The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding Florida Educator’s Certificate 958493, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Autism Spectrum Disorders, valid through June 30, 2014. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Bay County School District as an ESE teacher at Margaret K. Lewis Center (MKL Center). This is a second career for Respondent. She left a business and technology career to pursue a career in education, specifically working with students with special needs. Respondent obtained her Master’s degree and a special designation to work with special needs students. Respondent was motivated to pursue teaching special education students because she had an aunt with Down’s syndrome who had limited educational opportunities. Respondent taught at Oscar Patterson Elementary for the 2006-2007 school year, and then transferred to MKL Center beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. After Respondent received her state educational certification in autism spectrum disorders, she requested to be assigned to teach an ESE class beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. That year, she was voted as “Teacher of the Year” by her peers. The class to which Respondent was assigned was a challenging class. It was not unusual for students in this classroom to bite, kick, hit, pinch, and trip staff. During the 2010-2011 school year, the number of students was reduced from eight to four, and the number of paraprofessionals was increased from two to three. During the 2011-2012 school year, there were four students in her classroom: C.B., J.B., K.M., and D.C. One paraprofessional, Patricia Lewis, was assigned specifically to D.C. The other two paraprofessionals, Jennifer Shea Saulmon and Nancy Davis, worked with all of the children, and when able to, Patricia Lewis did as well. Ms. Davis, Ms. Saulmon, and Ms. Lewis have seven, fourteen and twenty-seven years of experience, respectively. C.B. had a severe mental disability with a limited ability to comprehend verbal communications and a limited ability to communicate. C.B.’s communication involved single words, sounds, and gestures. He could discern the speaker’s mood, but might not fully understand the content of what was said. For example, C.B. might not understand that someone was saying hello, but would understand that the speaker was friendly towards him. C.B. also had problematic behaviors including biting, pinching, scratching, and hitting. C.B. had an awkward gait and wore ankle orthotics (AFO’s), a type of plastic brace, over his shoe and lower leg to provide stability from the foot to the leg, and to assist in improving his ability to walk. C.B. was ten years old. J.B. was approximately 11 years old in January 2012, and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He also had a limited ability to communicate using single words, sounds and utterances, and gestures. J.B. also used an iPad to communicate. Over time, someone working with J.B. would develop a greater ability to understand and communicate with him. J.B.’s difficult behaviors included spitting, hitting, kicking, and pinching. K.M. was 11 in January 2012. K.M. was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, and had previously suffered a stroke which limited her use of one arm. She also had significant intellectual limitations. However, K.M.’s ability to communicate was greater than the other members of the class, and she could understand verbal communications. In addition, K.M. was more independent than her classmates, and was a risk for elopement from both the classroom and the campus. As stated by one of the paraprofessionals, K.M. “was a runner.” By all accounts, K.M.’s behaviors were consistently disruptive, and managing her in a classroom took a significant effort. D.C. was also 11 in January 2012. D.C. was diagnosed as autistic and engaged in repeated self-injurious behaviors. When upset, D.C. would repeatedly strike himself in the head and face, and he often wore a football helmet as a protective measure. D.C. was very strong, and attempts to prevent him from hurting himself could often result in staff members being hurt. There was testimony at hearing that his behavior plan addressed how many he times he was allowed to hit himself or how long he was allowed to hit himself without intervention. However, the behavior plan for D.C. was not in evidence. A portion of the classroom was designed specifically for D.C., with padded walls and a padded floor, in light of D.C.’s tendency to hit his head against hard surfaces as well. He had some beads that he played with that sometimes calmed him. At some point during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to show signs that the stresses of her very challenging classroom were having an effect on her. After the Christmas break, her stress seemed to have intensified. Respondent was having trouble sleeping, suffered from high blood pressure and pain from injuries sustained in the classroom, and was experiencing some depression. Respondent began to “self- medicate” with alcohol at night. There was no credible evidence that Respondent ever drank during the day or was under the influence of alcohol during work hours. At the end of the school day on January 30, 2012, Ms. Lewis approached assistant principal Elizabeth Swedlund to voice some concerns about Respondent’s behavior in the classroom. Ms. Lewis related some events that had occurred in the classroom that day, as well as some general concerns regarding treatment of the students in the classroom. She voiced the following concerns: that Respondent took away D.C.’s beads and would allow him to hit himself for a period of time longer than allowed by his treatment plan; that she made statements to K.M. such as “I could kill you” or “go play in the street”; and that she hit C.B. with a closed hand and kicked him while working in “circle time.” On January 31, 2012, Ms. Swedlund notified her principal, Britt Smith, of the conversation with Ms. Lewis. She decided to speak with the other paraprofessionals in the classroom and after doing so, to report the information to the abuse registry. Principal Smith notified Sharon Michalik, the District’s Executive Director of Human Resources, of the issue with respect to Respondent. As a result, Mike Jones, Chief of Safety, initiated an investigation. Mike Jones visited the campus the following day. All three paraprofessionals were interviewed and asked to provide written statements. He took Respondent for a drug and urine test, which came back negative. On Friday, February 3, 2012, Respondent was notified to meet with Ms. Michalik and other administrators to review the allegations. After this meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay, and the School District planned to proceed with a recommendation for termination. However, instead the parties entered an agreement executed on March 30, 2012, through which Respondent would take a medical leave of absence and would only be allowed to return to a position with the School District if she was found fit for duty. If she returned, she would be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. On March 30, 2012, the Department of Children and Families issued a letter to Respondent stating that it found no indicators of physical injury and no indicators of bizarre punishment. On April 27, 2012, Respondent was evaluated by psychologist David J. Smith who opined that at that time, she was not fit for duty. She was re-evaluated on July 26, 2012, and cleared to return to work. At that time, she was assigned to a different school. One of the issues raised by Ms. Lewis was that Respondent permitted D.C. to hit himself more frequently than allowed by his behavior plan. The Administrative Complaint specifically charges that she allowed D.C. to hit himself repeatedly for up to ten minutes, while his behavior plan indicated that he should be allowed to hit himself up to three times. The behavior plan was not entered into evidence. The evidence was unclear as to what the plan actually required, and it was equally unclear exactly what Respondent was doing. For example, there was testimony that she would attempt to redirect him once he started hitting himself, but did not physically intervene for ten minutes. There was other testimony that there was never a time when he was allowed to simply hit himself with no one doing anything. Without being able to examine the behavior plan, and without being able to specify the exact incident or incidents at issue, it is not possible to determine whether Respondent was varying from the requirements of the behavior plan, or if any variation was significant. Ms. Davis reported to Ms. Swedlund that on or about Friday, January 27, 2012, J.B. was in time-out because of bad behaviors. While he was in time-out, he was sitting behind a rolling partition, and Respondent was holding the partition in place so that J.B. would have to remain in place. J.B. spat at Respondent, which is something he did often. Ms. Davis reported that while holding the partition Respondent spat back at him, an action that shocked Ms. Davis. Respondent denies ever spitting on J.B. She testified via deposition that J.B. was spitting while in time-out, and she was holding the barrier while talking to him. She responded to his behavior by saying “you do not spit.” Respondent testified that it was possible that some spittle may have fallen on J.B., but that she never intentionally spit on him. The only person who testified regarding the spitting was Ms. Davis. While she was a very credible witness, there was no testimony regarding how close she was to Ms. Henson or to J.B., or that J.B. reacted in any way. Neither of the other paraprofessionals in the room testified that they saw or heard about the incident, and it is implausible to think that such behavior would go without comment. It is conceivable that in saying, “you do not spit,” that spittle would result. Given the high burden of proof for this proceeding, the allegation has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. As previously stated, K.M. presented a classroom management problem. She had a tendency to run around the classroom, take her clothes off, or run out of the classroom and sometimes out of the building. She also would tear up items in the classroom and could be very disruptive. Ms. Lewis felt that Respondent had a hard time getting past her dislike of the child. She had heard her say things like, “I could just kill you right now,” and “go ahead and go into the street.” While Ms. Lewis believed K.M. could understand such statements, she did not react to them, except perhaps to run faster. Ms. Lewis did not believe that Ms. Henson was serious when she made the statements, but more likely made them when frustrated by K.M.’s behavior. Respondent did not recall ever making such statements. Neither Ms. Lewis nor the Administrative Complaint identified exactly when Respondent was to have made these statements, although Ms. Lewis specified that they were statements made at different times. While Ms. Lewis testified that she believed Respondent did not like K.M., it is just as likely that she did not dislike the child, but was extremely frustrated by her behavior. All of the paraprofessionals testified that Respondent truly loved the children she worked with, but that she was frustrated and overwhelmed in the very challenging classroom in which she taught. While the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent made the statements, even Ms. Lewis testified that she did not believe Respondent was serious when she made them. Regardless, the statements were not appropriate statements to make to a child, especially a child with limited intellectual abilities that might not be able to discern whether Respondent was serious. They are, by their nature, disparaging statements. Finally, the incident which caused Ms. Lewis to approach Ms. Swedlund about Respondent involved Respondent’s reactions to C.B. C.B. liked to work on the computer. He would play computer games, such as Dora the Explorer, and was rewarded with computer time for good behavior and finishing all of his assigned work. On Friday, January 27, 2012, C.B. had a rough day, and had been hitting, pinching, and kicking staff. Respondent had spoken with his mother about his behaviors to see if there had been any changes at home that might have contributed to his aggressive behavior. Respondent had told C.B.’s mother that they would have to try some different methods to get C.B. to comply, and that his playing on the computer all day would have to stop. The paraprofessionals testified that on Monday, January 30, 2012, Respondent seemed agitated all day. One said she seemed to carry the frustrations of Friday into Monday. That morning Jennifer Shea Saulmon went to the cafeteria to pick up C.B., who had walked from the parent pickup area without incident, and seemed to be in a good mood. When they reached the classroom, C.B. went straight to the computers. Respondent immediately told him that he could not have computer time. Ms. Saulmon was upset by this, because C.B. had not misbehaved that morning. She questioned Ms. Henson’s decision, and Respondent responded that he could not play on the computer all the time. He then completed his morning work without any disruption, and then walked over to the computers. Ms. Saulmon told him he could not play on the computer at that time. At about 9:15 a.m., the class began “circle time.” During this time, the students sit on the outside of a u-shaped table while Respondent sits on the inside of the “u.” C.B. did not like circle time. On this particular day, he was sitting at the end of the u-shaped table, to Respondent’s left. He began, as he often did, to hit and bite. According to Ms. Saulmon, this behavior usually subsides after about five minutes. This day, however, it did not. C.B. continued to pinch and hit Respondent. In response, Respondent put her arm up with a closed hand (so that the child could not pull and bend back a finger) in a blocking motion, as the teachers and paraprofessionals had been taught to do in order to protect themselves. She said out loud, “I’m blocking, I’m blocking.” However, rather than simply holding her arm up to block against any blows, she would swing her arm toward him to stop the blow, and in doing so, made contact with his arm. Although to Ms. Davis it looked like Respondent was hitting him, she never thought Respondent was trying to hurt C.B. Each time Respondent blocked C.B., he pinched her again, and she blocked him again, which made him angrier. He then started kicking her, and Ms. Davis and Ms. Saulmon believed she kicked him back. However, neither paraprofessional could say that Respondent actually made contact with C.B. They were pretty certain that C.B. was kicking Respondent, and they could see movement toward him by Respondent, and C.B. responded angrily by squealing as he usually did when frustrated or angry. It is just as likely that Respondent was using her leg or foot to try to block C.B.’s kicks, as she stated in her deposition, and that C.B. was angry because she was blocking him. Nonetheless, Respondent’s clear agitation in the classroom that day led to Ms. Lewis’ conversation with Ms. Swedlund about Respondent’s behavior. While all of the paraprofessionals stated concerns about Ms. Henson’s ability to handle that particular class, all were very supportive of her continuing to teach in the special education area. All three seemed to think that the environment of that particular class, which by any measure would be extremely challenging, is one that overwhelmed Respondent, and that she had been in that setting too long. When Respondent returned to work at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, she was transferred to Beach Elementary School. The principal at the new school is Glenda Nouskhajian. Ms. Nouskhajian considers Respondent to be one of her lead teachers in the ESE department, and has no performance- related concerns about her. The only issue Respondent has had since coming to Beach Elementary was a minor paper-work issue related to transferring schools within the district. Respondent is not working in a stand-alone classroom like she was before. She is what Ms. Nouskhajian referred to as a “push-in,” meaning that she goes into other teachers’ classrooms and works with students in small groups in an inclusion setting. She works with the lowest quartile of students, and helps with all of these students’ interventions. Ms. Nouskhajian testified that the students with whom Respondent works are making “great strides,” and Respondent is an educator she would “absolutely” seek to retain. Ms. Nouskhajian knew that there was an issue at Respondent’s prior school, but did not investigate the details. She stated that Respondent had been placed at Beach Elementary by Sharon Michalik, and “I knew that if she was a danger to students, Sharon Michalik would not have placed her at my school . . . . That she went through the counseling and everything she had to do so when she came to my school it was a total fresh start.” Since coming to Beach Elementary, Respondent’s evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was overall effective, with all categories rated as effective or highly effective. In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made inappropriate remarks to student K.M. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent spat on J.B., or that she hit or kicked C.B. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that she varied significantly from D.C.’s behavioral plan or acted in a way that allowed him to hurt himself. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was frustrated and overwhelmed in the autistic classroom and, despite having asked for the assignment, had been teaching in that environment for too long to be effective, given the violent tendencies of the children in that setting. There is clear and convincing evidence that she took a leave of absence in lieu of termination and could only return to the classroom after an evaluation found her fit for duty. A change of setting was needed and has served to re-invigorate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent has violated rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission in its discretion may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder PA 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent should be transferred from Glades Middle School to an opportunity school.
Findings Of Fact For the 1989-90 school year John Sarmiento was enrolled in the Dade County public school system and he was assigned to the eighth grade at Giades Middle School. On November 27, 1989, Petitioner administratively transferred him from Glades Middle School to J.R.E. Lee, an opportunity school. The stated basis for the transfer was the student's disruptive behavior and his failure to adjust to the regular school. As an opportunity school, J.R.E. Lee has a more structured program than a traditional school, such as Glades Middle School, and is designed to assist students with discipline problems. While attending Glades Middle School, John Sarmiento repeatedly engaged in disruptive conduct that interfered with his own learning and with the learning of others in his classes. This conduct resulted in his being referred to the assistant principal's office between five and ten times per week. On one occasion the student, while in class, threw a piece of chalk at another student. On another occasion, the student engaged in an argument with another student that almost resulted in a fight during class. On an almost daily basis, the student would wander around the class while making loud, boisterous comments. This student's misconduct would have merited his suspension according to the district code of student conduct. Instead of suspending this student, the school officials worked with him and with his parents in an effort to improve his behavior. Unfortunately the considerable efforts of the personnel at Glades Middle School to serve the student's educational needs did not succeed. The student needs the structured environment that the opportunity school can provide, and his educational needs will best be served by his transfer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which approves John Sarmiento's assignment to the J.R.E. Lee opportunity school. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April 1990, 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 3rd day of April 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 2780 Galloway Road, Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami, Florida 33165 Maria Ruiz de la Torre, Esquire 7111 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite Three Miami, Florida 33138 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Paul W. Bell Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Respondent Wieland has been employed with the Broward County school system for approximately twenty-three years. In the school year 1973/74, he held the position of Director of Exceptional Child Education. His immediate superior was the Program Director of Educational Services, Mr. Larry I. Walden, a member of the superintendent's staff. Dr. James R. Fisher served as Director of Psychological Services on Dr. Wieland's Exceptional Child Education staff. During the 1973/74 school year, several rather drastic changes were occurring with regard to the administration of the exceptional child education program. This was the year of decentralization in Broward County, where concepts of authority, decision-making, accountability and responsibility were filtering down to the building or school levels through the various principals. Also, the Florida Educational Financial Program began in that year. This program related to state funding for students based upon a particular weight factor assigned for students in different programs. The cost factors for programs for exceptional students is considerably higher than for basic programs. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, the actual responsibility for placement of children and implementation of programs resided with the principals of the individual schools. The role of the Exceptional Child Education staff was then reduced to one of consultation, advice and administration. Prior to decentralization, psychological testing was conducted under the direction or supervision of the Exceptional Student Education Department at the Diagnostic Center. With decentralization, testing psychologists became a part of the staff of the area offices and were answerable to their respective area superintendents. With this change, they were repeatedly instructed that their functions were consultative and that they were simply to test students upon receipt of a request from a school's principal. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, school psychologists, as well as the then Director of Psychological Services, were constantly concerned with the pressures being placed upon them by the school principals and area superintendents to rapidly test and certify students for eligibility in the various exceptional education programs. A count of such eligible students was to be made in October and February of each school year. The results of such counts had a tremendous effect upon the school principal's budget. Many school psychologists felt that students were being placed in programs without sufficient diagnosis or data. This, along with inadequate personnel, was a constant topic of discussion both among school psychologists and at meetings on the staff level. Mr. Walden, respondent's immediate superior, was informed by Dr. Fisher of files containing insufficient data and other procedural irregularities. Mr. Walden also attended some of the staff meetings at which various problems were discussed. No specific problems at Horizon Elementary School were discussed between Fisher and respondent Wieland during the 1973/74 school year. In fact, Dr. Fisher was unaware of any discrepancies or procedural irregularities at Horizon during that year. Conditions did not improve during the 1974/75 school year, according to various school psychologists and the exceptional education staff. They still felt pressure to rapidly identify eligible students for exceptional education programs in order to generate funding and they still felt there was inadequate staffing for psychological services. During this year, Mr. Joel Kieter assumed respondent's position of Director of the Exceptional Education Program and respondent became Coordinator of Special Services, formerly called Psychological Services. Thus, Mr. Kieter was respondent's immediate superior. During this year, Mr. Kieter's office had no direct role in the certification of students for the various exceptional education programs. The 1974 "District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" specifically provided that: "In the process of decentralization the exceptional student personnel at the district level have been relieved of direct responsibility for administration and instruction. The respon- sibilities of such personnel are now consultative and advisory in nature. The primary responsibility for administration and instruction is at the building level." However, Mr. Kieter's staff did attempt to give guidance to school psychologists and administrative personnel regarding the criteria for placement and the required procedures to be followed. Among the duties of respondent Wieland during the 1974/75 school year was direct responsibility for the Diagnostic Center, which was a repository for some 35,000 to 40,000 student files. School psychologists were instructed to obtain a case number from the Diagnostic Center for all new student files and to send a copy of the completed file to the Center. At one time, they were told that they could retain the folders as long as they thought the case was active. Student files were also to be kept at the student's school and in the area superintendents' offices. Inasmuch as the school psychologists were accountable to the area superintendents, the Center and its staff had no authority and could do little more than request them to promptly forward the files to the Center. At times, staff at the Diagnostic Center would return files for parental consent forms. Numerous staff meetings were held by Director Kieter during the 1974/75 school year. During these meetings, the school psychologists complained of their heavy caseload, the lack of secretarial help and other staff, pressures placed upon them by principals and area superintendents to place children in programs, inappropriate testing and lost or misplaced files. These were general discussions and specific incidents were not related. Dr. James Fisher, who was the team leader for psychologists in the North-Central area, had general discussions with both Dr. Wieland, Director Kieter, and even Mr. Walden concerning the pressure he felt with regard to the rapid testing of children and the inadequacy of data in the files of children who had already been placed. Dr. Fisher expressed to them his fear that emphasis was being placed upon the filling of classes, rather than upon the individual students. During the school year 1975/76, respondent again occupied the position of Coordinator of Special Services and Joel Kieter was again the Director of the Exceptional Education Program. The building principal of the referring school or the school enrolling the student was directly responsible for placement in the appropriate exceptional student program. ("1975 District Procedures for providing special Education for Exceptional Students," p. 199, H(2)(c) and p. 3). The exceptional student education staff was responsible for the determination of eligibility of individual students (p. 3 of the 1975 District Procedures). This determination was to be based upon the report of the testing psychologist. In the first portion of the 1975/76 school year, Director Kieter signed the eligibility determination forms (also referred to as the B-1 form). This responsibility was delegated by Mr. Kieter to respondent Wieland in mid- December, 1975. Prior to this delegation, Mr. Kieter occasionally signatured some B-1 forms without having seen the psychological report. This was done because of a backlog in clerical assistance and processing, and to expedite the procedure. Mr. Kieter was assured by the school psychologists that if the B-1 form had been sent to him for execution, proper testing had been completed, the report was in the process of being written and the data was available. Simultaneous with the time that the authority to sign B-1 forms was delegated to Dr. Wieland, Mr. Kieter issued a memorandum to all school psychologists stating that B-1 forms without the completed psychological report attached thereto would no longer be entertained. In the Fall of 1975, Mr. Fisher communicated with Director Kieter concerning the absence of certain psychological data in the files of some ten to twelve students at Horizon Elementary School. Mr. Kieter instructed Mr. Fisher to make up any deficiencies in those folders. Mr. Kieter also discussed the folders with the principal of Horizon, Mr. Wallsworth. Other than this incidence, Director Kieter was not informed of any specific irregularities or abuses in the exceptional education program at Horizon during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. John Georgacopoulos worked in the Diagnostic Center as a psychometrist from 1969 to 1971, and at Horizon Elementary School as a guidance counselor in the school years 1974/75 and 1975/76. As a guidance counselor, he attended "staffings" or meetings with school psychologists pertaining to the placement of students in the various programs. He was also involved with the testing of students at Horizon. In the school year 1974/75 -- his first year at Horizon -- Mr. Georgacopoulos perceived that there were problems in the running of Horizon's exceptional student program. These problems included the misclassification of students, the placing of students into programs without certification and without proper testing, the nonexistence of programs for which children were certified and mimeographed certifications with the students' name placed thereon at a later time. Mr. Georgacopoulos informed Horizon's principal, Mr. Wallsworth, of these irregularities on numerous occasions during the 1974/75 school year. He also states that he discussed these problems with Mr. Fisher, Director Kieter and respondent Wieland. Both Dr. Wieland and Mr. Kieter denied being informed by Mr. Georgacopoulos of any irregularities at Horizon during the 1974/75 school year. According to Mr. Georgacopoulos, problems at Horizon continued in the 1975/76 school year. These included the misplacement of children, improper or inadequate testing of students, nonexistence of programs, inadequate data in student files and the lifting of signatures onto psychological reports. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos obtained from Mr. Wallsworth's office a computer printout of students funded for the various exceptional education programs at Horizon. He then checked the files of these students both at the Diagnostic Center and at Horizon and found that many did not have case numbers assigned to them, that many contained inadequate or no data and that, for some students, files did not exist at all either at the school or the Center. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos went to respondent's office and talked to respondent about the alleged irregularities existing at Horizon. It is difficult to discern from Georgacopoulos' testimony what specifics were related to respondent. It appears that Wieland was informed that children were certified as gifted when no gifted program existed at Horizon, that children were being placed in the wrong programs, that children were being placed without appropriate or adequate testing and that the information in the student files was inadequate. At the time of this discussion, respondent had a difficult time following Georgacopoulos' conversation. He appeared to respondent to ramble and to be upset and confused. Respondent felt that Georgacopoulos simply disagreed with the psychologists' reports as well as the contents of the gifted program. As a result of this conversation, respondent told Georgacopoulos that some information might be in the files at the Diagnostic Center and offered him the opportunity to check these files with the assistance of his staff. Georgacopoulos told respondent that he had discussed these irregularities with Principal Wallsworth. On May 27, 1976, Robert Lieberman, a school psychologist at Horizon, went to respondent's office and told him of irregularities that existed at Horizon. These included the lack of programs for gifted and emotionally disturbed students, the misplacement of certified children, inappropriate "staffing" of children, inappropriate and/or inadequate testing before placement and the pressures placed upon school psychologists to test and place numerous students within a short amount of time. Lieberman was concerned that he would lose his job at Horizon and Respondent told him to try to finish out the school year without sacrificing his professionalism. Dr. Wieland also offered to help him get an interview for a job at the county level. Sometime between May 27th and June 9, 1976, Ms. Queen Sampson, a school psychologist from the area office, talked to respondent and confirmed the statements made by Georgacopoulos and Lieberman. On June 9, 1976, respondent again discussed the irregularities at Horizon with Mr. Georgacopoulos. During this conference, Mr. Georgacopoulos specifically placed the blame upon Principal Wallsworth and he was more emphatic and specific in his allegations concerning the irregularities. He also mentioned the falsification of psychological reports via the "lifting" of signatures, and stated that this had come to his attention in May of 1976. Respondent was aware at this June 9, 1976, meeting that Mr. Georgacopoulos was leaving the Broward County school system. Mr. Georgacopoulos testified that he had discussed specific irregularities at Horizon with Director Joel Kieter during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. Kieter denied that there had been any such discussions and testified that he had never even met Mr. Georgacopoulos prior to June 9, 1976. About an hour after talking to Mr. Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, respondent Wieland went to the office of William T. McFatter, Assistant to the Superintendent. He related that Georgacopoulos had made serious allegations against Mr. Wallsworth and asked for McFatter's advice. Mr. McFatter remembers that respondent mentioned the possibility of double funding and the qualification of students for the gifted program at Horizon. McFatter advised respondent to go straight to superintendent Mauer with the allegations. McFatter and respondent then went to the superintendent's office and a brief ten to fifteen minute meeting ensued. This was the last day of the school year for students and the superintendent was quite busy at this time. The possibility of double funding was an explosive issue to the Superintendent and this is the only irregularity he recalls having been mentioned by respondent on June 9, 1976. The superintendent immediately called a Mr. Cox, who deals with pupil accounting, and related to him his concern with double funding of students in the exceptional education program. Mr. McFatter, Mr. Mauer and respondent then went to the office of Mr. Cox and respondent Wieland was assigned the task of determining the existence or nonexistence of double funding. None was found and respondent so reported to Mr. Mauer. Subsequently, respondent and two other persons were assigned the task of auditing the records of the exceptional student program at Horizon. The auditors were unable to verify either the existence or nonexistence of certain records, forms and psychological reports for many students. It was clear that many files were incomplete and there was no evidence that either the gifted or emotionally disturbed programs existed at Horizon. Respondent Wieland explained the delay between the first March 1976, meeting with Mr. Georgacopoulos and his June 9, 1976, report to Mr. McFatter and the Superintendent as follows. Respondent (as well as others) classified Georgacopoulos as a "child advocate," and respondent felt at the March meeting that Georgacopoulos was merely expressing his disagreement with psychological reports and the contents of certain existing programs. During the March meeting, his allegations were general in nature and his discussion of irregularities appeared to ramble and be confusing. Respondent was more concerned with the demeanor of Georgacopoulos than with what he was saying. When Mr. Lieberman related similar and more specific irregularities, which were thereafter confirmed by Queen Sampson, respondent felt that disclosure of Lieberman's and Sampson's statements would be detrimental to their future employment with the school system. Upon confirming that Georgacopoulos was leaving the school system, respondent felt that the charges could be attributed to Georgacopoulos without injury to Lieberman and Sampson. He therefore had another conference with Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, and decided to seek advice from the Assistant to the Superintendent, Mr. McFatter. Various other events have transpired since June 9, 1976, concerning Horizon Elementary School exceptional education program irregularities. These include a letter from Mr. Georgacopoulos to the Superintendent, which letter appears to have instigated an investigation by the Security Office or the Internal Affairs Division. Such later events are not deemed relevant to the present charges against respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent be immediately reinstated to his former position and that any back salary be paid to him for the reason that the charges against him were not sustained by the evidence. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: School Board of Broward County 1327 S.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida John B. Di Chiara DiGiulian, Spellacy, Bernstein, Lyons and Sanders Suite 1500, One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Robert M. Curtis Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore P.O. Drawer 4078 1750 East Sunrise Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for a Florida educator's certificate should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for a Florida educator's certificate from the Florida Department of Education. On May 19, 1997, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. She was sentenced to six months' probation. She was also required to perform 50 hours of community service and to pay $1,245 in fines and court costs. Her driver's license was revoked, and she was required to attend DUI school. Petitioner is the mother of two sons. On July 31, 2000, William was eight years of age and Jeffrey was 12 1/2. William and Jeffrey had lived primarily with Jo Kathryn Crawford, Petitioner's mother and their grandmother, since the middle of 1998. During the weekend prior to Monday, July 31, 2000, Petitioner had called her mother's home a number of times during which she was drunk and belligerent. Even so, arrangements were made for Petitioner to pick up William Monday morning to take him to a doctor's appointment after which she would take both William and Jeffrey to her "new" home. Her new home was a home which Jacksonville Habitat had built for her and had deeded to her in October 1999. She did not move into the home at that time but had continued to live in a trailer park. She wanted to spend her first night with William and Jeffrey in the home and wanted them to help her with the moving-in chores. On Monday, July 31, 2000, she picked up William and took him to his medical appointment. When she brought William back to his grandmother's home, William was hungry, and his grandmother insisted on fixing lunch for him. Petitioner was annoyed at having to wait, but she did. She then left with William and Jeffrey, saying that she would return them the next morning, Tuesday. While Petitioner and her sons were eating dinner that evening at her new home, Petitioner became angry because William crawled under the table and was shaking it. When William got out from under the table to go to the bedroom he would be sharing with Jeffrey, he knocked over a pile of clothes. Petitioner became highly irritated and then enraged, yelling and chasing William down the hallway. She caught up with him at the doorway to the bedroom, grabbed a belt, and started swinging it indiscriminately at William with the buckle end toward the child. William was crying and begging her to stop. He was also trying to get away from her. Petitioner was using severe blows with the full range of motion of her arm, and the belt buckle hit William multiple times. The belt was moving fast, and Petitioner was inflicting severe blows, while still screaming at William. Jeffrey, who was also in the bedroom, could even hear the belt hitting William but felt powerless to do anything to help his brother. During this episode Petitioner remained enraged and lacked any self-control. When the beating was over, Petitioner did not attend to William. Jeffrey was the one who rendered comfort to his brother and put a Band-Aid on his brother's finger, where the stem of the belt buckle had pierced or cut it. Petitioner did not return the boys to their grandmother's home until Wednesday. The grandmother asked William about the Band-Aid on his finger. William did not want to tell her what happened to his finger, but over the course of the afternoon he told his grandmother what had happened at Petitioner's home. Jeffrey confirmed what William told his grandmother. The grandmother raised William's shirt. He had marks and bruises on his back and front. There were long, red welts on his back and on his side. Some marks were large, some were small, some were round, and some were distinctively the shape of a belt buckle. There were dark blue and purple bruises on his lower buttocks on both sides and on his elbow. There was a round mark like a pencil eraser above his right knee. There were longer bruises in his front groin area. On his upper leg were round, large, black and red bruises. The grandmother took pictures of the marks on William's body. The next day, August 3, 2000, she consulted an attorney to find out what she should do. She then went to the Jacksonville Beach Police Department, where she spoke with Detective Tommy Crumley and showed him the pictures. Crumley contacted the abuse hotline. He then went to the grandmother's home, looked at William's bruises, took pictures, and talked to both boys separately. At final hearing, he described the bruises, categorized them as severe, and thought they appeared to be painful. Prior to July 31, 2000, Petitioner beat William when he made her mad. Although William was unable to quantify the number of times, he described the number as being "a lot." He did not tell his grandmother about the source of the bruises he had from those occasions. Prior to July 31, 2000, and as far back as Jeffrey can remember, Petitioner also beat Jeffrey. She beat him twice on some days and not at all on other days. It depended upon her mood and her temper. When beating him, Petitioner used her hands, a belt, or a wooden spoon. Prior to July 31, 2000, Petitioner beat her sons whenever they did something that made her angry, even for spilling a drink. The beatings were severe, and she did not care where her blows landed. Although the beatings left bruises, the children told no one for fear of being hit even more. On August 4, 2000, Petitioner was arrested and charged with aggravated child abuse, a felony. She was also later charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor. Pursuant to a plea agreement, on August 14, 2001, the charge of aggravated child abuse was dismissed, and Petitioner pled guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. She was placed on probation with special conditions for a period of 12 months. Petitioner completed her probation early. Both of Petitioner's sons were in psychological therapy throughout high school. Until they saw each other at the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner had not seen either of her sons since she returned them to the grandmother's house on August 3, 2000. The grandmother has had legal custody of Petitioner's sons since August 7, 2000. They continue to live with their grandmother. Jeffrey, who is now 20, is a junior in college, majoring in chemistry. He also works at Marsh Landing Country Club. William, who is now 16, was, at the time of the final hearing, temporarily residing at Impact House, a juvenile detention facility, where he had been for 10 days for violation of probation. Even though Petitioner does not possess a teaching certificate, she has been employed as an ESE teacher by the Duval County Public Schools in Jacksonville since March 2007. She is assigned to middle-school exceptional student education classes. She has been re-appointed for the coming school year. Petitioner explains the marks she made on William's body by suggesting that maybe he got the bruises from playing or roughhousing with his brother or maybe his grandmother hit him with a wooden spoon. She explains the cut on William's finger by saying the belt slipped out of her hand while she was "swatting" him and fell, hitting him on the finger. It is clear that, even after eight years, Petitioner does not understand the shocking and inappropriate nature of her behavior. Further, she has still not accepted responsibility for her actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for a Florida educator's certificate, permanently barring her from re-applying in the future, and providing that the Department may refuse to consider a subsequent application from her. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2008, 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 11th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Thomas A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Laverne Reaves, has been employed as a teacher by the Petitioner since the 1966-67 school year and has been a junior high English language arts teacher since the 1971- 72 school year. For the 1982-83 school year and the subsequent years, except for a period of maternity leave, Respondent was employed as an English language arts teacher at Highland Oaks Junior High School (Highland Oaks). Prior to Respondent's assignment to Highland Oaks, her yearly evaluations indicated acceptable performance. In Fall, 1982, the Dade County School Board initiated a pilot program known as the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). Highland Oaks was one of the schools selected for the pilot program. During the time she was at Highland Oaks, beginning with the 1982-83 school year, Respondent failed to demonstrate acceptable teaching in every classroom observation and in every language arts assignment. After an absence due to a back injury, Respondent reported to Highland Oaks at the end of September or at the beginning of October, 1982, after the beginning of the school years. Respondent missed the teacher orientation session because of her injury. When Respondent arrived at Highland Oaks, Ms. Ruskin, the English language arts department head met with her, as with any new teacher, to orient her to the textbooks to be used at each level, course outlines, basic curriculum, and the teacher manuals. Parents of the students began registering complaints the second day Respondent taught at Highland Oaks, and continued to complain on a regular basis. One of the major complaints was that the children were being taught at a level beneath their ability. These were Level III students (average-above average ability) who were being taught as Level II students (below average ability). Due to a scheduling error, Respondent believed that one class of Level III student was Level II. The complaints came not only from the class in which the administrative scheduling error was made, but also from other classes. The error was soon corrected. The parents also complained about Respondent's preparation for the classes and her knowledge and ability to teach. In addition to not teaching on the level of the students; she was assigning them book reports that were at a very elementary level. She was using textbooks that were far below their level. Her language was not appropriate. She assigned work to the class but did not explain it. The parents also complained that Respondent's homework assignments were not meaningful and that when she gave homework, she did not collect it, grade it, return it, or use it as part of the instruction. She wasted a lot of class time going off on tangents. The parents also complained that Respondent lacked control of the classroom and that she did not maintain appropriate relations with the parents. They complained that she called the students names, such as "stupid" and "ignorant," and constantly told the children to "shut up." She was hostile and aggressive and sometimes embarrassed and ridiculed students. The parents stated that Respondent threatened the students if they complained to their parents. The parents wanted to have their children removed from Respondent's class. The children did not want to go to her class. The parents felt that the situation was potentially dangerous as Respondent ignored dangerous situations. Because of the parental complaints, Assistant Principal Sarah Nelson had a conference with Respondent on October 8, 1982. Ms. Ruskin met with Respondent on October 12, 1982, in an effort to assist Respondent in the problems she was having in discipline, assigning homework, and general curriculum problems. Ms. Ruskin provided additional materials to Respondent in an effort to help her. These included books, tests, balanced curriculum, classroom materials, semester course outlines, SAT outlines, and publications about writing, course objectives for advanced level students, and suggested activities for lower level students. Other teachers in the department offered help, as well. Although Ms. Ruskin indicated that she was available to help in any way, Respondent never came to her for assistance. Respondent was officially observed in her seventh grade English Level II class on October 13, 1982, by Ms. Nelson. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable, and specifically, unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the classroom activities did not reflect evidence of effective instructional planning and Respondent had not turned in lesson plans on a regular basis, as required. The objectives were too general and the homework was not specific enough. The expectations for Level III students were not higher than for Level II students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she failed to adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of her students, e.g., Level II versus Level III students, and she did not use instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter to the different levels. Her level of questioning was not done in enough depth. Her lesson lacked closure, i.e., review, recap. She failed to explain words which needed explanation. Spelling and vocabulary were to be done on a weekly basis, and yet, Respondent had only given one spelling test since the beginning of school. The homework did not have any meaningful value and the students who did the homework were not rewarded by having it collected. Students who did not do the homework were not penalized in any way. Although classroom management was rated acceptable; Mrs. Nelson was concerned that it took Respondent 20 minutes out of a 50-minute period to have the class begin working. There was too much movement in the room, which distracted students who were trying to read. Mrs. Nelson recommended that Respondent establish and enforce classroom rules. Mrs. Nelson further recommended that Respondent clearly state her objectives in the next week's lesson plans and that those objectives be differentiated for the two levels taught. Mrs. Nelson discussed the deficiencies in Respondent's lesson plans with her approximately a dozen times. Mrs. Nelson also offered to make sure that Respondent had the proper books and materials and that if she needed any additional help, she would be happy to help her and indicated that Ms. Ruskin would also be able to assist. Respondent was next formally observed on November 9, 1982, by Dr. Mildred Augenstein, principal, in her seventh grade Level III class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management; and techniques of instruction. Based on the observation of October 13, 1982, and her own observation, Dr. Augenstein established a written prescription to help Respondent remedy her problems. Although Respondent was rated acceptable in preparation and planning at the November 5, 1982, observation, Dr. Augenstein made specific recommendations as to preparation and planning because of the unacceptable ratings on October 13, 1982. These included turning in lesson plans weekly to Mrs. Nelson. They were to be done in depth, separately for Level II and Level III classes. They were to contain specific components and were to reference the Balanced Curriculum, a School Board rule on course objectives. The requested actions were to be completed by December 3, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subject matter, e.g., inaccurate definition of science fiction. She read off words for a spelling test without giving the students a sentence in which they could hear the words. This confused the children. Dr. Augenstein prescribed required actions for remediation and recommended resources to which Respondent could turn for help in upgrading her preparation in English language arts. These included specific exercises in the TADS prescription manual dealing with knowledge of the subject matter, to be completed by December 8, 1982. Respondent was also instructed to contact the Teacher Education Center (TEC) to identify any course offerings in the area of language arts by December 15, 1982. Respondent was to visit other language arts classrooms in order to observe the different levels of instruction prior to December 15, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because the students spoke at will without raising hands. There was a constant undercurrent of conversation, and Respondent kept "shushing" them as a whole group without dealing with the specific behavior of individuals and making corrections. Respondent did not begin the class promptly. Dr. Augenstein prescribed required actions for remediation and recommended resources to which Respondent could turn for help in classroom management. These included beginning classes promptly and establishing a set of simple class rules and following through on them by December 15, 1982. Respondent was directed to investigate a course on assertive discipline or teacher effectiveness training and to enroll in a TEC course in classroom management by March, 1983. Respondent was directed to review the faculty handbook which contained the rules and regulations of the school and was asked to work with the assistant principal, Mr. Fontana, to set up a set of classroom rules. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she failed to employ techniques which provided stimulating, varied and productive learning experiences for the students. Her lesson was not sequenced properly in that no background was given and there was no follow-through at the end as to what had been accomplished. When the students tried to ask questions for clarification, Respondent failed to answer them. The students were very confused. Respondent failed to anticipate the problems that the students would have in the lesson. Dr. Augenstein prescribed required actions for remediation and recommended resources to which Respondent could turn for help in improving her techniques of instruction. These included the TADS manual exercise on questioning skills, verbal interaction, effective teaching strategies, and instruction sequence; to be completed by January 15, 1983. Respondent needed to learn how to ask questions which led the students into more critical thinking and analytical skills, and not simply ask low level recall questions. Respondent was to demonstrate at least one new teaching approach by January 15, 1983. Parent complaints continued and culminated in a meeting on November 23, 1982, between a group of 19 parents and the principal. The principal held a meeting with Respondent on November 29, 1982, to discuss those complaints. Thereafter, the complaints continued and were far in excess of any that the principal had ever received about any other teacher. On December 13, 1982, the principal directed a memorandum to Respondent regarding her failure to comply with provisions of the previous prescription. Respondent had failed to turn in lesson plans as directed and her plans still did not differentiate between Level II and Level III. Children were given simple spelling words, e.g., leg, heat, without being given the purpose for their study. This confused the students as to why they were being made to learn easy words. The students were given a list of adverbs to use in a sentence and the words were not all adverbs. Parent complaints continued. One complaint concerned a disturbance in Respondent's classroom. Rather than dealing with it appropriately, Respondent stated that the two students who were involved should hang themselves. Parents tended to view Respondent as belligerent, abusive, and non-responsive to the academic and emotional needs of the students. On December 14, 1982, Respondent was released from classes to observe other language arts classrooms and to obtain direct assistance from the department head who was also released for the afternoon. Respondent was next formally observed in a seventh grade class on January 6, 1983, by Dr. Augenstein. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent still had not completed her previous prescription. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not realistic or appropriate and were not followed through. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she used a sentence that lacked a verb, i.e., "what hour you went to bed last night?" She also gave a spelling test of homonyms, but in some of the sentences, she used two of the homonyms, and the students were confused as to which form they were supposed to spell, e.g., "I want to go there too." While Respondent was rated acceptable in classroom management, that category was minimally acceptable. There was still an undercurrent of whispering and very few students were raising their hands before speaking out. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she had difficulty in sequencing the material, explaining and clarifying it. There was no connection made to what the students had previously learned. Respondent was not able to make clear to the students what an inference was. She never went beyond the textbook definition. She did not relate the term to the students' lives. The homework assignment was given very hurriedly and was vague. The students were unsure of what they were supposed to do. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no evidence that student compositions were being written, collected, evaluated, and redone. That is a requirement of the Balanced Curriculum. When Respondent returned some papers to the students to look at "for a minute," she did not give them time to assess their progress. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because when a student asked a question, Respondent made no response. The teacher-student interchanges were very cold and condensed, and there was much uneasiness. The teaching climate was hostile, punitive, or retaliatory. Since Respondent had not yet completed the previous prescription, she was directed to continue working on it. On or about January 11, 1983, Dr. Augenstein gave Respondent a list of TEC courses which would be helpful to Respondent in the areas in which she needed remediation. Parent complaints continued. On or about January 19, 1983, a parent complained that the work in her child's Level III class was too elementary. Upon review, Dr. Augenstein concurred. Respondent's class schedule was changed at the end of the first semester in order to give her an opportunity to perform acceptably with students of a lower level and to eliminate some of the parental pressure. It was thought that perhaps she was most familiar with that type of student from her pervious school and that would allow her more time to complete her prescriptive activities. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class by Dr. Augenstein on February 8, 1983. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she mispronounced words, e.g., denouement, architecture. Although "denouement" had been previously pronounced correctly in a filmstrip, Respondent mispronounced it. "Architecture" was pronounced "arch-chi-tek-chur" (as in church) in a lesson dealing with "ch" being used as a "K" sound (as in chaos). This confused the students in the major point of the lesson. Classroom management was rated unacceptable because after the lunch break, the students did not quiet down until the principal came back into the classroom. Although Respondent was not formally observed during the next period, the principal informally noted the noise coming from Respondent's classroom while she was observing the teacher in the next room. That teacher indicated that Respondent's classes were always that noisy. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not clarify or answer student's questions to a degree that was correct or satisfying to the students. She did not encourage and structure student participation. The lesson did not come to an end other than by the ringing of the bell, i.e., no closure. In spite of the fact that Respondent was teaching an entirely different group of students, the problems were a continuation of those seen in the prior observations. Respondent was directed to continue the prescriptive activities from November, 1982. As of the date of this observation, Respondent had not fulfilled her previous prescription. She had not demonstrated the new teaching technique to either Mrs. Nelson or Dr. Augenstein. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class by Mrs. Nelson on February 17, 1983. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because the students were noisy and she had a great deal of difficulty getting them settled. There was an undercurrent of noise throughout the whole class period. One student who was blowing bubbles was never reprimanded. Another student continued to get up and down out of her seat. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because there was no focal point to the lesson. Nothing was emphasized. The main points could have been reinforced on the chalkboard or by the use of some other media, e.g., overhead projector, supplementary materials, to better helped those students who are visual rather than auditory learners. Although Respondent was rated acceptable in assessment techniques, she still did not collect the homework after asking the students how many had it. Only five students had the homework and there was no reinforcement for them. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because some students monopolized the discussion while others never participated and were completely off task. No encouragement was given to those students who did not participate. However, due to a technical error in checking the boxes on the observation form, Respondent should have been given credit for satisfactory teacher-student relationships. This technical error would not remove Respondent from prescription. Rather than writing a new prescription for Respondent, Mrs. Nelson reviewed and discussed the prescription of November 24, 1982, with her. She did this because she felt as though that that prescription was a very good one and it had not been completed by Respondent. On February 23, 1983, a conference-for-the record was held with Respondent to discuss the problems that Respondent had been having, the help that had been given to her, the status of the remediation efforts, and to clarify decisions related to employment recommendations. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class on March 2, 1983, by Dr. Augenstein and by an outside administrator, Roger Frese. Both administrators rated Respondent unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent had difficulty in presenting the subject matter in a sequenced manner. While the lesson plan indicated that the students would study components of the short story, with the exception of merely mentioning the names of the components, the students jumped right into paragraph writing dealing with characterization without any development of the concept of characterization and without instruction on how to write. The written products of the students indicated confusion and misunderstanding. When the students asked questions, Respondent had an opportunity to clarify the misunderstanding: however, she failed to respond to their questions. When the students read their papers aloud, Respondent failed to indicate whether they were correct. Because Respondent did not ask questions and did not respond to the questions asked by the students; and because of the many wrong answers given and accepted by Respondent; there was no way to determine that Respondent did in fact have a grasp of the topic. There was no closure to the assignment. Respondent assigned a homework activity which was not an extension of the day's assignment. It was a new assignment given without prior instruction. In order to remediate Respondent's deficiencies, Dr. Augenstein directed her to continue the prescribed activities of the November 24, 1982 prescription. By memorandum dated April 22, 1983, Dr. Augenstein recommended course work to help remediate deficiencies in Respondent's knowledge of subject matter. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by assistant principal, Dr. Herman Mills, on May 24, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter. The sequencing of information was illogical and unclear. Dr. Mills found that Respondent had gaps in her education, as evidenced by her statements that Canada was a French-speaking country and Korea was a city. Respondent gave the students a handout with an error. "More bigger" was used on the handout, and Respondent failed to indicate to the class that a comma was missing. This confused the students in finding a dissimilar word in a given series. Respondent gave another wrong answer because she did not recognize the dissimilar word in a series of words. During the 1982-83 school year, administrators occasionally went to Respondent's classroom so that their presence would help Respondent get the class under control. Respondent's yearly evaluation indicated that she had not remediated deficiencies in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction, and Dr. Augenstein recommended a return to annual contract, i.e., loss of tenure. That recommendation, however, was not implemented. In September, 1983, Dr. Augenstein assigned Dr. Mills the task of determining the degree of Respondent's compliance with her previous prescription. At his first meeting with Respondent, Dr. Mills discovered that she had had none of the prescriptive activities signed off. At a second meeting with Respondent, Dr. Mills verified that Respondent completed a TEC course in techniques of instruction. On September 27, 1983, Dr. Mills directed Respondent to obtain sign-offs on her prescription by September 30, 1983. When he met with her on October 5, 1983, he discovered that the only item signed off was the activity of meeting with Mr. Fontana, assistant principal, on classroom management. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class by Dr. Augenstein on October 19, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the lesson stated in the plan was not feasible. Respondent had not anticipated how long the various tasks would take, and since this was the same teaching assignment as the previous year, she should have had an idea of the reasonable time for the assignment. She listed a homework assignment that could not be done because the set of books involved was a classroom set and were not books that were sent home with the students. A large number of students did not have their books in class; thus indicating to the observer that they had not been prepared for the work to be assigned. In order to address Respondent's deficiencies in preparation and planning, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the original prescription of November 24, 1982. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had difficulty demonstrating the difference between homonyms, homographs, and homophones. She also assumed that the seventh grade students were knowledgeable of the parts of speech. This would not have been appropriate so early in the year for seventh grade students. In order to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the memorandum of April 22, 1983, recommending intensive study of subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was still not emphasizing important points with the use of media, e.g., chalkboard. Student contributions ended in confusion rather than clarification since Respondent allowed the students to call out homonyms rather than using the homonyms in a correct sentence. To help remediate Respondent's deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the original prescription of November 24, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there were insufficient student papers in the students' folders and insufficient grades in the grade book to enable an administrator to make a judgment as to whether the students were making adequate progress. The criterion calls for a variety of assessment techniques, and yet, the only graded tests in Respondent's grade book were four spelling tests. The student folders contained no graded samples of homework or graded compositions. The day's homework was not called for. When Dr. Augenstein asked to see the homework, only six students turned in papers. In order to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in assessment techniques, Respondent was directed to enroll in a TEC course in assessment techniques. She was directed not to write in her lesson plans that the students should "go over the. ," but that she should be more specific on how she plans to assess the work. She was directed to provide a variety of assessments to include both written and oral work. Respondent was next formally observed in her reading lab by Dr. Mills on November 16, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because her methodology was inappropriate for a reading lab. The purpose of a reading lab is to give the students individualized work based upon their reading levels. The students should have been diagnostically placed into three groups based upon reading levels however, they were being taught as one group and had been so taught for four days. Respondent's instructions to the class were vague and unclear. Respondent did not indicate to the class what the correct responses were, but rather, she seemed to be striving for consensus among the students. The students had little idea of what a topic sentence was, and Respondent did not give them any background. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Mills arranged for carrels to be placed in Respondent's classroom. He also had Mrs. Hoffman, a teacher on special assignment in reading, work with Respondent in setting up the reading lab. He further directed Respondent to immediately divide the 20 students into three reading groups according to the diagnostic testing and to provide the necessary materials for individualized work according to their reading levels. He assigned exercise in the TADS prescription manual. A parental complaint was lodged against Respondent for using profanity in the classroom on November 30, 1983. An investigation into the matter revealed that a student had used profanity and that Respondent, in chastising him, repeated the profanity a number of times. Respondent was advised against the use of profanity in the classroom and to use standard referral procedures in handling such matters. A conference-for-the-record was held on December 13, 1983, to discuss Respondent's performance to date. Respondent was informed that failure to remediate and improve her performance could have an adverse impact upon her employment status. On February 14, 1984, Respondent was formally observed in her ninth grade reading class by Dr. Augenstein. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she continued to demonstrate the same kinds of problems she had previously demonstrated. There was no evidence that Respondent was applying the previous help from the TADS manual. No objective was given in the lesson plan. Although a homework assignment was listed in the previous day's lesson plan, none was collected. The homework assignment for this day, as listed in the plan, was never assigned. Respondent was still putting in her plan that students should "Go over today's lesson." The terminology "go over" was still being used despite an earlier prescription indicating that the term was vague. Respondent was confusing assessment activity with programmed instruction. She demonstrated a lack of understanding of programmed instruction. To remediate Respondent's deficiencies in preparation and planning, Dr. Augenstein directed Respondent to enroll in a TEC course in preparation and planning as prescribed on October 19, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because Respondent gave no feedback to the students as to the correct answers. She did not orient the students to what they were doing. When they asked questions, she was very vague in answering. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the memorandum of April 22, 1983, which suggested the need for intensive study of the subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she presented no lesson and did not carry out a question-answer sequence as indicated in her lesson plans. The students spent the entire period doing an activity which was not introduced to them and was not monitored by the teacher. There was no follow-up and the students did not get feedback as to whether the work was correct. The students who finished early sat with nothing to do. Respondent spent the period grading papers and provided assistance to a few students who asked for it. To aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Augenstein referred Respondent to the pages in the TADS prescription manual which had been prescribed on November 24, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because her grade book contained no grades for the last four weeks of the first semester. Minimally, a teacher should have two grades per week. There was no evidence of graded homework or formal writing instruction in the grade book or the student folders. Some of the students had no papers in their folders for several months. Most of the papers that were in the folders were simply ditto sheets, quick, objective, short answer papers. The "essay" portion of the ninth grade final examination for the first semester was a multiple choice test rather than an essay test, contrary to the guidelines for final examinations in the faculty handbook and School Board Rule. In order to aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in assessment techniques, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the prescription of October 19, 1983. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade class on March 6, 1984, by Dr. Augenstein and Zelda Glazer, supervisor of language arts. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction; and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because in a lesson dealing with parts of speech,. she accepted incorrect answers from students and even put some of them on the board. She incorrectly identified a number of words as adjectives when they were actually adverbs; verbs, and nouns. When the students gave wrong answers, Respondent did not correct them. Respondent relied on rote definitions for the parts of speech. These were difficult for low level students to understand. In order to aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, she was directed to review with the language arts supervisor or the department chairperson the identifying signals for adjectives and nouns, so that rote definitions would not be the exclusive explanations made to the students. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because there was no sequence for the lesson. Respondent's lesson lacked motivation and closure. No background was given, and no re-teaching was done of areas where the students lacked knowledge. Respondent did not recognize and anticipate difficulties in the lesson. She did not answer the student's questions and did not use students' wrong answers as a teaching experience. There was no attempt to explain why wrong answers were wrong, but rather, they were simply accepted, thus confirming the student's opinions that they had given correct responses. In order to aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Respondent was directed to review with the department chairperson or a school administrator the sequencing of a lesson and to write a lesson which was carefully sequenced. The lesson should include the requisite components, i.e., review, participation in a drill or repetition, and application of the skills learned. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because the work in the students' folders did not reflect a variety of formats. The papers were merely simple drills or exercises. There were no compositions and no opportunities for applying the skills which were taught. By this time of year, Respondent should have had approximately 15 to 20 compositions in each student's folder. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in assessment techniques, Respondent was directed to develop a unit test using writing production as one element of the test. A conference-for-the-record was held on March 6, 1984. Respondent's assessments and prescriptions were reviewed. The help afforded to Respondent was also discussed. Dr. Augenstein indicated that she would be initiating the procedure for dismissal for cause. In March, 1984, shortly after the conference for the record, Respondent began approximately one year's maternity leave. Respondent's yearly evaluation for 1983-84 indicated that Respondent ended the year on prescription for deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques, and that Dr. Augenstein had recommended her for dismissal. The actual evaluation form (Petitioner's Exhibit 20) contains a typographical error in that the "X's" are reversed. The unacceptable categories are marked acceptable and vice versa. Respondent returned to Highland Oaks on April 15, 1985. She was given special help to acclimate her after her year's leave. Although Dr. Augenstein had never done so before; she purchased the services of the substitute teacher who had replaced Respondent during her leave in order that Respondent could have the minimum of one full week when she returned to prepare for her classes and so that the substitute could work with her on an as needed basis. Respondent was to observe the classes during that week, go over the student's progress, and plan in depth for the rest of the school year. Dr. Mills assisted in attempting to make a smooth transition between the substitute and Respondent. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom on May 2, 1985, by Dr. Augenstein. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Since she had recently returned from leave, Dr. Augenstein did not rate her in assessment techniques. The class observed was an eighth grade Level IV class, the precursor to high school honors English. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she did not demonstrate that she had knowledge of research projects and library research skills. The students were completely confused and frustrated by Respondent's teaching. They were trying to get clarification from Respondent but were not able to do so. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein recommended that she observe other Level IV English classes and that she do a research project herself so that she would learn enough about it in order to teach it. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not meeting the needs of advanced learners. She was not using inductive and critical thinking approaches. She frustrated them by putting off their questions and giving conflicting and misleading information when she tried to answer questions. In order to help Respondent overcome her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Augenstein directed her to design and present a lesson using strategies for inductive and critical thinking. She was to include higher order questioning skills, pre-writing strategies, and techniques for promoting student involvement. Dr. Augenstein indicated that Charles Houghton, North Area project manager for secondary language arts, would assist and critique demonstration lessons. Mr. Houghton came to Highland Oaks to assist Respondent on Wednesday, May 15, 1985. He discovered that Respondent lacked an understanding of research. Mr. Houghton indicated that he would return on Friday, May 17, 1985, in order to give assistance to Respondent. He would gather materials for her, would go over them with her during her planning period, and would stay with her through the classroom period to see how she did. When he came back on the 17th, he discovered that Respondent was absent. He left the materials for her with an open ended invitation that if she needed further assistance, to let him know. Respondent did not request further help. Respondent was next observed in her English class by Dr. Mills on May 28, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning; classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction because although lesson plans had been made, they were not being followed. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because there was no lesson being presented. Respondent shouted at the students, but they continued to remain off task. The student behavior was almost chaotic. In an effort to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies, Dr. Mills met with Respondent and indicated that it was imperative that she follow through on the prescription Dr. Augenstein had given her. She was given further prescriptive activities which were similar to those she had been given before. Respondent was next formally observed in her eighth grade class on June 6, 1985, by Mrs. Nelson and Mrs. Glazer. Respondent was rated unaccepted in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Mrs. Nelson did not see much of an improvement over her prior observation done in 1982. Respondent was teaching a lesson in similes and metaphors in the poem, "Danny Deever" by Rudyard Kipling. "Danny Deever" is a ballad written in cockney dialect about the public hanging of a solider in the British army. The poem contains no similes or metaphors. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because the plan was not followed. The poem which had been indicated as a homework assignment was the one used for class discussion and was an inappropriate choice for simile and metaphor discussion. Respondent could not provide an example of a metaphor when asked by a student, thereby indicating that she did not have knowledge of what a metaphor was. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in preparation and planning, she was referred to the previous prescription of May 28, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she made many errors in the interpretation of "Danny Deever." She referred to the dialect of the poem as United States southern dialect and misinterpreted the meanings of dialectical words, resulting in completely misinterpreted lines. Respondent did not contemporize the poems to the children's lives in order to help them better understand the poem. In order to help Respondent overcome her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, she was referred back to the previous prescription of May 2, 1985. In addition, she was directed to review her lessons carefully in order to be prepared for student questions and to be able to provide appropriate examples. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because she took ten minutes to take the roll. Even after roll call, there was considerable socializing among the students. Quite a few students were late to class, but they were not questioned as to why they were late. With a seating chart, Respondent would have only needed two minutes to take attendance. The average teacher learns who her students are in less than a week, and Respondent had had the students since April 15, 1985. No attempts were made to prevent off task behavior. Inappropriate student behavior was mildly noted but was not effectively handled with firmness or suitable consequences. Respondent was absent. He left the materials for her with an open ended invitation that if she needed further assistance, to let him know. Respondent did not request further help. In order to help Respondent remediate her classroom management, she was referred to the previous prescription of May 28, 1985. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because the sequence of the lesson was erratic or haphazard. The students were asked to read the poem aloud, and they had great difficulty with the dialect. Therefore, the poem was not a positive experience for them. Respondent provided no background information in order to set the tone for the study of "Danny Deever." She gave no background on the poet or on the form of the poem. Correct and incorrect responses were accepted in exactly the same fashion without comment or question. Respondent misinterpreted the meanings of the dialectical words, thereby resulting in irrelevant interpretation of the poem. The students never came to realize that the poem was about a hanging. All of the topics which should have appropriately been covered in the poem were ignored. Respondent failed to anticipate the confusion or misunderstanding in the class. Therefore, no attempt was made to clarify the lack of student understanding or appreciation. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, she was referred to the two previous prescriptions, since they had never been completed nor had her problems been remediated. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because student responses were ignored; neither praised nor questioned. Non-participants were not called upon or encouraged to participate. There was a quiet disrespect in the class. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in teacher-student relationships, she was referred to specific exercise in the TADS prescription manual dealing with feedback, interacting with students, and recognizing correct and incorrect responses. Petitioner's yearly evaluation for the 1984-85 school year indicated that Respondent remained deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and that the principal recommended dismissal for cause. A conference-for-the-record was held on May 30, 1985, to discuss Respondent's end-of-the-year evaluation and the principal's recommendation for dismissal. Respondent's final examinations for June, 1985, indicate that Respondent still lacked an understanding of what constitutes an objective examination. In addition to the formal observations, Respondent was observed informally numerous times. These informal observations substantiated those deficiencies found on the formal observations. Her room was often noisy and Respondent could be heard yelling in an attempt to try to gain control of the class. The students were often out of their seats until an administrator walked in. Her class was noisy regardless of the time of the day or the portion of the period. Respondent was generally seated at her desk with students congregated around her. Rarely was instruction going on and rarely were students on task. When seen in the library, the class was fooling around and little was being accomplished. It is the consensus of opinion of those administrators who observed Respondent and/or those who reviewed her records, that Respondent repeatedly failed to communicate with and relate to the students in her class to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. These administrators also were of the opinion that Respondent lacks adequate command of her area of specialization, i.e., English language arts, in that she lacks the minimum skills and competencies in both content and methodology to teach English language arts. Dr. Mills believes that Respondent should only teach basic skills English classes, if she teaches at all. Unfortunately, the evidence compels the same conclusion. At least 90% of Respondent's prescription for remediation was not met. Given the time, effort, and assistance expended on Respondent's behalf, she did not make the minimum effort necessary to overcome her deficiencies. She lacked basic knowledge which could have been obtained by pursuing the course work that was prescribed. No matter who the observer was or what the specific teaching assignment was; Respondent failed to demonstrate an acceptable level of teaching. Respondent's certification should have enabled her to teach any of the related components within the field of English language arts, including different ability levels. Respondent demonstrated her lack of knowledge of the subject area during the hearing when she was unable to answer questions that a junior high school teacher should be able to answer, such as the signals which help identify a noun and the noun, verb, adverb and adjective forms of common words. Effective September 4; 1985; Respondent was suspended from her employment with Petitioner, and Petitioner instituted proceedings to dismiss Respondent from employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent Laverne Reaves, and dismissing Respondent, Laverne Reaves, as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1986; in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 12th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Suite 301 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Curtis L. Jones, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 105182 Miami, Florida 33101 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2); Florida Statutes; on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Petitioner Proposed findings of fact 1-3 and 5-151 are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1-3 and 5-151. Proposed finding of fact 4 is rejected as not supported by the evidence and argumentative. Ruling on Proposed Findings of Fact of Respondent Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 1. Proposed finding of fact 2 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 2. Proposed finding of fact 7 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 6. Proposed finding of fact 8 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 4. Proposed finding of fact 9 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 4. Proposed finding of fact 14 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 6. Proposed finding of fact 15 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 6. Proposed finding of fact 16 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 8. Proposed finding of fact 20 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 12. Proposed finding of fact 22 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 24. Proposed finding of fact 26 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 57. Proposed finding of fact 31 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 112. Proposed finding of fact 32 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 25 and 82. Proposed finding of fact 35 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 102 and 105. Proposed finding of fact 44 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 69 and 85. Proposed finding of fact 45 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 69 and 85. Proposed finding of fact 46 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 148. Proposed finding of fact 47 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 111. Proposed finding of fact 52 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 72. 20. Proposed findings of fact 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 41, 48, 49, 50, 53, and 57 are rejected as irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 17, 18, 23; 25, 29, and 51 are rejected as not supported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 24, 27; and 54 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence and as being argumentative. 23. Proposed findings of fact 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 55, and 56 are rejected as unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 38 is rejected as unnecessary and argumentative. Proposed finding of fact 42 is rejected as being misleading and incomplete and therefore not supported by the competent, substantial evidence.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsection 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2008),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B- 1.006(3)(f), 6B-1.006(3)(h), 6B-1.006(3)(i), 6B-1.006(4)(a), and 6B-1.006(4)(c), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Hebner holds Florida Educator's Certificate 703698, covering the areas of Educational Leadership and Emotionally Handicapped, which is valid through June 30, 2013. At all times material to the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Hebner was employed as a fifth- grade exceptional student education teacher at Heights Elementary School (Heights Elementary) in the Lee County School District (School District). The 2008-2009 school year was the first and only year that Mr. Hebner taught at Heights Elementary. During his employment with the School District, Mr. Hebner received certified training to control aggressive behavior by students. He received the training while he was a teacher at Royal Palm Exceptional School. The students at Royal Palm Exceptional School consisted of special education students or students in the Exceptional Student Education program. The training included instruction on an elbow control and take-down maneuver. With the elbow control technique, a student is secured above the wrist with one hand and pressure is applied to the back of the elbow with the palm of the person applying the pressure. The arm of the student being restrained forms an L shape, and the technique allows the teacher applying the restraint to keep the student slightly off balance, which allows the teacher to guide the student in the direction the teacher desires. The take-down maneuver consists of the teacher extending his or her leg in front of the student, allowing the student to be taken down over the back of the teacher's thigh. The take-down maneuver has the appearance of a person being tripped. Mr. Hebner has used the elbow control and take-down maneuver in his career prior to being employed at Heights Elementary. Typically at the elementary level, a bear hug would be the appropriate method to control a student who is out of control. When using a bear hug, the teacher would put his or her arms around the student, hug the student, and guide the student to the side away from the conflict. The bear hug method had been discussed among the teachers at Heights Elementary, but there had been no formal in-service training on the use of the bear hug. The evidence did not establish that Mr. Hebner was aware that the bear hug was the typical method of student control at Heights Elementary. During the fall of 2008, C.P. was a student in Mr. Hebner's class. C.P. had problems controlling his behavior while in Mr. Hebner's class, and there had been instances of aggression towards other students. On or about September 24, 2008, Mr. Hebner met with the assistant principal, Aida Saldivar (Ms. Saldivar), and a parent of C.P., a 12-year-old male student. C.P.'s mother claimed, and Mr. Hebner admitted, that Mr. Hebner had put his hands on C.P. Ms. Saldivar warned Mr. Hebner not to put his hands on anyone, even in a behavioral situation. In addition to C.P.'s mother, Ms. Saldivar had two other complaints from female students claiming that Mr. Hebner had restrained them in the classroom, and Ms. Saldivar advised Mr. Hebner of those complaints after the meeting with C.P.'s mother. On November 21, 2008, Heights Elementary had a race called a "Turkey Trot." Some of the students in Mr. Hebner's class participated in the race. During the race, C.P. called one of his classmates, L.R., slow. After the conclusion of the race, Mr. Hebner led his students back into the school building. Mr. Hebner's classroom was located on the second floor of the school. C.P., L.R., and R.P., another student in Mr. Hebner's class, were returning from the Turkey Trot. C.P. pushed L.R., and R.P., who was a friend of L.R., pushed C.P. in retaliation. C.P. then pushed R.P. and said, "Do you want to go?" which R.P. took to mean did R.P. want to fight. This altercation took place in the hallway at the top of the stairs. Mr. Hebner did not see C.P. push L.R. nor did he see R.P. push C.P. Mr. Hebner did see C.P. push R.P. and, at that point, intervened into the situation. Mr. Hebner yelled at C.P. to stop. Mr. Hebner grabbed C.P.'s arm and raised it above C.P.'s head. C.P. continued to resist as Mr. Hebner kept telling him not to resist. Mr. Hebner told C.P., "You are going down, and you won't like it." Mr. Hebner then put his foot in front of C.P. and dropped C.P. to the floor, similar to a policeman taking down someone about to be arrested. C.P. was lying on his stomach, yelling for Mr. Hebner to let go, while Mr. Hebner still had a hold on C.P.'s arm. When C.P. stopped resisting, Mr. Hebner released C.P. and told him to go to the office. C.P. had a red mark on his cheek, which he thinks was a rug burn as a result of lying on the floor. In addition to his cheek, the nurse noticed red marks on C.P.'s arm and back. She applied ice to his cheek and to his back. When C.P. was examined by the nurse, he was upset and crying. The School District investigated the incident and issued Mr. Hebner a written reprimand on February 3, 2009. On February 6, 2009, Mr. Hebner was provided notice that the Office of Professional Practices Services and the Department of Education had initiated an investigation into the November 21, 2008, incident. On February 19, 2009, Mr. Hebner grieved the written reprimand with the School District. On or about April 21, 2009, Mr. Hebner had some of his students complete a questionnaire about the November 21, 2008, incident. He intended to use the completed questionnaire as part of his defense in the grievance procedure. The questionnaire read in part: "this questionnaire is meant to help the School Board better understand exactly what happened on 11/21/08 after the Heights Turkey Trot." The questionnaire also stated: "this exercise is entirely voluntarily and not school related." The questionnaire provided a series of questions with suggested answers. The students were requested to circle the appropriate response. The questionnaires identified C.P. and R.P. by name and had a line at the top of the questionnaire for the student answering the questionnaire to write in his or her name. Some students put their full names on the questionnaires, and others put their first names on the questionnaires. The students in Mr. Hebner's class were exceptional education students, who were reading two to four grades below reading level. Mr. Hebner quickly read the instructions to the students. Some students completed the questionnaires in class, and others took them home to complete. Mr. Hebner did not seek permission from the students' parents or administrators at Heights Elementary prior to asking the students to complete the questionnaires. Mr. Hebner did submit the completed questionnaires for use in his grievance procedure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Hebner violated Subsection 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(f), 6B-1.006(3)(h), 6B-1.006(3)(i), and 6B-1.006(4)(c); finding that Mr. Hebner did not violate Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B- 1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), and 6B-1.006(4)(a); placing Mr. Hebner on probation for two years pursuant to terms set by the Education Practices Commission; and requiring Mr. Hebner to complete a college level course in ethics. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2010.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nancy S. Lowery ("Respondent"), violated Subsections 231.2615(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2001),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 365470, issued by the Department of Education. The certificate covered the area of family and consumer science and was valid through June 30, 2002. During the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent was a teacher at Oakridge High School ("Oakridge"), a school in the Orange County School District ("School District"), and taught exceptional education students. On February 1, 2002, while employed as a teacher at Oakridge, Respondent showed the movie, "Jaws III," in her classroom to the students in her fourth-period class. That day there were about ten students in Respondent's fourth-period class. Prior to or soon after starting the movie, Respondent turned off the lights in the classroom, and the lights remained off while the movie was playing. While the movie was playing, the students in Respondent's class sat at their desks. However, at some point during the movie, D.C., a female student in the class, asked J.G., another student, if she (J.G.) gave "head." In response, J.G. answered in the affirmative. After J.G. responded, D.C. and G.J., a male student in the class, then coaxed J.G. to perform oral sex on G.J. Then, G.J. unzipped his pants and told J.G. to put her head "down there," and she did so. At or near the same time, G.J. put his hand in J.G.'s pants. For most of the class period, J.G.'s head was in G.J.'s lap. While J.G. was performing oral sex on G.J., some of the students in the class positioned their desks so that Respondent could not see what J.G. and G.J. were doing. At all times relevant to this proceeding, B.D. was about 16-years-old and a student at Oakridge. B.D. was in Respondent's fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, and observed the events and incident described in paragraphs four through six. Petitioner was in the classroom during the entire fourth period while "Jaws III" was playing. However, once the movie began playing, Petitioner was at the computer in the classroom "working on" or "typing" something. Petitioner was working at the computer most of the class period and did not see J.G. and G.J. engaging in the inappropriate sexual conduct described in paragraph five. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Kari Sperre was the chairman of the Exceptional Education Department at Oakridge, the department in which Respondent worked. On the morning of February 1, 2002, Ms. Sperre took her class on a field trip. Ms. Sperre and her class returned to the school during the fourth period. As Ms. Sperre walked by Respondent's classroom, she noticed that the lights in that classroom were out. Later that day, it was reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. had told another student, L.C., that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J. Upon hearing this report, Ms. Sperre investigated the matter. Ms. Sperre first talked to L.C., a female student in the ninth grade at Oakridge. L.C., who was not in Respondent's fourth-period class, reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. told her (L.C.) that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J. After she spoke with L.C., Ms. Sperre then talked to J.G. Although initially reluctant to talk to Ms. Sperre, J.G. eventually told Ms. Sperre what had happened that day in Respondent's class. J.G. told Ms. Sperre that she had only recently transferred to Oakridge, that she was in Petitioner's fourth-period class, and that the lights in the class were out during class that day. J.G. also reported to Ms. Sperre that two students in the class, D.C., a female student, and G.J., a male student, encouraged her to perform oral sex on G.J. According to J.G., D.C. and/or G.J. told her that all she had to do was put her head underneath G.J.'s jacket and nobody would know what was going on. J.G. also told Ms. Sperre that G.J.'s pants were open and admitted that, "I just bent down and did it." J.G. told Ms. Sperre that this incident occurred while the class was watching the movie and while Respondent was working on the computer. At all times relevant to this proceeding, J.G. was classified as an exceptional education student, having been classified as educable mentally handicapped. A student classified as educable mentally handicapped has an IQ of below 70, well below the average IQ of 100. After the February 1, 2002, incident that occurred in Respondent's class, J.G. was suspended from school for engaging in inappropriate conduct at school. Also, since the incident, J.G. withdrew from school and is no longer enrolled in the School District. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated several policies of the School District. First, the School District requires that teachers supervise their students at all times when they are in the classroom. In order to do this, the teacher should have the students within sight. This is especially important with regard to exceptional education students, who have special and unique challenges. Respondent did not supervise her fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, although she was in the classroom. Instead of supervising her class, Respondent was working at the computer most of the class period and was unaware of what the students were doing. Clearly, Respondent was not supervising her students, as evidenced by her failure to ever notice or observe the sexually inappropriate conduct by students in her class. By failing to properly supervise her class on February 1, 2002, Respondent failed to protect her students from conditions harmful to their learning and/or physical health and/or safety. The incident that occurred on February 1, 2002, in Respondent's class could have a negative impact on both the students who observed the incident, as well as the student who was encouraged to perform oral sex on the male student. The educable mentally handicapped student who was coaxed into performing the act could be the victim of teasing as a result of her involvement in the incident. According to Ms. Sperre, those students who witnessed the incident could also be negatively impacted by being exposed to and observing the incident. For example, many of the students in the exceptional education class could also be encouraged to engage in the same type of activity that they witnessed in Respondent's fourth-period class on February 1, 2002. The School District has a policy that prohibits teachers from turning out all the lights in their classrooms during class time. This policy is for safety reasons and requires that even if there is a need to turn off the classroom lights, at least one "bank" of lights must remain on at all times. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy discussed in paragraph 22, by turning off all the lights at or near the beginning of the fourth period, and they remained off while the students were watching the movie. This violation contributed to Respondent's failure to supervise the students because with all the lights out, even though she was in the classroom, Respondent was unaware and unable to see what the students, including J.G. and G.J., were doing. During the 2001-2002 school year, Oakridge had a policy that allowed teachers to show only movies that were educational or had some relevance to the lesson being taught in the class. At the beginning of every school year, including the 2001-2002 school year, teachers at Oakridge are given faculty handbooks, which include various policies and procedures that they are required to read. In addition to these written policies and procedures, Oakridge administrators would "discuss" various "oral procedures" with teachers at facility meetings. It is unclear if the policies or procedures regarding the kinds of movies that could be shown at Oakridge and the prohibition against having all the lights off in classrooms at Oakridge were written or oral policies and/or procedures. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy related to the kind of movies that are allowed to be shown in the classroom by showing the movie, "Jaws III." "Jaws III" is not an educational movie, nor was it relevant to any lesson being taught by Respondent at or near the time it was being shown to the students. The School District investigated the February 1, 2002, incident, and thereafter, the committee reviewed the incident and voted unanimously to recommend that Respondent be terminated as a teacher in the School District. Despite the unanimous recommendation of termination, because Respondent's teaching contract for re-appointment was to be considered soon, instead of terminating Respondent, the School District decided that it would simply not recommend her for re-appointment for the 2002- 2003 school year. On February 20, 2002, after the February 1, 2002, incident was investigated, Oakridge's principal, J. Richard Damron, issued to Respondent a letter of reprimand and a letter of directives regarding the incident that occurred in Respondent's classroom on February 1, 2002. The letter of reprimand specifically referenced the February 1, 2002, incident and stated that Respondent had "failed to use reasonable care in supervising" the students in her class. Next, the letter of reprimand stated that a directive would be issued in a separate correspondence that outlines the School District's expectations regarding Respondent's conduct in the future. Finally, the letter of reprimand noted that "should there be another incident of a similar nature in the future[,] discipline, up to and including dismissal could be recommended." On February 20, 2002, Principal Damron issued written directives to Respondent which required her to do the following: (1) establish a safe, caring, and nurturing environment conducive to learning and the physical and psychological well- being of students; (2) refrain from showing films that are not directly associated with lessons that contribute to the education of children; (3) keep children under her [Petitioner's] direct supervision at all times and not leave students alone, with other teachers, or be absent from her duties unless she makes prior arrangements with the principal or one of the assistant principals; and (4) comply with all district and school directives, policies, rules, and procedures. Respondent's job performance as a teacher at Oakridge for the 2001-2002 school year was evaluated in March 2002. The results of the evaluation are reported on the School District's form entitled, Instructional Personnel Final Assessment Report ("Assessment Report"). The Assessment Report dated March 25, 2002, noted two areas in which Respondent "Needs Improvement": (1) Professional Responsibilities; and (2) Classroom Management and Discipline. Respondent was rated as "Effective" in four areas: (1) Curriculum Knowledge; (2) Planning and Delivering Instruction; (3) Assessment of Student Performance; (4) Development and Interpersonal Skills. On March 25, 2002, the same day the Assessment Report was completed, Principal Damron notified Respondent that he was not recommending her for re-appointment for the 2002-2003 school year. According to the letter, Principal Damron decided to not recommend Respondent for re-appointment "based upon performance- related reasons and the temporary contract" that she held at that time. Alfred Lopez, a senior manager with the Orange County School District, testified that by failing to supervise the students in her fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the School District had "definitely" been reduced. Ms. Sperre testified that she would not ever want Respondent employed in a school in Orange County in which she (Ms. Sperre) was employed. Notwithstanding the beliefs of Mr. Lopez and Ms. Sperre, based on the letter of reprimand and the letter of directives issued on February 20, 2002, it appears that Respondent continued to teach at Oakridge after the February 2002 incident through the end of the school year. Furthermore, no evidence was presented which established that after the incident, Respondent was reassigned, relieved of, or otherwise removed from her position as an exceptional education teacher at Oakridge after the incident.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding that Respondent violated Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.006(3)(a), but did not violate Subsections 231.2615(1)(a) and (f), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.006(3)(e). It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order impose the following administrative sanctions on Respondent: Upon employment in any public or private position requiring an educator's certificate, Respondent shall be placed on two years' probation with the conditions that during this period, she shall: Notify the Education Practices Commission, upon employment and immediately upon termination of employment in any public or private position requiring a Florida educator's certificate; Have her immediate supervisor submit annual performance reports to the Education Practices Commission; Violate no law and fully comply with all School District regulations, school rules, and the State Board of Education; Satisfactorily perform assigned duties in a competent, professional manner; and Bear all costs of complying with the terms of this probation. Enroll in and successfully complete a three-hour college course in classroom management within the first year of probation and submit to the Bureau of Education Standards an official college transcript verifying successful completion of the course with a grade of "B" or higher. This course must be taken in person, and a correspondence or on-line course will not satisfy this requirement. Issue a letter of reprimand, with a copy to be placed in Respondent's certification file. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2005.
The Issue Did Respondent, Yolie Bauduy, violate section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2018)?1 Did Respondent, Yolie Bauduy, violate section 1012.795(1)(j)? 1 All citations to the Florida Statutes are to the 2018 codification unless otherwise noted. Did Respondent, Yolie Bauduy, violate Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1.?
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Richard Corcoran, is the Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Ms. Bauduy holds a Florida Educators Certificate covering the areas of Autism Spectrum Disorder, Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum. It is valid through June 30, 2025. Ms. Bauduy teaches at Gotha Middle School in the Orange County School District and did at the time of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint. During the period during which the alleged acts occurred, Ms. Bauduy taught students with autism. She has served students with disabilities of Orange County as an educator in ESE programs for 16 years. She taught at Gotha Middle School for 14 of those 16 years. Other than discipline for the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, the District has never disciplined Ms. Bauduy. The school has recognized Ms. Bauduy as an effective teacher. For instance, an evaluation resulting from seven days of in-class observation in November 2020 concluded that she was applying all four expected classroom strategies and behaviors. The Education Practices Commission has never disciplined Ms. Bauduy. Gotha Middle School and Ms. Bauduy's Class During the 2018-2019 school year, all of Ms. Bauduy's students had disabilities that required more assistance and support than needed by students in the general population. Because of their disabilities, Ms. Bauduy's students required a modified curriculum that was less rigorous than the standard curriculum. The modified curriculum included social, skills, personal skills, and independent function skills. Teaching those skills helps students learn to manage their behavior and become more independent. All of Ms. Bauduy's students had Individual Education Plans (IEP). These plans identify a student's disabilities, their effect, and behavior that may arise from them. They establish goals for the student in light of the student's disabilities. And they identify strategies for helping the students accomplish the established goals. The demands of teaching students with disabilities required additional staff in the classroom to assist Ms. Bauduy. The school determined that properly caring for and teaching the children required a three to one student teacher ratio. The students' IEPs also required this staffing ratio. For that reason, the school assigned two paraprofessionals to assist in Ms. Bauduy's class of ten people. This was in addition to Ms. Edoo, who was assigned to student E.K. one-on-one. Thus, the proper staffing complement for Ms. Bauduy's class was four adults. Throughout the 2018-2019 school year, Gotha Middle School experienced chronic staffing shortages. One paraprofessional position in Ms. Bauduy's class was vacant the entire year. The school engaged a long- term substitute. That person often did not show up for work. In those instances, the school sought, often unsuccessfully, to engage fill-ins from a temporary staffing agency. In addition, the school usually did not provide staff to cover the paraprofessionals' breaks and lunches. Throughout the year, Ms. Bauduy had to juggle staffing shortages as best she could. During the representative month of September 2018, Ms. Bauduy's class was short one adult seven full days and four partial days. On September 11, 2018, Ms. Bauduy's class was down two professionals. When the paraprofessional staff took their breaks or lunch periods, the staffing deficiencies worsened. Ms. Bauduy repeatedly advised the administration about the staffing deficiencies, sought assistance, and expressed her concerns about not complying with students' IEP requirements. Her communications included a September 5, 2018, email advising that a substitute had not arrived, a September 11 email forwarding an email from a paraprofessional advising she was not coming in, and a September 26 email advising that a substitute once again failed to arrive and asking for assistance. In January 2019, despite the chronic understaffing, the school transferred two students, T.M. and N.A., from other classrooms to Ms. Bauduy's class. These students' disabilities were more profound and required more supports than the other students. They were regular elopers, required diaper changes, and required individual nearly one-on-one prompting for tasks. Among other things, T.M.'s disabilities required having someone hold his hand during transitions. Placement of T.M. and N.A. in Ms. Bauduy's class was not appropriate. Ms. Bauduy continued sending emails expressing her concerns and frustrations about understaffing. She also repeatedly, without effect, sought to get the school to change mandatory meetings to her planning period or after school because the meetings caused her to leave the classroom and exacerbated the staffing problems. Between October 25, 2018, and March 4, 2019, Ms. Bauduy sent 17 emails requesting full staffing and advising of staff absences. Ms. Bauduay could not rely upon prompt responses when she called for assistance or additional staffing to put her room back in compliance with the required student/adult ratio. Sometimes she received a quick response. Sometimes no one came. Often there was a 20 to 30-minute delay before assistance arrived. Even when management responded to Ms. Bauduy's request for a schedule of when behavior staff would be available to support her students, management's response was conditional. For instance, Laura Fogarty, ESE Curriculum and Instruction Team Instructional Coach, conditioned the schedule of available staff that she provided as follows. Please remember, however, that this schedule is in a perfect world. The behavior support team's first priority is to respond to radio calls and have other responsibilities that don't always make it possible for them to be in your room for the times listed below. They may also have to leave to respond to a behavior call when they are in there. Below is the ideal, if everything goes right and there are no behavior calls or other areas that require their attention. The world in which Ms. Bauduy taught was neither perfect nor ideal. Ms. Bauduy's testimony about staffing difficulties and insufficient responses to requests for assistance differs from testimony of school representatives. Ms. Bauduy was more credible and persuasive than the school representatives. Four of the reasons for this judgment are Ms. Bauduy's sincere demeanor, documents such as emails and logs consistent with her testimony, the admission in Ms. Fogarty's email that even scheduled availability of support was not reliable, and the corroborating testimony of a paraprofessional who worked in Ms. Bauduy's room, Lauren Mueller. K.C. K.C. was a male sixth grade student in Ms. Bauduy's class. K.C.'s IEP specified that K.C. should always be supervised. It stated, "He requires continuous supervision as he is very impulsive and responds aggressively and or obscenely." K.C. also had a Behavioral Improvement Plan (BIP). It too noted a need for intensive intervention to address inappropriate touching of and advances toward female students. The BIP provided, among other things, "If outside the classroom, one on one supervision must be provided." The BIP went on to state that K.C.'s transitions out of the classroom should be limited to necessary transitions and that a staff member should provide one-on-one supervision during all transitions. Ms. Bauduy was aware of the contents of the IEP and BIP. At each day's end, Ms. Edoo usually escorted K.C. from class to the transportation loading area, after escorting her assigned student to the transportation area. This did not happen on September 11, 2018. This was one of the many days when Ms. Bauduy's room was short-staffed. Because of a vacant position and a paraprofessional not showing up, Ms. Bauduy was down to two adults, including herself, of the staff that should have been in the room. This excludes Ms. Edoo who was responsible for providing one-on- one care for a single student. The afternoon of September 11 the substitute paraprofessional was to escort the students, in shifts, to the transportation area. The substitute took a student to the transportation area and did not return. This left Ms. Bauduy the sole adult in the room, responsible both for getting the children to the transportation area and supervising students in the classroom. Ms. Edoo called Ms. Bauduy on the radio and said to release K.C. Ms. Bauduy thought that meant Ms. Edoo was returning to the classroom and would meet K.C. in the hall. Although her room had a telephone and a two-way radio, Ms. Bauduy knew from experience a response to a request for help would be slow, if there even was one. Faced with confounding choices, Ms. Bauduy explained to K.C. that she would release him to go directly down the hall to meet Ms. Edoo. K.C. did not go straight down the hall to Ms. Edoo, and Ms. Edoo was not in the hall. K.C. went to the bathroom that opened on the hall. A student, K.M., found K.C. laying naked, save for his socks, on the bathroom floor, masturbating. This scared and confused K.M. He went home and told his mother about the incident. She called the school. The next day a guidance counselor met with K.M. to discuss the incident and reassure him. Shortly after K.M. left for home, an ESE clerk, Elizabeth Elkholi, saw K.C. naked in the bathroom, through the open door. She called for Shantell Johnson, a behavior trainer. Ms. Johnson did not wish to enter the bathroom because K.C. was naked. A substitute, Stephen Harnishfeger, and Deputy Luna, a school resource officer, joined Ms. Elkholi and Ms. Johnson. Between them, these four adults kept K.C. in sight. K.C. got dressed in a stall. Ms. Johnson escorted him back to Ms. Bauduy's classroom. Ms. Bauduy was not aware of this activity until K.C. was returned to her room. K.C. could have left the school grounds during the period that he was unsupervised. Eventually the substitute reappeared and declared she was leaving for the day. Ms. Bauduy convinced the substitute to escort K.C. to the transportation loading area before leaving. The school suspended Ms. Bauduy for five days without pay for this incident. T.M. T.M. was a student on the autism spectrum that the school transferred to Ms. Bauduy's class in January. T.M.'s previous classroom, Ms. Franklin's, was adjacent to Ms. Bauduy's classroom. On February 25, 2019, the school had again failed to staff Ms. Bauduy's classroom in compliance with the requirements of her students' IEPs. That day the school required Ms. Bauduy to participate in an IEP meeting, scheduled for 30 minutes, during her planning period. The meeting took two hours, running through her lunch period and ending at 4:00 p.m. When Ms. Bauduy returned to the classroom, she realized none of her paraprofessionals had taken a break. So, she released them one at a time for a short break. While one paraprofessional was gone on break, the remaining one left the room with a student to go to the restroom and change a diaper. This left Ms. Bauduy alone with the students. At that time, Ms. Bauduy was providing directions to a group of students. She heard the door slam. She looked for T.M. and did not see him in the classroom. T.M. had slipped away from Ms. Bauduy's classroom out into the hall. He left through the classroom's only door. Ms. Bauduy immediately went to the doorway to look for him. She knew T.M. had a history of leaving the classroom but waiting just outside the door. She did not see him. Then Ms. Bauduy took a few steps outside the door of her classroom into the hall. To the left of Ms. Bauduy's classroom the hall met double doors just yards away that led to the outside and a nearby road. Ms. Bauduy was in the hall approximately 23 seconds seeking to ensure that T.M. had not gone to the left toward the double doors. During these 23 seconds there was no adult inside Ms. Bauduy's class room. She however was just feet from the only door. One of the students could have done something destructive or harmful. But the brief period of time that Ms. Bauduy was outside the classroom, her proximity to the door, and the very short distance she was from her students made that risk minimal. Ms. Bauduy saw the door to Classroom B104 close. This was T.M.'s former classroom, which was next to Ms. Bauduy's room. This reassured her that T.M. was safe. She ran back to her classroom. The students had spent the 23 seconds without incident. Then Ms. Bauduy called for assistance. A staff member came to return T.M. to Ms. Bauduy's room. When T.M. slipped away, Ms. Bauduy had no good choices. In the time it would take to call for assistance and wait for it to arrive, if it did, T.M. could have been out the doors and in the road. Ms. Bauduy's experience taught her that assistance was often slow to arrive and sometimes did not arrive at all. Stepping out in the hall to quickly see where T.M. went left the eight remaining students without direct adult supervision for 23 seconds. But Ms. Bauduy was just outside the only door out of the classroom. She made a reasonable choice, one that most reduced the risk of a bad outcome to T.M. and his classmates. The school suspended Ms. Bauduy for five days without pay because of this incident. F.O. F.O. was a student in Ms. Bauduy's class. F.O. was non-verbal and deaf. She was working on pre-academic skills. F.O. was a joyful and social student. She, however, was defiant. She did not like to be corrected. She wanted to be on her own, basically following her own schedule. When corrected, F.O. would shake her head, point her finger, and stick her tongue out. The school regularly delivered breakfast and lunch to the class. On September 11, 2019, F.O. ate breakfast around 10:00 a.m. After breakfast, F.O. and the other students had a short lesson and went to PE. After they returned to class, they had another short lesson. Afterwards, Ms. Bauduy gave the class another short break. Around 11:30 a.m., the lunch cart's arrival signaled the beginning of lunch to the class. The lunch service procedure began with placing meals on tables for students who could feed themselves. Then Ms. Bauduy and the paraprofessionals assisted students who needed help eating. F.O.'s lunch was placed in front of her. It was time for F.O. to pick up her toys and eat. She refused. Ms. Bauduy tried prompting F.O. several ways. Ms. Bauduy's efforts to persuade F.O. to put her toys up included gestures, pantomiming the desired actions, and modeling the actions by picking up some toys herself. This did not work. Ms. Bauduy took F.O. out of the classroom to see if a change in environment would help. Ms. Bauduy then took F.O. to the behavior specialist's classroom down the hall. But it was not staffed. They returned to Ms. Bauduy's classroom. There Ms. Bauduy tried to get F.O. to comply with simple directions like "put it down." F.O. would not respond. Also, F.O. continued to refuse to pick up her toys and eat lunch. Ms. Bauduy concluded that F.O.'s refusal to eat lunch was a defiance issue. Ms. Bauduy learned a behavior management strategy called "First – Then" in her applied behavior classes at the University of Central Florida. Ms. Bauduy kept a graphic depicting this strategy posted in her classroom. Other teachers and paraprofessionals in the school also used this strategy. It was a system where the "Then" was something the child wanted or wanted to do and the "First" was a task the child was resisting. After F.O. continued to play with toys and ignore her lunch. Ms. Bauduy decided to use the "First—Then" strategy by withholding F.O.'s lunch until she picked up her toys. She asked a paraprofessional, Ms. Lewis, to remove the food. Ms. Lewis refused. Ms. Bauduy then placed the lunch on a shelf so that other students would not eat it or play with it. Around 2:00 p.m., snack time, F.O. had put up her toys. Ms. Bauduy gave her the lunch. Ms. Bauduy's log for the day, sent home with each student each day, advised F.O.'s parents that F.O. would not listen or follow directions most of the day and that "lunch was delayed till she showed more compliance." Withholding lunch was not a proper use of the "First – Then" strategy. Meals are a regular part of the day and necessary for nutrition, although in this case the student repeatedly declined food. Withholding a meal, as opposed to withholding a treat, is not proper. Also, since F.O. was not interested in eating lunch, making lunch the "Then" was not a well-reasoned use of the strategy. Ms. Bauduy, however, did not withhold lunch as a punishment. But withholding lunch was not a reasonable behavior management strategy. The school suspended Ms. Bauduy for five days for this instance.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 For Respondent: Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent, Yolie Bauduy, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1., and imposing a reprimand upon Respondent, Yolie Bauduy. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2021. Lisa M. Forbess, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Anastasios Kamoutsas, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
