The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to terminate the Respondent's employment contract as a teacher. The grounds upon which the proposed action is based are alleged in a Notice of Specific Charges of Unsatisfactory Performance dated May 13, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was a duly-constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Michael J. Akpan, was an employee of the School Board of Miami- Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent possessed an annual employment contract as a teacher and was subject to the Memorandum of Understanding between United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was certified to teach middle grades science. This certification allows the Respondent to teach certain science courses to ninth and tenth grade students. During the 1997/1998 school year, the Respondent was teaching at North Miami Senior High School (NMSHS).1 The Respondent was placed in an alternative education assignment in which the students were at risk of dropping out of school. During that school year, the Respondent had difficulty controlling the conduct of students in his classroom. There were numerous instances of student misconduct and disruption of such gravity as to require intervention by school security personnel and assistant principals. Teachers employed by the Petitioner School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS has been approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between the Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). At all times material to this case, TADS was employed to evaluate the Respondent's performance. The same TADS documents are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers, whether new or veteran. TADS observers record deficiencies which are observed during the observation period and then provide a prescription for performance improvement.2 A post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. Then the cycle of assessment/prescription begins again. Under the TADS procedure as incorporated into the labor contract between the School Board and UTD, teachers who are in Annual Contract Two status, such as the Respondent, must have a minimum of two observations during each school year. One of those two observations must be done by the principal. During its 1997 session, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 1997, to provide for a 90-calendar-day performance probation for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. Because the statutory amendment impacted the implementation of TADS, the Petitioner and UTD negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the implementation of the new procedures required by the 1997 statutory amendments. The Memorandum of Understanding is an amendment to the labor contract between the Petitioner and the UTD. The Memorandum of Understanding reads as follows, in pertinent part: Performance Probation Period Upon identification of any deficiency, either through the observation/assessment process OR a Category VII infraction, the PRINCIPAL MUST, within 10 days, conduct a conference-for-the-record which addresses: results of the observation/assessment, or Category VII infraction, stipulations of the Performance Probation (90 calendar days excluding school holidays and vacations), which begins upon the employee's receipt of written plan of assistance (prescription), the plan of assistance and professional development opportunities to help correct documented deficiencies within a specified period of time, future required observations/assessments and possible employment actions. A minimum of two observations/assessments must be conducted subsequent to the completion of the initial prescriptive timelines and during the Performance Probation. The annual evaluation decision will be based upon the result of the last observation/assessment as illustrated in the chart titled, Examples of Assessments/ Observations and Annual Evaluation/Employment Contract Decisions for Employees on Performance Probation. In the event that an employee is absent on authorized leave in excess of 10 consecutive workdays, the Performance Probation is suspended until the employee returns to active duty, at which time it resumes. If the Performance Probation has not been completed during the current year of employment, the annual evaluation is withheld pending completion of the Performance Probation during the subsequent year of employment. Teachers who have not completed the requirements of the Performance Probation are ineligible for summer school employment. Within 14 calendar days after the close of the Performance Probation, the evaluator (principal) must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the Superintendent. Within 14 calendar days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the Superintendent must notify the employee in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the Superintendent will recommend that the School Board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the Superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 calendar days after receipt of the Superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. On October 13, 1997, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal Carrie Figueredo for one hour. The Respondent was found to be deficient in several categories and his performance was assessed as unsatisfactory. The observed deficiencies on this occasion included a failure to maintain appropriate classroom management. More than 90 percent of the students were "off task." Most of the students were either sleeping, filling out job applications, or otherwise inattentive. On October 20, 1997, Assistant principal Figueredo held a post-observation conference with the Respondent, discussed the Respondent's deficiencies with him, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities, which it was hoped would help him improve his performance as a classroom teacher. On November 21, 1997, the Respondent was formally observed in his classroom by Principal Charles Hankerson. Principal Hankerson assessed the Respondent's performance as unsatisfactory. Among other things, Principal Hankerson observed that the Respondent continued to have serious deficiencies in the area of classroom management. On December 2, 1997, Principal Hankerson held a conference for the record with the Respondent to address his unsatisfactory performance. During that conference Principal Hankerson made recommendations as to how the Respondent might improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and also discussed the Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner School Board. The Respondent was placed on a Performance Probation status in accordance with Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and he was provided with a plan of assistance to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed time frame. The Respondent's 90-day probation period began on December 8, 1997, which is the day on which he was furnished with a copy of the written plan of assistance. March 8, 1998. was the ninetieth day following December 8, 1997. During the Respondent's 90-day probation period there were at least 12 school holidays and school vacation days.3 Accordingly, the Respondent's probation period extended until at least March 20, 1998.4 On January 20, 1998, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal William Henderson. Assistant Principal Henderson observed the Respondent for 60 minutes. During this observation, the Respondent was found deficient in techniques of instruction. Assistant Principal Henderson observed that the Respondent was not addressing the needs of the students, that there was confusion as to the assignment, and that the Respondent wasted too much time initiating the lesson. On January 27, 1998, Assistant Principal Henderson had a post-observation conference with the Respondent, during which he discussed the Respondent's deficiencies, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities to assist the Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. Among those activities were, that the Respondent should meet with his department chairperson and review strategies which would be appropriate for the students assigned to the Respondent's classes. The Respondent was also directed to submit lesson plans to Assistant Principal Henderson. On February 27, 1998, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal Figueredo for two hours. Assistant Principal Figueredo found the Respondent to be deficient in several areas, including classroom management.5 This was Assistant Principal Figueredo's second observation of the Respondent. While she noted some minimal improvement since her earlier observation, the Respondent's performance on February 27, 1998, was still not anywhere near an acceptable level. On March 5, 1998, Assistant Figueredo held a post- observation conference with the Respondent, discussed the Respondent's deficiencies with him, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities in order to assist the Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. Among those prescriptive activities was a requirement that the Respondent develop lesson plans to be reviewed by Assistant Principal Figueredo's and by the Respondent's department chairperson. The Respondent was also directed to maintain a time log to determine when students arrived. Additionally, the Respondent was assigned several exercises in the Activities Manual to assist him in the area of teacher/student relationships. On March 27, 1998, Principal Charles Hankerson observed the Respondent in the classroom. On this occasion Principal Hankerson found the Respondent to be deficient in three categories: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher/student relationships. This was the confirmatory observation, which did not require a prescription. The assistance provided to the Respondent through his prescriptions was appropriate assistance related to the Respondent's observed deficiencies. The Respondent completed all of the prescriptions. Nevertheless, the Respondent continued to fail to plan for lessons, continued to fail to manage his students, and continued to fail to interact appropriately with his students. These continued failures resulted in a failure of the Respondent to meet the instructional needs of his students. As a result of the Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during each of the last three observations described above, Principal Hankerson notified the Superintendent of Schools that the Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during the probation period, and Principal Hankerson recommended that the Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 2, 1998, the Superintendent of Schools timely notified the Respondent that he was going to recommend that the School Board terminate his employment contract because he had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his period of probation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order sustaining the action to terminate Respondent's annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1999.
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching contract should be renewed for school year 1995-96.
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this proceeding, petitioner, Suwannee County School Board (Board), seeks to terminate respondent, Lallah P. Singh, a teacher, on the ground his classroom performance in school years 1993-94 and 1994-95 was unsatisfactory. In doing so, petitioner relies upon Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, which authorizes a school board to terminate an employee with a professional services contract (PSC) when that employee has an unsatisfactory performance rating for two consecutive years. This proceeding represents the first occasion on which the Board has utilized the statute for a PSC teacher. Respondent, who has been employed in the Suwannee County school system since December 1977, is certified as a teacher in the areas of biology and mathematics for grades 6-12. A native of India, he holds the equivalent degree of a doctor in veterinary medicine from a university in that country. He has also obtained a master's degree in veterinary science in this country and is certified as an education specialist in mathematics. Until school year 1993-94, respondent was employed in a variety of positions, including a regular classroom teacher (1977-86), a home study teacher (1987-89), and an alternate education teacher (1990-92). During school year 1993-94, respondent was assigned to the Branford Pre K-12 School in Branford, Florida where he taught the in-school suspension (ISS) class. That class is made up of high school level students suspended from their regular classes for disciplinary reasons. The assignment required that respondent maintain discipline and assist students with work assigned by their regular teachers. Based on observations conducted by his principal during the school year, respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation for his classroom performance. He was notified of these deficiencies in writing and was told that such deficiencies must be corrected by the end of the following school year, or else he would face possible non-renewal of his contract. For school year 1994-95, respondent was reassigned to an ISS classroom four periods per day but was also required to teach a general science class one period per day. During that year, respondent was observed by his principal in the general science class on four occasions to determine if the deficiencies noted in the prior year had been remediated. While most of the earlier deficiencies were eventually corrected, respondent was still unsatisfactory in one performance area noted in the prior year, as well as two other areas, and his performance was accordingly deemed to be unsatisfactory. On May 15, 1995, he was notified that his contract would not be renewed. By letter dated May 19, 1995, respondent requested a hearing to contest the Board's action. Although Section 231.36(3)(e)4.b., Florida Statutes, requires that the hearing be scheduled within 45 days of receipt of the written appeal, the parties have waived this requirement by requesting hearing dates beyond that timeframe. As clarified by his counsel, respondent generally contends the Board erred in the termination process by (a) providing him untimely and insufficient notice, (b) performing an inadequate evaluation, and (c) offering him inadequate assistance to correct his deficiencies. He asks for reinstatement of his professional services contract, as well as back pay. Events Leading up to School Year 1993-94 Around 1982, the legislature amended Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, to create a professional services contract under which teachers could be employed. Prior to that time, teachers not on annual contract status were employed under what was known as a continuing contract. Both a PSC and a continuing contract are considered a form of tenure for public school employees. After the new law became effective, teachers employed under a continuing contract were given the option to convert to a PSC. The advantage to a PSC is that if a teacher is cited for unsatisfactory performance in a given year, he or she has the following year in which to remediate those deficiencies. If the deficiencies are not remediated in the second year, a school board can change the teacher to annual contract status and decline to renew the teacher's contract. This procedure contrasts with the continuing contract process which, after an unsatisfactory rating is given but is not remediated by the teacher, allows a school board to change the teacher to annual contract status and not renew the contract at the end of any given year. In school year 1991-92, respondent was still employed under a continuing contract. When he received an unsatisfactory evaluation, and was threatened with the possibility of being changed to an annual contract and not renewed, he consulted with a teacher's union field representative, Richard E. Layer, on his procedural and substantive rights. During their discussions, the two talked about whether respondent should remain on a continuing contract or switch to a PSC. According to Layer, he explained to respondent "how the statute (governing a PSC) worked," advised him that a PSC offered more job security than a continuing contract, and recommended respondent switch to a PSC since this would give him two years in which to correct any deficiencies that might occur in the future. Layer added that after their conversation, respondent "knew exactly what the (PSC) provided." Based on Layer's advice, in April 1992 respondent requested that he be converted to a PSC. This was done for school year 1992-93, and he remained in that status until his contract was terminated in May 1995. The Evaluation Process Generally When evaluating classroom performance in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Board used standard evaluation forms developed by representatives of the Board and teacher's union. The evaluation, which must be performed at least once a year for teachers having a PSC, is conducted by the teacher's immediate supervisor, who in this case was the school principal, Melvin McMullen. McMullen had assumed that position during the latter part of school year 1992-93, had received special training for conducting evaluations, and was required to perform evaluations for over fifty teachers in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The evaluation process for a teacher on a PSC consists of at least one classroom evaluation during a given school year. The results of the first evaluation are recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. Within five days after the observation, a principal-teacher conference must be held for the purpose of reviewing the outcome of the observation. At that meeting, the teacher must sign the form, which includes a written admonition that "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to your dismissal or non- renewal." Subsequent evaluations during the year, if any, are also recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. For all evaluations, the teacher is given an acceptable ("A") or unacceptable ("U") rating for each evaluated area. Although the assessment forms used herein changed in some minor respects from school year 1993-94 to school year 1994-95, their substance was essentially the same. Each assessment form for a classroom teacher contains six overall performance standards, including planning, teaching procedures, classroom managment, presentation and knowledge of subject matter, assessment techniques and personal characteristics and professional responsibilities. Under the performance standards are found a total of twelve "indicators." Finally, within the indicators are found a "checklist of observable teaching behaviors," consisting of twenty-seven behaviors, each requiring a rating of "U" or "A." If any teaching behavior is given a "U," the indicator likewise requires a rating of "U." If an indicator is marked "U," the performance standard is also scored unacceptable. A total score is then assigned to the teacher, with one point given for each indicator with an "A," and the highest score being twelve. Anything less than a twelve is considered unsatisfactory and, if not corrected, may result in the teacher's dismissal. If the first observation of a PSC teacher results in an unsuccessful rating in any area, a "level-one" assistance plan is instituted by the principal, which consists of a principal-teacher conference to discuss the deficient areas, suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies, and a timeframe to correct the substandard performance. If insufficient progress has been made by the end of the timeframe, at the option of the assessor, the level-one assistance process can be repeated or a "level-two" assistance plan can begin. The latter level of assistance generally mirrors the assistance given during level-one but the assessor must also notify the superintendent that level-two has been initiated. If the deficiencies are still not corrected by the end of the school year, the superintendent is notified, and the teacher is again placed on notice that he must correct those deficiencies during the following school year or suffer the risk of being reverted to an annual contract status and not being renewed. Finally, during the subsequent school year, the same observations are conducted, and level-one and two assistance plans are implemented if deficiencies are observed. If remediation does not occur by the end of the second school year, the superintendent has the authority to recommend that the school board decline to renew the teacher's contract. School year 1993-94 Respondent was first evaluated by principal McMullen on February 23, 1994. He received a total credit of 10 out of 12 possible points. For the indicators "Recognizes and provides for individual differences" and "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," respondent received a "U." A conference was held by McMullen and respondent the same day, at which time respondent was given a form entitled "Related Work Performance Form (Appraisal III)." It contained not only an explanation of unacceptable areas and recommended procedure for correction, but also a notation that respondent had "2 weeks from today to demonstrate acceptable teacher corrective action." On March 14, 1994, respondent was again evaluated by principal McMullen. Although McMullen noted that "improvement" had occurred since the earlier evaluation, respondent received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Indeed, he was still deficient in the area of "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." At a conference held the same day, respondent was given an explanation of his unacceptable area, a recommended procedure for correction, and the following timeframe for improvement: "2 weeks approximately from 3/14/94.". On March 15, 1994, respondent was given a lengthy list of resource materials available for use in correcting his deficiencies, including videos, journals and publications. In addition, he was given written instructions for use of the materials. Based on the unsatisfactory performance rating, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent on March 25, 1994: This letter is to notify you that you have demonstrated unsatisfactory performance on the Final Observation/Assessment Form (Appraisal I), with deficiencies noted in the folowing areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum These deficiencies must be corrected by April 1, 1995. I am requesting that your employ-ment be continued an additional year in order to provide you assistance. If you wish to discuss this matter with me further, please schedule an appointment through Mrs. Cannon. I look forward in continuing to work with you on classroom management issues. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same day. On March 31, 1994, principal McMullen wrote the following letter to superintendent Blaylock: Dr. Lallah Singh has been notified of unsatis- factory performance on the Final Assessment Form with deficiencies noted in the following areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum I request that his employment be followed for an additional year to allow the opportunity to correct these deficiencies by April 1, 1995. Whether respondent received a copy of this letter is not of record. Although the March 14, 1994 evaluation was ostensibly used for personnel decisions that year, on May 6, 1994, a third formal assessment of respondent's classroom performance was conducted by principal McMullen. On that date, he received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Even so, respondent was still deficient in "Classroom Management" and the related indicator based on unacceptable ratings given for the following observable teaching behaviors: "Maintains rules of conduct" and "Maintains instructional momentum." Thus, no matter whether the March or May evaluation was used, at the end of the first school year in question, respondent's only noted deficiency continued to be for classroom management and the related indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." On May 10, 1994, respondent and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's latest assessment. Although McMullen noted that respondent had made "progress in meeting recommended procedures to help correct areas of concern," he noted that his level of improvement was "still not acceptable" and that respondent must continue the earlier suggestions for improving his performance. The two agreed to meet during the next school year's pre-planning period to discuss a plan of improvement for that year. This was embodied in a letter sent by McMullen to respondent on May 11, 1994. Sometime after receiving this notification, respondent contacted his local teacher's union representative, Willie Veal, Jr., for advice and assistance. On April 21, 1994, acting on the superintendent's recommendation, the Board reemployed respondent for the following year and placed him in a status known as "Professional Services Contract continuation (2nd year)," which is the Board's terminology for the "subsequent year" described in section 231.36(3)(e). Respondent did not receive a copy of this action. On June 7, 1994, however, respondent received a letter from the superintendent advising that the Board had approved him for a PSC for school year 1994-95. School year 1994-95 On August 19, 1994, respondent, union representative Veal, and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's teaching status for the 1994-95 school year. At that meeting, respondent learned he would be reassigned to ISS but would also be required to teach general science one period per day. Although respondent says general science was not his strongest suit, which was mathematics, it was a subject within his certified area of biology. He also understood that his contract was subject to being non-renewed if he did not correct his deficiencies during the school year. This was confirmed by witness Veal. The following letter was given to respondent on August 29, 1994, to memorialize the substance of the meeting: Thank you for meeting with me while Mr. Veal had a moment last Friday (August 19th., 1994) to generally discuss plans for teaching improvement for the 1994-95 school year. As we discussed, I believe the opportunity to teach a General Science class and Mr. Brown spending two periods a days (sic) with I.S.S. students (doing Drop-Out Prevention counseling) will be two positive techniques to aid improvement as noted on the Appraisal II Form from last year. You and I will meet again soon, to review matters particular to unacceptable areas noted on the May 6th., 1994 Observation/ Assessment. We will then outline other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist this teacher improve- ment process. On November 15, 1994, respondent was sent the following letter by principal McMullen: As we discussed at our 8/25/94 (sic) meeting, and briefly the other day, we need to meet this coming week to discuss items noted on the Appraisal II Form. We will review the items which were unacceptable on the 5/6/94 Observation/Assessment Form. Can a meeting between you and I be set up for Tuesday afternoon, about 2:30 in your room? Please let me know. Pursuant to this letter, a meeting was held on November 20, 1994. During the meeting, principal McMullen further discussed respondent's deficient areas in the prior year and suggested ways to improve them. He also recommended that informal observations be made in an effort to prepare respondent for his formal observations during the following months. While respondent contends this assistance was begun too late in the school year to be of any meaningful value, it was rendered more than four months before the final evaluation on March 29, 1995. Then, too, respondent's most persistent problem continued to be in the area of classroom management, for which assistance to remedy that problem had been offered throughout the previous year. On December 12, 1994, principal McMullen conducted the first of four observations of respondent's performance in his general science classroom. That classroom, rather than the ISS class, was chosen out of fairness to respondent in order to assess him in a controlled classroom environment. On that day, respondent received a score of 7 out of 12 possible points. More specifically, he received an unacceptable rating for the following indicators: "Uses instructional materials effectively," "Displays skills in making assignments," "Recognizes and provides for individual differences," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The following day, or December 13, 1994, petitioner was placed in the level-two assistance process. He was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance observed at the December 12 evaluation and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct each of those deficiencies. Late on the morning of the same day, or December 13, 1994, principal McMullen walked by the building in which respondent taught and "noticed (him) sleeping at (his) desk" with his shoes off and leaning back in his chair. There were four students in his classroom at the time. Respondent was given a letter confirming this incident and told that if he had a medical reason which caused him to sleep to provide the principal with a doctor's note by December 16, 1994. Respondent provided a letter from his doctor the following day in which the physician listed four medications being taken by respondent, none of which would cause him to sleep. However, the physician noted that respondent "occasionally" took an over the counter cough syrup "that may cause drowsiness." Whether respondent was taking a cough syrup that day is not of record. This incident is relevant to the charge that respondent did not properly manage his classroom. On January 24, 1995, principal McMullen again performed an assessment of respondent's classroom performance. On this occasion, respondent received a score of 10 out of a possible 12 points. He received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." On January 27, 1995, and pursuant to the level-two assistance program, respondent was again given a written, detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and a list of recommended procedures for correction. He was told that he would be reevaluated on or about February 17, 1995. Finally, respondent was given the following written notice: Failure to satisfactorily correct all area(s) of unacceptable performance within the expected timeframe may result in returning the teacher holding a CC/PSC contract to annual contract status. If area(s) of unacc- eptable performance are not satisfactorily corrected during the second year, the teacher may be recommended for non-renewal. On February 21, 1995, another classroom observation was conducted by principal McMullen. That day, respondent received a score of 10 out of 12 possible points. Respondent again received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." At a conference the same date, respondent was advised in writing that the following administrative assistance would be rendered: "Arrange conference time with fellow teachers/administrators, help secure resource materials and arrange for time to visit (illegible), etc." Respondent was also told that "(b)y April 5th (approximately six weeks), 1995 all observed/assessed areas should be scored acceptable." In addition, respondent was given a more detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and recommended procedures for correction of those areas. On March 13, 1995, principal McMullen acknowledged receipt of certain corrective measures which respondent proposed to use at his next observation. These corrective measures were considered by principal McMullen at the next observation. A final observation of respondent occurred on March 29, 1995. Respondent received three unacceptable ratings which resulted in a score of 9 out of 12 points. On that occasion, he received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Uses appropriate motivating techniques," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The second noted indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitiation and control," was the same indicator for which respondent had received an unacceptable rating the prior year. On March 30, 1995, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent: This letter refers to our meeting today on your 3/29/95 Observation/Evaluation. Having gone over that with you, I wanted to highlight the fact that you still have three areas deficient in evaluation of your classroom teaching. These areas are noted on your evaluation form. Instructional recommendations are due to the Superintendent April 1, 1995. Due to this being the second year in the process to correct noted deficiencies and those continue, I have no choice but to recommend non-renewal at that time. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same date. On March 31, 1995, principal McMullen notified the superintendent by letter that he could not recommend respondent for the 1995-96 school year term given his failure to correct the deficiencies. The superintendent accordingly recommended to the school board on April 21, 1995, that respondent not be rehired for the following school year. The recommendation was accepted by the school board at its April 25, 1995 meeting. On May 15, 1995, the superintendent advised respondent by letter that his contract was not being renewed for the following school year. This notice prompted respondent to request a formal hearing to contest the school board's proposed action. Was There Adequate Notice, Evaluation and Assistance? Notice Respondent contends that the school board erred by giving him inadequate and untimely notice of its actions. At the same time, respondent asserts that he was unaware of the consequences of the unsatisfactory performance ratings in school year 1993-94. He claims that, before the middle of school year 1994-95, no one ever specifically told him that his employment status was in jeopardy if his deficiences were not corrected by the following school year. Respondent's contention that he was unaware of the consequences of the 1993-94 unsatisfactory rating is not deemed to be credible. As early as 1992, respondent was given an explanation on how section 231.36(3)(e) "worked" by a field representative of the teacher's union, and according to the representative, "knew exactly what the law provided." Based on that advice, he switched from a continuing contract to a PSC since he had been told that this would give him two years to correct deficiencies before his employment could be terminated. Beginning in the summer of 1994, he was also represented by the president of the Suwannee County teacher's union, Willie Veal, Jr. At a meeting with Veal and principal McMullen in August 1994, respondent was told that he must correct his deficiencies before the end of the school year or face non- renewal. In addition, respondent had been through a similar evaluation process several years earlier. In 1992, he received an unsatisfactory performance rating and was told that unless the deficiencies were corrected, his contract might be terminated. In that case, however, the deficiencies were corrected, and he retained his tenure under a PSC. Finally, each of the many assessment forms that respondent signed during this process specifically noted that his "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to (his) dismissal or non-renewal." Therefore, the totality of the evidence belies respondent's contention that he did not understand that this could happen. Statutory requirements The school board did not strictly follow all requirements of the law in terminating respondent. For example, the law requires that the superintendent provide the teacher in writing "no later than 6 weeks prior to the end of the postschool conference school period, of performance deficiencies which may result in termination of employment, if not corrected during the subsequent year of employment." In this case, respondent received this notice from his principal, rather than the superintendent. However, such notice was sufficient to inform respondent of the gravity of the situation. In the subsequent year, or school year 1994-95, the same notice must again be provided to the employee "no later than 6 weeks prior to the close of the postschool conference period." In this case, the notice was given by the superintendent, but this occurred less than "6 weeks prior to the postschool conference period." Although several errors in procedure occurred during the termination process, they were not so serious as to impair the fairness of this proceeding, or to cause prejudice to respondent in the defense of this case. Therefore, the errors in procedure are deemed to be harmless. Evaluation and Assistance The statute also calls for the employee to be "provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." However, the specific type of assistance and opportunties to be afforded a teacher is not statutorily defined. Respondent contends that such assistance and opportunities were never provided. Beginning with his first evaluation in February 1994, respondent was given assistance in the form of specific suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies. Also, numerous principal-teacher conferences were held to discuss the observation findings. After the March 14, 1994 evaluation, respondent was given a lengthy list of videos, journals and publications to use in an effort to correct his deficiencies. He was also given written instructions for the use of the materials. At the beginning of school year 1994-95, respondent had a pre-school meeting with both his principal and union representative concerning this matter. He also met with the principal on November 20, 1994, and the two discussed "other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist (his) teacher improvement process." Following an evaluation on December 12, 1994, respondent was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct those deficiencies. After another evaluation on February 21, 1995, respondent was again given advice on how to correct his deficiencies before the next evaluation. Although respondent says he took this advice to heart, and did all of the things suggested by his principal, he was still unable to obtain an acceptable rating. The Board, however, cannot be faulted for respondent's continued inability to correct the cited deficiencies. Through his expert, respondent contended that the evaluation and assistance process was not adequate. In reaching this conclusion, the expert relied upon her experience in the States of Georgia and Texas, as well as Dade and Seminole Counties, Florida. She did not, however, have any teacher remediation experience in small, rural counties such as Suwannee. The expert pointed out that a peer teacher did not assist the principal in performing the evaluations and making subsequent recommendations on how to correct the deficiencies. But there is no requirement that more than one person conduct the evaluation, and respondent (and his union representative) did not request that someone other than principal McMullen perform the observation. The expert further contended the Board should have assigned a peer teacher to assist respondent throughout this process. She also recommended that the Board send him to various seminars relating to his deficient areas. Again, however, there is no statutory requirement that a school board provide this type of assistance, especially when other forms of assistance and opportunities being given the teacher are adequate. Finally, the criticism that the Board did not adequately formalize its planned assistance measures into a written document is deemed to be unavailing. Because the assistance and opportunties provided respondent were adequate, the Board met its statutory obligation to provide "assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." Summary After being evaluated in a fair and impartial manner, and receiving timely and adequate notice of his deficiencies, as well as adequate assistance and opportunities to correct those flaws, respondent did not remediate a noted performance standard and related indicator during two consecutive school years. Therefore, the Board could properly change respondent's contract status from PSC to annual at the end of school year 1994-95 and decline to renew his contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order terminating respondent from employment by not renewing his 1995-96 contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2988 Respondent: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 9-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being unnecessary. 15-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 18-19. Rejected as being unnecessary. 20-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 22-35. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-20. 36-56. Partially accepted in findings of fact 21-34. 57-67. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-46. 68-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 35-37. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Victor Africano, Esquire P. O. Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060-1450 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Charles F. Blaylock, Jr. Superintendent Suwannee County School Board 224 West Parshley Street Live Oak, Florida 32060-2396 Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a speech-language pathologist employed by the Dade County Public schools. In April, 1986, she took the Communication Disorders Examination as part of her candidacy for the designation of associate master teacher pursuant to the 1985-86 State Master Teacher Program. She received a raw score of 90, which placed her in the 74th percentile on the examination. She challenges the best correct answers to questions numbered 72, 81, 95, and 117 on that examination. She also believes that she should receive credit for her answer to question numbered 33, which question was deleted from the examination prior to the examination being graded. The examination was not a test for beginning teachers or a minimum competency test. Rather, the purpose of the examination was to recognize the superior ability of experienced teachers. Excelling on the examination would require experience in a public school setting. The examination was a state-wide examination, reflecting state-wide policy issues and state guidelines. Under no circumstances was one school district's manuals or policies allowed to control the selection of the best answer to each of the multiple-choice questions. The Master Teacher Communication Disorders Examination was administered for the first time in March/April of 1986. A task force of professionals in communication disorders was selected to prepare a test blueprint defining the various topics to be covered by the examination and the relative weights to be given each. The writing team, although highly experienced in examination preparation, received training on how to write examination questions in order that uniform standards be utilized by each member of that committee. Questions were written by various members of the committee and reviewed by all other members of the committee. The questions were further reviewed by staff members of the Institute of Instructional Research and Practice at the University of South Florida, the unit designated by the legislature to assist Respondent in the creation of examinations pursuant to the Master Teacher's Program. Additionally, some questions were taken from the Georgia Beginning Teacher Competency Examination which has been extensively validated. After the questions were approved by all members of the writing team and had been edited to conform to national examination guidelines, they were submitted to a validation team which independently reviewed each of the test questions in the test pool. The persons involved in both the development and validation of the test questions were practitioners in the field. After the questions in the test pool were further refined by the validation team, they were submitted to "keyers", more practitioners in the field to ascertain if those persons would all agree on the best correct answer. Those questions which made it through the editing, validating, and keying processes without disagreement as to the best correct answer remained in the test pool. Pilot tests were then administered in a further effort to validate each item on the examination. The end product was an examination composed of questions and answers with subtle distinctions in order to identify the advanced or top-level teacher for merit pay. Since it was a merit pay test, it was impossible to field test the examination prior to its first administration since the people who would likely be candidates to take the test would be the only persons with whom the examination could be field tested. Accordingly, the first administration of the test became the field test, and the processees that would normally be done in a field test took place in the first administration. The test was administered and then scored but no individual candidate's data was processed at that time. Each test item was first statistically analyzed on the basis of pyschometric standards in order to determine the examination's reliability and validity. Any test items with unusual statistics were removed from the processing. Thereafter, the candidates' raw scores were obtained. Petitioner challenges herein the deletion of question numbered 33 from the examination. Question 33 was deleted prior to the actual scoring of the examination. The decision to delete question number 33 from the examination was made prior to the first administration of the test since disagreement had developed during the development and validation phase as to the best correct answer for that question. Question number 33 was simply not scored. The deletion of question number 33 from the examination without scoring that question was proper and in accordance with professional testing guidelines. Petitioner failed to select the best correct answer to questions numbered 72, 81, 95 and 117 on the examination. Although Petitioner defends her answers to two of those questions by relying upon Dade County policies, guidlines for any particular county were properly irrelevant in the determination of the best correct answer to those questions on this state-wide examination. The Communication Disorders Examination of March/April, 1986, was a valid and reliable test. It was properly administered, and it was graded correctly. It cannot be determined that one more correct answer by Petitioner would have raised her score so that she would have been in the 75th percentile on the examination. The legislature mandated that only persons receiving scores in the top 25 percent would receive merit pay, not that anyone with a score of 75 or better would pass the examination. Once the scores were computed for each candidate, a percentile ranking was then established in order to determine those persons with scores in the top quartile. Petitioner did not rank within the top quartile. No evidence was offered to show that Petitioner's percentile ranking would be effected favorably by her receiving credit for any of her incorrect answers. It is as likely that Petitioner's percentile ranking would have been affected unfavorably or not at all.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's appeal of her raw score and percentile ranking on the March/April, 1986, Communication Disorders Examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Castor, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Bruce Lamchick, Esquire 10725 Southwest 104th Street Killian Parkway Miami, Florida 33176 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. MacKenzie, Esquire Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent's continuing contract of employment with the Petitioner should be terminated for incompetency or for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as an elementary school classroom teacher pursuant to a continuing contract of employment. Respondent is 57 years of age and has been a classroom teacher for a total of 29 years. She began working for Petitioner during the 1975-76 school year and has worked under a continuing contract since August 1980. Prior to that time, she was a classroom teacher in Winter Park, Florida. In 1980, Respondent's principal observed that Respondent was habitually tardy at the work site and had difficulty accepting criticism. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent's principal found Respondent to be deficient in classroom management, student-teacher relationships, instructional techniques, and supportive characteristics. Efforts to have Respondent correct these deficiencies were unsuccessful. A prescription of assigned activities was developed in an effort to help Respondent to correct these deficiencies. Respondent was required to attend a teacher education course in classroom management to obtain ideas on how to better manage her class. Respondent failed to complete that course. She also failed to follow administrative directives that she arrive at school on time and that she maintain anecdotal records for students. Respondent's poor teaching performance and insubordinate behavior in failing to follow directives led Respondent's principal to recommend that her employment be terminated. No action was taken on that recommendation. There was no evidence as to Respondent's job performance between the 1983-84 school year and the 1991-92 school year. From 1991 through 1993, Respondent was assigned to teach a second grade class at Palm Springs North Elementary (Palm Springs). Dawn Hurns was the Respondent's principal at Palm Springs and Raquel Montoya was her assistant principal. Respondent frequently took her class to lunch earlier than scheduled and picked her class up from lunch after the period had expired. Ms. Montoya directed Respondent to adhere to her lunch schedule. Respondent failed to comply with that directive. On February 6, 1992, Ms. Montoya advised Respondent that her continued failure to adhere to administrative directives would result in formal disciplinary action being taken against her. During the 1992-93 school year, Ms. Hurns observed Respondent's performance and noted deficiencies pertaining to record keeping, attendance, tardiness, and organizational skills. After formally observing Respondent's deficient classroom performance, Ms. Hurns met with Respondent and gave her an opportunity to work on her deficiencies. In subsequent observations, both Ms. Hurns and Ms. Montoya found Respondent's performance to be deficient. In an attempt to remedy her unacceptable performance in the classroom, Respondent was provided prescriptive activities designed to improve her classroom management. On November 2, 1992, Ms. Hurns issued Respondent a memorandum addressing her chronic tardiness to school and her failure to notify the school of her expected tardiness in violation of her professional responsibilities. As a result of frequent tardiness, Respondent's students were often left unattended on the basketball court where they assembled before school began. Ms. Hurns often had to escort Respondent's students to their classroom in the absence of the Respondent. Ms. Hurns held a "Conference for the Record" (CFR) with Respondent on December 10, 1992, to address her unacceptable performance and to notify her that continued unacceptable performance would yield an unacceptable annual evaluation. Ms. Hurns also offered Respondent assistance in correcting her deficiencies, including a referral to the Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Although two meetings were scheduled for Respondent at the EAP, Respondent did not attend either meeting and did not take advantage of the EAP. By December 21, 1992, Respondent had received two unacceptable observations, which yielded an unacceptable summative assessment as established by Petitioner's Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). 2/ On January 13, 1993, Ms. Hurns completed a TADS summative assessment form that found Respondent's classroom performance unacceptable in three out of seven categories. The first category was "Knowledge of Subject Matter" with the observed deficiency being ineffective presentation of the subject matter. The second category was "Teacher-Student Relationships" with the observed deficiency being the failure to attempt to systematically involve all students in class activities. The third category was "Assessment Techniques" with the observed deficiency being the failure to properly record grades for students. Ms. Hurns observed Respondent's grade books and discovered that, except for one or two grades in reading, there were no grades or other assessment of the students' work over a period of nine weeks. Respondent was directed to follow the prescribed grading policy, which required a teacher to have at lease one grade per week for each subject area. It was impossible to adequately assess students' work with such few grades or with no grades at all. In addition to the foregoing, Respondent continued to be absent or tardy without excuse. On January 14, 1993, Ms. Hurns held a CFR with Respondent to discuss Respondent's lack of compliance with her professional responsibilities, her irregular attendance, and her frequent tardiness. At the CFR, Respondent was directed to notify an administrator of her intent to be absent or tardy to school, to provide lesson plans for her substitutes, and to provide grades for her students. By memorandum dated February 17, 1993, after a prolonged absence by Respondent, Ms. Hurns advised Respondent of her continuing failure to complete her prescribed activities, and her continuing lack of attendance. Ms. Hurns directed Respondent to either take a leave of absence and notify the school when she expected to return or to resign. On March 8, 1993, Ms. Montoya notified Respondent of her continued disregard for administrative directives. After a parent requested to see proof of her daughter's lack of academic progress in Respondent's classroom and complained of Respondent's refusal to assist the parent in improving her child's performance, Respondent was directed by Ms. Montoya to provide the parent with a daily progress report on the student's performance. Respondent failed to comply with this directive. On March 11, 1993, Ms. Hurns formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and noted that Respondent had not complied with School Board rules, labor contract provisions, and school site rules. Respondent did not maintain accurate student records pertaining to grades for her students, she had not completed her prescriptive activities, and she continued to be absent on a frequent basis. Ms. Hurns held another CFR with Respondent on March 11, 1993, and told her that her continuing failure to comply with the administrative directives given January 14, 1993, constituted gross insubordination. As a result of Respondent having obtained two unacceptable summative assessments, Ms. Hurns requested that Petitioner send to Palm Springs a trained observer to conduct an observation of the Respondent's performance. In response to that request, Norma Bossard, a Language Arts supervisor who had been trained as a TADS observer, was sent by Petitioner to observe the Respondent. Ms. Hurns was present when Ms. Bossard conducted her formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance. Both Ms. Hurns and Ms. Bossard found Respondent's performance to be unacceptable in the following categories: "Preparation and Planning," "Knowledge of the Subject Matter," "Techniques of Instruction," and "Assessment Techniques". During the external observation, Respondent gave a lesson on spelling that lasted approximately an hour longer than it should have. Respondent also failed to give her students a pretest to determine whether the spelling lesson was even necessary. The external review by Ms. Bossard was consistent with the observations made by Ms. Hurns as to deficiencies in the Respondent's job performance. Ms. Bossard concluded that Respondent was wasting the time of her students. Ms. Bossard observed that Respondent appeared to be very wide-eyed and disoriented. On April 19, 1993, a CFR was held with Respondent at the Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards to address her unacceptable performance in the classroom, her insubordination in the form of her continued noncompliance with directives relating to her assigned prescriptive activities, and her excessive absences and chronic tardiness. At this CFR, Respondent was again directed to comply with previous administrative directives, and was informed that such compliance had become a condition of her continued employment. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, Respondent had been absent at least 59 days and had been tardy on at least 31 occasions. Despite being specifically told to do so, Respondent frequently failed to call the school and inform school administrators that she would either be absent or tardy. Although Respondent was chronically absent from the work site, she failed to provide lesson plans for substitute teachers. Respondent's persistent absenteeism, failure to provide lesson plans, and lack of assessment of students' work had a detrimental impact on the students assigned to her classroom. As a result of Respondent's continued unacceptable classroom performance, her failure to remediate her deficiencies and her failure to comply with administrative directives, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation by Ms. Hurns. Ms. Hurns submitted a recommendation that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Ms. Hurns had intended to hold a CFR with Respondent to address her unacceptable annual evaluation, but Respondent was absent from school for an extended period of time and the CFR was not held. On July 7, 1993, Petitioner suspended Respondent's employment on the grounds of gross insubordination and incompetency and instituted these proceedings to terminate her continuing contract. Petitioner established that there was a continuing refusal to comply with administrative directives by Respondent and that she failed to abide by procedures for maintaining adequate grading of the work of her students, did not provide appropriate lesson plans, and failed to take advantage of the prescriptive activities assigned for her performance improvement. Respondent's considerable and excessive absences from the classroom and her failure to provide lesson plans and properly grade students' work resulted in a failure to communicate with and relate to her students to such an extent that Respondent failed to provide her students with a minimum educational experience. Despite the fact that Respondent was given ample opportunities to correct her behavior, she constantly and intentionally refused to obey direct orders to contact administrators when she was going to be absent or tardy, to provide lesson plans for her substitutes, and to maintain grades for her students. Ms. Hurns and the other administrators involved in evaluating Respondent's performance, took reasonable measures to communicate directly with Respondent about her classroom deficiencies and her attendance. At the formal hearing, Respondent testified that she became confused and disoriented and conceded that she had difficulty working. Respondent introduced evidence in an attempt to establish that her poor job performance was caused by medical problems. Under the Respondent's health care system, Respondent was required to obtain a referral for health care services from her primary physician who was, at the times pertinent hereto, Dr. Olive Chung-James. Dr. Chung-James saw Respondent several times starting in February 1993, for various symptoms and illnesses. In May 1993, Dr. Chung-James, who had been treating Respondent for respiratory problems and vomiting, recommended that Respondent seek psychological counselling because she thought the Respondent was stressed out. After the suspension of her employment in July 1993, Respondent met by coincidence a certified psychologist named Lani Kaskel. Respondent called Dr. Kaskel several times before she was able to arrange an appointment. Because Respondent had not been referred to Dr. Kaskel by Dr. Chung-James, the Respondent's health insurance did not pay for her visit to Dr. Kaskel. When Dr. Kaskel examined the Respondent, the Respondent was in a weak condition, somewhat disoriented, and clearly depressed. Respondent was seeking help and appeared overwhelmed. Dr. Kaskel suggested to Respondent that she might have an organic feature to the depression she was experiencing and referred her to Luis Escovar, a clinical psychologist who had been approved by Respondent's insurance plan. Respondent was referred to Dr. Kenneth Fischer, who is board certified in neurology by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Dr. Fischer's records reflects that Respondent presented herself with a history of personality disorder and headaches. Dr. Fischer conducted a series of tests to determine if there was a physical cause for the headaches she was experiencing, including a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) test, which was abnormal. The MRI revealed an area of the brain with decreased density which was interpreted by the consulting radiologist to be a low-grade tumor. Following his examination of the Respondent, Dr. Fischer was of the opinion that Respondent had either an ischemic process stroke or a brain tumor. His tests were inconclusive, and he could not testify that Respondent's poor performance and her failure to follow directives were attributable to organic causes. Respondent testified that during the 1992-93 school year she got behind in her work and she had trouble finishing her work and the prescriptions mandated by the school administrators. She testified that she did not willfully fail to meet the performance expectations, but that she could not do so because she was ill. Dr. Luis Escovar, a psychologist who treated the Respondent and who performed a series of psychological testing, expressed the opinion that on February 14, 1994, the Respondent was physically and mentally able to return to her employment as a classroom teacher. Respondent asserts that Respondent's poor classroom performance was due to an illness and that she should have been placed on sick leave. Respondent's assertion is rejected for two reasons. First, the medical testimony is speculative and does not establish that Respondent's poor job performance and failure to follow directives were caused by a stroke or by a brain tumor. Second, while Respondent testified that she sought sick leave, she offered no evidence as to whom this request was made, the date the request was made, the duration of the leave requested, the manner in which the leave was requested, or any other circumstances of the request. In light of the many offers of assistance that were made to the Respondent, which she repeatedly declined, it is found that Respondent did not establish that she made a proper request for sick leave that was refused by the administrators of Palm Springs. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order which adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which terminates the Respondent's continuing contract of employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate the professional service contract of Respondent due to a failure to correct performance deficiencies during the 90-calendar-day probationary period.
Findings Of Fact Respondent entered the teaching profession after working 17 years as a bartender. She earned her undergraduate degree in education--specifically, learning disabilities and varying exceptionalities--and obtained her first teaching job at Gulfstream Elementary School in 1995. For her first eight years at Gulfstream, Respondent taught a physically impaired class. These are small classes of less than ten students with health or medical disabilities. Many of the students cannot walk or talk. With a paraprofessional and sometimes a fulltime aid, Respondent taught substantially the same students from year to year. The focus of much of the instruction was upon daily living skills, such as reading the signs on restrooms and businesses. In 1996, Respondent developed inoperable Stage IV nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eight months of radiation therapy scarred Respondent's airway. When Respondent returned to school after a five-month leave of absence, she, like many of her students, wore a feeding tube and relied on a vocal amplification device. Respondent made the most of these characteristics that she now shared with some of her students, encouraging them to overcome their disabilities as she was doing. In the physically impaired class, Respondent taught most of the students on a one-on-one basis. Rarely did she have to address the entire class as part of classroom instruction. For this reason, Respondent was little handicapped by her speech difficulties, which arose due to the cancer treatment. Even today, loud speech is nearly impossible for Respondent, who, to generate speech, must press against her throat to produce a gaspy speech that requires close attention to understand. A new principal arrived at Gulfstream for the 2002-03 school year. The new principal, who had previously been an assistant principal for eight years and a teacher for nine years, found Respondent's performance unsatisfactory in several respects. Respondent was often late arriving to school and failed to perform her duties on the bus ramp. Respondent often left her paraprofessional alone with the physically impaired class. To monitor the behavior of the child, Respondent sometimes brought her high-school aged daughter to school without permission. Overall, the principal found that Respondent seemed unenthusiastic about teaching. Believing that Respondent might have been depressed, the principal referred Respondent to the Employee Assistance Program. Thinking that a change in assignment might rekindle Respondent's enthusiasm for her job, for the 2003-04 school year, the principal switched the assignments of Respondent and another teacher, so that the other teacher would teach Respondent's physically impaired class, and Respondent would teach a varying exceptionalities class. Neither teacher had requested a new assignment. Respondent's varying exceptionalities class began the 2003-04 school year with 14 students. Eventually, the principal reduced the class to nine students. Respondent had the help of only a part-time paraprofessional. The wide range of cognitive abilities of the students meant that some students could only identify their names in print, and some students could read and write. Students in the varying exceptionalities class were in several classifications, such as educably mentally handicapped, traumatic brain injury, and autistic. By sometime in October 2003, the assistant principal had twice observed Respondent teaching her class. The assistant principal had concerns about Respondent's classroom management and recordkeeping. The assessments and evaluations in this case are based on the Petitioner's Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System (PACES). In conjunction with the statutory 90-calendar-day probationary period, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the PACES assessments follow a format. A PACES-trained evaluator conducts an initial observation not of record. If the teacher fails to meet standards, the evaluator goes over the findings with the teacher, offers a Professional Growth Team to provide assistance in eliminating any deficiencies, and advises that she will conduct another evaluation in a month. If the teacher meets standards on the second evaluation, which is known as the first observation of record, the teacher reverts to the normal evaluation scheme applicable to all teachers, and the first negative observation is essentially discarded. If the teacher fails to meet standards on the first observation of record, she is placed on performance probation for 90 days. The evaluator conducts a Conference for the Record and gives the teacher a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP). During the probationary period, the evaluator conducts other observations, and, at the end of the period, the evaluator conducts a final observation. If the teacher still fails to meet standards, then the evaluator conducts a confirmatory observation within 14 days after the end of the probationary period. If the teacher still fails to meet standards, the principal may recommend termination to the Superintendent. PACES assessments cover six domains: Planning for Teaching and Learning (Domain I), Managing the Learning Environment (Domain II), Teacher/Learner Relationships (Domain III), Enhancing and Enabling Learning (Domain IV), Enabling Thinking (Domain V), and Classroom-Based Assessments of Learning (Domain VI). Each of these domains comprises three to five components, for which the evaluator determines whether the teacher meets standards. If the evaluator determines that the teacher fails to meet standards as to a component, the evaluator circles a listed indicator, so that the teacher may readily identify authoritative sources of information, such as the PACES binder provided to each teacher or videotapes in the District office, that will assist her in curing a particular deficiency. The assistant principal conducted the initial observation not of record on October 14, 2003. She determined that Respondent failed to meet standards for 18 of the 21 components. Respondent met standards only in Components III.A, IV.C, and VI.A. Respectively, these are Interpersonal Relations, which is the teacher's respect for the students; Resources for Learning, which is the teacher's use of teaching aids and learning materials; and Monitoring Engagement and/or Involvement in Learning, which is the teacher's monitoring of the student's engagement during learning tasks. Among the more significant deficiencies reflected in the October 14 evaluation are that Respondent lacked lesson plans and failed to manage the learning environment. To help with these and other deficiencies, the assistant principal offered Respondent a Professional Growth Team and referred her to her PACES binder, which would describe each deficient item and suggest strategies to eliminate each deficiency. For her part, Respondent had tried to deal with her new assignment by grouping the children, where appropriate, by cognitive ability. In September or October, she was able to send one student to regular education. On November 5, 2003, the assistant principal returned to perform the first observation of record. She found Respondent reading a Thanksgiving story to the eight students who were present in her class. Respondent would read one sentence and ask a question about it. By using this approach, Respondent took one hour to read a story that should have taken five minutes to read. Each time that she stopped and asked a question about the preceding sentence, Respondent undermined the continuity of the story. Also, all of her questions tested the students' memory; none of them required higher-order thinking, as would be required by questions asking how or why something happened. Despite these shortcomings in Respondent's teaching, the assistant principal determined that Respondent had met standards in all of Domains I, II, III, and VI. However, Respondent failed to meet standards in all components of Domains IV and V, including the one component in Domain IV for which she had previously met standards. However, Respondent performed considerably better in this observation than in the previous observation--meeting standards in 13 of 21 components as opposed to meeting standards in 3 of 21 components three weeks earlier. In the ensuing Conference for the Record, the assistant principal prepared a PIP for Respondent and again recommended that she take advantage of the Professional Growth Team for assistance in eliminating the deficiencies. Dated November 14, 2003, the PIP is a detailed documentation of each deficiency noted in the November 5 observation. The November 14 PIP describes what Respondent did or did not do, as to each deficiency. The PIP also contains specific recommendations to eliminate each deficiency. The number of deficiencies is misleading, at least as an indicator of the scope of the teaching that was subject to the evaluation. The Thanksgiving story, described above, spawned all eight of the observed deficiencies. Respondent's reliance exclusively upon simple recall questions yielded five deficiencies. (One of these deficiencies also relies on Respondent's failure to correct a child who replied to the question of what sound that turkeys make, by answering, "quack, quack." Absent more context, it is possible that Respondent's failure to correct this answer was an attempt not to reward attention-getting behavior.) One of the remaining three deficiencies criticizes Respondent for introducing the Thanksgiving story with an open-ended question, "This is November. What do you think happens in November?" Another deficiency, which focuses on the one-sentence, one-question approach of Respondent to the story, faults Respondent for omitting hands-on activities. The last deficiency notes that Respondent held up a small piece of paper showing the months of the year, but she failed to post the paper for the children to see. (This deficiency implies that Respondent's classroom lacks a posted calendar.) The detail of the November 5 PACES evaluation and November 14 PIP are undermined by the oddly narrow factual basis upon which they rest. Intended as a comprehensive statement of the deficiencies of an experienced teacher, these documents reveal that Petitioner has placed Respondent on probation because of an awkward reading of a Thanksgiving story to eight students over a period of about one hour. On December 11, 2003, the principal performed an observation. The principal found that Respondent met standards in Domains I, II, III, V, and VI, but not in three components of Domain IV: Initial Motivation to Learn, Teaching Methods and Learning Tasks, and Clarification of Content/Learning Tasks. Respectively, these components involve the identification of the learning objective, the use of logically sequenced teaching methods and learning tasks, and the use of different words or examples when clarification is required. The two components within Domain IV for which Respondent met standards are: Resources for Learning and Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy. The former component involves the use of learning materials to accommodate the range of individual differences among learners, and the latter component involves the creation of an opportunity to allow different learners to learn at different cognitive levels. The basis of the deficiencies was in Respondent's presentation of another story, Little Miss Muffet, although, this time, the problems centered more around her lead-in and follow-up activities. The PIP, dated December 17, 2003, which the principal prepared, notes that the pace of a writing activity worksheet was too slow for four of 11 students, who sat with nothing to do for ten minutes while waiting for their peers to finish; Respondent failed to correct a student who answered the question, "what are you afraid of," with "sock" (perhaps the same child who had said that turkeys quack); Respondent failed to correct a student who said that a paper was missing words when it was missing only letters; and Respondent failed to identify tasks associated with the story that would challenge all of the students, although Respondent used two worksheets-- one with missing words (presumably for the higher-functioning group) and one with missing letters (presumable for the lower- functioning group). On February 4, 2004, the assistant principal performed the next observation. She found that Respondent met standards in Domains I and III. She found that Respondent failed to meet standards in Components II.D, III.A, IV.A, IV.B, and VI.B. Respectively, these are Managing Environment in Learning, Interpersonal Relations, Initial Motivation to Learning, Teaching Methods and Learning Tasks, and Informal Assessment. During this observation, Respondent read a story on how to build a house. The reading level of the story was at least third-grade, but the students were in kindergarten and first grade. For 40 minutes, Respondent used actual house blueprints as a visual aid. As another visual aid, Respondent used blocks to depict a house, but she lacked sufficient blocks to finish the project. The story took one hour when it should have taken ten minutes. Consequently, students were out of their seats and trying to find something to do. On February 10, the assistant principal prepared a PIP. Although the contents of this PIP were not dissimilar to the contents of the previous PIPs, one new deficiency was Component III.A, Interpersonal Relations. The notes in the February 10 PIP state: "One learner was ridiculed by the teacher making remarks about her behavior to the classroom paraprofessional. Her remarks included, 'She's totally off the wall' and 'She has been horrendous today.' She also said to other learners not paying attention, 'I'm not going to talk to the air' and 'I'm waiting in case you didn't notice.'" The comments to the individual student were sarcastic and derogatory. In general, the principal found Respondent to be more enthusiastic in the 2003-04 school year than she had been in the previous school year. Respondent showed an improved attitude, but her classroom remained disorganized. Respondent had received considerable assistance from her Professional Growth Team, but the principal concluded that Respondent had still failed to meet standards. From Respondent's perspective, she felt that the principal had prejudged her and was running through the 90-calendar-day probationary period as an empty exercise. Respondent became increasingly nervous, as she repeatedly tried, and failed, to please the principal and assistant principal. At one point during the 90 days, Respondent restated her desire for a transfer, as she had made such a request the prior summer when she had learned of her new assignment, but the principal refused to give the request any consideration or determine if a transfer were feasible. At least once during the 90 days, Respondent's union representative asked the principal to transfer Respondent, but the principal refused, again without giving the request any consideration. In the meantime, Respondent's difficulties in the varying exceptionalities classroom were exacerbated by the removal, by October 2003, of her voice amplification system. On March 2, 2004, the principal, having determined that the 90 calendar days had expired, performed what she believed was the confirmatory observation. She found that Respondent failed to meet standards in eight components in Domains I, II, IV, and VI. Two days later, the principal informed Respondent that she would be recommending that the Superintendent terminate Respondent's professional service contract. Unfortunately, the principal had miscalculated the 90 days. Learning of this error, the principal discarded the March 2 evaluation and performed a new confirmatory observation on March 14 and again found that Respondent failed to meet standards. Two weeks later, Respondent failed to meet standards in six components in Domains II, IV, and V. Only three of the six deficiencies covered the same components in the March 2 observation: Components II.D, II.E, and IV.D, which are, respectively, Managing Engagement in Learning, Monitoring and Maintaining Learner Behavior, and Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy. In general, these were deficiencies at the start of the 90-day probationary period, but were eliminated during the 90-day probationary period, only to return again at the end. Following the March 14 confirmatory observation, the principal recommended that the Superintendent terminate the professional service contract of Respondent. On March 19, 2004, the Superintendent advised Respondent that he was going to recommend to Petitioner that it terminate her contract, and, on April 14, 2004, Petitioner did so. A recurring issue in this case is what is meant by failing to meet standards and, more importantly, unsatisfactory performance. Based on the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses, Petitioner contends that the failure to meet any single component within any of the domains of PACES is the failure to meet standards, and a failure to meet standards is invariably unsatisfactory performance, sufficient to place a teacher on 90- calendar-day performance probation or, if already on performance probation, sufficient to terminate a professional service contract. However, the PACES form does not so indicate, nor do Petitioner's online rules, of which the Administrative Law Judge has taken official notice. Petitioner has failed to prove what is an unsatisfactory performance under the PACES evaluation system. Absent the adoption of a rule to this effect, the isolated omission of a teacher, during a single observation, to provide suggestions to improve learning (Component VI.C) or to start a class or lesson precisely on time (Component II.A) would not constitute unsatisfactory performance, at least for the purpose of initiating the 90-calendar-day probationary period or terminating the professional service contract of a teacher already on performance probation. In this case, undermining the observations of the principal and assistant principal, especially where they appear to be based on discrete failures by Respondent, are the facts that neither supervisor has any significant training in exceptional student education, the principal has no experience teaching in exceptional student education, and the assistant principal has limited experience in teaching exceptional student education. By granting Petitioner's Motion for Official Recognition, the Administrative Law Judge acknowledges that, by letter dated September 24, 2001, the Florida Department of Education has approved PACES. (The identification of PACES is missing from the letter, but the Administrative Law Judge accepts the representation of Petitioner's counsel that PACES was the subject of this letter.) However, this letter approves PACES on its face, not as applied, and may have been based on more than two-page PACES evaluation form. The present record contains only the two-page form and testimony, unsupported by any documentation, that a single deficiency means that a teacher fails to meet standards and may be placed on probation, if the deficiency arises when the teacher is not on probation, or may be terminated, if the deficiency, even if different from the one that initiated probation, is present at the confirmatory observation. The record does not document the extent to which Respondent was in attendance at school during her 90-calendar- day probationary period. By her count, Respondent missed seven or eight workdays due to illness. Petitioner's calculation does not account for these missed days, and, if it had, the second confirmatory observation was premature too. The record contains some evidence of student achievement. As noted above, one student was transferred early in the 2003-04 school year from Respondent's varying exceptionalities class to a regular education classroom, but the proximity of this event to the start of the school year suggests that the student was probably misclassified at the start of the year. The mother of another student testified that Respondent helped her daughter make considerable academic progress. The student had undergone a tracheotomy and, consequently, speech delay. While in Respondent's class, the student was eager to attend school and learned to write her name for the first time. For the first time in school, the student was progressing. When the mother learned that Respondent was being terminated, she tried to contact the principal, but the principal declined to see her, claiming it was a personnel matter and implying that a parent had no role in such matters. The record contains the individual education plans (IEPs) of nine students. Typically, IEPs are prepared in the spring of each year, and, prior to the preparation of the next year's IEP, the IEP team closes out the preceding IEP by marking the extent to which the student has achieved the goals of his IEP. The IEP team also indicates progress during the year with respect to specific goals. A mark of "1" means mastery of the goal, a "2" means "adequate progress made; anticipate meeting goal by IEP end," a "3" means "some progress made; anticipate meeting goal by IEP end," and a "4" means "insufficient progress made; do not anticipate meeting goal by IEP end." The last relevant marks for some of the IEPs were January 2004, but some of them bore marks for March 2004. For all of the IEPs, exclusive of physical or occupational therapy, with which Respondent was not substantially involved, 11 goals were marked 2, 39 goals were marked 3, and 15 goals were marked 4. Five of the nine students for whom Petitioner produced IEPs received a mark of 4 on at least one goal in his or her IEP. But 11 of the 15 4's went to two students: one had four 4's, one 3, and one 2; and the other had seven 4's, two 3's, and one One student had two 4's, but also six 3's. Another student had one 4 and six 3's, and the fifth student had one 4 and three 3's. Thus, only two of the nine students were not making satisfactory progress while Respondent was teaching the class.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order rejecting the Superintendent's recommendation to terminate Respondent for unsatisfactory performance during the 2003-04 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Randolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 097813, Rank II, Post Graduate, valid through June 30, 1987, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Art Education, Early Child Education, Reading and Junior College. During the 1976-1977 school year Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher at Astoria Park Elementary School in Leon County, Florida. Petitioner received a suggestion of Respondent's incompetence from school officials in Leon County, Florida, on October 14, 1977, and pursuant to the authority contained in Rule 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, a professional inquiry into the allegation of Respondent's incompetence was conducted. On July 10, 1979, a report was submitted to the Executive Committee of Respondent which recommended that the Commissioner of Education find probable cause to believe that Respondent was guilty of acts constituting grounds for revocation or suspension of her teaching certificate. Pursuant to that recommendation, probable cause was found by the Commissioner on July 13, 1979. The filing of a petition seeking revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate was thereupon directed. On October 5, 1976, Respondent neglected to provide adequate or competent instructional plans for a substitute teacher, even though she had previously been advised by her principal that her absence from her classroom would be necessitated by a professional workshop; that a substitute would be required to conduct her classes; and that instructional plans for substitutes were essential to the accomplishment of the educational goals during her absence. On January 6, 1977, Respondent was warned in writing by her principal that, in accordance with school policy, adequate lesson plans for substitute teachers were necessary in order to insure a continued movement toward instructional goals for her students. Notwithstanding this warning, however, Respondent, during an absence necessitated by illness from January 31, 1977 through February 4, 1977, failed to leave adequate or comprehensible lesson plans and procedures for a substitute teacher. In fact, on various of the days during this time, no lesson plans whatever were left. On December 1, 1976, Respondent failed to deploy audio-visual equipment in a manner in which it could be heard by her class, failed to adequately explain the content of the material presented, and failed to use the equipment in a manner calculated to adequately instruct her students. During this same lesson, Respondent failed to utilize adequate techniques for the management of the behavior of her students, resulting in student behavior which interfered with instruction of her students. During the 1976-1977 school year, Respondent consistently maintained charts and visual teaching aids in her classroom in a disorganized and illogical manner, demonstrated poor enunciation and a lack of plural/singular distinction in the pronunciation of words, demonstrated incorrect letter formation and a lack of continuity of lessons from one day to the next. In addition, at various times during the 1976-1977 school year, in the process of grading and evaluating her class's test papers, homework and standardized test results, Respondent failed to accurately and adequately grade, evaluate and analyze her students' performance. As a result of Respondent's failure in this regard, her students were not properly advised of whether the tasks they had undertaken to learn were adequately understood, and were thus potentially permitted to retain inaccurate concepts of basic skills. Throughout academic year 1976-1977, Respondent consistently failed to utilize available instructional materials and equipment, such as student handouts, mimeograph materials and bulletin boards, in a manner calculated to accomplish the tasks for which those instructional aids were designed. In the use of such instructional aids, Respondent consistently misspelled words, used illegible manuscript, misused words and grammar, passed out sloppily prepared materials, and in general failed to utilize teaching techniques sufficient to assure that a particular task or subject was or could be understood by her students. In addition, Respondent consistently maintained her classroom in an unkempt and disorganized condition, despite reasonable requests and warnings from her principal. During this period Respondent constantly rearranged desks and seats in her classroom, causing confusion, disorientation, and general turbulence among her students. On December 3, 1976, Respondent publicly embarrassed one of her students by calling the student a "liar" when the student told Respondent that she had turned in a work assignment to Respondent. Respondent was apparently unable to locate the student's work at that time, but later found the paper on Respondent's desk. Despite this mistake, Respondent failed to apologize to the student or retract her criticism. At various times during the 1976-1977 school year, Respondent inflicted corporal punishment on her students by yanking them from their seats and/or shaking them, even though Respondent had repeatedly been instructed by her principal not to touch a student in any manner except as prescribed by school policy, and in the presence of other instructional or administrative personnel. Throughout academic year 1976-1977, until remedial action was taken by her principal, Respondent consistently failed to adequately and accurately explain her students' progress and goal achievement through evaluative methods and procedures made available to the students' parents. Further, Respondent consistently exhibited during this period incorrect and inappropriate grammar in class and in reports and other communications with her colleagues and students' parents. In addition, Respondent also displayed a cumulative lack of proper grammar and instructional skills, as well as a persistent lack of basic knowledge and inaccuracy in transmitting information in subject areas assigned to her class. On February 1, 1977, Respondent, in violation of school and district policy of which she had repeatedly been reminded, failed to report for school and failed to notify appropriate persons that she would be absent. Respondent was repeatedly counselled by her supervisors concerning her performance in an attempt to provide remedial assistance and advice. Respondent was issued repeated warnings that her persistence in the patterns and practices of conduct set forth above would result in disciplinary proceedings being instituted against her. As indicated earlier in this order, Respondent has asserted, as a defense to allegations of incompetency, that she suffered from medical and/or emotional or mental impairments during the 1976-1977 school year. However, the only medical testimony of record in this proceeding establishes that Respondent displays no gross psychiatric deviations, and is suffering from no diagnosable psychiatric disease.
The Issue The issues in this case revolve around the question whether Respondent's employment as a teacher in the Broward County Public School System should be terminated either for failure to correct identified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, or for just cause as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Clemons is an elementary school teacher. She entered the profession in 1972 after graduating from Florida A&M University. In addition to her bachelor's degree, Clemons holds a Teacher's Certificate from the Florida Department of Education. From 1972 until 1988, Clemons taught both in Florida public schools and (for seven of those years) in Department of Defense schools overseas. After a hiatus from teaching, 2/ Clemons returned to the classroom in October 1990 as a substitute teacher in the Broward County Public School System. She performed well enough in that capacity to be offered a full- time teaching position at North Side Elementary School ("North Side"), beginning in January of 1994. The following school year, Clemons transferred to Lauderdale Manors, joining the instructional staff in August of 1994 as a second grade teacher. There, she soon attracted the attention of Doris Bennett ("Bennett"), the school's new principal. Bennett, a classroom teacher for approximately 13 years before spending six years as an assistant principal at several Broward County elementary schools, had assumed the position of Lauderdale Manors' principal on July 1, 1994. By the end of September 1994, she was growing concerned about Clemons' apparent inability to control and manage her classroom. By law, each public school teacher in the state must be assessed at least once a year to determine how his or her performance measures against criteria that are required to be communicated in advance to all personnel. 3/ To perform this assessment, performance evaluators in the Broward County Public School District use a tool called the Instructional Personnel Assessment System ("IPAS"). The IPAS requires that a teacher be rated in ten "performance areas": "instructional planning," "lesson management," "lesson presentation," "student performance evaluation," "communication," "classroom management," "behavior management," "records management," "subject matter knowledge," and "professional competencies." A teacher's categorical ratings of "S - Satisfactory," "N - Needs Improvement," or "U - Unsatisfactory" are based on the assessor's determination of the teacher's compliance with various "performance indicators" prescribed for each performance area. In addition to, and based upon, the several categorical ratings, the teacher is assigned a single "overall performance rating." Bennett testified that one categorical rating of "U" would result in an overall "unsatisfactory" performance rating. In April 1995, toward the end of the 1994-95 school year (Clemons' first at Lauderdale Manors), Bennett completed Clemons' annual evaluation. Using the IPAS, Bennett rated Clemons "unsatisfactory" in two performance areas, namely, classroom management and behavior management. These negative marks resulted in Clemons receiving an overall performance rating of "U." Bennett recommended that Clemons be dismissed. Clemons' employment might have been terminated in 1995 but for the fact that on March 10, 1995, Bennett had signed a Final Assessment form attesting that, in her "professional opinion," Clemons had "successfully completed the Professional Orientation Program" for first-year teachers. Because Bennett's recommendation of dismissal followed so closely after a favorable assessment of Clemons' performance, it was not approved. Bennett assigned Clemons to a fifth grade class for the 1995-96 school year, reasoning that she might succeed with older children. Although Bennett and former Assistant Principal Roach both testified at hearing that Clemons' problems persisted, 4/ a contemporaneous record suggests that the teacher performed better in her second year at Lauderdale Manors than she had during her first. On May 31, 1996, Bennett signed an IPAS instrument showing that Clemons had received a "satisfactory" rating in all categories, earning an overall performance rating of "satisfactory." Bennett qualified this positive evaluation, however, with a recommendation that Clemons be offered another annual contract, rather than the more favorable professional service contract for which she was then eligible. The reason, Bennett wrote on the IPAS form, was that Clemons still needed "to work on improving classroom and behavior management skills." Bennett's recommendation was not approved. Instead, Clemons was promoted to professional service contract status for the 1996-97 school year. That year, Bennett put Clemons in charge of a fifth grade "drop-out prevention" class. The drop- out prevention class had about half as many students as a regular class (14-18 as opposed to 32-35) and afforded the teacher greater flexibility with the curriculum. For these reasons, Bennett believed that the drop-out prevention class might be more suitable for Clemons. William Roach, who was the Assistant Principal at the time, explained that “this was done as an effort or a plan, if you will, to really give Ms. Clemons an opportunity to maybe come out of the classroom for awhile, get a perspective, maybe, you know, have a chance to be successful.” (T. 187.) On the other hand, Bennett acknowledged that the children in this special class were "academically challenged," "less motivated," and hence more difficult to teach than other students. 5/ The IPAS form containing Clemons' assessment for the 1996-97 school year, which Bennett signed on May 30, 1997, and Clemons refused to sign, reflects a deterioration in Clemons' performance. She received a "needs improvement" rating in the categories of lesson management and student performance evaluation. Clemons was rated "unsatisfactory" in the areas of classroom management and behavior management. Her overall performance rating was a "U." Clemons filed a grievance with the Broward Teachers' Union to protest this negative evaluation. Interceding on Clemons' behalf, a union representative requested that Bennett produce documentation supporting her unfavorable assessment of Clemons' skills. Bennett could not do so. Consequently, at the union's suggestion, Bennett changed Clemons' overall performance rating to "satisfactory" for the 1996-97 school year. Clemons continued to teach in the fifth grade drop-out prevention class during the 1997-98 school year. And she continued to have problems. For example, after personally observing Clemons in her classroom on February 23, 1998, Bennett wrote: “Have noticed some, slight improvement this year, but still not enough to warrant upgrading overall evaluation to satisfactory.” Roach, the Assistant Principal at Lauderdale Lakes from 1993 through the end of the 1997-98 school year, was less generous: Q [by Mr. Pettis]. During that four academic school year period [1994 through 1998], give me an overall assessment as to how Ms. Clemons’ behavioral management that was reflected in her classroom progressed? A [by Roach]. I felt that it did not progress. In fact, if anything, it digressed or regressed. As I said, the frequency of going down to the room for problems became more. (T. 186.) And then a new layer that was added as the [sic] was the fact that parents were complaining about the classroom and asking to have their children taken out of the room. There seemed to be just a total lack of respect, students for teacher, but I also observed sometimes that Ms. Clemons’ respect for the students was also lacking and I felt that sometimes there was an unhealthy situation and there were occasions in support of her that we did move children out. Nevertheless, the IPAS form that Bennett signed on May 29, 1998, reported that Clemons was performing satisfactorily in all areas; her overall performance rating for the 1997-98 school year was “satisfactory.” Thus, contrary to Roach’s recollection, the contemporaneous IPAS evaluation shows that Clemons’ performance did improve in her fourth year at Lauderdale Manors. The following year, 1998-99, Clemons was assigned to a regular fifth grade class. She did not do well. Here is how Keith Miller, who started as Assistant Principal that year, described his initial observations of Clemons: Q [by Mr. Pettis]. With regard to your first year as AP at Lauderdale Manors, '98 to '99, during the course of that year, did it come to your attention any performance concerns or deficiencies with regard to Ms. Clemons' classroom? A [by Miller]. Yes. Q. And what were those areas of deficiency that you were aware of in '98/'99? A. [T]he reason . . . Ms. Clemons was brought to my attention . . . was parental complaints. As I stated in my deposition, I wanted to seek out and find out for myself if these parental complaints were warranted as a concern for our classroom management. Q. So, how would you seek that out? A. By going into the classroom and observing. * * * Q. What types of things were you looking for . . . in '98/'99 during your observations? A. Initially, as I've stated earlier, my concern was to see if the parental complaints were warranted as it pertains to classroom management and the concern with parents saying the children were coming home and saying one thing. And, you know, as a teacher and an educator and also as a parent we know that the children sometimes will extend the truth to get what they want. But I wanted to find out if that was the case. Well, after doing my observations in the classroom, also on a formal observation, which you all have, often times I would walk up to a classroom that was chaotic with the noise. There are different types of noise. There is an active learning noise, let's make no mistake there, and there is a noise where there is disruption. And often times, one particular observation I went in, there were students out of their seats, there were paper airplanes thrown, Ms. Clemons yelling. And one of the things was, "You need to sit down," without a consequence being rolled out or dished out or implemented at that time. And it was very evident early on that the parental complaints and the student responses were, in effect, true with regards to classroom management. (T. 194-97.) Bennett also observed Clemons at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year. The principal noticed problems with behavior management, and also deficiencies relating to the delivery of instruction, such as incomplete lesson plans, blank student writing journals, falling behind in teaching the prescribed math curriculum, and failure to put subject "openers" (e.g. math and reading assignments) on the chalk board in the morning so that students could begin working immediately upon arrival. After an IPAS evaluation for the period from August 25 to October 1, 1998, Clemons was rated "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. As a result, effective October 2, 1998, Bennett placed Clemons "on documentation," meaning that she would have 90 days in which to correct the identified performance deficiencies, pursuant to Section 231.29(3)(d)2.a., Florida Statutes. In Bennett's opinion, Clemons did not correct the identified deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. Therefore, she recommended that Clemons' contract be terminated. The superintendent, however, did not timely act on Bennett's recommendation. 6/ Consequently, Clemons could not be dismissed. Returning to Lauderdale Manors for the 1999-00 school year, Clemons was assigned to teach a regular third grade class. By design, she was placed in a classroom located close to the administrative office, for support and assistance. Assistant Principal Miller visited her class on September 17, 1999. As he remembered: When . . . I walked into the room, one of the first things I noticed she was doing was reading, but it took her 10 minutes just to get her started when I walked in. That's noted here [on a Classroom Observation/Feedback Form prepared by Miller and signed by him and Clemons on September 17, 1999]. The lesson was broken up with student interruptions and lack of preparation. * * * One of the other things prior to walking in the classroom, I would stand outside the classroom and I heard children screaming, yelling. And I used the word, I felt chaos when I walked in. And you have to understand, when I walk into the classrooms immediately the tone is going to go down because of my presence in the classroom. So when I walked in, it did calm down. There were five students after I sat down when I circulated the room sleeping while she was attempting to teach reading. And my question to her was, How are you keeping track of misbehavior? Because she was telling people to do things, but not monitor[ing] it properly. (T. 202-04.) Bennett continued to observe and evaluate Clemons as well. On September 27, 1999, Bennett met with Clemons to discuss several classroom observations, including one that had been made on that day. Bennett remained concerned about Clemons' deficiencies in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. Bennett approved Clemons' request to observe two other third grade teachers, to learn from them. Bennett also decided to place a paraprofessional (teacher's aide) in Clemons' classroom for assistance. Bennett observed Clemons' class on October 20, 1999, and saw no improvement. Previously identified deficiencies in the areas of student discipline and presentation of subject matter persisted. Indeed, by this time, Clemons' class had dwindled to 11 students — and even these few were misbehaving. On October 22, 1999, Bennett placed Clemons on 90-day performance probation, effective immediately and ending February 11, 2000. Bennett notified Clemons of her decision, as well as the statutory procedures applicable to a performance probation, by memorandum dated October 22, 2000. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. As explained in a separate memorandum dated October 22, 2000, Bennett placed Clemons on probation due to her ongoing and documented concern about Clemons' performance in the areas of behavior management and instructional planning. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. Additionally, by yet another memorandum dated October 22, 2000, Bennett scheduled a conference with Clemons for October 27, 2000, to discuss the preparation of a Performance Development Plan. Clemons acknowledged her receipt of this memorandum by signing it on October 22, 2000. When a Broward County public school teacher's performance is determined to be unsatisfactory, a Performance Development Plan ("PDP") is prepared for, and with input from, the affected teacher. The purpose of the PDP is to assist the teacher in correcting identified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. On October 27, 2000, two PDPs were executed by Bennett and Clemons. One addressed Clemons' identified deficiencies in the area of behavior management. The other dealt with her deficiencies relating to instructional planning. The PDP concerning behavior management included a the following description of Clemons' perceived shortcomings: The teacher fails to: maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice by: establishing routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students. formulating appropriate standards for student behavior identifying inappropriate behavior and employing appropriate techniques for correction. Under the heading, "Strategies for Improvement, Correction, and Assistance," this PDP enumerated the following interventions: To date (10/27/99), by parental requests, a total of five (5) students have been removed from teacher's classroom to assist in alleviating severe disciplinary concerns. Teacher will be provided with an aide to assist with classroom behavior management. (This strategy will be in place during the week of November 1, 1999.) Alliance Coach will observe teacher and provide suggestions and feedback on effective classroom behavior management techniques. Curriculum Facilitator will observe teacher and provide specific suggestions and feedback on routines and procedures teacher can implement on effective transitioning techniques. Teacher will be afforded the opportunity to observe exemplary classroom teachers to identify and implement best practices for behavior management strategies. Grade 3 Team Leader will assist teacher in developing and implementing a classroom discipline plan. Team Leader will demonstrate, model, plan, and provide feedback. Outside Consultant will observe teacher and provide specific support and assistance in effective behavior management strategies. Teacher will attend a behavior management workshop, review observations with administrator, and implement appropriate strategy(ies) in own classroom. The PDP document advised Clemons that if she failed to correct all areas identified as deficient by February 11, 2000, she would receive an "Unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation," and a "recommendation for termination of contract" would be made. The PDP for correcting Clemons' problems in the area of instructional planning described her identified deficiencies as follows: The teacher fails to: select, adapt or develop, and sequence instructional materials and activities for the designated set of instructional objectives and student needs. create interest through the use of materials and techniques appropriate to the varying abilities and background of students. use individual student interests and abilities when planning and implementing instruction. The prescribed interventions for these deficiencies were: Alliance Coach will assist in providing appropriate materials, orienting techniques, demonstrating and modeling instructional strategies, transitioning techniques, and improving the overall learning environment of the classroom. Alliance Coach will meet weekly with teacher to provide specific support and assistance with feedback. Grade 3 Team Leader will review strategies and provide intensive support and assistance in areas of aligning objectives with lesson plans which focus on content, materials, lesson presentation, and student activities. Curriculum Facilitator will model and demonstrate a reading lesson, provide feedback, observe teacher presenting a lesson, and provide feedback of reading lesson to teacher. This process will be repeated on a weekly basis through November 18, 1999. Teacher will be afforded the opportunity to observe exemplary classroom teachers to identify and implement best practices for instructional planning and lesson management. Outside Consultant will observe teacher and provide specific support and assistance in effective instructional planning. Like the other PDP, this one notified Clemons that failure to correct all identified deficiencies by February 11, 2000, would result in a recommendation that her contract be terminated. As Miller testified, "this [the coordinated intervention strategy set forth in the PDPs] wasn't an afterthought where we just patchwork everything together. We worked together as a team in order to help [Clemons] meet with success." (T. 209.) Jounice Lewis is a Coach with the Alliance of Quality Schools (the "Alliance") in Broward County. The Alliance is a local program that provides assistance, in the person of coaches such as Lewis, to teachers in low performing schools. 7/ Alliance coaches help teachers with curriculum instruction. They are not invited into a school except upon the vote of 80 percent of the faculty. Taking part in the implementation of the PDPs that Clemons had approved, Lewis observed, counseled, and assisted Clemons while she was on 90-day performance probation during the 1999-00 school year. Lewis remembered a teacher who was having difficulties: "Often [Clemons'] class was disruptive, and I think that this may have been because there was not a routine." (T. 162.) The reading center was "not inviting." (T. 165.) The physical environment was not "conducive to learning;" one time, Clemons' students "were all around the classroom rather than in one area." (T. 166.) "Ms. Clemons' classroom was not organized, it was in disarray." (T. 167.) In Lewis's opinion, the behavior of Clemons' students did not seem to improve during the 90-day probation period. Further, Lewis observed at hearing that although Clemons had been receptive to Lewis's suggestions, she nevertheless had failed to improve her performance in the area of classroom control or management. Lewis was sure that Clemons had the "content knowledge" but felt that Clemons was unable to teach what she knew because her classroom was not under control. Bennett continued to observe and evaluate Clemons during the probation period. Using the IPAS instrument, Bennett rated Clemons "unsatisfactory" in the categories of instructional planning 8/ and behavior management 9/ for the period from October 22, 1999 through November 10, 1999. On this same IPAS, Bennett also assigned Clemons a rating of "needs improvement" in the area of records management. 10/ Bennett and Clemons both signed this IPAS form on November 15, 1999. Between November 11, 1999 through December 1, 1999, Bennett again assessed Clemons using the IPAS, rating her "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. In this period, Clemmons improved her rating in the records management area to "satisfactory," but slipped to "needs improvement" in the category, lesson presentation. 11/ Bennett and Clemons signed this IPAS evaluation form on December 9, 1999. On December 10, 1999, Clemons met with Bennett for a mid-point evaluation. Also in attendance was Valerie Proffer, a union representative. Bennett called this meeting to inform Clemons of progress achieved, as well as to make recommendations for correcting deficiencies that persisted. The minutes of the mid-point review meeting report that the participants discussed the many types of assistance that already had been provided Clemons, which included the services not only of Coach Lewis, but also input from the school's Curriculum Facilitator (who had provided suggestions and feedback on effective transitioning techniques) and the Grade 3 Team Leader (who had helped Clemons develop and implement a classroom discipline plan). Bennett notified Clemons that classroom behavior management remained a major area of concern and that deficiencies relating to instructional planning still needed to be corrected. The principal made specific recommendations for curing these problems and prescribed additional interventions, including the retention of an outside consultant to videotape Clemons for a self-critique. By memorandum dated February 3, 2000, Bennett notified Clemons that she had scheduled a conference for February 11 (the last day of the 90-day probation period) to discuss the final IPAS evaluation of Clemons, which would cover the period from January 27, 2000 to February 11, 2000. Also on the agenda for discussion were Clemons' PDPs and her "continued employment at Lauderdale Manors Elementary School." Clemons acknowledged receipt of this memorandum by signing it on February 3, 2000. On an IPAS form dated February 11, 2000, Bennett recorded her final assessment of Clemons. She concluded that Clemons' performance was "unsatisfactory" in the areas of instructional planning and behavior management. The ratings of "U" in these two categories compelled an overall performance rating of "unsatisfactory." Clemons received a "satisfactory" rating, however, in the eight other performance areas identified on the IPAS: lesson management, lesson presentation, student performance evaluation, communication, classroom management, records management, subject matter knowledge, and professional competencies. Thus, while the final IPAS evaluation of Clemons showed, on the one hand, that she had not corrected all identified performance deficiencies, it did demonstrate, on the other, that the teacher had improved during the 90-day probation period in the areas of records management and lesson presentation, and also that she was performing satisfactorily in most of the rated performance areas. Clemons attended the meeting on February 11, 2000, that Bennett had scheduled. At the meeting, Bennett provided Clemons with her final IPAS evaluation. Clemons disagreed with the evaluation and refused to sign it. Bennett informed Clemons that because performance deficiencies remained, she would recommend termination of Clemons' contract. Dwight Hamilton, a BTU representative who attended the meeting, explained the termination process to Clemons. Bennett told Clemons that the next Monday, February 11, 2000, she was to report to the Media Center rather than her classroom, from which Clemons was now being removed. Clemons became angry with Bennett and Assistant Principal Miller (who was also present) and apparently made some intemperate remarks, but these were not the subject of formal charges. By memorandum dated February 11, 2000, Bennett notified the superintendent of her recommendation that Clemons be dismissed immediately, pursuant to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, for failure to correct performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period. The superintendent accepted Bennett's recommendation and so informed Clemons by letter dated February 16, 2000. The superintendent advised Clemons, "[p]ursuant to Florida Statute ," that he would recommend to the Board, at its meeting on March 7, 2000, that she first be suspended without pay and, thereafter, dismissed from employment. He expressly predicated the recommendation of suspension without pay on "unsatisfactory job performance." As apparent additional legal authority for his intended recommendations to the Board, the superintendent cited to, and quoted from, Section 230.33(7)(e), Florida Statutes. The superintendent closed his letter by notifying Clemons that the Board would act on his recommendation to dismiss her at its meeting on April 4, 2000, unless she made a written request for formal administrative proceedings before the close of business on March 22, 2000. Clemons timely requested a hearing by letter dated March 2, 2000. The Board met on March 7, 2000, and suspended Clemons without pay pending termination of her contract. A memorandum dated March 15, 2000, to the Supervisor of Personnel Records confirms that Clemons was suspended without pay effective March 8, 2000. Clemons has not complained about any alleged defects in notice or other procedures. Clemons does contend, however, that the assistance afforded her at times interfered with her ability to teach and was not always helpful. 12/ The preponderance of evidence showed, however, that the interventions prescribed for her benefit were appropriate and designed to help Clemons overcome her noted performance deficiencies. In short, the greater weight of the evidence established, as fact, that the Board followed the procedures and met its substantive responsibilities under Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Clemons did not correct all of the performance deficiencies that were identified at the outset of her performance probation in October 1999. At hearing, Clemons admitted that deficiencies in the area of behavior management had not been "totally corrected" by the end of the 90-day probation in February 2000. (T. 134.) While Clemons maintains, with some evidentiary support, that she made progress during the probation period, the established fact is that performance deficiencies, at least in the area of behavior management, remained as of February 11, 2000. In sum, the greater weight of the evidence established, as fact, that Clemons' performance deficiencies were not "satisfactorily corrected" during the 90- day probation, as that phrase is used in Section 231.29(3)(d)2.b., Florida Statutes. The greater weight of the evidence failed to show, however, that Clemons was guilty of any "just cause" for dismissal within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 13/ Specifically, as will be discussed below in the legal conclusions, a preponderance of evidence did not show, as fact, that Clemons either committed "misconduct in office" or demonstrated "incompetency" as those terms are defined in Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board: (1) reinstate Clemons and pay her back salary from March 8, 2000, through the date of reinstatement, pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes; and (2) terminate Clemons' employment pursuant to Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2000.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Philip Arthur James holds Florida Teacher's Certificate number 357596, rank 3, covering the areas of mental retardation and emotionally disturbed children. During the 1982-1983 school year, the Respondent James was employed as a public school teacher at the Paul B. Stephens Exceptional Center in the Pinellas County School District. During the 1982-1983 school year, the Respondent James was assigned to teach a class of approximately six profoundly mentally handicapped students. None of the students in the Respondent's class could talk, walk, read or write. Some were incontinent and wore diapers. Howie Flood, one of the profoundly mentally retarded students in the Respondent's class, was 17 years old. Because of Howie's severe condition, it was almost impossible to elicit any type of response from him. The Respondent, however, attempted to force Howie to respond by pulling or yanking his hair on a number of occasions. The Respondent did not pull Howie's hair to punish or hurt him, but rather to attempt to get some type of positive response from the student. This type of behavior management was never approved prior to administration, by Ms. Torres, the school's behavior specialist, as required by written school policy. Della McYenna, a profoundly mentally retarded student in the Respondent's class was 17 years of age. This student was extremely sensitive and did not like being touched. On one occasion, while the Respondent was attempting to change Della's diaper on a small changing table, he placed tape on her leg. When the tape was yanked off Della's leg, the student flinched. The Respondent placed the tape on Della's leg because the student was squirming about which made it difficult to control the situation. Although the Respondent could have placed the tape on the table, out of convenience he elected to place the tape on Della's leg knowing that this student was extremely touch sensitive. Andrea Miller, a profoundly mentally retarded student in Respondent's class, had a habit of poking a finger into the corner of her eye, causing the eye to bulge out of its socket. If left untreated, this situation could ultimately result in the loss of the eye. In attempting to stop this behavior, the Respondent slapped Andrea's arm. The Respondent employed this technique to cause Andrea to stop attempting to poke out her eye. Prior to administration, this behavior management technique was never approved by Ms. Torres, the school's behavior specialist, as required by written school policy. Pamela Baker, a 17 year old profoundly mentally retarded student in Respondent's class, was confined to a wheelchair. While changing Pamela's diaper, the Respondent lightly tapped Pamela in the area of her mouth. This tap, however, was not sufficient to cause any bleeding. Apparently, Pamela caused the injury by hitting herself in the face when struggling with the Respondent. Although the Respondent is charged with striking Pamela on the foot with a ruler for pulling toys off a shelf, insufficient evidence was produced to demonstrate that this event occurred. After the Respondent's conduct was reported to Principal Diem in October, 1982, he was suspended from his position of employment and later dismissed by the Pinellas County School Board. Dr. M. Juhan Mixon, Director of Personnel Services, Pinellas County School Board testified that in his opinion, Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board was seriously reduced based on the school board's finding that he had committed the acts charged and should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered suspending the teaching certificate of the Respondent Philip Arthur James for one year and placing him on probation for the following two years, during which period the Respondent be required to successfully complete additional appropriate college class work in the area of mentally and emotionally behavior management of handicapped students as prescribed by the Education Practices Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 23rd day of December, 1983.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should terminate Respondent's professional service contract for his failure to correct his performance deficiencies within his 90-calendar-day probation period.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jose L. Rojas, has been employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, as a teacher pursuant to a professional service contract. During the 2004-2005 school year, he taught regular sixth-grade math classes at Redland Middle School. Teachers employed by the School Board, including Respondent, are evaluated pursuant to the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System, known as PACES. PACES was collectively bargained with the teachers' union and approved by the Florida Department of Education in 2001 as being in statutory compliance for teacher evaluations in Petitioner's school district. PACES focuses on student learning and teacher professional development, as well as on teaching behaviors. In PACES, there are seven domains: six are to be observed during a classroom observation, and the seventh domain deals with professional responsibilities demonstrated outside the classroom observation. The domains reflect the required statutory competencies of Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Each domain has teaching and learning components, and each component has indicators, 44 of which are required to meet standards under PACES. The 44 indicators are fundamental units of observation that are used to make professional judgments about the quality of learning and teaching. They represent the basic level of teaching to be demonstrated by all teachers in Petitioner's school district, i.e., the minimum requirements. They are the objective standards described in the PACES manual. Teachers have PACES manuals and access to the PACES Internet website. The standards are also repeated in any professional improvement plan, known as a PIP. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for a domain to be rated below performance standards. One below-standard domain indicates a teacher's non-compliance with statutorily- required competencies. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) measures student performance on the State's objectives for Florida's required curriculum, the Sunshine State Standards. While Petitioner's school district, as a whole, must utilize the FCAT data and indicators of student performance, there is no similar requirement for evaluating teachers by the results of the performance of their students on the FCAT (or other local assessments for subject matters not covered by the FCAT). Individual evaluations of teachers, however, must address student performance. PACES addresses student performance in every domain. What is assessed is whether the teacher is monitoring and gauging student progress in the classroom, making sure that the students are mastering the required curriculum. Teachers are expected to use their students' FCAT scores from the prior year for planning, pursuant to PACES domain I, to meet the students' deficiencies. Redland utilizes FCAT results in this manner. Further, a teacher's teaching strategies and activities are required to address FCAT expectations. At the beginning of the school year, teachers at Redland receive copies of the scope and sequence for what the students are to learn during the school year. The teachers develop the curriculum and timelines for meeting benchmarks to be covered during the school year. PACES domain II, as another example, deals with the teacher's management of the learning environment. If time is not managed and is, instead, wasted, the students' achievement of the Sunshine State Standards will be impacted, which will affect FCAT scores. PACES domain IV, as yet another example, requires teachers to informally assess the students' engagement in learning to assess their performance to ascertain whether the students are mastering the Sunshine State Standards. All of the administrators who were PACES observers in this case have had extensive training in the standards to be observed and evaluated in teacher performance and student learning and are, therefore, authorized to perform PACES observations, which are based upon what the observer objectively observes while in the classroom. The performance probation process in Petitioner's school district, like the PACES teacher evaluation process, was collectively bargained with the teachers' union. The process is as follows: if there is an observation conducted by an administrator that indicates a teacher is performing below standards, it becomes the "initial observation not of record." The administrator meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, makes suggestions for improvement, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed again in approximately three weeks. The administrator offers the teacher the assistance of a professional growth team (PGT). Use of a PGT is voluntary on the part of the teacher at this point. The PGT is part of the professional development aspect of PACES. PGTs are composed of experienced peer teachers who are extensively trained in PACES and are authorized to give support and assistance to teachers to improve classroom instruction. The same administrator who conducted the "initial observation not of record" must conduct the next observation, the "kick-off observation," which is the first observation of record in that school year. If this observation reveals below- standards performance, a conference-for-the-record (CFR) is held. A PGT and a PIP are provided to the teacher. The performance probation period begins the day after a PIP is given to the teacher. The teachers' union and Petitioner then mutually agree on the calendar for counting the 90 days. There must be two official observations during the performance probation period. The teacher must meet all 44 required indicators in order to meet performance standards during the teacher's performance probation. If any indicators are below performance standards, PIPs are again given. There are four levels of PIP activities, which are progressively more complex. A "confirmatory observation" takes place after the 90th day to determine whether the teacher has corrected his or her deficiencies. The "confirmatory observation" must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the performance probation, and the evaluator must forward a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools. Within 14 days of receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the Superintendent must notify the teacher whether he will recommend to the school board that the teacher's employment be continued or terminated. It is not sufficient for the teacher to improve on only some of the deficient indicators. It has been the custom and practice under the collective bargaining agreement that remediation occurs only when the teacher meets standards in all of the required indicators. Respondent's initial observation was conducted by Assistant Principal Fahringer on September 23, 2004. Respondent was teaching a class of 20-23 students. Respondent told the students to take out their agenda books which contained their homework. As Respondent went around the classroom checking each student's homework, the remainder of the students just sat and talked, waiting for a lesson to begin. They were not working on math. Out of the two-hour block of class time, the class was off-task about 25 percent of the time. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components and indicators of domain II, managing the learning environment, and domain IV, enhancing and enabling learning. Pursuant to the agreed-upon procedures, the observation became "not of record." Assistant Principal Fahringer met with Respondent September 28, 2004, went over the evaluation, and explained why Respondent had not met performance standards. Fahringer gave Respondent suggestions for improvement and advised him that she would return to do a follow-up observation. She offered Respondent a PGT, which he accepted. On October 19, 2004, Fahringer performed Respondent's first observation of record, the "kick-off observation." Respondent was giving a lesson on fractions, decimals, and percentages to 32 students using cups of M&Ms and a chart. Respondent told the students to divide into groups of four. There followed much noise and confusion. As Respondent went from group to group, he did not monitor the other seven groups. Students threw M&Ms and paper wads. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components and indicators of domains II and IV. He did not meet standards in domain II because the learning did not begin promptly. After a five-minute delay, another five minutes were wasted while Respondent counted out the M&Ms. Ten minutes wasted at the beginning of the class is a significant amount of time since time spent on-task improves achievement. There were delays in the organizational and teaching/learning activities. When Respondent told the students to divide into groups of four, some students appeared uncertain as to what group they were in and, instead, milled around talking noisily. Some students remained off-task throughout the lesson. Respondent did not address the off-task behavior because he did not appear to even notice it while he focused on one group at a time. Students came to Respondent with their agenda books, "visiting" other students and talking with them on the way. Eight students were distracted, noisy, and off-task, but Respondent failed to redirect them. Respondent's expectations about acceptable behavior had apparently not been made clear to the students. Although he told them to raise their hands and not to talk, they continued to talk noisily to each other for 50 minutes. Respondent failed to effectively monitor the class throughout the lesson. When he was with one group, he did not use management techniques to diffuse the unacceptable off-task behavior of the other groups. The remaining seven groups did not work (no learning took place) while they waited for Respondent to come to them. Respondent did not meet standards in domain IV because he did not introduce the purpose of the lesson. The students were told how to count the M&Ms and complete a chart, but there was no explanation as to what they were to learn. The students did not understand that they were learning the relationship among fractions, decimals, and percentages. Respondent did not give clear and complete directions. He told the students that they were going to "integrate" decimals, percents, and fractions, a meaningless word choice. The directions did not include any explanation of content or integration of mathematical concepts. Respondent did not demonstrate accurate content knowledge. He gave inaccurate and unclear information to the students. He counted the various colored M&Ms and put the numbers on the chart. On the chart, he explained that the decimals--.35, .10, .25, .17, .03, and .71--equal one, when in fact they equal 1.61. Also on the chart, Respondent explained that the percentages--35%, 10%, 25%, 17%, 3%, and 71%--equal 100%, when in fact they equal 161%. The students accepted the inaccurate information. On the line of the chart indicating the fractions, Respondent reduced some of the fractions leaving different denominators, which made the addition of those fractions difficult. On October 29, 2004, Principal DePriest and Assistant Principal Fahringer held a CFR with Respondent to address Respondent's sub-standard performance, his performance probation, recommendations for improving the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner. Respondent's input was sought, and he was formally assigned a PGT. Respondent was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP on November 1, 2004. The PIP required him to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manual by November 22, 2004. Respondent's performance probation period began November 2, 2004, the day after he received the PIP. He was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed time. Respondent's PGT provided assistance to him throughout his performance probation. Respondent failed to complete his PIP activities by the November 22 deadline. On December 2 he was given another 24 hours to comply, which he did. On November 24, 2004, Respondent was formally observed in his classroom by Principal DePriest. Respondent was presenting a lesson to 19 students, but the classroom was too chaotic for learning to take place. Respondent again did not meet performance standards in domain II. Learning did not begin promptly. Respondent wasted 12 minutes reprimanding students, taking roll, and answering his personal cell phone while the students were not engaged in learning. There were also inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. The students went to the board, one by one, to solve math problems. Respondent spent approximately five minutes with each student at the board while the rest of the class became noisy, walked around, or slept. Respondent failed to monitor off-task behavior or the behavior of the entire class. As Respondent focused on the one student at the board, the other students were off-task for up to five minutes at a time throughout the lesson, talking, putting their heads down, tapping their pencils, and making inappropriate comments such as "Can someone choke me?", "Can someone kill me?", and "Can I die now?". One student simply played with her hair for six minutes. Essentially, everyone was talking, and no one was listening to Respondent. Yet, Respondent did nothing to redirect the students. He did not appear to have classroom conduct rules in place. Thus, Respondent failed to make his expectations about behavior clear to the students. He instructed them not to talk without raising their hands. Nevertheless, eight of the students talked out-of-turn for 20 minutes without raising their hands. DePriest met with Respondent on December 2, 2004, to review the observation. DePriest provided assistance through a PIP to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes on the PACES Internet website. Respondent was to maintain a log and discuss techniques and strategies with DePriest. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 6, 2005. On January 10, 2005, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Janice Farrell. Respondent was presenting a lesson on perimeters and surface areas to 22 students. The lesson was disorganized, and there was an "air of confusion" in the class. Many students were being unruly and exhibiting off-task behavior. Therefore, not much learning was taking place. Respondent still did not meet performance standards in domains II and IV that had been previously identified. He also failed to meet performance standards in components and indicators not identified in the kick-off observation of October 19, 2004, and, therefore, not the subject of Respondent's 90-day performance probation or this Recommended Order. Respondent caused inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. The learners were instructed to complete a "bellringer" activity, i.e., an activity that is used at the beginning of the class period to engage the students in learning as soon as they enter the room. Although they were instructed to complete it, eight of the 22 students did not receive a bellringer worksheet. Students were asking for materials and attempting the activity unsuccessfully on their own. Respondent appeared unaware of the problem Respondent failed to monitor off-task behavior and disengagement from learning throughout the lesson. One student continuously called out Respondent's name, louder and louder, for five minutes. Students talked and copied each other's answers. While a student walked around stamping the other students' agenda books, they became off-task. A group of three students at a back table remained off-task throughout the lesson, talking, copying each other's answers, and throwing papers. Respondent did not redirect any of these students until the last five minutes of the class. Respondent failed to monitor the whole class effectively. When he went to the back of the room to address a tardy student without a pass, he turned his back on the other 21 students who changed seats, threw papers at each other, and hit each other with rulers. Respondent did nothing to redirect his students. He failed to make the purpose or importance of the learning tasks clear to the students. He did not give a rationale for the bellringer activity, which consisted of answering questions about perimeters and areas of geometric shapes. He also gave the students inaccurate information. He incorrectly calculated the perimeter of a square as 3+3+3+3=15. DePriest and Farrell met with Respondent to review the observation. Farrell made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent's PIP required him to complete self- assessment activities through the PACES website. He was to watch vignettes provided by the website in order to understand what the PACES indicators required of him. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 11, 2005. Because Respondent's second observation within the performance probation period was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether Respondent had corrected his deficiencies. Principal DePriest performed that observation on February 22, 2005. On that day, management of the learning environment and classroom discipline were non-existent. Respondent was presenting a lesson on geometric shapes to 18 students. While he did have instructions written on the board, there were still the same kinds of delays seen previously, and the students were still not engaged in learning. Overall, the class environment was chaotic. One-third to one- half of the class was off-task at any given time. The class was completely disorganized; the students were not engaged; the students did not pay any attention to Respondent, and very little learning took place. Each time supplies were distributed, commotion resulted. When colored paper was distributed so that the students could trace the shapes, they got into arguments over the different colors, negotiated the trading of colors, and asked Respondent for different colors. When rulers were passed out, the students were not instructed to use them to draw the geometric shapes. Some had already drawn the shapes freehand. Others were dueling with the rulers. Some tore the shapes, rather than waiting until they received scissors. Respondent again did not meet performance standards in domain II as identified in the kick-off observation. Learning did not begin promptly. Respondent spent 10-11 minutes taking roll and reprimanding tardy students. There were inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. Respondent allowed students to talk and distract others. Students were not paying attention. Respondent accepted a phone call and made a phone call during the class. He failed to monitor the off-task behavior caused by the manner in which supplies were distributed and failed to redirect the students, including while they argued about paper, scissors, and rulers. DePriest notified Respondent on February 23, 2005, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected noted performance deficiencies during his performance probation period and that DePriest would recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent's employment be terminated. On that same day, DePriest transmitted such a memorandum. On March 9, the Superintendent notified Respondent that the Superintendent would recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract for Respondent's failure to correct his noted performance deficiencies during his performance probation. Petitioner has met all procedural requirements and statutory time frames. The FCAT was administered to Florida students in late- February to early-March, 2005. Petitioner received Respondent's students' scores on May 17 and the district-wide FCAT results on May 19, 2005, the day before the final hearing in this cause. The district as a whole showed "tremendous" progress over the prior year. Even though Redland is a "low-performing" school, it likewise showed progress over the prior year in reading and mathematics. Respondent's students, however, failed to follow this trend. Petitioner does not use a teacher's current students' FCAT scores in assessing a teacher's performance because the scores are released too late in the school year. PACES, however, addresses student performance, as statutorily required. Where a teacher's students are observed as being noisy throughout lessons, being confused, not paying attention, and being given erroneous lesson content, there is a clear lack of student performance, and they are not engaged in learning.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent failed to correct his performance deficiencies and terminating Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 13, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Honorable John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Rudolph F. Crew, Ed.D, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether the Duval County School Board (Board) may terminate Respondent, Cleveland F. William, Jr.'s, employment as a teacher based upon incompetence under the Duval Country Teachers Tenure Act (the Act). This issue is dependent upon whether the Board showed Respondent to be incompetent and whether the Board complied with the procedural requirements of the Act.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was first assigned to Fort Caroline Middle School during the academic year 2000-2001 to teach 6th grade science. Kathy Kassees was the principal at Fort Caroline Middle School during that school year. Respondent's brother was extremely ill and died during the school year. Respondent's performance evaluation for that school year was less than satisfactory. See Exhibit 2, 2000-2001 Performance Evaluation. Respondent concedes that his performance in 2000-2001 was less than satisfactory. See paragraph 56 of Respondent's Post-hearing Brief. When a tenured teacher in the Duval County system has a performance evaluation of less than satisfactory, the teacher may elect to transfer to another school, and Respondent exercised that option for the school year 2001-2002. Respondent was moved to Stillwell where he was assigned to teach 7th grade science. In addition, he was assigned for the first time to teach inclusion classes. Inclusion classes are made up of students who are exceptional education students who may have various exceptionalities. These exceptionalities may include disabilities such as deafness, emotional and behavioral problems, and developmental disabilities. Behavioral problems may include students diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity. Stillwell utilizes a program of instruction called the America's Choice Plan (ACP). The ACP is a comprehensive educational program which covers all aspects of instruction, organization of the classroom, and display of student materials in the classroom. ACP has its own vocabulary of terms to describe activities and things. For example, "artifacts" refers to student work and other materials posted in the classroom. It is expected that "artifacts" will be posted and changed periodically. Weekly meetings to discuss the system are called "Tending the Garden" meetings. ACP had been used at Stillwell previously and the returning faculty were familiar with it. Respondent had never worked with ACP before. Ms. Kassees had prepared a Success Plan for Respondent after he received his unsatisfactory evaluation to help him improve his deficiencies. Respondent took this plan with him to Stillwell, but the plan did not address ACP or inclusion classes. Mr. Marjenhoff, the principal at Stillwell, met with Respondent and discussed Marjenhoff's expectation of Respondent. They did not discuss any special requirements or changes necessitated by ACP or inclusion classes. Petitioner was unable to establish that it had prepared and delivered a new Success Plan to Petitioner at Stillwell. After his poor evaluation in February of 2002, Respondent asked Mr. Marjenhoff for a copy of the Success Plan and one was produced which was signed by Mr. Marjenhoff and dated August 6, 2001, and by Respondent on March 27, 2002. See Exhibit 13. Respondent did attend various ACP, "Tending the Garden" in-service educational classes presented by Dianne Rahn; Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) seminars presented by Rose Curry; and classes presented by his department head, Margarita Arroyo. His attendance and punctuality at these meetings was on par with his peers. The first indication of evaluative inspections came in a November 28, 2001, memo to Respondent from Marjenhoff stating that Dianne Dunn, a cadre member, would be contacting him about setting up a classroom visit. She did not conduct a visit until January 28, 2002. See Exhibit 11 and attachments. The annual evaluation of faculty occurs in February. Petitioner concedes that other than the cadre work by Dunn and some instruction on USI by Curry, little was done by way of individualized in-service training to address Respondent's shortcomings. Respondent was not afforded much in the way of unique, individualized oral counseling or critiques of his performance during the first part of the school year. See paragraphs 21 and 22 of Petitioner's Post-hearing Brief. A review of Curry's visits reflects she met with Respondent approximately once each month for a rough average of an hour, with the exception of the first meeting which was four hours. Curry's logs do not reflect the corrective actions taken with regard to Respondent's teaching. This hardly constitutes an accelerated effort to improve Respondents performance. See Exhibit 21. The dates of the various class visits and evaluations by Marjenhoff are in February and March. See Exhibits 12, 18 and 19. A review of the records of the in-class visits and commentaries by the observers reveal that too many general recommendations were made rather than specific, concrete changes to implement. For example, Darrell Perry visited Respondent's class and was concerned about its physical organization, i.e., where the television was located, the direction in which the seats were oriented, and where Respondent's desks was located. This was written up in March, which was late in the year to raise these issues, and Perry did not suggest or volunteer to help Respondent alter the room to meet Perry's expectations. Also see Exhibit 11 and attachments. In sum, there was too much jargon and too little performance-oriented, hands-on correction of Respondent. Memoranda relating to Respondent's performance all seem to be dated after January 2002. See Exhibits 16 and 17. The corrections that were made came too late to have a meaningful impact upon the improvement of Respondent's teaching performance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board provide Respondent another year in which timely and appropriate in-service training is provided to correct his deficiencies in teaching. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Michael B. Wedner, Esquire City of Jacksonville 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 Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
