The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Francis Madassery’s employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board based upon the allegations made in its Notice of Specific Charges filed on August 6, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Miami-Dade County Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Madassery started his employment with the School Board in 2004. He was employed pursuant to a professional services contract. From 2004-2011, Madassery taught Exceptional Student Education (“ESE”) at Norland Elementary School ("Norland"). He was not subject to any discipline while employed as an ESE teacher, and his tenure in that position was successful. During that period, he received exemplary or satisfactory evaluations. In October 2011, Norland Principal, Powers, moved Madassery from his ESE position to a regular mathematics second- grade education class after Norland lost an ESE teaching position because student enrollment declined. Throughout the rest of the 2011-2012 school year, Madassery co-taught with Shenika Uptgrow. Madassery received a satisfactory performance evaluation for the 2011-2012 school year. During the Norland 2012-2013 school year, Madassery expected to return to teaching ESE, but he was assigned to a second-grade regular mathematics classroom. Madassery co-taught with Johnson the same group of students in different subject areas. Madassery taught math, science, and social studies, and Johnson taught the same students reading and language arts. Madassery and Johnson’s second-grade class was challenging with approximately eight students out of the total 38 students with behavioral problems. Problems ranged from students unable to remain on task or complete assignments to students who disrupted the classroom. Even though Johnson had been teaching for seven years, she found it difficult to teach the second graders at times because of the behavioral problems. Occasionally, she had to spend part of the class period dealing with the behavioral issues. Madassery and Johnson discussed the behavioral problems of their students often and strategized on how to control their behavior. On October 15, 2012, Powers observed Respondent in his classroom for an hour and fifteen minutes. Powers documented her observations on the Observations of Standards Form-Teacher. During the observation, Respondent was deficient in the area of knowledge of learners, Performance Standard (“Standard”) 2, and the area of instructional delivery and engagement, Standard 4. Respondent failed to meet Standard 2 because Madassery instructed every student in the same manner as opposed to using the different types of instruction for varying ability levels. Respondent should have instructed the students in groups based on their performance level and their baseline scores. Madassery was deficient in Standard 4 because he failed to deliver a complete Go Math1/ lesson for the day by allowing students to work on problems by themselves without any instructions, not introducing the problem-solving or hot questions. Powers saw Respondent walk around and work with students individually during the observation but he did not teach each student how to work through the problems as required. Instead, he wrote the correct answers for each student. On October 17, 2012, Powers notified Madassery that a support dialogue meeting was being held to discuss the observation of October 15, 2012. During the meeting, Powers placed Madassery on a support dialog, a 21-day period wherein a math coach and another second-grade teacher were to provide assistance to Madassery so that he could improve his deficiencies. On November 13, 2012, Powers performed a second classroom observation of Madassery teaching math for an hour and 26 minutes. During the observation, Respondent was deficient in three standards. Respondent still did not meet Standard 2 because he did not separate students into small groups for instruction based on their specific learning needs. As in the first observation, Madassery still walked around the room again checking the students’ work and wrote correct answers in the workbooks instead of re-teaching the specific math skill to a small group of students. Students who finished their work had nothing to do because Respondent spent most of the 90-minute lesson correcting answers in the workbooks. Madassery was still deficient in Standard 4 because he presented information to his class that was unclear and not one of the 13 “students were able to break down the number to subtract into two numbers.” Furthermore, Respondent answered his own questions while teaching the lesson and taught part of the lesson at his computer with his back to the students. During the second observation, Madassery was also deficient of Standard 8 because he was unable to establish effective classroom management. Students got up to use the bathroom at will, two students fell out of their chairs, students were arguing with each other, and one student had his head down for approximately nine minutes. Respondent’s only responses to improper behavior were to bang on the desk and whisper in the students’ ears. On November 19, 2012, Powers held a Conference for the Record with Madassery regarding the November 13, 2012, observation. Powers discussed her observations and placed Respondent on a 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation, which was documented by an Improvement Plan (“IP”) for Respondent to follow. Madassery’s IP was designed to help improve his specified deficiencies and required that he complete six activities by December 19, 2012. As of January 17, 2013, Respondent had only shown two of the six requested activities to Powers. On January 17, 2013, Powers issued Respondent a written Professional Responsibilities memo. The memo dated January 17, 2013, stated: On November 28, 2012, you were given Improvement Plans (IP) for Performance Standards 2, 4, and 8 with specific activities to complete and submit by December 19, 2012. As of this date, you have shown two of the requested activities to this administrator. The following is a summary of the activities which still need to be submitted for each performance standard: Performance Standard 2: “Best Practice” summary from Ms. Fuller, Ms. Colbourne, and the UTD Mentor Performance Standard 4: Submit a revised mathematics lesson plan Summarize a “Best Practice” after observing Ms. Buchanan Performance Standard 8: Submit a parent communication log Please be reminded that during the 90- Calendar Day probationary period, it is your responsibility to submit the requested activities to this administrator on time. You are requested to submit the remaining items by January 25, 2013. Please see me if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Madassery submitted the remaining IP assignments that were originally due on December 19, 2012, to Powers on January 25, 2013. The third observation of Madassery was conducted by Assistant Principal Johnson-Brinson, on January 8, 2013. Johnson-Brinson observed Madassery teaching second-grade mathematics from 10:17 a.m. to 11:35 a.m. During the third observation, Madassery did not use the Go Math2/ curriculum. Instead, Respondent wrote on the smartboard and lectured his second graders throughout the math lesson without using any manipulatives3/ for the required objective of the math lesson taught for the day. Madassery was still deficient in Standards 2, 4, and 8. After the January 8, 2013, observation, a post- observation meeting was held on January 17, 2013. Madassery was placed on a revised IP to help him learn techniques and improve his deficiencies. In order to improve deficiency in Standard 2, Madassery was given the following IP assignments, due on February 16, 2013: to read an article on Identifying Students’ Learning Styles and then identify two strategies that he could use to address the learning styles of his students. Respondent was also required to attend a professional development session with his union mentor regarding differentiated instruction and summarize how he planned to implement differentiated instruction in his classroom after the session. In the IP for deficiency Standard 4, Respondent was assigned to observe the math coach teach a lesson utilizing manipulatives, teach a lesson as the math coach observed, and get feedback from the math coach. On February 14, 2013, Powers observed Respondent’s math class for one hour and 25 minutes. The subject for the lesson was the use of grams versus kilograms to weigh objects. Madassery was still deficient in Standard 2 because he taught the whole group of students by asking and answering his own questions and never separated the students into differentiated instructional groups. Madassery also demonstrated he was deficient in Standard 4 during the observation because he did not follow the Go Math curriculum by starting the lesson by explaining the purpose. Additionally, when Respondent used the smartboard, only two out of 17 students were paying attention. Of the remaining students, six were talking, three were out of their seats, three were on the computer, two had their heads down, and one was playing with a toy. Respondent also failed to teach the problem-solving portion of the Go Math lesson. Madassery was deficient in Standard 5 because his student folders were not maintained in a way to record how each child was performing in class. When Powers reviewed the student folders, they were dated from August through November 2012, even though it was the third grading period. None of the folders indicated how Respondent was evaluating grades for the second and third grading periods. Madassery provided Powers graded papers with smiley faces rather than the required letter grades. Additionally, there were two stacks of ungraded and undated math assignments in the classroom. Madassery also spent the majority of the 90-minute class trying to control his students’ behavior and Madassery failed to deal with the behavioral issues effectively. Therefore, Respondent was deficient in Standard 8. On February 21, 2013, a post-observation meeting was held with Madassery regarding the fourth observation on February 14, 2013. Madassery was deficient in four areas during the observation. Additionally, Respondent had failed to timely turn in his IP assignments a second time. The deadline was February 16, 2013. Powers issued Madassery a second professional responsibilities memo regarding following the IP and deadlines. During the meeting, Powers also provided Madassery another revised IP with assignments for him to complete to help improve the four February 14, 2013, observation deficiencies and gave a March 14, 2013, deadline. For deficiency of Standard 2, Madassery was to attend a professional development workshop on differentiated instruction and write a summary of how he implements differentiated instruction in his classroom, analyze his students’ data from the winter math interim test, and write a plan on how he will address his students’ strengths and weaknesses. For Standard 4, Respondent was assigned to watch the math coach model a math lesson and then submit an outline of a math lesson from start to finish. For Standard 5, Respondent was assigned to communicate with another teacher about how to organize the students’ folders and submit a summary on how he planned to implement an organizational plan, discuss grading papers with the math coach, and submit a procedure for how he planned to grade papers and place grades in the e-gradebook. The February 19, 2013, IP also required Respondent to revise his discipline plan, and outline a best practice to be utilized in his classroom based on the article, “The Well- Managed Classroom,” to help improve Respondent’s skills for Standard 8. Another evaluation was conducted by Powers on March 20, 2013. During the observation, Madassery displayed the same deficiencies as previous observations and no improvement had taken place despite all the assistance provided to Madassery. The observation lasted an hour and 10 minutes. Madassery still was deficient in Standard 2 because even though he separated the students into groups, the groups were not divided according to the students’ abilities. For example, three students needed math remediation but Respondent placed them at the computer to do a reading program. Also, he grouped two students together who understood the lesson and provided them remedial assistance even though they should have received enrichment activities. Madassery was still also deficient in Standard 4 because he did not begin the lesson by explaining its purpose and connecting it to the students’ prior knowledge. During the observation, Powers reviewed Madassery’s student folders to see if Respondent had brought them up to date as previously instructed. On March 20, 2013, the student folders still only contained papers dated from August 2012 to November 2012. Additionally, stacks of ungraded and undated papers were still located on a shelf behind Respondent’s desk. Madassery also still failed to manage the students’ behavior effectively during the observation. For example, four students were continuously walking around the classroom, six students were off-task, and the remaining seven students sat at desks without doing anything. After the observation, Powers determined that Respondent was incapable of effectively teaching in the classroom and recommended that Madassery’s employment contract be terminated. On April 17, 2013, Petitioner took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent for just cause, including, but not limited to, failure to correct noted performance deficiencies within the 90-calendar-day performance probation period and incompetency due to inefficiency. Petitioner ultimately charged Madassery with two counts in Notice of Specific Charges dated August 6, 2013, that included Count I, Failure to Correct Performance Deficiencies, and Count II, Incompetency Due to Inefficiency.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order that: Immediately reinstates Respondent Francis Madassery; and Issues Respondent back salary. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 December, 2013.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(e) with respect to her treatment of an autistic child in her classroom. If so, then the appropriate penalty for her conduct must be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher in the State of Florida. She holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 952211, covering the areas of elementary education, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and exceptional student education. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 2016. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) teacher at Maplewood. Ms. Newton has been involved in teaching in Marion County since 1999. She started as a teaching assistant, then substitute taught while putting herself through school, then obtained her bachelor’s degree in varying exceptionalities and began teaching full time. She also received her master’s degree in 2007 in the area of interdisciplinary studies in curriculum and instruction. With the exception of an internship at Oak Crest Elementary, all of Ms. Newton’s teaching experience was at Maplewood. Her performance evaluations from the 2004-2005 school year through the 2012-2013 school year all contain at least satisfactory ratings, with the majority of the recent evaluations rating her as highly effective or outstanding, depending on the evaluation tool used. The majority of her evaluations reference her excellent classroom management skills. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, Maplewood received an entirely new administrative team. Laura Burgess was the new principal, Claire Smith and Brian Greene were newly- appointed assistant principals, and Doris Tucker was the new dean. The new administration started at Maplewood in July, approximately a month before the beginning of the school year. Ms. Newton had been teaching and continued to teach autistic students. At the beginning of the school year, she was assigned six students in her self-contained classroom, and had the assistance of one teacher’s aide, Susanne Quigley. Ms. Newton believed strongly in the value of a structured, disciplined classroom, especially when dealing with autistic students. She believed that establishing the rules and routine for the classroom created an environment where any child could be taught, but that without structure and adherence to routine, chaos would result and impair the learning process. Her classroom management skills were well known and in past years, well respected. Both Ms. Newton and Ms. Quigley testified about the assistance she was asked to give to other teachers and students with respect to class management and discipline. Their testimony is credited. After the start of the school year but before September 3, 2013, Laura Burgess, Maplewood’s principal, was notified by the Social Services Education Team (SET team) for the District that Maplewood would be receiving a new student, B.L., who had moved to the area from North Carolina. She also received an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for B.L., which listed his disability as autism spectrum disorder. B.L.’s IEP also indicated that he had problematic behaviors that could impede his learning, including oppositional defiance disorder, tantrums, attention deficit disorder, and extreme violence. The documentation provided to her did not include a behavioral intervention plan, and Ms. Burgess was concerned that B.L.’s placement at Maplewood did not match the needs identified in the IEP. However, she determined that Ms. Newton’s class would be the best placement for B.L., because Ms. Newton had a reputation for having a structured and disciplined classroom, and perhaps B.L. would benefit from that kind of structure. Ms. Burgess saw Ms. Newton that morning and told her that she would be receiving a new student. Ms. Burgess described the issues with the child, and said that if he ended up in Ms. Newton’s class, she should document his behaviors in case he needed to be moved to a therapeutic unit for behaviors (TUB unit). Ms. Newton understood from the conversation that Ms. Burgess believed B.L. should be in a TUB unit, which did not exist at Maplewood. However, later in the day Ms. Newton and her aide, Susanne Quigley, were supervising her students on the playground when she was approached by Claire Smith, one of the new assistant principals. Ms. Smith informed her that B.L. would indeed be placed in her class and gave her a copy of his IEP, with certain portions related to his behavior highlighted. Ms. Newton expressed surprise at the placement, thinking that he would be going to the TUB unit. Ms. Smith had met with B.L. and his mother earlier in the day and felt that he could benefit from Ms. Newton’s structured classroom. She also talked to Ms. Newton about documenting his behaviors should a change be necessary. Ms. Newton was concerned about the addition to her classroom because she already had six autistic students and, with respect to B.L.’s identified behaviors, “we’ve never had a child like that at Maplewood.” Nonetheless, B.L. was placed in her classroom on September 3, 2013. Consistent with her usual practice, Ms. Newton began to teach B.L. the rules of her classroom. For the first two days, there were no major problems. There were instances where B.L. did not want to comply with the directions she gave him or follow the rules of the classroom, but with some coaxing, she was able to get him to comply. Ms. Newton did not see the need to call the front office for assistance on either of the first two days B.L. was in her classroom, but then, Ms. Newton had never called the front office for assistance with any child. At the end of the first day, she had the opportunity to speak with B.L.’s mother briefly when she picked him up from school. After Ms. Newton introduced herself, B.L.’s mother basically confirmed the contents of the IEP. According to what B.L.’s mother told Ms. Newton, B.L. had lived previously with his father and there had been issues both at school and at home with disruptive and violent behavior. Ms. Newton told her they were going to “wipe the slate clean” and asked if there was anything that B.L.’s mother wanted Ms. Newton to work on, and she identified B.L.’s behaviors as an area for improvement. Ms. Newton told B.L.’s mother that Maplewood was a great school, and “that would happen.” B.L.’s third day at Maplewood did not go well. At the very beginning of the day, B.L. would not follow directions to stand with the rest of his classmates at their designated spot after getting off the bus. Instead, he plopped down in the middle of the walkway, in the midst of the area where children were trying to walk to their classes. He had to be coaxed all along the way to get to class, and once there, refused to unpack and sit down. He refused to follow any direction the first time it was given, instead responding with shuffling feet, shrugging shoulders, talking back, calling names, and wanting to lay his head down on his desk instead of participate in class. When it was time for the students in the class to go to art, Ms. Quigley normally took them while Ms. Newton attended to other responsibilities. According to Ms. Quigley, B.L. did not want to go to art class, and had to be coaxed to walk with the others to the art room. Once he got there, he did not follow directions, did not want to participate, and did not want to move from the back of the room. Normally, Ms. Quigley might have let him stand and watch if he remained quiet, but he was not being quiet: he was touching things and grumbling and getting angry. Ms. Quigley knew from prior experience that students with autism tend to mimic the bad behavior exhibited by others, and one child’s actions could cause a chain reaction of bad behaviors. She felt that if she did not remove him from the art room, the other children would also start to misbehave, and she did not want them to follow B.L.’s example. Ms. Quigley took B.L. out of the art classroom and went back to the classroom in search of Ms. Newton. Ms. Newton was not in the classroom, as she was attending to other responsibilities. Ms. Quigley then took B.L. to the office, but again, found no one there to assist her. B.L. was not happy during any of these travels, and again had to be coaxed all along the way. Once she got back to the art class, Ms. Quigley had B.L. stand in the back of the classroom. She was trying to watch him and also attend to the other students, but one of the other students knocked everything off the art table, so Ms. Quigley added clean-up to her responsibilities. At that point, Ms. Newton came into the art room. Ms. Newton took both B.L. and the other misbehaving child back to the classroom while Ms. Quigley stayed with the remaining students for the rest of the art period. What remained of the afternoon became a battle of wills between Ms. Newton and B.L.: Ms. Newton was trying to establish the ground rules for behavior in her classroom with B.L., and B.L. was determined not to follow those rules. The result was Ms. Newton spending the bulk of the afternoon with B.L. and Ms. Quigley attending to the needs of the other students in the class. For at least part of this time, Ms. Newton placed B.L. in time-out, with directions that he was to stand still with his hands to his sides. For Ms. Newton, the purpose of time-out is for a student to gather his or her thoughts, to get himself or herself together, and to remind the student of the rules of the classroom. She wants a student to have time to think about his or her actions, and wants to discuss with the student the nature of the problem presented by his or her behavior and how the problem should be resolved. If a child stops behaving, time-out may begin again. Ms. Newton put B.L. in time-out because he was not following her directions to him. She talked to B.L. about the rules of the classroom and where they are posted in the room, and told him what he needed to do. B.L. is very verbal and able to talk about his issues. Ms. Quigley described him as very high-functioning and not on the same level as other children in the classroom. Instead of responding appropriately, B.L. was calling names, talking out, and using curse words; flailing his arms and legs, wrapping himself in his sweatshirt so that his arms were in the body of the sweatshirt as opposed to in the armholes, and covering his face so that he could not see obstacles in his environment; wandering around instead of staying still; kicking things in the classroom, including a box and a door; throwing objects on the floor, rolling around on the floor and spitting; and generally resisting any instruction. During the course of the afternoon, Ms. Newton attempted to show B.L. what she wanted from him. For example, she demonstrated how she wanted him to stand in time-out by holding his arms in the area close to his wrists to demonstrate standing still with his hands down. B.L. repeatedly resisted this direction and tried to break away from Ms. Newton. B.L. was not only resisting her, but at times appeared to be butting his head against her and kicking her. He was at other times rubbing his hands against his face. Ms. Newton told B.L. he needed to stop rubbing his hands over his face, or she would remove his glasses so that he did not hurt himself with them. When B.L. continued his resistant behaviors, she removed his glasses and eventually put them in his backpack. B.L. continued to lightly slap his face with both hands. Ms. Newton did not physically intervene, but testified that she gave B.L. consistent verbal direction to stop hitting himself. Although he clearly continued to slap his face for some time, Ms. Newton testified that the movement was more like a pat than a slap, and she did not believe that he was hurting himself. Her testimony is credible, and is accepted. Ms. Newton also told B.L. to quit flailing his arms and putting his jacket over his head. She was concerned that he could hurt himself given that he was standing (not still, as directed) near the corner of a table. Ms. Newton told him if he did not stop she would take his jacket from him. He did not and she removed his jacket and placed it on a table in the classroom. She did not give B.L. the jacket back when he wanted it, because she wanted B.L. to understand that there are consequences to not following directions. With approximately 30 minutes left to the school day, Ms. Newton asked Ms. Quigley to call the front office for assistance. Ms. Tucker, the dean at Maplewood, came to her classroom. Before Ms. Tucker’s arrival, Ms. Newton was trying to get B.L. to stand in the back of the room. He was not following directions and had gone over to sit in a chair near the center of the room. The chair was near a free-standing easel with teaching implements attached to it, and it is reasonable to assume, given B.L.’s behavior, that Ms. Newton did not want him near the easel because of the potential for harm. Each time he went to the seat, Ms. Newton directed him away from it. When Ms. Tucker arrived, he once again sat in the chair he had been directed not to use. Ms. Newton removed him from the chair and told him again he was not to sit in it. B.L. immediately went to another chair in the same vicinity and sat down. Ms. Newton, took him by the arm and away from the chair, and took him out of the room. From Dean Tucker’s perspective, B.L. was just trying to sit in a chair. From Ms. Newton’s perspective, this was just one more instance in a litany of instances where B.L. was refusing to follow her directions. Dean Tucker was outside the room with B.L. when the door closed. B.L. starting kicking and beating on the door, screaming that he wanted in, and opened the door. Ms. Newton placed her arm on his chest and pushed against him to keep him from entering the room, and asked Ms. Tucker to lock the door from the outside, which she did. B.L. continued to kick and beat at the door, and Dean Tucker called assistant principal Greene to assist her. When Mr. Greene arrived, B.L. was still kicking at the door. He kept saying that he wanted in the classroom but would not say why. Eventually Mr. Greene was able to calm B.L. enough to find out that he wanted his backpack. Because it was close to the end of the day, Mr. Greene took B.L. to the office but instructed Ms. Tucker to retrieve his backpack from Ms. Newton’s classroom. Ms. Tucker returned to Ms. Newton’s classroom to retrieve the backpack. Ms. Newton expressed frustration at the decision to return the backpack to B.L., saying that meant “he won.” From Ms. Tucker’s and Mr. Greene’s perspectives, returning the backpack to him made sense, in part because they were not aware of the exchange related to the backpack earlier, and in part because it was close to the end of the day and B.L. would not be returning to the classroom that day. From Ms. Newton’s perspective, the backpack had been taken from B.L. because she had told him she would take it if he did not comply with her directives, and he did not do so. She felt that returning the backpack to him at that point was ensuring that B.L. had no consequences for his bad behavior. After completing their end-of-day responsibilities, Mr. Greene and Ms. Tucker returned to the classroom to speak to Ms. Newton about B.L. Ms. Newton told them that he had been out of control all day, kicking boxes, pushing chairs, and a danger to himself and others. She stated that it was only B.L.’s third day in the classroom and it would take some time to live up to expectations, but that he knew the rules and knew how to follow them. Mr. Greene felt that Ms. Newton was clearly upset with both him and Ms. Tucker with respect to how B.L. was handled. Ms. Newton asked whether B.L.’s parent had been called, and felt that his parent should have been contacted as part of addressing B.L.’s behavior. After speaking to Ms. Newton, Mr. Greene and Ms. Tucker pulled the videotape for the afternoon in Ms. Newton’s classroom. After scanning through the tape, Mr. Greene went to Ms. Burgess and asked her to view it because the tape’s contents concerned him. Once she did so, Ms. Burgess called Lisa Krysalka, the head of human resources for the District, and after discussion with her, called both the Department of Children and Families and the local sheriff’s office. She also spoke to Ms. Newton and told her she was to report to the District office the following day, and called B.L.’s parent. Rose Cohen investigated the matter for the District, which included speaking to Ms. Burgess, Mr. Greene, Ms. Newton, Suzanne Quigley, and a Ms. Ballencourt, and watching the video. Adrienne Ellers, the lead behavior analyst for the District, was asked to watch the video and to identify any deviations from the TEACH program for student management accepted by the District. Ms. Cohen recommended to the superintendent that Ms. Newton’s employment be terminated, and the superintendent presented that recommendation to the School Board. Ms. Newton appealed the recommendation and a hearing was held before the School Board, which included a viewing of the video of her classroom. The School Board rejected the superintendent’s recommendation for termination by a 3-2 vote. However, Ms. Newton did not return to Maplewood. No evidence was presented to indicate that the Department of Children and Families determined that there was any basis for a finding of child abuse or neglect. Likewise, no evidence was presented indicating that law enforcement took any action against Ms. Newton. There was also no evidence to indicate that B.L. was harmed. The focus of much of the evidence in this case dealt with the video from Ms. Newton’s classroom. The video, Petitioner’s Exhibit 1, is approximately two hours long. It is from a fixed position in the classroom and it shows some, but not all, of Ms. Newton’s classroom. It has no sound. There are parts of the video where, due to lighting deficiencies and similar skin color tones, it is difficult to tell exactly what is transpiring. There are also times when either Ms. Newton or B.L., or both, are not fully within the view of the camera, and sometimes they are not visible at all. With those parameters in mind, the video does show some of the interaction between Ms. Newton and B.L. What is clear from the video is that Ms. Newton spends a great deal of time talking to B.L., and that she remains calm throughout the day. B.L. does appear to comply with direction for short periods in the video, but never for very long. The video shows Ms. Newton holding B.L. by the arms; pulling him up both by the torso and by his arms; removing (but not “snatching”) his eyeglasses; removing his jacket with some resistance from him; blocking his access to his jacket; and kicking his backpack away from his reach. It also shows B.L. kicking items in the room, including a large box near where he is standing; rolling around on the floor; flailing his arms and legs around when he is clearly being directed to be still; and generally resisting any attempt at correction. The video also shows that during the time Ms. Newton is focused on B.L., the other students are engaged in learning, and Ms. Quigley is able to work with them without assistance. The Administrative Complaint alleges that “Respondent and B.L. engaged in a tussle which resulted in B.L. falling to the ground.” A more accurate description would be that B.L. resisted Ms. Newton’s attempts to show him how she wanted him to stand, and in his struggling, he went to the ground. It appeared to the undersigned that Ms. Newton was attempting to prevent his going down, but was unable to do so safely. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent “grabbed B.L. by the back of the neck and gripped B.L.’s neck for approximately 10 seconds.” A more accurate description would be that Respondent placed her hand at the back of B.L.’s neck and guided him with her hand at the base of his neck for approximately 10 seconds. She did not grab him by the neck or hold him that way; it appeared that she was protecting him from falling backwards, as he pulled away from her. Respondent did not, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, drag B.L. across the floor. She did attempt to get B.L. to stand one of the many times that he flopped on the floor, and he resisted her attempt. In that process, the two of them did move across the floor a short distance, which appeared to be due to B.L.’s pulling away from her, but she was not dragging him across the floor. All of Ms. Newton’s actions were taken in an effort to either instill the rules of the classroom in order to create for B.L. an atmosphere for learning, or to prevent harm to either herself, B.L., or property in the classroom. Ms. Quigley, who was present in the classroom during most of the interchange depicted on the video, was more focused on the other students in the class than she was on B.L. She has seen a portion of the video since the incident. Ms. Quigley recalls hearing parts of the conversation between B.L. and Ms. Newton, and testified that Ms. Newton never lost control with B.L., and understood from what she heard that Ms. Newton was trying to get B.L. to follow the rules. Nothing Ms. Quigley saw or heard caused her any concern. Barbara O’Brien and Christine Spicoche are both parents of former students who testified on Ms. Newton’s behalf. Both acknowledged that they had not seen the interaction between Ms. Newton and B.L.,2/ but both have been in her classroom on numerous occasions during the years that their children spent with Ms. Newton: Ms. O’Brien’s son was in Ms. Newton’s class for six years, while Ms. Spicoche’s son was there for three years. Both expressed a great deal of gratitude for the positive effect Ms. Newton and her teaching methods have had on their sons’ lives. With respect to both children, the mothers testified that their sons went from children who were out-of-control to children who were able to function appropriately both in the classroom and in other places. As stated by Ms. Spicoche, “It would be best for him to be at a strong hand of a loving teacher who cares, who wants the best for him than being at the fist of the legal system later.” At all times, Ms. Newton’s focus was to establish the rules of the classroom so that B.L., like the other students in her classroom, would be able to learn. B.L. was different from the other students in her classroom, and she admitted he was a challenge. However, Ms. Newton’s actions in this case are consistent with her general philosophy for teaching: to be firm, fair, and consistent at all times. Ms. Newton believes that if you do not follow these principles, you have chaos in the classroom, and where there is chaos, no one is learning. With a disciplined, structured environment, Ms. Newton believes every child can learn, and the atmosphere observed in her classroom is consistent with her philosophy. Ms. Burgess chose Ms. Newton’s classroom for B.L. precisely because of her reputation as having a disciplined structured classroom. However, in her view, Ms. Newton should have just given B.L. his backpack when he wanted it; should have given him his glasses; should have let him just walk around the room when he wanted to; and should have just let him kick the door, rather than ever putting a hand on him. Ms. Burgess did not explain (nor was she asked) how many children in the classroom should be allowed to do what B.L. was doing, and whether learning could still take place should each of the children be allowed to wander, kick, and be disruptive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an annual contract teacher with the Dave County Public Schools and hold a Florida State teacher's certificate. Although she had worked as a teacher assistant in the past, her first year of employment as a full time teacher was the 1980-81 school year. Respondent was a teacher at Melrose Elementary School for the 1981-81 school year. At the beginning of the school year, she was assigned to teach a Compensatory Education Class. These are small classes and, in Ms. Harper's case, never exceeded 11 students. She was, however, required to keep and retain student records to enable subsequent teachers to determine at what level the student was functioning. After Respondent was transferred from the Compensatory Education classroom, the assistant principal requested that she turn in the records for the class. Respondent stated that she had destroyed them. Respondent's next assignment at Melrose Elementary School was as the teacher of a fifth-sixth grade combination regular education class. The assistant principal officially observed Respondent in the classroom three times and unofficially observed her on additional occasions. She found that Respondent lacked effective instructional planning based on Respondent's failure to complete lesson plans. The collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Respondent's union stated that lesson plans were an essential part of the teaching process and a proper subject for evaluation. On one occasion, the school was preparing for and audit. Auditors (administrators from other schools) check teacher's plan books, grade books and other teaching materials. The assistant principal contracted Respondent several times in advance of the audit in an attempt to prepare her for it. However, Respondent failed to develop the required lesson plans, so the assistant principal wrote out a week's plans for her. She asked Respondent to take the plans home over the weekend and copy them in her own handwriting. The following Monday at the beginning of the audit, Respondent had only filled out plans for Monday, Tuesday and Friday. There were no lesson plans to be delivered to the auditors regarding Wednesday or Thursday. Testimony of Respondent's supervisor established that she was unable to control the students in her classroom, primarily because she did not assign them anything to do. Furthermore, she sent her students out to play without supervision and left her classroom unattended on several occasions, even though she had previously been instructed by her supervisor not to do so. Respondent received an unacceptable performance rating in the area of "techniques of instruction." This rating was based on the fact that Respondent did not pretest her students and therefore had no knowledge of what the student did or did not know, what he needed to be taught or where to place him in the classroom. As a result, she attempted to teach students division when those students had not yet mastered prerequisite skills. She did not divide her class into ability groups so that she could teach groups of students at their levels of comprehension, and she did not maintain student profiles which would have shown her a particular student's abilities and deficiencies. Respondent either did not assign homework to her students or they did not return it because she had no records to indicate such assignment or files containing student homework. Her records of student grades were incomplete and only sporadically maintained. In the spring of 1982, two students from Respondent's class ran into the principal's office crying. The female student had welts on her chest and face; and the male student had similar injuries to his arms. These injuries were the result of an attack by Respondent. She had not been authorized to administer corporal punishment by her supervisor. Although there was another incident where Respondent chased a student with a ruler, this was the only situation in her teaching career where her loss of control had serious consequences. She appears to regret this incident. Ms. Harper was reassigned to South Hialeah Elementary School for the school year 1982-83. When she reported to South Hialeah Elementary School on September 20, 1982, she was given a lesson plan format, a teacher handbook and other pertinent teaching materials. Respondent received a two day orientation during which she was permitted to read the handbook, observe other teachers and talk with the grade level chairman. She was given instruction in writing lesson plans in the format used throughout the county and required by the UTD-School Board Contract. She was then assigned a regular fourth grade classroom. On her second day of teaching, the assistant principal noted an unacceptable noise level emanating from Respondent's classroom during the announcement period. When she walked into the room, she found Respondent preparing her lesson plans with the students out of control. The assistant principal advised Respondent that this was not the proper time to prepare lesson plans. The next day the situation was the same, and fights broke out between students. The assistant principal was concerned for the safety of these students because of the fights and because Ms. Harper's classroom was on the second floor and students were leaning out of the windows. On October 4, 1982, the assistant principal conducted a formal evaluation of Respondent's classroom teaching, and initially found Respondent preparing lesson plans and not instructing or supervising her students. During the reading lesson, Respondent did not give individual directions to the students, but merely told them all to open their books to a particular page. Since the students were not all working in the same book because they were functioning at different levels of achievement, this created confusion. Finally, the students who had the same book as Respondent were instructed to read, while other students did nothing. After a brief period of instruction, the class was told to go to the bathroom even though this was the middle of the reading lesson and not an appropriate time for such a break. The assistant principal noted that Respondent did not have a classroom schedule or rules. The classroom was in constant confusion and Respondent repeatedly screamed at the children in unsuccessful attempts to maintain order. The assistant principal determined that these problems had to be addressed immediately. Accordingly, in addition to a regular long-term prescription, she gave Respondent a list of short-term objectives to accomplish within the next two days. These objectives consisted of the development of lesson plans and a schedule, arranging a more effective floor plan in the classroom, making provisions for participation by all of the students and developing a set of classroom rules. The assistant principal advised Respondent that if she had any difficulty accomplishing these objectives, she should contact her immediately. The short-term objectives were never accomplished. Respondent did not develop classroom rules. Although the assistant principal and other teachers attempted to teach her to write lesson plans, this was relatively unsuccessful. The principal observed the classroom on October 6, and found that no improvements had been made. She also noted that Respondent had not complied with the outline for lesson plans required by the contract between the UTD and the School Board. Neither had she complied with school's requirements for pupil progression forms. The principal advised Respondent to attempt once again to work on the short-term prescription assigned on October 4, 1982. Subsequent observations and assistance did not result in any noticeable improvement. Respondent was unable to understand the need for organizing students in groups according to their abilities. Her students contained to wander aimlessly about the classroom. She was unable to document required student information even after repeated demonstrations. She did not test students and she failed to record their grades, except sporadically. Other teachers and parents complained about classroom conduct. Some parents requested that their children be moved out of Ms. Harper's class. Others complained to school officials about telephone calls from Ms. Harper at 2:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. Even the school custodian complained because Respondent's students repeatedly threw papers out of the windows. The principal arranged for Respondent to meet with the grade level chairman and the assistant principal to learn to develop lesson plans. She obtained information about classes at the Teacher Education Center of Florida International University and directed Ms. Harper to attend the classes. She subsequently determined that Respondent had not attended. Respondent told the principal that she could not attend because of car trouble. At the hearing, Respondent stated that not only did she have car trouble, but since she was a single parent, she lacked the time and money to attend the classes. She conceded, however, that the classes were free. In a further effort to assist her, Respondent was excused from her regular classroom duties to observe successful teachers. On one occasion she was found taking a coffee break instead. Again, there was not improvement apparent from this remedial measure. At the principal's request, the School Board's area director observed Respondent on November 11, 1982. Her testimony established that Respondent worked with only one group of three students in the classroom and the reading lesson being taught to those children was below their appropriate level. She also observed that there were no records indicating the progress of Respondent's students and that the students were talking continually. Due to her numerous difficulties in teaching and the lack of progress in correcting the deficiencies, the principal, assistant principal and area director concluded that Respondent lacked the requisite competence to continue in her contract position. A recommendation of dismissal to the School Board followed on January 6, 1983, Respondent was suspended. After her suspension, Respondent secured employment as a teacher of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) at the Tri-City Community Association. Testimony of its director established that Respondent is an effective teacher of ESOL and that she trains other teachers to perform this function.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Florida teaching certificate and providing the right of reapplication after one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ellen Leesfield, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Donald L. Griesheimer, Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner/Agency has established by preponderant evidence that there was just cause to dismiss Sakina A. Jones, the Respondent, for alleged misconduct in relation to her teaching of students in alleged violation of Rules 6B- 1.006(3)(a), and 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Duval County Florida School District or "School Board" charged with regulating the practice standards for teachers and the manner of practice of teachers who are employed by it in the Duval County School District system. The Respondent is licensed to teach in Florida, holding Florida Educator Certificate No. 831562, effective from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2002. The Respondent has a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology received on December 11, 1998. She has worked as a substitute teacher for the Duval County School District between approximately September 4, 1998 and August 9, 2000, after which time she became a full-time elementary teacher at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School. The Respondent has a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology. Her training and experience in the field of education beyond college, at which she had no academic training as an educator, at the point she commenced her second year of teaching at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School, in August 2002, included the following: substitute teaching experience at elementary schools. teaching ESE students at DuPont Middle School as a substitute teacher. participation in the Teacher Induction Program during the 2000-2001 school year while full time teaching at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School. having a designated mentor (Mrs. Shipley) from whom to seek guidance. completion of a college level introduction to education course while teaching full time during the 2000-2001 school year. completion of a course in "Teaching Diverse Populations" in the summer of 2001. receiving a book called "Positive Discipline." attending a faculty meeting on classroom discipline which focused on steps that could be taken in the classroom before sending a child to the principal's office. The Respondent had no training in the specifics of teaching and disciplining either ESE students or the educable mentally handicapped (EMH) students which she was teaching at times pertinent to this case. The Teachers' Induction Program in which Ms. Jones participated during the 2000-2001 school year is a program for new teachers in the District which includes assessments involving at least two classroom visits a week. Six "domains" are covered in the program including classroom management, instructional planning and testing, some of which are presented in a workshop format. The program requires a year to complete, at the end of which the principal must assess whether a new teacher has passed or failed in her participation in the program. For the 2000-2001 school year Ms. Jones accepted a position as a full-time, third grade teacher at the Annie R. Morgan Elementary School. The principal that year was Delores Milton. After about five weeks, Ms. Jones was shifted to an ESE class, an area in which she had no training. Later that year she was assigned to an EMH class which she was even less qualified to handle in terms of having any specific training in teaching and disciplining EMH students. Ms. Jones, indeed, had serious reservations about taking the EMH job because of her lack of training or experience with EMH children and she related this to her principal and they had a discussion about it. Ultimately, the principal assured her that she could go to workshops and in other ways get additional training and so Ms. Jones accepted the position because it would guarantee her a position so that she would not be on the "surplus list" (being first subject to lay-offs). Carolyn F. Davis was assigned as Principal at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School on July 1, 2001, replacing Ms. Milton. Ms. Jones' EMH teaching assignment continued into the new 2001- 2002 school year. Her class included twelve boys and two girls ranging in advancement from grade one to grade three. A teacher's assistant was assigned to her on a full time basis. The teacher's assistant, at the beginning of the year, was Tiffany Bullard. Ms. Bullard had been working with Ms. Jones as a teaching assistant the prior school year from approximately November 2000 through the end of the school year in May 2001. That had been her first experience as a teacher's assistant. Due to budgetary cuts, Ms. Bullard was "surplused" (laid-off) on September 4, 2001. Several months later she was re-hired at a different school. A second teacher's assistant worked with Ms. Jones in her classroom after Ms. Bullard departed. This was Arnette Felton. Ms. Felton had a year's prior experience as a teacher's assistant at an elementary school as well as a prior year of such experience at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School. She worked with Ms. Jones from September 5, through October 16, 2001. She asked to be relieved when she claimed that Ms. Jones threw a bottle of "white-out" at a student who ducked, such that the bottle hit Ms. Felton. The totality of the credible testimony reveals that this incident did not happen at, least in that fashion, as Ms. Jones never intentionally threw a bottle of white-out at anyone. In reality, there appears to have been some personal friction between Ms. Felton and Ms. Jones which helped to cause Ms. Felton's departure. Ms. Jones' third teacher's assistant was Brenda Medlock. Ms. Medlock has approximately one year and a half of college and had been serving as a teacher's assistant for ten years in the Duval County School system. She remained with Ms. Jones until Ms. Jones was removed from her teaching duties on or about November 19, 2001. Ms. Medlock had no prior experience with EMH students although she had worked with ESE students and had some training of unknown amount and duration in behavior management while working as a teacher's assistant at a prior school. The EMH students in Ms. Jones class were all students with below average I.Q. who function at grade levels significantly below the norm for their age. Their I.Q. range was from 49 to 69. Greater patience is required in disciplining and instructing EMH students. Relevant federal law protects them from being disciplined for reasons of their disability. In all instances with respect to such students, a determination has to be made concerning whether the conduct for which discipline is about to be meted out is a manifestation of the disability, and if so, there can be no discipline. Some of the students had limited communication skills and difficulties with memory and Ms. Jones was aware of this information concerning her students upon getting to know them. Students with a low I.Q., such as Ms. Jones' students, should not appropriately be made to write sentences repetitively as a disciplinary measure. This is because they would typically not understand and cannot practicably execute the requirement. Upon learning that Ms. Jones had made students write sentences repetitively as a disciplinary measure, Principal Carolyn Davis instructed her not to use this form of discipline at a conference the two had on October 23, 2001. Student Raymond Houston testified. He was placed in the bathroom, which was in the classroom, a number of times for a few minutes as "time out" when he misbehaved. Although the light in the bathroom may have been turned off when this occurred, no one prevented any student, being placed in the bathroom as "time out," from turning the light on. Raymond Houston (R.H.) also stated that he and several other students had to do the "duck walk" or "jumping jacks" as discipline for misbehavior on a number of occasions. He was also required to write sentences such as "I will be good" or "I will pay attention" when he had misbehaved. The teacher's assistant, Ms. Bullard, confirmed that the Respondent had placed children into the classroom bathroom for "time outs." The totality of the credible testimony reveals, however, that these sessions lasted only from three to five minutes and no student had been placed in the bathroom as long as an hour or a half-day or anything of that nature. Ms. Jones also made certain male students do pushups for disciplinary reasons, such as R.H. and T.S. In this connection, some of the calisthenics her students performed were done as part of a fitness program she instilled in her daily lesson plan, including the exercise regimen known as "Tae Bo." Most occasions, when students did exercises such as pushups, were not for disciplinary reasons. Student R.H. also was required by the Respondent to wash at the lavatory and put on a clean shirt, which she had in the classroom to give him. This was because he had not bathed in several days and had a bad odor. While some other students may have observed this, it was done for hygiene reasons and was not done in order to berate the student or expose him to unnecessary embarrassment. During the 2001-2002 school year on one occasion, student "Shaquille's" book bag was taken from him by the Respondent and she put it in a trashcan. This was not a trashcan used for refuse or garbage, however, it was simply a trashcan type receptacle where she would keep students' book bags when they did not need them or when they were not supposed to be in possession of them. Ms. Jones also instituted a system which permitted the children to go to the bathroom three times per day. This system was implemented by having the students use tokens, three apiece, which they could use when they needed to go to the bathroom. This was done to help instill order in the classroom. However, those students who were unable, for various reasons, to comply with this bathroom schedule were allowed to go on an as-needed basis. In any event, the three-bathroom-visits policy was ended by the Respondent one month into that school year. All students at the Annie R. Morgan Elementary School receive a free breakfast every morning, at the beginning of the school day. Breakfast is provided in the classrooms to the students at their desks. Ms. Jones had a rigid five-minute time limit, enforced by a timer, during which the children were to eat their breakfast. She would have the students start in unison (those that were present) and when the timer rang after five minutes, she would make the children discard any portion of breakfast not eaten. Ms. Jones was not aware that there was any prohibition against the five-minute time limit for eating breakfast and for discarding unused food. After being instructed by her principal, at their meeting of October 23, 2001, that the students should be allowed fifteen minutes for breakfast, the Respondent complied. The only exception to this, established in the record, was when student James Brown arrived at school late and missed breakfast. This, however, was involved with an agreement the Respondent had with James Brown's mother, who had informed Ms. Jones that if he were late she could assume that he had already had breakfast, because his mother would ensure that he had already breakfast. The denial of his breakfast, on the day in question, was not due to any cruelty or other violation of the rules referenced herein, but rather because she knew that his mother would have already given him breakfast on that day when he was late. Although the Respondent was accused by witness Arnette Felton of throwing objects in the classroom at students, including pencils, chalk, an eraser and a white-out bottle, the preponderant, credible testimony indicates otherwise. Although the Respondent acknowledged tossing snacks, candy, chalk or pencils to students for them to use during the course of their classroom activities, she never purposely and forcefully threw any object at students in anger or as a misguided disciplinary measure or anything of the sort. Further, although as a classroom management technique the Respondent placed students in time-out in the restroom for a few minutes when she felt it necessary to restore order and decorum in the classroom, she never instructed her assistant to forcibly hold the bathroom door shut to "lock-in" a student for disciplinary reasons. Ms. Felton maintained that she observed Kenny Brown come to Ms. Jones' desk, when told not to, so that Ms. Jones, in anger, threw his book bag in the trash, took his folder out of the book bag and threw it in the sink, getting it wet. The most credible testimony does not support that assertion. It is determined this incident did not occur in this fashion. Rather, Ms. Jones, at most, took student K.B.'s book bag from him and placed it in the receptacle for holding book bags, which happened to be in the form of a trashcan, but which was not used as a trash or garbage can, as found in the other instance referenced above. It is true that Ms. Jones criticized Ms. Felton when she was unable to change a CD disc, calling her a "dummy." This was not done in a way that the other persons or students present in the classroom could hear, however. It is also true that Ms. Jones and Mr. Felton got into a verbal altercation in the classroom for which the Respondent, Ms. Jones, received a reprimand from the principal, Ms. Davis, for engaging in an argument in front of the students. Teacher's assistant Brenda Medlock succeeded Ms. Felton as the teaching assistant for the Respondent. She observed James Brown arrive at school, missing breakfast, on October 29, 2001, which has been discussed above. Withholding breakfast may have been contrary to the principal's instruction, but in this regard it was done for a justifiable reason because, due to the understanding with the student's mother, Ms. Jones knew that he had already had breakfast when he got to school that day when he arrived at school late. Ms. Medlock also observed, on October 29, 2001, that, after the students were disruptive, the Respondent put a sentence on the board, "I will pay attention," and required all of the students to write that sentence repetitively for approximately fifteen to twenty-five minutes. Some of the students had the ability to write the sentence only a few times or only once. This episode was in violation of instructions given by the principal at the meeting she had with the Respondent on October 23, 2001. The principal had a conference with Ms. Jones on October 23, 2001, in which Ms. Jones admitted that she had placed students in the bathroom for time-out for disciplinary purposes and that she had given children only five minutes in which to eat breakfast. She was informed that fifteen minutes were allowed for eating breakfast and she was directed not to use the bathroom for time-out disciplinary purposes anymore. She refrained from doing so thereafter. She was also directed not to withhold food from a child which she complied with thereafter, with the exception of the James Brown breakfast episode, which was adequately explained by the Respondent to not involve any disciplinary or disparagement reason for its occurrence. Ms. Jones did, as found above, violate the instruction from Ms. Davis about not requiring students to write sentences repetitively, as a disciplinary measure, by the incident she caused on October 29, 2001, found above. In summary, it is significant that the only sources of factual information are the testimony of the teacher's assistants who were assigned to the Respondent during the 2001- 2002 school year. An analysis of their testimony shows that none of them had any affection for the Respondent and it appears from examination of their testimony, and the Respondent's testimony, that each had specific reasons for harboring resentment or animosity toward the Respondent. Their attitudes towards the Respondent appeared less than friendly, so that their testimony, taken together, with the instances of admissions by the Respondent show that some of the situations described happened, but did not happen in the heinous way described in the testimony of the teacher's assistants Ms. Felton and Ms. Medlock. Although some of these situations, which occurred as part of the Respondent's attempt to properly deal with her classroom environment, may have justifiably resulted in criticism of the Respondent, the statement of the Petitioner's own witnesses show that there was no formal standard and no formal definition of acceptable versus unacceptable conduct imparted to the Respondent before she embarked on her duties with this EMH class. The Petitioner's representatives acknowledge that there was no advance training or instruction given to the Respondent. The Respondent was required to seek assistance and additional training largely on her own initiative with little support from the school administration. Consequently, as the Respondent attempted to develop techniques for the management of her classroom and for the instruction of her students, numerous events occurred that were later deemed inappropriate, although she had not been instructed in advance that they were inappropriate. Some of these occurrences or events were due to poor judgment on her part as well, and the resentment occasioned in her teacher's assistants or "para-professionals" was probably partly the result of her own failure to adequately control her temper on occasions. However, the fact remains that as soon as the Respondent was notified of any perceived inappropriate behavior, or classroom or student management techniques, she modified her conduct or techniques accordingly, so as to comply with those instructions. The only time she continued behavior that had been deemed unacceptable by the principal concerned the subject of the breakfast of one student, for whom she had a specific instruction from the student's parent that the student did not need to have breakfast when he arrived late, because he would already have had breakfast. The other occasion of continued behavior that was unacceptable was the single, October 29, 2001, requirement of students to write repetitive sentences, which was directly contrary to the instructions she received from the principal on October 23, 2001. Since the only complaints were made to the administration by the paraprofessionals and the investigation therefore concentrated on those individual's statements, there is no substantial, credible evidence that the Respondent's actions rose to the level of intentional embarrassment or disparagement of students or otherwise constituted a breach of the Code of Ethics for educators, as embodied in the rules on which the Respondent's termination was based. Although the Respondent's actions were mis-directed in several instances and constituted exhibitions of poor judgment on some occasions, they have not risen to the level of a violation of the ethical requirements imposed on teachers.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Duval County compensating the Respondent for the salary and benefits to which she is entitled from the date of her termination of employment (suspension without pay) forward to the end of the 2001-2002 School Year. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Ernst D. Mueller, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carolyn T. Smith, holds teaching certificate number 105319, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent is certified to teach French and Spanish through the junior college level. Respondent has been employed as a French and Spanish teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board) since 1961. From 1961 to 1966, Respondent taught at Mays Junior High School, and from 1966 through 1976 at Southwest Miami Senior High School. During the 1976-77 and 1977-78 school years Respondent was on a leave of absence. In 1978 Respondent resumed her teaching career and was assigned to Palmetto Senior High School (Palmetto). Respondent taught at Palmetto until her suspension from teaching at the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's annual evaluations extending from the 1961-62 school year through the 1978-79 school year were acceptable. It is Respondent's performance from the 1979-80 through 1982-83 school years which is at issue in these proceedings. During the 1979-80 school year the normal work day at Palmetto was 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. Due to personal hardship, however, Respondent was granted permission to alter her schedule to an 8:10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. work day. Despite the accommodation afforded Respondent, on at least seven occasions between September 7, 1979 and February 21, 1980, Respondent was from five minutes to one hour and ten minutes late to work. Not only was Respondent late to her first class, she occasionally missed the class entirely as well as the beginning of her next class. On February 21, 1980 Respondent was formally observed by Elaine Kenzel, assistant principal at Palmetto. Ms. Kenzel's observation specifically apprised Respondent that she had been rated unacceptable in professional responsibility because of her tardiness. Ms. Kenzel's observation noted several other areas of performance in which Respondent was unacceptable or needed improvement. These matters were reviewed at conferences with Respondent on February 26 and 28, 1980. Portions of the conferences were attended by Francis Wargo, the principal at Palmetto. Among the topics broached at the conferences were Respondent's failure to properly maintain her grade book, her failure to follow proper grading procedures, her failure to properly assess each student's progress, her failure to use assessment techniques which motivate and enable students to learn, and lack of teacher-student rapport. Respondent's grade book for the 1979-80 school year was messy and, in large measure, incomprehensible to anyone other than Respondent. The grade book failed to indicate the grading period, failed to specify the grade source, failed to weight the grades for various tasks, and was uncoded. It depicted a poor professional image and failed to fulfill its basic purpose--to enable students, parents, replacement teachers and other authorized persons to review a student's achievement. Despite repeated critiques, Respondent's grade books showed little improvement during her tenure at Palmetto. Ms. Kenzel also counseled Respondent about her obligation to maintain a representative sampling of each student's work in her student folders. These samples were necessary to assess student progress, and should include graded tests, homework, classwork and reports. At the time of Ms. Kenzel's observation, six months into the 1979-80 school year, there were few samples of any student's work. What did exist were, in large measure, short quizzes of a vocabulary nature. The student folders were inadequate to assess a student's progress. Finally, Ms. Kenzel critiqued Respondent's instructional technique. Ms. Kenzel suggested that Respondent's students should not be simply repeating lessons in rote fashion, but should be involved in a variety of activities. This would improve student attention and enthusiasm, which Ms. Kenzel perceived was lacking. Final examinations for the 1979-80 school year were scheduled to commence at 7:30 a.m., June 9, 1980. The scheduling of examinations required a rearrangement of the normal class schedule. Fifth period, which normally began at 1:30 p.m., was scheduled for 7:30 a.m. This change required that Respondent report at 7:20 a.m. on June 9, instead of 8:10 a.m. The examination schedule was published, and discussed with Respondent at a faculty meeting. On June 9, 1980, Respondent failed to report for work until 8:15 a.m., 45 minutes after her fifth period examination was scheduled to commence. Respondent's tardiness created a poor testing atmosphere and was a cause of anxiety and frustration for her students. Respondent offered no explanation for her tardiness. On June 11, 1980, a conference for the record was held between Mr. Wargo and Respondent. Respondent's tardiness of June 9, 1980 was discussed, and she was reminded that her work day for the next year would be the same as other teachers, 7:20 a.m.-2:40 p.m. Respondent was told that disciplinary action would be recommended if she failed to observe the prescribed working hours. Respondent was also reminded that school policy forbade a teacher to permit a student to hand-carry any part of an examination to the office for duplication. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year recommended Respondent for continued employment, but found her unacceptable in classroom management and teacher-student relationships. It is worthy of note that this evaluation was dated June 2, 1980, and therefore predated Respondent's tardiness of June 9, 1980 and the conference for the record held June 11, 1980. The 1980- School Year The 1980-81 school year produced few observations of Respondent's performance. During that year a massive rebuilding project was underway and the administration's attention was directed toward that project and coping with the upheaval it caused. Normal classroom assignments and instruction were often disrupted. Teachers were often moved in and out of classrooms on one day's notice. Consequently, a great deal of latitude was afforded all teachers, and all were rated acceptable. That is not to say Respondent's performance was unblemished. The evidence established two definite areas of deficiency again were present. Respondent's tardiness to school and to class continued, and Respondent was again deficient in her student assessments. In November 1981, Ms. Mona Sowers visited Respondent's class to discuss the progress of her daughter, Carolyn Ann. She was concerned because conversations she had overheard between her daughter and friends left her with the impression they were not being tested. Respondent's grade book demonstrated that no testing or grades were present for Carolyn Ann. Although she inquired of her daughter's progress, Ms. Sowers was not shown any papers, or any other work, which would objectively demonstrate her daughter's progress. Respondent's sole explanation was that she tested her students orally. There were no grades in the grade book for oral or written tests, however, and Respondent was unable to recognize Ms. Sowers' daughter as one of her students until prompted by Ms. Sowers. For the 1981-82 school year, Respondent was again scheduled to work the normal 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. work day. On the first day of class Respondent was 20 minutes late. During much of the 1981-82 school year Respondent was tardy in arriving, from two to five occasions each week. Teacher tardiness impacts directly on the quantum of education offered the students. While first period is scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m., adherence to the 7:20 a.m. arrival time is essential if the teacher is to be prepared to start class promptly. Otherwise, 5-10 minutes of class time are wasted by the teacher in organizing herself for that day's lesson. Promptness is particularly crucial for first period since daily announcements, which can occupy up to five minutes of the period, are given at that time. Since each class period is 55 minutes in duration, a loss of only 10 minutes per day equates to a loss of one day of instruction each week. Respondent's tardiness deprived her students of valuable instructional time, and left them unsupervised--a condition not helpful to their safety. Respondent was formally observed on six separate occasions during the 1981-82 school year. Mr. Wargo's observations of September 25, 1981 and November 5, 1982, and Ms. Kenzel's observation of October 12, 1981, rated Respondent overall acceptable, but each noted some areas of unacceptable performance. The deficiencies noted in these three observations were similar to those observed in preceding years. Respondent was unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. Respondent wasted up to 20 minutes of class time on extraneous matters, failed to establish or enforce classroom policies on decorum or procedure, and her instruction evidenced a lack of planning. Respondent's classroom was messy and disorganized. Her tardiness continued. Each of these observations was critiqued with Respondent and suggestions to improve her performance were made. She was advised to start classes promptly, establish classroom policies and enforce them, vary her methods of instruction, and visit other classes and observe other teachers' performance. Respondent was reminded that her contract work day was 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. On February 2, 1982, Mr. Wargo stopped two students leaving Respondent's room. He discovered they had been visiting other students in Respondent's classroom, and that she was unaware of their presence. Respondent was observed passing out papers during a movie, and her students were talking and walking about. This occasioned Respondent's next formal observation. On February 4-5, 1982, Mr. Wargo formally observed Respondent's classes. He rated her overall unacceptable, and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and professional responsibility. Apart from Respondent's continuing tardiness, which accounted for her unacceptable rating in professional responsibility, the gravamen of her unacceptable rating in the other areas was basically inadequate planning and variety. Respondent's class was dull, her voice a monotone. Students responded in rote fashion to Respondent's singular questions. There was no variety of instruction or student feedback. Mr. Wargo directed Respondent to use the prescribed lesson plan form that had been developed at Palmetto. It was his opinion that if Respondent prepared a detailed lesson plan her classroom management would improve, student confusion would be avoided, and a more stimulating and organized presentation achieved. On February 9, 1982 Mr. Wargo held a conference with Respondent, Ms. Kenzel and Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, to discuss the unacceptable observation of February 4-5, 1982, the incident of February 2, 1982, and ways to improve Respondent's techniques of instruction. During the course of that meeting, Respondent was advised that Ms. Wally Lyshkov, foreign language supervisor for Dade County Schools, would observe her class on February 19, 1982. On February 19, 1982 Respondent was formally observed by Ms. Lyshkov. While she rated Respondent overall acceptable, Ms. Lyshkov was of the opinion that Respondent's presentation was "staged" for her benefit. Her opinion was formed as a result of student comments that they did not usually do what they were doing, and by the lack of smoothness that results when activities are routine. Although "staged," Respondent's presentation indicates she knows how to teach effectively if she chooses to do so. Respondent had a very detailed lesson plan for the day Ms. Lyshkov observed her. Ms. Lyshkov reviewed Respondent's prior plans and found them to be sketchy. She recommended that Respondent continue to formulate detailed lesson plans, since Respondent's success that day proved their effectiveness. Respondent's last formal observation for the 1981-82 school year occurred on March 2, 1982. Mr. Wargo observed her classes for periods 1 and 2, and Ms. Kenzel observed for a portion of the same classes. Respondent was rated overall acceptable. The results of these observations establish that Respondent is capable of presenting a good lesson when she chooses to prepare herself. The 1981-82 school year evidenced other indications of Respondent's disposition. She was late turning in emergency lesson plans, lesson plans, course outlines and grade sheets. She was late to departmental meetings and to teacher workdays. She occasionally left her classes unsupervised. Despite her previous warning, Respondent continued to permit students to hand-carry examinations to the xerox room for copying. In May 1982 Mr. Wargo issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for unprofessional conduct in calling a student "trash." During the 1982-83 school year Respondent was heard to call various students "cabbage head," "stupid," "dumb," "disgusting," "fools," and "disgusting little creature." On May 27, 1982 Mr. Wargo completed Respondent's annual evaluation and recommended her for continued employment. While Mr. Wargo rated Respondent unacceptable in teacher-student relationships, he was apparently satisfied that she was improving her other areas of deficiency. Subsequent to the annual evaluation a significant number of serious problems surfaced which reflected on Respondent's performance and which caused Mr. Wargo to seriously question his recommendation for continued employment. Respondent was absent, without satisfactory excuse or authorization, from school during the final examination period of June 14 through June 17, 1982. According to Respondent it was not until 2:00 p.m. the preceding Friday that she first learned she would have to take her son, a 12-year-old junior high school student, to Talladega College, Talladega, Alabama, to enroll him in a "Super Stars" summer program she had selected. According to Respondent, her husband could not take their son because he was "on call" at his work. Respondent's explanation for abandoning her obligations is unpersuasive. Respondent had at least four weeks' notice that her son had been accepted for the program. Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, was at school the Friday before exams until 2:45-3:00 p.m. At no time during the preceding four weeks, or on the Friday preceding exams, did Respondent advise the administration or her department head that she would need to be absent that week. Instead, Respondent "fulfilled" her obligations by "informing" the principal's and assistant principal's secretaries late Friday afternoon that she would be absent and left her final examinations in the office. Ms. Patrylo did not become aware of Respondent's absence until the morning of June 14, 1982. During the course of administering the French I final examination to Respondent's first period class Ms. Patrylo discovered a number of significant problems which reflected adversely on Respondent's competence. Respondent's French I examination was a travesty. It was not a French I examination but a French II placement test the department had previously prepared to gauge at what level an incoming student should be placed. Respondent had simply taken a copy of the placement test and written "French I Final" on it. Respondent had been previously instructed that the examination was to be thorough and cover a significant amount of the year's course content. Essay questions were to be included. The French II placement test which Respondent proposed to give her students was composed of 47 questions; no essay questions - were included. Over 50 percent of the test, 25 questions, dealt with the passe' compose', yet that grammatical structure had not been extensively taught. Twenty-five percent of the examination dealt with verbs in the past tense, yet Respondent's students had not studied the past tense. Moreover, the test only required the "bubbling in" of answers on a computer card and did not require any writing. While two hours were allotted for the examination, this exam could be completed in ten minutes. Respondent's classroom was in disarray. Maps valued at $300 were abused. Respondent's closet contained flash cards, audio visual materials, food and other materials haphazardly thrown about. The room was completely disorganized. Respondent left no instructions for completing her book inventory. Consequently, 56 of her textbooks, valued at $11.00 each, were never accounted for. When school started the next year the class was short of books. On June 18, 1982, the last day of school, Respondent was due at school at 8:00 a.m. She failed to arrive until 8:45 a.m. Because of Respondent's tardiness three members of her department had to record grades for four of her classes in order to assure timely delivery of the grade sheets to the computer center. In working with Respondent's grade book to establish final grades, these teachers noted several shortcomings. Respondent's grade book contained no code for weighting of grades, it was impossible to tell which student absences were excused or unexcused, and on some lines two students' names appeared, rendering it impossible to decipher which grades belonged to which student. On June 23, 1982 a conference for the record was held to discuss the shortcomings of Respondent's performance, which were revealed during the last days of the school year. During this conference Mr. Wargo addressed Respondent's historical and current problems in record keeping, tardiness, following district, area and school policies, and classroom management. Mr. Wargo advised Respondent, by memorandum dated June 28, 1982, that he would not recommend Respondent for continued employment for the 1983-84 school year unless she showed marked improvement during the 1982-83 school year in the following areas: Accuracy and completeness of required record keeping. Strict adherence to contracted working hours of 7:20 a.m.-2:40 p.m. You will be expected to be in your classroom no later than 7:25 a.m. Compliance with district, area, and school level directives and policies. Improved classroom management procedures to insure the following: Classroom organized and neat; Attendance and tardy procedures enforced. Seating charts available and up-to-date. Rules and procedures consistently applied. Teacher-student relationships resulting in mutual respect. Consistent classroom performance resulting in continuous acceptable ratings. Respondent agreed to follow Mr. Wargo's suggestions to improve her performance, and to cooperate with the department chairperson. She stated that she would work very diligently the next year, and promised that Mr. Wargo would see considerable improvement. The observations, evaluations, conferences and suggestions made over the preceding three years, and Respondent's commitment to improve her performance and cooperation during the 1982-83 school year, proved futile. From September 1982 through April 1983, Respondent's teaching was observed on one or more occasions by her principal and assistant principal, an area director of the Dade County public schools, and the foreign language supervisor of the Dade County public schools. Each concurs that Respondent's performance was unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques; the same reasons she was found unacceptable in previous years. The root of Respondent's poor performance was indolence. Although proficient in her languages, Respondent demonstrated an unwillingness to change her methods or to plan, deliver and critique her lessons. Throughout the 1982-83 school year, despite numerous conferences, prescriptions, and requests, Respondent's lesson plans were submitted late and evidenced no continuity of purpose. At best, they were sketchy, disorganized and unduly repetitive. At worst, they were incomprehensible and illegible. Their content and appearance compel the conclusion they were hastily prepared to superficially comply with the requirement that she have lesson plans, but without any attention to their content or purpose. Respondent's classroom management was unacceptable throughout the school year. Frequently, less than one-half of available class time was devoted to foreign language instruction. Students were often unruly and undisciplined. They were permitted, without censure, to read novels, listen to radios, gossip, and apparently sleep during Respondent's classes. Respondent's inability or failure to manage her classroom was in large measure a product of her failure to prepare her lessons. Because of the low cognitive level at which Respondent taught, her classes were dull and conducive to student disruption. Her techniques of instruction were unacceptable. Respondent emphasized memorization, recall and drill on a purely audio-lingual basis and ignored the variety and repetitive reinforcement benefits that could be derived from reading and writing a foreign language. Respondent's assessment techniques were unacceptable. After three months into the 1982-83 school year, Respondent's grade book reflected only one written test and her student folders contained no assessment of her students' reading and writing skills. This situation did not improve over the course of the year. At no time during the course of the final hearing did Respondent concede she needed improvement in her techniques. The evidence, however, renders it painfully apparent that a serious problem did exist. Respondent testified that she practiced the audio- lingual method of foreign language instruction, which emphasizes listening and speaking, through level III of a foreign language. Repetition, she says, is essential. Accordingly, Respondent concludes, the presence of repetition in her lesson plans was essential, and the absence of many written tests in her grade book, or student papers reflecting reading and writing skills in the student folders, not unusual. Respondent's explanation ignores some very salient factors, to which she was privy. The Dade County curriculum requires that the four skills-- listening, speaking, reading and writing--be taught at each level of foreign language instruction. Further, Respondent had received unsatisfactory ratings in student assessments during the preceding three years because of her failure to properly test and her failure to document her students' progress in the student folders. By her own testimony Respondent concedes she did not teach the prescribed curriculum. Because of that failure she was unable to assess her students' skills in reading and writing since she had not developed them. By neglecting the reading and writing skills, Respondent not only deprived her students of the skills themselves, but also of the stimulation such variety in technique would have brought to her classroom, the reinforcement that would have been achieved by developing those skills, and the positive impact it would have had on class management. Respondent's attendance history during the 1982-83 school year was poor. As early as September 1982 Respondent was admonished by her principal for her failure to observe the 7:20 a.m. to 2:40 p.m work day, yet she subsequently arrived, on a number of occasions, after 7:30 a.m. During the second semester her tardiness took a new twist. During this time period, while Respondent would apparently arrive at school by the mandated 7:20 a.m. deadline, she would not open her classroom door until 7:30 a.m. While apparently in her classroom at 7:20 a.m., Respondent would not turn on any lights and, consequently, neither student nor administrator could assure her presence. Ms. Patrylo, Respondent's department head, asked Respondent to leave a light on in the room so that Respondent's students would know she was there, and so Ms. Patrylo would not have to be concerned about her absence and the need to unlock the door to admit Respondent's students. Respondent refused Ms. Patrylo's request because "she did not want to run up the electric bill for the Dade County schools." Respondent's response to Ms. Patrylo is not indicative of a cooperative attitude. It is, however, indicative of a plan to frustrate the administration in its attempt to monitor Respondent's compliance with the contracted work hours. The evidence establishes, however, that Respondent failed to adhere to her contracted work hours for the 1982-83 school year. The administration of Palmetto Senior High School, and the School Board, went to considerable lengths in the 1982-83 school year to rehabilitate Respondent. Their efforts were, however, met by little or no effort by Respondent to improve herself. Respondent asserts, rather incongruously since she acknowledges no imperfection in her teaching techniques, that the cause of her failure to improve was caused by the observations and prescriptions themselves and because she had four preparations that school year. Respondent's assertions are unpersuasive. At no time during the 1982-83 school year did Respondent render any such objections. The number of preparations Respondent had was not excessive. Respondent could have obviated the necessity of any prescriptions, and most observations, by abiding the commitment she had given Mr. Wargo at the close of the 1981-82 school year--to improve her performance in these same areas. In short, Respondent's attempt to excuse her "failures," because of the administration's statutorily and contractually mandated efforts to assist her, lacks substance. While occasional improvement in Respondent's performance was seen over the course of the 1982-83 school year, it was sporadic and short-lived. Despite counseling, prescriptions, and workshops, Respondent continued to perform at an unsatisfactory level in the same areas as previous years. It was the consensus of opinion of the professional educators and experts who observed Respondent's classroom performance that she repeatedly failed to teach effectively and faithfully as required by Rule 6Gx 13-4A-1.21V, School Board of Dade County, and failed to communicate with and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. The evidence compels the same conclusion. Respondent's tardiness further deprived her students of the minimum educational experience to which they were entitled and her frequent absences from the classroom could have placed her students in physical jeopardy. At the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year Respondent was suspended from her position as a classroom teacher in the Dade County school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That: Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order in Case No. 83-3067, sustaining Respondent's suspension from her employment, and dismissing Respondent as an employee of the School Board of Dade County; and Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commisioner of Education, enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-0149 revoking the teacher's certificate of Respondent, Carolyn T. Smith, for two (2) years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire The Law Building Suite 204 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 195597 covering the area of industrial arts. During the school years of 1973-1974 to 1983-1984, Respondent had no persistent pattern involving professional incompetency or unprofessional conduct. The Respondent was employed as a teacher of industrial arts at Vero Beach Junior High School in the Indian River County School District during the 1983-1984, 1984-1985, and the first three weeks of the 1985-1986 school years, until his suspension effective September 16, 1985. During 1983-1984, he also apparently taught mathematics. At various times, the classes Respondent taught at Vero Beach Junior High School included some classes directed to regular students and others directed to exceptional students, including the educable mentally handicapped (EMH). EMH students have intelligence quotients (IQs) of less than 70. At all times, all of the industrial arts classes taught by Respondent were elective. THE 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Mr. Marion Bass was the Respondent's supervising principal at all times material to the administrative complaint. As the Respondent's supervising principal, Mr. Bass observed and evaluated the Respondent's teaching performance. Prior to evaluating the Respondent's teaching performance, Principal Bass received formal training in the evaluation of teachers and had 12 to 13 years of practical experience in conducting teacher evaluations. Principal Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance informally on two or three occasions during the 1983- 1984 school year and twice formally at the end of that school year. In his observations and evaluation of Respondent, Bass found the Respondent's performance to be unsatisfactory. Specifically, Bass observed that the Respondent did not satisfactorily control students in his classroom, his planning was not as complete as it should be, implementation of his lesson plans was not acceptable, and Respondent's "voice procedures" (i.e., diction and volume) were unsatisfactory. Bass opined that the Respondent did not have a specific structure to his industrial arts class. Even if students were knowledgeable of their assigned task on a given day, the students were not always on-task. Instead, they would be out of their seats, moving around the room and discussing topics unrelated to class work. In Bass' view, Respondent failed to provide proper supervision of the students, and as a result, the students did not appear to respect the Respondent's instructions. Bass observed that students ignored Respondent's instructions to sit down and be quiet. On other occasions, he observed that the Respondent ignored some students' off-task behavior while he was involved with others. However, none of Bass' observations in the 1983- 1984 school year were reduced to writing nor formally discussed with Respondent, and the formal year-end evaluation of Respondent of March 16, 1984, by Laurent Smith, Assistant Principal, rated Respondent as overall satisfactory and his contract was subsequently renewed for the 1984-1985 school year. On or about May 15, 1984, Bass inadvertently discovered that the Respondent was not knowledgeable of his mathematics students' progress in their skills continuum. This was particularly disturbing to Bass in that each student is required by the Indian River County School Board to accomplish at least 70 percent proficiency in state-mandated skills in order to be promoted to the next higher grade. Thereafter, Bass made an attempt to ascertain the level of skills accomplishment by the students in Respondent's classes. While doing so, Bass questioned Respondent about the matter. The Respondent indicated that certain students were in the Compensatory Education Program. Bass subsequently learned that those students were not compensatory education students but were Level Two students. It alarmed Bass to discover that the Respondent did not even know what level of students he had been teaching for seven months. THE 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR On September 17, 1984, Bass prepared a memorandum to Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel for the School Board. In that memorandum, Bass outlined his concerns regarding Respondent's teaching performance. The memorandum addressed seven general areas of deficiency: failure to control students' behavior; failure to provide meaningful structure and direction and failure to support an enthusiasm for learning; failure to demonstrate the ability to plan a course of study with overall goals and objectives providing direction and continuity in the subject matter; difficulty in implementing what lesson plans the Respondent did develop; addressing only a small percentage of the students in his class when presenting a lesson; difficulty with proper grammar and diction; and a demonstrated lack of understanding for the basic academic and social skill needs of his students. Following preparation of his September 17, 1984 memorandum, Bass continued to make observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance on October 15, 1984 and completed a Classroom Observation Instrument containing his notes of that observation which rated the Respondent's performance in the classroom as "extremely poor, one of great concern." The notations on the Classroom Observation Instrument itself indicate that the Respondent gave directions to a limited number of students, assisted only a small number of students, engaged in very little class communication, did not enunciate well, used poor diction, utilized "very poor" classroom management, and failed to keep the students on task. Following Bass' observation of the Respondent on October 15, 1984, he prepared a written memorandum of his concerns and his suggestions for improvement. He met with the Respondent and discussed both his concerns and suggestions for improvement. The Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. During this conference, Bass told the Respondent that he was there to help him in any way that he knew how to help. Bass expressed similar sentiments in other conferences with Respondent regarding Respondent's teaching performance and offered to allow Respondent to visit other schools and other teachers both in and out of the school district in an effort to help Respondent remediate his observed deficiencies. On September 13, 1984, Theresa Wagner, chairperson of the vocational department of Vero Beach Junior High School, sent all teachers within that department a memorandum establishing dates for computer usage. One of the components of the Respondent's industrial arts curriculum was demonstration of computer literacy. Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. On October 15, 1984, the first day of the Respondent's assigned time block for use of the computers, the Respondent advised Ms. Wagner that his class was not ready to use the computers and would probably not be ready the following week. However, until that date, Respondent had expressed no problem with the time block assigned to him and had requested no assistance in preparing for this new function of the curriculum. When Ms. Wagner reminded him that computer skills were a part of his required curriculum at that time, Respondent replied that he could not understand why he had to teach something he did not know anything about. Further, he stated that he could not learn it. Respondent apparently made two attempts to learn the computer and gave up. Respondent's failure to adapt himself to the new computer programming time blocks inconvenienced Ms. Wagner and others who were required to share the single computer during the finite time available in a school day/school year. At hearing, Respondent advanced the theory that because his major was in TIE (Trade Industrial Education), he ought not to be required to adapt to teaching manufacturing, woodworking, and computer literacy, which are outside of his expressed field of interest, but which apparently are very much contemplated within the general field of industrial arts. Additionally, he felt he certainly should not be required to adapt to teaching all these "new" areas at one time. However, it appears he had been teaching woodworking for some period of time anyway. Overall, Respondent made it clear he did not want to teach the curriculum assigned to him. As a part of her assigned responsibilities as department chairperson, Ms. Wagner was required to observe each of the teachers within the vocational department. On October 10, 1984, she observed the Respondent. Her memorandum to the Respondent dated October 10, 1984, outlined her observations as well as her suggestions for his improvement. Ms. Wagner had difficulty understanding the Respondent when he was teaching. She suggested that he talk louder and make a special effort to enunciate clearly. She observed that the Respondent failed to provide a handout for one girl in the class. The girl raised her hand and had it up for five minutes before the Respondent noticed the student and gave her the handout. Ms. Wagner observed a lot of non-essential, non-productive movement of students in the classroom. Finally, she noted among other things that the last lesson plans which the Respondent turned in were for the week of September 17, 1984, although he was on notice that he was supposed to turn in lesson plans weekly. Ms. Wagner observed little, if any, instruction being provided by the Respondent. The students failed to respond to the Respondent's directions and did not pay attention to him or obey his directions. In fact, the majority of the students ignored the Respondent during this observation by Ms. Wagner. Lesson plans were an on-going problem between Ms. Wagner and Respondent. Only when Ms. Wagner specifically asked the Respondent for lesson plans did she receive them. Those which she did receive from the Respondent were not satisfactory. In her opinion, any substitute teacher would have had a very difficult time teaching effectively based upon the plans which Respondent did submit to her. Although other departmental personnel sometimes missed turning in lesson plans timely, everyone except the Respondent eventually "caught up" with their lesson plans. Ms. Wagner later observed Respondent on several other occasions. Those observations of the Respondent's teaching performance were consistent with her observations on October 10, 1984. On September 14, 1984, Richard Thomas, Vero Beach Junior High School Dean and Assistant Principal, observed the Respondent's classroom performance. Mr. Thomas is trained for such evaluations. Using the teacher evaluation form containing 39 observable "behaviors," Thomas rated the Respondent as "needs improvement" in 14 of the 39 categories based upon his observations on September 14, 1984. Thomas categorized the Respondent's performance on that date as incompetent. On September 20, 1984, Thomas became aware that the Respondent was sending a large number of student referrals to the Guidance Department for the purpose of having the students seek reassignments from his classes to other classes. Respondent's action was creating problems for the Guidance Department, the students, and the Respondent himself because by that point in the school year, a change of classes under the circumstances was impossible. Thomas prepared a letter dated September 20, 1984 to Respondent requesting that he refrain from such conduct. In the letter, Thomas offered to discuss the matter with the Respondent. Respondent's reasons for his acceleration of referrals was never made entirely clear. However, one explanation offered by the Respondent at formal hearing was that when he had behavioral problems with students in his classes and was not permitted to lock them out of the class (see findings of fact 21, 32, and 33 infra.) and was not otherwise "backed up" by Principal Bass and Assistant Principal Thomas, Respondent felt justified, as a strict disciplinarian, in referring those students whom he viewed as troublemakers to the Guidance Department either to be dealt with by Thomas or for reassignment elsewhere. Under the circumstances, this explanation by Respondent of strict discipline is flawed and unreasonable and evidences lack of classroom control. At hearing, Respondent expressed his objection to having exceptional and special education students in his classes due to their low IQs, even though he admittedly had taken courses in this area. Although all school and School Board personnel assumed Respondent was certified for EMH students, Respondent was not specifically so-certified. He maintained that because of their low IQs, EMH students created special discipline problems, which fact was confirmed by Mr. LaPointe and Mr. Bass. However, Mr. LaPointe, a specialist in the field, also opined that an industrial arts certificate should qualify Respondent to teach industrial arts to EMH students. Respondent attributed much of his professional troubles to the inability of the exceptional education students to learn as opposed to his own inability to teach. At first, Respondent further suggested Bass and Thomas had also assigned students with disciplinary problems to both his regular and exceptional classes. However, he could not substantiate this premise in light of the elective nature of all industrial arts classes. Overall, Respondent only made it clear that he did not want to teach the students assigned to him. On October 17, 1984, as a follow-up to his September 14, 1984 visit, Thomas observed Respondent teaching and prepared a Classroom Observation Instrument. He concluded that the Respondent's "with-it-ness" was poor because Respondent was oblivious to a fight which was about to break out between students in the back of his classroom and because a student had to approach the Respondent and almost physically pull on the Respondent's arm to get his attention. Thomas observed that the Respondent was not in control of his class and that he failed to maintain the attention of all students. Thomas observed no improvement in Respondent's performance on his October 17, 1984 return, except that on that particular date, the Respondent did attempt to implement some organizational structure through the use of an overhead projection covering four items. On November 9, 1984, Thomas wrote the Respondent a letter in regard to the manufacture of weapons by students in the Respondent's manufacturing class. Prior to that date, Thomas had verbally cautioned the Respondent about the manufacture of weapons by students in his class. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports a finding of fact that "weapons" per se were in fact created in Respondent's class with his knowledge. It was, however, demonstrated that various lathe-produced wooden objects, possibly intended by Respondent for use as chair legs, were smuggled out of his class by students. Although Respondent denied certain items described as "swords" and "paddles" were weapons and even that some of the "chair legs" were made in his class, the fact that he admitted that a paddle and certain "chair legs" could have been smuggled out by students indicates an appalling nonchalance for his duties of supervision of young people. It was further demonstrated that a sign bearing the expression "I LOVE SEX" and that a paddle bearing the expression "DUCK BUT!" [sic] were manufactured in Respondent's class without his disapproval. On October 16, 1984, Jean Carter, the Director of Vocational Adult and Community Education for the Indian River County School District, observed the Respondent's second period class. Ms. Carter is a qualified observer with the Florida Performance Measurement System. During her observation on October 16, 1984, Ms. Carter noted that the Respondent did not begin his class promptly. Students talked in loud voices and milled around the room. The Respondent had difficulty communicating with his students. Most of his comments were inaudible. The Respondent turned his back on some students when he spoke to other students. Few students attempted to write the notes shown on the overhead projector as the Respondent ordered. Other students never faced the projector, and the Respondent seemed to be unaware that they were not taking notes. Ms. Carter observed several students off task. Four or five students were throwing paper and spitballs around the room. The word "important" was misspelled on the transparency. Respondent exhibited no enthusiasm for the subject matter, never praised the students, spoke positively, or smiled. He did not appear to enjoy teaching. In November 1984, a request was made to the Florida Department of Education to provide an assistance review of the Respondent's teaching performance. The purpose of the assistance review was to provide the Respondent with assistance in becoming a more proficient teacher. Following the assistance review, a very lengthy, detailed report was prepared by the reviewer and submitted to the Indian River County School District. On February 7, 1985, a conference was held involving Superintendent Burns; Principal Bass; Dr. Eddie Hudson, Personnel Coordinator; Mrs. Shirley Hanawait, Assistant Superintendent; Ms. Carolyn Sheppard, CEA President; Jean Carter, Director of Vocational Education; Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel; and the Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review the report prepared by the Department of Education assistance reviewer and to make arrangements to provide Respondent with additional help and assistance as needed. In that conference, Respondent's supervisors made arrangements to correct, repair, or adjust equipment in Respondent's classroom; to have another industrial arts teacher assist Respondent; to provide Respondent with relief time to observe other professional teachers in the same vocational area; to send the Respondent to two professional conferences; to provide Respondent with professional journals; to provide Respondent with assistance through the department head; and to provide assistance from Mr. Bass in the areas of grading, lesson plans, supervision, management, and organization. Mr. Bass, Superintendent Burns, and Dr. King emphasized to Respondent that he must begin to show improvement in his performance immediately. Respondent was advised that if no improvement were demonstrated immediately, Respondent could be removed from continuing contract status or dismissed altogether. The Respondent received a copy of the conference summary prepared by Dr. King as a reminder of the action Respondent was expected to take to improve his classroom performance. Ms. Carter participated in the conference held with the Respondent on February 7, 1985, to review the assistance review report and to provide the Respondent with help. Her purpose in attending the conference was to provide the Respondent with assistance in any way possible to improve his performance. Ms. Carter later made sure that all of the Respondent's equipment was in proper working order, that he had copies of the performance standards mandated for the courses he taught, that he received professional journals, and that he was authorized to attend two conferences relating to his subject matter area. Respondent did not, however, attend either conference. Subsequent to the February 7, 1985 conference, Bass conducted five classroom observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. On each occasion, Bass completed a Classroom Observation Instrument. On March 8, 1985, Bass observed the Respondent's class and found that no valid learning activity was going on in the classroom. On March 12, 1985 at 7:35 a.m., Bass observed the Respondent's industrial arts class for exceptional education students. There were seven or eight students in the class. Bass observed that the Respondent gave the students approximately 15 vocabulary words to look up while the Respondent straightened up the classroom. In Bass' opinion, such an assignment for exceptional education students was inappropriate due to their limited intelligence, attention span, and the purpose for which such students were enrolled in the course. Mr. Bass characterized Respondent's performance on that date as poor. Subsequently, on the same date, Bass observed the Respondent teaching manufacturing to a regular class of about 17 students. Although Bass characterized Respondent's performance in this class as better, he still gave it an overall score of poor because Respondent's presentation lacked continuity and his discourse was "disjointed." Bass continued to note that the Respondent had difficulty with grammar, enunciation, and projection of an enthusiasm for the subject matter. On March 18, 1985, Bass again observed Respondent's manufacturing class for exceptional students. Although Bass also termed this observation better than those he had made of Respondent in the past, he still considered it a below average observation. On the observation instrument itself, Bass noted that the Respondent was late to class, wasted time by marching the students to a film which was set up in a classroom in a separate building, provided no orientation or preview prior to showing the film, and conducted no discussion of the film after it had been shown. He further noted that the Respondent performed much of the project work himself, thereby limiting the hands-on experience that the students were in the class to receive. That same day, Bass observed the Respondent's manufacturing class for regular students, which viewed the same film as had been shown to the exceptional education students. The content of the film would have been acceptably pitched for both types of classes if Respondent had appropriately introduced the film and had led post-film discussions appropriate to each level, which he did not. Bass felt that once again a lot of time was wasted, there was scant review of the film's content, and there existed the same problems with diction and discourse by the Respondent. Bass concluded that the Respondent's teaching performance remained virtually unchanged from what it had been prior to the assistance review. Bass' March 27, 1985 Annual Teacher Evaluation for Respondent's 1984- 1985 school year resulted in a rating of "needs improvement" in 23 of the 39 "behaviors" evaluated on the form. Bass met with Respondent on March 28, 1985 to review the evaluation and discuss it with him. Before Bass could begin discussion of the evaluation, Respondent stated, "Let me make a long story short, Mr. Bass, I am not going to sign my evaluation even if we talk all week. You're 100 percent right on what you wrote, but I'm still not signing it." On more than six occasions, Thomas found the Respondent's students out of class when they were supposed to be in his room. On certain occasions Respondent locked them out. When the Respondent locked students out of his classroom, those students were free to roam the halls with the excuse that they had been locked out of their classroom. On one occasion, school staff members caught one of the Respondent's students committing a theft at a time when he was supposed to be in Respondent's class. Although the theft incident was not conclusively tied to a date Respondent locked students out of his classroom, Respondent was still responsible for indicating to the administration that the student was "cutting" and had not done so. On June 4, 1985, Bass learned that the Respondent was locking his students out of his classroom. Final examinations were being conducted at the time. The Respondent told Bass that he could not make the students stay in class without this procedure, which he had designed to catch students when a student still in the classroom tried to let those who had left the classroom back into the classroom from the outside. Respondent also told Bass he could not give an examination and control the students if the door were not locked. Respondent repeated this explanation from the stand at formal hearing as if his plan were designed to catch those who "cut" class, but Respondent also maintained it was a method of timing the number of minutes students remained out of class so that Respondent could tell their parents why he would not permit them ever to leave the room again, apparently even for reasons as mundane and urgent as using the bathroom. Such reasoning process is flawed and unreasonable, if not downright silly. The Respondent refused to sign the incident report resulting from this incident and further refused to discuss the incident report with Mr. Bass. As a vocational education teacher, Respondent was required to submit end of the year reports to Ms. Carter as a part of state and federal funding requirements. Ms. Carter had informed Respondent of the requirement that he prepare and submit the reports prior to leaving school. Respondent testified he submitted the required reports at the end of the 1984-1985 school year by placing them in the school office mail box of Ms. Wagner. Ms. Carter testified that she did not receive them. The problem with transmittal of the reports appears to be one that could have been resolved by Ms. Wagner or someone notifying the Respondent immediately by telephone that they had not been received. This was not done, although Ms. Carter and Dr. King followed up with written reproofs. Such an infraction under these circumstances will not support discipline of Respondent. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year, dated March 27, 1985 and referenced above, was not satisfactory, but Respondent's contract was subsequently renewed for the 1985-1986 year. THE 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On September 3, 1985, Howard LaPointe, then a staff associate in the Exceptional Education Program of the Indian River County School District, observed Respondent teaching exceptional students in his manufacturing class. Although school had begun on August 17, 1985, Respondent took his class on a tour of the other building on September 3, 1985. Mr. LaPointe observed numerous deficiencies during his observation and noted that the Respondent needed assistance in the areas of classroom management, instructional materials, orientation to class work, utilization of student notebooks, and competency based upon the curriculum guide. On September 13, 1985, the Respondent met in Principal Bass' office with Bass, LaPointe, Carolyn Sheppard (president of the teachers' union) and Dr. King to review LaPointe's observation conducted on September 3, 1985 and to discuss suggestions for Respondent's professional improvement. As Mr. LaPointe began to present his plan for providing assistance to the Respondent, Respondent became angry and upset. After a sharp exchange between LaPointe and Respondent, wherein LaPointe asked Respondent "What the hell do you expect the children to do?" or some similarly-phrased question, Respondent left the meeting and did not return. Bass and Dr. King walked down to the Respondent's office, a glass- enclosed room. They could see Respondent was in a highly emotional, agitated state. The Respondent had knocked his personal television set onto the floor. It was not demonstrated that Respondent damaged a projector or any other school property or that two obscenities uttered by Respondent were heard by anyone other than a fellow teacher, Mr. Humphrey, who had entered the enclosed room as a friend to calm down the Respondent. Had Bass and King not followed Respondent to his own office they would not have even observed his agitated state. Respondent was excused for the remainder of the school day after Mr. Humphrey calmed him down. Later that day, Superintendent Burns suspended the Respondent without pay. Respondent was subsequently terminated by the School Board for incompetence, misconduct, and gross insubordination. On December 12, 1985, Dr. King notified the Florida Department of Education that the Respondent had been dismissed from his position of employment. Dr. King recommended that the Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. Based upon Bass' observations and evaluations of the Respondent's teaching performance over a period of more than two years, Bass holds the professional opinion that the Respondent is an incompetent teacher. Bass would not recommend the Respondent for employment in Indian River County or any other school district. In Bass' professional opinion, students in the Respondent's regular classroom did not receive even a minimal educational experience and the exceptional students received only a minimal educational experience. No evidence whatsoever supporting the allegations of unprofessional conduct at Clemans Elementary School was offered and no such unprofessional conduct is found. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports the allegation that Respondent used profanity in the presence of students and no such conduct is found. Respondent's pre-1983-1984 school year evaluations are technically irrelevant to the charges at bar but were admitted to give Respondent every opportunity to "prove up" his allegations that his current problems arose from personal or personality conflicts with Bass and Thomas. Unfortunately for Respondent, these exhibits show some of his deficiencies are long-standing but were sporadic as opposed to forming a consistent pattern early on. Otherwise, these exhibits are too remote in time to have great weight. Respondent also defended, pursuant to Rule 6B-4.08(2), Florida Administrative Code, upon the premise that after a bombardment of evaluations and conferences he felt he was being harassed rather than given corrective assistance and that he was given too little time in which to make the adjustments required. Rule 613-4.08(2) requires Respondent's immediate supervisor to make all efforts possible to aid Respondent to correct the matter which caused his dismissal. Although this is a questionable defense when, as here, Petitioner and the School Board are not one and the same entity, some of Respondent's allegations have a mitigating effect. There is some merit to his allegations with regard to the timeframe and limited assistance provided but none as to the allegation of harassment. Respondent did unsuccessfully apply for transfer and volunteer to accept a custodial job at the same pay in order to avoid his problems with Bass and Thomas, but he could not demonstrate at formal hearing any reason other than his own attitude and teaching performance for Bass' and Thomas' poor evaluations and refusal to transfer him. Moreover, the consistency of the other observers' analyses belies any conspiracy or vendetta against Respondent on the part of Bass and Thomas. There is some evidence that Respondent made some minimal improvements in technique after assistance was provided by the professional reviewer, which assistance Mr. Bass characterized as the only significant remediation provided the Respondent. Upon his superiors' advice, Respondent also conferred with at least one other teacher in his field who came to his school. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent was authorized to attend two professional conferences and he did not, in fact, attend, but it is unclear from her testimony and the supporting documentary evidence whether federal grant monies were ever authorized for Respondent's attendance at either of these conferences. Mr. LaPointe's evidence that special assistance with regard to exceptional students was offered by him but rebuffed by Respondent is indicative of Respondent's poor attitude. There is evidence that equipment was repaired for Respondent and although not stated by any one witness in so many words, it may be inferred from the collective testimony of several witnesses that Respondent could have requested time off to observe other industrial arts classes and confer with other industrial arts teachers outside his own school but failed to do so. In light of Respondent's satisfactory rating in the 1983-1984 school year, the fact that significant efforts to assist Respondent did not commence until November 1984 (reviewer visit) and that internal assistance did not begin in earnest until the February 7, 1985 conference, I find Respondent had really only from February to March 1985 to avoid an initial unfavorable annual evaluation. From March 1985 to school's closing in June and part of August and September in the 1985-1986 school year was all the time permitted Respondent for remediation because he was dismissed in mid-September 1985. Even so, he showed some minimal improvement which has been considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be suspended for three years with provision for reinstatement as provided by statute. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4101 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed FOF: Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 3. Covered in FOF 5. 4-5 Covered in FOF 6. 6-8 Covered in FOF 7 but amplified to conform to the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 8. Covered in FOF 9. Accepted that there were such reports but rejected as set forth in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. 14-15. Covered in FOF 12 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. 18-19. Covered in FOF 27. 20. Covered in FOF 29. 21-23. Covered and amplified in FOF 30 to conform to the record, but eliminating the legal argument from proposal 23. 24. Covered in FOF 31. The commentary about the presence of a secretary and Respondent's mood are rejected as immaterial in light of no charges of insubordination. Further, mild anger in the presence of the Principal's secretary is hardly likely to impair Respondent's effectiveness. 25-26. Covered, modified and amplified as necessary in FOF 33 to convey the full scope of the material facts of record. That which is cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary has been rejected. 27. Covered in FOF 36; what is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. 28-29. Covered in FOF 39; what is rejected is cumulative. 30-31. Covered in FOF 13-14 and amplified to more accurately convey the evidence of record as a whole. Covered in FOF 16 but modified for clarity. Covered in FOF 18. Except for elimination of the cumulative, covered in FOF 17. Except as cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 19. 37-38. Covered and amplified in FOF 20 to more accurately reflect the evidence of record as a whole. 39-42. Except as cumulative, subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 22. 43-46, and 49 Rejected as not supported by the direct, credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole. 47-48. Accepted that reports were written but rejected on the basis of uncorroborated hearsay, unsupported by direct credible competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole as covered in FOF 41. 50. Covered and amplified to more accurately reflect the record evidence as a whole in FOF 32. See also FOF 33. 51-53. Except for the cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 28 and 42. Rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. All witnesses are entirely credible on this point and Respondent's testimony is not truly contrary to other testimony. The benefit of the doubt must be resolved in his favor in this penal procedure. 56-58. Rejected as stated as not supported by the credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole which is set out in FOF 37. 59. Covered in FOF 38. 60-61. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as covered in FOF 38. 62. Covered in FOF 38. 63-65. Rejected as irrelevant except as covered in FOF 42. Rejected as cumulative. See FOF 20, 21, 32 and 33. Accepted but covered as set forth in FOF 23 since the proposal does not constitute an ultimate, material fact. Rejected as legal argument except to the extent it is peripherally covered in FOF 42. Respondent's Proposed FOF: 1-3. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. 4. Rejected as stated in that it constitutes argument but the topic is covered in FOF 7, 21 and 42, as supported by the record as a whole. 5-8. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. This proposal is not a sentence and is therefore rejected. Accepted that Respondent had the feelings and made the statement but rejected as stated as misleading of the record as a whole. See FOF 37. Except as covered in FOF 4, rejected as irrelevant, although true. Accepted but this goes to Respondent's overall incompetency and is not an ultimate material fact and therefore not adopted. See FOF 21. Rejected as some of these were not admitted in evidence and those in evidence do not support the proposal, neither does the record evidence as a whole. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles L. Hendley, Esquire 1500 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
