The Issue The issue is whether the Education Practices Commission should impose a penalty or sanctions against Respondent’s teaching certificate pursuant to Sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, based upon the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 602255, which encompasses Elementary Education and English to Speakers of Other Languages, which is valid through June 30, 2003. After beginning her teaching career working in its Reading Lab, Respondent began teaching a fourth-grade class at Ft. Pierce Elementary School. After a year in that position, she taught for approximately nine years at Bayshore Elementary School, also teaching fourth grade, then transferred to St. Lucie Elementary School, where she also taught a fourth-grade class her first year. St. Lucie Elementary School was a new school, which had opened in August, 1996. Respondent taught third grade during the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years at St. Lucie Elementary School after being reassigned from her fourth-grade class. Dr. Jane Hartman is, and was, at all material times, principal of the school. Among her many duties, Dr. Hartman evaluates the instructional staff and attempts to be in the various classrooms frequently. Dr. Hartman provides feedback and support to her teachers in a variety of ways, including staff development days, written suggestions to teachers, and grade chair meetings. Teachers at St. Lucie Elementary School are given a copy of the school handbook, which is discussed at the beginning of each year. In the event Dr. Hartman receives a parent complaint, she first contacts the staff member to discuss the issues. Thereafter, Dr. Hartman arranges a face-to-face conference with the parent, administration, and the teacher, to ensure that everyone is “comfortable that the relationship has mended” so they can “move forward.” During Respondent’s first year at St. Lucie Elementary School, 1997-1998, Dr. Hartman received some complaints from parents concerning Respondent’s dealings with the parents of her students and with various classroom management issues. Dr. Hartman engaged in informal counseling with Respondent concerning these complaints, and observed some changes on Respondent’s part, although not enough. Dr. Hartman and other members of her administration frequently sent notes to Respondent concerning recommendations and criticisms about her classroom performance. Dr. Hartman reassigned Respondent to a third-grade class at the end of her first year teaching at St. Lucie Elementary School, believing that Respondent would have more success with a smaller number of students who, being younger, might be easier to teach. The average age of a fourth-grade student is nine years old. During her career as an educator, Dr. Hartman has both taught fourth graders and had the opportunity to observe fourth graders in the classroom. Fourth graders are normally at that age where they love their teacher; are able to read and write; are creative; and are ready to learn about their world. Dr. Hartman believed Respondent’s class to be an average class of students, a “sweet class in that they not only cared what was said to them personally,” but also, “what was said to their friend, what was said to someone who wasn’t as strong academically.” Respondent referred to many of the students in the class as having behavior problems. Ms. Drew, a music teacher at St. Lucie Elementary School, taught many of Respondent’s students the year they were in her class. Ms. Drew found these students not to be “bad,” but to be “children who had some bad experiences.” Ms. Drew “felt bad” for many of the students who were in Respondent’s class and agreed to teach a fifth-grade class the next year to help many of Respondent’s former fourth graders. Petitioner’s witnesses at hearing consisted primarily of students from Respondent’s fourth-grade class and their parents. The students complained that Respondent had belittled them in her class and made their fourth-grade year a miserable experience. The former students related comments having been made that they were “slow,” “stupid,” “babies,” “stupid idiots,” and that Respondent was “smarter and had more education than all your parents put together.” The students testified that Respondent yelled at them, “was mean,” told them to “shut up,” embarrassed them in front of the other students, and threatened to tape record them so that their parents could hear how much they misbehaved in class. One student was embarrassed in front of the class when Respondent insisted she call her mother on a speakerphone to address why she had not returned her paperwork and money for a candy sale. Another student reported to his mother that Respondent, an African-American herself, told him he was “acting like a stupid nigger.” Many of the students testified that, while they had previously enjoyed school, after being in Respondent’s class, their self-esteem had been shattered by Respondent’s behavior in class. St. Lucie Elementary School followed “Loving Discipline A to Z,” a guide for teachers to follow regarding discipline. Respondent failed to follow these guidelines. Respondent would punish the entire class for the actions of a few students by making them write sentences that, in some cases, were grammatically incorrect. Respondent would also punish the entire class for the actions of a few students by not allowing them to have recess or go to music or art classes outside the regular classroom. Respondent, for another form of punishment, would not choose “Lynx Leaders,” an award given to students who performed well. Respondent enforced inconsistent policies concerning use of the restroom. Although she testified that students could use the restroom whenever they needed as long as it was vacant, at times she refused to allow students to use the restroom, resulting in at least one student wetting his pants in class on more than one occasion and being ridiculed by other students in the class. The allegations by the students against Respondent were made at the time the students were in her class, both verbally to their parents and in writing to their parents and school officials, as well as in testimony at hearing, six years after they had been in Respondent’s fourth-grade class. Respondent’s disciplinary measures were too harsh for fourth graders. Assistant Principal Linda Applebee testified that Respondent had problems following directions. Respondent failed to participate in a bus evacuation drill in February of 1998, and failed to perform a required book check at the end of a nine-weeks' period, which resulted in the school not billing parents for missing books and therefore having to pay for books that were not returned. Dr. Hartman testified that “chaos” reigned in Respondent’s classroom, and that there had never been a teacher, either before or after Respondent, who had such difficulty maintaining classroom management. Dr. Hartman suggested that Respondent observe other classrooms where her students experienced physical education, art, or music, and did not experience the same disciplinary problems. Respondent never took Dr. Hartman’s suggestion. Respondent admitted to some chaos in her classroom when she described one day when a student was simulating a sex act on the floor while another one scribbled on her desk with a marker. Respondent blamed these problems on “poor parenting skills” rather than on her inability to control the classroom. Respondent had a policy of calling a student’s parents when a student refused to follow a warning to behave, but she failed to follow her own procedure. Dr. Hartman believed that Respondent did not follow school procedures and had difficulties with classroom management. Dr. Hartman repeatedly gave Respondent advice and support, but Respondent failed to change her behavior. For example, Dr. Hartman met with Respondent on September 7, 1998, to discuss the resources available at the school for dealing with classroom management. Dr. Hartman informed Respondent that 1) Level I infractions should be handled by the individual staff member involved, rather than immediately calling the front office, which Respondent often did; 2) Discussions about a student should not be held in front of the student or the class; 3) Students should be given supplies needed to participate in class; 4) Students need to be told what to do; 5) Students should be praised for doing what is expected; 6) Students should not be placed in the planning room for time out; and 7) Respondent should point out only positive behaviors of the students. Dr. Hartman explained that violations of these items as set forth in her letter dated September 7, 1998, would have a negative effect on her competence to perform as a teacher. Respondent refused to attend monthly faculty meetings on a regular basis. Further, when she did attend, Respondent often had to be called and reminded to attend, then arrived late and refused to sit with her team members, sometimes even typing at a computer during the meeting. Faculty meetings are important because they help the administration achieve its goals of having a school act with consistency and a common vision and purpose. Respondent sometimes failed to cooperate with parents and the administration in the scheduling and conducting of parent-teacher conferences. At least one family had to involve both Dr. Hartman and the School Board in order to hold a meeting with Respondent. Often, the meetings proceeded badly with Respondent taking little or no responsibility for the issues expressed by the parents. In January of 1998, an incident occurred involving Respondent at a basketball game in St. Lucie County between Lincoln Park Academy and its cross-town rival. Respondent’s daughter, along with one of her friends, was arrested at the game because they refused to listen to law enforcement officers who attempted to remove them from a confrontation with other students who had congregated outside the over-filled gym where the game was taking place. When Respondent arrived at the rowdy scene outside the basketball game, she began to argue with the two law enforcement officers who were arresting Respondent’s daughter and her friend. Respondent used racial epithets directed at the two officers and engaged in disorderly conduct. She called Officer Terry Miller, an African-American, an “Uncle Tom” which he took to mean an African-American person who takes the side of white people rather than people of his own color. She called Lieutenant David Trimm, who is white, a “cracker,” a racial slur used to describe a white person who is prejudiced against African-Americans. In addition to the racial epithets, Respondent attempted to incite the crowd by yelling about the Ku Klux Klan getting away with whatever they want, and that no arrests would have been made had the crowd been predominately white rather than African-American. Based upon Respondent’s actions, both Officer Miller and Lieutenant Trimm feared for their safety. Both officers had dealt with arrests of minors in the past and with their parents who become upset when they see their sons or daughters in handcuffs, but Respondent’s behavior was “totally different” from what they had experienced in the past. Officer Miller “was shocked” at Respondent’s behavior, especially in light of the fact that she was a teacher, and Lieutenant Trimm would have arrested her had he known at the time she was a teacher. Respondent’s behavior at the basketball game was unprofessional and so racially charged that a riot could have resulted from her actions. Dr. Hartman did not reprimand Respondent at the time of the incidents giving rise to this hearing because she believed Respondent could actually improve and change her behavior. After Respondent failed to take Dr. Hartman’s and Ms. Applebee’s advice, Dr. Hartman decided to change Respondent’s position so that she taught third-grade students, in hopes that “a little bit younger would soften her a bit.” Dr. Hartman’s reassignment of Respondent to a third- grade class for the following school year necessitated that her classroom be moved. Some of Respondent’s classroom items had been moved at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, and Respondent attempted to take compensatory leave at the start of the year, but failed to follow the proper procedures which included seeking prior permission from Dr. Hartman. Dr. Hartman called Respondent into her office to discuss Respondent’s failure to follow school policies concerning attendance and attitude at faculty meetings and unauthorized use of compensatory time. Respondent did not respond to Dr. Hartman’s questions, but handed her a letter of resignation, accompanied by an anonymous letter criticizing her teaching abilities that had been left in Respondent’s school mail slot. Respondent claims to have written the resignation letter the night before in response to the anonymous letter that she considered to be “harassment.” The substance of the letter, purportedly from a “very concerned parent,” was that Respondent “will always be remembered as a miserable, nasty, uncaring, cruel teacher that does not deserve to teach anyone, especially children.” Respondent further claims that she wrote the letter of resignation in an attempt to be transferred from St. Lucie Elementary to another school. Respondent is aware that, in order to be considered for a transfer to another school, she must first interview with that school and be offered a position. No other school had offered Respondent a position at the time she handed her resignation letter to Dr. Hartman. Therefore, Dr. Hartman could not have considered her request for a transfer. Initially, Dr. Hartman only read the first part of the resignation letter since, once she realized she was going to be without a teacher on the first day of school, she acted quickly to inform her assistant, Ms. Applebee, so that she could immediately seek a substitute to start the next morning. Once Ms. Applebee read the letter, she perceived it to be a threat to the safety of the students and faculty of St. Lucie Elementary School. Dr. Hartman did not read the entire letter until 6:00 p.m., on August 19, 1999, the first day of school because she was busy with all of the special challenges the first day of school presents every year. Once she read the letter, however, Dr. Hartman had “extreme concerns” about the following paragraph: After considering my remaining options, I decided to depart from this position because of YOU and the lack of professionalism displayed on your behalf. I have been subjective [sic] to an extraordinary amount of harassment every [sic] since I’ve been under your supervision. This included lack of administrative support, extreme and undue stress, your trifling and vindictive ways, and last but not least, your prejudice and racist attitude toward students, minorities, and me. These are conditions in [sic] which no one should be subjective [sic] in the workplace. In fact, it seems to almost define going postal. (Emphasis added) Dr. Hartman believed the “going postal” language meant that Respondent might come in and shoot people. Assistant Principal Applebee was concerned for their safety, after she read the letter. Ms. Jane Grinstead, Executive Director of School Operations for Zone 2, St. Lucie County School District, thought the letter constituted a threat. Even Respondent admitted that her husband warned her that “somebody might take your letter offensively,” yet she still gave it to Dr. Hartman. The letter came to Dr. Hartman at a time that was close to the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Dr. Hartman was trained to be on alert for the type of traits that might be exhibited by a person who would do violence at a school. Those traits include antisocial behavior and failure to follow procedures, two traits exhibited by Respondent during her tenure at St. Lucie Elementary School. Further concern arose because this was a time when some United States Postal workers had assaulted, shot and killed their supervisors and some innocent bystanders. As a result of her concerns, Dr. Hartman contacted Ms. Grinstead who put her in touch with Dave Morris, head of security for the St. Lucie County School District. Mr. Morris arranged for a school resource officer to follow Dr. Hartman around the next school day, August 20, 1999. At the end of the day, Assistant School Superintendent, Russell Anderson, spoke with Respondent and informed her that if she wanted to resign, she must leave the school premises, and the resignation would be accepted at the next School Board meeting. During the meeting with Respondent, Mr. Anderson discussed her claims of harassment with her and offered her the chance to file a formal complaint for harassment against Dr. Hartman. Also, Respondent’s union representative, Ms. Clara Cook, informed her that she could file a formal complaint, yet Respondent declined to do so. Based upon his safety concerns, Mr. Anderson asked the school resource officer, Mr. McGee, to escort Respondent off campus. He then drafted a Notice of Temporary Duty Assignment which informed Respondent that she is “further prohibited from being on any school district property.” Respondent requested to rescind her resignation on August 23, 1999. On August 24, 1999, Respondent’s letter of resignation was rescinded and she was suspended without pay by the St. Lucie County School District. On October 6, 1999, Respondent was suspended without pay and notified that the St. Lucie County School District would recommend that she be terminated at the next School Board meeting based on her violation of School Board policies. After a hearing, Respondent was terminated by the St. Lucie County School District as a result of the contents of the resignation letter. As a result of the incidents culminating in her dismissal, Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been called seriously into question. Dr. Hartman explained that an effective teacher is one who “cares about children, cares about their learning, knows how to communicate, [is] open to learning themselves at all times, [is] very caring, compassionate, willing to work with others, realizing the accountability and responsibility that we hold each day, celebrating. You have to be very intelligent because you’re constantly thinking on your feet, planning and preparing and organizing.” Assistant Principal Applebee believes that Respondent did not like the children she taught because she noticed Respondent was not always nice to them; she complained about them; and the children believed they had no one in the classroom who cared about them. Ms. Grinstead, a school district administrator with 35 years of experience, believes that an effective teacher is one who is 1) sensitive; 2) caring toward children; 3) communicates well with peers; 4) communicates well with parents and students; and 5) can give suggestions on ways the parents and the school can work together for the children. Other teachers at St. Lucie Elementary School “rallied to assist” Respondent’s class. Ms. Drew decided to teach fifth grade so she could teach the same students who had been in Respondent’s fourth-grade class. Dr. Hartman would not reemploy Respondent. Assistant Superintendent Anderson would not recommend Respondent for re-employment in the St. Lucie County School District based on the seriousness of the charges. Assistant Principal Applebee would never re-employ Respondent because she did not believe Respondent to be an effective teacher. Officer Miller believes that Respondent should not be reemployed as a teacher by the St. Lucie County School District. Each of Respondent’s former students and their parents does not believe that Respondent should be employed as a teacher anywhere. Respondent takes no responsibility for any of the allegations made against her. She believes that she did nothing wrong, but that the problems complained of by the administrative staff, law enforcement personnel, her former students, and their parents are the result of either discrimination, harassment, or manipulative children and their parents who refuse to take responsibility for their children’s behavior. Despite all the complaints lodged against Respondent by her former students and their parents, her former principal, assistant principal, school district administrators, and law enforcement officers, Respondent received satisfactory evaluations from Dr. Hartman for the period in question in this case. Respondent currently works for the Head Start program, caring for three- and four-year-old children. Before the Administrative Complaint was filed in this case, a substantially similar Administrative Complaint (the same except for the statutory citations which were renumbered by the Florida Legislature) was filed and scheduled for hearing before DOAH. The case proceeded to hearing and the prior Administrative Law Judge opened the record. Petitioner then attempted to amend the Administrative Complaint to correct statutory citations that had been renumbered by the Legislature. Respondent objected to Petitioner’s ore tenus motion to amend. When the Administrative Law Judge announced that he would not rule on the motion to amend at the hearing, Petitioner announced that it was voluntarily dismissing the Administrative Complaint without prejudice and would thereafter file a new complaint with the revised statute numbers. Respondent asserted at that time that she believed Petitioner’s voluntary dismissal would be dispositive of the claims and allegations in it; that she did not agree to a voluntary dismissal; and that she was prepared to proceed. Nonetheless, Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the Administrative Complaint, and DOAH entered an Order Closing File.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s teaching certificate be revoked for a period of 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of Subsection 1012.795(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Post Office Box 3310 Tampa, Florida 33602-3310 Mark F. Kelly, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent from employment with the Brevard County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Brevard County, Florida. This includes the power to discipline employees, such as teachers. § 4, Article IX, Fla. Const.; §§ 1001.42(5), 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.33, Fla. Stat.1 Respondent is a classroom teacher, and as such, the terms and conditions of her employment are governed by the collective agreement between the School Board and The Brevard Federation of Teachers, Local 2098. Respondent has a Bachelor’s degree in exceptional education. On or about November 9, 2006, Respondent, pursuant to an annual contract, was hired by the School Board to provide services as a classroom teacher. Beginning in the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent continued her employment with the School Board pursuant to a professional services contract. During all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent taught at Hoover Middle School, which is under the jurisdiction of the School Board. At the commencement of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent taught exceptional education (ESE) students in a self-contained, supported-level class. At approximately the midway point of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent began teaching a resource math class which was comprised entirely of ESE students. Beginning in the 2017-2018 school year, and continuing through the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent taught one resource math class for a single class-period of the day, and she co-taught, or “pushed-in,” for the other five instructional class periods. In both settings, Respondent taught math to ESE students. By correspondence dated March 26, 2019, Superintendent Mullins advised Respondent of the following: Pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.34, you are being recommended for termination of your Professional Services Contract due to unsatisfactory 1 All subsequent references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2018 codification, unless otherwise indicated. Performance …. The actions leading to this recommendation are as follows: On October 29, 2018, you were provided a 90-day notice advising of performance-related concerns based upon three years of unsatisfactory annual evaluations. Several performance review meetings were held with you, your union representative, and your school Principal to discuss your progress. A review of your past evaluations indicates several attempts at corrective activities through the use of District Peer Mentors and Resource Teachers. After the completion of the 90-day plan, adequate progress was not obtained and is grounds to sever the Professional Services Contract. The School Board uses an “Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System” (IPPAS) as a guide when evaluating a teacher’s performance. According to the IPPAS manual, classroom teachers are evaluated on a rubric which consists of five dimensions. The first dimension focuses on “instructional design and lesson planning.” The second dimension focuses on the “learning environment” created and fostered by the teacher. The third dimension focuses on “instructional delivery and facilitation.” The fourth dimension focuses on “assessment,” and the fifth dimension focuses on a teacher’s “professional responsibility and ethical conduct.” IPPAS is approved annually by the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE), and the School Board meets regularly with The Brevard Federation of Teachers, Local 2098, to address any issues concerning the evaluation process. Teachers and evaluators receive yearly training, which covers the various components of the evaluation process. Pursuant to IPPAS, and related statutory provisions, classroom teachers are evaluated annually. The overall score given to a teacher on the annual evaluation is determined by how a teacher scores in the areas of “Professional Practices Based on Florida’s Educator Accomplished Practices (Professional Practices),” and “Individual Accountability for Student Academic Performance Based on Identified Assessments (Student Performance).” The Professional Practices category accounts for 67 percent, and Student Performance accounts for the remaining 33 percent of a teacher’s annual evaluation score. For purposes of quantifying a teacher’s annual evaluation, IPPAS identifies the Professional Practices category as “Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation,” and the Student Performance category as “Part 2 of the Summative Evaluation.” Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation is completed in the spring of each school year and consists of the supervising principal’s annual evaluation of the teacher, the teacher’s self-assessment, and the collaboration and mutual accountability score. The evaluative components of Part 1 of the Summative Evaluation are comprised of the previously referenced “five dimensions.” Part 2 of the Summative Evaluation is determined based on student academic performance data (VAM score) as calculated by the FLDOE. VAM scores are released by FLDOE in the fall, and these scores reflect student performance for the preceding school year. Consequently, a teacher will not receive an overall annual evaluation score for the immediate preceding school year until the fall semester during which VAM scores are available. As a practical matter, this explains, in part, why the recommendation for termination letter sent to Respondent by Superintendent Mullins was issued on March 26, 2019.2 2015-2016 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about April 25, 2016, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year. Respondent received a score of 27.71 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the category of “Needs Improvement.” On or about November 2, 2016, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 56.71 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” 2016-2017 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about April 5, 2017, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2016-2017 school year. Respondent received a score of 20.42 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. On or about November 13, 2017, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2016-2017 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 50.42 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” 2 VAM scores for the 2017-2018 school year were released on or about October 19, 2018. As discussed elsewhere herein, Respondent was placed on 90 days probation following the release of her VAM score. The timing of the release of the VAM score, coupled with the 90-day probationary period and related matters, account for the March 2019 date of Superintendent Mullin’s letter to Respondent. 2017-2018 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent, on or about May 3, 2018, received Part 1 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2017-2018 school year. Respondent received a score of 34.58 out of a maximum available score of 67 points. Respondent’s Part 1 Summative score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. On or about October 19, 2018, Respondent received Part 2 of her Summative Evaluation for the 2017-18 school year. Respondent received a VAM score of 64.58 out of a maximum available score of 100 points. Respondent’s VAM score placed her in the “Needs Improvement” category. The combined Part 1 and Part 2 scores resulted in Respondent receiving an overall annual evaluation rating of “Needs Improvement.” A PLAN FOR ADDRESSING PROFESSIONAL DEFICIENCIES The School Board, in order to address Respondent’s professional deficiencies as identified during the relevant evaluation periods, provided support to Respondent through the utilization of Professional Development Assistance Plans (PDAPs). PDAPs are designed to provide a teacher with opportunities for professional development, which includes access to online resources, training activities and courses, and opportunities to work with School Board resource and peer mentor teachers. The School Board, acting through Respondent’s supervising administrators, agreed in the PDAPs to support Respondent’s professional growth and development as follows: By providing access to the “District Peer Mentor Teacher for collaboration on dimension 3.” By conducting “informal observations documented in ProGOE with feedback for improvement.” By providing “resources on utilizing formative assessment to check for understanding.” By providing “resources regarding implementing differentiated instruction.” By providing “resources on the utilization of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge.” By providing “exemplary sample lesson plans as a model … to follow.” By providing “pacing guide if needed.” By meeting every two weeks to review weekly lesson plans. By providing Respondent with “an exemplary teacher to observe, as well as a substitute [teacher] for class coverage during observation.” By providing a list of Professional Development courses on classroom management, as well as a substitute teacher to cover Respondent’s class while she attends the course. By providing “assistance and specific feedback from school based coaches.” By completing “informal observations on a bi- monthly basis, and provid[ing] feedback.” The evidence establishes that the School Board honored its commitment to Respondent as outlined in the respective PDAPs. 90 DAYS OF PROBATION, AND RECOMMENDATION FOR TERMINATION By correspondence dated October 29, 2018, the School Board advised Respondent of the following: In accordance with section 1012.34(4), F.S., this shall serve as the District’s notification of unsatisfactory performance. Please be advised that your Professional Service Contract for the 2018-19 academic year is on a probationary status for ninety (90) days. Your contract is being placed on probation due to your receiving an overall “Needs Improvement” rating on your last three (3) consecutive annual performance evaluations. See also section 1012.22, F.S. During the next ninety (90) days, you will be evaluated periodically. You will be apprised of any progress achieved in writing. You will work with the administration of your school to assist you in obtaining opportunities to help correct any noted deficiencies. After February 25, 2019, the ninetieth (90th) day, administration has fourteen (14) days to assess your progress. If no improvement is shown, administration will notify the Superintendent if you do not rate an overall Effective on the Summative Part 1 of your evaluation. Sincerely, Burt Clark, Principal Hoover Middle School Respondent, during her 90-day probationary period, continued to receive professional development services from the School Board, which included working with a peer mentor teacher, participating in CHAMPs training, receiving assistance from a math content specialist, and observing an exemplary math teacher. Burt Clark was the principal at the school where Respondent worked when she was placed on probation. As the principal, Mr. Clark served as Respondent’s supervisor and was responsible for evaluating her performance. During Respondent’s probationary period, Mr. Clark regularly met with Respondent and her union representative to discuss Respondent’s progress and offer assistance. In addition to meeting with Respondent, Mr. Clark also conducted one interim evaluation, four informal observation, and two formal observations of Respondent’s performance. Mr. Clark also conducted a number of “walk-throughs,” which provided additional insight into the status of Respondent’s professional development. While it is true that Mr. Clark’s observations of Respondent mainly occurred in the classroom where Respondent was the teacher of record, as opposed to Respondent’s work as a “push-in” teacher, Mr. Clark credibly testified that he had sufficient data to assess Respondent’s performance. Mr. Clark, at the end of the probationary period, determined that Respondent’s professional deficiencies remained, and on March 6, 2019, he made the following recommendation to Superintendent Mullins: Ms. Lisa Lemieux had an overall unsatisfactory performance appraisal. We have worked with her to try to improve her instructional strategies; but, it has not been successful in changing the behavior to better serve the students assigned to her. As defined in [section] 1012.34(4), [Florida Statutes], February 25, 2019, was the 90th day since the notification of her 90-day probation for this contract year and after demonstrating no improvement on the Summative Part 1, I have assessed that the performance deficiencies have not been corrected. I would recommend the termination of her employment with Brevard Public Schools. Burt Clark, Principal Hoover Middle School After receiving Mr. Clark’s recommendation to terminate Respondent’s employment, Superintendent Mullins reviewed Respondent’s last three years of evaluations, considered the extensive support and training provided to Respondent by the School Board, and concluded that termination of Respondent’s employment was warranted and justified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Brevard County enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy D. Envall, General Counsel Brevard County Public Schools 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940 (eServed) Mark S. Levine, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Shannon L. Kelly, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Howard Michael Waldman Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Dr. Mark Mullins, Superintendent School Board of Brevard County 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6601 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application of Petitioner, Kenneth Crowder, for a Florida Educator's Certificate should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons issued on July 22, 2005, by Respondent, John Winn, acting in his capacity as the Commissioner of Education.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 28, 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education notified Petitioner, Kenneth Crowder, that it intended to suspend, revoke, or limit his teaching certificate. The proposed action was based on allegations that Petitioner engaged in inappropriate conduct with three female students, engaged in inappropriate conduct with a female teacher in December 2000, and was convicted of disorderly conduct, which was amended from a charge of domestic violence. An administrative hearing was conducted with respect to Petitioner's Ohio teaching certificate on March 11 and 14, 2002. The hearing was conducted in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Ohio Revised Code. Petitioner appeared at the hearing, was represented by counsel, and testified on his own behalf. There were three alleged incidents involving allegations of Petitioner's inappropriate conduct with female students that were litigated during the Ohio administrative proceedings. The first alleged incident occurred during the 1999-2000 school year when Petitioner was employed at Northland High School. The other two incidents allegedly occurred during the 2000-2001 school year when Petitioner was employed as a teacher at Brookhaven High School. The Ohio State Board of Education alleged that during the 1999-2000 school year, while a teacher at Northland High School, Petitioner inappropriately touched Ms. Tranette Nicole Jackson, a student in his science class. At the time of the incident, Ms. Jackson was about fifteen and a high school freshman.3 During the Ohio administrative proceeding, Ms. Jackson testified that on March 21, 2000, Petitioner called Ms. Jackson up to his desk and told her he wanted to see her after class.4 At the end of class, with no one else present in the classroom, Ms. Jackson reported to Petitioner's desk. Petitioner then touched Ms. Jackson's leg and rubbed her skirt, raising the skirt. Petitioner then told Ms. Jackson that he needed to see her in the supply room, which was across the hall from the classroom. Ms. Jackson accompanied Petitioner into the supply room, where Petitioner put both hands on Ms. Jackson's buttocks and stated, "This is what I wanted to talk to you about. Keep it to yourself." Ms. Jackson testified that Petitioner then gave her a pass to her next class. Ms. Jackson testified that she was "confused," "scared," and "uncomfortable" about the incident and that she reported it to one of her teachers that same day. The incident was then reported to the school principal and the Franklin County Children Services. After the incident, Ms. Jackson was reassigned from Petitioner's science class to another class. During the Ohio proceedings, Petitioner testified that he never touched Ms. Jackson, but that he reprimanded her for her inappropriate attire. Petitioner testified that in instances where students had on inappropriate attire, the school policy required teachers to send such students to the front office. Notwithstanding the school policy, Petitioner testified that he spoke with Ms. Jackson alone and after class concerning her attire. This failure to abide by school policy lends credence to Ms. Jackson's version of events. Moreover, Petitioner's complete inability on cross-examination during the instant hearing to provide his version of the incident leads the undersigned to accept Ms. Jackson's testimony.5 In the 2000-2001 school year, Petitioner was transferred from Northland High School to Brookhaven High School (Brookhaven), where he taught ninth grade science. The Ohio State Board of Education alleged that during the 2000-2001 school year, while he was employed as a teacher at Brookhaven, Petitioner engaged in two incidents involving inappropriate conduct with female students and one incident involving inappropriate conduct with a female teacher. In one instance, it was alleged that on December 19, 2000, about a day before the Christmas break, Petitioner asked a female student, identified as Student 2, to come to his room after school and give him a hug. It was alleged that the student refused to comply with Petitioner's request and reported the alleged incident to school officials. Student 2 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding. However, Judith Gore, the assistant principal for student services at Brookhaven, one school official to whom Student 2 reported the incident, testified at the Ohio administrative proceeding. Ms. Gore testified that in January 2001, Student 2 told her that on or about December 19, 2000, Petitioner approached Student 2 and told her to give him a hug after school and that when she came to the room she should not wear her jacket. Ms. Gore also testified that Student 2 reported that although Petitioner approached her and requested a hug in December 2000, Student 2 told her that she reported it in January 2001, soon after and because Petitioner approached her in January 2001, after the Christmas break, and asked why she had not come to his room and hugged him in December 2000, before the winter holiday. Ms. Gore also testified that as a result of Petitioner's comments, the student was extremely uncomfortable. Ms. Gore testified that she later attended a conference with the student's father and Petitioner regarding the incident. Student 2 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding. However, Petitioner testified at the Ohio administrative hearing that he asked Student 2 for a hug on or about December 19, 2000, the day before winter recess. Petitioner testified that Student 2 was in the hallway, and he said to her, "Hey, yeah, give me a hug. It's Christmas time. I wish you a Happy New Year and a Merry Christmas." Petitioner testified that at the time he requested that Student 2 give him a hug, she was not in any of his classes, but was one of his student assistants. In fact, Petitioner testified that when he requested that Student 2 give him a hug after school, she was not in his classroom, but was in the hall at her locker. Petitioner testified that because December 19, 2000, was the day before the Christmas recess, it was not unusual for students to hug him. However, Petitioner testified that Student 2 did not make any overtures indicating she wanted to hug him. Rather, Petitioner testified that he approached Student 2 and asked her to hug him. Based on Petitioner's testimony in the Ohio hearing and the instant proceeding, regarding Student 2, it is found that in December 2000, Petitioner approached Student 2 while she was in the hall at her locker and asked her to give him a hug. Ms. Gore testified that during December 2000, a different female student, Student 3, complained to her that Petitioner had touched her buttocks while passing behind her. Student 3 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding, and no evidence was presented at the Ohio administrative proceeding or the instant administrative hearing to establish this charge. At the Ohio administrative proceeding, the Ohio State Board of Education litigated the allegation that Petitioner had engaged in inappropriate behavior with a teacher at Brookhaven. Mary Williams, who was a co-worker of Petitioner at Brookhaven High School, testified in the Ohio administrative proceeding. Ms. Williams testified that, in December 2000, while she was standing at the counter in the main office of the school, Petitioner passed by and intentionally brushed against her buttocks. Ms. Williams also testified that the office was large enough so that Mr. Crowder needed not to touch her at all. Ms. Williams was upset by Petitioner's actions and informed him, in graphic language, what would happen if he ever did it again. Petitioner then apologized to Ms. Williams. Petitioner's testimony concerning the incident involving Ms. Williams is conflicting. For instance, Petitioner testified during the Ohio proceedings that if he brushed his hand against Mr. Williams' buttocks, it was purely accidental. During the instant proceedings, however, Petitioner acknowledged that he touched Ms. Williams' buttocks, but explained that it occurred accidentally as a result of his carrying a meter stick through the office area. At no time during Petitioner's prior testimony did he mention that the touching occurred with a meter stick, or even that he was carrying a meter stick. Accordingly, the undersigned finds Ms. Williams' testimony to be more credible. John Tornes, the personnel director for Columbus City Schools, testified at the Ohio administrative proceeding that as a result of the accumulation of allegations and incidents, Petitioner was assigned to work at home, effective January 29, 2001. The following day, January 30, 2001, Petitioner was assigned to a location where he had no contact with students. On March 26, 2001, Petitioner resigned from the Columbus City Schools, effective June 8, 2001. Mr. Tornes testified that Petitioner was not eligible for rehire. Mr. Tornes explained: During every year of Mr. Crowder's employment, there was an allegation of sexual harassment or abuse; three straight years of it while at Crestview Middle School [sic],[6] while at Northland High School, and then the incident just kept ballooning at Brookhaven High School. . . . His behavior became so questionable that it was no longer feasible for the district to continue his employment. The Ohio State Board of Education litigated the issue of Petitioner's conviction of disorderly conduct, which was amended from a charge of domestic violence. During the Ohio proceedings, Jill S. Harris testified on behalf of the Ohio State Board of Education. Ms. Harris testified that for about a year, beginning in 1999, she was involved in a rocky relationship with Petitioner. During that period, Petitioner and Ms. Harris were living together. According to Ms. Harris, on October 7, 2000, Petitioner, after a night of drinking, arrived home at approximately 5:30 a.m., at which point a violent argument ensued. During their confrontation, Petitioner struck Ms. Harris twice in the face, bruising her chin and cheek and cutting her lip. At some point during the argument, Ms. Harris summoned the police. However, when they arrived, Ms. Harris informed the responding officers that nothing was wrong due to her fear of retaliation from Petitioner. Ms. Harris testified that after the police left, the Petitioner picked up a glass table and threw it at her, breaking the table. Petitioner also grabbed Ms. Harris, at which point she cut her foot on the broken glass. Ms. Harris then left the house and called the police from the vehicle she was driving. Soon after Ms. Harris called, police officers met Ms. Harris and returned with her to the house where she and Petitioner lived. When they arrived there, Petitioner was not there. Officer Sheri Laverack was one of the police officers who met with Ms. Harris on October 7, 2000, shortly after the incident, and investigated the matter. At the Ohio administrative proceedings, Officer Laverack testified that soon after the altercation between Ms. Harris and Petitioner, she observed that Ms. Harris' "lip had been busted and her face was swelling and the bottom of her foot was cut." Officer Laverack also observed that there was bruising around one of Ms. Harris' eyes. At both the Ohio administrative proceeding and in the instant proceeding, Petitioner denied that he struck Ms. Harris in the face and caused the injuries to her face that were observed by Officer Laverack. However, it is found that his testimony was not found to be credible by the hearing examiner presiding over the Ohio administrative hearing. Petitioner has offered conflicting testimony with respect to the incident involving Ms. Harris and the cause of her facial injuries. During the Ohio administrative proceeding, Petitioner testified that he slammed his hand down on the glass table, causing it to come up and hit her. At no time during the Ohio proceeding did Petitioner testify that Ms. Harris lifted up the table or in any way contributed to the facial injuries she suffered. However, during the instant proceeding, Petitioner testified that when he hit the glass table, Ms. Harris "pulled the top of it up, and I think it [the glass portion of the table] hit her in the chin or something to that effect." Petitioner then testified that "I don't really recall . . . that's what I vaguely recall." Petitioner's testimony concerning the October 7, 2000, incident and how Ms. Harris sustained the injuries to her face is inconsistent and not credible. In light of the multiple injuries to Ms. Harris' face (a cut to her lip, swelling on the right side of her face, and bruising around her eye), it is unlikely that Ms. Harris' injuries could have been sustained in the manner described by Petitioner. Petitioner's testimony in the instant proceeding that he did not hit Ms. Harris is not credible. On the other hand, given the nature of the injuries, it is more probable that Ms. Harris' injuries resulted from Petitioner's hitting her, as she testified. It is found that Ms. Harris' testimony that Petitioner struck her in the face was credible. Moreover, Ms. Harris' credible testimony was substantiated by the testimony of Officer Laverack, who observed the injuries to Ms. Harris on October 7, 2000, shortly after the incident. As a result of the October 7, 2000, incident, Ms. Harris filed domestic violence and assault charges against Petitioner. Ultimately, as a result of the incident, Petitioner was charged with disorderly conduct. On June 25, 2001, Petitioner entered a guilty plea to the amended charge of disorderly conduct. Pursuant to an agreement with the State of Ohio, Petitioner was sentenced to 30 days in jail, with the sentence being suspended if and when Petitioner made restitution of $1,000 to Ms. Harris for the damage to her table. Petitioner paid the restitution. At the time of the Ohio administrative proceeding, Petitioner had a four-year middle school teaching certificate with an expiration date of June 30, 2002, and had applied for a temporary teaching certificate. On April 2, 2002, the Ohio hearing examiner submitted a recommended order to the Ohio State Board of Education. In the recommended order, the hearing officer found that Petitioner sexually abused Ms. Jackson, inappropriately touched Ms. Williams, and committed an act of violence against Ms. Harris. In addition, the hearing examiner recommended that the Ohio State Board of Education revoke Petitioner's teaching certificate and deny his application for a temporary teaching certificate. In a Resolution dated May 16, 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education revoked Petitioner's teaching certificate. The Resolution was adopted by the Ohio State Board of Education at its meeting on May 14, 2002. The Ohio State Board of Education's Resolution stated that it was revoking Petitioner's middle school teaching certificate "based upon his 2001 conviction for disorderly conduct stemming from domestic violence and inappropriate sexual contact with three female students and one female teacher during 2000 and 2001." Petitioner appealed the decision of the Ohio State Board of Education. The Ohio State Board of Education's decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Ohio Court of Common Pleas on August 11, 2003, in Case No. 02CVF06-6230.7 The testimony of Ms. Harris, Ms. Williams, Ms. Jackson, Officer Laverack, Mr. Tornes, and Ms. Gore in the Ohio proceeding constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule under Subsection 90.803(22), Florida Statutes.8 Therefore, the testimony of the foregoing named individuals in the Ohio administrative proceeding is sufficient in itself to support a finding of fact and does not run afoul of Subsection 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes.9 Petitioner's conduct fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defines good moral character. By any reasonable standard, it is wrong for a teacher to brush his hands on the buttocks of a student and of a fellow colleague. The wrong is compounded when the teacher instructs the student to conceal the fact that he engaged in such conduct. During his testimony, Petitioner admitted that he asked a high school student to give him a hug. By any reasonable standard, this conduct fell short of right behavior that defines good moral character. Petitioner's testimony regarding the circumstances and appropriateness of such a request is not credible or persuasive. Neither does Petitioner's explanation provide a reasonable basis for a teacher to solicit a hug from any student. Petitioner's conduct of committing acts of violence against the woman with whom he lived likewise fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defined good moral behavior. The three incidents in which Petitioner engaged in inappropriate conduct with Ms. Jackson, Student 2, and Ms. Williams, occurred at school. The incident involving Ms. Jackson, one of his students, occurred on school grounds in March 2000. The conduct in which Petitioner engaged with Student 2 and with Ms. Williams, his colleague, occurred at school in December 2000. Petitioner's pattern of conduct with two female students and a female teacher demonstrates that he is an unsuitable candidate for a teaching certificate. Moreover, Petitioner's conduct as established by the facts of this case, particularly as it directly involved students at the school, bears directly on his fitness to teach in the public schools of Florida. The evidence failed to establish that Petitioner possesses the good moral character required of a teacher in this state. For this reason, Petitioner is not eligible for certification. The evidence establishes that Petitioner committed an act or acts for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke a teaching certificate. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality of an act involving moral turpitude. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has had a teaching certificate revoked in another state. The evidence establishes that Petitioner pled guilty and was convicted of the misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules. The evidence establishes that Petitioner failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or public safety. The evidence establishes that Petitioner intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The evidence establishes that Petitioner exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct, which unreasonably interfered in an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment and, further, failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual was protected from such harassment or discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate and providing that he be permanently barred from re- application pursuant to Subsection 1012.796(7)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2006.
The Issue At issue is whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated July 30, 2002, and if so, whether his employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Mocombe has been employed by the School Board as a social studies teacher since 1997, when he graduated from Florida Atlantic University. He began his career substitute teaching at Sunrise Middle School (Sunrise), and later moved into a full-time position at Lauderhill Middle School (Lauderhill). In the years following graduation, while working as a teacher, Mocombe continued his studies at Florida Atlantic University and attained a master's degree and a Ph.D. He also received three formal reprimands, and a reputation as a person who could engage in adolescent behavior toward peers and insubordinate behavior to his principal without suffering any meaningful consequence. Mocombe calls himself a brilliant teacher, whose teaching philosophy is informed by his belief that "Revolution comes first. I'm a Marxist." Also a high priority for Mocombe is hedonism. Mocombe is known at Lauderhill as a "player," a term defined by one witness as "[S]omeone who has a lot of women and a lot of women [who] know about each other," a characterization which Mocombe embraces. Although married, Mocombe had a sexual relationship with a teaching colleague at Lauderhill by the name of Belinda Hope (Hope). He also was attracted to a first year teacher by the name of Kim Barnes (Barnes). Specifically, said he wanted to "get into her pants," during the 2000-2001 school year. Mocombe has no sense of boundaries in the workplace. He freely offers his opinions on religion, politics, and sex, some intended to be humorous, some not. Mocombe is aware of his need to be the center of attention and to shock people. He testified, "Even in school, I used to go walking around and said I was God just to get a reaction out of people." Most adults tread carefully, or not at all, around such deeply personal subjects. The training and ethics of the teaching profession emphasize respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, irrespective of his political and religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Teachers are educated to understand that sophomoric jokes about sex are not to be inflicted upon unwilling listeners. These lessons are reemphasized annually in sexual harassment training provided to all teachers employed by the School Board. Mocombe did not benefit from this training. He was known at Lauderhill for a constant stream of crude references to sex. He made no secret of his view that a woman's role is to have babies and serve men sexually. In addition, Mocombe would mock organized religion in the presence of colleagues who take their faith seriously. He often spoke of starting his own church, in which he would be known as Prophet Paul and the prerequisite for all women seeking to join the church would be to have his baby. Such comments, as well as his propensity to refer to women as "bitches" and "whores," were deeply offensive to some, but they kept silent. Lauderhill was an ideal environment for Mocombe. The atmosphere at the school is sexually charged to an extent inappropriate to the serious business of teaching children who are at a fragile stage of their own sexual development. Adolescent sexual banter consumes a great deal of time in and out of Lauderhill's teachers' lounge. At least in Mocombe's class, cursing and horseplay in the presence of the teacher-- even with the teacher--is acceptable. Unrebutted testimony placed an assistant principal in the main office discussing "sex, among other things," with Mocombe and other members of Lauderhill's staff in the main office at a time when at least one person not employed there could hear their discussion. Phillip Patton (Patton) was Mocombe's principal, first at Sunrise and later at Lauderhill. Patton's patience with Mocombe's behavior was seemingly boundless. In the lax atmosphere at Lauderhill, some of Mocombe's colleagues regarded his frequent references to sex, as well as to religion, politics, and the appearance of female colleagues, as harmless banter. Others, such as Marrisa Cooper (Cooper) who testified on Mocombe's behalf, felt that it was not the school's responsibility to deal with harassment; rather, the person at whom the harassment was directed should have the "balls" to deal with it. Cooper explained that it was understood at Lauderhill that Mocombe [believed] "that women are there to have children, which everyone always disagrees with statements because he always makes these general statements about women, and a lot of people take them as being belittling or degrading women. I don't take it personal because you are not talking to me, I know what I am made of and the way I am, so I never take them personally. But again, everybody maybe don't have the balls that I have." Others at Lauderhill were offended by Mocombe's conduct, but kept their silence, believing that Patton would not impose meaningful discipline on him. In fact, Patton's patience with Mocombe ran out only when Barnes and another teacher, Tracey Bryant (Bryant) put their complaints in writing, at which time Patton was required by School Board policies and procedures to forward the complaints for follow- up by trained investigators. The charges at issue here arise out of Mocombe's interaction with three individuals, student Hudson Mortimer (Mortimer), and the above-mentioned teachers Bryant and Barnes. Each situation is discussed separately in paragraphs 16 through 77, below. Hudson Mortimer: At the time of the incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Mortimer was a sixth grader at Lauderhill and a student of Mocombe's. Mortimer shares Mocombe's high opinion of himself as a teacher. Although Mortimer testified at the behest of the School Board, he volunteered, "I don't think he should get his license suspended." On October 11, 2001, Mocombe and Mortimer were "playing with each other." More particularly, Mortimer was "cracking" on his teacher, calling him "ugly and stuff." Mortimer's and Mocombe's accounts of the incident are consistent, and create a picture of two kids on the same level, playing together when they should be working. The incident began with Mortimer and Mocombe trading good natured insults, which included adolescent name-calling, using phrases such as "ugly-ass," while tossing whatever object was at hand at one another. Eventually Mocombe tossed a marking pen at Mortimer which hit the student over one eye, causing minor injury. The School Board contends that this incident constitutes the imposition of inappropriate discipline of sufficient severity to warrant termination. Pursuant to School Board rules and policies requiring that events which may give rise to litigation be documented, Patton, through a staff member, sent an accident report form to Mocombe for him to fill out. Mocombe refused, saying, "I'm not filling out anything, it was an accident. Patton wants to, he can fill it out himself." Patton took no disciplinary action against Mocombe for his refusal to comply with this routine and entirely appropriate request that he follow a reasonable School Board policy. This was not the first time, nor would it be the last, that Mocombe was given to understand that there would be no meaningful consequence to him for ignoring rules which he did not wish to follow. Tracey Bryant: Bryant is a 13-year teacher. Her complaint against Mocombe arises out of an incident which she characterizes as sexual harassment, and which occurred in the teachers' lounge at Lauderhill on April 5, 2001. At the time of the incident, Bryant was one of about a half dozen teachers present in the lounge. While conversing with a colleague, she was interrupted by Mocombe who asked, "Ms. Bryant are you pregnant?" Stunned, she coldly told him, "No." Referring to Bryant and to another teacher then present, Mocombe commented to the effect that their "butts were getting to be alike---hanging." Bryant quickly left the room. Here, as with the incident involving Mortimer, Mocombe and the alleged victim tell similar stories. Both agree that Mocombe was intending to be jocular in his interaction with them. But while Mocombe's alleged student victim supports the manner in which Mocombe interacts with him in general, and in particular is not offended by the allegedly inappropriate conduct set forth in the Administrative Complaint, Bryant felt "humiliated and disrespected" by Mocombe's comments about her size. In addition, Bryant was aware of Mocombe's history of making what she viewed as inappropriate comments about and to females. She had heard him make numerous comments she regarded as inappropriate in the workplace to Hope, a good friend of hers with whom Mocombe would eventually have an acrimonious break-up. When the offensive comment about Bryant's size was directed to her personally, she complained, in writing, to Patton. The conflict between Bryant and Mocombe continued at the hearing. At one point, Mocombe snickered during legal argument being made by the School Board attorney while Bryant was on the witness stand. Mocombe was provoked by a comment made to him by the School Board's attorney (who in turn was admonished to direct his comments to the tribunal, and not to parties or witnesses) and said of the School Board's charges against him, "I find it baffling and humorous, yes." Bryant immediately jumped in to say, "That's how he is, yes. No remorse or nothing." Bryant's reading of Mocombe's attitude is accurate. During his testimony, Mocombe supplied details of the incident which were not presented in the School Board's case, and which reflect a lack of understanding of why his conduct was so offensive. After having months to reflect on why Bryant brought these charges, Mocombe remains unembarrassed by his faux pas of assuming--and saying aloud to a roomful of colleagues--that Bryant's weight gain was due to pregnancy. He volunteered during his testimony that rather than drop the subject after Bryant made her displeasure clear, Mocombe persisted, discussing his exchange with Bryant about Bryant's weight with another colleague, Vicki Drane. While not denying the substance of Bryant's account of the incident in the teachers' lounge, Mocombe argues that Bryant is out to get him because of his break-up with Hope. However, neither Mocombe nor any of his witnesses offered any type of corroboration in support of his assertion that Bryant and others conspired to avenge his spurned lover by getting him fired. After carefully observing Bryant's demeanor under oath, and considering the entire record, the undersigned finds no evidence to suggest that Bryant's testimony was untruthful, or that her complaint was motivated by anything other than her own distress at Mocombe's callous behavior in calling attention to her weight gain, behavior which hurt and embarrassed her in front of her colleagues. Kim Barnes: Barnes met Mocombe in the office at Lauderhill, where she was being interviewed for what would become her first teaching job. As previously noted, the School Board provides annual training to its employees regarding sexual harassment and other types of conduct inappropriate in the workplace. But Barnes' first contact with Lauderhill employees in their main office, where the administrative staff, including the principal, have their offices, suggested an atmosphere inconsistent with what is to be expected in a well managed place of learning. Mocombe acknowledges that he wanted to "impress" Barnes in order to "get into her pants." This is his account of his first meeting with Barnes in the school office: The first -- the very first interaction I had with Ms. Barnes were the beginning of the last school year. We were in teacher planning. She came in for an interview and we were all in the student office discussing sex among other things. Q. Who was we? A. Ms. Cooper, Ms. Mayo, who was the office manager, the assistant principal at that time, Mr. King, myself, and Ms. Barnes. And I made the reference about I want six children. My actual reference was my goal is to have as many little Mocombes running around so I can start my own revolution, take over the world, my own Marxist revolution and indoctrinate them. And she made the reference that she wanted to have five children. I thought hey, we could work out if that's the case. (Transcript page 276, lines 2-19). In hindsight, it was a mistake for Barnes to tell Mocombe the number of children she might like to have. The above-mentioned defense witness, Cooper, was an office worker at Lauderhill and was present and participated in the discussion of "sex among other things." Cooper, knowing of Mocombe's obsession with sex, deemed that Barnes, having joined the discussion to the extent of remarking that she would like to have five children, had granted consent for Mocombe to make sexual advances. Barnes' account of the conversation is slightly different. She recalls telling Mocombe she might like to have five children in response to a direct question by him. Perhaps she voluntarily "made the reference," as Mocombe recalls. This is the type of minor discrepancy to be expected from witnesses asked to recall the details of an event which took place months ago. What is important is that Mocombe did not then and does not now see why the comments which he freely admits making are utterly inappropriate to the time and place where he made them. Although Cooper considers herself a friend of Mocombe, in giving testimony on his behalf, she volunteered that on the day of the Barnes' job interview, Cooper commented to Barnes that Mocombe was "no good." Counsel for Respondent did not suggest what issue this testimony goes to, but the testimony offered on Mocombe's behalf, taken together, suggests a belief by Mocombe and his friends that Barnes was on notice that as a "player," Mocombe was unable to relate to professional women in a professional way, and that he was not expected to do so by his colleagues or supervisors. Barnes was hired and began work at Lauderhill in the fall of the 2000-2001 school year. In the beginning, Mocombe confined his comments to Barnes to acknowledging her presence, usually in terms of her looks, such as, "Hi, sexy." Over time, the comments became more graphic. Mocombe would remark on the size of Barnes' breasts, her "phat (pretty hot and tender) ass" and would state his desire to have sex with her in stunningly offensive terms. In November 2000, Barnes expressed her distress about Mocombe's conduct to Reginald Edwards (Edwards), a substitute teacher who also works as a Baptist pastor. Edwards reported Barnes' concerns to principal Patton. Patton did nothing to follow up. Barnes also expressed her distress to her assigned teaching mentor, Arnetta Davis (Davis). Davis advised her that Mocombe was well known for this type of conduct, and recommended that she try to "nip it in the bud." Barnes is not an aggressive personality, but she tried to make Mocombe understand that she did not appreciate his comments. Mocombe was not deterred. Her efforts to nip Mocombe's conduct in the bud having failed, Barnes conferred again with Davis. Davis confirmed what Barnes had come to suspect: Mocombe conducted himself in this manner because he had been doing so for as long as he had been teaching, with no more than a wrist slap ever imposed. Barnes came to hold a reasonable belief that, in Davis' words, "apparently everyone knew about it, [Mocombe's inappropriate behavior] it was just how he was, and everyone just basically looked a blind eye about it." Davis could not provide Barnes with any assurance that if she complained to Patton, Mocombe would experience any meaningful consequence. Worse, Davis confirmed Barnes' fear that she, Barnes, might be deemed a troublemaker and be "blackballed" if she complained. Barnes was in no position to be blackballed. At the time she began her employment at Lauderhill, she had not yet received her permanent teacher's certificate. Moreover, she needed a summer teaching job and believed she was not likely to get one by being a "troublemaker." Based upon Davis' advice, and her own observation that Mocombe's constant sex talk was part of the landscape at Lauderhill, Barnes reasonably feared that Mocombe would continue to be protected by Patton, and that her own career might be seriously impaired if she sought to avail herself of School Board policies and procedures designed to provide employees recourse from sexual and other types of harassment. Davis' advice to Barnes was reasonable. Davis had witnessed Mocombe conduct himself in an unprofessional and disruptive manner at faculty meetings with no apparent consequences. Interestingly, at least by the time of the hearing, Mocombe's perception of his relationship with Patton differs from the perception shared by most of Lauderhill's professional staff. Mocombe came to feel that Patton would go out of his way to write [Mocombe] up for anything which Patton believed to be a challenge to his authority. But the totality of the evidence suggests that at all times material to this case, the belief widely held by Lauderhill staff that Patton's patience with Mocombe was practically unlimited, is closer to the truth. By March of 2001, Mocombe's conduct toward Barnes had escalated. One day, Barnes came in to the teachers' lounge to check mail. About a half dozen teachers were present. Mocombe freely--indeed proudly--described this incident: he said, for all to hear, "I can't stand up because my dick is hard, or I'm hard." Davis was coming to believe that she could no longer ethically ignore Mocombe's conduct toward Barnes. Around the time Bryant made her written complaint to Patton, Davis went to Patton on Barnes' behalf. Patton in turn went to Barnes and told her that she had to put her complaints about Mocombe into writing if anything was to be done. Barnes did so. By way of defense, Mocombe suggests that Barnes was the aggressor, pursuing him to consummate a physical relationship. Mocombe says he chose not to have sex with Barnes. This excerpt from Mocombe's testimony fairly summarizes his theory of the case: The same reason she was inquiring of Mr. Edwards about me, and she found out about my dealings with women. I turned her down, all right. If that's what you want to ask, we didn't have sex because I didn't want to have sex. Q. She wanted sex but you didn't? A. I didn't say that. I just said we didn't have sex. I chose not to have sex. I didn't say -- Q. Did you ask her? A. We came close a couple of times in the classroom. Q. To have sex with her? A. That's what you want. Yeah, we did. We came close a couple of times in the classroom. Every day for 20 to 25 days in the classroom with this woman, and you think -- maybe you [sic] blind. Yeah, I'm a good looking man. You must be out of your mind. (Transcript page 310, lines 6-24). Mocombe also claimed, with reference to Barnes, "This girl hugged me every morning in the lounge" and that on at least five occasions she voluntarily engaged with him in activities which, if done by teenagers, would be called "making out." Mocombe never attempted to reconcile this testimony with his admission that he wanted to "get into [Barnes'] pants." Moreover, there are numerous ways in which the colorful incidents recounted by Mocombe, if they occurred, could be corroborated. For example, Mocombe claims he said to Barnes in the presence of two teachers, one of whom testified at the hearing, that he confronted Barnes after learning she had filed a complaint. As he described the scene, "I was like, hell, no. I didn't do anything to this heifer. I was like just Friday you were kissing me." Leaving aside the use of Mocombe's highly derogatory term "heifer," had Mocombe said such a thing in the heat of this particular moment, it surely would have made an impression upon Barnes and the other witnesses. Yet none of them was questioned about it. Rather, Mocombe expects the trier of fact to accept his version because, as he put it, "Come on now. Hey, I'm a good looking man. Not only that, I'm intelligent too I don't know what [sic]. So she is ridiculous. But you know what, she got that off. They set me up. It's good. I like that." Upon receipt of the written complaints from Bryant and Barnes, Patton, in accordance with School Board procedure, informed Mocombe of the charges and instructed him not to contact either complainant. According to Patton, Mocombe's response to the accusations was nonchalant. In fact, Mocombe was enraged. He ignored Patton's no-contact directive and approached both Barnes and Bryant in an effort to convince them to drop their complaints. This is how Mocombe described the scenes when he made his unauthorized approaches to Barnes and Bryant: "You know what the fuck, I'm sorry whatever [sic], just cancel this shit. . . . And then I went over to Tracey Bryant, and I was like what, you were having a bad day. I was asking you are you pregnant. She was like, yeah, she was having a bad day. Ms. Russell asked me to apologize. I like apologized. And that was it. That was it. And Ms. Bryant said she was going to drop it, and then that was it. " Elsewhere in his testimony, Mocombe described the post-complaint encounter with Barnes in more detail: ". I walked to her classroom . . . I was like what the fuck is your problem. Are you a psycho. What's the [sic] fuck. You know what, I actually said you are a fucking nut bag. What the hell is this. She was like---she sat on the desk. She got on the desk and was like I'm afraid of you Mocombe. I was like what the fuck is wrong with you. I am like are you a psycho. I am like are you psychotic." Because Mocombe is not charged with insubordination or any other infraction based upon his disregard of the instruction that he not communicate with Barnes and Bryant, ordinarily testimony about these communications would be irrelevant and inadmissible. But, Mocombe did not object to testimony about these communications from School Board witnesses, and was eager to talk about these encounters himself. Mocombe appears to view his accounts of these incidents as exculpatory. To the contrary, if Barnes had ever pursued a sexual relationship with Mocombe, one would expect that his tirade about her complaint would have taken a very different form. Mocombe's testimony on cross-examination provides additional insight into Mocombe's sense of entitlement to disregard basic standards of civility and respect towards colleagues, and to view any attractive co-worker as a potential sex partner. This passage, which summarizes Mocombe's view of the charges against him, is instructive on that point, and also contains an additional admission that he was seeking to have sex with Barnes: Can you get to the real issue here? I don't believe Mortimer is the actual issue here. The actual issue is regarding Kim Barnes and Tracey Bryant. Simply add that on to show some kind of -- that I'm an ineffective teacher. I'm a brilliant teacher. Even Patton will admit to that fact, and nothing here has anything to do with my ability to teach. Because I'll be frank, I'm a brilliant teacher, I'm 27 years old. Continue. Q. Thank you. Let's then go on to the major issue. The heifer as you described Ms. Barnes, you were just seeking to have sex with her; is that right? A. For the most part, yes. (Transcript page 295, lines 11-24). On this and several other occasions during his testimony, Mocombe stated, "I'm 27," in contexts which suggested that in his view, his youth exempts him from standards of conduct which apply to older people. The law makes no such distinction. The common thread which runs through the testimony of witnesses for both sides is that Mocombe believes his youth, good looks and personality exempt him from the constraints of middle class morality, to the extent that it demands that teachers exhibit basic respect for all persons, whether or not, in the teacher's opinion, such respect is deserved. Mocombe is a young man of obvious intelligence and charisma, and Patton did him a disservice in turning a blind eye to his refusal to conform his conduct to the requirements of the standards of his profession. Even at the hearing, Mocombe was unable to control his desire to articulate, in crude terms, his contempt for those he disrespects. This exchange from Mocombe's cross-examination is illustrative: Q. All right. And you also touched her body parts; is that correct? A. Sure. Don't you touch your wife? (Transcript page 298, lines 6-8). Asked at the hearing if he acted inappropriately toward Barnes, Mocombe replied, "According to her I did. No, I honestly don't think so, no. I thought it was in jest. . . . I thought it was just we were something. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck for Christ's sake. I have a Ph.D. in philosophy. Anyway. No, I don't feel I acted inappropriately to Ms. Barnes." Mocombe has had months to think about it, but he continues to adhere to the belief that he is entitled to give free rein to his hedonistic impulses, and to express them in the crudest possible terms. Based upon the undersigned's careful observation of the parties and witnesses under oath, and throughout the hearing, and after careful consideration of the record as a whole, the suggestion by Mocombe and his witnesses that Barnes pursued Mocombe and was a willing participant in make-out sessions with him is expressly rejected. Neither has Mocombe proven a conspiracy by the friends of his former lover to destroy Mocombe's career. Even if School Board witnesses are motivated in whole or part by affection for Hope, and there was no competent evidence to support this view, the question of whether Mocombe may be lawfully terminated must be determined with reference to his conduct, and not the joy, or lack thereof, which witnesses may feel at the outcome. Prior disciplinary history: There is a theme which runs through the incidents which give rise to Mocombe's current difficulties. The common denominator is immaturity. Mocombe does not have an adult understanding of how his behavior offends contemporary standards of appropriate workplace behavior, and the corrosive impact of his coarse language and preoccupation with sex upon the professional environment which the public has a right to expect in its schools. In his short teaching career, he has received three reprimands, all relating to incidents in which he was unable to follow well known rules of acceptable workplace communication. Mocombe received his first reprimand while still a substitute teacher at Sunrise, where Patton was principal. He was reprimanded for using inappropriate language in the presence of students. The reprimand, dated January 5, 1999, included a directive requiring him to enroll in a teacher training class. On April 11, 2000, Mocombe was reprimanded for unprofessional and profane comments made toward his former lover, Hope. Mocombe's tirade occurred in Patton's presence. Mocombe screamed at Hope such comments as, "Fuck you, you bitch--yeah I fucked you, you ain't nothing but a damn whore; you're nothing but a good fuck; I am gonna put my foot up your ass." The letter of reprimand regarding this incident cited Rule 6B-1.006 which requires that educators refrain from engaging in "harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance or professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly process of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment. " The letter specifically warned that further misconduct of any nature could result in termination of employment. On January 10, 2001, Mocombe received a letter of reprimand for sending a chain letter to all of his teaching colleagues at Lauderhill in violation of well-established school board policy prohibiting the use of the in-house email system for communications unrelated to work. Mocombe's testimony revealed a complete lack of understanding that he has done anything wrong. Instead, he believes he is being "railroaded" in these proceedings. Based upon his prior disciplinary history, and the manner in which his defense was conducted, the conclusion is inescapable that if reinstated, Mocombe would continue to exhibit, during working hours, his passion for "revolution, education, and hedonism" in whatever manner he pleases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order discharging Mocombe from further employment in the Broward County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 14th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly & McKee 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316-1924 Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr., Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, holds Teaching Certificate Number 475518, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of elementary education, grades 1-6. From 1968 or 1969 until 1980, Respondent worked for the School Board as a teacher aide. As a teacher aide, she had approximately twelve years to view a wide variety of teaching strategies, methods, and teaching techniques in the approximately six different schools to which she had been assigned. While employed as a teacher's aide, Respondent attended Miami-Dade Junior Community College, North Campus, and studied Initial Elementary Education. She then completed Bachelor's Training at Nova University in 1979 and thereafter became employed as a classroom teacher with the Dade County School Board at the Elementary Level beginning in the 1980-1981 school year. Respondent has been employed as an elementary teacher by Petitioner School Board since the 1980-1981 school year. During all of that period, she has taught at Perrine Elementary School in Dade County, Florida. During all of the years Respondent taught, except for the first year, she had classes approximately half of a regular size class. This was because she has been teaching Title I/Chapter I classes. "Title I", renamed "Chapter I", classes refer to classes funded and mandated as part of the Education Consolidation Improvement Act which targets children who are deficient in certain areas and concentrates on bringing them into the mainstream of the education process by concentrated remediation in small, directed education classes. It is a "given" that many of these children are difficult to teach and to control. 1980-1981 SCHOOL YEAR On October 29, 1980 Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by her principal, Gloria H. Gray. Although rated overall acceptable she was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. Although rated acceptable in techniques of instruction, Respondent was rated unacceptable in one subcategory thereof because the proliferation of students' questions concerning the work indicated to the observer that the Respondent did not give clear assignments and directions to allow ample time for completion of tasks. Respondent was next formally observed by Principal Gray on December 12, 1980. Although Respondent was rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in classroom management because Mrs. Gray found much off-task behavior on the part of students, and Respondent appeared not to notice it. Through no fault of her own, Respondent had a very difficult first year experience with many interruptions. She was the foreman of the Grand Jury and was absent every Wednesday. In addition, she had legitimate family and medical problems causing frequent absences. To the extent possible, principal Gray initiated and followed through on numerous attempts to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in teaching. Mrs. Gray also provided an aide for Respondent in order to be assured that the education of her students was not being sorely neglected. Respondent was in a large pod with two other teachers. They helped Respondent in putting work on the board clearly. They also helped her in getting and using instructional material. Although Mrs. Gray testified that she was, in the spring of 1981, of the opinion that there was a repeated failure on the part of Respondent to communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience, she nonetheless rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and gave Respondent an overall acceptable rating on her Annual Evaluation for the 1980-1981 school year. Mrs. Gray gave Respondent the benefit of the doubt because Respondent had improved her teaching skills during the year, she had a good attitude toward trying to improve, she took Mrs. Gray's recommendations and attempted to implement them, and Mrs. Gray expected further improvement from Respondent the following year. Mrs. Gray further recommended Respondent for re-employment as an annual contract teacher. 1981-1982 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by her new principal Dr. Joan Hanley, on November 23, 1981. While Respondent was very devoted to self-improvement, she was nevertheless rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the category of preparation and planning because she did not have complete lesson plans for each of the following subjects she was responsible to teach: social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. Likewise, she did not have plans which could be used by a substitute in the event of her absence. Although she was rated acceptable in classroom management, Dr. Hanley offered suggestions for Respondent's improvement. It was not clear to Dr. Hanley whether Respondent's students were grouped for math. It is a standard instructional strategy to ascertain the ability levels of the students, group them accordingly, and plan separate instruction for the various groups. She also instructed Respondent to stand up and move between her groups of students in order to monitor the random activity that goes on. Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Assistant Principal Ellen Supran on January 6, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was found unacceptable in one subcategory, techniques of instruction. This subcategory deals with the use of instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Her students were not grouped for math instruction and the subject matter was too difficult and too abstract for the students. Respondent was not getting feedback from them. During the remainder of the school year, Mrs. Supran assisted Respondent through informal visitations. On these occasions, Mrs. Supran was concerned about Respondent's lesson plans, her children being off-task, and the appropriateness of the tasks assigned to the students by Respondent. She spent time working with Respondent on lesson plans, materials, instructional strategies, grouping, and monitoring children's progress. Respondent had an accident during the 1981-1982 school year which resulted in extended sick leave. Dr. Hanley was unable to observe Respondent formally in the classroom for the remainder of that school year. Because Respondent was anxious to improve her teaching and because she had made a good start, Dr. Hanley felt that it was only fair to rate Respondent acceptable in all categories for her Annual Evaluation for the 1981-1982 school year. Therefore, for the school year 1981-1982, Respondent's second annual contract year, Respondent was found acceptable in all categories on her Annual Evaluation and was again recommended for employment. 1982-1983 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent's next formal observation was on November 23, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, because the observer, Dr. Hanley, felt Respondent needed improvement in grammar, particularly verb usage. More specifically, Dr. Hanley observed poor grammar was utilized orally by Respondent in the course of teaching other subjects. Hers was a significant error because Respondent was teaching a resource class in compensatory education. This is a remedial class which addressed the reading, language arts, and mathematics needs of low- achieving students. In every type of class, it is necessary that a teacher set a good example in spoken English. Because elementary school children model the speech of their teacher, Respondent's grammatical errors, which were frequent and excessive, would impede the students' acquisition of appropriate language arts skills. In remedial classes, the effect is more pronounced and reinforces poor language arts skills because the children are already deficient in that area. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1982. Although rated overall acceptable, Respondent was again found unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to make the same kinds of grammatical errors she had been observed making at the November 23, 1982 observation. The December 7, 1982 observation resulted in a prescription for remediation. Dr. Hanley suggested that Respondent record herself on a tape recorder so that she could become sensitized to verb forms. Respondent followed Dr. Hanley's advice and it helped on the subsequent observation, but she did not sustain the improvement as indicated below. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on February 10, 1983. She was rated overall acceptable and made only one grammatical error, saying "cent" sometimes instead of "cents." Note was made of excellent behavior modification. On Respondent's Annual Evaluation for the 1982-1983 school year, Dr. Hanley rated Respondent acceptable in all categories and recommended her for employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent had achieved tenure. 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on May 7, 1984. Although rated overall acceptable, she was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and in a single subcategory of preparation and planning. She was rated unsatisfactory in the latter subcategory because her room was so cluttered that it was difficult to carry on her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she was again making the same grammatical errors she had made the year before. (See Finding of Fact No. 20 that improvement was not sustained). For example, the following statements were written on Respondent's chalk board: "Dorothy want to go back home", " . . . work that I have not finish." Dr. Hanley reminded Respondent that they had worked on the "ed" and "s" endings on verbs before. Nonetheless, Respondent was rated acceptable in all areas on her Annual Evaluation for 1983-1984 and was recommended for continued employment as a continuing contract teacher. 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR Through the 1983-1984 school year, the School Board utilized the standard evaluation system which was an undefined system that allowed observers maximum discretion, without any clear or consistent criteria. It was essentially geared toward making any end-of-the year employment decision. With the advent of the 1984-1985 school year, a new method of evaluating teachers was put into effect. Beginning with the 1984-1985 school year, Respondent's performance was assessed under a new form of evaluation which was thoroughly tested by the School Board and which was negotiated and agreed-to between the School Board and Respondent's union. This is the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS is a highly specific research-based clinical supervision system. State-of-the-art research has characterized certain teaching behaviors that are effective in a learning environment. TADS has grouped these into categories of assessment criteria. Required teaching behaviors are very precisely defined and there is very little room for discretionary interpretation by the observer. Ideally, the system is governed by decision rules which eliminate the potential of an arbitrary or capricious application of the criteria. The system is intended to further develop and upgrade teaching skills and assist the individual teacher to perform better. On the down side, TADS was characterized by the School Board's expert, Dr. Patrick Gray, as a clinical form of evaluation which primarily identifies teaching behavior which is simply acceptable, but it would not identify behavior of superior or excellent performance. (TR-II 47) Respondent's first formal classroom observation under TADS was on November 13, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she only carried out a very small part of the lesson and because she did not follow the assessment item in her lesson plan. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she presented the information to the children inadequately. There was no background given to draw out the students' previous understanding; no introduction, reinforcement, and drill; and no form of assessment to ascertain what the children had learned when the lesson was completed. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, because there was disorder a good part of the time and the class was not conducive to learning. Respondent and students arrived late. There were many delays during the class period. The cardboard coins utilized in the lesson on coin values became a great distraction and Respondent was unable to bring the coins into the lesson. She only got into the very introductory part of the lesson and rambled in her instruction. Respondent was not able to pull the students together into a group of attentive listeners. She was also rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she never fully instructed the students about her expectations regarding what they were to do at their desks. The coins became the major focus of the children's attention and they were tossing them and taking them from one another. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no assessment of the teaching objectives. As a result, there would be no way to tie up a lesson or help a teacher plan subsequent lessons. In order to aid Respondent in improving her performance, Dr. Hanley prescribed help. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent develop the skill of pacing her lessons so that she could complete the lesson within the allotted time; that Respondent seek help from Cynthia Muller, a PREP specialist, and that she also seek help from Dorothy Sissel, Chapter I Manager. Dr. Hanley also prescribed help in that she recommended that Respondent reorganize her room to make materials accessible for more efficiency. She recommended Mr. Holmberg, Assistant Principal, as a resource person. She also recommended that Respondent seek help from the Chapter I Specialist. Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent seek help from Chapter I and PREP specialists because she felt that the on-the- spot classroom training by these very qualified people would be very helpful to Respondent. PREP stands for Florida Primary Education Program, a program mandated by the State of Florida pursuant to Section 230.2312, Florida Statutes. PREP mandates a diagnostic- prescriptive approach that enables each child to have an individualized program to permit development of that child's maximum potential and to achieve a level of competence by that child in basis skills. Pursuant to this approach, students are divided into three categories, with those developing at a normal level being taught with developmental teaching strategies, those having been identified as having potential learning problems, being taught with preventive teaching strategies, and those needing more challenging work, being taught with enrichment teaching strategies. The School Board has developed reading and math programs to comply with the statutory mandate. Respondent actually received help from Cynthia Muller, the PREP Specialist, in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Muller helped Respondent approximately on 9 to 10 occasions for a total of approximately 12 hours of assistance. She provided this assistance on November 7, 9, 26, 29 and December 4, 1984, and on February 7, May 28, June 6, and 11, 1985. In the course of her assistance, Mrs. Muller observed several problems with Respondent's teaching. There was a lot of off- task behavior. The children were jittery and walked around the classroom at will. They exhibited little motivation. Mrs. Muller found that much of the work was inappropriate for the students, above the level for which they were competent. That added to the off-task behavior. On November 26, 1984, Mrs. Muller did a demonstration lesson for Respondent showing her how the children could be motivated to stay in their seats and work quietly. She also demonstrated the use of the teacher manual in planning for the complete class period so that all of the children would receive their reading lessons within the prescribed timeframe. On another occasion, they also discussed the Total Math Program (TMP), Petitioner School Board's diagnostic-prescriptive program for math. TMP provides for pre- and post-testing of students and clustering students into particular groups. They discussed grouping students, assessing them, planning for them, and instructing them using a teacher's manual. Mrs. Muller also suggested a positive re-enforcement type of reward system. She also suggested that Respondent remove books and materials from the instructional area so that the class would have a clean place to work and place their books. Mrs. Muller also noticed misspelled words and improperly used words on the chalkboard e.g., "When he finish the book." Mrs. Muller's assistance, November 7, 1984 to June 11, 1985 overlaps several subsequent formal observations. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. Despite Mrs. Muller's assessment on November 7 and 11 that there was some improvement, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction by Dr. Hanley on December 7, 1984. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she had no assessment item in her lesson plan. Because Respondent told Dr. Hanley that she knew what was expected and she promised to do it in the future, Dr. Hanley did not make a further prescription in that area. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was still very disorderly. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent designate areas for specific subjects and tasks within her room. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because her lesson, again, was considered by Dr. Hanley to be a rambling one. Dr. Hanley found the lesson components not to be sequenced; Respondent did not accent the important points; Respondent was unaware of what her students were doing; she did not provide suggestions to her students for improving performance; she did not adjust her lesson when students were not understanding but went right on with what she was teaching rather than re-teach a concept. Dr. Hanley did not feel Respondent provided for closure of the lesson so as to help the children pick up the critical areas of the lesson and so as to be ready for the next lesson. Respondent continued to make grammatical and spelling errors, e.g., "...Santa Clause and other tradition." In order to help Respondent improve her performances Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent observe two fellow teachers whom Dr. Hanley felt had excellent techniques of instruction. A conference-for-the-record was scheduled for the Respondent in December, 1984, but due to Respondent's illness and impending surgery, it was rescheduled for February 13, 1985. A conference-for-the-record is an official meeting regarding a teacher's teaching performance. It is required so that the teacher is officially notified that her deficient performance has not been remediated. At the conference, administrators went over Respondent's classroom observations. Respondent was notified that if she was still under prescription at the time of her Annual Evaluation, she would not receive her annual teaching increment (pay raise). From February through May, 1985, Perrine Elementary School was visited at least once a week by the Chapter I Educational specialist, Tarja Geis. She helped most of the teachers each time she visited. Chapter I is a federally funded program which addresses reading and math deficiencies in children from low income areas. It uses a language experience approach. Ms. Geis' opportunities to observe Respondent were short and sporadic. Her observations were not "formal" observations. However, when Ms. Geis did observe Respondent in the classroom, she noticed Respondent's inattentiveness to some of the children's behavior. She suggested ways to Respondent to improve that, most of which were "boilerplate" suggestions. Ms. Geis also observed one of Respondent's lessons and did a demonstration lesson for her on May 22, 1985, in order to show Respondent the language experience approach used in the Chapter I program. Ms. Geis discussed and/or demonstrated techniques to improve class management, student behavior, student comprehension and student attitude. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Geis gave a workshop for Chapter I teachers. All teachers who would have been working that day would have been in attendance. It is probable that Respondent attended that workshop. She had missed an earlier one in February because of her absence. Respondent indicated at formal hearing that she was not aware that Tarja Geis was a resource person for her use, but her perception is illogical in that Ms. Geis is a Chapter I Educational Specialist and Respondent teaches in the category of Chapter I students. Respondent also testified that she was not given in-service learning experiences by Dr. Hanley and Mr. Holmberg when she requested them. The workshop given by Ms. Geis would seem to address this request, contrary to Respondent's assertion. Respondent concurs that she attended at least one such workshop. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on March 21, 1985. By this time, Respondent had received help from Mrs. Muller and Ms. Geis. She may have also sought help from the two teachers at her school. By her own testimony, she sought assistance from Ms. Jackerson and by a course taught outside of the usual school day. She showed great improvement and was rated acceptable in every category. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom on May 7, 1985, simultaneously by Dr. Hanley and the area director, Phyllis Cohen. Under TADS, this is an external or dual observation where two observers assess the same classroom performance. Its purpose is to assure objectivity and fairness. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not carried out. While Respondent attempted to work with one group, the other groups' lessons were not implemented. The students were not on task. The group at the listening station was not doing its work. The group doing independent reading did not open their books. At least half the students did not receive their directed reading lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because her development of ideas and information was unclear and confusing. She would give insufficient definitions and did not reinforce with enough examples so that the students could understand the homework assignment. The lesson was not sequenced and Respondent was again using inaccurate language. The vocabulary words that the students were working on were not introduced to them and did not have any relationship to the lesson. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because her classroom was out of control and because of her problems in managing the transition time, getting and keeping students settled, and managing the different reading groups. Class started ten minutes late, and during transitions in the lesson, approximately twenty minutes were wasted. As the hour progressed, the noise crescendoed. Five to eight students were off-task at different times during the class. One student slapped another during the lesson. Respondent was not aware of the off-task behavior and did not redirect the students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not introduce the lesson, provide opportunities for the students to practice, get feedback whether the students had obtained information, or provide reinforcement and follow-up. In other words the sequence was not appropriate. There was a lot of jumping around in the lesson. Respondent did not address the various learning styles of the students. Her communication was not precise enough for students to understand what she was trying to teach. She did not give the students feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Although she used the teacher manual, she did not fill in between the questions with her own information. She asked the questions in a distorted manner. The students were unable to answer the questions and Respondent could not elaborate but went on to the next question. Her directions to the students were very poor, as were her explanations. She failed to rephrase explanations that were not understood. Her instructions to the listening station group were not specific enough. Her questions on the worksheet were not explained in a way that the students were able to proceed independently. They did not do the worksheet at all. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not assess what the students were learning at their levels. Material was presented at a low cognitive level. She did not seem to be able to ascertain whether the students were learning what she was teaching them. She did not walk around to determine what each group was doing. In order to help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she work with Mrs. Muller again on the execution of her lesson plans in order to facilitate a directed reading lesson for each of her reading groups. To help Respondent improve her teaching performance, Dr. Hanley recommended that she observe another Chapter I teacher during a reading lesson to hone in on the development of ideas and information in a sequential and meaningful manner. Two teachers were named as resources. To help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent work with Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal to develop strategies for effective student management while beginning classes and during transition periods and that she work with an observer to sensitize herself to off-task, nonproductive activities on the part of students. It was also recommended that Respondent revamp her behavior modification plan to enhance student involvement. To help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent again work with Ms. Geis and Mrs. Muller since she had improved after working with these two education specialists the prior year. Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent review the elements in a basal reading lesson, i.e., background, sequence, and closure. She also recommended that Respondent rehearse her reading lesson so that she would think ahead about the main points and key definitions. She recommended that Respondent work with the observers to sensitize herself to situations in which the students are confused, and that she develop strategies to improve clarification. Dr. Hanley was also available to Respondent as a resource. In order to help Respondent improve techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent have a person observe Respondent while she was teachings and help her on the spot when her students were not following the lesson. She suggested the Respondent develop assessment techniques which incorporated multilevel assessment activities. She also recommended that Respondent include development of summative assessment instruments in conjunction with these other activities. She recommended that Ms. Geis and the Assistant Principal be used as resources to help Respondent develop a sensitivity in identifying whether the students were on-track. On May 28, 19 85, Mrs. Muller discussed reading lessons with Respondent. She went over sequencing. She asked Respondent to rehearse her reading instruction. Mrs. Muller also gave Respondent a PREP teacher guide and a sample directed reading lesson. She referred her to a section on classroom organization and management. On June 6, 1985, Mrs. Muller was to visit Respondent's class and to observe a directed reading lesson. Respondent, however, was doing a different lesson. There was very little organization in the lesson. Mrs. Muller saw some improvement in the Respondent's teaching; however, considering the amount of time she had spent with the Respondent, she would have expected to have seen more progress. Although Respondent had demonstrated a willingness to receive suggestions for improvement and a willingness to work toward acceptable ratings, her Annual Evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year was unacceptable. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Nonetheless, Respondent was recommended for continued employment for the next school year as a continuing contract teacher. It was Dr. Hanley's hope that Respondent would remediate herself during the next school year. Respondent remained on prescription and would not be entitled to her pay increment (raise) for the next school year while she was still on prescription. 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On October 16 and 17, 1985, Respondent received more help from a fellow teacher, Joyce King. Ms. King discussed with Respondent the instructional processes of sequencing, interfacing subjects, and closure. Ms. King also demonstrated a reading lesson for Respondent. On October 22, 1985, Respondent received further help from another teacher, Doretha P. Thomas. Respondent observed Ms. Thomas during a developmental reading lesson in her class. Ms. Thomas also discussed with Respondent the amount of time used with the reading group, scheduling, and possible changes Respondent could make in her own planning. Respondent was next formally observed in her classroom by Dr. Hanley on October 30, 1985. The class was working on the Dade County required diagnostic-prescriptive reading curriculum known as RSVP. This curriculum contemplates that students are to be pretested and their deficiencies listed on individual profiles so that the teacher knows what specific skills to teach them. It is mandatory that the students' skills be profiled before the teacher attempts to work with them. Respondent had not completed the RSVP paperwork as of the date of this observation. I accept Respondent's testimony that she only had from October 18 until October 30, 1985 in which to complete these profiles; that she was under some disadvantage in preparing the profiles because of the administration's peremptory move of all her materials to a smaller classroom on Friday October 18; and that her observation rating was somewhat tainted by the temporary mess that resulted from the move. However, I find that the period involved would have been sufficient to complete at least the profiles if she had performed her tasks diligently in the intervening seven workdays. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because the class was not well managed and the students were not working. After the midpoint of the period, three students did no work. In the last ten minutes of the periods, six students did no work. Many students completed worksheets during the first twenty minutes of the class and then colored pictures. These students of Respondent's were not re- directed by her. Respondent seemed to be unaware of the off-task behavior. In order to help Respondent with her classroom management, Dr. Hanley recommended the Respondent move among the students periodically. She also recommended the Respondent plan sufficient work for the instructional period and that she clarify to students what additional study and enrichment activities were available when work is completed. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not monitoring pupil performance. Students were doing work incorrectly on their worksheets, and Respondent did not circulate and catch the errors or clarify them. Therefore, incorrect material was being reinforced by the students in their work. Several of the students did not understand the follow- up worksheets. The students' confusion indicated that they were not being taught at their appropriate level. They were being taught on a hit or miss method since their profiles had not been completed. In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley recommended that she fulfill the requirements of RSVP by completing her profiles, grouping her children, and making a class profile chart. Dr. Hanley also recommended that the teacher aide assist Respondent with the pretesting. Dr. Hanley listed the area PREP specialist and herself to review grouping for instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because although she, as part of her school faculty, had been instructed every year as to the School Board requirements for maintaining student folders, her student folders were deficient. She had no papers dated after September 19, 1985 in them. In order to help Respondent improve her assessment techniques, Dr. Hanley clarified what was expected as far as classroom folders. Respondent must have at least one graded and dated paper per week in reading, math, and writing in each student's folder. Dr. Hanley listed herself and other classroom teachers as a resource for Respondent. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal, Herbert Holmberg. He rated her unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had grammatically incorrect information and statements on the chalkboard. Knowledge of subject matter was not exhibited as Respondent read verbatim from the teacher manual. She did not address various cognitive levels. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Mr. Holmberg recommended that Respondent prepare her material, information, and directions in advance and that her verbal and written usage be grammatically correct. He suggested more flexibility and elaboration during reading. He also suggested that the subject matter be presented at more than one level. As recommended resources, he listed the Principal, the Assistant Principal, and a peer teacher. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not have a sequence in the lesson. The grammar on the board was incorrect. Her spelling was incorrect. There was no variety to her activities. There was no assessment of closure in the lesson. As resources for help, he recommended the Assistant Principal, the PREP specialist, and a peer teacher. Another conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on December 9, 1985. Respondent's teaching performance was discussed. Dr, Hanley was hopeful the Respondent would be able to remediate her deficiencies; however, Respondent was put on notice that if she was not fully remediated by the close of the school year she would be recommended for termination for cause. Respondent was next formally observed by Charles Sherwood, Directors Basic Skills on December 13, 1985. She was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Respondent testified that Dr. Sherwood orally indicated to her that her rating was satisfactory and created no problems but the business record of the school (P 30) shows that he rated her unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because all of the pupils received the same spelling lesson, despite the differences in their reading levels; and that he rated her unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because, although the school year was very close to being halfway over, Respondent still had not completed her PREP roster. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in her classroom in another external observation on March 17, 1986, by Dr. Hanley and Mrs. Cohen, and she was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because there were a substantial number of errors in teaching the concept "1/2". The words "equal" and unequal" were not used, although they were key vocabulary words in the teacher's manual for the lesson. Respondent told the children that a whole with a line in it becomes one-half. She did not indicate that the line had to be in the middle of the whole in order for there to be halves. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of her subject matter, Dr. Hanley recommended that Respondent use the teacher's manual for planning and delivering of instruction. It was requested the Respondent master the use of and use the words "equal" and "unequal" appropriately. She also recommended the Respondent use the area specialists, peer teachers, and the Assistant Principal as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the explanations of the concept of a whole, half, and fractions were not clear to the reviewer, and the reviewers felt the components necessary to address the key concepts were not effectively presented, thereby confusing she children, and an appropriate vocabulary was not used. They felt Respondent's lesson was again lacking in sequence. Additional resources and suggestions for improvement were prescribed to Respondent. Another conference-for-the-record was held with the Respondent on April 16, 1986. Some of Respondent's concerns regarding the TADS process were addressed. Respondent's improvement was discussed and Respondent was again notified that if she failed to be removed from prescription by the end of this second year of deficiency, recommendation of dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was next formally and simultaneously observed in the classroom in another external observation by Dr. Hanley and Evelyn Evans, another area director. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subtracting. The errors which she made on the board were not corrected. She also made errors in the process itself. These errors were demonstrated on a chalkboard at formal hearing which was erased without being admitted in evidence, but the oral testimony and business records of this observation are sufficient to support this finding. Respondent did not correct student errors, used inappropriate terminology referred to the one's and ten's columns as the right column and left columns and thereby confused the children. Dr. Hanley found the deficiencies in this lesson very similar to the math lesson observed on March 17, 1986. Respondent was still using her own vocabulary. Despite the fact that most of the children in her class and certainly most of our society could understand Respondent's use of "take away" for "subtract" and use of similar colloquialisms, the School Board established the need for more precise and consistent language in teaching early math skills. Respondent did not show evidence of having mastered the subject matter. In order to help Respondent improve her knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Hanley again emphasized mastery of vocabulary and concepts in the teacher's manual and advised adhering closely to the recommended word usage and plan of instruction. Respondent was instructed not to use her own vocabulary and methods until she had total command of the material. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because of many errors. The lesson was not properly sequenced; the children did not have a basic understanding of subtracting without regrouping before beginning subtracting with regrouping; Respondent's use of her own vocabulary confused the children; Respondent did not clarify by rephrasing with different words, but rather, used the same vocabulary over again that the children had not understood the first time. Respondent blocked the chalkboard while she was demonstrating to the class, was inattentive to the need for a chair by one student, and required a reading level of the children in math for which they were not prepared. Respondent again demonstrated improper subject-verb agreement, e.g., "What is the numbers?" and dropping endings on verbs, e.g., "As time go on", "Three minus two leave one." In order to help Respondent improve her techniques of instruction, Dr. Hanley again recommended the Respondent work with another second grade teacher to understand and become proficient in following the sequence and the delivery of instructions to include introduction, background, and the other steps in sequencing. She was also instructed to master the vocabulary and instructional plans in the teacher's manual and to adhere to them while teaching. She was instructed to develop a method for re-teaching individual students who appeared not to understand the lesson. Another conference-for-the-record was held on June 6, 1986. Respondent's unacceptable teaching performance was reviewed. Respondent was advised that a recommendation for dismissal for cause would be made. Respondent was also given an end of the year prescription, as required by TADS. Although Respondent had improved her classroom management during the year, she was still unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction for the 1985-1986 school year. The two unacceptable categories are key categories in teaching. Improvement in these had either been slight or not at all, and Dr. Hanley had exhausted the school system's resources in attempting to assist Respondent. Respondent's testimony at formal hearing corroborates her supervisors' observations as to her failure to exhibit appropriate English grammar and usage with regard to subject-verb tenses. Gloria Jackerson, a retired teacher, testified on behalf of Respondent. Although this retired teacher of 21 years and a candid witness, she is Respondent's best friend. While this relationship may not have colored her favorable testimony, she admits that she has never observed Respondent teach in the classroom nor has she taught Chapter I students in Miami-Dade County under the present program. Therefore, her testimony with regard to Respondent's competency must be rejected. Evidence presented by several satisfied parents is all in Respondent's favors however, most had no training in classroom observation nor were they able to observe Respondent teaching in her classroom over any significant period of time. Their observations, therefore, were of minimal duration and purely subjective. No objective records showing whether their children were promoted or how their children progressed under Respondent's teaching were offered to substantiate their layman's viewpoint. With regard to the testimony of Robert Collins, a Learning Disability teacher in the Dade County School System, who requested that his child be placed in the Respondent's class and who had a brief opportunity to observe Mrs. Brewer in the classroom and who testified that her classes were well managed, his observation opportunities were so brief and so sporadic as to not outweigh the greater weight of the expert testimony of Petitioner's witnesses. The supportive evidence of Geraldine Townsend, another Perrine teachers is not helpful to Respondent in that this witness also had no truly meaningful observations of Respondent. The testimony of Mrs. Collins, a mother and also a teacher's aide, that some of the formal observers made Respondent's classes nervous and jittery is accepted, but this circumstance does not eliminate or seriously mitigate Respondent's responsibilities to teach effectively and to keep her students under control during observations. Respondent Brewer has worked hard to obtain her education and position. She is a deeply religious, compassionate, and caring individual. She has the type of supportive personality the young people of this society dearly need to know and relate to. She has good rapport with the young and communicates with them in loving and supportive ways. However, her personal qualifications and attributes do not outweigh the clear and convincing evidence of her incompetency as demonstrated by the foregoing Findings of Fact. On August 20, 1986, Petitioner School Board suspended Respondent, 55 years old, from employment, 2.20 years short of her attaining full retirement, and further initiated dismissal procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, as of August 20, 1986, of Respondent, Anna M. Brewer, and dismissing Respondent Anna M. Brewer as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida teaching certificate for five years or until she demonstrates competency pursuant to statute and ruled whichever occurs first. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 31st day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOs. 86-3926, 87-0468 The following constitutes specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner School Board's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2 and 3. Covered and corrected to reflect the record in FOF 5. Covered in FOF 6. Covered in FOF 7. 6-8. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as set out in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 8. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, it is covered in FOF 9. Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. Partially addressed in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11. Covered in FOF 12. Covered in FOF 13. 16-18. Covered in FOF 14. Covered in FOF 15. Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 17. 22-23. Covered in FOF 18. Covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 20. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23. Covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. Except to the extent it required expansion to fully conform to the record and except to the extent its proposals are subordinate and unnecessary, this proposal is covered in FOF 26. 33.-42. Covered in FOF 27-28. 43.-47. Except as contrary to the record for expression or subordinate, covered in FOF 29. Covered in FOF 30. Covered in FOF 31. Covered in FOF 32. Covered in FOF 33. Covered in FOF 34. Covered in FOF 35. Covered in F0F 36. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 37. Modified to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, in FOF 38. Covered in FOF 39. Covered in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 42. , 62., 64., 66. and 68. are covered in FOF 43. , 63., 65., 67. and 69. are covered in FOF 44. 70.-73. Covered in FOF 45. Covered in FOF 46. Covered in FOF 47. Covered in FOF 48. Covered, expanded and modified so as to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record as a whole in FOF 49. Covered in FOF 50. Covered in FOF 51. Covered in FOF 52. Covered in FOF 50 and 53. Covered in FOF 54. Covered in FOF 55. Covered in FOF 56. Covered in FOF 57. Covered in FOF 58. Covered in FOF 59. Covered in FOF 60. 89-91. Expanded and modified to reflect the competent, substantial evidence of record and to eliminate the subordinate and unnecessary in FOF 61. Covered in FOF 62. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 63 and 65. Covered in FOF 64. 95-96. Covered in FOF 65 except for cumulative and unnecessary material. Covered in FOF 66. Covered in FOF 67. Covered and expanded in FOF 68. Covered in FOF 69. Except to the extent it is subordinate and unnecessary or cumulative, covered in FOF 70. Covered in FOF 71. Covered in FOF 72. Covered in FOF 73. Rejected as cumulative. Covered in FOF 74. Rejected as cumulative. Covered and expanded in FOF 80. Petitioner Betty Castor's (EPC's) PFOF Since this petitioner adopted the PFOF of Petitioner School Board, the rulings are also the same. Respondent's PFOF Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2-3. Covered in FOF 4. There is no PFOF. Covered in FOF 7-13, most specifically in FOF 13. Covered in FOF 14-17, most specifically in FOF 17. Covered in FOF 18-22, most specifically in FOF 22. Covered in FOF 23-25, most specifically in FOF 25. 9-10. Covered in FOF 26. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 75. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 77. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 76. Rejected as not supported by the evidence and for the reasons discussed in FOF 78. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madeline P. Schere, Esquire Board Administration Building Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 J. David Holders Esquire 211 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the actions taken by the superintendent and staff of the Duval County School Board prior to December 1, 1974, were sufficient to achieve comparability pursuant to the provisions of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Congress amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by Public Law 91-230 instituting a project referred to as the Title I Program. The Respondent, Department of Education, has the responsibility of administering the Title I Program and dispensing federal funds to the various school districts throughout the State of Florida. Petitioner, Duval County School Board, is a large urban school district of some 112,000 students and 10,000 employees. There are 134 schools in the district of which 28 are designated as E.S.E.A. Title I Project Schools. The statute under consideration is 20 U.S.C.A. Sec. 241(e): "(a) A Local educational agency may receive a grant under this sub-chapter for any fiscal year only upon application therefore approved by the appropriate State educational agency, upon its determination (consistent with such basic criteria as the Commissioner may establish) . . . (3) That . . .(c) state and local funds be used in the District of such agencies to provide services in project areas which, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services being provided in areas in such districts which are not receiving funds under this sub-chapter: . . . provided further, That each local educational agency receiving funds under this sub-chapter shall report on or before July 1, 1971 and on or before July 1 of each year thereafter with respect to its compliance with this clause; . . ." The regulation under consideration which was promulgated to implement the statute is Regulation Sec. 116.26, a part of which reads: "(a) A state educational agency shall not approve an application of a local educational agency for a grant under section 141(a) of the Act, or make payments of Title I funds under a previously approved application of such agency, unless that local educational agency has demonstrated, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, that services provided with State and local funds in title I project areas are at least comparable to the services being provided with State and local funds in school serving attendance areas not designated as Title I project areas. Such approval shall not be given unless the local educational agency also provides the assurances and the additional information required' by paragraph (e) of this section with respect to the maintenance of comparability. For the purpose of this section, State and local funds include those funds used in the determination of fiscal effort in accordance with Section 116.45." 116.26(c) "If any school serving a Title I Project Area is determined not to be comparable under this paragraph, no further payments of Title I funds shall be made to the local educational agency until that agency has taken the action required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section to overcome such lack of comparability." Regulation Sec. 116.26(k)(1) in part reads: "that such local educational agency has allocated or reallocated sufficient additional resources to Title I Project Areas so as to come into compliance with such requirements and has filed a revised comparability report reflecting such compliance." Petitioner, Duval County School Board, has been the recipient of Title I funds on a year to year basis since 1965, but was deemed by the Respondent to be in violation of the federal requirements from December 1, 1974 through January 2, 1975 for the reason that Petitioner had not "achieved comparability" for that period of time. Funds withheld from Petitioner, in excess of $325,000 are involved in this hearing. The following sequence of events are pertinent: On or about July 1, 1974, the Duval County application for Fiscal Year 1974 was filed and approved based on the assurance that comparability existed in Duval County and would be maintained throughout the 1974-75 school year. On or about September 27, 1974, the Respondent advised local school districts that October 1, 1974 was the date for collecting the data on which the comparability report for Fiscal Year 1975 would be based. On October 7 and 8, 1974, and again on November 7 and 8, 1974, conferences and meetings were held with representatives of various school boards, including those of the Petitioner. The purpose of these meetings and conferences was to inform these school boards concerning the requirements of achieving and maintaining comparability. On November 20, 1974, in a memorandum from Woodrow J. Darden marked "URGENT" the Respondent advised all Superintendents, the Finance Officers and Title I Coordinators that the comparability reports were due on or before December 1, 1974. A part of said memorandum stated: "If the comparability report submitted by your district did not meet the measures to determine comparability as outlined in the Federal Regulations, administrative or Board action for the purpose of reallocating resources should be taken on or before December 1, 1974, to bring the schools into compliance." The date of December 1, 1974 is established by Regulation 116.26(b)(7). On November 26 and 27, 1974, the Superintendent authorized a reallocation of instructional staff and authorized budgetary transfers to bring Petitioner up to the required level of comparability. On December 1, 1974, Petitioner filed its report. On December 17, 1974, the Director, Special Projects, received a copy from Department of Education of a MAILGRAM from Robert R. Wheeler, Acting Deputy Commissioner for School Systems, United States Office of Education to Honorable Ralph Turlington, stating: "this is to remind you that your agency is required under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act not to make any further payments as of December 1 to any local educational agency that has not as of that date complied with the comparability requirements in 45 CFR 116.26 and to notify each such agency not to obligate any Title I funds after that date. Compliance with this requirement is subject to Federal Audit. Your continued cooperation is appreciated." By a letter dated December 18, 1974, the Respondent notified Petitioner funds were being withheld for the period of December 1 through December 16, 1974. An audit was conducted by Petitioner following the withholding of funds of December 18, 1974, and this audit revealed that comparability had still not been achieved. A revised report dated December 27, 1974 indicated that additional personnel still were needed to meet comparability requirements. Pursuant thereto additional personnel reported to work on or about January 2, 1975. By a letter dated January 16, 1975, the Respondent rescinded the prior authorization that had permitted the resumption of the use of Title I funds as of December 16, 1974 and extended the period of withholding of Title I funds through January 1, 1975. Following the notification to Petitioner that the funds were being withheld, the Petitioner requested a hearing in order to appeal the withholding of the Title I funds for the period of December 1, 1974 through December 16, 1974. This request for a hearing was later amended to include the period of time from December 15, 1975 through January 1, 1975. Petitioner contends: That it complied with the requirements of the subject statute and regulation when it unconditionally committed itself on November 26, 1974 to the employment of necessary personnel by the establishment and budgeting of all necessary positions and direction that such positions be filled. Petitioner further contends that good faith on its part and substantial compliance is all that the statute and regulation require. Respondent contends: That the subject statute and regulation require that compliance with the comparability requirements is a continuing state of being and must be maintained throughout the year. Respondent further contends that the Federal statute and regulation require not only that the positions be budgeted and directions be given to employ but that the positions be actually filled and the personnel on the job on or before the filing of the report required by Regulation 116.26(b)(7). The Hearing Officer further finds: That both Petitioner and Respondent have demonstrated a dedication and concern for the schools within their respective jurisdictions; That both Petitioner and Respondent have been diligent in trying to act within the provisions of the subject statute and regulations; That the personnel of both the Petitioner and Respondent are familiar with the requirements of the statute and regulation but the federal requirements are subject to different interpretations by reasonable persons. There was no meeting of the minds of the parties from the federal, state and local governmental units as to the required method of compliance with the laws.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has sufficient grounds to support dismissal of Respondent from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher by the School Board and currently holds a professional services contract. He began working for the School District on or about March 2007, in the middle of the 2006-2007 school year. His first assignment was at Holmes Elementary School where he worked on a “waiver,” since he did not have an elementary education certification. The principal asked him to get his certification in elementary education, which he did. According to Respondent, he was asked to start working early because the principal did not have enough teachers. During that year, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas of evaluation and was rehired for the 2007-2008 school year. Prior to becoming a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Respondent served in the United States military from 1978-1985, and had worked as a registered nurse. He holds an associate’s degree from Miami-Dade College, a bachelor’s degree from Florida International University (“FIU”), two master’s degrees from FIU, an academic certificate in gerontological studies from FIU, and an academic teaching certificate from FIU. For the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent worked at Little River Elementary School (“Little River”). The principal at Little River asked Respondent to work on another “waiver,” this time for teaching English as a Second Language students (“ESOL”). After completing the necessary coursework, Respondent received an ESOL certification. Respondent remained at Little River through the 2008-2009 school year until he was involuntarily transferred to Scott Lake Elementary School (“Scott Lake”) for the 2009-2010 school year. During the latter two years at Little River, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas. According to Respondent, he was transferred to Scott Lake because the administration of Little River objected to the number of student discipline referrals (“SCMs”) he was writing on students. Respondent reports having written somewhere between 600 and 700 SCMs on students over the years. Respondent freely admits he wrote many SCMs at every school he worked at and highlights that fact as an excuse for why he performed poorly. During Respondent’s first three years of employment at Holmes Elementary and Little River, he was evaluated across the board on his annual evaluations as “Meets Standards.” During this period of time, the only other rating an employee could receive was “Does Not Meet Standards.” During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent’s principal for his first year at Scott Lake was Valerie Ward. During the 2009-2010 school year, the School District made changes to the teacher performance evaluation system. Use of the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (“IPEGS”) was implemented. The IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluations (“SPEs”) were now comprised of eight Performance Standards, where a teacher could be rated “Exemplary,” “Proficient,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In her first year with Respondent, Ms. Ward rated him “Proficient” in all eight standards. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Ward placed Respondent on a 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34. During this 90-day probation process, he was observed by administration on at least five different occasions, was put on several improvement plans, and had several meetings with administrators. The 90-day probation process is very time- consuming for both the subject employee and the employee’s administration. In other words, it is not the preferred task of a busy principal, unless he or she must, and then only when it is warranted by poor performance. Respondent believes Ms. Ward placed him on performance probation to retaliate against him because he complained about the temperature in his classroom. This is the first of many excuses and justifications Respondent has offered to explain criticisms of his performance by administrators. For the 2010-2011 school year at Scott Lake, Respondent was again evaluated as proficient in all areas. On or about April 2012, Principal Lakesha Wilson- Rochelle assumed Ms. Ward’s role at Scott Lake. Principal Rochelle signed off on Respondent’s summative evaluation during the 2011-2012 school year, but did not fill it out, since it had already been completed by someone else. The score placed Respondent in the “needs improvement” category. She signed it only because she was required to do so, and the summative evaluation rating she gave him for the next school year was even worse by several points. It was also during the 2011-2012 school year that IPEGS underwent another change. Now there were seven professional practice standards on which teachers were evaluated and one standard that was based on actual student data. Use of IPEGS IPEGS was approved by the Florida Department of Education (“FDOE”) for all years relevant to this case. The IPEGS processes from the 2013-2014 school year forward consisted of the following: Each teacher that had been teaching for more than two years received one formal observation. If during that observation the teacher’s performance was sufficient, nothing more need be done, outside of a summative evaluation at the end of the year. However, informal feedback is given to teachers throughout the year after classroom walkthroughs and through other means. If a teacher was observed to be deficient in one or more standards during the formal observation, the teacher and administration would engage in something called “support dialogue” in which support in various forms is provided to the teacher, so that the deficiencies can be remediated. If the teacher still exhibits performance deficiencies after the support dialogue, they are placed on the 90-day performance probation. While on performance probation, the teacher is observed another four times after the initial observation. After the second, third and fourth observations, if the teacher has not remediated, the administration develops an improvement plan, which must be followed. The improvement plan gives the teacher assignments and assistance to aid him or her in remediating any deficiencies. Also, each teacher, regardless of whether placed on performance probation, receives an SPE, as well as a Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (“SPE Rating”) of either “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In addition to the seven professional practice standards, a data component is also factored into the SPE Rating known as the VAM. The VAM As explained by Director of Research Services Dr. Aleksander Shneyderman (“Dr. S”), the VAM is a statistical model that attempts to measure a teacher’s impact on student learning growth through the use of a multi-level lineal regression. Dr. S has been working with the VAM, since its inception in 2010-2011. He has studied it and keeps abreast of Florida’s rules and regulations of how to calculate it. Dr. S and his office calculate what is called “Local VAM” for the School District. He also provides trainings to School District employees on the use of the VAM. Dr. S was tendered and accepted in this proceeding as an expert in VAM calculation. Local VAM is usually calculated in September/October by his office after the previous year’s testing data become available. Various assessments are used to create the Local VAM. It is calculated in compliance with state statutes, and the methodology is approved each year by FDOE. Also, the methods for calculating the Local VAM are bargained for and ratified by the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”) teacher’s union. The Florida VAM is calculated by the State using a model that is approved by the Florida Commissioner of Education. The results of the Florida VAM are given to Dr. S’s office by the State. The Florida VAM is created using the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”). In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, Respondent’s Local VAM scores were calculated by Dr. S’s office and based upon his students’ results on the Stanford 8 Achievement Test, 10th edition. UTD approved the methodology in VAM calculation for both of these years. For the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent’s VAM score was the Florida VAM in English language arts for fifth grade. The goal of the VAM is to measure a teacher’s effectiveness on student learning growth. In order to do this as accurately as possible, students are compared to similar students for an “apples to apples” comparison. Only students with the same demographic characteristics, as well as the same prior year’s test scores are compared to one another. The demographic factors considered are English Language Learner (“ELL”) status, gifted status, disability status, relative age (which considers whether a child was retained in a previous grade), and attendance (which was added in 2014-2015). Student demographics and the prior year’s test scores must be exactly the same. Based on these demographics and past scores, an expected score is created for each student. If the student exceeds that score, the credit for that success is given to the teacher. The School Board and Dr. S concede that the VAM does not account for every possible student performance variable, because, simply put, this would be impossible, since there are a limitless number of factors that could be considered. Moreover, certain factors are forbidden to be used by the Legislature, including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and ethnicity. (See § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.). Respondent argues that because not every imaginable factor that might affect a student’s grade is captured, that the VAM is not useful. Respondent claims that factors beyond the teacher might be causing poor performance, for example: lack of parental engagement. While levels of parental engagement could impact student performance, the School Board states that it is following state statutes to the letter and doing the best it can within the applicable statutory framework. Moreover, just as factors outside of consideration might hurt student performance, other factors might enhance performance, and the teachers receive those possible benefits as well--for example, if parental engagement is good. Those benefits would flow to the teacher, despite not having earned them through his or her personal efforts. Moreover, the VAM score ranges that are used to classify teachers are bargained for with UTD. The ranges have confidence intervals developed through the application of margin of error calculations that mitigate uncertainty to protect and “safeguard” teachers from unfair classifications. In many instances these safeguards give the teachers the benefit of the doubt to make sure they do not fall into the lowest category, which is “unsatisfactory.” Noticeably absent from these bargained for “safeguards” is any mention of how much instructional time a teacher must have with a class before those students’ data can be used to calculate a teacher’s VAM score. UTD has not bargained for any special rules designating when teachers can and cannot be held accountable for their class’ data based on the time they have instructed that class. As such, the only relevant inquiry is whether those students are with that teacher during the FTE period in February. Also, the law (see § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.) makes no mention of any minimum length of instructional time necessary to hold a teacher accountable for his or her students. The 2013-2014 School Year at Scott Lake Refusal to teach basic Spanish In May 2013, near the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Rochelle advised Respondent that he would be teaching a kindergarten class for the 2013-2014 school year and that he would be required to teach them one hour of introductory Spanish. In an email to Principal Rochelle, Respondent asserted that he believed he was being assigned to teach Spanish to the kindergarteners in retaliation for his extensive reporting of student SCMs. In that same email, he advised her that he did not want to teach Spanish. Prior to being advised of this assignment, the School District conducted a language proficiency assessment for Respondent with both a written and verbal component, which he passed. Principal Rochelle had personally seen Respondent speak fluent Spanish to her school secretary and the art teacher. Because Respondent spoke fluent Spanish, or, at least, “conversational” Spanish (as admitted by Respondent’s counsel in his opening), she gave him the assignment. Moreover, as a principal, she had the right to assign Respondent as she saw fit. School Board Policy 3130 - Assignments reinforces this assertion stating, in relevant part, “Instructional staff members may be reassigned to any position for which they are qualified in order to meet needs of the District and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.” In order to teach the one-hour basic Spanish component of the class, Respondent did not need to be certified to teach Spanish. He only needed an elementary education certification, which he had. He even attended a training class on the implementation of the Spanish program. Respondent admits he can speak Spanish, write basic Spanish, has taken Spanish classes and passed the School District’s proficiency exam. Curiously, he objected to them giving the proficiency exam to him based on the grounds he was “singled out” for having a Hispanic last name, having been overheard speaking the language, and because he is not from a Spanish-speaking country. These are not reasonable objections when the School District explained the objective reasons listed above regarding Respondent’s qualifications to provide the basic- level Spanish instruction. Respondent persisted in his belief that he is “not qualified” to teach kindergarten Spanish despite all the evidence to the contrary. Respondent simply refused to do something that he was entirely capable of doing and that was within his ambit of responsibilities. He described one of the lessons he was allegedly incapable of teaching as follows, “You put a CD in the player. The kids sing songs in Spanish. The kids cut out pictures of objects and match them to a picture with the word in Spanish.” The kindergartners in his class did not speak Spanish; they spoke English. The Spanish component of the class was very basic and involved things like vowels, colors, puppets, basic books, and vocabulary words. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, no complex grammar or sentence structure was involved. Such things are not even part of ordinary English kindergarten instruction, as admitted by Respondent. Moreover, he was provided with materials from which to draw the instruction. Principal Rochelle does not speak Spanish herself, yet believes she could teach the Spanish component, as it is a “piece of cake.” Respondent filed a grievance regarding the Spanish assignment. In order to appease and accommodate Respondent, Principal Rochelle eventually sent a Spanish teacher to his room to teach the Spanish component. However, Respondent then complained that the grades she was entering still had his name attached to them in the computerized grading system. Finally, the principal decided to move him to a first-grade class in early November 2013. Undoubtedly, the requests of Respondent led to this assignment change. Formal IPEGS observation On March 11, 2014, Principal Rochelle performed her formal observation of Respondent pursuant to IPEGS. On that day, no performance deficiencies were noted. However, throughout the year, Principal Rochelle had conducted many informal observations and walkthroughs of his classroom and had already provided him feedback regarding his performance and her expectations. Examples of that feedback can be found in an August 27, 2013, email from Principal Rochelle to Respondent. Moreover, according to Principal Rochelle, teachers tend to be on their best behavior during these observations–-which makes sense, because they know the boss/evaluator is watching. The formal observation is also only a snapshot in time of the teacher’s performance on a particular lesson; it is not a reflection of the entire year’s performance. Respondent has argued that Principal Rochelle has retaliated against him. If that were the case, this observation would have been a perfect opportunity to retaliate against him. However, she found no deficiencies in his performance on this day. Scott Lake SPE—Professional Practice Throughout the rest of the school year, Principal Rochelle made other credible observations regarding Respondent’s performance. Despite her counseling that he meet with parents, he refused to do so. He refused to participate in activities, including field trips, school celebrations, and award ceremonies. Other teachers actually had to hand out awards for him at the ceremony. He refused to implement group instruction techniques and did not take advantage of the presence of reading and math coaches. He refused to implement progressive discipline and “red, green, yellow” behavior management techniques. He refused to implement various discipline strategies laid out in the Student Code of Conduct and school-wide discipline plan prior to writing SCMs on students. Principal Rochelle recalls that he wrote approximately 25 SCMs on one student within the first nine weeks of school and made no attempt to address the behavior issues with the student’s parents. At one point Principal Rochelle accommodated his request to have a student removed from his class. Since this was only Principal Rochelle’s first full year as principal of Scott Lake, and she was still new to the school, she tended to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt when completing their SPEs. She also had a few teachers who had to be terminated for lack of professionalism that were more of a priority for her than Respondent. As such, she rated Respondent as “effective” in six standards on his SPE and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Communication standard. In her view, “effective” is akin to a “C” grade, whereas “highly effective” is “A plus/high B” status, “developing/needs improvement” is a “D,” and “unsatisfactory” is an “F.” When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he testified he would have given himself five “highly effectives” and two “effectives.” He believes Principal Rochelle rated him lower than she should have as a result of retaliation against him for him not wanting to teach Spanish. This is Respondent’s second claim of retaliation against Principal Rochelle, and third claim of retaliation overall. Principal Rochelle’s denial of such retaliation is credited based upon her testimony at hearing and the exhibits offered in support. Despite the fact that Respondent’s 2013-2014 SPE seemed adequate to a casual observer (with the only obvious blemish being the “developing/needs improvement” in the Communication standard), when compared to his peers, a different story emerges. His professional practice points total put him in the bottom .8 percentile for all teachers district-wide and in the bottom 2.6 percentile for all first-grade teachers district-wide. Without belaboring the data, Respondent’s professional practice scores are at the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how you spin them. Scott Lake VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 12.5 points–-the lowest possible score. He was one of 11 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2013-2014 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 29 percent of his first-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent’s VAM was based on the performance of his first-grade students. Respondent believes that, since he was moved to the class in early November 2013, and the SAT exam was given in April, he should not be held accountable for their performance. In order for him to have a fair shake, he claims he would have had to be there instructing the students on week one. Respondent says the amount of time he was given was not fair because, “if I’m the lowest teacher in Miami-Dade County, and here for termination, no, sir, I don’t think it was fair.” If the rule Respondent proposes were implemented as policy, any teacher could simply avoid responsibility for their student’s performance by requesting a transfer sometime after the first week of the year. It is also not uncommon for teachers to have students added or subtracted from their classes throughout the year for a multitude of reasons. This is a fact of life that teachers have to be able to cope with in the ordinary course of business for the School District. Moreover, and somewhat ironically, if another teacher had been teaching Respondent’s students for a portion of the year, based on his SPE Ratings and student achievement data, Respondent probably would have had better scores. The students would likely have been getting a more effective teacher than he. Respondent also claims Principal Rochelle gave him a lower functioning group of students, who were behind in their learning. He explained that he knew they were low-functioning because he gave them “STAR tests” to gauge their ability levels. When pressed on cross-examination, Respondent admitted that he only tested his own students and never anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to know whether his students were any lower-functioning or further behind than any other teachers’ students. Respondent’s doubtful claim is further undercut by Principal Rochelle’s credible testimony that she selected the members of his first-grade class at random from overcrowded classrooms. Respondent’s claims that he was robbed of instructional time by field trips and fundraising activities, matters that are required of all teachers, are unconvincing excuses for his students’ poor performance. The 2014-2015 School Year at Norwood Shortly after the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent requested a hardship transfer to Norwood Elementary School (“Norwood”) because the school day at Scott Lake was going to be increased by one hour. Despite the fact that he would have been compensated approximately $4,500.00 for this time, he chose to transfer schools. Principal Kevin Williams (or Dr. Williams) had a teacher on leave so he assigned Respondent to fill that gap. Respondent started teaching a kindergarten class, but was moved to a second-grade class during the first week of school. Prior to conducting a formal IPEGS observation of Respondent, Dr. Williams had performed several walkthroughs of his classroom. Based on these walkthroughs, Dr. Williams advised Respondent that he was not properly implementing the school discipline plan. Respondent also refused to implement “grouping” of the students during instruction time. Dr. Williams also had a reading coach model lessons for Respondent and assigned him a teaching assistant. Respondent was the only teacher who received this level of assistance. Dr. Williams even went so far as to have two meetings with UTD prior to his formal evaluation of Respondent in order to help him. By October 2014, Dr. Williams had already explained his expectations to Respondent. Formal IPEGS observation On October 1, 2014, Principal Williams performed the formal IPEGS evaluation of Respondent. Principal Williams noted no deficiencies on that day. Generally speaking, Principal Williams does not view these observations as punitive. Over the years, Dr. Williams has conducted approximately 240 observations of teachers, and, generally, the employees are “on point” when being watched. Moreover, like Principal Rochelle, Dr. Williams views these observations as a snapshot of teacher performance while the SPE captures the year- long performance. In the report of the observation, Dr. Williams suggested that Respondent promote interactions with students, encourage more student participation, connect to prior student knowledge and interests, and present concepts at different levels of complexity, among other items. Norwood SPE—Professional Practice After the formal observation, Dr. Williams continued to conduct walkthroughs of Respondent’s class. He observed the same issues with refusing to use “grouping” and refusing to properly implement the discipline plan. Respondent never took advantage of the modeling techniques that were provided for him. He also was not implementing differentiated instruction. Dr. Williams himself held a professional development class on campus for the school discipline plan, which, instead of attending, Respondent attended a social studies class off campus. Instead of following the prescribed discipline plan, Respondent was trying to control the behavior of his students with treats. Similar to his time at Scott Lake, he refused to participate in field trips, staff gatherings, award assemblies, and student activity days. Respondent had lesson plans, but did not always follow them. He would spend an inordinate amount of time on vocabulary. He gave some tests, but would refuse to grade other tests. The pattern of his teaching was inconsistent, at best. On his SPE, Principal Williams rated Respondent as “effective” in five standards, “highly effective” in one, and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Learning Environment standard. Dr. Williams’ rating for Learning Environment was lower because Respondent failed to implement appropriate discipline strategies despite being told to do so. In eight years of being a principal, this was the first time he had ever given a teacher a “needs improvement” rating. He mostly gives his teachers combinations of “highly effective” and “effective,” if they do what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Dr. Williams testified he still went easy on Respondent because he was new to the school. In terms of his SPE professional practice points, Respondent scored in the bottom two percentile for second-grade teachers district-wide and was the worst rated second-grade teacher at Norwood. Instead of following the discipline plan, Respondent was using the emergency call button, writing SCMs, and writing to the superintendent to have ten students removed from his class. Another teacher at the school, Mr. W, had the exact same set of students as Respondent, only he taught them in the afternoon and not in the morning. He had none of the same behavior management issues Respondent had with this same group of children. Respondent claimed that Mr. W was able to manage the children better because, like the students, he was African-American. When asked how Respondent would have rated himself in these seven SPE standards, he would have given himself six “highly effectives” and one “effective.” He believes Principal Williams rated him lower than he should have as a result of retaliation against him for writing SCMs and because he complained about the size of his initial kindergarten class. This marked Respondent’s fourth claim of retaliation overall. Principal Williams credibly denied such retaliation at the hearing. Norwood VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 8.75 points-–the lowest possible score, again. He was one of 50 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only six percent of his second-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from Norwood should not be considered because of his students’ behavioral issues. He also stated he did not have enough textbooks to send home with students. Much like at Scott Lake, he believes he was intentionally given bad students. This is peculiar for two reasons. First, Dr. Williams first tried to assign Respondent another class, but Respondent complained that one was too big. To accept this argument, the viewer would have to believe Dr. Williams knew Respondent would reject the larger class, and the principal had another one in the wings filled with “bad” students to make Respondent look ineffective. Second, Mr. W had none of the same problems Respondent did with this same group of students in the afternoon. To accept this contention, Principal Williams’ plan only “worked” on Respondent, since he was singled out for retaliation. This line of argument is nonsensical, at best. The 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 School Years at Aventura Waterways K-8 In looking for the right fit, Respondent was sent to Aventura Waterways K-8 (“AWK8”) for the 2015-2016 school year. He remained there for the 2016-2017 school year until he was dismissed from his employment in March 2017. As at his previous school assignments, the administrators at AWK8 tried to work with Respondent and the UTD to let him know their expectations prior to the formal observations. During these two school years Respondent was observed formally by Principal Luis Bello and Assistant Principal Ileana Robles on no less than nine occasions. In both years, during his initial observations, his performance was found to be deficient; and he was immediately placed on support dialogue and, eventually, 90-day performance probation. During these two probationary periods, he was provided assistance through improvement plans and completed all his improvement plan assignments. The goal was to help him remediate his deficiencies. The only change he ever implemented was switching from block to weekly lesson plans. Both his instructional delivery and the learning environment never improved. During these observations, Principal Bello and Assistant Principal Robles both observed the same repeated deficiencies, which they described in meticulous detail at the hearing. Summarizing their testimony, the issues concerning Respondent were: Pacing. Respondent spends too much time on issues and did not complete entire lesson plans. Questioning students. Respondent only uses basic, easy to answer questions; does not ask enough questions; or is dismissive of questions. Failing to properly explain concepts to students or to activate prior knowledge. Respondent fails to prompt students in order to generate interest in the subject matter and holds no conversations about the material in class. Not using challenging enough material. Respondent’s material was so basic that parents were concerned their children were getting grades they did not deserve and not learning grade- appropriate material. Principal Bello described Respondent’s instruction as “robotic” and lacking any semblance of “passion.” AWK8—Professional Practice On his SPE, Principal Bello rated Respondent as “effective” in two standards, and “unsatisfactory” in five standards. Principal Bello’s ratings were in line with the repeated deficiencies discussed above. He awarded Respondent “unsatisfactory” ratings because Respondent never remediated his deficiencies. Principal Bello credibly stands by his SPE Ratings as honest and admits to spending a great deal of time on them. In terms of his SPE professional practice points for 2015-2016, Respondent scored in the bottom (0) percentile for fifth-grade teachers at AWK8, all teachers at AWK8, fifth-grade teachers district-wide, and all teachers district-wide. When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he would have given himself seven “highly effectives.” He believes Principal Bello rated him lower than he should have been rated, but could not say why. AWK8 VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s State VAM score for learner progress points was 8.5 points-–the lowest possible score, for the third year in a row. He was the only one of 98 fifth-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 32 percent of his fifth-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from AWK8 are not legitimate for a variety of reasons, none of which relate to his own shortcomings. Respondent’s excuses and the reasons not to credit those excuses are as follows: Respondent argues that his VAM cannot be counted against him because his afternoon class of fifth graders were ELL, and they spoke a variety of languages, including French, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. His theory was that they performed poorly because of their poor grasp of the English language. For VAM scoring purposes, this excuse should not be credited because the VAM already takes into account their ELL status by comparing them only to other ELL students with identical demographics and prior test scores; and they are not expected to perform as well as non-ELL students. However, by Respondent’s own admission his afternoon ELL class was the best class he had had in ten years of teaching. He said they had emotional balance, presence of mind, and good parental engagement. He even explained how his ESOL certification assisted him in understanding how to teach them. According to him, by the end of the year, the students were at the level where they would be having conversations. Respondent also had another ESOL-certified teacher assist him for a portion of the year, which was a standard practice. Finally, ELL students, who are brand new to the country, are not calculated into the VAM because there are no prior year scores for which they can be compared “apples to apples.” Respondent himself testified that the lowest level ELL students did not get graded. This makes sense because Respondent testified that his afternoon ELL class was 31 students-–yet only 15 ELL students were factored into the data used to calculate his VAM score for 2015-2016. In sum, the grades of the lowest English language functioning students were not even held against him. Respondent next argues that the numbers of students in both his morning and afternoon classes at AWK8 exceeded class size restrictions. Respondent “believes” his morning class had 24 or so students, but only 18 after the special education students were removed. When the student data is examined, it appears that Respondent only had 15 non-ELL students factored into his VAM score. As for the afternoon ELL class, otherwise considered by him the best class he has ever had, Respondent claims there were 31 in that class. Even assuming Respondent’s numbers are accurate (and they do not seem to be, given the VAM data), these class sizes do not run afoul of class size restrictions and are commonplace at AWK8. The School District operates on averages for class size compliance and everyone teaching fifth grade at AWK8 had similar class sizes. None of those other teachers had the same problems Respondent did. Moreover, Respondent reported the alleged class size violations to the FDOE, and they did nothing about it. Respondent further argues that his morning group of students was once again a “bad” group that did not give him a “fair shot.” According to Respondent, he had a student who would sit in a garbage can and another that would tell him “F_ _k you” every day. He had behavior concerns with four to five students in the morning class. Eventually, the student who sat in the garbage can was removed from the class. Respondent then testified that these behavior issues were exacerbated by his absence from the classroom when he was performing his improvement plan activities. He now appears to be placing his behavior concerns on the administration for doing their job by trying to assist him and by remediating his deficiencies. Behavior management is integral to being a teacher. A teacher must not be allowed to escape his or her own responsibility for performance shortcomings by blaming it on the students. At every school where Respondent has taught, he has admittedly written a large number of SCMs, had behavior issues with his students, and believes he was purposely given “bad” students. The only common thread among these schools is Respondent. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge that he might possibly be even a part of the problem and believes he has done nothing wrong. Respondent also blames his poor VAM on the fact that fundraising activities, book fairs, student activity days, and dances all detracted from instructional time at AWK8. This is the same excuse he used for his poor VAM at Norwood and holds no weight, since these are activities that all teachers at all schools must cope with as part of the instructional process. Respondent’s Termination by the School Board Respondent’s case was the first of its kind brought pursuant to section 1012.33(3)(b) (“3-year provision”), since this was the first time the School District had the requisite number of years’ data available. Of the thousands of teachers working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Respondent was part of a singular group of seven to nine teachers who fell into the three-year provision of the statute having the necessary combination of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” final overall SPE Ratings. Of that handful of teachers, Respondent was the single worst. Respondent’s performance actually declined each year despite the assistance provided for and made available to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Sharon V. Eaddy (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Miami-Dade County School Board (the School Board) on August 29, 2014, and whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a paraprofessional.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Campbell Drive Center is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, the School Board employed Respondent as a paraprofessional pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. The School Board assigned Respondent to a Pre-K special education classroom at Campbell Drive Center taught by Pascale Vilaire. Respondent has worked at Campbell Drive Center as a paraprofessional for 13 years. During the 2013-2014 school year, 14 special needs students were assigned to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. Those students were between three and five years of age. L.H., a four-year-old boy who was described as being high functioning on the autism spectrum, was one of Ms. Vilaire’s students. L.H. had frequent temper tantrums during the 2013-2014 school year. Prior to the conduct at issue in this matter, Respondent had had no difficulty managing L.H.’s behavior. There was a conflict in the evidence as to the date the conduct at issue occurred. The undersigned finds that the conduct occurred April 9, 2014, based on the Incident Information admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 4, on the testimony of Yamile Aponte, and on the testimony of Grisel Gutierrez.1/ Ms. Aponte had a daughter in Ms. Vilaire’s class and often served as a parent-volunteer. Ms. Aponte was at Campbell Drive Center’s cafeteria on the morning of April 9, 2014. Present in the cafeteria were Ms. Vilaire, Respondent, some of Ms. Vilaire’s class (including L.H.) and students from other classes. When Ms. Aponte entered the cafeteria, L.H. was crying and hanging on to a trash bin. Ms. Vilaire was attending to another student. Respondent was trying to deal with L.H. to prevent him from tipping over the trash bin. Respondent led L.H. by the wrist back to a table where they sat together. Ms. Aponte approached them and offered L.H. a milk product referred to as a Pediasure. Because L.H. was allergic to milk, Respondent told Ms. Aponte that L.H. could not have the product. When Ms. Vilaire lined up her class to leave the cafeteria, L.H. threw a tantrum because he was still hungry. Ms. Aponte testified that Respondent grabbed L.H. by the wrist and pulled him up. Ms. Vilaire observed the entire interaction between L.H. and Respondent in the cafeteria. Ms. Vilaire did not witness anything she thought was inappropriate or caused her concern. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent became physically aggressive toward L.H. in the cafeteria by dragging him across the floor or otherwise grabbing him inappropriately. Paragraph nine of the Notice of Specific Charges contains the allegation that while in the cafeteria, “Respondent forcefully grabbed L.H. and dragged him across the floor.” Petitioner did not prove those alleged facts. After the class finished in the cafeteria, the students lined up to go back to the classroom. Ms. Vilaire was at the front of the line, and Respondent was ten to fifteen feet behind at the end of the line with L.H. Ms. Aponte was part of the group going from the cafeteria to the classroom. During the walk back to the classroom, Ms. Vilaire did not see or hear anything between Respondent and L.H. she thought was inappropriate. She did not hear anything that diverted her attention to Respondent and L.H. At the time of the conduct at issue, Barbara Jackson, an experienced teacher, taught first grade at Campbell Drive Center. While Ms. Vilaire’s class was walking from the cafeteria to the classroom, Ms. Jackson had a brief conversation with Respondent about getting food for her class from McDonald’s. Ms. Jackson did not hear or see anything inappropriate between Respondent and L.H. After stopping to talk with Ms. Jackson, Respondent resumed walking to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. L.H. continued to cry and attempted to pull away from Respondent. L.H. wanted to be the leader of the line, a position that is rotated among the class members. Ms. Vilaire led the other class members into the classroom while Ms. Aponte, Respondent, and L.H. were still outside. While still outside, they saw Grisel Gutierrez, a teacher at Campbell Drive Center. L.H. began to throw himself on the ground on top of his backpack. Ms. Aponte and Ms. Gutierrez saw Respondent grab L.H. forcefully by the arm and hit him on his shoulder with a slapping sound.2/ After Respondent returned L.H. to the classroom, L.H. tried to push over a bookcase containing books and toys. To prevent L.H. from pushing over the bookcase, Respondent grabbed L.H. by his hands and held them behind his back. Ms. Vilaire witnessed the interaction between Respondent and L.H. in the classroom and thought Respondent acted appropriately. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent acted inappropriately towards L.H. while in the classroom. Ms. Aponte reported what she had seen to the school principal the day of the incident. Respondent learned that Ms. Aponte had complained against her the day of the incident. After school the day of the incident, Respondent angrily confronted Ms. Aponte and asked her why she had lied. Rounett Green, a security guard at Campbell Drive Center, stepped in to end the confrontation between Respondent and Ms. Aponte. There was no evidence that Respondent attempted to threaten Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not use inappropriate language towards Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not make physical contact with Ms. Aponte. L.H.’s mother heard about the alleged interactions between Respondent and L.H. When L.H. returned home after school, the mother examined L.H. and found no bruises or other unusual marks on L.H.’s body. At its regularly scheduled meeting on June 18, 2014, the School Board suspended Respondent’s employment and instituted these proceedings to terminate her employment.
Recommendation The following recommendations are 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 adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate the employment of Sharon V. Eaddy. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1985.
