The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated April 4, 2000, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Commissioner is responsible for providing public, primary, secondary, and adult education teaching certificates in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Mitchell was employed by the Miami-Dade County School Board and was a teaching instructor assigned to Barbara Goleman Senior High School (BGSHS). At all times material to this case, an examination known as the High School Competency Test (HSCT) was required for students to qualify for a regular high school diploma pursuant to Section 229.57(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The HSCT is a secured test within the meaning of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes. That section provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for anyone to knowingly and willfully violate test security rules adopted by the State's Board of Education for mandatory tests administered by school districts pursuant to Section 229.57, Florida Statutes. It is also unlawful to copy, reproduce, or use any portion of any secured test booklet in any manner inconsistent with test security rules. Id. A violation of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both. The Department of Education has adopted Rule 6A-10.042, Florida Administrative Code, which requires, inter alia, that tests implemented in accordance with the requirements of Section 229.57, Florida Statutes, be maintained and administered in a secure manner such that the integrity of the test shall be preserved and that tests or individual test questions shall not be revealed, copied, or otherwise reproduced by persons who are involved in the administration, proctoring, or scoring of any test. On Saturday, October 4, 1997, Mitchell was one of the teachers proctoring the HSCT at BGSHS. On that date, while the communications portion of the HSCT was being administered, Mitchell unlawfully gained access to the mathematics portion of the examination, which was to have been administered at a later date. Shortly thereafter, and before the mathematics portion of the HSCT was to be administered, Mitchell sent an e-mail message to four out of approximately ten fellow BGSHS math teachers, advising them that they would find a "blue gift" in their respective school mail boxes. Each of these instructors, unlike those who did not receive a "blue gift," were friendly with Mitchell, and ate lunch with her on a regular basis. Thereafter, Mitchell in fact provided a blue disk to each of the four teachers to whom the e-mail was directed. On each disk were many of the actual HSCT mathematics questions unlawfully obtained by Mitchell. The first of the teachers to review the contents of the "blue gift" immediately suspected that Mitchell had engaged in a criminal violation of test security law, and reported her suspicions to BGSHS' principal. Following investigations by appropriate authorities and the panoply of due process protections appropriate to each forum, Mitchell was convicted on the misdemeanor charge of having knowingly and willfully breached the security of the HSCT, and her employment as a Miami-Dade County school teacher was terminated. The criminal case, State of Florida v. Margaret Mitchell, Case Number 04586-W, was tried to a jury before Honorable Caryn Canner Schwartz in the County Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, in June 1999. On June 28, 1999, following a week-long trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against Mitchell for her violation of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes. Mitchell does not dispute that the foregoing criminal and administrative proceedings were conducted, and that the charges against her in each case were sustained. Mitchell did not seek appellate relief with respect to either proceeding. Mitchell maintains here, as in both of the previous proceedings, that she did not intend to violate test security procedures. She claims that she innocently copied and distributed what she thought was an authorized practice test. Mitchell did not offer her innocent mistake defense to anyone until two months after her crime was revealed. Mitchell's claims of innocence are inconsistent with her conduct and demeanor when she was first confronted with the allegations against her, as well as the known facts and circumstances surrounding the HSCT security breach. In addition, Mitchell's testimony at final hearing in this proceeding with respect to her innocent mistake defense is unworthy of belief. Mitchell's demeanor while testifying was deceptive, and her testimony was inconsistent with the known facts and circumstances surrounding the HSCT security breach. At Mitchell's criminal sentencing, Judge Schwartz noted that the jury's guilty verdict was supported by evidence which was "overwhelming" and assessed a fine of $1,000, court costs, and ordered Mitchell to serve 90 days house arrest and six months probation. On February 10, 1999, the Miami-Dade County School Board initiated dismissal proceedings against Mitchell and, on December 28, 1999, Administrative Law Judge William J. Kendrick sustained the dismissal. In his Recommended Order, Judge Kendrick concluded, in pertinent part: Here, it should not be subject to debate that Respondent’s act of knowingly and willfully reproducing the mathematics portion of the 1997 HSCT and providing copies of that test to her fellow teachers constituted an act of immorality and misconduct in office; that such conduct was sufficiently notorious to bring Respondent into public disgrace or disrespect and impair her service in the community; and that such conduct was so serious as to impair her effectiveness in the school system. It should also not be subject to debate that, upon conviction of the crime for breach of test security, Respondent, as an educator, was also shown to have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. (P.4 at 10-11.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the teaching certificate of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa N. Pearson, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Coral Way Miami, Florida 33129 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Jerry W. Whittier, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated standardized testing procedures while proctoring the SAT-9 Test for her first grade class, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 467712, covering the area of Elementary Education. Her certificate is valid through June 30, 2007. Respondent has been a public school teacher in Florida for 21 years. During that time, she has worked as a classroom teacher in fifth and first grades at four different schools. At all times material here, Respondent was a first grade teacher at Niblack Elementary School (Niblack) in Columbia County, Florida. Respondent was the curriculum resource teacher at Niblack for the 2000/2001 school term, the first year Niblack was established. She helped organize the new school, selecting textbooks and other school materials. She assisted in the development of school improvement plans and the creation of the Parent Teacher Organization. Respondent worked long hours beyond the normal school hours to ensure the success of Niblack as a neighborhood school. She had good report with the parents and the community. After her first year at Niblack, Respondent returned to the classroom as a first grade teacher because she missed being with the children. Prior to the incident at issue here, Respondent has never been the subject of any disciplinary action. She has always received positive teacher evaluations. For the school years 1999/2000, 2000/2001, and 2001/2002, Respondent's evaluations reflect that she met or exceeded expectations. When school began in the Fall of 2001, Nikki Crawford was the paraprofessional assigned to work with the first grade students at Niblack. In the first week of classes, a conflict arose between Ms. Crawford and some of the first grade teachers, including Respondent. The initial conflict involved the scheduling of Ms. Crawford's time in each of the first grade classrooms. Eventually, Mark Crutcher, Niblack's Principal, and personnel at the school district level had to intervene in order to resolve the conflict. The purpose of the intervention was to clarify that the teachers and not Ms. Crawford were in control of the classrooms. The SAT-9 is a standardized test that is used to evaluate student performance. The staff at Niblack uses the test results as a guide to determine what the students learned over the past year, how they compared to other students nationally, and where the students should be placed the following school year. The test results do not benefit an individual teacher personally or professionally. The school does not receive a grade or funding based on the test results. The administration of the SAT-9 in the first grade is the first time that students at Niblack experience a standardized test. For the 2001/2002 school year, the test was administered in April 2002. The SAT-9 is a secure test that requires teachers and proctors to undergo training on test procedures. Amber Todd, Niblack's guidance counselor and testing coordinator, provided that training for the 2001/2002 school term. During the training, Ms. Todd gave Respondent a copy of the state statutes governing testing procedures. On or about April 5, 2002, Respondent signed a document indicating that she had received a copy of the test security requirements for the 2001/2002 administration of the SAT-9. Ms. Todd gave Respondent a document outlining the general testing procedures at Niblack. The document explained the mechanics of distributing and returning the tests to the guidance counselor's office. In regard to test preparation, the document listed spatial seating as one of several topics. The topics relating to procedures during testing included, but were not limited to, cheating and disruptive behavior. The document did not reference appropriate or inappropriate communication between teachers and students during the test. Ms. Todd gave Respondent a photocopy of the test security page out of the test manual but did not give her a copy of the test manual. However, Ms. Todd informed Respondent that she could review the manual in Ms. Todd's office. Respondent had prior experience in administering the SAT-9. She did not take advantage of the opportunity to review the test manual in Ms. Todd's office prior to the test in April 2002. Ms. Todd informed Respondent that the desks in the classroom needed to be separated. Ms. Todd and the test manual directed Respondent to read the script in the manual verbatim and to strictly follow the time allowed for each test section. Finally, Ms. Todd told Respondent and Ms. Crawford that they had discretion to redirect students but not to coach them. Respondent and Ms. Crawford could tell students to stay in their seats, to stop talking, and to pay attention. Teachers and proctors were allowed to tell students they were working in the wrong section, to erase the answers in the wrong section, and to go back to the correct section. Ms. Crawford was assigned to proctor the SAT-9 in Respondent's class in April 2002. When the test began, Respondent had not separated all of the students' desks. With the exception of a couple of desks that had been moved to one side, the desks were arranged in the normal classroom configuration with desks touching in groups of threes. The only other change in the classroom was that the seating location of some students had been rearranged. Respondent did not separate the desks because she wanted room to walk between the students during the test. The classroom was small and crowded with 18 desks. However, the most persuasive evidence is that Respondent did not make an effort to separate the desks to the extent possible. When Respondent began the first section of the test, she read the script of the instructions to her students. She read the sample question, which was in a story format, and the multiple choice answers as required. Pursuant to the test instructions, Respondent had to direct some of the students to erase their answers to the sample question and to mark the correct answers. Respondent then deviated from the script by reading aloud the first part of the first test question and telling the students to put their finger where the question began. She did not read the answers to the first question. Respondent did not improperly read any other portion of the test. Respondent was responsible for timing each section of the test. At one point during the test, Ms. Crawford asked Respondent how long the students had to finish a test section. Respondent replied that they had until 9:20 a.m. Ms. Crawford's testimony that Respondent began the timed test at 8:54, allowing the students an extra 6 minutes to complete the section is not persuasive. Students are not allowed to work on test sections that are not being timed. In other words, if a student begins to work in section 2 while section 1 is being timed, the teacher and the proctor should tell the student to erase his or her answers in section 2 and go back to work on section 1. During the test, Ms. Crawford informed Respondent that a student named Tyler was working in the wrong section. Respondent then told Tyler to go back to the section she should have been working on. Respondent's communication with Tyler was not improper according to the training provided by Ms. Todd. Ms. Crawford also had to redirect a couple of Respondent's students to erase their answers in the wrong section of the test and to begin working in the correct test section. A second student named Latrice put her head on her desk and closed her booklet within five minutes after a timed test began. Respondent did not believe Latrice could not have finished the test so quickly. Respondent picked up and opened Latrice's booklet. Respondent told Latrice that she could not possibly be finished and needed to go back and check her answers. Respondent also told Latrice she must have some of the answers wrong. Respondent made this statement to Latrice without actually checking to see if any of her answers were wrong. Even so, Respondent's communication with Latrice was inappropriate. If Latrice had finished the test and closed her booklet, Respondent should have taken the booklet without telling Latrice that she needed to keep working because she must have some of the answers wrong. After the test, Ms. Crawford informed Ms. Todd that Respondent had violated the reading portion of the SAT-9 test procedures by failing to separate the desks, by failing to properly time the test on one section, by failing to follow the script, and by improperly coaching two students. Ms. Todd then informed Mr. Crutcher about the allegations of improper test procedures. The Columbia County School District decided to invalidate the reading portion of the SAT-9 test for Respondent's first grade class. They did not invalidate the math portion of the test. The school district then administered a substitute reading test to the students. The Columbia County School District subsequently suspended Respondent without pay from May 21, 2002, through May 28, 2002. Respondent transferred to another Columbia County school for the 2002/2003 school term. As of the date of the hearing, Respondent continued to be employed by the Columbia County School District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the EPC enter a final order, placing Respondent’s teaching certificate on probation for a period of five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 20th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty N. Goggins 1291 East Camp Street Lake City, Florida 32025 William B. Graham, Esquire Ginger L. Barry, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy 305 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
