The Issue Whether the Respondent's professional services employment contract should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Petitioner's letter to the Respondent dated October 1, 2002, and in the Notice of Specific Charges of Unsatisfactory Performance dated October 25, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the Miami-Dade County school district and to provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (2001). At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. Stern was employed as a teacher with the School Board under a professional services contract. Ms. Stern is a member of the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"), and the terms of her employment with the School Board are governed by the Contract between the Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Ms. Stern first received her teaching certificate in 1952, and she began teaching in the Miami-Dade County public school system in 1987. The 2000-2001 school year was her first year teaching at Campbell Drive Elementary, and she was assigned to teach a regular second grade class. Campbell Drive Elementary was rated a "D" level school at the times material to this proceeding. Teacher Assessment and Development System. The Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS") had, prior to the 2001-2002 school year, been used in the Miami- Dade County public school system for 15 years to evaluate teachers employed by the School Board. The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation ("Joint Committee") decided in 1996 that TADS should be replaced with a new evaluation system.2 As a result, the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System ("PACES") was developed and has been in use in the Miami-Dade County public school system since the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. As will be discussed in more detail below, the observations and evaluations at issue herein were all performed using TADS. TADS is a performance-based evaluation instrument, which includes sixty-eight specific teacher behaviors that should be performed in the classroom. The TADS evaluation procedures set forth in the UTD Contract and established by the Joint Committee required that formal Classroom Assessment observations be performed, that any observed performance deficiencies be noted, and that professional growth opportunities be provided to teachers with noted deficiencies. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period for teachers with professional service contracts. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed by representatives of the Miami-Dade County public school system and the UTD to implement procedures for the new system. Pursuant to the procedures adopted in the Memorandum of Understanding, the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period is commenced the day after a conference-for- the-record is held with the teacher to advise him or her of classroom performance deficiencies. At least two observations must be conducted during the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, and the teacher must be provided assistance through prescription plan activities and through referrals to resource persons for further assistance. At the conclusion of the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, a confirmatory observation is conducted to determine if the performance deficiencies have been corrected. Prescription plan activities have the status of administrative directives.3 The principal of Campbell Drive Elementary at the times pertinent to these proceedings was Betty Thomas, and the assistant principal was Claudia Brown. Both were trained to observe and evaluate teachers using TADS. Ms. Stern was first observed at Campbell Drive Elementary on October 10, 2001, by Ms. Brown. Ms. Stern received an overall acceptable rating on the CAI (Classroom Assessment Instrument) Post-Observation Report, as well as acceptable ratings on each of the six TADS rating categories. February 5, 2001, observation. Ms. Thomas conducted her first formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on February 5, 2002,4 when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade math class from 12:30 p.m. until 1:35 p.m. Ms. Thomas completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Classroom Management and Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, during the observation, instructional time was lost while Ms. Stern sharpened pencils for several students and wandered around the room without giving instruction to the students and that instructional time was lost when Ms. Stern told the students to put their heads on their desks approximately minutes before they were to leave the classroom for Spanish and Physical Education classes. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students who were off-task and behaving inappropriately. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern ignored or failed to respond when two students yelled at one another during a test, when students talked and played with pencils during a lesson, when two students left the room and returned, when two students hit one another, and when a student crawled on the floor. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, when virtually everyone in the class was talking, Ms. Stern asked those students who were talking to raise their hands; Ms. Stern praised the students who raised their hands for their honesty but did nothing to cause the students to stop talking. Ms. Thomas also noted several instances in which Ms. Stern responded to students with remarks that were either ineffectual or not to the point. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.C.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide the students with clear expectations regarding appropriate behavior. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that no class rules were posted in the classroom and that Ms. Stern did not refer to any class rules. Ms. Thomas also noted that, while students were being sent to the board to work math problems, 75 percent of the students in the class were talking and several students were wandering around the room, all without correction from Ms. Stern. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.C.3. and 4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to respond quickly or appropriately to students who acted inappropriately or interfered with the work of others. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not respond, and actually ignored, most of the students' inappropriate behaviors, which included a student dancing around the back of the room, students laughing and playing with a hat, students loudly asking how to do the assignment, and students yelling to one another. Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators IV.G.3. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to emphasize potential areas of difficulty, specifically with respect to the math problems involving "regrouping," by either verbal or non-verbal clues. Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern failed to assist a student who had difficulty with a math problem at the board.5 Ms. Thomas rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators IV.H.1. and 2. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to clarify areas of potential confusion or to clarify areas of confusion after it became obvious that the students did not understand the assigned math problems involving "regrouping." Ms. Thomas noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern wrote problems on the board and directed the students to solve them without providing any explanation. When several students asked Ms. Stern how to do the problems, she told them she would go over it later, but she did not do so during the math lesson. It was Ms. Thomas's general impression during her February 5, 2002, observation, that Ms. Stern was unable to manage the students in her class. There were many disruptions in the classroom that distracted the students and made it difficult for them to learn. Ms. Thomas estimates that approximately 90 percent of the students in the class were off-task at some point during the observation. On February 20, 2001, Ms. Thomas held a Conference- for-the-Record with Ms. Stern.6 Also present at the conference were Ms. Brown, as well as Ms. Marcos and Ms. Rolle, Ms. Stern's union representatives. During the conference, Ms. Thomas discussed the February 5, 2001, observation with Ms. Stern, and they discussed the prescription plan activities that Ms. Thomas had developed to assist Ms. Stern in correcting the deficiencies identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement and the timelines for completion of the prescription plan activities. It was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all of the prescription plan activities by March 15, 2001. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers that were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. The Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record and Prescription dated February 20, 2001, reflects that Ms. Stern was advised during the conference that her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period would commence the day after the conference, on February 21, 2001. Ms. Stern was also advised by Ms. Thomas that, after the conclusion of the probation period, she would determine whether Ms. Stern had corrected the cited deficiencies during the probation period and would make a recommendation to the Superintendent at the conclusion of the probation period that could lead to the termination of Ms. Stern's employment. On February 20, 2001, Ms. Stern signed the CAI Post-Observation Report, the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, and the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record and Prescription, thereby indicating that she had seen and received a copy of these documents. Ms. Stern completed approximately 80 percent of the prescription plan activities in the February 5, 2001, Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement by the March 15, 2001, deadline. March 16, 2001, observation. Ms. Brown, the assistant principal at Campbell Drive Elementary, conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on March 16, 2001, when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade language arts class from 9:00 a.m. until 10:45 a.m. Ms. Brown's impression was that Ms. Stern was agitated and angry that day and was unable to control the class or to teach adequately. Ms. Brown completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Knowledge of Subject Matter, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Classroom Management, and Techniques of Instruction. The TADS Monitoring Committee reviewed the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement and gave Ms. Stern credit for indicators IV.F.1., 2., and 3.; this change resulted in Ms. Stern's being rated acceptable in the category of Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.A.1. of the Preparation and Planning category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern failed to include in her lesson plan assessment tools, homework, materials, and most of the lesson's objectives and activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.B.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern failed to prepare content and instructional activities to fill the allotted classroom time. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, although the language arts block of instruction was scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., Ms. Stern instructed the students to put their heads on their desks at 10:40 a.m., terminating the language arts instruction. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, throughout the observation period, Ms. Stern allowed unnecessary delays during instruction and transitions. The notes Ms. Brown included in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement reflect that Ms. Stern spent approximately 20 minutes of the language arts period making comments to the students about the quality of their work and attempting to get their attention. As reported by Ms. Brown: The teacher called out one comment and direction after the other, such as "I don't hear anything from table 4. excuse me, I just said your tables not talking. you did a beautiful job. thank you, Yrline, did you hear me?" "Salami, one, two, three, four. Now take your paper . . . everybody's eyes up here! Salami! Denise, table 1, your eyes up here, table 1, 2, 3, 4. Take your paper . . . Christian, Okoya, Desiree, Stanley, take your paper . . . excuse me." "Salame" is an acronym for "Stop and look at me," and its use is recommended as a technique for quieting students. Ms. Stern did not apply the technique correctly, however, because she talked very quickly and did not wait to give the students a chance to quiet down. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that students were talking and calling out to one another, making noises, and getting out of their seats while Ms. Stern read a story. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands, then accepted answers from students who had not raised their hands, and failed to correct a student who was out of his seat and sitting with a student who had been separated from the group for being disruptive. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that a student that Ms. Stern had separated from the class for being disruptive was allowed to spend 20 minutes building a house with word cards; that a student spent 15 minutes with his chin on his desk doing nothing without Ms. Stern's redirecting him, and, although she said she would return to help him, she did not do so; and that, in several instances, Ms. Stern either failed to correct students who were behaving inappropriately or ignored students when they failed to respond to her directions. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.C.1. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to make her expectations regarding appropriate behavior clear to the students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that, although Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands to answer questions, she accepted answers called out by students who did not raise their hands and failed to call on students who had raised their hands; that Ms. Stern re-enforced inappropriate behavior by telling a student that he was doing well when he was not working but was turned around in his seat talking to a student behind him; and that, although class rules were posted in the classroom, Ms. Stern did not refer to them. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.C.3. and 4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to identify and deal quickly and appropriately with students who interacted with others inappropriately and interfered with the work of others. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern either did not notice, or ignored, students' inappropriate behavior, which included a student doing work in another student's phonetic workbook; students talking and making noises while Ms. Stern was talking or reading; students laughing at another student, who had been sent to the corner and responded to Ms. Stern's direction to get up by standing up and turning around and around. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern did not state the consequences for students who were continuously told to stop calling out or were continuously told to sit down. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.F.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, as noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to refer back to the objective of the lesson, to relate one part of the lesson to other parts of the lesson, and to summarize the lesson and apply it to past or future lessons.7 A conference was held on March 23, 2001, with Ms. Stern, Ms. Thomas, and Ms. Brown in attendance. No written summary of the conference was prepared, but Ms. Stern signed the CAI Post-Observation Report and the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement on March 23, 2001, acknowledging that she had seen and received a copy of the documents. At the March 23, 2001, conference, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Stern discussed the results of the March 16, 2001, observation and the prescription plan activities that Ms. Brown had developed to assist Ms. Stern in correcting the deficiencies identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, as well as the timelines for completion of the prescription plan activities. It was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all of the prescription plan activities by April 20, 2001. The April 20, 2001, deadline was extended until May 18, 2001, because of Ms. Stern's absences, as discussed below. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers that were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. May 17, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. In a memorandum dated May 7, 2001, and directed to Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, a District Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Ms. Thomas requested that Dr. O'Donnell take control of the "re-entry" of Ms. Stern. Ms. Thomas asked for Dr. O'Donnell's intervention because Ms. Stern had been absent a total of 22 personal and sick days and because Ms. Stern was on 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation. As a result of Ms. Thomas's request, Dr. O'Donnell sent a memorandum dated May 7, 2001, to Ms. Stern telling her that she needed to contact the Office of Professional Standards before she returned to work so that a clearance conference could be scheduled. The clearance conference was held on May 16, 2001, at the Office of Professional Standards. Dr. O'Donnell, Ms. Thomas, Clemencia Waddell, Director of Region VI, and Dia Falco, Ms. Stern's UTD representative, attended the conference. As reflected in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, the purpose of the conference was to address Ms. Stern's performance assessments, her attendance, and her medical fitness to perform her duties and to review Ms. Stern's record and her future employment status with the Miami-Dade County public school system. As of May 15, 2001, Ms. Stern had used more sick time than she had accrued, and Dr. O'Donnell advised her that her absences, which consisted of 21.5 sick and personal days and 1/2 days of unauthorized leave without pay, were considered excessive. Ms. Stern's performance evaluations were also discussed at the conference, and it was noted that she had been provided prescription plan activities to assist her in correcting the deficiencies identified in the March 16, 2001, observation report, which activities were to have been completed by April 20, 2001. Ms. Stern had not provided the required materials to Ms. Thomas or Ms. Brown, but, because she was absent beginning on April 18, 2001, Ms. Stern was directed to provide all of the required materials for the prescription plan activities to Ms. Thomas by the end of the workday on May 18, 2001. Ms. Stern was advised that the failure to provide these materials within the time specified would be considered a deficiency in Category VII, which is the Professional Responsibilities category of TADS, and that she would be placed on a Category VII prescription. Several directives were included in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, and Ms. Stern was advised that she was cleared to return to work on May 17, 2001. May 22, 2001, observation. Ms. Brown conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance on May 22, 2001, when she observed Ms. Stern's second grade language arts class from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. Ms. Brown's overall impression was that Ms. Stern 's performance was worse than it was during the observation on March 16, 2001. Ms. Brown completed a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement in which she reported the results of this observation. In the CAI Post-Observation Report, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance acceptable in the categories of Teacher-Student Relationships and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, and Techniques of Instruction. Specifically, Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator I.B.1. of the Preparation and Planning category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because Ms. Stern had failed to plan content and instructional activities to fill the classroom time allotted for the language arts block. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern took the students to the library at 10:30 a.m., but had completed her planned classroom activities at 9:55 a.m. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to present information in a meaningful or orderly manner. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that "[t]he sequence of the ideas did not flow into one another. The teacher asked questions and talked about whatever came to her mind, . . ." Ms. Brown also noted that there was no logical sequence of activities or framework established for the activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to tell the students the most important topics in the lesson or various applications of the topics introduced in the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not tell the students what they would be doing and did not relate the lesson to the students' experiences. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Knowledge of Subject Matter category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to present information using analysis or comparisons. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not ask open-ended questions, that she limited her questions to those that were simple and basic, and that she failed to challenge the students beyond one cognitive level. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.A.2. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report. The notes Ms. Brown included in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement reflect that Ms. Stern wasted 12 minutes of instruction time because of delays attributable to her repeatedly consulting her lesson plan during class and failing to use student helpers to pass out papers to the class, causing the students to wait without instruction until she passed out all of the papers. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicators III.B.2. and 3. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not notice or noticed but chose not to re-direct a student who was making a paper airplane and rearranging his desk and the inside of his book bag for a period of 15 minutes and that Ms. Stern did not speak to a student who, for a period of 10 minutes, sat with her knees to her chest. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern thanked two students for no apparent reason. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator III.B.4. of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to use techniques to hold the attention of students who had been re-directed. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not notice for two minutes that a student had slid his chair halfway across the room to place it beside that of another student and that, when she noticed, she merely told the student to sit down. Ms. Brown also noted that a student fell asleep at 9:45 a.m.; after about 10 minutes, Ms. Stern noticed the student, asked if he had stayed up late the night before, and left him to sleep until he awoke at 10:25 a.m. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to make her expectations regarding appropriate behavior clear to the students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern told the students that she "love[d] the way everyone is talking at once but it doesn't help" and that Ms. Stern continued to accept answers from students who called out, accepting more answers from these students than from the students who raised their hands. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Classroom Management category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide the students with appropriate and correct verbal feedback regarding specific behaviors. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern ignored two students who had their hands up for several minutes and accepted answers called out by other students. Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern praised the class for working well together when the activity was an activity that each student worked on alone. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to give the students necessary background about their activities. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not tell the students the ideas or skills they were to learn from the two stories that she read to them, one about a bear with a toothache and one about an octopus; she merely told the students that she was going to read a book. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to tell the students how each activity related to the other activities. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not emphasize the important topics in the two stories or link the topics in the stories to future activities. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to sequence activities and failed to point out any logic to the order in which she presented components of the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern went from one activity to the next without having an apparent goal or order to the lesson. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to provide closure to the lesson. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern did not summarize, recapitulate, or apply any of the concepts in the lesson to any past or future lessons. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.H.2. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to clarify the students' confusion. Ms. Brown relates in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern asked a student a question about an octopus; when the student answered, "The end of one of the octopus' tails is the mouth," Ms. Stern's only response was "OK. I don’t quite understand but OK." Ms. Brown also noted that Ms. Stern passed out word cards to the students but never told them what to do with the cards. Ms. Brown rated Ms. Stern deficient in indicator IV.H.4. of the Techniques of Instruction category on the CAI Post-Observation Report because, during the observation, Ms. Stern failed to answer quietly the questions of individual students but would address the entire class when answering the questions of one or two students. Ms. Brown noted in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement that Ms. Stern interrupted the entire class several times to answer the questions of two students, with the result that the class did not have enough quiet time to read and complete the activity. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on May 23, 2001, which was attended by Ms. Thomas, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Stern.8 During the conference, the deficiencies noted by Ms. Brown during her observation on May 22, 2001, were discussed, as well as the prescription plan activities that Ms. Stern was to complete to assist her in correcting the deficiencies. The timeline for completion of the prescription plan activities was also discussed, and it was agreed that Ms. Stern would complete all the prescription plan activities by June 13, 2001. The Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement also included lists of administrators and teachers who were available to assist Ms. Stern with respect to the prescription plan activities for the various deficiencies noted. Ms. Stern's failure to complete the prescription plan activities included in the March 16, 2001, observation by the May 18, 2001, deadline was also discussed at the May 23, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. The Summary of the Conference-for- the-Record reflects that Ms. Brown went over with Ms. Stern the prescription plan activities that were not completed. As a result of her failure to complete the prescription plan activities, Ms. Thomas placed Ms. Stern on prescription for Category VII, the TADS Professional Responsibilities category. Ms. Stern had been advised at the May 17, 2001, Conference-for- the-Record at the Office of Professional Standards that a Category VII prescription would be the consequence if she failed to complete the prescription plan activities by the May 18, 2001, deadline. Ms. Stern ultimately completed the prescription plan activities in the March 16, 2001, Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement, although Ms. Brown had a difficult time determining that Ms. Stern completed all of the activities because the materials she submitted to Ms. Brown were very disorganized. Ms. Stern also turned in by the June 13, 2001, deadline all of the written materials required in the prescription plan activities assigned as a result of the May 22, 2001, observation. She did not, however, turn in her weekly lesson plans to Ms. Brown prior to implementing them, as she had been instructed; rather, she turned in her lesson plans late, and, near the end of the 2000-2001 school year, she did not turn in any lesson plans. September 13, 2001, Confirmatory Observation. In a letter to Ms. Stern dated April 26, 2001, Dr. O'Donnell acknowledged having received a request for medical leave from Ms. Stern for the period extending from April 18, 2001, through May 4, 2001. In the letter, Dr. O'Donnell clarified for Ms. Stern the School Board's position with respect to the impact of her absences on the calculation of the days remaining in her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period. Dr. O'Donnell confirmed in the letter that Ms. Stern's probation period began on February 21, 2001, and that the prescription plan activities arising out of the March 16, 2001, observation were due to be completed on April 20, 2001. Dr. O'Donnell further advised Ms. Stern that the first 10 days of absence were included in the calculation of the 90 calendar days of the probation period and that, accordingly, the end of her probation period would be extended from May 31, 2001, to June 6, 2001, both of which dates fell within the final 10 days of the school year. Dr. O'Donnell acknowledged in the April 26, 2001, letter that, normally, no observations were performed during the first and final 10 days of a school year, but she advised Ms. Stern that her 90-day probation period must be concluded by June 16, 2001, because the Miami-Dade County public school system was to change from TADS to PACES for teacher performance evaluations, effective at the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. Accordingly, Dr. O'Donnell put Ms. Stern on notice in the April 26, 2001, letter that her confirmatory observation would take place after her 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period ended on June 6, 2001. In a letter dated May 9, 2001, Ms. Falco, on behalf of the UTD, advised Dr. O'Donnell that, first, she had misstated the rule regarding the treatment of absences. According to Ms. Falco, the UTD Contract provided that the first 10 days of absence were not to be counted in calculating the 90 days. Nonetheless, Dr. O'Donnell's calculation of June 6, 2001, as the last day of Ms. Stern's probation period was correct. Ms. Falco also took issue with Dr. O'Donnell's decision to complete Ms. Stern's probationary period on June 16, 2001, and she advised Dr. O'Donnell that the then-current observation procedures prohibited any formal observations during the first and final 10 days of the school year and that the UTD would appeal any formal observation of Ms. Stern conducted during the final 10 days of the 2000-2001 school year. Finally, Ms. Falco advised Dr. O'Donnell that the Joint Committee had not yet determined how to treat teachers whose probation periods carried over into the 2001-2002 school year, when teachers were to be evaluated under PACES. The Joint Committee considered Ms. Stern's case individually and decided that Ms. Stern's confirmatory observation was to be conducted using TADS rather than PACES. Ms. Stern was not disadvantaged by having this observation conducted under TADS because it is easier for a teacher to get an acceptable evaluation under TADS than under PACES. In accordance with the position taken by the UTD and because Ms. Stern could not be observed during the first 10 days of the 2001-2002 school year, the end of Ms. Stern's 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period was finally determined to be September 10, 2001. On September 13, 2001, Ms. Thomas conducted a formal observation of Ms. Stern's classroom performance when she observed Ms. Stern teach a second grade math class from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. This observation was the required confirmatory observation conducted to determine whether Ms. Stern had corrected the performance deficiencies identified in the February 5, 2001, March 16, 2001, and May 22, 2001, observations. Ms. Thomas completed a CAI Post-Observation Report in which she reported that she found Ms. Stern's classroom performance unacceptable in all five categories of TADS, Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, Techniques of Instruction, Teacher-Student Relationships, and Assessment Techniques. Ms. Thomas based her determination that Ms. Stern's classroom performance was unacceptable on several factors. During the September 13, 2001, observation, Ms. Thomas noted that Ms. Stern was not teaching the lesson identified on her lesson plan; one of the students repeatedly threw paper across the room into a garbage can without re-direction by Ms. Stern; students were talking to one another and moving around the room during the entire lesson, to the extent that it was difficult for Ms. Thomas to hear Ms. Stern; Ms. Stern did not remind students who were misbehaving of the class rules; Ms. Stern appeared not to notice a student crawling around on the floor; Ms. Stern told students to raise their hands, but she did not call on the students who did so; and Ms. Stern had only two grades for the students in her grade book at a point in the school year when she should have had two grades listed for each student for each week of school in each the five subjects she taught in her second grade class, or over 40 grades. Recommendation for termination. On September 17, 2001, Ms. Thomas notified Ms. Stern that she had failed to comply with the Category VII prescription imposed on May 23, 2001, because she had failed to turn in any lesson plans during the first weeks of the 2001-2002 school year. On September 17, 2001, Ms. Thomas also presented to Ms. Stern for her signature a form that Ms. Thomas intended to submit to Dr. George M. Koonce, Regional Superintendent, containing Ms. Thomas's recommendation that Ms. Stern's employment contract be terminated because she had not satisfactorily corrected the noted performance deficiencies within the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period. Ms. Stern refused to sign the form to acknowledge that she was aware of the recommendation. Dr. Koonce indicated his approval of Ms. Thomas's recommendation and forwarded it to the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel and Management Services, who, in turn, forwarded the recommendation to the Superintendent of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. In a letter dated October 1, 2001, the Superintendent notified Ms. Stern that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated at its October 24, 2001, meeting. Ms. Stern timely contested the recommendation, and this administrative proceeding commenced. Summary The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Stern failed to correct the deficiencies identified in her classroom performance within the 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, that School Board personnel adhered to the applicable evaluation procedures in assessing Ms. Stern's teaching performance and in reaching the decision to terminate her for unsatisfactory teaching performance, and that the School Board adhered to all statutory timeframes. Throughout the duration of Ms. Stern's 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation period, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Brown offered Ms. Stern assistance to help her correct the deficiencies in her classroom performance. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, although Ms. Stern completed many of the prescription plan activities identified in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement for the observations of February 5, March 16, and May 22, 2001, she was unable or unwilling to implement in the classroom the techniques and lessons included in the prescription plan activities and failed to correct the deficiencies in her classroom performance. In her testimony, Ms. Stern did not dispute any of the facts included by Ms. Thomas and Ms. Brown in the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement for the formal observations of February 5, March 16, and May 22, 2001. Rather, Ms. Stern presented in her testimony justifications for and explanations of her classroom performance during the formal observations. This testimony has been considered and found insufficient to rebut the evidence of unsatisfactory performance presented by the School Board: Ms. Stern's second grade class was composed of students of varying abilities and ethnic backgrounds, but so were all of the second grade classes at Campbell Drive Elementary. Ms. Stern's classroom may not have provided an optimum environment for teaching, but the shortcomings of the physical and technological facilities provided to Ms. Stern do not justify the noted deficiencies in her teaching and classroom skills. Finally, Ms. Stern's laissez-faire attitude regarding the inappropriate behavior of her students is difficult to reconcile with her obligation as a teacher to maintain a classroom environment in which opportunities for learning are maximized.9
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order terminating the professional services contract of Joanne T. Stern. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 31st day of October, 2002.
The Issue Whether Brevard County School Board (Petitioner or School Board), has just cause to terminate the professional services contract held by Joyce D. Iloka (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise public schools within the Brevard County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district, including those personnel decisions affecting the professional teaching staff at THS. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was an employee of the School Board and was subject to the statutes, rules, and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, Respondent was assigned to teach drafting at THS. All allegations relate to Respondent's tenure at THS and the performance of her duties as a drafting instructor. By letter dated February 2, 2009, Petitioner notified Respondent that a recommendation would be made to the School Board to terminate her employment with the school district. At its meeting on February 10, 2009, Petitioner accepted the recommendation of the school administration and voted to approve Respondent's employment termination. Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to challenge the decision of the School Board. Petitioner charged Respondent with failure to correct deficiencies identified in a performance plan designed to assist Respondent to remediate unacceptable defects in her teaching performance. Second, Petitioner alleged that the deficiencies noted by THS personnel also constituted an additional basis for termination: incompetency. Respondent maintains that student performance must be considered in the review of her performance and that she was competent and qualified to perform her teaching responsibilities and had done so for a number of years without concern from the THS administration. Respondent began employment with the school district in 1996. She was assigned to THS from 2004-2008. From her first assignment until the 2007/2008 school year, Respondent received satisfactory performance evaluations. Petitioner utilizes an instructional personnel evaluation system known as the Performance Appraisal System (PAS). PAS was approved by state authorities and was cooperatively developed by teachers and administrators for use in Brevard County. PAS details the procedures, method, and forms to be utilized in the completion of instructional personnel evaluations. All such criteria were met in the evaluations performed of Respondent's work. Additionally, school administrators who perform employee evaluations must be thoroughly trained in PAS and must conform to the uniformity afforded by the PAS instrument. All administrators identified in this cause who performed evaluations of the Respondent were trained and were fully certified to evaluate personnel based upon the PAS instrument. Ron Philpot is an assistant principal at THS. He has worked in Brevard County for approximately 37 years and has been assigned to THS for the last 17. Lori Spinner is the principal at THS. For the 2006/2007 school year, Mr. Philpot was assigned to evaluate Respondent. Dr. Spinner signed off on Respondent's 2006/2007 performance evaluation on February 14, 2007. Respondent's 2006/2007 PAS evaluation found her to be overall "high performing." Mr. Philpot was the only administrator/observer who visited Respondent's classroom in order to complete the 2006/2007 evaluation. In his many years of performing evaluations, Mr. Philpot has given only one unsatisfactory evaluation. On December 4, 2007, Dr. Spinner visited Respondent's classroom for the purpose of observing the class and Respondent's performance. On that date there were 17 students present and Dr. Spinner made visual sweeps of the classroom every ten minutes to determine the engagement level of the students. For the time period from 12:25-12:55 p.m., no fewer than two and no more than four students were off-task or not engaged in the lesson. Dr. Spinner remained in Respondent's class for 45 minutes and completed notes from her observation. Pertinent to the allegations of this case are the following observations entered by Dr. Spinner: Instructional Organization - No teacher-based questioning was used during the entire lesson. No learning objective is evident and no agenda or objectives are noted on the board. Materials are not organized and six incidents of non-instructional/unrelated talk were noted. In the middle of the lesson, the teacher states, "Where are you third block?" "What are you working on?" Directions for activity are vague and non- specific. Teacher states "Put in a window anywhere"; "Put in a door somewhere". Teacher circulated several times to address individual concerns. Presentation of Subject Matter - Only 1 concept was presented during the lesson (rotating windows and doors)and appeared to be a review. No new concepts were presented. Instructions for the project were inadequate and vague. Visuals on the board are illegible and difficult to see. Students demonstrated confusion with assignment. Several questions went unanswered or ignored. Communication - Vague and sporadic. No teacher questioning for comprehension. Student questions went unanswered or hands- raised were ignored. In response to one question, teacher states, "I think it says something about that in your book, I think it says . . ." Teacher expressed confusion in demonstrating a plot plan. Was not able to implement the correct commands with Mechanical Desktop Architect program. Management of Conduct - Several students not engaged during lesson. Five incidents of misconduct were not addressed during the lesson. Based upon the observations noted above, Dr. Spinner met with Respondent to provide her with an interim evaluation of her performance. Of the nine individual assessment categories, Dr. Spinner identified only two items that needed improvement. Both were noted under the "Instructional Strand" heading. Comments entered by Dr. Spinner advised Respondent: Ms. Iloka had several students off task or not engaged in the lesson, throughout the class period. She did not have materials prepared in advance which resulted in lost instructional time. Teacher-student interactions often included unrelated talk and off-task discussions. There were long delays during the instructional lesson and instructions/directions were not clear for students. Requirements for the activity were not presented in advance and directions were vague. This resulted in delays in learning and gaps in instructional activities. Presentation of instructions and project directions were vague and difficult for students to follow. Requirements were not presented in advance. There was no instructional questioning during the lesson to ensure comprehension. Concepts were presented with examples only. Students did not have an instructional visual to reference as they worked with the program. Dr. Spinner attempted to communicate the areas of concern noted above but Respondent was resistant. Further, Dr. Spinner sought to encourage Respondent to continue her education and professional development as a means of continuous professional growth. Dr. Spinner hoped that Respondent would recruit more students into the drafting program because the enrollment had steadily declined during Respondent's tenure at THS. None of Dr. Spinner's suggestions were well-received by Respondent. On January 30, 2008, Dr. Spinner observed Respondent's class from 1:55-2:40 p.m. As before, Dr. Spinner made a visual sweep of the class to determine student engagement every ten minutes. Again, as before, Dr. Spinner observed two to four students not engaged during the sweeps. Many of the comments generated by the January 30, 2008, observation mirrored the prior observation. Dr. Spinner felt Respondent had made no serious effort to improve the areas of concern that needed improvement. The interim PAS evaluation signed by Dr. Skinner and Respondent on February 1, 2008, included three categories that needed improvement and noted that Respondent's overall evaluation needed improvement. To provide assistance for Respondent, Dr. Skinner assigned a teacher/peer mentor at the school level to provide direction and help to the Respondent in order to remediate the deficient areas of performance. Respondent did not avail herself of the mentor and did not implement meaningful changes to her instructional content or delivery. Later Dr. Skinner secured a mentor teacher from outside the school to assist the Respondent. Again, Respondent did not implement the suggestions made by that mentor. Dr. Spinner prepared professional development assistance (PDA) forms for areas of concern in order to identify the behaviors that were deficient, the strategies for improvement of the deficiency, and the assistance that the school would provide to Respondent. For example, the PDA dated February 1, 2008, to improve management of student conduct noted that peer mentor, Jane Speidel, would assist Respondent to develop a classroom management plan so that students who are off-task can be appropriately engaged in the learning process. According to Ms. Speidel, Respondent did not want assistance in this regard and had "no desire to adopt any new changes." On February 19, 2008, Dr. Spinner again observed Respondent's class. Many of the same deficiencies in the categories of instructional organization, presentation of subject matter, communication, and management of conduct were noted. At one point during the observation, Respondent received a sub sandwich and a drink from a colleague. As Respondent had just finished a duty-free lunch time prior to the observation time, the delivery of food during a class period seemed inappropriate to Dr. Skinner. Dr. Skinner’s next observation of Respondent's class was on February 28, 2008. Deficiencies were listed in the areas of instructional organization, presentation of subject matter, communication, and management of conduct. Many of the problems noted in prior observations were continuing. The common thread running through each observation was the failure on Respondent's part to even attempt to incorporate new strategies or concepts into her teaching effort. Specifically, with regard to student performance, students remained off task. Students continued to be confused by vague or confusing directions and exhibited an indifference to drafting. Students were observed sleeping, eating, playing solitaire, and computer games or surfing the Internet when they should have been working on projects or completing appropriate drafting assignments. On March 6, 2008, Dr. Skinner gave Respondent her annual evaluation. Unsurprisingly, Respondent was given an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory. As Respondent had made little or no effort to improve in the areas noted as deficient during the school year (as delineated in prior observations), Respondent was advised: Ms. Iloka is expected to improve in the areas noted as unsatisfactory. A formal plan and support has been provided to assist her in becoming more effective with her students. She is expected to demonstrate improvement as an expectation for continued employment. At the conclusion of the annual PAS evaluation, Respondent was advised that a 90-day probationary period would begin at the start of the 2008/2009 school year. Accordingly, from August 11, 2008, Respondent was subject to PDA plans to address deficiencies in the categories of instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, and management of student conduct. The same three areas of concern that were identified throughout the 2007/2008 school year continued to be a concern. On August 11, 2008, Respondent signed a letter acknowledging that she would be on probationary status for 90 days and that she would be evaluated periodically during that time. A resource teacher from the county, John Hays, was identified to Respondent as someone who would provide support and information for presenting the subject matter appropriately and developing a classroom management plan. During the fall of 2008, Respondent was observed on several occasions. None of the visits to Respondent's classroom evidenced any significant improvement on her part to address the deficient areas of performance. Assistant Principal Jerri Mallicoat completed PAS evaluations that noted the same deficiencies. Respondent did not complete lesson plans with sufficient detail so that a substitute could understand and step in for an absence. Respondent did not develop a classroom management plan to ensure that off-task students could be redirected to the assignment. Further, students committing violations of school rules (such as eating in the classroom) were not appropriately disciplined and redirected. Respondent did not avail herself of resources available through the school site mentor or county resource opportunities. Petitioner afforded Respondent with opportunities for improvement through in-service classes and mentor teachers. Respondent is a non-degreed vocational industrial arts teacher. Drafting and other vocational industrial arts classes are commonly taught by credentialed persons who achieve some industry-recognized authorization as sufficient to demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent's knowledge of her subject area is not questioned. Her ability to translate that knowledge in a meaningful manner to a classroom of students while maintaining order and on-task behavior and her failure to recognize her need to improve performance in these areas is the subject of this cause. For whatever reason, Respondent would not or could not improve performance in the deficient areas. During the 2008/2009 school year THS used block scheduling. Teachers would have students for 90-minute blocks. Respondent was challenged to fill that time with educational content and maintain students in on-task efforts. Respondent had two blocks of drafting students. Enrollment in drafting declined such that the remainder of Respondent's work day was spent as a substitute for other teachers. Within a block, Respondent had multiple levels of drafting students, first-time drafting students up to the more advanced levels. Each level of proficiency required appropriate instruction. Drafting, like other vocational industrial arts classes, does not have a state-mandated performance assessment tool. Drafting students are recognized in the private sector by whether they are able to achieve an industry-recognized testing standard of performance. Classroom performance at THS was based upon proficient use of the program utilized to create plans and the written materials that accompanied the computer work. Students eating, sleeping, playing solitaire, computer games, or surfing the Internet did not demonstrate proficient use of drafting skills. All of these behaviors were repeatedly observed in Respondent's class. Respondent did not remediate the performance deficiencies noted in the evaluations of the 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 school years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Brevard County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment with the School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 8th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph R. Lowicky, Esquire Glickman, Witters and Marrell, P.A. The Centurion, Suite 1101 1601 Forum Place West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Scott Sirmons, Esquire Johnson, Haynes, & Miller 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 305 Brandon, Florida 33511 Thomas Johnson, Esquire Johnson, Haynes & Miller, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 305 Brandon, Florida 33511 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard DiPatri, Ed. D., Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6601
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to terminate the Respondent's employment contract as a teacher. The grounds upon which the proposed action is based are alleged in a Notice of Specific Charges of Unsatisfactory Performance dated May 13, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was a duly-constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Michael J. Akpan, was an employee of the School Board of Miami- Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent possessed an annual employment contract as a teacher and was subject to the Memorandum of Understanding between United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was certified to teach middle grades science. This certification allows the Respondent to teach certain science courses to ninth and tenth grade students. During the 1997/1998 school year, the Respondent was teaching at North Miami Senior High School (NMSHS).1 The Respondent was placed in an alternative education assignment in which the students were at risk of dropping out of school. During that school year, the Respondent had difficulty controlling the conduct of students in his classroom. There were numerous instances of student misconduct and disruption of such gravity as to require intervention by school security personnel and assistant principals. Teachers employed by the Petitioner School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS has been approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between the Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). At all times material to this case, TADS was employed to evaluate the Respondent's performance. The same TADS documents are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers, whether new or veteran. TADS observers record deficiencies which are observed during the observation period and then provide a prescription for performance improvement.2 A post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. Then the cycle of assessment/prescription begins again. Under the TADS procedure as incorporated into the labor contract between the School Board and UTD, teachers who are in Annual Contract Two status, such as the Respondent, must have a minimum of two observations during each school year. One of those two observations must be done by the principal. During its 1997 session, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 1997, to provide for a 90-calendar-day performance probation for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. Because the statutory amendment impacted the implementation of TADS, the Petitioner and UTD negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the implementation of the new procedures required by the 1997 statutory amendments. The Memorandum of Understanding is an amendment to the labor contract between the Petitioner and the UTD. The Memorandum of Understanding reads as follows, in pertinent part: Performance Probation Period Upon identification of any deficiency, either through the observation/assessment process OR a Category VII infraction, the PRINCIPAL MUST, within 10 days, conduct a conference-for-the-record which addresses: results of the observation/assessment, or Category VII infraction, stipulations of the Performance Probation (90 calendar days excluding school holidays and vacations), which begins upon the employee's receipt of written plan of assistance (prescription), the plan of assistance and professional development opportunities to help correct documented deficiencies within a specified period of time, future required observations/assessments and possible employment actions. A minimum of two observations/assessments must be conducted subsequent to the completion of the initial prescriptive timelines and during the Performance Probation. The annual evaluation decision will be based upon the result of the last observation/assessment as illustrated in the chart titled, Examples of Assessments/ Observations and Annual Evaluation/Employment Contract Decisions for Employees on Performance Probation. In the event that an employee is absent on authorized leave in excess of 10 consecutive workdays, the Performance Probation is suspended until the employee returns to active duty, at which time it resumes. If the Performance Probation has not been completed during the current year of employment, the annual evaluation is withheld pending completion of the Performance Probation during the subsequent year of employment. Teachers who have not completed the requirements of the Performance Probation are ineligible for summer school employment. Within 14 calendar days after the close of the Performance Probation, the evaluator (principal) must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the Superintendent. Within 14 calendar days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the Superintendent must notify the employee in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the Superintendent will recommend that the School Board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the Superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 calendar days after receipt of the Superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. On October 13, 1997, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal Carrie Figueredo for one hour. The Respondent was found to be deficient in several categories and his performance was assessed as unsatisfactory. The observed deficiencies on this occasion included a failure to maintain appropriate classroom management. More than 90 percent of the students were "off task." Most of the students were either sleeping, filling out job applications, or otherwise inattentive. On October 20, 1997, Assistant principal Figueredo held a post-observation conference with the Respondent, discussed the Respondent's deficiencies with him, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities, which it was hoped would help him improve his performance as a classroom teacher. On November 21, 1997, the Respondent was formally observed in his classroom by Principal Charles Hankerson. Principal Hankerson assessed the Respondent's performance as unsatisfactory. Among other things, Principal Hankerson observed that the Respondent continued to have serious deficiencies in the area of classroom management. On December 2, 1997, Principal Hankerson held a conference for the record with the Respondent to address his unsatisfactory performance. During that conference Principal Hankerson made recommendations as to how the Respondent might improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and also discussed the Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner School Board. The Respondent was placed on a Performance Probation status in accordance with Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and he was provided with a plan of assistance to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed time frame. The Respondent's 90-day probation period began on December 8, 1997, which is the day on which he was furnished with a copy of the written plan of assistance. March 8, 1998. was the ninetieth day following December 8, 1997. During the Respondent's 90-day probation period there were at least 12 school holidays and school vacation days.3 Accordingly, the Respondent's probation period extended until at least March 20, 1998.4 On January 20, 1998, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal William Henderson. Assistant Principal Henderson observed the Respondent for 60 minutes. During this observation, the Respondent was found deficient in techniques of instruction. Assistant Principal Henderson observed that the Respondent was not addressing the needs of the students, that there was confusion as to the assignment, and that the Respondent wasted too much time initiating the lesson. On January 27, 1998, Assistant Principal Henderson had a post-observation conference with the Respondent, during which he discussed the Respondent's deficiencies, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities to assist the Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. Among those activities were, that the Respondent should meet with his department chairperson and review strategies which would be appropriate for the students assigned to the Respondent's classes. The Respondent was also directed to submit lesson plans to Assistant Principal Henderson. On February 27, 1998, the Respondent was observed in his classroom by Assistant Principal Figueredo for two hours. Assistant Principal Figueredo found the Respondent to be deficient in several areas, including classroom management.5 This was Assistant Principal Figueredo's second observation of the Respondent. While she noted some minimal improvement since her earlier observation, the Respondent's performance on February 27, 1998, was still not anywhere near an acceptable level. On March 5, 1998, Assistant Figueredo held a post- observation conference with the Respondent, discussed the Respondent's deficiencies with him, and provided the Respondent with a number of prescriptive activities in order to assist the Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. Among those prescriptive activities was a requirement that the Respondent develop lesson plans to be reviewed by Assistant Principal Figueredo's and by the Respondent's department chairperson. The Respondent was also directed to maintain a time log to determine when students arrived. Additionally, the Respondent was assigned several exercises in the Activities Manual to assist him in the area of teacher/student relationships. On March 27, 1998, Principal Charles Hankerson observed the Respondent in the classroom. On this occasion Principal Hankerson found the Respondent to be deficient in three categories: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher/student relationships. This was the confirmatory observation, which did not require a prescription. The assistance provided to the Respondent through his prescriptions was appropriate assistance related to the Respondent's observed deficiencies. The Respondent completed all of the prescriptions. Nevertheless, the Respondent continued to fail to plan for lessons, continued to fail to manage his students, and continued to fail to interact appropriately with his students. These continued failures resulted in a failure of the Respondent to meet the instructional needs of his students. As a result of the Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during each of the last three observations described above, Principal Hankerson notified the Superintendent of Schools that the Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during the probation period, and Principal Hankerson recommended that the Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 2, 1998, the Superintendent of Schools timely notified the Respondent that he was going to recommend that the School Board terminate his employment contract because he had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his period of probation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order sustaining the action to terminate Respondent's annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner returned Respondent to annual contract from continuing contract for good and sufficient reasons.
Findings Of Fact Through the 1992-93 school year, Respondent held a continuing contract with Petitioner. She has been the music teacher at Spring Creek Elementary School for 12 years. She has taught music for Petitioner for 27 years, including 26 years in elementary school. Prior to coming to Lee County, she taught for five years in Missouri and Illinois. Respondent earned a bachelor's degree in music education in 1962 from Murray State University. She has a master's degree in music education from Murray State as well. Respondent has had extensive training in music, especially chorus. She took a summer course at Westminster Choir College, where one of her instructors was Mary of Peter, Paul, and Mary. There is no question concerning Respondent's substantive knowledge of music. The factual issues in this case concern her ability to deliver this knowledge effectively to all of her students. Until three years ago, the principal of Spring Creek Elementary School was Thomas Halgrim, who was the first principal at Spring Creek. Mr. Halgrim and Respondent are on good terms. During Mr. Halgrim's ten-year tenure at Spring Creek, Respondent's performance was marginally acceptable. However, while Mr. Halgrim was principal at Spring Creek, he found it necessary to refer Respondent to the Intensive Assistance Program. This program helps teachers with major teaching problems. In Respondent's case, she needed additional work in the areas of facilitating student self-esteem and creating an environment in which students wanted to participate in music. Teachers typically remain in the program for 3-9 months; Respondent remained in the program for two school years. Patty van der Have succeeded Mr. Halgrim as principal of Spring Creek at the start of the 1991-92 school year. During the school year, she received complaints and expressions of concern from students, teachers, and parents regarding Respondent. The problems generally involved poor student morale in Respondent's classroom. Ms. van der Have discussed the possibility of the Intensive Assistance Program with the District personnel office, but they disfavored this option because Respondent had already been through the program. Instead, Ms. van der Have decided to begin the school year with observations in the hope that Respondent would make the recommended changes. On September 4, 1992, Kathleen Stephens (a/k/a Kathleen Rooker) observed Respondent. Ms. Stevens was an assistant principal. She saw that Respondent called each student individually to her desk to tell her his or her name, which she then wrote down. This task consumed 20 minutes. Afterward, Respondent reviewed class rules, which took the remaining ten minutes of the 30- minute class. Respondent was not responsible for checking attendance, but Respondent was expected to learn the names of the students. She taught 25-30 classes during the week. And the September 4 class was the first time that this class met. However, many of the children were returning from prior years, and Respondent wasted considerable time on an inefficient means of acquainting or reacquainting herself with her students. The written observation of September 4 targets two behaviors for further development: "begin work with students promptly [and] provide instructional objectives." On September 11, 1992, Ms. Stephens conducted another observation of one of Respondent's classes. The first 20 minutes of class were devoted to students individually coming up to Respondent's desk and getting a seat assignment. The last 10 minutes of class were spent passing out books and singing along with a record. Although there was little interaction between Respondent and the students, she responded several times to wrong answers by saying, "you're not looking," "pay closer attention," "you're not listening," or "your mind is elsewhere." The targeted behaviors for further development are the same as in the last observation, but add that Respondent should correct a student's mistake in a positive manner by providing cues and assistance. On September 28, Ms. Stephens conducted a third observation of Respondent. This time, Respondent was more effective in class. She had an appropriate lesson plan and followed it. However, she remained in her seat and used a pointer to direct students to items written on the chalkboard. Moving among the students can be an effective means of keeping the children on task. By late September, Ms. van der Have had received numerous complaints from parents, teachers, and students concerning Respondent. The complaints centered upon inadequate discipline among Respondent's students and a lack of focus of her music class. On October 16, 1992, Ms. van der Have observed Respondent. This was a class consisting of 12 students from the English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program and four students from the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. The class consisted of a lecture by Respondent as to how to behave at a concert, followed by a display of posters of various musical instruments. There was little student-teacher interaction. The unsuitability of the lecture format was heightened by the classifications of the children. The ESOL students often have trouble with spoken English, and music can be an opportunity for them to learn without an emphasis on what is for them a foreign language. The ESE students were severely physically and mentally handicapped, and they too could have profited from another approach that that taken by Respondent. By the end of the class, three of the ESE students were asleep. Ms. van der Have's observation contains numerous recommendations. They include the need for student interaction initiated by asking the children questions and listening to their answers, circulating among the students, beginning each lesson with a short review, concluding each lesson with a short review, developing and following appropriate lesson plans for ESOL and ESE students, and increasing teacher awareness so as to deal with situations such as the three ESE students sleeping in the class. On October 23, 1992, Ms. Stephens observed Respondent, who again did not circulate among the students. When a child answered a question correctly, Respondent would call the child up to her desk and give him or her some stickers or passes, which tended to destroy any instructional momentum she could build up with the class. When a child answered a question incorrectly, Respondent would ignore the child rather than explore the area with the child. Again, Respondent did not follow her lesson plan. The observation form notes under targeted behaviors: Serious deficiencies continue to persist. INCREASE TEACHER MOBILITY AND CIRCULA MAINTAIN MOMENTUM. PRESENT MATERIAL CLEAR AND LIVELY MANNER, VARY INTENSITY, AND VOLUME OF VOICE, USE EYE CONTACT, SMILE, LIVELY BODY language and movement, accept positively student responses, probe for correct answer or amplify student response, use teacher withitness [i.e., awareness of all students in the classroom] to correct student behavior. The observation form requires Respondent to correct the ineffective teaching behaviors by November 13, 1992. On November 13, 1992, Charlotte Rafferty conducted the observation of Respondent. Ms. Rafferty is a principal of a fine arts magnet school in the district. She has taught music education in an elementary school elsewhere in Florida and in Texas. Ms. van der Have selected Ms. Rafferty for the observation because Ms. van der Have wanted someone with some musical background. Ms. Rafferty observed two classes of Respondent. Under "behaviors to maintain," Ms. Rafferty stated in the observation form, "nothing you are presently doing." The observation form describes in detail two classes in which the students were bored about the material being presented by Respondent. Ms. Rafferty concluded that Respondent needed to target the following behaviors for further development: Excitement, creativity, movement, proper use of instruments in classroom, challenging rhythm work for the children, interesting songs that children like, grade appropriate materials and instruments and positive interaction with the children. Ms. Rafferty listed 17 detailed recommended activities. These include adding some excitement to the class, having the district music coordinator observe and provide suggestions, use available instruments rather than just rhythm sticks, consider the needs of the children such as by including some Hispanic songs, desist from doing beat for 45 minutes as that "would bore anyone to death," use dance as a form of body movement to allow the students to feel beat, use "much more complex rhythm patterns" with fourth graders, do away with books for the entire class time, act like teaching is enjoyable, allow the children to interact more, and allow the children to use more improvisations, movement, and instruments to learn the feel of rhythm. Ms. Rafferty did not mince words in concluding the observation narrative. She stated: I would have a very difficult time holding up my head in front of these children if I gave them what you are giving them. In the best interest of the children I would hope that you would either make a drastic change immediately or retire from teaching. You are truly doing a dis-service to children. When you consider what these children say about their music experience, the poor teaching practices and poor presentations are a prostitution to the field that you a teaching. The ability to remain current takes commitment and dedication and the poor teaching that I saw is a deterrent to the advancement of music in our schools. Ms. Rafferty's allusion to what the children were saying is based on informal interviews that she conducted with them following class. On November 30, 1992, Ms. van der Have conducted a summative observation of Respondent. The previous observations were formative and intended to constitute part of a process by which Respondent and the assessor construct an assessment. The summative observation was the culmination of formative observations and represented a more comprehensive assessment of Respondent's performance. The problems that Ms. van der Have observed on November 30 were the same that had been observed previously. Respondent did not immediately begin teaching the material. Her failure to engage the children again led to misconduct. Before long, the majority of the students were disengaged and off task, even though Respondent was circulating to some degree through the class. On December 9, 1992, the district music coordinator, Jim Hinman, observed Respondent. He found that Respondent had trouble orienting the students toward classwork, maintaining instructional momentum, and keeping control of the classroom. She started class late and relied excessively on a lecture/response teaching strategy. Over time, the students' interest waned, and Respondent was reverting excessively to warnings about behavior, which further impeded any momentum. On February 18, 1993, Mr. Hinman conducted a second observation of Respondent. Although she did better in giving appropriate feedback, other problems continued from his previous observation and new problems emerged, such as spending classtime assigning seats. In general, Respondent was again unsuccessful in maintaining her instructional momentum and exciting the students. Respondent's teaching did not improve for the remainder of the school year. Her relations with administrators, some teachers, and even some students deteriorated. At one point, she confronted several children and demanded why they had complained about her. On March 23, 1993, Joseph Vetter, an assistant principal at Spring Creek, observed Respondent. He noted that Respondent was not circulating through the classroom, failed to use praise on the students, and failed to maintain effective control of the class. On March 25, 1993, Ms. van der Have gave Respondent a memorandum and performance assessment. The assessment finds that Respondent's effectiveness was, in all but one category, inconsistently practiced or unacceptable. The assessment notes that Respondent has consistently refused to meet with Ms. van der Have to discuss the areas of concern and suffers from a poor relationship with students and staff. The memorandum, a copy of which went to the superintendent, states that Ms. van der Have is recommending that Respondent be returned to annual contract for the 1993-94 school year. The memorandum adds that Respondent has one year to improve in all areas marked Unsatisfactory or Inconsistently practiced. I will be happy to schedule any assistance you may desire, such as visiting another classroom, having a teacher or Coordinator model an effective music lesson for you, providing video tapes of effective teachers teaching, selecting additional readings and/or videos for your use, discussing effective lesson plans, reviewing your discipline plan and so on. The memorandum concludes: I believe you need to reevaluate and implement the suggestions made by observers this year and reconsider accepting the assistance that you have continually refused this year. I need the students, parents and staff of Spring Creek Elementary School to receive an effective Music program. By letter dated March 30, 1993, and received by Respondent on the following day, the deputy superintendent notified Respondent that the superintendent would be recommending to the school board that Respondent be removed from continuing contract and placed on annual contract for the 1993-94 school year. The letter explains the basis for the action as inadequate performance and unwillingness to try to improve. On April 1, 1993, the superintendent filed a petition with the school board to return Respondent to annual contract for a continuing failure or refusal to use important instructional techniques. On April 13, the school board approved the action, effective July 1, 1993. By letter dated April 20, 1993, the superintendent informed Respondent of the action and advised her of her right to demand a hearing. On May 3, 1993, Respondent demanded a formal hearing. Petitioner proved good and sufficient reasons for returning Respondent to annual contract from continuing contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order reducing Respondent to annual contract for the 1993-94 school year. ENTERED on July 18, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 18, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 1 (last sentence): rejected as irrelevant. 2-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5-10: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 11: adopted or adopted in substance. 12-20: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 21 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence except that Mr. Halgrim did try to get Respondent to focus on problem areas. 21 (remainder): rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. The issue in this case is the effectiveness of Respondent for all of her students, not just those who are already motivated when they come to class and possess exceptional musical talents. 22-24: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 25: adopted or adopted in substance. 26: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence except as to substantive knowledge of music. 28-30: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32-45: rejected as irrelevant, and subordinate, and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 46: adopted or adopted in substance except as to the last clause, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 47-48: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel H. Kunkel Kunkel & Hament Suite 785, 1800 Second St. Sarasota, FL 34236 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Office of the Superintendent 2055 Central Ave. Ft. Myers, FL 33901-3916 Hon. Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) Whether Petitioner's allegations regarding Respondent schoolteacher's purported performance deficiencies are, in fact, true, thereby justifying Petitioner's placing Respondent on statutory performance probation; (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, then, Whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected the specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes; and (3) Whether Respondent's employment should be continued or terminated.
Findings Of Fact Material Historical Facts At all times material to this case, Respondent Samuel K. Young ("Young") was a teacher in the Palm Beach County School District ("District"). From 1993 until July 2003, when Respondent Palm Beach County School Board ("Board") suspended him without pay, Young taught English at the Alexander W. Dreyfoos, Jr. School of the Arts ("Dreyfoos"), a magnet high school for students interested in an arts-centered education. In August or early September of 2001, shortly after the beginning of the 2001-02 school year, one of the Assistant Principals at Dreyfoos, Tanya Daniel, began routinely to observe Young, on an "informal" basis, while he was teaching his classes. These unscheduled, informal observations were triggered by students' complaints, of which Ms. Daniel, as Young's immediate supervisor, had been the recipient or been made aware. As time passed, the informal observations became increasingly formal. On October 25, 2001, Ms. Daniel conducted a formal evaluation of Young, using the Summative Observation Instrument, which is a tool that was developed for the Florida Department of Education's Florida Performance Measurement System. Another Assistant Principal, Leo Barrett, also started formally observing Young's classes. By early December 2001, Ms. Daniel had come to the conclusion that Young was not performing his teaching responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. Specifically, Ms. Daniel believed that Young was deficient in the areas of classroom management; presentation and organization; planning; student assessment; obedience to policies and procedures; and maintenance of the learning environment. Two points are especially notable about Ms. Daniel's negative assessment of Young. First, she placed considerable reliance on student feedback. Indeed, Ms. Daniel invited and encouraged Young's students to report to her on how he was doing in the classroom. Second, she did not rely upon student performance as measured, in accordance with Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes, by state and/or local assessments. On January 8, 2002, as a result of Ms. Daniel's evaluation, the Principal of Dreyfoos, Ellen Van Arsdale, placed Young on school-level performance probation pursuant to the procedures spelled out in the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS) Evaluation Handbook (the "CTAS"). (Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the District and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association, effective July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2005 (the "Union Contract"), the District is required to conduct formal evaluations of teachers "in keeping with" the 1999 CTAS.) The CTAS provides that a teacher whose performance is found deficient must be afforded at least 30 calendar days to improve his performance to a satisfactory level. During that time, the teacher must be given "school-site assistance" to help him correct the identified performance deficiencies. Accordingly, a 30-day School-Site Assistance Plan was developed for Young and put into effect on January 8, 2002. The school-level performance probation that began in January 2002 constituted a new phase in the evaluation process. The purpose of the first phase, which lasted about three months (from September through December 2001), purportedly was to determine whether Young's performance was satisfactory or not. Thus, the first-phase evaluators should not have assumed at the outset that Young's performance was satisfactory or unsatisfactory. In contrast, during the second phase, the evaluators worked from the initial premise that Young's performance was, in fact, unsatisfactory, in the several areas noted by Ms. Daniel. The focus, therefore, was on whether Young was improving sufficiently to correct deficiencies that were assumed to exist. Throughout the school-level probationary period, a number of evaluators reviewed Young's performance. Ms. Van Arsdale conducted several evaluations, and Mr. Barrett performed at least one. Another was conducted by Dr. Lisa Troute, a Curriculum Specialist with the District. Others, too, were involved. None of the evaluators questioned the conclusion, which was based largely on Ms. Daniel's opinions, that Young's performance actually was deficient. Ms. Daniel did not observe Young's classroom performance during this second phase, evidently in consequence of Young's having voiced some concerns about her impartiality. Ms. Daniel remained an important participant in the process, however, and she continued actively to solicit students' opinions about Young's competence. On February 20, 2002, she interviewed at least three of Young's students, making handwritten notes (which are in evidence) to memorialize their respective assessments. Ms. Daniel asked one student to rate Young's performance on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being "poor" and 10 being "great"; the student gave Young a 3.5. There is no evidence that Ms. Daniel elicited the opinions of a random, representative sample of Young's students——or instead, for example, polled only the known malcontents. There is also no persuasive evidence that Ms. Daniel ever did anything but accept the students' mostly unfavorable opinions uncritically. What the evidence does establish is that Ms. Daniel put great weight on the students' opinions——so much so that the students she spoke with effectively became Young's evaluators themselves. The school-level probationary period was extended well beyond 30 days, and ended up lasting until the end of the 2001- 02 school year. By letter dated May 17, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale informed the Superintendent that Young's performance remained unsatisfactory after 91 days of school-site assistance. Specifically, it was Ms. Van Arsdale's opinion that Young's performance was deficient in the following six areas, each of which is a designated "indicator" of competence under the CTAS: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; Assessment; and Policies/Procedures/Ethics. Ms. Van Arsdale asked the Superintendent to place Young on statutory performance probation for 90 days, pursuant to Sections 231.29 and 231.36, Florida Statutes (2001). The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young during the school-level probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. In fact, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. Nevertheless, the Superintendent acceded to Ms. Van Arsdale's request. By letter dated May 20, 2002, the Superintendent notified Young that he would be placed on performance probation for 90 calendar days. The statutory performance probation——a distinct, third phase of the evaluation process——commenced in August 2002, at the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. On August 22, 2002, Young was given a Professional Development Plan, which called for the provision of assistance, as well as ongoing evaluations, through November 2002, when a final evaluation would be issued passing judgment on whether he had——or had not——corrected the alleged performance deficiencies. The statutory performance probation unfolded largely as had the school-level performance probation. Young was, again, observed and critiqued by a number of evaluators. Of the written evaluations in evidence, the most balanced is a report dated September 22, 2002, which Dr. Troute prepared concerning her observation of Young on September 10, 2002. Based on this contemporaneous report, the undersigned is persuaded that Dr. Trout then believed Young was a "satisfactory" teacher who could, with additional effort, be a "good" teacher. Others were less charitable, however, including Ms. Van Arsdale, who prepared Young's final evaluation based on her November 5, 2002, observation of his class. On the CTAS's evaluation form, Ms. Van Arsdale gave Young a rating of "concern" on five separate "indicators" of competence: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; and Assessment. This resulted in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young while he was on statutory performance probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. Indeed, once again, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. By letter dated November 6, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale notified the Superintendent that, in her opinion, Young had failed to correct performance deficiencies and therefore should be fired. The Superintendent agreed, and by letter dated November 14, 2002, informed Young that he would recommend to the Board that Young's employment be terminated. The Board later accepted the Superintendent's recommendation, and Young was suspended without pay, effective on or about July 16, 2003, pending his discharge. The CTAS A. Teachers who are evaluated under the CTAS are rated on 15 categories of qualities or abilities, which are referred to collectively as "indicators." Each indicator, such as, e.g., Management of Student Conduct, is best understood not as a single ability, but rather as a label for a skill-set, that is, a collection of qualities, abilities, or skills. The indicators are divided into two classes called "performance areas." The performance areas are: "A. Teaching and Learning" and "B. Professional Responsibilities." There are eight indicators under Teaching and Learning and seven under Professional Responsibilities. The CTAS uses a two-point rating scale. The only grades used for scoring a teacher on the 15 indicators are "acceptable" and "concern." The section of the CTAS's evaluation form where the grades are recorded is reproduced below, with the ratings from Ms. Van Arsdale's final evaluation of Young, dated November 6, 2002, added to show how the form is used in practice: A. TEACHING AND LEARNING ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 1. Management of Student Conduct X 2. Human Development and Learning X 3. Presentation of Subject Matter X 4. Communication X 5. Knowledge of Subject Matter X 6. Learning and Environment X 7. Planning X 8. Assessment X B. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 9. Technology X 10. Record Keeping X 11. Continuous Improvement X 12. Working Relationships with Coworkers X 13. Working Relationships with Parents X 14. Policies/Procedures/Ethics X 15. Duties as Assigned by the School Administration X The teacher's overall evaluation rating of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" depends entirely upon the combination of ratings awarded on the 15 indicators. The following combinations require an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory": NUMBER OF CONCERNS SECTION A SECTION B 3 0 2 1 1 3 0 4 As can be seen, the indicators under Section A carry greater relative weight in the overall evaluation than those under Section B. Because Young received five "concerns" on his final evaluation, the CTAS dictated that he be given an overall "unsatisfactory" rating. In rating the various indicators, evaluators are supposed to consider numerous "performance criteria." The CTAS defines the "performance criteria" as "examples of descriptors which define the indicators." To be more precise, the performance criteria are specific behaviors, acts, and practices that the teacher should be performing as an outward manifestation of the teacher's command or mastery of the respective skill-sets known as indicators. Various performance criteria are set out in the CTAS as "bullet points" under each of the indicators. The first bullet point under the first indicator (Management of Student Conduct), for example, is: "[The teacher] specifies and explains rules of conduct and provides for practice of rules when appropriate." For each of the indicators, the CTAS further provides a set of "data collection sources." The CTAS defines the term "data collection sources" as "examples of multiple data sources used to determine a rating of 'acceptable' or 'concern.'" In other words, the data collection sources are lists of "evidence" that can be examined to determine whether, and perhaps how well, the teacher is performing the prescribed performance criteria. For example, the data collection sources for the indicator Planning are: observation reports; lesson plans; conference notes; assessment data; instructional materials; and written reports. B. As we have seen already, the CTAS defines the terms "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory" in a completely objective fashion. It does so by specifying the rating combinations that will result in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." Thus, anyone who knows the number of "concerns" that a teacher has received in Sections A and B can apply the formula and assign the overall grade; this ministerial function requires neither discretion nor judgment. What does demand discretion and judgment is rating the teacher's command or mastery of the respective indicators as either "concern" or "acceptable." This rating function requires that qualitative determinations be made at two distinct levels. First, for every indicator (skill-set), the evaluator must decide how well the teacher is executing each of the several subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors). Then, based on how well the teacher is executing the subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors), the evaluator must render a judgment as to how well the teacher is doing with regard to the indicator (skill-set) that comprises those performance criteria. At both stages of the analysis, to arrive consistently at fair conclusions——that is, to obtain similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time——requires (a) that there be uniform standards to guide evaluators in making the requisite judgment calls and (b) that the same standards always be applied, to all teachers in all evaluations. Thus, it is important to know what standards, if any, the CTAS prescribes. To begin, some negative findings are in order. First, the indicators are not standards upon which to make a judgment. They are, rather, the qualities to be judged, using appropriate standards of decision. Second, the performance criteria are likewise not standards. They define or prescribe the relevant facts to which, jointly and severally, standards should be applied, so as to make a judgment regarding one indicator or another.1 To illustrate, the fact that a teacher is observed "reinforc[ing] appropriate social behavior" tells us nothing about how well he does this, much less about how well he has mastered Management of Student Conduct, which indicator comprises the referenced performance criterion. Rather, to make a qualitative judgment regarding the teacher's performance of this practice requires some test, some basis, for distinguishing between good and bad performances. Similarly, the ultimate fact that the teacher acceptably "reinforces appropriate social behavior" tells us relatively little, presumably, about whether the teacher's mastery of the indicator Management of Student Conduct is acceptable or not, for there are eleven other performance criteria to be considered also in respect of this particular indicator. To make a qualitative judgment regarding whether the teacher has demonstrated an acceptable command of the skill-set known as Management of Student Conduct requires some sort of standard, some yardstick for measuring the relative importance of the teacher's demonstrated expertise (or lack thereof)——as determined by the evaluator——in the execution of the various performance criteria. The only "standards" that the evidence in this case persuasively establishes are the terms "acceptable" and "concern." Superficially, these terms seem to possess some degree of objective content. On reflection, however, it should be seen that they do not, a point which will be examined in greater detail below. The undersigned, moreover, has searched the CTAS and the record in vain for an adequate definition of these terms. As far as the proof in this case goes, these terms are criteria without content, and as such can be used as cover for almost any decision an evaluator might want to make. C. It is desirable at this point to elaborate on why the terms "concern" and "acceptable," by themselves, are not standards that evaluators (or administrative law judges or courts) can consistently and fairly apply to teachers across- the-board. As a starting point, envisage a spectrum comprising every conceivable level or degree of teacher talent, ranging from, in the abstract, "worst imaginable" (or "perfectly awful") to "best imaginable" (or "perfectly excellent"). It makes no difference, for present purposes, how exactly "worst" and "best" might be defined. Rather, it is sufficient to say of the "worst" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be worse." Conversely, it need only be said of the "best" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be better." As should be obvious, these "worst" and "best" teachers are constructs that serve to define the terminal points at either end of the "talent-level spectrum" we are calling to mind. This talent-level spectrum can be depicted with a simple drawing, as follows: Worst ? ? Best It can now be observed that all teachers, everywhere, must fall somewhere on this talent-level spectrum, between the two poles as we have defined them. Of course, the precise point at which any given teacher should be placed on the spectrum, at any given time,2 is a matter about which reasonable people, in every instance, could disagree. But that is presently of no consequence. Turning next to the facts of this case, the question is posed: Where, on this spectrum of talent, should the mark separating "concern" from "acceptable" be placed? Given their ordinary meanings, the words themselves provide no guidance in this regard. Either of the following, for example, is consistent with the plain meaning of "concern" and "acceptable": Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable It does not matter how the mark-point in either example might be defined. What matters is the relationship between the mark and the respective poles. As the mark moves closer to the "worst" terminal, the "concern" band becomes narrower, leaving more teachers on the "acceptable" side. Conversely, moving the mark towards the "best" terminal narrows the "acceptable" band, consigning more teachers to the "concern" category. In the instant case, there is no persuasive evidence on which the undersigned can base a finding as to where the mark should be placed. As a result, the undersigned cannot make de novo findings regarding whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged. To do that, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Young. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence in this case as to where the several evaluators placed the mark when they assessed Young's performance.3 The undersigned therefore cannot find that the evaluators all used the same standards——cannot even infer that they did. Consequently, assuming it were proper to do so, the undersigned could not review whether the evaluators acted fairly and appropriately vis-à-vis Young or whether they reached a "correct" (i.e. legally sustainable) judgment regarding his teaching performance.4 Student Performance The 1999 CTAS that was used in evaluating Young had been developed in 1998 and approved by then-Commissioner Tom Gallagher in January 1999. By letter dated January 25, 1999, Commissioner Gallagher informed the District that its CTAS had received "Full Approval." The Commissioner further instructed the District: [I]t will not be necessary for you to resubmit the [CTAS] unless there are statutory changes which affect the requirements for district instructional performance appraisal systems or unless you substantively revise your system for other reasons. In the very next legislative session following this letter, the legislature substantially amended the statute governing the procedures and criteria for the assessment of instructional personnel, which at the time was Section 231.29, Florida Statutes (1999).5 See Ch. 99-398, § 57, Laws of Florida. These statutory changes, which will be examined more closely in the Conclusions of Law below, took effect on June 21, 1999. Id. at § 78. The thrust of the relevant amendment was to require that, in evaluating teacher performance, primary emphasis be placed on student performance, as measured by "state assessments" and "local assessments." These latter two terms were defined, at the time, in Section 229.57, Florida Statutes (2000). Section 229.57 was subsequently transferred to Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes (2003). The District never amended the CTAS to reflect the statutory changes. Not surprisingly, therefore, the CTAS puts little or no particular emphasis on student performance6 and makes no specific references (that the undersigned can locate) to state and local assessments within the statute's contemplation.7 Consequently, as was mentioned several times above, none of the assessment procedures used during Young's protracted evaluation was primarily based on student performance as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statues (2003). Equally if not more important, however, is the lack of persuasive (indeed any) evidence in the record regarding the performance of Young's students as measured by state and/or local assessments. Because of this, it is impossible for the undersigned to make de novo findings based primarily on student performance as to either (a) whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or (b) whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Young of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Young be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Young back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The main issues in this case are whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher has given the district just cause to terminate his employment contract for incompetency, and, alternatively, whether the teacher failed to correct performance deficiencies during a 90-day probationary period, which would constitute separate grounds for dismissal if proven true.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all relevant times, Respondent Christopher Marshall ("Marshall") was employed as a math teacher in the Broward County school district, a position which he had held for some 15 years before this proceeding began. During that period, Marshall taught at a few different schools, the latest being McArthur High, where he worked for several years up to and including the 2013-14 school year. Marshall's teaching career, sad to say, has been mediocre. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, at least as early as 2002, Marshall was identified by administrators and colleagues as a teacher of marginal ability. More than once over the years Marshall was placed on performance probation due to concerns about his unsatisfactory performance. Rather than terminate Marshall's employment, however, the district transferred Marshall from school to school, and somehow he managed to muddle through, doing enough to be rated "satisfactory" and avoid getting the sack. One of Marshall's defining characteristics has been the remarkably high percentages of Fs and Ds that his students consistently have earned, year in and year out. Frequently more than half of his students took home final grades lower than a C——and sometimes quite a bit more than 50 percent fell into this category. This was true across grade levels (Marshall taught grades nine through 12) and without regard to degrees of subject-matter difficulty (Marshall taught advanced as well as basic classes; he was not assigned only struggling students). It was not uncommon for Marshall to fail between one-quarter and one-third of his students. In the 2013-14 school year, for example, 31 percent of Marshall's Liberal Arts Math 2 students received a failing grade; 25 percent of his Math College Readiness students failed; and ten percent of his Algebra 2 students got Fs. This was consistent with a decade-long pattern. Needless to say, a teacher whose students in large numbers routinely get Ds or worse in his classes attracts attention from students, colleagues, parents, and administrators. In Marshall's case, students complained to other teachers——and to their parents. Parents, of course, complained to administrators and demanded that their children be placed in other classes. Often, to placate angry parents, Marshall's students were transferred, with the result that Marshall's classes were small, and other math teachers had to squeeze in additional students. Teachers complained about this. It must be acknowledged that poor grades are not necessarily a reflection of the teacher's ability or lack thereof. Certainly, as a general rule, each student bears substantial responsibility for his or her own grade, and no one should expect a teacher simply to hand out high marks that are unmerited and unearned. Sometimes, to be sure, an F or a D is as richly deserved as an A or a B. That said, the sheer persistence of Marshall's grade distribution under different conditions and through changing student populations implies that something other than resistance or indifference to learning, poor study habits, or lack of intellectual ability must be at work. The undersigned has combed the record for an explanation of his students' poor grades that might exonerate Marshall but can find none. There is no persuasive evidence, for example, that Marshall is a demanding teacher who sets the bar high for his students, administering tough but fair tests that are difficult for the unmotivated or unprepared to pass. To the contrary, Marshall had his students spend time on rote exercises, such as copying definitions and formulas from the textbook, which have little educational value. Nor did Marshall's students tend to excel in their next math classes. Rather, after being taught by Marshall, his students often had difficulty in their subsequent courses because they had not learned the prerequisite material. For years, administrators have tried to cajole or compel Marshall to reduce the number of students receiving Fs and Ds in his classes, not by the expedient of grade inflation, but by implementing different pedagogical techniques and strategies. Marshall, however, has ignored these importunings and directives, and nothing has changed. Marshall's apparent imperviousness to criticism has been an ongoing source of frustration to his colleagues and administrators. Marshall considers himself to be an "awesome" teacher, and therefore he concludes that anyone who has a different opinion——which unfortunately seems to be nearly everyone with whom he has worked——is either mistaken, lying, or treating him unfairly. This has led Marshall to file numerous grievances and complaints against his supervisors, none of which has been successful. He is not, however, confrontational, discourteous, or abusive in his workplace relationships. Rather, Marshall engages in passive-aggressive behavior. Faced with a demand or a directive, Marshall does not argue (although he might politely disagree); he simply does not comply. The greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned to find that the bad grades Marshall's students consistently have received are a symptom of Marshall's inability to teach. Although he knows his subject, Marshall lacks the skills necessary to impart his knowledge to his students, who consequently do not learn math in his classes. It is not that Marshall is deliberately trying not to succeed. He is not being insubordinate in this regard. He is simply not suited to the job of teaching high school math. In 2011, following a legislative directive then recently enacted, the school district adopted a teacher evaluation system known as the Broward Instructional Development and Growth Evaluation System ("BrIDGES"), which is based on Dr. Robert J. Marzano's strategies for educational effectiveness. When rating a teacher's classroom performance using BrIDGES, an evaluator inputs his or her observations into a database by filling out an electronic "iObservation" form. The iObservation tool contains 60 "elements," each of which represents a discrete strategy, action, or skill that a teacher might employ as appropriate: e.g., "Using Academic Games," "Identifying Critical Information," and "Displaying Objectivity and Control." The elements are organized under four separate "domains" as follows: Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors (Elements 1-41) Domain 2: Planning and Preparing (Elements 42-49) Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching (Elements 50-54) Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism (Elements 55-60). The 41 elements of Domain 1 are further subdivided into nine Design Questions, DQ1 through DQ9. On October 8, 2013, the school district and the Broward Teachers Union entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth their agreements regarding the use of BrIDGES to evaluate teachers for 2013-14. Pursuant to the MOU, each classroom teacher was to receive at least three observations, including one formal (30 or more minutes), one informal (15-25 minutes), and one snapshot or walkthrough (3-10 minutes) observation. During an observation, the subject teacher receives a "datamark" (prescribed number of points) for each element that the evaluator chooses to rate. For 2013-14, the datamarks were as follows: Innovating (Highly Effective), 4 points; Applying (Effective), 3 points; Developing (Effective), 2.5 points; Beginning (Needs Improvement), 2 points; and Not Using (Unsatisfactory), 1 point. Each teacher was to receive at least 45 datamarks, comprising at least 25 datamarks in Domain 1 and 10 within Domains 2, 3, and/or 4. A weighted average of the datamarks assigned to a teacher's performance as recorded on the iObservation forms became the teacher's Instructional Practice Score ("IPS"). The IPS was equal to 0.68X plus 0.32Y, where X was the average of the teacher's Domain 1 datamarks and Y was the average of the teacher's datamarks for Domains 2, 3, and 4 combined. The IPS was reported as a number having three decimal digits, to the thousandths place. This created a false precision, for the calculated result could not possibly have been more precise than the number having the least number of significant figures in the equation, which would always be a one-digit integer (unless the teacher happened to receive strait 2.5s——possible, but unlikely, and not the case here). In other words, the numbers to the right of the decimal point in the teacher's IPS were mathematically insignificant, spurious digits, because the original data could not support a measurement beyond the precision of one significant figure. The IPS should have been (but was not) rounded to a single-digit integer to avoid reporting insignificant digits. For 2013-14, the BrIDGES Overall Evaluation Score equaled the sum of the teacher's IPS (weighted as 49%), Deliberate Practice score (weighted as 1.0%), and Student Growth score (weighted as 50%). Teachers at McArthur High (including Marshall) for whom no individual student data were available automatically received a Student Growth score of 3.0 for that school year, and all teachers (including Marshall) who completed a self-assessment received a Deliberate Practice score of 3.0. The Overall Evaluation Scale for 2013-14 was Highly Effective (3.450-4.000), Effective (2.500-3.449), Needs Improvement (2.000-2.499), and Unsatisfactory (1.000-1.999). As of February 4, 2014, Marshall had received eight observations: three formals, three informals, and two walkthroughs. He had received 56 datamarks in Domain 1 and five datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4. His weighted IPS, to that date, was 2.145 (but this computed score was precise to no more than one significant figure and therefore should be understood as a 2 after rounding off the spurious digits), or Needs Improvement. Pursuant to the MOU, once a teacher receives an average IPS of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory among other conditions that Marshall had met as of February 4, 2014, a Performance Development Plan ("PDP") may be written for that teacher. Accordingly, in early February 2014, a PDP was written for Marshall. As well, on February 12, 2014, the principal of McArthur High placed Marshall on performance probation for 90 calendar days, delivering to Marshall a notice of "less than effective performance" ostensibly pursuant to section 1012.34(4), Florida Statutes. The statute, however, authorizes 90-day performance probation only for a teacher whose performance is unsatisfactory, and Marshall's performance was not unsatisfactory; it was Needs Improvement. Needs Improvement is, to be sure, less than Effective performance, but it is better than Unsatisfactory. Indeed, none of the levels of performance besides Unsatisfactory denotes unsatisfactory performance and thus, logically, all teachers rated Highly Effective, Effective, or Needs Improvement fall within the range of satisfactory performance. In any event, between February 28 and May 7, 2014, Marshall received 12 more observations, which added 75 datamarks to his total in Domain 1 (making 131 in all) and six additional datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4 (for a grand total of 11). The iObservation forms for Marshall's last six observations, incidentally, are not in evidence. As of May 7, 2014, Marshall's IPS was 1.963. This number, by itself, would be Unsatisfactory on the Overall Evaluation Scale. Given, however, that the initial numerical data was captured (mostly) in single-digit integers, together with a handful of 2.5s, the decimal places are spurious in this result; there is no meaningful distinction between "1.963" (which is a textbook example of false precision) and "2" (which is what 1.963 should be rounded up to, to avoid the fallacy of overprecision). Thus, if the insignificant figures are ignored, Marshall's IPS, by itself, is actually Needs Improvement. But more important, Marshall's IPS was not his Overall Evaluation Score, and therefore it is improper and unfair to deem his performance Unsatisfactory on the Overall Performance Scale based on an IPS of 1.963 as the School Board wants to do. Marshall's Overall Evaluation Score, as calculated by the School Board, was 2.492 — Needs Improvement.1/ Again, Needs Improvement is less than Effective and clearly not ideal, but it is not Unsatisfactory. To the contrary, Needs Improvement is one of the levels of satisfactory performance. Going a step farther, if Marshall's IPS were rounded to 2, as it should be to eliminate the false precision, and his Overall Evaluation Score recalculated absent the spurious decimals, then his final score would be 2.51, which in turn should be rounded to 3 to avoid overprecision, but which equals Effective performance regardless. The point is, based on a final score of 2.492, Marshall's overall performance can as correctly be deemed Effective as Needs Improvement, for there is no real difference between 2.492 and 3 based on the original data used to make these calculations.2/ (To repeat for emphasis, computations cannot make the original data more precise.3/) Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Marshall is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2).4/ The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Marshall is guilty of incompetency,5/ which is just cause for dismissal from employment. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Marshall's performance as measured in accordance with the BrIDGES evaluation system was not Unsatisfactory during the 2013-14 school year. Therefore, the evidence does not support the termination of Marshall's employment contract pursuant to section 1012.34(4). The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated section 1012.53, apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal. The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated School Board Rule 4008(B), apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing Marshall from his employment as a teacher in the Broward County Public Schools for the just cause of incompetency as a result of inefficiency. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2016.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's professional service contract should be renewed as provided in Subsection 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes. This requires a determination of whether the Petitioner provided sufficient assistance and in-service training opportunities and evaluated Respondent periodically to apprise him of his progress, and whether Respondent corrected certain noted performance deficiencies.
Findings Of Fact At the time that he was recommended for non-renewal, Respondent, James A. Conner, had been employed by the School Board of Seminole County (Board) as a graphic arts teacher at Sanford Middle School for approximately seventeen years. Daniel Pelham has been principal at Sanford Middle School for the past twenty-three years. On March 26, 1991, Pelham advised Conner, in writing, that he was being recommended for return to annual contract status for the 1991-92 contract year, based on unsatisfactory performance in the following areas: Deficient Classroom Management Failure to maintain established procedures. Failure to maintain appropriate and consistent disciplinary procedures. Failure to use clearly defined classroom procedures. Failure to utilize time efficiently. Deficient Teaching Skills Failure to promote effective classroom interaction. Failure to exhibit rapport and understanding with students. (Petitioner's Exhibit #4) The deficiencies noted by Pelham had been developing over a period of approximately four or five years and were pointed out on prior evaluation forms. In particular, Pelham was concerned that there were an inordinate number of student discipline referrals being made by Conner. Pelham also personally observed problems in classroom management in visits he made to Conner's classes. Conner's classes in the vocational program were typically smaller than those in the academic programs. Over a school day of five periods, he had a total of sixty to seventy-five students, and some of his classes contained only nine or ten students. As a result of proceedings not relevant to this case, the parties entered a stipulation that the March 26, 1991 recommendation would be considered a notice of unsatisfactory performance required to terminate a professional service contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1991). The effect of the stipulation was to provide Conner with an opportunity to remedy his deficiencies as provided in a new law governing employment rights of classroom teachers. By the time Pelham's recommendation was made, he felt that Conner had the capacity to improve, but the principal was not optimistic that the improvements would be made. As required by law, an assistance plan was developed to assist James Conner in correcting the deficiencies provided in the notice described above. Daniel Pelham assigned Roger Gardner, his assistant principal, to be a mentor to Conner; and he removed Gardner from any supervisory role in an attempt to make the relationship more helpful. The assistance team was comprised of Dan Pelham; Roger Gardner; John Reichert, the Board's Director of Personnel; Cliff Duncan, Director of Staff Development; and Betty Hogle, Director of Vocational Education. The plan was provided to James Conner in September 1991. Helene Samango was Conner's representative from the Seminole Education Association, the teachers union. She elicited the assistance of Linda Cronin- Jones, Ph.D., an associate professor of instruction and curriculum at the University of Florida College of Education, to review the performance assistance plan. Dr. Cronin-Jones provided a critique of the plan, with suggestions that were, in turn, provided to Mr. Reichert the second week of December 1991. Dr. Cronin-Jones' suggestions were incorporated in the plan at the next meeting of the assistance team on January 13, 1992. The additions to the plan included a peer teacher selected by Mr. Conner, in addition to the one already identified in the plan, and included videotaping Conner's class sessions to be used as a tool for Conner and his peers to critique his work and to make suggestions for further improvement. The content of the assessment documents used to evaluate Conner's performance was established by statute. The assessment plan itself was developed four or five years ago by a committee of school board staff, including teachers, principals and union representatives. The plan has been approved by the State Department of Education every year thereafter. The performance assistance plan developed for James Conner was adequate and appropriate to address the specific deficiencies previously noted in his performance. He took advantage of the required activities, including review of in-service training material. He was not, however, responsive to the guidance attempts by Roger Gardner, whose task, having known Conner for many years, was to help him with specific strategies to reach the goals set up in the plan. For example, Gardner gave Conner a few articles to read that supported some of the things he was being asked to do. The articles related to specific problems of middle school children and ways of dealing with their discipline needs. Conner was to respond back to Gardner after reading the articles. He apparently read them, but did not respond as asked. Another assignment to Conner was to draft his classroom management plan. He and Gardner met on preliminary drafts several times, but it was not finally completed until December 19, 1991. The meetings were scheduled by Gardner, and Conner simply did not take the initiative that would have reflected an effort to cooperate. James Conner was observed or formally assessed on several occasions over the remedial year. Bettie Hogle, Director of Vocational and Technical Education for the School Board, observed him from the beginning of the first period until 10:35 a.m. on October 28, 1991. She noted the following: There was no clear focus on the day's learning activities at the beginning of class. Student behavior was poor. One student was sent to the office for discipline at the start of class. I was not sure why he was singled out when others were misbehaving as well. Equipment and materials were stacked around the lab. This cluttered atmosphere is not conducive to student learning. On the positive side, Mr. Conner exhibited good questioning techniques in teaching the lesson. He complimented the students on the good behavior they demonstrated in groups earlier in the week. After students began working on projects, he circulated around the room and provided individual assistance. (Petitioner's Exhibit #11) Daniel Pelham observed Conner's seventh grade class for thirty-five minutes on November 11, 1991. There were five students in the class. The assessment form notes unsatisfactory ratings in six areas of classroom management and teaching skills. Two students were observed talking during most of the observation, without intervention by the teacher. The form also noted "not much change here" under the category, "Exhibits rapport and understanding with students", with the comment, "very high discipline referral. To date 11/11, total of 46". (Petitioner's Exhibit #12) On December 9, 1991, Pelham sent Conner a memorandum regarding the continued clutter in his classroom, storage room and office, and directed him to remove the items not in use in his program and to get the items off the floors. A follow-up memorandum was given to Conner on January 22, 1992, noting that the papers and boxes were still scattered on the floor of his office and storage room. The memorandum also noted a positive improvement in classroom management observed on January 9, 1992. The nine students observed that period were on task and behaved. Pelham's next assessment is dated March 24, 1992 and reflects a thirty-five minute observation of Conner's seventh grade graphic arts class on March 18, 1992. There were ten students present. Five areas under classroom management and teaching skills were found unsatisfactory. No significant change in management style was found. Students spent a lot of time just sitting. One student completed his project and sat for 30 minutes. The students were told "just follow directions". (Petitioner's Exhibit #8) Pelham's annual assessment of Conner is dated April 24, 1992 and finds him unsatisfactory in these four areas under classroom management and teaching skills: "Uses clearly defined classroom procedures"; "Disciplinary procedures established and used"; "Promotes effective classroom interaction"; and "Exhibits rapport and understanding with students". Four or more unsatisfactory ratings constitute an unsatisfactory evaluation according to the instructional personnel plan. (Petitioner's Exhibit #6) The areas found unsatisfactory are critical to the effective functioning of a teacher. The deficiencies noted in the above-described assessments or evaluations are evident in the videotapes of Conner's classes, recorded in December 1991 and March 1992. Those sessions are typical examples of Conner's performance at the time that they were taped; they reflect the methodologies and strategies he was using and attempting to implement from the assistance plan. The December session shows constant talking by the students, with Conner lecturing and attempting to demonstrate over the low din. The class was small, approximately ten students, but they were notably disengaged, except during brief periods when the equipment was plotting designs. Conner ignored the talking and forged on with the lesson. The March sessions were also small classes and the students were not as disruptive. Explanations and demonstrations of equipment were made with the teacher's back to the students. Again, the students were primarily disengaged, some with their heads on the tables. Several times, Conner urged them, "you might want to write this down", but not the first student picked up a pencil, and some seemed not to have pencils or materials on their tables. A child with his hand up was not recognized for an extended period and eventually Conner's response to his question was a flippant, "Because it's there". There was some attempt to engage the students in discussion about what was learned in other classes or about trips to Epcot or Busch Gardens, and there was some attempt to compliment students with, "Congratulations and a warm fuzzy to the stars who made 100"; but in spite of the size of the class, there was very little individual interaction. Students were rarely addressed by name or called to respond individually. For the most part, the students appeared unchallenged or simply bored. The Board's expert witness described the classroom style as lack of "with-it-ness". Although Conner was friendly or kind, class time was wasted and the students' education was not advanced. Over the 1991-92 school year, James Conner issued approximately 110 student discipline referrals, exhibiting some improvement over prior years, but still an excessive amount based on the number of his students, and reflective of a failure of classroom management and poor rapport with the students. His explanation that his students were particularly disruptive and he had to be strict to keep them from hurting themselves on the dangerous equipment, is not substantiated by the observations of the principal or by the compelling evidence of the videotaped sessions. The classroom unrest was more apparently the painful consequence of student boredom and failure of the teacher to engage his enviably small classes in the subject matter. Conner's theory that his principal gave up on him too early and failed to provide the equipment he needed, or had a personality conflict, was not developed with competent, credible evidence. The assistance plan, the suggestions and guidance offered by Roger Gardner, and the peer assistance of two outstanding teachers were appropriate and adequate. Daniel Pelham did not recommend Conner's transfer to another school because he properly wanted to avoid passing on a problem to someone else. James Conner did improve his performance over the remedial year. Six unsatisfactory charges were reduced to four. It is impossible to determine whether more improvement would have been made with more time. He was, however, given the time required by law, and was given the assistance required to make improvements. The principal's assessment was valid and the superintendent's recommendation that he not be issued a new professional service contract was timely and is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Seminole County enter its Final Order denying renewal of James Conner's professional service contract. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 26th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3012 The following constitute rulings made on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted substantially in paragraph 1. Respondent testified that he was employed 17 years (transcript, p.304). Included in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 17. Included in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Rejected as unnecessary. 9-10. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. (Second numbered paragraph 12) Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraphs 17 and 26. Adopted in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 12-16. Rejected as substantially unsupported by the evidence. He did make some effort and was moderately, but insufficiently, successful. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in paragraph 1. Adopted in part in paragraph 2. The proposed finding of personality conflict is rejected as unsubstantiated by competent, credible evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 4. Adopted in part in paragraph 5. The ultimate conclusion that he had "given up" is rejected as an overstatement of the substance of Pelham's testimony. 5-7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substantive part in paragraph 25. Adopted in paragraph 6. 10-12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 15-17. Substantially rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 18-22. Rejected as unnecessary. The testimony of the peer teachers neither supports nor rejects the position of Respondent. It is credible, but essentially neutral. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. The referrals played some part in the unsatisfactory assessments, but so also did Pelham's classroom observations. Rejected as unnecessary. The basic premise is accepted, but this was not the reason Respondent had problems with referrals. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 26-27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 18. 29-31. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Both parties' experts were impressive and credible. In her assessment of Respondent's performance, Dr. Cronin- Jones understandably concentrated on the positive aspects, which aspects were nonetheless outweighed by the negative overall lack of effective connection between teacher and his students. The marked efforts to "relate" are rote, and in some cases (the trips), detract from the learning process. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire STENSTROM, MCINTOSH, ET AL. Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848 Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire MEYER AND BROOKS, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771
The Issue The issue is whether the district school board has just cause to dismiss one of its elementary school teachers for just cause during the term of his professional service contract, based upon the teacher’s having received three consecutive annual performance evaluation ratings of Needs Improvement.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all times relevant, it was Manset’s employer. During the three school years at issue, from 2015 to 2018, Manset taught second grade at Oakland Park Elementary School (“Oakland Park”), which had been his work location since November 2012. Manset had started teaching in the District in August 2003. This case arises from the District’s decision not to reinstate Manset to his former teaching position upon Manset’s return, in 2020, from an approved, two-year leave of absence. As grounds for this decision, the District relies upon the “three-strikes rule” prescribed in section 1012.33, which (i) makes it a disciplinable offense, referred to herein as “Poor Ratings,”1 for a teacher to be given three consecutive annual performance ratings of less than Effective, thereby subjecting the guilty party to dismissal for “just cause” during the term of his or her employment contract; and (ii) authorizes a district school board not to renew the professional service contract (“PSC”)— after the end of said PSC’s one-year term—of a teacher who has received three consecutive annual performance ratings of less than Effective. § 1012.33(1)(a), (3)(b), Fla. Stat. For some background, section 1012.34 requires school districts to evaluate the performance of every teacher they employ, at least once per year. Each district must develop an “evaluation system” for this purpose, which is required to differentiate between four levels of performance: Highly 1 Other disciplinable offenses, which, if proved, constitute just cause for dismissal, include misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duties. See § 1012.33(1)(a), Fla. Stat. “Poor Ratings”—which is the undersigned’s shorthand for the full statutory definition of the offense, i.e., “three consecutive annual performance evaluation ratings of needs improvement or a combination of needs improvement and unsatisfactory under s. 1012.34”—is thus comparable to, e.g., misconduct in office as a basis for terminating a teacher’s employment. Effective, Effective, Needs Improvement, and Unsatisfactory. § 1012.34(2)(e), Fla. Stat. At least one-third of a teacher’s evaluation must be based upon student performance, and at least one-third upon “instructional practice.” § 1012.34(3)(a), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the District uses an evaluation system in which a teacher is given a numeric score of between 1 and 4 for each of three, separately-weighted indicators of performance: Instructional Practice (“IP”)—60%, Student Performance (“SP”)—35%, and Deliberative Practice/Growth Plans (“DP”)2—5%.3 The average of the teacher’s three weighted scores equals his or her Final Score for the school year. Because the SP score takes some time to process, the teacher’s Final Score for any given year is usually not available until the fall of the next school year. The teacher’s Final Score determines his or her level of performance according to the following scale: Label Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory Details 3.4 – 4.0 2.5 – 3.399 2.0 – 2.499 1.0 – 1.999 The IP score, which contributes the most to a teacher’s Final Score, is based upon the firsthand knowledge of an eyewitness who has seen the teacher in action in the classroom. While observing the teacher instructing his or her pupils, an administrator, such as the principal or an assistant principal, measures the teacher’s performance against a broad menu of objective criteria, exercising judgment and discretion in determining how well the teacher is implementing best practices and strategies. Although arrived 2 The indicator DP, which is relatively insignificant given its low weight of just 5%, is basically a gimme for which most teachers receive the maximum score. Having no bearing on the outcome of this case, DP will not be discussed in depth. 3 For the 2015-2016 school year, indicators IP and DP were weighted a bit differently, at 64% and 1% respectively. This minor detail is immaterial to the instant case and, thus, will be ignored hereafter. at through the application of objective criteria, which confine the evaluator’s discretion, the IP score is inherently a subjective, empirical assessment reflecting the evaluator’s professional opinion of the teacher’s actual performance. The SP score, in contrast, results from a regression analysis of the scores of the teacher’s students on a standardized test or tests. The District uses a statistical model that is supposed to isolate, from the testing data, a quantum of student growth or academic achievement attributable to the teacher. The statistician(s) who determine the teacher’s student achievement quantum do so based solely upon the numbers, without seeing the teacher in action. In this sense, the SP score is objective and uninfluenced by any individual’s subjective opinion of the teacher’s performance. Manset received an annual performance evaluation for each of the relevant school years, namely 2015-2016 (“Year 1”), 2016-2017 (“Year 2”), and 2017-2018 (“Year 3”). His respective IP scores for each of these years were 2.809, 2.777, and 2.950, meaning that he was rated as an Effective teacher under this most telling indicator of performance. Manset’s SP score for each of the three subject years, however, was only 1.5, which translates to a low rating of Unsatisfactory for this significant performance indicator. Manset’s Final Scores for the years in question were as follows: Year 1: 2.253 Year 2: 2.391 Year 3: 2.495 Based on the foregoing Final Scores, which reflect the strong downward drag of his low SP numbers (worth 35%, remember), Manset received three consecutive annual performance evaluation ratings of Needs Improvement, pursuant to the Final Score Scale (reproduced above in paragraph 6). On or about May 16, 2018, some six months before Manset’s Year 3 Final Score would be known, when it was assumed that Manset would be returning to Oakland Park the following year, Manset received notification that he would be recommended for reappointment as an instructional employee for the 2018-2019 school year. Prior to the 2018-2019 school year, however, Manset requested, and was granted approval to take, personal leave without pay for a period of one year, in accordance with School Board Policy 4409. His last day of work in the District was in August 2018. After that, Manset relocated to Maryland, where he accepted a teaching position for the 2018-2019 school year. With his leave scheduled to end on June 30, 2019, Manset was required to notify the District, no later than March 1, 2019, of his plans for the 2019-2020 school year. Manset’s Final Score for Year 3 was ready in or around November 2018. Had he not been on leave at that time, Manset would have been subject to dismissal during the term of his then-current PSC on a charge of Poor Ratings, pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), because his performance rating of Needs Improvement for Year 3 was the third such rating in as many years. As it happened, however, Manset was not subject to dismissal in November 2018, because he was not then working in the District. Moreover, because Manset was on leave when his Year 3 evaluation was complete, the District elected not to provide him the Final Score (and rating of Needs Improvement) at that time. Rather, it was decided that Manset would receive his final evaluation for the 2017-2018 school year upon his return. Manset timely notified the District that he wanted to continue his personal leave for another year. The District approved Manset’s request, which is a little curious, in light of the three-strikes rule.4 This second, one- year leave would expire on June 30, 2020. Taking advantage of this 4 No explanation for this decision was given at hearing. additional leave of absence, Manset remained in Maryland and did not teach in the District during the 2019-2020 school year. Before March 1, 2020, Manset timely notified the District that he would be ready to return to work after his two-year leave expired, and he asked to be reinstated for the 2020-2021 school year. Shortly thereafter, District administrators phoned Manset to inform him that he would not be permitted to return to his former position due to the three-strikes rule. By letter dated May 27, 2020, the superintendent officially advised Manset that, under the three-strikes rule, Manset was “not to receive a contract” and, accordingly, would not be reinstated within the Broward County Public Schools. In this letter, the superintendent cited section 1012.33(1)(a) as supporting authority for his decision. He seems to have had section 1012.33(3)(b) in mind, however, which is on point with the assertion that Manset was “not to receive a contract.” As discussed below, teachers are “statutorily entitled to renewal of their PSC unless their performance [is] unsatisfactory.” Lewis v. Broward Cty. Sch. Bd., 298 So. 3d 672, 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). The parties have stipulated that Manset “is currently employed as a teacher pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes.” JT. PRE-H’G STIP. at 10. Ordinarily, as applied to a teacher, the term “currently employed” would be synonymous with “under contract.” There is no evidence, however, that Manset’s PSC was renewed for the 2018-2019 school year, much less for any subsequent year. Because Manset was on approved leave without pay and did not teach in the District at any time after August 2018, the undersigned infers that Manset’s 2017-2018 contract expired, leaving him without a PSC afterwards.5 5 If the District renewed Manset’s PSC for 2019-2020, then it did so with actual knowledge that he had previously received three consecutive ratings of Needs Improvement. Manset’s undisputed status as a current employee of the District is (as far as the evidence shows) a function of the personal leave that he took, not the result of his holding an unexpired PSC.6 Consequently, despite the fact that Manset is still a District employee, the undersigned cannot find, as a matter of fact, that the District is seeking to dismiss Manset during the term of his contract, because his last contract’s term expired sometime in 2018. On June 24, 2020, the District issued an Administrative Complaint against Manset, predicated on a charge of Poor Ratings. The District seeks, pursuant to the complaint, to terminate Manset’s employment for just cause. In his defense to the Poor Ratings charge, Manset disputes the validity of the SP score that he received for Year 1, but otherwise does not contest the IP and SP scores he was awarded for the years in question. His main argument, in brief, is that the Needs Improvement rating for Year 1 should be tossed out due to the allegedly faulty SP score, thereby compelling the ultimate determination that Manset, having been given only two, substantively true consecutive ratings of Needs Improvement, is not guilty of Poor Ratings. The facts forming the basis of Manset’s objection to his Year 1 SP score are straightforward and not disputed. In February 2016, Manset was injured in an automobile accident and could not work for more than two months. He was on approved sick leave for ten weeks starting February 20, 2016. Thus, as a result of the car crash, Manset missed 50 days of class out of a total of 166—or 30% of the school year. Looked at another way, Manset was absent (with permission) from his classroom for 60% of the spring semester. 6 If Manset had lost his status as an employee by taking leave, then he would have needed to be rehired (as opposed to reinstated) upon his return, costing him the right to a PSC. See § 1012.335, Fla. Stat. No one has suggested that that happened. On the contrary, but for the three-strikes rule, Manset doubtless would have received a new PSC when he returned from leave because, under Policy 4409, he was (and, as this is written, still is) employed by the District, albeit without a current contract. During most of Manset’s absence, his second-grade class was taught by a “pool sub,” i.e., a substitute teacher who worked only at Oakland Park and reported to that campus every day. The pool sub was in Manset’s classroom for approximately 30 days. Regular certified substitute teachers covered the balance. The regression analysis that the District uses to compute a teacher’s SP score does not factor in the contributions of substitute teachers as a predictor variable. Consequently, Manset’s SP score for Year 1 necessarily reflects the positive or negative impact, if any, that the substitute teachers (especially the pool sub) had on student growth or achievement. Manset argues, in effect, that his SP score for that year is, for that reason, unreliable and invalid, making his Year 1 Final Score untrustworthy and incapable of supporting a Poor Ratings charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against David R. Manset for lack of jurisdiction; alternatively, if Respondent currently holds an unexpired PSC, then he may be dismissed for just cause during the term of that contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew Carrabis, Esquire Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Katherine A. Heffner, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue, Tenth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has demonstrated that Respondent should be suspended and terminated from employment with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, for failure to correct performance deficiencies; and whether Petitioner should be terminated for just cause, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, for incompetency due to inefficiency.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Background Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed with the Miami-Dade County Public School District (?District?) as a teacher of Emotional/Behavioral Disabled (?EBD?) students since 2001. He initially was a part-time teacher, substituting for a teacher on maternity leave. He became a full-time teacher with the District in the 2002-2003 timeframe. At the time of the events that gave rise to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a full-time teacher at Pine Villa Elementary School (?Pine Villa?), pursuant to a professional services contract. At all times material, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining between Miami-Dade Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (?UTD?), Petitioner’s rules, and Florida law. The 2009-2010 School Year In the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent taught second grade and third grade EBD students. EBD students are disabled due to persistent emotional or behavioral responses that may interfere with their learning ability. It is common for EBD students to academically perform below grade level; accordingly, they need to be in a smaller class with a more structured learning environment. Renny Neyra became the Pine Villa Principal at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, and held the position through the 2010-2011 school year. According to Ms. Neyra, Respondent had difficulty teaching his class, and the test data for his students showed no improvement in their performance. Ms. Neyra requested and received assistance for Respondent from the District, consisting of expert personnel on special assignment to assist in areas in which Respondent’s performance was perceived to be lacking. Ms. Neyra did not place Respondent on 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34 during the 2009-2010 school year because she felt it would be unfair to do so. She testified that she wanted to afford Respondent the opportunity to obtain professional performance assistance so that he could improve his teaching skills, which, in turn, would help his students. The 2010-2011 School Year Because of Respondent’s perceived difficulties in planning for and teaching students of different grade levels during the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Neyra decided to assign Respondent only third grade EBD students for the 2010-2011 school year. In the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent’s class consisted of 11 students. This is slightly smaller than the typical third grade EBD class in the District, which generally consists of 16 to 17 students. For the 2010-2011 school year, an interventionist, curriculum specialist, and full-time paraprofessional were assigned to assist Respondent in his classroom.2/ Ms. Neyra testified that it was unlikely an interventionist or curriculum specialist would have been assigned to Respondent’s classroom, had he been performing well. IPEGS Evaluations of Respondent Teachers employed by the District are evaluated pursuant to the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (?IPEGS?). IPEGS entails assessor observation of, and provision of written comments on, teacher classroom performance. Five separate IPEGS evaluations of Respondent were conducted in the 2010-2011 school year, on September 23, 2010; October 25, 2010; December 7, 2010; January 26, 2011; and February 28, 2011. In the September 23, 2010, evaluation, Ms. Neyra observed that Respondent had incomplete lesson plans; failed to provide clear, specific, and sequential directions and guidance; did not use teaching strategies that engaged the students; and did not clarify the lesson for the students. The specific IPEGS Performance Standards (?Standards?) in which Ms. Neyra determined Respondent deficient were Standards 2 - Knowledge of Learners; 3 – Instructional Planning; and 4 – Instructional Delivery and Engagement. Respondent was informed of the observed deficiencies and placed on Support Dialogue for a 21-day period. Support Dialogue entails the provision of mutually-determined support strategies designed to remedy the deficiencies identified in the evaluation. Ms. Neyra conducted a second evaluation of Respondent’s teaching on October 25, 2010, and observed the same deficiencies. She also observed deficiencies in Respondent’s performance with respect to Standard 8 – Learning Environment. Following this evaluation, a Conference-for-the-Record (?CFR?) was held to inform Respondent that he was being placed on 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34(3), and to obtain Respondent’s and UTD’s input regarding measures to address Respondent’s performance deficiencies. As a result of the CFR, Respondent was provided an Improvement Plan containing specific direction regarding correction of his performance deficiencies. Assistant Principal Dorothy Pinkston evaluated Respondent’s classroom teaching performance on December 7, 2010, after which another Improvement Plan was provided to Respondent.3/ Ms. Neyra conducted another evaluation of Respondent’s classroom teaching performance on January 26, 2011, and found Respondent deficient in Standards 2, 3, 4, and 8. According to Ms. Neyra, Respondent did not attend to students’ needs and did not provide teacher-directed instruction. As a result of the January 26, 2011, evaluation, Respondent was provided another Improvement Plan. Ms. Neyra conducted a fifth evaluation, termed a ?confirmatory observation,? of Respondent’s classroom teaching performance on February 28, 2011. She again determined that he had not corrected the previously identified performance deficiencies. Respondent’s Students’ Performance on Objective Assessments Ms. Neyra testified that in addition to the IPEGS evaluations, Respondent’s students’ performance on interim assessments in math and reading and the Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (?FAIR?), administered by the District, played a role in her decision to terminate Respondent’s employment. Student performance assessments, termed ?benchmark assessments,? for math and reading are administered by the District at the beginning of the school year. ?Interim assessments? for math and reading are administered in the fall and winter of the school year. These assessments are used to measure student performance prior to taking the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (?FCAT?) later in the school year. Where performance deficiencies are identified, students can be provided remedial instruction to better prepare them to take the FCAT. Petitioner presented documentary evidence regarding Respondent’s students’ performance on the interim assessments for math and reading in the 2010-2011 school year. This evidence compared Respondent’s students’ performance to that of all third grade students in the District, and to that of third grade ?disabled students? throughout the District. Petitioner did not present any evidence comparing Respondent’s students’ interim assessments scores to those of other EBD third grade students in the District. Petitioner’s documentary evidence was not supported by testimony of any witnesses qualified and competent to analyze the scores or to explain what the scores demonstrate or mean,4/ or by any other competent evidence. Without such testimony or other competent evidence, meaningful determinations Respondent’s students’ scores and their use in evaluating Respondent’s performance pursuant to section 1012.34(3) cannot be made. Moreover, Petitioner’s documentary evidence did not provide information that could be used to accurately compare Respondent’s students’ scores to those of other similarly situated students. The uncontroverted evidence established that EBD students generally perform below grade level in their school work and on objective assessment measures; accordingly, Respondent’s students’ interim assessment scores cannot be meaningfully compared to those of all other third grade students in the District. Although Petitioner’s evidence did compare Respondent’s students’ scores to those of third grade disabled students, the ?disabled students? category includes students with all types of disabilities, not only emotional and behavioral disabilities. Petitioner provided no evidence to support its contention that EBD students perform comparably to all other disabled students on the interim assessments. Absent evidence specifically comparing Respondent’s students’ interim assessment scores with those for comparable students——i.e., other third grade EBD students in the District——it cannot be determined whether Respondent’s students’ performance is attributable to teaching deficiencies on his part, or to their emotional and behavioral disabilities. Petitioner also provided documentary evidence, supported by the testimony of reading coach Eida Herrera, regarding Respondent’s students’ performance on the FAIR assessments. However, again, no evidence was presented specifically comparing Respondent’s students’ performance on the FAIR assessments to other third grade EBD students’ scores, so there is no context in which to meaningfully evaluate Respondent’s students’ FAIR assessment results for purposes of assessing his teaching performance pursuant to section 1012.34. Respondent’s students’ scores for the FCAT were not reported until after Respondent was suspended and action was taken to terminate his employment. Accordingly, the FCAT scores did not, and could not, play a role in Ms. Neyra’s decision to terminate Respondent.5/ Ms. Neyra testified that once Respondent’s students’ FCAT scores were received, she compared them to the District- wide scores for EBD third grade students, and that Respondent’s students did not perform well when compared with other EBD third grade students in the District. She testified that this information confirmed the correctness of her decision to terminate Respondent’s employment. However, as with the interim assessment scores, absent competent testimony by qualified persons or other competent evidence regarding FCAT scores and their analysis and use, accurate determinations regarding Respondent’s students’ FCAT scores and their meaning and use in assessing his classroom teaching performance pursuant to section 1012.34 cannot be made. In any event, Ms. Neyra testified that the primary reason she decided to terminate Respondent was that he did not remediate the performance deficiencies she had observed in the IPEGS evaluations. Ms. Neyra testified regarding the need for three other professionals to assist Respondent in his classroom, and the expense involved in providing this support. However, Petitioner did not present any expert testimony addressing incompetency relative to Respondent’s specific circumstances. Respondent testified on his own behalf. He has a master’s degree in exceptional student education, varying exceptionalities, and ten years’ experience as a teacher of EBD students. Respondent credibly testified that he has had positive evaluations throughout his teaching career and has not previously had problems with any other principals with whom he has worked. Respondent’s testimony established that he is intimately familiar with each of his students’ specific academic and personal issues. He credibly testified, in substantial detail, regarding the instructional and behavioral management measures in which he engaged, on an individual student basis, to address each student’s specific academic and personal issues,6/ and to try to help each student learn. Respondent also credibly testified regarding the challenges involved in teaching his students——many of whom had significant behavioral and emotional issues and came from severely socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds—— while at the same time keeping order in his classroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order rescinding the action taken to suspend and terminate Respondent from his employment and paying Respondent’s back salary and any other benefits owed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent's continuing contract of employment with the Petitioner should be terminated for incompetency or for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as an elementary school classroom teacher pursuant to a continuing contract of employment. Respondent is 57 years of age and has been a classroom teacher for a total of 29 years. She began working for Petitioner during the 1975-76 school year and has worked under a continuing contract since August 1980. Prior to that time, she was a classroom teacher in Winter Park, Florida. In 1980, Respondent's principal observed that Respondent was habitually tardy at the work site and had difficulty accepting criticism. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent's principal found Respondent to be deficient in classroom management, student-teacher relationships, instructional techniques, and supportive characteristics. Efforts to have Respondent correct these deficiencies were unsuccessful. A prescription of assigned activities was developed in an effort to help Respondent to correct these deficiencies. Respondent was required to attend a teacher education course in classroom management to obtain ideas on how to better manage her class. Respondent failed to complete that course. She also failed to follow administrative directives that she arrive at school on time and that she maintain anecdotal records for students. Respondent's poor teaching performance and insubordinate behavior in failing to follow directives led Respondent's principal to recommend that her employment be terminated. No action was taken on that recommendation. There was no evidence as to Respondent's job performance between the 1983-84 school year and the 1991-92 school year. From 1991 through 1993, Respondent was assigned to teach a second grade class at Palm Springs North Elementary (Palm Springs). Dawn Hurns was the Respondent's principal at Palm Springs and Raquel Montoya was her assistant principal. Respondent frequently took her class to lunch earlier than scheduled and picked her class up from lunch after the period had expired. Ms. Montoya directed Respondent to adhere to her lunch schedule. Respondent failed to comply with that directive. On February 6, 1992, Ms. Montoya advised Respondent that her continued failure to adhere to administrative directives would result in formal disciplinary action being taken against her. During the 1992-93 school year, Ms. Hurns observed Respondent's performance and noted deficiencies pertaining to record keeping, attendance, tardiness, and organizational skills. After formally observing Respondent's deficient classroom performance, Ms. Hurns met with Respondent and gave her an opportunity to work on her deficiencies. In subsequent observations, both Ms. Hurns and Ms. Montoya found Respondent's performance to be deficient. In an attempt to remedy her unacceptable performance in the classroom, Respondent was provided prescriptive activities designed to improve her classroom management. On November 2, 1992, Ms. Hurns issued Respondent a memorandum addressing her chronic tardiness to school and her failure to notify the school of her expected tardiness in violation of her professional responsibilities. As a result of frequent tardiness, Respondent's students were often left unattended on the basketball court where they assembled before school began. Ms. Hurns often had to escort Respondent's students to their classroom in the absence of the Respondent. Ms. Hurns held a "Conference for the Record" (CFR) with Respondent on December 10, 1992, to address her unacceptable performance and to notify her that continued unacceptable performance would yield an unacceptable annual evaluation. Ms. Hurns also offered Respondent assistance in correcting her deficiencies, including a referral to the Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Although two meetings were scheduled for Respondent at the EAP, Respondent did not attend either meeting and did not take advantage of the EAP. By December 21, 1992, Respondent had received two unacceptable observations, which yielded an unacceptable summative assessment as established by Petitioner's Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). 2/ On January 13, 1993, Ms. Hurns completed a TADS summative assessment form that found Respondent's classroom performance unacceptable in three out of seven categories. The first category was "Knowledge of Subject Matter" with the observed deficiency being ineffective presentation of the subject matter. The second category was "Teacher-Student Relationships" with the observed deficiency being the failure to attempt to systematically involve all students in class activities. The third category was "Assessment Techniques" with the observed deficiency being the failure to properly record grades for students. Ms. Hurns observed Respondent's grade books and discovered that, except for one or two grades in reading, there were no grades or other assessment of the students' work over a period of nine weeks. Respondent was directed to follow the prescribed grading policy, which required a teacher to have at lease one grade per week for each subject area. It was impossible to adequately assess students' work with such few grades or with no grades at all. In addition to the foregoing, Respondent continued to be absent or tardy without excuse. On January 14, 1993, Ms. Hurns held a CFR with Respondent to discuss Respondent's lack of compliance with her professional responsibilities, her irregular attendance, and her frequent tardiness. At the CFR, Respondent was directed to notify an administrator of her intent to be absent or tardy to school, to provide lesson plans for her substitutes, and to provide grades for her students. By memorandum dated February 17, 1993, after a prolonged absence by Respondent, Ms. Hurns advised Respondent of her continuing failure to complete her prescribed activities, and her continuing lack of attendance. Ms. Hurns directed Respondent to either take a leave of absence and notify the school when she expected to return or to resign. On March 8, 1993, Ms. Montoya notified Respondent of her continued disregard for administrative directives. After a parent requested to see proof of her daughter's lack of academic progress in Respondent's classroom and complained of Respondent's refusal to assist the parent in improving her child's performance, Respondent was directed by Ms. Montoya to provide the parent with a daily progress report on the student's performance. Respondent failed to comply with this directive. On March 11, 1993, Ms. Hurns formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and noted that Respondent had not complied with School Board rules, labor contract provisions, and school site rules. Respondent did not maintain accurate student records pertaining to grades for her students, she had not completed her prescriptive activities, and she continued to be absent on a frequent basis. Ms. Hurns held another CFR with Respondent on March 11, 1993, and told her that her continuing failure to comply with the administrative directives given January 14, 1993, constituted gross insubordination. As a result of Respondent having obtained two unacceptable summative assessments, Ms. Hurns requested that Petitioner send to Palm Springs a trained observer to conduct an observation of the Respondent's performance. In response to that request, Norma Bossard, a Language Arts supervisor who had been trained as a TADS observer, was sent by Petitioner to observe the Respondent. Ms. Hurns was present when Ms. Bossard conducted her formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance. Both Ms. Hurns and Ms. Bossard found Respondent's performance to be unacceptable in the following categories: "Preparation and Planning," "Knowledge of the Subject Matter," "Techniques of Instruction," and "Assessment Techniques". During the external observation, Respondent gave a lesson on spelling that lasted approximately an hour longer than it should have. Respondent also failed to give her students a pretest to determine whether the spelling lesson was even necessary. The external review by Ms. Bossard was consistent with the observations made by Ms. Hurns as to deficiencies in the Respondent's job performance. Ms. Bossard concluded that Respondent was wasting the time of her students. Ms. Bossard observed that Respondent appeared to be very wide-eyed and disoriented. On April 19, 1993, a CFR was held with Respondent at the Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards to address her unacceptable performance in the classroom, her insubordination in the form of her continued noncompliance with directives relating to her assigned prescriptive activities, and her excessive absences and chronic tardiness. At this CFR, Respondent was again directed to comply with previous administrative directives, and was informed that such compliance had become a condition of her continued employment. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, Respondent had been absent at least 59 days and had been tardy on at least 31 occasions. Despite being specifically told to do so, Respondent frequently failed to call the school and inform school administrators that she would either be absent or tardy. Although Respondent was chronically absent from the work site, she failed to provide lesson plans for substitute teachers. Respondent's persistent absenteeism, failure to provide lesson plans, and lack of assessment of students' work had a detrimental impact on the students assigned to her classroom. As a result of Respondent's continued unacceptable classroom performance, her failure to remediate her deficiencies and her failure to comply with administrative directives, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation by Ms. Hurns. Ms. Hurns submitted a recommendation that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Ms. Hurns had intended to hold a CFR with Respondent to address her unacceptable annual evaluation, but Respondent was absent from school for an extended period of time and the CFR was not held. On July 7, 1993, Petitioner suspended Respondent's employment on the grounds of gross insubordination and incompetency and instituted these proceedings to terminate her continuing contract. Petitioner established that there was a continuing refusal to comply with administrative directives by Respondent and that she failed to abide by procedures for maintaining adequate grading of the work of her students, did not provide appropriate lesson plans, and failed to take advantage of the prescriptive activities assigned for her performance improvement. Respondent's considerable and excessive absences from the classroom and her failure to provide lesson plans and properly grade students' work resulted in a failure to communicate with and relate to her students to such an extent that Respondent failed to provide her students with a minimum educational experience. Despite the fact that Respondent was given ample opportunities to correct her behavior, she constantly and intentionally refused to obey direct orders to contact administrators when she was going to be absent or tardy, to provide lesson plans for her substitutes, and to maintain grades for her students. Ms. Hurns and the other administrators involved in evaluating Respondent's performance, took reasonable measures to communicate directly with Respondent about her classroom deficiencies and her attendance. At the formal hearing, Respondent testified that she became confused and disoriented and conceded that she had difficulty working. Respondent introduced evidence in an attempt to establish that her poor job performance was caused by medical problems. Under the Respondent's health care system, Respondent was required to obtain a referral for health care services from her primary physician who was, at the times pertinent hereto, Dr. Olive Chung-James. Dr. Chung-James saw Respondent several times starting in February 1993, for various symptoms and illnesses. In May 1993, Dr. Chung-James, who had been treating Respondent for respiratory problems and vomiting, recommended that Respondent seek psychological counselling because she thought the Respondent was stressed out. After the suspension of her employment in July 1993, Respondent met by coincidence a certified psychologist named Lani Kaskel. Respondent called Dr. Kaskel several times before she was able to arrange an appointment. Because Respondent had not been referred to Dr. Kaskel by Dr. Chung-James, the Respondent's health insurance did not pay for her visit to Dr. Kaskel. When Dr. Kaskel examined the Respondent, the Respondent was in a weak condition, somewhat disoriented, and clearly depressed. Respondent was seeking help and appeared overwhelmed. Dr. Kaskel suggested to Respondent that she might have an organic feature to the depression she was experiencing and referred her to Luis Escovar, a clinical psychologist who had been approved by Respondent's insurance plan. Respondent was referred to Dr. Kenneth Fischer, who is board certified in neurology by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Dr. Fischer's records reflects that Respondent presented herself with a history of personality disorder and headaches. Dr. Fischer conducted a series of tests to determine if there was a physical cause for the headaches she was experiencing, including a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) test, which was abnormal. The MRI revealed an area of the brain with decreased density which was interpreted by the consulting radiologist to be a low-grade tumor. Following his examination of the Respondent, Dr. Fischer was of the opinion that Respondent had either an ischemic process stroke or a brain tumor. His tests were inconclusive, and he could not testify that Respondent's poor performance and her failure to follow directives were attributable to organic causes. Respondent testified that during the 1992-93 school year she got behind in her work and she had trouble finishing her work and the prescriptions mandated by the school administrators. She testified that she did not willfully fail to meet the performance expectations, but that she could not do so because she was ill. Dr. Luis Escovar, a psychologist who treated the Respondent and who performed a series of psychological testing, expressed the opinion that on February 14, 1994, the Respondent was physically and mentally able to return to her employment as a classroom teacher. Respondent asserts that Respondent's poor classroom performance was due to an illness and that she should have been placed on sick leave. Respondent's assertion is rejected for two reasons. First, the medical testimony is speculative and does not establish that Respondent's poor job performance and failure to follow directives were caused by a stroke or by a brain tumor. Second, while Respondent testified that she sought sick leave, she offered no evidence as to whom this request was made, the date the request was made, the duration of the leave requested, the manner in which the leave was requested, or any other circumstances of the request. In light of the many offers of assistance that were made to the Respondent, which she repeatedly declined, it is found that Respondent did not establish that she made a proper request for sick leave that was refused by the administrators of Palm Springs. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order which adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which terminates the Respondent's continuing contract of employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July 1994.
