall Evaluation," and also checked the box for "Reappoint for next year." In the section entitled "Comments by Evaluator," Ms. Bell wrote: "I have appreciated your willingness to go above what is expected and help wherever help is needed. Keep up the good work!" Respondent returned to the SGC as Ms. Berg-Hayes' Aide in the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Berg-Hayes and Respondent worked together for the fall semester after which Respondent requested to be reassigned. Respondent attributed this to a personality clash with Ms. Berg-Hayes that started in July 1998. Ms. Berg-Hayes testified that Respondent's performance declined in the 1998-1999 school year. Cathy Lipford, teacher's aide at SGC, who worked together with Ms. Berg-Hayes and Respondent for one period during the entire fall semester in the 1998-1999 school year did not observe a problem with Respondent's work performance. This teachers' aide was aware of some tension between Respondent and Ms. Berg-Hayes. However, this aide testified that Respondent appeared to take the initiative, and assisted students, and the aide never observed Respondent speaking inappropriately to students. Ms. Berg-Hayes did not prepare any documentation of Respondent's alleged performance deficiencies during the fall semester of the 1998-1999 school year. Ms. Berg-Hayes was not consulted about Respondent's performance by Mr. Allen, the former principal of LMS or Mr. Cooper, the current principal of LMS at the time Respondent's performance was evaluated for the 1998-1999 school year, when it was decided to recommend dismissal of Respondent for failure to perform her assigned duties or other sufficient cause. During the spring semester of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent was assigned as an aide to Dorothy Lomago, a varying exceptionalities teacher for seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent and Ms. Lomago worked together from January 1999 through May 1999. Ms. Lomago had been employed by the Board for 25 years. Prior to Respondent, Ms. Lomago only had had 2 other teaching assistants. Ms. Lomago considers compassion for children and initiative as the most important characteristics for a teacher's aide in special education. Ms. Lomago rated Respondent's performance in those areas as "ineffective." Ms. Lomago considered Respondent adequate in performing clerical tasks such as copying papers and grading papers. Ms. Lomago did not document Respondent's performance deficiencies. Ms. Lomago neither counseled nor corrected Respondent. Likewise, Ms. Lomago never brought to Respondent's attention the things she believed Respondent failed to do or did wrong. Ms. Lomago merely did what she was told to do by Mr. Cooper when he arrived at LMS in March 1999. On March 31, 1999, Respondent went to Mr. Allen's office for her 1998-1999 annual evaluation. R. Scott Cooper, assistant principal, Ms. Jodi Bell, assistant principal, Mr. Allen, and Ms. Davis, assistant principal were present in Mr. Allen's office upon Respondent's arrival. This meeting was terminated after Mr. Allen indicated there was a problem and asked Respondent if she wanted union representation. Respondent replied that she thought it would be wise. Before the meeting on March 31, 1999, Respondent was not aware that her job performance was considered deficient. Respondent had not been told of any deficiencies and had not received any counseling. In March/April 1999, Mr. Allen retired, and was replaced as principal of LMS by Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper arrived at LMS some time in the last 2 weeks of March 1999. Respondent and Mr. Cooper had had no professional contact before March 1999. Mr. Cooper met with Respondent on April 16, 1999, for Respondent's 1998-1999 annual evaluation. Mr. Cooper gave Respondent 4 separate Procedures for Improvement forms and an Annual Non-Instructional Personnel Evaluation form. This was Respondent's first notice of her specific performance deficiencies for the 1998-1999 school year. Mr. Cooper never conducted a formal observation of Respondent's job performance. Mr. Cooper based the annual evaluation predominantly on a review of the school board records, and on discussions with Mr. Allen, Ms. Bell, and Ms. Davis. The Procedures for Improvement forms specified the following deficiencies: "Work Attitude - able to successfully work with co-workers and students"; "Initiate Resourcefulness - ability to identify what needs to be done"; ""Dependability"; and "Quality of Work." The forms identified the following means of judging success in overcoming the foregoing deficiencies, respectively. "Supervisors will observe appropriate student/aide interactions in all circumstances"; "decreased necessity for teacher/supervisor to redirect Ms. Bennett's activities"; "Ms. Bennett will demonstrate the ability to effective [sic] facilitate school functions - adhere to work requirements"; and "Higher quality of work - decrease in errors." As a Statement of Assistance Offered, all of the forms provided: "Ms. Bennett may meet with Mr. Cooper weekly to obtain suggestions and assistance" Respondent was given until May 10, 1999, to improve her deficiencies. This was a period of 3 weeks or 15 school days. On Respondent's Annual Non-Instructional Personnel form, Mr. Cooper checked-off 4 out of 8 areas for "Needs Improvement" with "Satisfactory" checked for the remaining 4 areas. Mr. Allen checked "Unsatisfactory" for the "Overall Evaluation" and checked the box "Dismissal." Respondent noted her disagreement with the evaluation. On May 19, 1999, Mr. Cooper formally recommended dismissal of Respondent. Respondent received a Notice of Recommendation of Dismissal on that date. The Board approved Respondent's dismissal on May 25, 1999. During the 3 week period Respondent was given to improve her performance, neither Mr. Cooper nor any other administrator met with Respondent to advise her as to whether she was improving. There is no documentation whatsoever of Respondent's lack of improvement. During the 3 weeks Respondent was to improve her performance, she received repeated assurance from Ms. Lomago that they would be working together the following year. Ms. Lomago never advised Respondent that her performance continued to be unsatisfactory. Likewise, no one from the Board or any school administrator advised Respondent that she was not complying with the Procedures for Improvement or that her work continued to be unsatisfactory. Not hearing otherwise, Respondent considered her work to be satisfactory and did not meet with Mr. Cooper to obtain suggestions and assistance. The evidence does not establish that Respondent failed to perform her assigned duties in a satisfactory manner during the 1998-1999 school year or that the Board had just cause or any other sufficient cause to terminate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board reinstate the employment of Annette Bennett-Edwards and provide for back pay and benefits retroactive to May 25, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (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 6th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Upthegrove Superintendent Hendry County School District Post Office Box 1980 LaBelle, Florida 33935-1980 Richard G. Groff, Esquire Dye, Deitrich, Prather, Betruff and St. Paul, P.L. Post Office Drawer 9480 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman and Coleman Post Office Box 2989 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089
