The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Petitioner, Amr Sallam's, education meets the "substantially equivalent" criteria as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007; and, if so, (2) whether, by virtue of its reviews of Petitioner's education and the grounds listed in the two related previously issued notices of denial, Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers, is estopped from denying Petitioner's application.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant to take the Fundamentals Examination. Unless an applicant is otherwise exempted, the Fundamentals Examination is the first of two examinations an applicant must pass to be licensed as a professional engineer in Florida. Prior to applying to take the Fundamentals Examination, on two previous occasions, Petitioner applied to take the Principles and Practice Examination, the second examination required for licensure as a professional engineer in Florida. Petitioner's Educational Credentials and Teaching Experience Petitioner received a bachelor's degree in engineering from Alexandria University in Egypt in 1994. Petitioner received a master's degree in engineering from Alexandria University in Egypt in 1998. Petitioner received a doctorate degree in engineering from the University of South Florida (USF) in Tampa, Florida, in 2004. After completing his undergraduate degree, Petitioner began teaching at Alexandria University. Petitioner taught there for seven years, including the time he was in the master's degree program. In 2002, prior to receiving his doctorate degree, Petitioner taught geotechnical engineering at USF, which has an engineering program that is accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET). In the summer of 2006, after receiving his doctorate degree, Petitioner taught a geotechnical design course at the University of Central Florida (UCF). The engineering program at UCF is accredited by ABET. At the time of this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by an engineering company. However, until Petitioner is licensed as a professional engineer, he cannot get a promotion within that company. "Substantial Equivalency" Requirement for Applicants with Degrees from Foreign Institutions Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.0071/ requires that applicants for licensure as professional engineers, who have foreign degrees, document that the engineering program they completed is substantially equivalent to an ABET accredited engineering program. Pursuant to Rule 61G15-20.007(4), Petitioner obtained an evaluation of his education in Egypt through an evaluation service, Joseph Silny and Associates (Silny). The evaluation conducted by Silny was a course-by- course evaluation of Petitioner's academic credentials at Alexandria University, in relation to the United States courses and semester credit hours. However, the Silny evaluation was limited to courses that Petitioner took in order to earn his bachelor of science degree in civil engineering. The Silny evaluation did not have Petitioner's transcript from USF, and, thus, none of those courses was considered or included in that evaluation. Based upon a review of Petitioner's academic credentials from Alexandria University from 1989 to 1994, the Silny evaluation concluded that Petitioner's bachelor's degree in civil engineering was not substantially equivalent to such degrees earned at a regionally accredited institution of higher learning in the United States. Specifically, the Silny evaluation determined that Petitioner had 27.5 of the required 32 semester credit hours in the Mathematics and Basic Sciences area and 1.5 credits of the required 16 semester credit hours in the Humanities and Social Sciences area. To satisfy the requirements in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, the Silny evaluation indicated that Petitioner needed 4.5 semester credit hours, "including a course in probability and statistics and an additional course in either general chemistry or calculus-based physics." The Silny evaluation awarded Petitioner 1.5 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences based on an English course he completed during his undergraduate studies. To satisfy the requirement in this area, the Silny evaluation found that Petitioner needed an additional 14.5 semester credit hours. The Silny evaluation indicates that Petitioner took 5.5 semester credit hours in physics and lists the course as a one-class and not a two-class sequence. Although the Silny evaluation listed the physics course as one course, the credible testimony of Petitioner was that he took two classes, one after the other, to receive the 5.5 semester credit hours. Moreover, the credible testimony of both Petitioner and the Board's executive director was that they have never seen and are unaware of any physics course that offers 5.5 semester credit hours. Given this undisputed testimony, the weight of the evidence established that the 5.5 semester credit hours for physics were not for one physics course, but for a two-class sequence. Despite the deficiencies noted in the Silny evaluation, Petitioner was not concerned. First, with respect to the deficiencies cited in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, Petitioner knew that the Silny evaluation did not include a review of his transcript from USF, which showed six additional hours of higher mathematics. Second, when Petitioner applied to take the Principles and Practice Examination and his application was being considered, the Board's Rule 61G15-20.007(5) waived the Humanities and Social Sciences requirement for applicants, such as Petitioner, who had a post baccalaureate degree in engineering from a university in the United States that had an accredited undergraduate engineering degree program. The Silny evaluation report dated March 31, 2005, was advisory. Pursuant to Rule 61G15-20.007(3), the Board's Education Advisory Committee (EAC) makes the final decision regarding equivalency of programs and recommends to the Board whether an applicant should be approved for admittance to the examination. Petitioner's Initial Application Filed on April 2005 On April 14, 2005, Petitioner submitted his initial application to the Board. This application was to take the Principles and Practice Examination. At the time Petitioner submitted his initial application, he had not taken the Fundamentals Examination. The Silny evaluation was forwarded to and considered by the Board in its determination of whether Petitioner's bachelor's degree from Alexandria University was substantially equivalent to a degree from an ABET accredited engineering program at a regionally accredited institution of higher learning in the United States. Prior to the Board taking final action on Petitioner's initial application, Petitioner's educational credentials were reviewed by the Board's EAC. The EAC is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the educational credentials of applicants holding foreign degrees. Typically, members of the EAC are engineering educators who have special expertise in discerning and comparing education courses. Dr. Anderson was the evaluator for the EAC that considered Petitioner's educational credentials in connection with his April 2005 application. Dr. Anderson has a doctorate degree in engineering and has been in education for many years and testifies as an expert for the Board. Like the Silny evaluation, Dr. Anderson determined that in the Mathematics and Basic Sciences area, Petitioner had 27.5 semester credit hours from courses taken at Alexandria University. However, in addition to those 27.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, Dr. Anderson also determined that Petitioner had an additional six semester credit hours for two, three-semester credit hours of mathematics courses he took at USF, as part of his doctorate degree program. These mathematics classes, Numerical Methods III and Vector Analysis III, were higher level courses. The EAC's July 2005 evaluation determined that Petitioner should receive credit for the higher level mathematics courses taken at USF. Dr. Anderson's evaluation determined that Petitioner had a total number of 33.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences (27.5 from Alexandria University and six from USF), 1.5 credits more than the required number. However, Dr. Anderson noted on the educational credential review form that to satisfy the Mathematics and Basic Sciences course requirement, Petitioner still needed to take a course in "Prob [Probability] and Stat [Statistics]." Initially, Dr. Anderson wrote on the educational credentials review form that to meet the Mathematics and Basic Sciences requirements, Petitioner "needs 4.5 hours of Math and Bas Sci [Basic Science], which must include a Prob [Probability] & Stat [Statistics] course and a second course in chem [Chemistry] and phy [Physics]." However, Dr. Anderson crossed out that entire statement and wrote that Petitioner "[n]eeds to take a course in Prob [Probability] & Stat [Statistics]." The EAC educational credentials review form listed the following courses in Humanities and Social Sciences for which Petitioner could be given credit: English, 1.5 credits; American Civilization, three credits; Introduction to Music, three credits; and The Family, three credits. Although Petitioner did not have the 16 semester credit hours required in Humanities and Social Sciences to document "substantial equivalency," the EAC determined that this was not an impediment to Petitioner's satisfying this requirement. On the educational credentials review form, in the Humanities and Social Sciences section, Dr. Anderson wrote, "Ph.D. 2004." This notation reflected the Board's Rule 61G15- 20.007(5), in effect when Petitioner submitted his application, which waived the Humanities and Social Science requirements for applicants who had a doctorate degree in engineering from an institution with an ABET accredited undergraduate engineering degree program. On July 13, 2005, Dr. Anderson and Gerry Miller, Ph.D., P.E., a Board member, signed a form on which they recommended that the Board deny Petitioner's application because he needed a course in probability and statistics. The Board accepted the EAC's determination regarding Petitioner's educational deficiencies and recommendation that Petitioner's April 2005 application be denied. By letter dated July 15, 2005, the Board denied Petitioner's application to take the Principles and Practice Examination. Petitioner received the letter by certified mail on August 1, 2005. The letter cited three reasons for the denial: (1) Petitioner's educational deficiencies; (2) his lack of engineering experience; and (3) his failure to take the Fundamentals Examination. With regard to educational deficiencies, the Board's letter stated only that Petitioner was deficient in Mathematics and Basic Sciences. The letter stated the basis of this determination and indicated how this deficiency could be satisfied, as follows: Based on the evaluation from JSA&A [Silny] and review for compliance with 61G15-20.007, Florida Administrative Code, it was determined that you [Petitioner] were deficient in the following areas: 1.0 semester credit hours in Mathematics & Basic Sciences-A course in Probability & Statistics is needed. Except for the deficiencies in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, the Board's July 15, 2005, letter indicated that Petitioner had satisfied the requirements in Rule 61G15-20.007. The letter expressly stated that Petitioner had "satisfied" the 16-semester credit hour requirement in Humanities and Social Sciences. According to the letter, the second reason Petitioner's application was denied was that he had not taken the Fundamentals Examination. The Board noted that Petitioner had applied for consideration of "waiving the Fundamentals Examination under Section 471.013(3)(d)[sic],"2/ but was ineligible for such waiver. In explaining the reason Petitioner was not entitled to a waiver, the letter stated the following: Section 471.013(3)(d),[sic][3/] F.S. addresses Licensure in Florida by examination requires Ph.D. waiver applicants to have an ABET accredited Ph.D., along with having taught full time for a minimum of three years, in order to qualify for the Fundamental Waiver. The teaching requirement has not been met, therefore, your waiver was denied. The denial letter explained that eligibility for waiver of the Fundamentals Examination required applicants to have a doctorate degree and three years of full-time teaching experience. However, the letter failed to state that waiver provisions required that the full-time teaching experience be after Petitioner received his doctorate degree. Third, and finally, the letter indicated that Petitioner's application was considered under Subsection 471.013(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2006), which requires four years of engineering experience. The letter stated, Your application was considered under the provision of Section 471.013(1)(a)1[.], Florida Statutes (F.S.). Under that provision, you receive credit of four (4) years for your degree, and you must verify four (4) years of engineering experience. The Board has determined that you do not evidence four years of experience at this time. Petitioner received the denial letter and assumed that the information contained therein was correct. In a Petition dated August 18, 2005, Petitioner responded to the Board's denial letter. In regard to his teaching experience, Petitioner indicated he had taught geotechnical engineering at USF for one year. He also indicated that prior to that, he taught Geotechnical Engineering I and II, college-level courses in Egypt for five years (from 1996 through 2001). Petitioner did not state whether these teaching positions were full-time or part-time, but the teaching experience in Egypt and at the USF was before he received his doctorate degree. In the Petition dated August 18, 2005, Petitioner also noted that based on his calculations, he had more than the four years of engineering experience required in Subsection 471.013(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2006). Rule 61G15-20.002 sets out the criteria for determining engineering experience. The mere assertions in the Petition did not establish that Petitioner had the prescribed engineering experience. Petitioner did not dispute that he needed a statistics course. Instead, in reliance on the Board's July 15, 2006, letter regarding his educational deficiencies, Petitioner enrolled in a three-semester credit hour statistics course at USF in August 2005. After Petitioner completed the statistics course in December 2005, a copy of the Petitioner's transcript reflecting such completion was sent to the Board. The Board's executive director testified that it was reasonable for Petitioner to rely on the July 15, 2005, denial letter. Had the July 15, 2005, denial letter indicated that Petitioner was missing any additional courses, he would have taken all such courses during the fall of 2005, the same semester he took the statistics class. Petitioner's Second Application Filed January 2006 In or about January 2006, after completing a three- semester credit hour statistics course, Petitioner submitted an application to the Board to take the Principles and Practice Examination. As of January 2006, Petitioner had never applied for or taken the Fundamentals Examination, although he did not meet the eligibility requirements to waive that examination. Specifically, he did not have at least three years of full-time teaching experience at the baccalaureate level or higher after receiving his doctorate degree. See § 471.013(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2006). By letter dated March 29, 2006, the Board denied Petitioner's second application to take the Principles and Practice Examination. According to the Board's March 29, 2006, letter, Petitioner's application was considered under Subsection 471.013(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2006), but was denied because Petitioner lacked the requisite engineering experience and had not passed the Fundamentals Examination. The letter states in relevant part the following: Your application was considered for eligibility under Section 471.013(1)(a)[and](c), and [sic] Florida Statutes. Under these provisions, you receive credit of four (4) years for your degree. You must demonstrate 4 years of engineering experience and a passing score on the Fundamentals of Engineering exam. Your application was denied for failure to evidence having passed the NCEES 8 hour Fundamentals examination. Additionally, pursuant to Section [Rule] 61G15-20.002(11), F.A.C. you must evidence experience at the time of application. The Board has determined that you have not demonstrated four years of professional experience at the time of application. The Board's March 29, 2006, letter did not indicate that Petitioner had any educational deficiencies in the areas listed in Rule 61G15-20.007(2). After reading the March 29, 2006, letter, Petitioner was assured that his education had been approved, since no deficiencies were mentioned in the letter. Moreover, Petitioner had successfully completed the statistics course, which the denial letter dated July 15, 2005, indicated he needed to take to satisfy the Mathematics and Basic Sciences requirements.4/ Petitioner's Third Application Filed in April 2006 Relying on information in the March 29, 2006, letter, on or about April 19, 2006, Petitioner submitted an application to take the Fundamentals Examination. On or about May 17, 2006, the Board's EAC evaluated Petitioner's educational credentials and recorded information pertinent to its evaluation on an educational credential review form.5/ This evaluation was performed by Board members, Chris Bauer, Ph.D., P.E., and David Bloomquist, Ph.D., P.E. According to the form, the EAC used the Silny evaluation and transcripts from USF and the University of North Carolina for its course-by- course evaluation. Based upon its course-by-course evaluation, the EAC concluded that Petitioner's application should be denied because its review indicated the educational criterion is not substantially comparable to EAC/ABET and Rule 61G15-20.007. In the comment section of the May 17, 2006, educational credentials review form, the EAC noted that Petitioner needed 1.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences and 2.5 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. The EAC specified that in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, Petitioner needed 1.5 hours in chemistry or physics "for sequence." No specific courses were listed as needed to satisfy the Humanities and Social Sciences requirements. The Board adopted the EAC's findings made on May 17, 2006, regarding Petitioner's educational deficiencies and also followed the EAC's recommendation that Petitioner's April 2006 application be denied. By letter dated May 18, 2006, the Board denied Petitioner's application to take the Fundamentals Examination based on a determination that Petitioner had educational deficiencies in Mathematics and Basic Sciences and in Humanities and Social Sciences. The letter stated that because Petitioner has a bachelor's degree from Egypt, the Board reviewed the Silny evaluation to determine substantial equivalency to EAC/ABET and compliance with Rule 61G15-20.007. With regard to the educational deficiencies, the Board's May 18, 2006, letter stated, in relevant part, the following: [Rule] 61G15-20.007, F.A.C., states that to document substantial equivalency to an ABET accredited engineering degree, the candidate must demonstrate: 32 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences - Deficient * * * 16 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences - Deficient * * * The areas of deficiencies noted above are identified as follows: 1. [Rule] 61G15-20.007, F.A.C. requires 32 semester credit hours of Mathematics & Basic Sciences. In reviewing the evaluation from Josep Silny & Associates [Silny]; [sic] the Board determined that you have evidenced 30.5 semester credit hours in Mathematic [sic] and Basic Sciences. You are deficient in 1.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences including a secondary course in Chemistry and/or Calculus based Physics. [5/] 2. Rule 61G15-20.007 requires 16 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. You have evidenced 13.5 semester hours. In reviewing the evaluation from Josep Silny & Associates, the Board determined that you are deficient 2.5 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. . . . The 13.5 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences was based on a 1.5-semester credit hour English class Petitioner took at Alexandria University and four, three- semester credit hour classes that were listed on a University of North Carolina transcript. The Board's May 18, 2006, letter denied Petitioner's application because it concluded that he was deficient by 1.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, including a secondary course in chemistry and/or calculus-based physics and by 2.5 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. The Board's determination, relative to Petitioner's educational deficiencies, in the May 18, 2006, letter is contrary and inconsistent with the Board's two prior decisions. In the first denial letter dated July 15, 2005, the Board ratified the EAC's July 13, 2005, educational credential review and decision, which determined that Petitioner needed one semester credit hour in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, including a probability and statistics course.7/ Prior to May 1, 2005, and when Petitioner initially applied to take the Principles and Practice Examination, Rule 61G15-20.007(5) waived the Humanities and Social Sciences requirements for applicants with post-baccalaureate degrees. The Board's March 29, 2006, letter did not indicate that Petitioner had any educational deficiencies, even though the waiver provision for Humanities and Social Sciences requirements was no longer in effect. According to the second denial letter, Petitioner's application was denied because he lacked the required engineering experience and had not passed the Fundamentals Examination. The deficiency in Mathematics and Basic Sciences noted in the Board's third denial letter dated May 18, 2006, was based on the Silny evaluation that indicated Petitioner was 4.5 semester credit hours short in Mathematics and Basic Sciences. After reducing the 4.5-semester credit hour deficiency by the three semester credit hours Petitioner earned in the statistics course, the Board concluded that Petitioner needed 1.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences. This calculation was erroneous in that Petitioner was not granted credit for two higher level mathematic courses he took at the USF as part of his doctorate program. These two courses, Numerical Methods III and Vector Analysis III, were each three semester credit hours. Therefore, Petitioner should have been given credit for an additional six semester credit hours. By appropriately giving Petitioner credit for 27.5 semester credit hours for courses completed at Alexandria University and three semester credit hours each for Numerical Methods III, Vector Analysis III, and Statistics, he has a total of 36.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, 4.5 semester credit hours more than the 32 hours required. Deficiency in Humanities and Social Sciences is Discovered After May 2006 Denial Letter During this proceeding, the Board's executive director revealed that "sometime this past summer" (the summer of 2006), he discovered that an error had been made regarding Petitioner's credits/deficiencies in Humanities and Social Sciences. This error came to light after it was discovered that the Board had erroneously given Petitioner credit for four courses listed on a University of North Carolina transcript, which had been mistakenly placed in Petitioner's file. The four, three semester-hour courses for which Petitioner was given credit were English, American Civilization, The Family, and Introduction to Music. There was no evidence or testimony to indicate that Petitioner was responsible in any way for this "transcript" error. In fact, none of Petitioner's various applications to the Board listed the University of North Carolina as a school Petitioner ever attended. Petitioner acknowledged that he never attended the University of North Carolina or took any of the courses listed on that transcript. As noted on the Silny evaluation, Petitioner has completed only one course in the Humanities and Social Sciences area, the 1.5-semester credit hour English class he completed at Alexandria University. The waiver of Humanities and Social Sciences requirement for applicants with doctoral degrees is no longer in effect. That wavier provision was deleted from Rule 61G15- 20.007 pursuant to an amendment, which became effective on May 1, 2005. As a result of the transcript error, Petitioner has a deficiency of 14.5 semester credit hours in the Humanities and Social Sciences area, and not the 2.5-semester credit hour deficiency noted in the Board's May 18, 2006, letter. Therefore, Petitioner needs an additional 14.5 semester credit hours in appropriate courses to satisfy the Humanities and Social Sciences requirement. As of the date of this proceeding, the Board had not notified Petitioner of the mistake in its May 18, 2006, letter, regarding his deficiencies in Humanities and Social Sciences. Action on Petition for Formal Hearing Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Hearing with Respondent on June 13, 2006. The Board held a duly-noticed meeting on July 26 and 27, 2006. Respondent did not act on the Petition for Formal Hearing. Thereafter, on July 30, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the First District Court of Appeal. The Board did not advance any legitimate explanation as to why Petitioner's Petition for Formal Hearing filed six weeks prior to the July 26 and 27, 2006, meeting was not placed on that agenda. The Board's agendas are usually set about one month before the meeting. By letter dated August 24, 2006, the Board notified Petitioner that his Petition for Formal Hearing would be considered by the Board of Professional Engineers on October 26, 2006. On September 13, 2006, the First District Court of Appeal granted Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and directed the Board to rule on the Petition for Formal Hearing within 15 days of the date of the Order. On or about September 25, 2006, the Board forwarded Petitioner's Petition for Formal Hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings. This was more than three months after the Petition was filed with the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order which (1) finds that Petitioner has met the Mathematics and Basic Sciences requirement; (2) conditionally approves Petitioner's application to take the Fundamentals Examination in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.007(5); and (3) allows Petitioner to take the Fundamentals Examination the next time it is administered. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2007, 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 19th day of March, 2007.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent without pay for a total of ten days, based on two separate incidents.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Marshall has been a teacher in Broward County for approximately 20 years. At all times pertinent to the instant case, Mr. Marshall was employed as a math teacher at McArthur High School. Prior to working at McArthur High School he had taught math at Hollywood Hills High School, and then at Flanagan High School. During his tenure at Hollywood Hills High School, Mr. Marshall was placed on a Performance Development Plan (PDP), which required Mr. Marshall to remediate and reteach math lessons in an effort to obtain 70 percent comprehension in his classes. During his tenure at Flanagan High School, Mr. Marshall was once again placed on a PDP, which included the same requirements as the previous PDP at Hollywood Hills. Mr. Marshall was next transferred to McArthur High School for the 2007-2008 school year. Because Mr. Marshall had not completed the second PDP while at Flanagan High School, he was placed on a PDP and 90-day probationary period to start his tenure at McArthur High School. He successfully completed the PDP. During the fall of 2010, Mr. Marshall complained about Mr. Jose Gonzalez, the assistant principal who supervised the math department at the time. Mr. Marshall was then permitted to choose which assistant principal would supervise him. He chose Shawn Aycock, who at the time worked as the assistant principal for the language arts department. On November 5, 2010, Ms. Aycock observed Mr. Marshall in his classroom. Ms. Aycock noticed the following deficiencies: Mr. Marshall did not have the students start an activity as soon as the students entered the room, he had the students perform a task that had no educational value and was not tied to the day's activity, he gave inappropriate responses to students' questions, the students were confused with the lesson, he did not provide proper feedback to the students, he did not provide complete answers to student questions, he used vocabulary that was beyond the students' ability, he gave the students a sample problem but did not work through the problem with the students, and he made no attempt to re-teach the lesson or remediate in any way. On November 16, 2012, Ms. Aycock met with Mr. Marshall to discuss the observation. Mr. Marshall was confrontational, denied that the observation of hers was accurate, and accused Ms. Aycock of lying. Ms. Aycock had observed many teachers before she observed Mr. Marshall, but had never seen the need to write up notes after a meeting with a teacher. But after her meeting with Mr. Marshall, she did. Since then, she has not seen the need to write notes arising from a meeting with any other teacher. During the meeting, Mr. Marshall indicated that he would not water down his instruction for any student, and that he would have no problem with observations that were done ethically and did not consist of lies that were made by unqualified individuals. On November 19, 2010, Ms. Aycock provided Mr. Marshall with a memo detailing her concerns and expectations: Concerns: Students were asked upon entering the class to copy the day's objective. Students did not understand all of the math vocabulary used to explain the lesson. A student seeking further explanation on a problem was told,"If you didn't get it not to worry. It will not be on the quiz." Students were referred back to their notes when they questioned the lesson. Only two math problems were worked during a half an hour review. Expectations: All student activities should be of value and tied to the day's activity. Teacher will use math vocabulary consistent with student ability level and explain lessons in multiple ways. Insinuating that lessons are learned only for a test is inappropriate. All student questions will be answered and explained in full. During a review a minimum of five review problems will be worked per concept. Additionally, we discussed the importance of you checking your email. I am directing you to check your email prior to the conclusion of first period and again prior to the conclusion of fourth period. It is important for you to know and understand that these are the same issues that you have had in previous years. Your previous Performance Development Plans (PDPs) have addressed these same concerns. You have received hours upon hours of assistance in these areas. My expectation is that you will follow the directives listed above immediately. If you feel you need assistance, please see me. Next, Ms. Aycock requested that Principal LaPace, who had an extensive math background, observe Mr. Marshall. He did so on January 7, 2011. Mr. LaPace's extensive notes regarding the observation detail Mr. Marshall's failure to have a proper lesson plan, his scattered presentation manner, and his ineffective management of the classroom. Mr. LaPace prepared a memo detailing his concerns and expectations: Concerns: Students were not given clear directions causing confusion among the students. The lesson was not sequential. The objective on the board did not match the lesson being taught. Modeling sample problems were ineffective. Expectations: Always give clear and concise directions to students. Plan and deliver lessons so that are presented in sequential order. The lesson presented in class will align with the objective posted for the day. During a lesson a minimum of three sample problems will be worked per concept. It is important for you to know and understand that these are the same issues that you have had in previous years. Your previous Performance Development Plans (PDPs) have addressed these same concerns. You have received adequate assistance in these areas. My expectation is that you will follow the directives listed above starting immediately. When Mr. LaPace met with Mr. Marshall regarding his observation, Mr. Marshall disagreed with Mr. La Pace's observations, but did not indicate why he did. Mr. Marshall also declined all types of support from other staff members. The administration asked Mr. Marshall to provide documentation of remediation and retesting of students if he had over 35% of his students earning Ds or Fs. The documentation needed to be specific information regarding times that Mr. Marshall sat down with students in small group settings, or phone logs regarding communication with parents, or any type of specific information regarding steps that Mr. Marshall was taking to raise the level of success of his students. Mr. Marshall was never observed remediating or re-teaching, despite the fact that all teachers were asked to allot the final 30 minutes of a class to these activities. On February 17, 2011, Ms. Aycock, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Marshall met for a Pre-Disciplinary Meeting. Mr. Marshall was given a verbal reprimand for insubordination. In the memorandum which documented the verbal reprimand, Ms. Aycock directed Mr. Marshall to: Reduce the number of students in your class receiving D's [sic] and F's [sic] to at or below thirty-five percent through re-teaching and remediating of those students. Check your school email throughout the day, a minimum of twice per day. Follow all directives given by and with proper authority. Failure or refusal to follow the above directives will result in further disciplinary action. On September 20, 2011, Ms. Aycock again met with Mr. Marshall to discuss concerns and expectations, and also to conduct a Pre-Disciplinary Meeting, wherein Mr. Marshall was issued a second verbal reprimand for insubordination. On September 22, 2011, Ms. Aycock wrote a memorandum detailing the conversation during the meeting, and reminding Mr. Marshall that from June 2010 through September 2011, he had attended seven meetings regarding the high percentage of students in his classes that were receiving Ds and Fs. At each meeting, he had been directed to reduce the number of students receiving Ds and Fs to at or below 35 percent, through remediation and re-teaching. Because Mr. Marshall had failed to comply with these directives, and had failed to provide a reason why he should not be disciplined, he was issued the second verbal reprimand. He was also directed to: Reduce the number of students in your class receiving Ds and Fs to at or below thirty-five percent through re-teaching and remediation of those students. Follow all directives given by and with proper authority. Stemming from the same meeting, Ms. Aycock documented her concerns and expectations: Concerns: You are receiving a large number of student and parental complaints in relation to your teaching practices. Students are not being graded in a fair and consistent manner. The department grading policy is not being followed. Meaningful assignments are not being given to students. Students are not receiving corrective and immediate feedback as it relates to their assignments. Expectations: You will model lessons for students. You will differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all the students. You will develop and implement rubrics so students have clear expectations of class participation and effort requirements. All assignments will correlate to the standards as tested by the Geometry EOC. Students will receive corrective feedback within seventy-two hours. It is important for you to know and understand that these are the same issues that you have had in previous years. Your previous Performance Development Plans (PDPs) have addressed these same concerns. You have received adequate assistance in these areas. My expectation is that you will follow the directives listed above starting immediately. Around December 2011, Ms. Aycock was promoted to the position of Principal for a middle school, and Ms. Arnita Williams became Mr. Marshall's supervising Assistant Principal. Ms. Williams and Ms. Aycock once again conducted a classroom observation of Mr. Marshall, and Ms. Williams documented her concerns and expectations as follows: Concerns: Students were not given clear directions causing confusion among the students. The lesson was not sequential. You did not address students' questions and concerns. Modeling sample problems was ineffective. You did not provide and use the correct mathematical vocabulary. Expectations: Always give clear and concise directions to students and check for understanding. Plan and deliver lessons so they are presented in sequential order. Students' questions and concerns need to be addressed. Mathematical vocabulary on student's level should be used. In previous memos additional directives were given. Below were the following expectations: You will develop and implement rubrics so students have clear expectations of class participation and effort. Provide a copy of your participation rubric to Ms. Aycock by the close of business on Friday, September 26, 2011. Differentiate instruction every day the last 30 minutes of class the [sic] meet the needs of ask [sic] your students. Student will receive corrective feedback within seventy-two hours on all graded work. Reduce the number of students receiving Ds and Fs to at or below thirty-five percent through re-teaching and remediation of those students. Daily indicate in your lesson plans interventions and strategies used to differentiate instruction. A minimum of two grades each week must be entered into pinnacle per student. Vocabulary used in class must be consistent with student's ability. Check your school email throughout the day, a minimum of twice daily (before and after school). During a lesson a minimum of three sample problems will be worked per concept. Follow all directives given by and with proper authority. You have been given the above directions numerous times in the past. It is my expectation that all directives will be implemented immediately. On December 12, 2011, Ms. Williams issued a written reprimand for failing to meet the performance standards required of his position as a math teacher. As grounds for the written reprimand, Ms. Williams focused on Mr. Marshall's repeated failure to reduce the number of students receiving Ds and Fs to at or below 35 percent through remediation and re-teaching, and his failure to follow all other directives given by and with proper authority. School administration consistently directed Mr. Marshall to remediate and re-teach daily; he advised the administration that he would do so on one particular day of the week. The administration denied that request. As a result of Mr. Marshall's non-compliance, students were moved from Mr. Marshall's class to other classes, which resulted in a disparate amount of students in other classes. While most math teachers had from 30-35 students in their classes, Mr. Marshall's class was reduced to about 17 students. On January 5, 2012, Ms. Williams conducted a pre-disciplinary meeting with Mr. Marshall, for failure to provide daily re-teaching and remediation for students the last 30 minutes of class, as he had been instructed to do numerous times. He was informed by letter that he was being recommended to the School Board for a three-day suspension. On October 10, 2012, approximately nine weeks into the next school year, Ms. Williams sent Mr. Marshall a memorandum that stated: Due to the large number of complaints, schedule changes, high failure rate and conferences, you are hereby directed to provide the following documentation for each of the 93 students (Juniors) who presently have a grade of F in your class at interims by October 15, 2012. Please provide copies to Ms. Williams and Ms. DiPaolo by 2:45 p.m. Interventions and strategies for each student Parent phone contact log On that same date, Mr. Marshall responded to this request by giving Ms. Williams a document that read as follows: MATHEMATICAL RUBRIC Tests/Quizzes Correct Problems 10pts. Completely Wrong 0pts. Total is 100% Please note that the total number of questions can affect the outcome. Since the reply by Mr. Marshall was completely lacking in usefulness and did not supply the information requested by Ms. Williams, she attempted once again to solicit the proper information from Mr. Marshall by sending an e-mail to him on October 15, 2012, at 6:03 a.m., giving him a second notice that the deadline for production of the requested information was that same day. Mr. Marshall never complied with the directive to provide information on each student who was failing his class. He never asked for more time to collect the information, and despite that fact that he admitted it would have been easy to retrieve his phone log and submit it, he never did so. Ms. Williams met with Mr. Marshall, informing him that he would be recommended to the School Board for a seven-day suspension. The greater weight of the evidence established that Mr. Marshall is guilty of gross insubordination for his conduct before and after July 2012.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order suspending Mr. Marshall without pay for a total of ten days, based on his conduct before and after July 2012. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Joshua A. Freedman was issued a certificate in accounting from Temple University in 1945 (Exhibit 3). He attended evening classes at Temple during the periods 1937-1940 and 1944-1946. Transcript of Freedman's scholastic record at Temple University (Exhibit 1) shows he completed 56 semester hours during this period. The testimony of Dr. Laibstain (Exhibit 15) is that he completed 58 hours, includes 2 hours earned in 1965. Of the courses completed 26 semester hours were in accounting and 24 semester hours were classified as business courses. Requirements for a certificate in accounting are shown in Exhibit 23 to be completion of 12 one-year courses, or a total of 48 credits. The courses so outlined meet three evenings a week for four years but the time period may be altered if the student attends more or less classes than three evenings a week. A total of 124 semester hours is required by Temple University for a baccalaureate degree in accounting and the requirement has not been less than 120 semester hours since prior to Petitioner's matriculation. Petitioner was issued CPA Certificate Number 2872 on 4-26-50 after having successfully passed the AICPA examination in Pennsylvania with grades of 75 in Law (1947) and 69 in Practice (1949) Respondent stipulated that the only grounds for denying Petitioner's application for a reciprocal CPA certificate was his failure to complete the requirements for a baccalaureate degree and his failure to make a grade of at least 75 on the AI CPA examination- he took in 1949. With this stipulation the evidence regarding Petitioner's experience, professional qualifications and moral character become irrelevant to these proceedings. In 1949-1950 Florida required its applicants for CPA certification to pass examinations in subjects including Auditing, Commercial Law, Theory of Accounts and Accounting Practices with a minimum grade of 75 in each subject. Florida has always required a passing grade of not less than 75 on CPA examinations given. As a result of difficulties in obtaining information from certain states regarding the examinations and grades obtained for those seeking reciprocal CPA certificates in Florida, the Florida Board of Accountancy stopped accepting applications from applicants from these states for reciprocal CPA certification. This led to a meeting between the Pennsylvania Board and the Florida Board in 1974 at which the former agreed to provide all requested information to Florida and Florida agreed to accept the examination grades in which a mark of at least 75 was received as equivalent to the Florida examination even though the same subjects were not covered by the examination. Prior to 1969 the Florida Board of Accountancy had certain discretions in granting reciprocal CPA certificates. The statute was amended in 1969 by what is now Section 473.201 F.S.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Latunya Gibbs ("Respondent" or "Gibbs"), committed the violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, BCSB, is located at 600 Southeast Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BCSB is in charge of the Broward County School District ("the District"). Robert W. Runcie is the Superintendent of BCSB. The Superintendent is statutorily obligated to recommend the placement of school personnel and to require observance with all laws, rules, and regulations. He is authorized to report and enforce any violation thereof, together with recommending the appropriate disciplinary action against instructional personnel employed by the Board. Gibbs is employed by BCSB as a teacher pursuant to a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes. She was first hired by BCSB on August 24, 1993. Gibbs holds a Florida Educator's Certificate in Elementary Education. The Superintendent recommended that Gibbs be terminated from her employment with BCSB. On October 2, 2018, the Board adopted the Superintendent's recommendation. BCSB provided all notice and process that was due as it pertains to the investigation and procedural requirements through the Board's adoption of the Superintendent's recommendation for termination. Gibbs was assigned as a teacher at MLE for school years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. In 2015-16, Gibbs was assigned to teach second grade. On September 2, 2015, she was placed on administrative reassignment due to a personnel investigation. She remained on administrative reassignment for the remainder of the school year. During the 2016-17 school year, Gibbs was assigned to teach third grade at MLE. Gibbs had 18 students in her class. On May 24, 2017, Gibbs received notice of an investigation into an allegation that she falsified records pertaining to student evaluations and achievements for promotion to the fourth grade. These records included student assessments for the Benchmark Assessment System and third grade Portfolios. On June 19, 2017, Gibbs received notice that the investigation was expanded to include an allegation that she submitted falsified documents to utilize FMLA leave and that she falsified a training certificate. Fabricated BAS Assessments The District uses the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment Systems ("BAS"). It is used to determine a student's independent, instructional, and frustration reading levels. BAS assessments are conducted one-on-one by the teacher. In part 1 of the assessment, the student reads aloud and talks about the system's leveled fiction and nonfiction books, while the teacher observes and notes the reader's behaviors on constructed forms. In part 2, the teacher conducts a Comprehension Conversation. There is an optional part 3, which uses a reading prompt to elicit student response to the text. BAS assessments are done for all students in grade levels Kindergarten through 3, and for those students in grades 4 and 5 who score a one or two on the Florida Standards Assessment ("FSA"). For BAS, there are three assessment periods each school year. The District deadline for the third assessment period was May 26, 2017. MLE set an earlier internal deadline for its teachers of May 19, 2017, to insure that the District deadline would be met. On May 11, 2017, Gibbs was provided with a substitute so she could have the opportunity to complete BAS assessments. After school on Friday, May 12, 2017, there was a Response to Intervention ("RTI") meeting at MLE. Gibbs told Marlen Veliz ("Veliz"), MLE's Principal, that she had completed the BAS assessments for two of her 18 students. Gibbs stated that she was confident that she would be able to complete all student assessments by the May 19 deadline, and that she did not need a substitute for an additional day. Gibbs was at school on Monday, May 15, 2017, but then was absent for an extended period. She was absent on May 16 through 19, and 22 through 24. Principal Velez asked Ms. Shamequia Wright ("Wright"), a third grade teacher and union steward, and Ms. Hend Hafez ("Hafez"), an MLE Literacy Coach, to help assess Gibbs' students. On Thursday, May 18, 2017, Wright and Mr. Lawrence Hennequin ("Hennequin"), third grade team lead, entered Gibbs' classroom to look for the students' BAS folders. They could not find the BAS folders, and only found blank scoring sheets. They held up a BAS folder and asked the students where they could find the folders. The students informed Hennequin and Wright that they had never seen the folders. Hennequin and Wright left Gibbs' classroom to get their own materials so they could start assessing students. Wright proceeded to assess Gibbs' students on May 19 and May 22., 2017 On May 23, 2017, Hafez was asked to gather the BAS assessments that Wright had completed. Wright told Hafez that the assessments were on the round table in Gibbs' classroom. Hafez collected the BAS materials from the round table in Gibbs' classroom and provided them to the office. Upon trying to enter the BAS scores into the BASIS system, it was discovered that Gibbs had entered all of the students' scores on May 15, 2017. In order to have done this, Gibbs would have had to complete assessments for 16 students on that day. Principal Veliz knew this was an impossible task and, therefore, questioned the validity of the scores. Principal Veliz asked the District for a review. By May 26, 2017, the office had received all of the protocols--the student BAS folders containing the data for all three of the assessment periods--from all of the third grade teachers with the exception of Gibbs. The Assistant Principal, Joan Rosa ("Rosa"), made an announcement over the P.A. reminding all of the teachers who had not submitted their protocols to do so prior to 3:00 p.m. Gibbs never brought any of the protocols for any of the three assessment periods to the office. On May 26, 2017, Mildred Grimaldo ("Grimaldo"), Director of Literacy from the District, went to MLE to conduct a review and reassess Gibbs' students. The team conducted a reassessment of five students. Hafez reassessed the remaining students. It was found that the scores entered in BASIS on May 15, 2017, by Gibbs did not align with the reassessments completed by Grimaldo's team or Hafez. Of the 18 students in Gibbs' class, only six scored a three or above on the FSA. Six students scored a two and five students scored a one. One student was absent. Gibbs was scheduled for mandatory BAS training on January 13, 2017, but she did not attend. Gibbs received a verbal reprimand for missing the training. Gibbs received training as part of a calibration conversation that took place on April 4, 2017. The Literacy Coach also had previously shared (November 2016) a link to a Brainshark presentation, which included suggested best practices from Fountas & Pinnell and those implemented in the District. Gibbs did not review the Brainshark presentation. Incomplete Portfolios and Falsified Promotion Testing Section 1008.25(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and Board Policy 6000.1 indicate that any student in third grade who does not meet the reading promotion criteria, which is a two or higher on the FSA, can be promoted to fourth grade based on good cause promotion criteria. The good cause promotion criteria consists of the completion and passing of a third grade Portfolio as an alternative to a passing FSA score. All third grade teachers are required to have their students complete the third grade Portfolio. Student Portfolios are based on work completed by the students in connection with what they are being taught by the teacher. The teachers are to teach the State standards. The Portfolios gauge students' mastery of the reading information standards, reading literature standards, and language standards. There are eight cycles that were put together by the District to help teachers teach the reading information standards, reading literature standards, and language standards. Each cycle has certain tasks that students must complete. The tasks are to be graded by the teachers and kept as part of the Portfolios. The grade is based on a four point system, with one being the worst and four being the best. If a student does not score a three out of four on a particular standard, the student is then given an additional passage and multiple choice test. The student must receive at least a 70% on the multiple choice test to show proficiency in the standard. Scores for the Portfolio tasks as well as the multiple choice test, if necessary, are recorded on a form entitled Third Grade Assessment Portfolio: Cumulative Student Record Form ("Portfolio Record Form"). MLE had an in-house deadline of May 1, 2017, to submit all Portfolios along with the summary sheets. The District's deadline was May 5, 2017. On May 1, 2017, Gibbs emailed Hafez asking for assistance finishing the last tasks for the Portfolios. Principal Veliz received Gibbs' Portfolio Record Form and Portfolios on or about May 4, 2017. Veliz must sign each Portfolio Record Form. She also reviews the Portfolios. Veliz noticed that Gibbs' Portfolio Record Form indicated a perfect score, four out of four, for every one of her 18 students. Additionally, even though every student allegedly received a perfect score, Gibbs also had a score for the multiple choice test for every standard for every student. Had a student actually received a perfect score on the tasks, the multiple choice test would have been unnecessary. This raised a red flag for Veliz. Based on the concerns, Veliz asked Hafez and Rosa to bring her Gibbs' box of Portfolios. The box was sealed, almost completely, with duct tape. As a team, Veliz, Hafez, and Rosa opened Gibbs' Portfolio box. They spot checked a few of the students' work and noticed significant discrepancies in what Gibbs recorded and the student product. Hafez and Rosa were asked to review all of Gibbs' students' Portfolios. It took a week to review all of the Portfolios. The team found errors that included, but were not limited to: incorrect grading; the sample answer was provided (i.e., the teacher answer key); missing tasks; missing test items; task given multiple times despite mastery of the task; blank or incomplete tasks; discrepancy in time frame of dates; items done as homework as opposed to class work; missing multiple choice sheets; and the inclusion of non-summative task items. Veliz reached out to Ms. Nicole Mancini, Director of Elementary Learning, to have someone from the District rescore the Portfolios. Dr. Teri Acquavita and Ms. Shellie Gory ("Gory"), supervisors for the District, conducted a District review. There were discrepancies between the District review and Gibbs' grading. On May 9, 2017, Veliz emailed Gibbs requesting her monthly data along with the alternative portfolio multiple-choice assessments. Gibbs submitted the monthly data. Gibbs did not submit the multiple-choice alternative data, and has never submitted the multiple-choice data. However, on that same day, Gibbs sent two of her students to Hafez asking for copies of the multiple-choice tests. Gibbs told all of the parents that their students would be promoted. Unfortunately, five of Gibbs' students scored a one on the FSA. The Portfolios should have been used as good cause promotion criteria for those students, but they were too deficient. The students were promoted and placed into intervention programs the following year. Falsified Test Administrator Certificate School year 2016-17 was the first year that the FSA was to be given to students via computer. All MLE teachers were directed by Veliz to complete a Test Administrators' ("TA") Certification Course from American Institutes for Research ("AIR"). The FSA was given on April 27 and 28, 2017. On February 7, 2017, the school was scheduled to take an infrastructure practice test to make sure the school's system had the capacity to handle the testing by computers. On February 6, 2017, Gibbs received assistance from School Counselor, Ms. Gigi McIntire ("McIntire"), and the Micro-Tech, Mr. Osvaldo Hernandez ("Hernandez"), to create her password and receive a link for the infrastructure practice test. Gibbs' class did not take the infrastructure test. On February 8, 2017, Veliz met with Gibbs to discuss the fact that her class had not completed the infrastructure test and the importance of practicing with her students prior to the FSA. During the meeting, Gibbs claimed that she had not been given the link and she had not received the password until the very end because Hernandez had helped all other teachers and left her for last. This was not true, however, because Gibbs received her password and the link on February 6, 2017. Gibbs submitted a TA Certificate on March 13, 2017, which had her name handwritten on it and which did not state a date of completion of the course. The certificate looked as though it was a screen shot from the computer. The certificates that were submitted by all other teachers looked different. They had their names typed on the certificate and the date that the course was completed. Gibbs was supposed to have her students practice taking the test on a computer. The expectation was that students would have done this multiple times before having to take the FSA. On April 24, 2017, Veliz approached some third grade students and asked them how their computer practice test was going. Several students from Gibbs' class stated that they had not practiced yet because their teacher did not know how to log in. Students from other classes stated that they had practiced several times. This alarmed Veliz. Veliz asked McIntire to provide copies of all the TA Certificates. Veliz saw that the only certificate with a name handwritten in was that of Gibbs. Veliz contacted the AIR Help Desk. Mr. Anthony Nembhard ("Nembhard") confirmed that Gibbs had only used her password to log in on February 6, 2017, and had not logged in at any other time. Nembhard provided Veliz with Case No. 545991, and showed Veliz how to print a report indicating that Gibbs had not completed the course. It was uncovered that a teacher could scroll through the course without actually taking it and get to a "Congratulations!" page that looked like what Gibbs had submitted as her certificate. A screen shot of this page could be printed out. On April 25, 2017, Veliz went into Gibbs' classroom with Hernandez to assist students in practicing prior to the test. None of the students had any idea how to log in, did not know which browser to use, and every single one of them indicated that it was their first time accessing this practice test. The students were confused and did not know how to log in. This student confusion took place in the presence of Gibbs, Hernandez, and Veliz. When Gibbs was asked if she had her students do the practice test, Gibbs indicated she had done everything she needed to do. Gibbs' defense, that her printer was not functioning properly to print a complete TA Certificate, is not credible. Gibbs apparently printed a TA Certificate in which everything printed perfectly, except her name, which she handwrote. She offered no explanation for failing to provide instruction to her students on how to utilize the computer so they would be ready to take the FSA. Falsified FMLA Certification of Healthcare Provider Gibbs sought and was granted Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") intermittent leave in 2012. Gibbs reapplied for FMLA intermittent leave every year thereafter from 2013 to 2015, and was approved by Ms. Marjorie Fletcher ("Fletcher") of the BCSB Leaves Department on each instance. Gibbs submitted a FMLA certificate of healthcare provider form from ARNP Princy Bhat-Bhardwaj ("ARNP Princy"), certifying Gibbs' need for another FMLA leave for the period of November 15, 2015, to November 15, 2016. ARNP Princy is employed by Metcare, Gibbs' primary medical care provider. The frequency and duration section of the form on paragraph 11 were left blank. In order to process Gibbs' leave request, Fletcher faxed this form back to Metcare to request that it fill in the frequency and duration section of the form. The form was faxed back to Fletcher with the frequency and duration section of the form filled in. However, Fletcher noticed that the beginning and ending dates of the certification on paragraph nine, as well as the date of the signature on the bottom of the form, were whited out and written over. Fletcher called Metcare to verify their fax number which was fax-stamped at the top of the form. A person at Metcare could not verify the phone number listed on the top of the form. ARNP Princy confirmed to Fletcher that the handwritten portion of the date of the signature was not her handwriting. ARNP Princy also confirmed that the beginning and ending dates of the certification on paragraph nine of the form was not her handwriting. ARNP Princy testified that if she signs a form, it is her practice to date the form at the same time. According to ARNP Princy, Metcare's procedure for filling out and executing FMLA certifications is directed by the patient. In some instances, they fill out and execute FMLA certifications and directly send it to a patient's employer. In other instances, the form is handed back to the patient to submit to their employer. Gibbs submitted another FMLA certificate of healthcare provider from ARNP Princy, certifying Gibbs' need for another FMLA leave for January 29, 2016, to June 10, 2016. On May 23, 2017, legal counsel for Metcare, confirmed to the Leaves Department that it had not completed a FMLA certificate for Gibbs since January 2015. It is evident that one or more FMLA forms submitted on behalf of Gibbs were falsified. However, no evidence was presented that the documents were altered by Gibbs or that they were ever in her possession prior to their submission by someone to the Leaves Department. Although no one other than Gibbs would seemingly have a motive to modify these forms, Gibbs denied falsifying them. While Fletcher certainly had a legitimate basis to question the validity of these forms, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Gibbs knowingly submitted false information to secure ongoing intermittent leave. Prior Discipline Gibbs has prior disciplinary actions consisting of two verbal reprimands and several corrective actions (i.e., summary memoranda). She received a verbal reprimand on January 27, 2017, for failing to attend the scheduled Professional Learning Community on BAS at McNab Elementary on January 13, 2017. She received another verbal reprimand on December 11, 2017, for intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Gibbs received received summary memos concerning: the need to attend all scheduled afternoon meetings; the need to promote positive interactions with students; the need to be punctual; the need to follow procedures and protocols for drills; the need to instruct for an entire period; the need to closely monitor and track student progress; the need to adhere to timelines and complete school-wide assessments in a timely manner; the need to understand standards; for sending a grammatically incorrect letter to a parent; for lack of intervention with behavior issues in the classroom; for intentionally exposing students to embarrassment with references to boyfriends and girlfriends; the need the adhere to timelines and complete school-wide assessments in a timely manner; and the need to use guided reading during the reading block. On September 2, 2015, Gibbs was placed on administrative reassignment due to a personnel investigation. She remained on administrative reassignment for the remainder of the school year. The personnel investigation involved two issues. One issue was about conduct that occurred during the 2014-15 school year when she was assigned to Walker Elementary as a VPK teacher. The alleged conduct was that she charged parents a fee if their child was picked up late from VPK and that she planned on charging a fee for the end of school graduation ceremony. The other issue was for conduct that occurred during the 2015-16 school year. It was alleged that on August 26, 2015, she pushed a student out of the classroom and pinched his back. Based on these two incidents, the Education Practices Commission issued a letter of reprimand to Gibbs, which is part of her BCSB personnel file. Ultimate Findings of Fact The evidentiary record overwhelmingly reveals a pattern by Gibbs of misconduct, gross insubordination, incompetence, willful neglect of duty, and violation of school board policies. The evidentiary record amply supports suspension without pay and termination of her employment for just cause.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Denise Marie Heekin, Esquire Ranjiv Sondhi, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 For Respondent: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33675
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County School Board, enter a final order upholding Respondent's suspension without pay and termination for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 6th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33675 (eServed) Denise Marie Heekin, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Ranjiv Sondhi, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Katherine A. Heffner, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 (eServed) Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 10th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds, and at all relevant times, held a valid Florida Educator’s Certificate. Respondent is and, at all relevant times, was a fifth- grade teacher at Avon Park Elementary School in Highlands County. Respondent has been an elementary school teacher for 19 years. She taught fourth and fifth grade at Zolfo Springs Elementary School in Hardee County from 1986 through the end of the 2000-01 school year. She started teaching at Avon Park Elementary School at the beginning of the 2001-02 school year. Respondent is currently on a year-to-year contract. Her contract was renewed for the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years notwithstanding the allegations in this case, which occurred during the 2002-03 school year. Respondent has not had any disciplinary problems over the course of her career, and other than the allegations in this case, she has never been accused of any unethical or unprofessional conduct. Respondent has always received good annual performance evaluations. Respondent’s most recent performance evaluations - - for the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years –- state that she “meets or exceeds expectations” in all categories, including the category that assesses whether Respondent “act[s] in a professional and ethical manner and adhere[s] to the Code and Principles of Professional Conduct.” Consistent with the information in Respondent’s annual performance evaluations, the principal at Avon Park Elementary School, who is Respondent’s current supervisor, testified that Respondent “does a good job” as a teacher and that she values Respondent quite highly as a teacher; the former principal at Zolfo Springs Elementary School, who was Respondent’s supervisor for approximately five of the years that Respondent taught at that school, testified that Respondent’s reputation for complying with the code of ethics is “excellent” and that Respondent always “monitored and cherished” her professionalism; one of Respondent’s co-workers at Avon Park Elementary School testified that Respondent is “a very effective and professional teacher”; and the students who testified at the hearing characterized Respondent as a good teacher. Respondent has administered the FCAT to her students since the test’s inception in the 1990s, and as a result, she is very familiar with what teachers can and cannot do when administering the test. Respondent and other teachers at Avon Park Elementary School received training on the administration of the 2003 FCAT, and as part of the training, Respondent received a copy of the Test Administration Manual for the 2003 FCAT. The Test Administration Manual is published by the state Department of Education (Department) and is distributed to teachers by the testing coordinators at each school. The school-level testing coordinators report to a testing coordinator at the school district level, who is ultimately responsible for the administration of the FCAT to the district’s students. The Test Administration Manual summarizes the “dos and don’ts” of test administration for the FCAT. It also includes a copy of the statute and rule governing test security, which for the 2003 FCAT were Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.042. On the issue of test security, the Test Administration Manual explains that: it is not appropriate to talk with [students] about any test item or to help them answer any test item. For example, if students finish the test before the allotted time for the session has elapsed, or have not attempted to complete a question, it would be appropriate to encourage them to go back and check their work. It is not acceptable to provide the students with any information that would allow them to infer the correct answer, such as suggesting that they might want to check their work on a specific question. (Emphasis in original). The FCAT is required by state law to be administered annually to public school students in the third through tenth grades to measure the students’ proficiency in reading, writing, science, and math. The FCAT measures the students’ performance against state standards. The Norm Referenced Test (NRT), which is administered in conjunction with the FCAT, measures the students’ performance in math and reading against national standards. The FCAT is an important test, both to students and the schools. The student’s promotion to the next grade and/or class placement is affected to some degree by his or her performance on the FCAT. The school’s grade, which has an impact on the funding that the school district receives from the state, is also affected to some degree by the students’ performance on the FCAT. The math and reading portions of the 2003 FCAT were administered to fifth graders on Monday through Wednesday, March 3-5, 2003. The science portion of the FCAT and the NRT were administered the following week, on Monday through Wednesday, March 10-12, 2003. Throughout the 2002-03 school year, Respondent “taught the FCAT” and gave her class practice FCAT questions. She used the questions as teaching tools and to help prepare her students for the actual FCAT. Respondent would sometimes explain the wording of the practice questions to her students and, as needed, she would provide the students other assistance, both individually and as a class, while they were working on the practice questions. On Friday, February 28, 2003, Respondent administered two practice tests to her students in which she tried to simulate the environment in which the students would be taking the actual FCAT the following week. For example, the tests were timed and Respondent walked around the room as she proctored the tests. Respondent helped the students during the practice tests as she had done with the practice questions administered throughout the year. At one point, she stopped the test and reviewed a math problem on the board with the class because she observed a number of students having problems with a particular question. Respondent administered the math and reading portions of the actual FCAT to 18 students in her homeroom class on March 3-5, 2003. None of those students were exceptional education students who were entitled to special accommodations. Respondent did a 15 to 20 minute “mini-review” each morning that the students were taking the actual FCAT during which she went over terminology and concepts that the students might see on the test that day. Respondent started the administration of the actual FCAT by reading the directions verbatim from the “scripts” in the Test Administration Manual. Once the students began taking the test, she monitored them from her desk and she also walked around the room on a periodic basis. Respondent also went to students’ desks when they raised their hands. The Test Administration Manual contemplates that students might raise their hands and ask questions during the test; indeed, the “scripts” that the teacher is required to read verbatim state more than once, “Please raise your hand if you have any questions.” Respondent denied giving the students any assistance in answering the test questions on the actual FCAT. According to Respondent, when a student asked her about a particular test question, she told the student that “I can’t help you,” “go back and re-read the directions,” “do the best you can,” or other words to that effect. The Department’s testing coordinator, Victoria Ash, testified that responses such as those are acceptable. Respondent also made a general statement to the class during the test reminding the students to go back and check their work if they finished the test before the allotted time expired. Ms. Ash testified that a general reminder such as that is “absolutely acceptable.” Respondent’s testimony was corroborated by student J.M., who credibly testified that he recalled more than once hearing Respondent tell other students that she could not help them during the actual FCAT. Several students testified that Respondent helped them during the actual FCAT by explaining words that they did not understand, explaining how to solve math problems, and/or by suggesting that they check their work on particular problems. That testimony was not persuasive because it lacked specificity and precision, and other than A.P., B.B. (boy), and K.J., the students testified that they were not certain that the help they remembered receiving was on the actual FCAT rather than on the practice tests that they were given by Respondent. With respect to B.B. (boy), the undersigned did not find his testimony persuasive because he also testified that Respondent helped the entire class with a math problem during the actual test, which contradicted the statements given by the other students and which suggests that he was recalling events from the practice test during which Respondent gave such help to the entire class. With respect to A.P. and K.J., the undersigned did not find them to be particularly credible witnesses based upon their demeanors while testifying. There were other inconsistencies in the students’ accounts of Respondent’s administration of the FCAT that make their testimony generally unpersuasive. For example, B.B. (girl) testified that Respondent played classical music during the actual test, which was not corroborated by any other student in the class and was contradicted by Respondent’s credible testimony that she played music during the practice tests to relax the students but that she and the other fifth-grade teachers at Avon Park Elementary School made a conscious decision not to play music during the actual FCAT. As a result of the students’ apparent confusion regarding events occurring during practice tests rather than the actual FCAT, the inconsistencies in the students’ accounts of the events during the administration of the test, the general lack of specificity and precision in the students’ accounts of the events, and Respondent’s credible denial of any wrongdoing, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish the truth of the allegations against Respondent. In making the foregoing finding, due consideration was given to the investigation undertaken by the district-level testing coordinator, Rebecca Fleck, at the time of the allegations against Respondent, and the materials generated through that investigation. The reason for the investigation was a phone call that Ms. Fleck received on Wednesday, March 5, 2003, from a Department employee who told Ms. Fleck that the Department had received an anonymous complaint about Respondent’s administration of the FCAT. Ms. Fleck went to Avon Park Elementary School on Friday, March 7, 2003, to investigate the complaint. On that date, she met with the school’s assistant principal and interviewed several of the students in Respondent’s class. She also spoke briefly with Respondent to “get her side of the story,” which consistent with her testimony at the hearing, was an unequivocal denial of any wrongdoing. Ms. Fleck decided, based upon the student interviews, that Respondent should not administer the science portion of the FCAT or the NRT the following week. As a result, Respondent was assigned to work at the school district office on March 10-12, 2003, while her students were taking the tests on those dates. Ms. Fleck also decided to interview and get statements from all of the students in Respondent’s class, which she did on the following Monday and Tuesday, March 10 and 11, 2003. On those days, the students were called to the principal’s office in groups of two or three and they were asked to fill out a questionnaire developed by Ms. Fleck. Pam Burnaham, the principal of Avon Park Elementary School, and Ms. Fleck supervised the students while they filled out the questionnaires. The students were not told that Ms. Fleck was investigating alleged wrongdoing by Respondent; they were told that the purpose of the questionnaire was to find out about their “FCAT experience.” Ms. Fleck testified that she was confident that the students understood that the questionnaire related only to the actual FCAT and not any of the practice tests administered by Respondent; however, Ms. Burnaham testified that she did not place any emphasis on the distinction, and as noted above, the students’ testimony at the hearing indicates that they may have been confused on this issue. Ms. Fleck concluded based upon the students’ responses on the questionnaires that Respondent “coached” the students during the administration of the actual FCAT. As a result, she invalidated the tests of all 18 students in Respondent’s class. Ms. Fleck’s decision to invalidate the students’ tests was not unreasonable based upon what she was told by the students, which she believed to be true; however, the invalidation of the tests is not sufficient in and of itself to impose discipline on Respondent because, as discussed above, the truth of the students’ allegations was not clearly and convincingly proven at the hearing. Several of the students gave written statements to a Department investigator in late May 2003 regarding the help that they recalled being given by Respondent on the FCAT. No weight is given to those statements because no credible evidence was presented regarding the circumstances under which the statements were made, the statements were made several months after the events described in the statements, and as was the case with the questionnaires the students filled out for Ms. Fleck, the undersigned is not persuaded that the students understood at the time they were giving the statements that they were describing events that occurred during the actual FCAT rather than the practice tests that they were given by Respondent. There is no persuasive evidence that any of the students in Respondent’s class whose tests were invalidated suffered any adverse educational consequences. Even though the school administrators did not have the benefit of the students’ FCAT scores for purposes of placement and/or developing a remediation plan, they had other information on which they could make those decisions, including the students’ scores on the NRT, which was administered the week after the FCAT and was not invalidated. Other than being reassigned to the school district office during the administration of the NRT, Respondent did not suffer any adverse employment consequences from the school district as a result of the students’ allegations and/or the invalidation of the students’ tests. To the contrary, Respondent continued to get good performance reviews and her contract has been renewed twice since the administration of the 2003 FCAT. Respondent did not administer the 2004 FCAT because this case was still pending. She was given other duties at Avon Park Elementary School while her students were taking the 2004 FCAT.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2005.
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching certificate should be suspended or revoked on grounds that he violated Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes (1979), by knowingly obtaining and filing a fraudulent university transcript with the Florida Department of Education for the purpose of being certified in the additional field of elementary education.
Findings Of Fact I. The Respondent: Background l. Respondent, a 44-year-old school teacher, has taught at Dade County elementary schools since 1966. He obtained a bachelor of science degree at Southern University in 1962. Later, he completed several postgraduate elementary education courses at Miami-Dade Community College and the University of Miami; in 1977, he earned a master's degree from Nova University. In his postgraduate courses, he earned almost straight "A's," with an occasional "B." (Testimony of Parker; P-6.) From 1966-1977, Respondent held a rank III (graduate) teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education. After obtaining his master's degree in 1977, he was issued a rank II (post graduate) teaching certificate; however, although qualified in other areas, he was not certified to teach in the field of elementary education. (Testimony of Parker; P-6.) From 1974-1979, Respondent taught at Biscayne Elementary School in Dade County; since he was not certified in elementary education, he taught "out of his field." Teachers, such as Respondent, who taught out of their certified fields were required to complete at least six credit hours per year toward obtaining certification in the field in which they were teaching. Between 1977 and 1979, the Dade County School Board ("School Board") reminded its teachers of this requirement, that if they did not take the necessary ongoing course work, they would be required to return to their certified field of instruction. (Testimony of Gray.) Earlier, Respondent had hoped that, by obtaining his master's degree, he would complete enough courses to qualify for certification in the field of elementary education. However, his 1977 postgraduate teaching certificate did not certify him in elementary education. Sometime in early 1978, he calculated that 18 additional postgraduate credit hours would entitle him to be certified in elementary education, the area in which he preferred to teach. (Testimony of Parker.) II. Sutton Helps Respondent Enroll and Take Courses at Florida A & M University At all times material to this case, Eugene Sutton was employed by Florida A & M University ("Florida A & M") in Tallahassee, Florida, as its supervisor of intern teachers. In this capacity, Sutton would travel around the State, visiting interns and talking to supervising teachers. If problems were encountered, he would offer assistance. (P-4.) Sutton had been introduced to Respondent by Rosalyn Bethel, another faculty member at Biscayne Elementary School. In early 1978, Sutton--who had visited the school numerous times--walked into Respondent's classroom and asked him where he had attended school. When the conversation turned to various universities, Sutton stated that Florida A & M offered courses that could be taken by working people; he volunteered to help Respondent take such courses: [H]e [Sutton] said that he was able to reg- ister me, give me my work, and take it back to the instructors or the University, and I would get credit. (Tr. 76.) (Testimony of Parker; P-3.) Respondent accepted Sutton's offer. Shortly thereafter, he gave Sutton the registration fees (required by the university catalog) for nine credit hours. As promised, Sutton registered Respondent for elementary education courses at Florida A & M for the Spring Quarter of 1978. Respondent received a receipt from the university indicating his enrollment. During the ensuing months, Sutton would frequently exchange course materials with Respondent: Sutton would give course assignments to Respondent; Respondent would give Sutton completed course work for delivery to the various university instructors. (Testimony of Parker.) Respondent reasonably believed that he was properly completing course work assigned by his university instructors. The course work bore course titles and names of various instructors. Sutton was a faculty member at the university, a person in authority with important responsibilities. Respondent had no reason to distrust him or suspect him of wrongdoing. (Testimony of Parker, Gaines.) After finishing the Spring Quarter, Respondent enrolled at Florida A & M again, (through Sutton) for nine more credit hours (three courses) in elementary education during the Summer Quarter of 1978. The procedure was the same: He paid Sutton the required registration fees and received a receipt from the university. Sutton then brought course assignments (with textbooks) to Respondent, who, after completing them, gave them to Sutton for delivery to the various university instructors. Respondent never attended the university's Tallahassee campus or spoke directly with his instructors. (Testimony of Parker.) The elementary education courses which Respondent took at Florida A & M during 1978 were not directed individual study courses--courses which can be completed without attendance at the university's campus. However, Respondent-- at the time he selected these courses--did not know that they required attendance at the university. Sutton helped him select the courses from the university's course catalog, and he relied on Sutton as a university faculty member. (Testimony of Parker.) Respondent was unable to produce tuition receipts or work assignments associated with his course work because his house had been vandalized (and his records damaged) when he was hospitalized in September, 1979. 3/ (Testimony of Parker.) III. Respondent Receives a University Transcript At the conclusion of the Spring and Summer Quarters of 1978, Respondent received a copy of a course transcript from Florida A & M. The transcript--the original of which is part of the official records of the university--indicated that Respondent took six courses (18 credit hours) during the two quarters but successfully completed only three of them; that he earned only nine credit hours because of two "I's" (incompletes) and one "F" (failure). His grade-point average for the two quarters was 2.25. (Testimony of Parker; P- 3, P-4, P-8.) Although the transcript appeared to be valid and authentic, Respondent was surprised at the two "I's" and the "F." He had completed all his course assignments and had given them to Sutton; he did not expect an "F" when he was accustomed to earning A's and B's in postgraduate courses. 4/ Respondent then confronted Sutton. (Testimony of Parker.) Sutton explained that he (Sutton) had been late in delivering Respondent's course work to the university, and that Respondent would receive the correct grades. Shortly thereafter, Respondent received a corrected transcript indicating that he successfully completed (with B's) the three courses which had earlier been "I's" and an "F." He believed the corrected transcript was valid and authentic; however, he did not understand how the "F" could be corrected to a "B" when Sutton's explanation attributed the incorrect grades to the late submittal of course work. 5/ (Testimony of Parker.) Shortly thereafter--on May 31, 1979--Respondent completed an application for extension of his teaching certificate (to extend his area of certification to include elementary education) and gave it to Sutton, with the $5 application fee, for delivery to the Florida Department of Education. Subsequently, the Department granted him the requested extension of his teaching certificate. (Testimony of Parker, Gray; P-6.) The corrected transcript was, in fact, false. Upon discovery of that fact, the School Board suspended Respondent from his employment and conducted an investigation. On November 19, 1980, the School Board reinstated Respondent to his position after learning that Respondent was not the subject of criminal prosecution. (Testimony of Gray.) IV. Findings of Fact Proposed by Parties The findings of fact proposed by the parties have been considered. Those proposed findings which are not incorporated above are rejected as irrelevant to the issue presented or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against Respondent be dismissed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Samuel J. Pomeranz holds a "Rank 2" certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner Samuel J. Pomeranz obtained an advanced certificate in Educational Administration and Supervision in June 1970, from City College of New York. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts Degree in 1957 and a Master of Arts Degree in Education in 1959. Petitioner was licensed as a teacher in the State of New York and served as head of Curriculum Development in a senior high school in New York, New York. At the time of the hearing, he had not taught school in the State of Florida. Petitioner applied for a "Rank 1A" teaching certificate from the Respondent Department of Education Certification Section, but certification as "Rank 1A" was denied. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.049(1)(b) 1. requires that an applicant hold a "sixth year postmaster's level degree." Applicant received a certificate rather than a degree at the conclusion of his postmaster's work.
Recommendation Affirm the Respondent's action in denying Petitioner's request for "Rank 1A" certificate. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Boyd, Esquire Post Office Box 5617 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gene T. Sellers, Esquire State Board of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a professional engineer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for licensure by examination as a professional engineer. By letter dated February 6, 1991, Respondent notified Petitioner that his education did not meet the criteria for licensure. Specifically, Petitioner's education was not deemed to be equivalent to an accredited engineering degree because it lacked 6 credit hours of mathematics, 24 credit hours of engineering sciences, and 8 credit hours of humanities and social sciences. Further, Petitioner had failed to submit any evidence of possessing computer skills. Petitioner is a graduate of the Indian Institute of Technology in Kharagpur, India. He received a degree styled Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering in 1967. Petitioner is not a graduate of Florida's State University System. Further, Petitioner did not notify Respondent before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in active and responsible engineering work on July 1, 1981. Petitioner had his transcript evaluated by the World Education Service (hereinafter "WES"). WES filed a report, dated September 20, 1985, attesting that Petitioner's education was the equivalent of an engineering technology degree. A second report issued by WES, dated March 14, 1988, is identical. A third report, dated January 7, 1991, is identical to the first two, except that in this latest report, the WES opines that Petitioner has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. The Board's Education Advisory Committee reviews foreign degree candidates to determine if their education meets the standards established by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The ABET standards for an approved baccalaureate degree in engineering include: 16 hours of mathematics (calculus through differential equations), 16 hours of basic sciences, 32 hours of engineering sciences, 16 hours of engineering design, and 16 hours of humanities and social sciences. There is a major difference between an engineering degree and an engineering technology degree. An engineering technology degree does not require the same number of hours in advanced mathematics (calculus through differential equations) as an engineering degree. Furthermore, an engineering technology curriculum emphasizes the technical aspects of the profession, such as engineering design coursework, but does not stress the underlying engineering sciences. Petitioner's transcript and course titles were typical of an engineering technology curriculum. Petitioner's mathematics courses were not solely at the advanced math level, but also included algebra and geometry. Furthermore, Petitioner's transcript only demonstrated 8 hours of engineering sciences. The title of Petitioner's degree is not dispositive. What is dispositive is that Petitioner's course of study had its emphasis on technical design courses rather than on higher math and engineering sciences courses.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by examination. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6, and 8-11 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 7 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Om Prakash Bhola 3600 Khayyam Avenue Apt. #7 Orlando, Florida 32826 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Acting Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1011542, covering the areas of Elementary Education and Social Science. Her certificate is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent taught sixth-grade social studies at Bob Graham Education Center (Bob Graham) in the Miami-Dade County School District (the School District). Respondent was employed by the School District for approximately eight years. This case involves events that happened while a substitute teacher was in charge of Respondent's class, and Respondent's reaction to those events upon her return to school. Respondent was absent from school on Tuesday, November 26, 2013, and left lesson plans for the substitute teacher handling her classes. The substitute teacher assigned to her classroom was a young male teacher. The substitute teacher gave the students an assignment to complete, and told them that once all of the students in the class completed their work, they could have free time. During the free time, students engaged in a variety of activities typical of sixth graders. Some played games on the computers in the room, some watched prank videos played by the substitute, some danced, some sat or stood on desks, some wrote on the smart board, and some played with the cheerleading pom poms stored in the room. At least one student used her phone to take pictures and gave her phone to another student to take a picture of girls standing on the desks. Apparently one of the girls, who did not testify, posted one or more of the pictures on social media. The social media posts were seen by Respondent. The students who testified recognized that their behavior that day was not in keeping with the strict behavioral standards maintained at Bob Graham. One student described the prank videos as not appropriate for school, and another acknowledged that use of cell phones during the day was prohibited. No one maintained that it would be appropriate to stand on a desk. As affirmed by one student, the substitute lost control of the classroom. When Respondent returned to school the following day, she became aware of what had happened in her classroom that Tuesday. The more credible evidence supports the conclusion that she saw the pictures posted on social media. While Respondent claimed that her room was in disarray when she returned, each of the students who testified denied that they left the room in that condition. Only three students testified, C.C., S.G., and N.C., and these students were all students in Respondent's second period class. It is possible that the room was in disarray based on the behavior of students in other class periods. Respondent was unhappy with the condition of her room and with the reported behavior of her students during her absence. N.C. testified that on Wednesday morning, before the second period class, word had circulated around school that Ms. Rosa knew what they had done in class the day before, so the students believed that they were going to get in trouble. When class began, Ms. Rosa told the students that she was upset with their behavior from the day before. Descriptions from the students varied, one describing her as acting like she was happy they were all going to get in trouble, and threatening them all with detentions or in-school suspensions, while another student described her as yelling at the class as a whole, but not yelling at individual students. Whether she actually raised her voice at them or whether the students were reacting to the message she was delivering is not clear. In any event, the more persuasive evidence indicates that Respondent called each child's name and asked what they had done the day before. After hearing from each student, she had some of the students line up and go to the principal's office. How many students actually went to the office is also unclear: the description ranged from all but three to only a few. At the office, the students met with Assistant Principal Jesus Mesa, who apparently issued in-school suspensions to some and detentions to others.1/ These were students who had never been in significant trouble before. Getting an in-school suspension meant that they would not be permitted to participate in clubs or remain in the National Junior Honor Society. It appeared that this consequence of the punishment they received is what upset the students the most. There were reports that Ms. Rosa used the words "stupid," and "ratched," as well as "shit" while she was talking to the students. N.C. testified that she told the class as a whole that they were stupid for thinking she would not find out what happened. There was no testimony that she described any one student as stupid. All three students testified that she used the term "ratched," although one of them acknowledged that his written statement to that effect was based upon what others told him, as opposed to hearing the term himself. None of the students knew what the term meant, other than it had a negative connotation, and none identified the context in which the word was used. The principal, Yecenia Martinez-Lopez, described the term as meaning someone was "low class" or trash. Urbandictionary.com, referred to by Ms. Rosa in Respondent's Exhibit 1, defines the word as being slang for "wretched." With respect to the use of the word "shit," C.C. did not testify that the word was used. S.G. stated that he had heard Respondent use the term, but did not testify that she used it on the day in question, and said it had never been directed toward him. He did not identify when or to whom the word was used. Similarly, N.C. testified that Respondent had used the term, but also did not give any context for its use and her written statements did not reference the term. N.C. claimed that she just remembered the use of the term while reading her statements during the hearing. Given that the incident occurred more than four years before her testimony, this claim is not plausible or persuasive. No student testified that they were embarrassed or humiliated by Respondent's behavior that day. One student described Respondent's behavior as "rude and unacceptable," and another indicated that she was scared about explaining to her parents the possibility that she would not be able to participate in clubs. The more persuasive testimony was that students felt the punishment they received (ironically, from Mr. Mesa as opposed to Respondent) was out of proportion for what happened, and were concerned with the effect an in-school suspension would have on their ability to participate in extracurricular activities. Several students went home and complained to their parents about what happened that day. Whether they were complaining about Ms. Rosa's treatment of them, about the punishment they received, or about being reported to the front office is not clear. Likewise, the reaction of the various parents is also somewhat unclear. N.C. testified that she knew the parents were talking amongst themselves, and that the parents thought that there should be consequences for the students' behavior, but that an in-school suspension was a whole other step. From N.C.'s view, the parents' concern went from concern about the level of punishment to a complaint about Ms. Rosa. What any of the parents actually thought or said remains a mystery, because no parent testified at hearing. However, on Monday, December 2, 2013, following the Thanksgiving weekend, approximately 20 parents of students in Respondent's class went to the school and met with the principal, Ms. Martinez-Lopez, demanding that their students be removed from Ms. Rosa's class. As a result of their complaints, which are identified only by hearsay in this proceeding, the punishment for some, if not all, of the students affected was downgraded to a detention. Ms. Martinez-Lopez contacted the School District's north region office to report the incident. Ms. Martinez-Lopez was directed that the matter should be handled as an administrative review, meaning she should investigate it as opposed to having it investigated by the School District, and forward her findings to the School District. Ms. Martinez-Lopez collected statements from the students in Respondent's class and prepared a report of her findings. As a result of her investigation, Respondent was issued a reprimand, and moved from teaching sixth grade to teaching second grade. No other discipline was imposed. There are two sets of statements related to this incident: one set collected by Ms. Martinez-Lopez from December 4, 2013, through December 11, 2013, and a second set collected by the Department of Education on October 10, 2014. There was no evidence presented regarding the method Ms. Martinez-Lopez used to collect the first set of statements. With respect to the second set of statements, S.G. testified that multiple students were in the same room filling out the statement at the same time. N.C. testified that she, C.C., and S.G. were called out of their English class and went to the office together, but were not in the room together when they made the statements, and did not talk to each other about what was happening. S.G.'s description of the events was the more credible of the two. Respondent is no longer teaching in the School District. She took a leave of absence after the 2013-2014 school year, and then left the School District to take a position with United Teachers of Dade. She denies that she used profanity toward the students in her class, and contends that the events as described by the students did not happen. She does acknowledge asking each student what they had done the day before and having many of the students go to the principal's office.2/ Respondent was clearly upset by the events that took place in her classroom and expressed her displeasure to her students. There is persuasive evidence that she told them in no uncertain terms that there would be punishment imposed for their behavior. There is not clear convincing evidence that Respondent embarrassed, mocked, and disparaged students, or directed profanity toward them. Likewise, it was not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's conduct reduced her effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission dismiss the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2018.
