The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2014)1/; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission (Commission).
Findings Of Fact During all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the areas of elementary education and social science, and she held Florida Educator's Certificate 842941, which expired June 30, 2016. Respondent first entered the teaching profession in 1999. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Hillsborough County School District (HCSD). During the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, Respondent taught social science at Madison Middle School. During the years in question, HCSD had a written system for evaluating the classroom performance of its teachers. The evaluation system was reviewed and approved by the Florida Department of Education. The evaluation system consists of multiple components which, when combined, result in a final teacher evaluation performance rating. In its broadest sense, the system used by HCSD to evaluate teacher performance relies on input from a teacher’s supervising principal, input from a teacher’s peers and/or mentors, and a value-added measure (VAM) score, which is based on student achievement. According to the Teacher Evaluation Handbook for the HCSD, the principal’s evaluation accounts for 35 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score, the peer/mentor’s evaluation accounts for 25 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score, and the VAM score accounts for 40 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score. Observation and Written Evaluation Throughout the course of a school year, an evaluating principal and peer/mentors (collectively referred to as evaluators) conduct a number of formal and informal classroom “observations” of the teacher being evaluated. Findings from formal and informal observations are characterized, based on a framework of four “domains,” as highly effective, effective, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory. The observations are memorialized and feedback is regularly provided to the teacher during the school year. At the conclusion of the observation cycle, the evaluators, based on the formal and informal observations, prepare a written “evaluation” which summarizes and quantifies (assigns a numerical value) the teacher’s performance for the entire school year. The framework for rating observations and scoring evaluations consists of four domains, each of which has five to six components. According to the teacher evaluation instrument, the domains and their components are as follows: Domain 1: Planning and Preparation. The components in Domain 1 outline how a teacher organizes the content and plans the instructional delivery. (1A) Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy (1B) Demonstrating Knowledge of Students (1C) Setting Instructional Outcomes (1D) Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources and Technology (1E) Designing Coherent Instruction (1F) Designing Student Assessments Domain 2: The Classroom Environment. The components in Domain 2 address the learning environment. This includes the interactions in the classroom, the classroom culture, the teacher’s use of physical space, and established routines and procedures. (2A) Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport (2B) Establishing a Culture for Learning (2C) Managing Classroom Procedures (2D) Managing Student Behavior (2E) Organizing Physical Space Domain 3: Instruction. The components of Domain 3 embody the core of teaching –the engagement of students in activities that promote and foster learning. (3A) Communicating with Students (3B) Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques (3C) Engaging Students in Learning (3D) Using Assessment in Instruction (3E) Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities. The components of Domain 4 represent the wide range of a teacher’s responsibilities outside the classroom. These include reflecting on teaching, maintaining accurate records, communicating with stakeholders, contributing to the school and district, growing and developing professionally, and showing professionalism. (4A) Reflecting on Teaching (4B) Maintaining Accurate Records (4C) Communicating With Stakeholders (4D) Participating in a Professional Community (4E) Growing and Developing Professionally (4F) Showing Professionalism The weight assigned to each domain (within either the principal or peer/mentor category) is 20 percent, with the exception of Domain 3, which is weighted at 40 percent. Domain components 4B through 4F are only reviewed by the teacher’s principal. Domain 1 addresses “planning and preparation,” and “[t]he components of Domain 1 outline how a teacher organizes the content and plans the instructional delivery.” Domain 2 addresses “classroom environment,” and “[t]he components of Domain 2 address the learning environment [which] . . . includes the interactions in the classroom, the classroom culture, the teacher’s use of physical space, and established routines and procedures.” Domain 3, which again is weighted twice as much as the other domains, addresses “instruction,” and “[t]he components of Domain 3 embody the core of teaching–the engagement of students in activities that promote and foster learning . . . [and the] components include: communicating clearly and accurately, using questioning and discussion techniques, engaging students in learning, providing feedback to students, and demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness.” Domain 4 addresses “professional responsibility,” and “[t]he components of Domain 4 represent the wide range of a teacher’s responsibilities outside the classroom . . . include[ing] reflecting on teaching, maintaining accurate records, communicating with stakeholders, contributing to the school and district, growing and developing professionally, and showing professionalism.” For purposes of scoring a teacher’s evaluation, a zero point value is assigned whenever a domain component is given a rating of “requires action,” a single point is given whenever a domain component is rated as “progressing,” two points are given whenever a teacher is rated as “accomplished,” and three points are given for an “exemplary” rating. Value Added Measure According to the Teacher Evaluation Handbook for Hillsborough County, VAM is: statistical model that uses a variety of variables to estimate the expected one year learning growth of each student. The growth expectation estimate is then compared to actual growth, as measured by relevant course and content assessments. In order to measure a teacher’s impact on student achievement, the model controls for variables that are outside of the teacher’s control, such as past years’ learning growth trajectory, and special needs. In doing so, the teacher’s impact on student growth can be isolated and calculated. The VAM score is 40 percent of the teacher’s overall annual evaluation. 2012-2013 Observations and Evaluation Respondent, during the 2012-2013 school year, had one formal and two informal observations conducted by peer/mentors, and one formal and two informal observations conducted by her principal. Respondent, at the end of the 2012-2013 school year, was evaluated by both her peer/mentor and her principal. Katherine Hodges is one of the peer/mentors who observed and evaluated Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Ms. Hodges was a teacher in the HCSD from 2005-2015 where she taught eighth grade U.S. history, humanities, and served as a middle school social studies peer/mentor evaluator. Twanya Hall-Clark is another individual who conducted observations of Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Ms. Hall-Clark has been employed by HCSD as an educator for more than 20 years and has served as a school administrator since 2000. Ms. Hall-Clark has been trained in the use and implementation of the HCSD teacher evaluation system and has conducted hundreds of teacher observations and evaluations. Jeffery Colf also served as a peer/mentor and observed Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Joseph Brown served as the school principal where Respondent worked during the 2012-2013 school year, and was responsible for observing and evaluating Respondent’s performance. Dr. Brown became an educator in 1986 and a principal in 1998. Dr. Brown was trained in the use and implementation of the HCSD teacher evaluation system and has observed and evaluated hundreds of teachers during his tenure as an administrator. In determining a teacher’s evaluation rating, evaluators consider observation ratings and information provided by the teacher who is being evaluated. After considering these factors, Respondent’s peer/mentor evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was “requires action” for component 2C; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2B, 2D, and 3A through 3E; and “accomplished” for components 1D, 2E, and 4A. Respondent’s principal evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was a rating of “progressing” for every component except 4A, for which she received a rating of “accomplished.” When quantified, Respondent’s 2012-2013 peer/mentor evaluation score was 8.80 and her principal evaluation score was 12.00, which resulted in a combined total evaluation written score of 20.80. The HCSD mean (average) for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 36.86. For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent’s written evaluation score gave her a percentile rank of 1.70 percent. In other words, 98.30 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2012-2013 school year had a higher written evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s 2012-2013 VAM score was 18.7201. The HCSD mean for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 24.14. For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent’s VAM score gave her a percentile rank of 2.30 percent when compared to her peers. Stated succinctly, 97.70 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2012-2013 school year had a higher VAM score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2012-2013 school year was 39.3. The HCSD mean for all teachers evaluated during the 2012-2013 school year was 61. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2012-2013 school year resulted in her achieving a percentile rank of 0.89 percent, meaning that 99.11 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD during the 2012-2013 school year scored higher than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score of 39.3 resulted in Respondent receiving an overall evaluation rating of “unsatisfactory” for the 2012-2013 school year. For the 2012- 2013 school year, Respondent would have needed an overall evaluation score of 40 in order to secure the next highest evaluation designation of “needs improvement.” By letter dated September 18, 2013, Respondent was notified of the deficiencies in her performance and advised that she would be placed on a teacher assistance plan for the 2013- 2014 school year. Teacher Assistance Plan Respondent, as a consequence of receiving an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year, was placed on a mandatory teacher assistance plan during the 2013- 2014 school year. The stated goal of the plan is “[t]o assist teachers who earned a previous overall Unsatisfactory evaluation so that their performance reaches a satisfactory level for the current school year.” Teachers who are placed on a teacher assistance plan are assigned a support team which is composed of experienced educators. Teacher assistance plans have “areas of focus” which correspond to the four domains covered by the annual evaluation. The teacher assistance plan developed for Respondent focused on the domains of “planning and preparation (Domain 1)” and “instruction (Domain 3).” Respondent first met with her support team on October 15, 2013, where “assistance strategies” were developed for Domains 1 and 3. The specific strategies set goals of “designing coherent instruction (component 1-e)” and “improving feedback practices (component 3-d).” During the support team meeting on October 15, 2013, Respondent explained that her unsatisfactory rating for the 2012- 2013 school year was largely attributable to the fact that she “floated” between classrooms, and that she expected improvement in her performance for the 2013-2014 school year because she had her own classroom. Support team members provided Respondent with “a packet of resources” and arranged for Respondent to observe a high-performing teacher in an instructional setting. On December 18, 2013, Respondent met with members of her support team to discuss and review Respondent’s progress towards achieving the goals established in her teacher assistance plan. A summary report from the meeting provides as follows: The meeting began with a review of the Oct. 2013 action plan meeting and an update of the action steps. Ms. Patti also presented her summary notes of the observations and action she has taken since October. Those notes are included in her folder. Ms. Patti said that she observed Mr. Kline in his science class. She liked how each student had an assigned role while in group work. Ms. Patti also showed a teacher[-]made quiz she designed based off information from the LDC lesson. For the quiz she prompted students to use text marking and identify the key concepts not just the action (such as describe or discuss). Ms. Patti is using a website titled floridacivics.org for lesson plan ideas and resources. Ms. Patti also wants to observe another teacher. Dr. Brown will ask Mr. Sullins if he is willing to have Ms. Patti observe during the third nine weeks. Suggestions were made to either have another teacher observe or have a lesson video-taped for Ms. Patti to watch herself. She did not want to pursue either option at this time. Dr. Brown will follow up to set a date for the February Action Plan review. On March 27, 2014, Respondent again met with her support team. A written summary of the meeting notes that Respondent did not meet the goal of observing another teacher’s class as discussed during the meeting on December 18, 2013. 2013-2014 Observations and Evaluation Respondent, during the 2013-2014 school year, had two formal and three informal observations conducted by peer/mentors, two formal and three informal observations conducted by her principal, and one formal observation by her supervisor. Respondent, at the end of the 2013-2014 school year, was evaluated by both her peer/mentor and her principal. As previously noted, when determining a teacher’s evaluation rating, evaluators consider observation ratings and information provided by the teacher who is being evaluated. After considering these factors, Respondent’s peer/mentor evaluation for the 2013-2014 school year was “requires action” for component 3E; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2D, 3A through 3E, 4A; and “accomplished” for components 1D and 2E. Respondent’s principal evaluation for the 2013-2014 school year was “requires action” for components 4F; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2B, 2D, 3A through 3E, and 4B through 4E; and “accomplished” for components 1D, 2C, 2E, and 4A. When quantified, Respondent’s 2013-2014 peer/mentor evaluation score was 8.35 and her principal evaluation score was 11.90, which resulted in a combined total evaluation written score of 20.25. The HCSD mean (average) for teachers during the 2013-2014 school year was 36.86. For the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent’s written evaluation score gave her a percentile rank of 1.47 percent. In other words, 98.53 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2013-2014 school year had a higher written evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s 2013-2014 VAM score was 17.4192. The HCSD mean for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 24.04. For the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent’s VAM score gave her a percentile rank of 0.85 percent when compared to her peers. Stated succinctly, 99.15 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2013-2014 school year had a higher VAM score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2013-2014 school year was 37.66. The HCSD mean for all teachers evaluated during the 2013-2014 school year was 60.94. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2013-2014 school year resulted in her achieving a percentile rank of 0.24 percent, meaning that 99.76 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD during the 2013-2014 school year scored higher than Respondent. Stated differently, in Hillsborough County public schools for the 2013-2014 school year, there were only 28 teachers of 12,068 who had a worse evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score of 37.66 resulted in Respondent receiving an overall evaluation rating of “unsatisfactory” for the 2013-2014 school year. For the 2013- 2014 school year, Respondent would have needed an overall evaluation score of 42 in order to secure the next highest evaluation designation of “needs improvement.” Despite being on a teacher assistance plan, Respondent’s performance, relative to her peers, actually declined during the 2013-2014 school year when compared to the previous school year. By letter dated July 10, 2014, Respondent was advised that because she received unsatisfactory evaluations for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, HCSD was notifying the Department of Education of her poor performance and that she was being reassigned pending confirmation of her VAM scores for the year. By order dated April 6, 2016, the School Board of Hillsborough County terminated Respondent’s employment. Domain 3 and VAM As noted previously, Domain 3 embodies “the core of teaching.” The peer/mentor and principal comments for Domain 3 components for the 2012-2013 school year provide as follows with respect to Respondent’s performance: (3A) The teacher’s attempt to explain the purpose/relevancy of the lesson’s instructional outcomes has only limited success, and/or directions and procedures must be clarified after initial student confusion. The teacher’s explanation of the content may contain minor errors; some portions are clear; other portions are difficult to follow. The teacher’s explanation consists of a monologue, with no invitation to the students for intellectual engagement. The teacher’s spoken language is correct; however, vocabulary is limited or not fully appropriate to the students’ ages or backgrounds. (3B) The teacher’s questions lead students through a single path of inquiry, with answers seemingly determined in advance. Alternatively the teacher attempts to frame some questions designed to promote student thinking and understanding, but only a few students are involved. The teacher attempts to engage all students in the discussion and to encourage them to respond to one another, with uneven results. (3C) The learning tasks or prompts are partially aligned with the instructional outcomes but require only minimal thinking by students, allowing most students to be passive or merely compliant. Learning activities are not sufficiently challenging and lack the rigor to promote intellectual engagement. The pacing of the lesson may not provide students the time needed to be intellectually engaged. (3D) Assessment is occasionally used in instruction, through some monitoring of progress of learning by teacher and/or students. Feedback to students is uneven, and students are aware of only some of the assessment criteria used to evaluate their work. (3E) The teacher attempts to modify the lesson when needed and to respond to student questions with moderate success; however, alternate instructional strategies are limited and minimally successful. The teacher accepts responsibility for student performance. In response to student progress data, the teacher re-teaches, as appropriate. Because Respondent received an overall unsatisfactory performance rating for the 2012-2013 school year, she was evaluated by her principal mid-way through the 2013-2014 school year, and again by both her principal and peer/mentor evaluator at the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Respondent, for each of the evaluations performed during the 2013-2014 school year, received identical marks for the Domain 3 components, with the same deficiencies noted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(c). It is further recommended that, pursuant to section 1012.796(7)(g), Respondent be prohibited from applying for a new certificate for a period of at least five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 28th day of June, 2017.
Findings Of Fact James D. Alford, III, was initially employed by the Board of Education in the Public Schools of Duval County, Florida during January of 1973. Respondent holds teacher's certificate no. 333009, graduate, rank 3 and is a graduate of Tuskegee Institute where he received a B.S. Degree in Industrial Arts. For approximately two and one-half years subsequent to January, 1973, he was assigned to southside Junior High School as an Industrial Arts Special Education Teacher in a pilot program. It appears that there is no difference in the qualification required for teachers of industrial arts in special education programs as opposed to other industrial arts teachers that are certified in industrial arts. In addition to his employment with the Duval County School Board, Respondent served in a student teacher training program for nine weeks in Montgomery, Alabama. Respondent, during his assigned duties for the Duval County School Board, taught a special education industrial arts class consisting of seventh, eighth and ninth grade students. He trained students how to safely use tools and to perform projects requiring the use of industrial arts tools. He assigned students projects based on their manipulative skills. He noted that "special ed" students had to be trained to use even the simplest tools such as hand saws. Respondent testified that discipline was a major problem in teaching "special ed" students and that for the first and/or minor offense, he attempted to discipline students by verbal commands and that when that failed he sent students to the Dean's Office. He denied ever using physical force to punish students for unruly conduct. His testimony is that his only physical contact with students was to restrain them from physical acts and it suffices to say that he denied all of the allegations filed by the Council in its petition to revoke his teaching certificate. Respondent was aware of the Board's policy respecting discipline and testified that he never administered corporal punishment to students. Following altercations with two students during late 1974, Respondent was offered transfers on at least two occasions which he declined because he "had recently received approximately $5,000.00 of new shop equipment" and further that he wanted to remain at Southside for a sufficient period in order to administer in a smooth and efficient manner the special ed industrial arts program at Southside. The first significant incident involving the Respondent occurred during December of 1974 during an altercation with one of his students i.e., Gary Roary. According to Respondent, Roary initially hit him whereupon he retaliated by striking him back. Roary then left the room, picked up a two by four and returned to the classroom where Roary attempted to hit Respondent. Respondent, in an effort to snatch the two by four from Roary, shoved him causing him to fall on a saw. Roary sustained an injury which required three sutures at the emergency room at a local hospital. Respondent states that he did not know that Roary had injured himself until he was later called to the office where he was told to meet with Mr. Buford Galloway. The Principal, J. R. McDaniel, investigated the incident involving Gary Roary and concluded that Respondent was "rather rough with Gary". See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. Respondent testified that the incident occurred during a demonstration of a "boomerang" that he had constructed to motivate students to make one. He first threw the boomerang and then a student threw it. When the student threw the boomerang, it struck a teacher's car which resulted in a scratch. One of the students relayed this information to the teacher involved, Ms. Williams, whose car was parked near the shop area. A brief uproar resulted when the boomerang struck Ms. William's car and Respondent grabbed Willie Critton, another student by the front of his shirt. Roary yelled for Critton to hit Respondent and evidence revealed that Respondent retorted by saying "hit me, hit me," when Roary said "hit him". Respondent released Critton and grabbed Roary and this brought about the above incident in which Roary sustained the cut. Respondent admits to pushing Roary and striking him on the right shoulder stating that this was done in self- defense. He acknowledged that it was probably a mistake for him to hit Roary. Following this incident, Respondent was transferred to another school for the remainder of the school term. Marilyn Bagby, a program coordinator for mentally retarded for the Duval County School Board testified that she has known Respondent since 1972, and that during a visit to one of his classes, she saw a student roaming the hallway in front of his class. She testified generally that she was able to determine that students had been left out in the hall for periods up to approximately three weeks. However Mrs. Bagby was not specific in her testimony respecting these incidents and for these reasons, little weight can be attached to her testimony. Lowell T. Hudson, Industrial Arts Superintendent for the Duval County School Board, testified that the Respondent's class was properly equipped and that during his visits to Respondent's class, he noticed discipline problems. Mr. Hudson was involved in one conference concerning the disciplinary procedures utilized by Respondent and during a subsequent incident, Respondent was transferred. Joseph R. McDaniels, the Prinicpal at Southside High for approximately four years and an employee for approximately 19 years testified respecting approximately five conferences concerning Respondent and his disciplinary techniques. On three of these conferences, he wrote memos respecting the details of such conferences. He explained the City wide disciplinary policy to Respondent and cautioned him against using corporal punishment to discipline students. He recalled that two conferences occurred during May of 1974 and a third conference occurred during December of 1974. Ms. Eleanor Williams, the instructor whose car was struck by the boomerang which was thrown by one of Respondent's students, testified that Respondent assisted her on one occasion in a dispute with a student who was fighting another student. Respondent requested that Ms. Williams go to his office to obtain his stick which she refused and thereafter he asked the students to go get his stick. She testified that one student who was involved in the altercation had a paring knife. Respondent, in an effort to break up the students, swung at one student and missed striking a refrigerator and a bread box resulting in a dent in the refrigerator of approximately eight inches. Respondent, according to Ms. Williams, never requested that the students stop fighting. Instead Respondent kicked one of the students, Tim Walden, and Don Jones, the other student who was involved was struck in his face. At that time, several instructors were summoned who restrained Respondent from further hitting the students. 1/ Willie J. Critton, a 16 year old eleventh grade student attended shop classes with Respondent during his eighth grade school year. He testified that on numerous occasions, Respondent bent his fingers back and twisted his fingers. He further testified that it was common practice for Respondent to expel students from his class room and force them to stand outside in the hallway. Gary Roary was called and testified substantially as other witnesses who gave testimony on the boomerang incident during December of 1974. Specifically, he testified that Respondent hit Willie Critton and thereafter grabbed him. During the above incident, he was shook by Respondent and struck in the mouth. When he broke away from Respondent, he left the classroom, obtained a stick and entered the room. Upon his return, he swung at Respondent and fell when Respondent shoved him and his head struck a saw. This resulted in the cut referred to above which required three stitches. Betty Allison, a qualified expert in mental retardation, testified that while discipline is a problem in teaching EMR students (Educable Mentally Retarded), she objected to the disciplinary procedures utilized by Respondent calling them inappropriate in EMR situations. She testified that to be effective, EMR instructors must devise well organized lesson plans and that classroom instruction must be motivating in order to secure and retain the students' attention. Other witnesses testified that EMR students cause more discipline problems than others and generally testified that Respondent was effective as most instructors in teaching EMR students. Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, 1975, empowers the Department of Education to suspend or revoke a valid Florida Teaching Certificate held by an individual who is committing or has committed certain acts or omissions which justify revocation or suspension on grounds enumerated in the statute. One of the grounds as provided in the statute exist when the teacher, upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board. Here the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's teacher's certificate based on the fact that he has allegedly engaged in numerous offensive activities, which has seriously impaired and reduced his effectiveness as an employee. After careful consideration of all the evidence adduced herein, the testimony of witnesses and the arguments of counsel, I conclude that the disciplinary measures used by the Respondent departed from the county's established procedure for disciplining students and despite repeated warnings that he refrain from corporally punishing students, he continued to do so. His conduct in the Gary Roary and Willie J. Critton incident on December 3, 1974, is exemplary of his disciplinary methods. Based thereon and the entire record herein, I find that Respondent's usefulness as a teacher-employee has been reduced within the meaning of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing finding of facts and conclusions, I hereby RECOMMEND: 1. That the Respondent's teaching certificate be suspended for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Respondent began working for Petitioner School Board in 1960 as a teacher and has been so employed for approximately twenty years, with several breaks in service. At all times material hereto, Respondent has held Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 112370, Rank 1, covering the areas of elementary education, social studies, and junior college. During the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, Respondent worked as a social studies teacher at Cutler Ridge Junior High School. Prior to the 1981-82 school year, Respondent served as a CSI instructor for several years. CSI is the Center for Special Instruction and is an indoor suspension system. Students who have had difficulty in school, such as skipping classes and defiance of authority, are sent to the CSI room where they are isolated from their classmates to work on their regular school assignments. When Dr. John Moore became principal of Cutler Ridge Junior High School for the 1981-82 school year, he became aware that the CSI program needed to be strengthened. Parents, community leaders, and staff members of the school felt that the CSI program was not supportive of the disciplinary structure of the school, and teachers had been complaining about CSI. When Respondent was informally observed in the CSI room, the students "seemed to be having an extremely good time there . . . [,and] were running their own show, . . . [so] they liked going to CSI." The students were out of their seats, moving around at will, and some were walking in and out of the classroom. The room was noisy and in one instance in November 1979 the students were throwing a football around the room. When Dr. Moore reviewed the schedule for 1981-82, he saw that Respondent had a split schedule of part-time in CSI and part-time in social studies. He changed Respondent to a full-time social studies schedule, initially with four seventh-grade classes and one eighth-grade class. As a result of the suggestion of Respondent and another teacher, Dr. Moore merged the two teachers' schedules so that Dr. Sullivan ended up with a straight seventh- grade schedule. This would have reduced the amount of lesson planning required by Respondent and would have made his work load easier. Seventh-grade social studies is the simplest assignment Dr. Moore could have given a social studies teacher. During the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, a pattern could be discerned in Respondent's teaching. During each of those years, there was a relatively positive start with erratic performance during the first semester. By second semester, there was substantial disaster and a total lack of a learning environment. This erosion pattern was attributed to Respondent's teaching techniques. During the first semester of each year, Respondent had the students working at the lowest level of cognitive ability, i.e., memory work. Students became bored with that after a period of time. Respondent was not using feedback mechanisms to tell him what the students were understanding. Respondent did not teach in a logical sequence beginning with the first semester. These things led to frustration and boredom on the part of the students, and negative behavior became apparent. The negative behavior became resistive. This led to the erosion as above described. Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal James Marshall on November 16, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was unacceptable in preparation and planning because he had no lesson plans. He was rated unacceptable in classroom management because of the disorganization of his class. He was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the needs and abilities of his students and failed to provide opportunities for the students to express their ideas. He failed to give specific directions to the students and only used one technique of instruction, i.e., the lecture method. Mr. Marshall prescribed help for Respondent. He recommended that Respondent formulate good lesson plans according to the scope and sequence of the curriculum. A portion of the lesson plan should contain a procedure for the evaluation of the students. He recommended that Respondent praise the students and that Respondent try to obtain enough textbooks. If he could not, he should utilize duplicated materials. Mr. Marshall pointed out how Respondent could change the seats of his disruptive children and call the parents to see whether he could get some backup from them. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Assistant Principal Albert Villar on January 8, 1982. Respondent was found overall unacceptable and was rated unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, assessment techniques, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the students were taking a test which was written on the chalkboard. The test was confusing to the students, and they were not certain as to what part of the test they were to take. Further, the test was not visible to the entire class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because students walked in and out of the classroom, several students were talking during the test, and some were putting on makeup. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the students needed to answer questions with the textbook, and not all of the students had a textbook accessible to them. Respondent told the students to share, which is inappropriate because there would be a tendency to cheat on the examination. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not have a written copy of the test; therefore, it would be impossible for students who are absent to make up the test. There also should have been a copy of the test in the students' folders. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because the lack of textbooks led to a relationship which did not reflect equal recognition and respect for every individual. Mr. Villar made recommendations for improvement. He recommended that if Respondent wanted to use a chalkboard test, he should have a written copy in the students' folders, and he should enforce his classroom rules about students not talking during a test. Respondent's next formal observation was performed by the principal, Dr. John Moore, on January 27, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the lesson he taught was not the lesson described on his lesson plan. The inadequate planning led to classroom management problems. Throughout the observation, the students were "off task, doing their own thing, talking to each other and so on." The students and Respondent were talking at the same time. Eight students were chewing gum, which is against school rules. Techniques of instruction were rated unacceptable because the students were no on task. Respondent was not getting the students involved in discussions or in expressing their ideas. He was not getting feedback from the students because the students were talking among themselves. With teacher-questioning techniques, Respondent could have gotten the students involved. He could have gotten them on task by giving them quizzes or handouts which could structure their learning. Instructions were given while the majority of the class was talking, and the students were not challenged. Respondent was rated unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because throughout the observations there were repeated examples of students' disrespect, students yelling out across the room, students talking back and refusing to follow instructions. There was no reaction by Respondent. The bulk of the students were not responding. Professional responsibility was marked unacceptable because at the beginning of the year, Respondent was directed to enforce his class rules and to establish an effective learning environment. This was a general disciplinary project for the whole school. Dr. Moore prescribed help for Respondent. He recommended that Respondent work with his department chairman to review grade level objectives and to be certain that his lesson plans reflected the Dade County Balanced Curriculum requirements. Dr. Moore also recommended that he meet with a fellow teacher to review how she prepared her lesson plans. Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent enforce his class rules and that instead of using an oral approach, Respondent should develop handouts for the students. This would give them some structure as to what they are going to do. He recommended having homework guidelines and using review quizzes. Respondent was next formally observed by Mr. Marshall on February 5, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable overall and was marked unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because while he had lesson plans, they were not done according to the sequence and pattern prescribed in the school. Respondent did not get the students to work right away at the beginning of the period and the students were not on task. Classroom management was rated unacceptable because Respondent had no control of the students. The students were doing what they wanted to do and were disrupting the class. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of his students. He was lecturing the students, and this technique did not allow the students to participate. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because the relationship was not a positive one: the students were not guided into a class discussion by Respondent; there was no relationship between Respondent and the students, and the students did not want to give information to the teacher. They just wanted to sit there. Mr. Marshall prescribed help for Respondent. He requested that Respondent make sure that each student participate in the learning activities. He recommended that Respondent duplicate the assignments so that there would be enough for all students to have and that Respondent guide the students in a discussion from his daily lesson plan. Respondent was next formally observed on February 16, 1982, by Phyllis Cohen, Area Line Director for the Dade County Public Schools. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. The instructions given to the class were not comprehensible. None of the things that were indicated in the lesson plan occurred. As a result, when the students were divided into three groups and told to read, without the appropriate directions, each group proceeded not to read. As the lesson progressed, the behavior deteriorated more and more until at the end of the lesson, three-quarters of the class was off task. There was an elaborate lesson plan, but it was not followed. Knowledge of the subject matter was rated unacceptable because the teacher did not demonstrate a knowledge of the content of the chapter while he was giving class directions. Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because his class management practices needed much improvement. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of the students. Further, he did not use instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because many of the students' papers were not graded, most of the work on file was work book papers consisting of mostly short answers and recall questions, and there were very few essays. Mrs. Cohen recommended help for Respondent. She directed him to develop lesson plans which are useful and which list key concepts, activities, questions and vocabulary. She directed him to work with the principal who would provide models for his use. She recommended that the department head arrange to have Respondent observe a master teacher presenting a civics lesson. She recommended that he observe teachers who exhibit good class control, that he become aware of what the students are doing, and that he review and enforce class standards for behavior. She recommended that he work with the assistant principal to improve class management techniques and that Respondent have a five-minute start-up activity on the board fro students to do when they enter the class in order to settle the class down, take attendance, and begin the lesson in a more orderly fashion. She also recommended that he improve his presentation strategies and teaching techniques by working with the social studies department head. The next formal observation was performed by Mr. Marshall on March 11, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because his lesson plans were not adequate, unacceptable in classroom management because there was still a problem with student control and participation, and unacceptable in techniques of instruction since he still was not adapting materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of the students and was not providing opportunities for the students to express their ideas. Mr. Marshall prepared a memo in which he listed teaching techniques that would help improve Respondent's teaching. He recommended that Respondent praise the students more. Respondent was next formally observed by the social studies supervisor for the Dade County Public Schools, Paul Hanson, on March 19, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher- student relationships, and in one subcategory of preparation and planning because the plans which were written were not compatible with what actually took place in the classroom. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because there was no means of controlling the students who talked and moved about the classroom at will. The discipline was nonconducive to a learning environment since students were talking, out of their seats, and not on task. Very little learning was taking place. Techniques of instruction were marked unacceptable because the students were not motivated, and the instruction given them was not conducive to learning for junior high students. The activities in the classroom did not reflect the adoption of materials and methods to the interests, needs, and abilities of the students, and there was confusion in the class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because the test which was observed did not equate with the instruction taking place, the test construction was very poor, and there were a number of grammatical errors on it. What was being tested was not compatible with what was being taught at the time, according to the lesson plan. The grades and records of the students' achievement were not up to date but rather were about two to three weeks behind. Therefore, the students' progress was not being monitored on a daily basis. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because of the behavior problem in the class. There seemed to be very little respect for the students on the part of the teacher, and it was difficult to determine who was in control of the class. Mr. Hanson recommended that the lesson plan be more specific and that it equate with what takes place in the classroom. He recommended that Respondent observe other teachers for their classroom management techniques and that a staff development course be taken. He also suggested that Respondent observe a master teacher for the techniques of instruction. Mr. Hanson provided some reading materials to Respondent dealing with such topics as how to conduct a classroom discussion, how to manage a social studies classroom, and how to use audiovisual films in a social studies classroom. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Dr. Moore on April 13, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher- student relationships, professional responsibility, and supportive characteristics. There was no improvement in this observation over the prior observations. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the majority of students were off task during the observation, the written plan was not in compliance with the prior prescriptions and the lesson plan was not followed by Respondent. Knowledge of subject matter was marked unacceptable because Respondent failed to provide students with necessary explanations to implement the lesson plan. He confused the teaching objective with directions for student activity. Classroom management was marked unacceptable because the students were off task, were frequently moving, were constantly socializing, and a student was permitted to defy Respondent without consequences. Also, there were forty wads of paper on the floor. Techniques of instruction wee marked unacceptable because Respondent gave materials to the students prepared by the National Council of Social Studies for teacher use without modifying or adapting these materials for student use. He did not provide opportunities for students to express their ideas, although this was called for in his lesson plan, and he gave confusing directions to the students. The distribution of the National Council materials caused organization problems, and confusing directions used excessive class time. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not make an assessment of each student's academic progress. He gave the students credit based upon untested assertions of mastery of assignments. He asked the students to "Tell me if you know this . . . I'll mark it down and you can go on. . . ." Teacher-student relationships was rated unacceptable because defiant students regularly disregarded his direction to stop talking. Respondent was marked unacceptable in professional responsibility because he had failed to comply with directives regarding remediation practices. He was found unacceptable in supportive characteristics because it was found that he did not contribute to the total school program. Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent review prior directives on lesson planning and comply with those. He further recommended that Respondent review material with his department head and that Respondent implement the posted consequences for student behavior. Dr. Moore submitted a memorandum to Respondent outlining the problems that he saw in this observation and compiled a list of pertinent materials available in the media center. On April 16, 1982, Dr. Moore made Respondent aware of a parent complaint concerning the basis for a student's grade and the failure to notify the parent of the lack of student progress. As a result of that parent complaint, Dr. Moore reviewed Respondent's grade book and found a variety of deficiencies: There were grades that were not identified; there was no indication of makeup work, and the mechanics of keeping grades were absent. The grade book is a document which is required by law and by School Board rule. It is an attendance record and a primary record of the student's progress as compared to the course standards. Dr. Moore provided a memorandum to Respondent indicating what improvement was needed. Around the same time, Respondent became ill and was hospitalized. A series of memoranda were sent from the school to the Sullivans and vice versa. It was difficult to ascertain the nature of Respondent's illness and the expected length of his absence. Eventually it was determined that Respondent's illness was genuine, and he was given an opportunity to return to his school to complete his prescriptions. Respondent was next formally observed by Althea King, Assistant Principal, on October 18, 1982. This was the first formal evaluation under the TADS system. There is no overall rating on the individual TADS observation forms. This observation showed a great improvement over the prior observations. Prior to this observation, Mrs. King met with Respondent to go over the things she would be looking for and made an appointment with Respondent for her observation. Although Respondent sincerely desired to improve, he was found unacceptable in preparation and planning because his plan did not fill the allotted time. Mrs. King observed Respondent for one hour and found that there were 20 to 25 minutes remaining in the class period when the students had finished an activity and were not provided another activity. Mrs. King noted that preparation and planning is very significant because it is the means of gaining control of the classroom. She recommended that Respondent read certain sections of the teacher handbook and complete activities therein to help him develop a lesson plan that would have the various essential parts. The next formal observation was done by Dr. Moore on November 8, 1982. He found that Respondent's classroom management was above a minimally acceptable level. The class was noisy, but it was under control. There was, however, substantial deterioration in the other categories. Dr. Moore directed Respondent to give priority attention to the other five areas since progress had been made in classroom management. He further directed Respondent to outline the sequence of key concepts and generalizations for each unit and to discuss them with the department head to insure consistent comprehension. He directed Respondent to use inquiry strategies and to review a section in the faculty handbook to implement activities listed therein. He directed Respondent to list specific student objectives in behavioral terms in his lesson plans. The next formal observation was done by Dr. Moore on December 15, 1982. The observation, which was scheduled in advance, was relatively good. There was improvement in a number of areas over the preceding observation although Respondent was still not dealing with students who were off task, a fault which eventually leads to deterioration. Respondent was weak in using feedback mechanism. This is a shortcoming in teacher-student communication, indicating whether or not the teacher knows what the students are really perceiving and learning. In order to help Respondent, Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent read sections in the TADS prescription manual and attend Teacher Education Center workshops on teacher-student relationships and on assessment techniques. Shortly after the Christmas break, there was apparent deterioration of behavior in the classroom. There were reports from other teachers of loud, disruptive behavior. Respondent was directed to confer with Assistant Principal Daniel McPhaul and to make sure the students know that there will be consequences if they do not behave. Starting at this point, there was the same pattern of disruption that had been seen in the prior school year. Respondent was making no visible effort to restore order in his classroom. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Dr. Moore and Mr. Hanson jointly on February 8, 1983. Respondent was not found acceptable in any category. The class lesson consisted of giving workbooks to the students. There was no teaching, simply a passing out of materials. This failed to keep the students on task. There were consistent violations of the class rules and no consequences. Media still was not being used, and there were wads of paper on the wall. Respondent was marked unacceptable in preparation and planning because his lesson plan did not fill the allocated time. What was planned covered only 30 minutes of a 55-minute period. What was going on in the classroom did not follow the lesson plan, and what was being done was not included either in that lesson or the lesson plan for the next day. While Respondent exhibited knowledge of the subject matter, he was not found acceptable in the area of presentation of the subject matter. He used a "scattergun" approach. With the remaining 30 minutes, he filled in the time with something completely irrelevant to the plan for the day and irrelevant to the general overall plan for the week. The information presented to the children was simply handed to them with no logic or reason why they were getting this information. The information presented was not timely. Only one cognitive level was utilized in the entire classroom period, the lowest level-recall or remembering. No higher or challenging cognitive levels were presented, and the lesson was presented in an uninteresting manner. Classroom management was unacceptable because approximately two-thirds of the students were not on task, and the behavior was inappropriate for a classroom. This resulted in no learning taking place, and Respondent did not seem to make any attempt to correct the situation. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he gave a skills lesson which needed some demonstration. However, he simply gave the students materials and told them to do the work. He should have taken the time to give instructions and actually demonstrate what the students were to do. The activities that took place did not give the students an opportunity for participation and verbal interaction with Respondent. The students were not invited to raise questions and were not actively involved in the lesson. It was basically a teacher-directed lesson. The lesson that Respondent presented would have been an opportune one for using media, but Respondent chose not to do so. There was a great deal of confusion on the part of the learners -- they did not know what to do with the materials, and very little clarification took place. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not give the students more than a book-type exercise, which was not challenging, and only required students to recall basic information. This technique did not require them to actually think or apply the knowledge they learned. In the student folders, there was only one kind of evaluation, a dittoed workbook-type of page with mostly fill-in-the-blank type activities. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because there was not any mutual respect on the part of the students or teacher. Mr. Hanson found no improvement over his prior observation of March 19, 1982. Mr. Hanson prescribed help for Respondent, and Dr. Moore concurred with those prescriptions. It was recommended that Dr. Sullivan observe a master teacher at a school close to his and that Dr. Moore, a former social studies teacher, help in demonstrating some of the techniques needed in a social studies room. Mr. Hanson provided additional reading materials for Respondent. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Mrs. King and Mrs. Cohen on March 29, 1983. Mrs. Cohen found Respondent unacceptable in all categories, and Mrs. King found him unacceptable in all categories except teacher-student relationships. Mrs. King found that his lesson plan was much decreased in quality over her prior observation: the objectives did not reflect good planning, the activities did not fill the allotted time, and the plan was not followed. Because of these, she rated Respondent unacceptable in preparation and planning. Knowledge of the subject matter was rated unacceptable because the subject presentation was unacceptable. Information and activities were not timely and accurate, and the sequence of presentation was not logical. Interesting, unusual or important dimensions were not included, and different cognitive levels were not presented. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because many students were not on task, and behavior management was not done appropriately. Techniques of instruction was marked unacceptable because the materials that were used were inadequate for the lesson. Student participation was very minimal, and there was little, if any, discussion. Students were asked to work on information in their folders. Individual questions were asked and answered but there was no other kind of instruction taking place during the observation. Assessment techniques was marked unacceptable for there was no indication that assessment had taken place or would take place for this particular lesson. The students seemed vague as to what they were supposed to be doing. Teacher-student relationships was unacceptable because there was no attempt to involve all students in the instruction. Basically, there was no instruction. Mrs. Cohen found the same conditions that existed on her previous observation of February 16, 1982. While the method of teaching had changed, as worksheets were distributed and folders were given out, there was still no teaching occurring, there was lots of confusion, and there was little attempt to draw relationships. These things contributed to a lack of control and off task behavior. Mrs. King discussed with Respondent activities that he might use to direct the students, to establish and gain control of their behavior in the class. She recommended written assignments, discussions, and lectures, using a variety of activities that might help give direction to him and to the students in the classroom. The next formal observation was performed by Daniel McPhaul, Assistant Principal, on May 5, 1983. Mr. McPhaul found Respondent unacceptable in all categories except knowledge of subject matter. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because there were some items lacking from the lesson plans, and the lesson plan did not have objectives. Classroom management was unacceptable because there were many students who were not on task strewn about the classroom floor, the desks were out of order, and students were walking around communicating with each other while Respondent was giving instructions. Techniques of instruction was unacceptable because there was no student participation. His instructional strategies were limited. There was no use of media from the library, although some was available to him. Assessment techniques were unacceptable because the lesson ended with the ringing of the bell. There was no time allowed for assessment. He did not ask questions to see if the students understood the lesson and did not evaluate the students. Respondent was found unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because if the students were interested in receiving instructions from Respondent, they would not have been playing around and communicating with each other. Mr. McPhaul suggested that Respondent get the students on task as soon as possible. One way to do this is to have handouts or pop quizzes ready at the beginning of the class. He also suggested that Respondent communicate with parents. He suggested that the students be made to clean the classroom before leaving. On May 25, 1983, Dr. Moore dropped in to visit Respondent because of a teacher's complaint. When he got there, there were several students running out of the door. Respondent indicate that no lesson was in progress, and the students were running around because there was nothing to do. The next formal observation was performed by Dr. Moore on June 1, 1983. There was no improvement: the class was noisy and off task; the lesson did not match the lesson plan; the lesson was not attended to by most of the students; many students talked while Respondent gave instructions; and nineteen out of twenty students did not follow directions. Further, since Respondent was using an inappropriate teaching technique for a fact recall level lesson, five students did nothing, fourteen students wrote statements totally unrelated to the unit they were studying, and only one student wrote one question pertinent to the unit under study. Seven weeks into the nine-week grading period, there were no grades recorded in the grade book. Based on this there would be no way to know what a student had done or how well. There were no codes in the front of the grade book to interpret the grades. There was no basis to explain a child's grade to a parent. Dr. Moore gave Respondent copies of his summatives on or about November 12, 1982, December 17, 1982, February 10, 1983, April 11, 1983, and May 1, 1983. A summative combines the preceding two classroom observations and rates a teacher overall acceptable or unacceptable at any point in the process. All of Respondent's summatives were rated overall unacceptable. Respondent was offered help at other times as well. The assistant principal had conferences with parents of disruptive students. Mrs. Parker taught directly across the hall from Respondent and observed that at times students were completely out of control, with desks and books being thrown across the room. Respondent asked her for help, and she suggested methods of control. There was so much noise coming from Respondent's room that Mrs. Parker would put her stool in the doorway and sit there and control both her class and Respondent's class at the same time. Mrs. Griswold, Respondent's department head, taught across the hall from Respondent. At times she noted the chaos. Quite frequently the students would be talkative and on occasions they would be walking around. The noise interfered with her class to the point that she would have to close her door. She offered to help Respondent by meeting with him on several occasions to discuss lesson plans, methods of controlling students, and using different techniques. She gave him materials to help him. During the 1981-82 school year, she met frequently, on a weekly basis, to go over Respondent's lesson plans. During some time periods, Respondent's lesson plans were more than adequate; at other times, they were not adequate. During the 1981-82, Respondent was told by Dr. Moore to submit lesson plans to Mrs. Griswold. He did not always comply. When he did , Mrs. Griswold went over his lesson plans with him, checking to make sure that the materials that he was using were applicable to the students in his class. She checked to be sure he was following the course outline for social studies for seventh graders. She tried to aid him in any way she could to try to maintain discipline and control in his class. On January 28, 1982, Assistant Principal Marshall gave Respondent a memorandum which dealt with tips for teaching. Mr. Marshall then monitored Respondent with informal observations two to three times a week to see whether Respondent was utilizing the suggestions made to him. The assistant principals had to enter Respondent's room at numerous times to gain control of or restore order to the classroom. Fellow teacher Beverly Dunbar also went into Respondent's room to restore control to his class. She observed that the children were so noisy that her own students could not do their work. When she went into Respondent's room, almost all of the students in the room were out of their seats, throwing papers, books, and throwing over desks. Respondent was standing there, not saying anything to them. They were out of control. On February 5, 1982, Respondent's room was changed to the first floor so that he could be closer to the administrative offices and to relieve the classes which had been around Respondent's classroom. The assistant principals were directed to assist Respondent whenever needed to restore order to his class when it was out of control. The assistant principals removed youngsters from Respondent's classroom and offered to take others out. Mr. Villar had a conference with Respondent to set up classroom rules for him and offered suggestions on the use of a seating chart to take attendance quickly and to become familiar with where students were sitting and to notice patterns in behavior that may become disruptive. Mr. Villar tried several times to talk to Respondent about his problems, but Respondent was not responsive. Mr. Villar also suggested that Respondent observe teachers in their school and in other schools in the same academic areas. He also recommended that Mrs. Griswold assist Respondent on lesson plans, ordering materials, and making sure he had a complete set of classroom textbooks. Mrs. King had conferences with Respondent. She called these her "lay-it-on-the-line" conversations. These dealt with how to get control of the students and force them through classroom activities through discipline measures, to do what they are supposed to be doing. She gave very specific recommendations such as moving certain students and specific kinds of activities that would keep the students involved. One day she went into Respondent's class and began the class for him to show how it could be done and how students could be controlled through various methods. Dr. Moore invited Mr. Hanson, the social studies supervisor, to observe Respondent's class and make recommendations to help the situation. At one point, when the principal observed Respondent's class, the room was so noisy and the students were so off task that he suggested that Respondent work with the students regarding the necessity of self control and following directions. He further recommended that Respondent work with Assistant Principal Villar to arrange for any kind of backup he would need. Dr. Moore also gave education articles to Respondent to read. The principal followed through and arranged for observations of other teachers by Respondent. Respondent was given an opportunity to raise any questions that he had about the type of support he needed. He was given an opportunity to give the administration feedback of the things they were not doing that he would like them to do for him. Dr. Moore compiled a composite record of all the prescriptions that had been given to Respondent in order that Respondent could review them and did a demonstration lesson for Respondent as an example showing the use of techniques which were explained in the readings that were given to Respondent. In spite of all the help that was given, Respondent's class continued to interfere with other teachers' classes. Mr. May testified that the noise was so loud that his students could not hear him dictating a spelling test during a semester examination. Mr. May saw things thrown through the room, such as books, and saw students out of their chairs and totally out of control. He heard glass breaking and saw glass on the ledges of the second floor. He was also afraid that some child would go out a second floor window and recommended to Dr. Moore that Respondent's class be changed to the ground floor. There was no improvement in the control of Respondent's class after he was moved to the first floor. On the occasion that Mrs. Dunbar went up to gain control of Respondent's class, her students were prevented from doing their work by the noise coming from Respondent's room. Other teachers in Mrs. Dunbar's department complained to her, and teachers complained to the assistant principals about the noise in Respondent's room. During informal observations, Respondent fared no better than he did no his formal observations. His class was generally disorganized with 100% of the time being spent without teachings. When Mrs. Dunbar observed Respondent, he was not teaching. There was commotion going on. At times, clapping and chanting could be heard coming from Respondent's room across the courtyard. The administrators received more student and parent complaints about Respondent's class than they did about other teacher's classes. When Mrs. King walked by the halls, she would come in to help establish order in Respondent's class. Sometimes she would be sent for by Respondent or by a student or other teachers. Very often she notices that there was chaos in the classroom with students moving around without inhibition. They were talking, tossing paper, and off task. They were not involved in any kind of constructive classroom activity, and the noise level was very high. On Mrs. Cohen's informal visits to the school, she observed Dr. Moore going into Respondent's room to quiet it because someone had thrown paper outside the room. It was the consensus of opinion of the experts who observed Respondent in the classroom that there was a repeated failure on his part to communicate with and relate to the children in his classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience. Respondent has not maintained direction and discipline of students as assigned by the principal and has not kept good order in the classroom. He has not taken precautions to protect the life, health and safety of every student. On one occasion Mr. Marshall had to respond to the Respondent's classroom because of the presence of a railroad spike in the possession of one of the students. Because of the gravity of the situation, the parents of the student were contacted and additional documentation was forwarded to Dr. Moore. During the 1982-83 school year, Assistant Principal King walked by the Respondent's class and observed a student holding a chair up in the air "as if in the intent of throwing it at another student." Another time she observed a student on all fours crawling along a back counter. On those occasions Respondent was standing in the front of the class, simply observing and doing nothing to (re)gain control of the class. During the 1982-83 school year, on several occasions jalousie windows were broken in Respondent's classroom by students playing and bumping into each other. Some students complained to Assistant Principal McPhaul about the noise level and disorder in Respondent's class and the difficulty they had in doing their work due to harassment by other students who wanted to play during class. Overall, during the last two years of Respondent's service, in the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, Respondent failed to achieve an acceptable performance rating as determined by eight formal evaluations during the 1981-82 school year, done by five different evaluators, two of which were external to the work site. In the 1982-83 school year, Respondent failed to achieve an acceptable performance rating as noted on nine different formal evaluations conducted by six different evaluators, two of which were external to the school site. The administrators asked Respondent whether there were any health conditions or medical conditions which should be considered in his case. Respondent stated that health was not a factor in his classroom observations. Neither Respondent nor his wife ever communicated to the administrators that there was a health problem that interfered with Respondent's teaching. After his suspension by the School Board, Respondent was examined psychologically and was found to have an inability to organize his social events into a meaningful order. His perceptual abilities are significantly below his age level, and his functioning is significantly below what one would expect given Respondent's level of education and teaching experience. He has extreme difficulty in differentiating relevant versus nonrelevant aspects in his environment. His thinking is highly concrete, and he is unable to coordinate data and integrate them into meaningful concepts. Respondent is verbose and uses circular reasoning to eventually reach a final conclusion. Respondent's examining psychologist determined that it would be difficult for Respondent to learn new techniques for getting a class into order, it would be difficult for him to learn new ways of doing lesson plans in order to structure his classroom activities, he would have a hard time working in a school organization where he had to perceive social situations and what is going on in a classroom, he would have a difficult time dealing with teachers, administrators, and students, and he would have a hard time perceiving the motives of the administration. His perceptions are vague and amorphous, and descriptive in nature. He has inordinate difficulties in capturing the essence of what was presented to him. While there is no evidence of thought disorder, his thinking is vague, disorganized, fuzzy, and reflective of an individual with possible organic factors interfering with his thinking and organizational abilities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in Case No. 83-2649 finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Specific Notice of Charges filed against him, affirming his suspension, dismissing him from his employment, and denying him any claim for back pay. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in Case No. 83-3793 finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 112370. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 George F. Knox, Esquire Penthouse 200 Southeast First Street Miami, Florida 33129 Donald Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER (DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD) ================================================================= SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-2649 WILLIAM D. SULLIVAN, Respondent. /
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.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence submitted at hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner was a candidate for the Cosmetology Instruction Examination (Examination) given by Respondent on March 12-13, 1988. The Examination consisted of a written portion and a classroom presentation portion. Petitioner is not contesting his passing score on the written portion of the Examination. The classroom presentation portion of the Examination is divided into two parts, the lecture and demonstration portions. Respondent's notification to Petitioner indicated that he had obtained the score of 76 on the demonstration and a score of 63.6 on the lecture portion when, in fact, the Petitioner had scored just the opposite, 76 on the lecture and 63.6 on demonstration. The parties stipulated to this at the hearing. However, the correction of this error did not change Petitioner's overall grade of 70 on the classroom presentation portion of the Examination since the two scores are added together and divided by two to obtain the overall score. The minimum passing score for licensure in Florida is 75. Lecture On criteria number 5: Explained technical words, none of the graders gave Petitioner any points. Petitioner contends that he explained the necessary technical terms of words and points out places in the transcript of the tape where he explained certain terms. However, these was insufficient evidence to show those terms or words to be the technical terms or words required to be explained or if he used the required terms or words elsewhere in his lecture. On criteria number 12: Presented with minimal notes, grader 14 did not give Petitioner any points because he felt that Petitioner read from his notes and visual aids. Petitioner contends that because graders 4 and 6 gave him 2 and 4 points, respectively, on the same criteria, then grader 14 should have given him at least 2 points. There was insufficient evidence to support this contention. Demonstration On criteria number 6: Discussed safety precaution, Petitioner received 5, 2 1/2 and 0 points from graders 23, 19 and 18, respectively. Petitioner contends that he should have received 5 points from each grader and points to certain portions of the transcript of the tape to support this contention. A review of those portions of the transcript indicates that Petitioner discussed safety precautions under certain situations. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner covered all areas of safety precautions required by the examination. Therefore, there is no basis for changing the scores given by graders 19 and 18. On criteria number 7: Discussed sanitation and sterilization, Petitioner was given 0 points by all of the graders. Petitioner contends that he should have been given 5 points by each of the graders. However, there was insufficient evidence to support changing all three, or any one of the graders' score. On criteria number 11: Outlined stems to perform, Petitioner received 0, 5 and 2 1/2 points from graders 23, 19 and 18, respectively. Petitioner contends that he should have received 5 points from each grader and points to portions of the tape transcript to support such contention. A review of those portions does not reveal sufficient evidence to support Petitioner's contention or to warrant changing the grades given by graders 23 and 18. On criteria number 14: Presented with minimal reference to notes, Petitioner received 0, 5 and 0 points from graders 23, 19 and 18, respectively. Petitioner contends that the points given by graders 23 and 18 should be changed from 0 to 2 1/2 points each, and points to certain portions of the tape transcript to support his position. A review of that portion of the transcript does not reveal sufficient evidence to support changing the points given by graders 23 and 18. On criteria number 16: Summarized topic, Petitioner received 0, 5 and 0 points from graders 23, 19 and 18, respectively. Petitioner contends that his summary should have gained him 5 points from each grader and points to what he considers summarizing the topic in the tape transcript. A review of Petitioner's summary does not reveal evidence sufficient to support changing the grades of graders 23 and 18. On criteria number 19: Presented in interesting manner, Petitioner received 0, 4 and 0 points from graders 23, 19 and 18, respectively. Petitioner contends that because grader 19 found it interesting enough to give him 4 points, then graders 23 and 18 should have given him at least 2 points. There was insufficient evidence to support this position. On criteria number 21: Lesson plan followed, Petitioner received 0, 5 and 0 points from graders 23, 19 and 18, respectively. There is insufficient evidence to show that graders 23 and 18 were incorrect in assigning 0 points for Petitioner's efforts in regard to this criteria. Petitioner's lesson plan did not conform to the instructions to the candidates for the lesson plan preparation in the notice to appear and, as a result, Petitioner's lecture and demonstration were difficult to reconcile with the grading criteria in the instructions to the graders. The graders' scores were within an expected deviation and were fair a representation of Petitioner's performance.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition and finding that the Petitioner has failed to make a satisfactory score on the Classroom Presentation portion of the Cosmetology Instructor Examination. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 14th of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED IN CASE NO. 88-2464 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Not a finding of fact but rather a discussion of matters presented. Not a finding of fact but rather a discussion of matters presented Not material or relevant. Not material or relevant. Not material or relevant or is stated as a conclusion. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1-2. Covered in Background material. 3. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. COPIES FURNISHED: Vincent Turano 212 Dune Circle New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069 William A. Leffler, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to make reasonable effort to protect a student's safety, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 646554 in the area of Mentally Handicapped. For the past six or seven years, Respondent has been employed as an ESE teacher at Windy Ridge. The record contains no evidence of prior discipline of Respondent's educator certificate, but the District suspended her for five days without pay for the three incidents that are described below. For the 2012-13 school year, Respondent and four paraprofessionals taught a class of seven ESE students. The paraprofessionals performed tasks assigned to them by Respondent. Absences on December 4, 2012, reduced the class to five ESE students, Respondent, and two of the four paraprofessionals regularly assigned to Respondent's classroom. The principal assigned a substitute for one of the two absent paraprofessionals, so four adults were supervising five students on that day. One of the five students present on December 4 was D.R., who was nine and one-half years old and suffered from a "significant cognitive disability." As documented by his Individual Educational Plan (IEP), which is dated November 6, 2012, D.R.'s mother was "very concerned" about the safety of her son, who was tube-fed, "non-verbal," and able to follow only "some simple one-step commands." The IEP warns that D.R. was in a "mouthing stage," meaning that he put "everything" in his mouth for sensory input. As described in his social/developmental history, which is dated November 1, 2012, D.R.'s health was "fragile." The three incidents at issue took place during approximately one hour at midday on December 4. The first incident took place at 11:10 a.m. Serena Perrino, a District behavior trainer, was sitting alone in Ms. Barnabei's classroom, which is next to Respondent's classroom. The two classrooms are joined by the two teachers' offices, so it is possible to walk between the classrooms without entering the hallway. On a break, Ms. Perrino had turned off the lights and was on the computer at the front of Ms. Barnabei's classroom. While facing the computer monitor, Ms. Perrino heard a noise behind her, turned around, and saw D.R., by himself, seated on the floor playing with a toy. Ms. Perrino knew that he belonged in Respondent's classroom. Without delay, Ms. Perrino walked D.R. toward his classroom, but, as they were passing through the teachers' offices, Ms. Perrino and D.R. encountered one of Respondent's paraprofessionals, who said that she was "just coming to get him, thanks." The second incident took place between 11:30 a.m. and noon. Bernadette Banagale, the substitute paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom on that day, was eating lunch in a small outside courtyard that is located at the end of the hallway where Respondent's classroom is located. Ms. Banagale saw D.R., by himself, enter the courtyard from the doors at the end of the hallway. Ms. Banagale approached D.R. and, with some difficulty, walked him back to Respondent's classroom where she left him in the custody of the other two paraprofessionals, Susan Brown and Delta Porter, but not Respondent, who was not in the classroom when Ms. Banagale returned the child. The third incident took place shortly after noon. Cathy Zimmerman, a teacher, was sitting in a classroom eating lunch with another teacher. Looking out the window of the classroom, Ms. Zimmerman noticed D.R. in the adjoining breezeway, which divides the building from the school parking lot. Ms. Zimmerman did not know D.R., nor where he belonged, but she saw that he was unescorted. Approaching D.R. in the breezeway, Ms. Zimmerman guided him back through the doors leading to a hallway that, after a short distance, intersects the hallway where Respondent's classroom is located. As she was walking the child into the building, Ms. Zimmerman directed the teacher with whom she had been having lunch to enter the nearest classroom to see if anyone could identify the child. As directed, the other teacher entered Ms. Barnabei's classroom, where she found Ms. Perrino, who again took custody of D.R. and immediately returned him to Respondent's classroom where Ms. Perrino found Respondent and one or more paraprofessionals. In an effort to prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R., Petitioner offered two pieces of evidence: during direct examination, the principal prescribed that a classroom teacher is required to know at all times the location of her students, and, during cross-examination, Respondent agreed with the metaphor supplied to her by Petitioner's counsel that a classroom teacher is the "captain of the ship." The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor constitute the entirety of Petitioner's explicit analysis of the reasonableness of Respondent's effort to protect D.R. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the first incident. The principal's testimony is inapt because Petitioner failed to prove that a paraprofessional did not always know D.R.'s location; that Respondent failed to protect D.R. when a paraprofessional knew his location, regardless of whether Respondent knew his location; and that D.R.'s safety was compromised at any time during the few seconds that he was in the adjoining classroom. Respondent's testimony is inapt because Petitioner did not prove that a paraprofessional failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety, which would be a pre-condition to attributing this failure to the captain of the ship, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the second incident. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of D.R.'s escape or at any time during his ensuing absence from the classroom and failed to prove that Respondent's absence from the classroom was unauthorized. As for the absence of Respondent from the classroom at the time of the escape in the second incident, the strongest evidence is Respondent's written statement to this effect. Other evidence tends to support Respondent's written statement that she was not in the classroom at the time of the escape. Ms. Banagale's scheduled lunch was 11:30 a.m. to noon, and nothing in the record suggests that the substitute paraprofessional took her lunch at other than her scheduled time. The distance between the front door of Respondent's classroom and the exterior doors leading to the courtyard is the width of the single classroom that separates Respondent's classroom from these exterior doors, so it would not have taken D.R. long to travel from the front door of the classroom to the exterior doors leading to the courtyard. Respondent's scheduled lunch was 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., but Respondent testified that she was behind schedule when she took her lunch. She also testified that she returned to the classroom "a little after noon." Nothing in the record indicates how long Respondent took for lunch, but, if she took all of her allotted time, she likely left the classroom shortly after Ms. Banagale, leaving a very narrow window for D.R. to escape, if he were to do so after Ms. Banagale's departure, but before Respondent's departure--a fact that Petitioner has not established. The only evidence suggesting that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of D.R.'s escape comes from Respondent's testimony at the hearing to this effect. Notwithstanding the inculpatory nature of Respondent's testimony, it is impossible to credit it. Provided nearly two years after the incident, Respondent's testimony was, at times, confused and unclear, but her written statement is clear and straightforward. It would appear that, based on the findings below concerning the third incident, Respondent may have confused the second and third incidents. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the third incident. The third incident is more complicated than the first and second incidents because it is more difficult to determine exactly what Petitioner proved and the extent to which the material factual allegations extend to the proof of the third incident.2/ At minimum, Petitioner pleaded3/ and proved that D.R. escaped from the classroom, and Respondent was in the classroom at the time of the escape. Respondent gave a written statement admitting that she was present when D.R. left the classroom and that she was unaware of his departure "because my back was turned by me working with another student on the computer, [as D.R.] left out the rear door." At the hearing, Respondent testified confusingly, possibly suggesting that she was at lunch or in planning when D.R. escaped in connection with the third incident, but any such exculpatory testimony is discredited for the same reason that her inculpatory testimony regarding the second incident was rejected. As was true of the written statement in connection with the second incident, other evidence tends to support Respondent's written statement in connection with the third incident. As noted in the discussion of the second incident, Respondent returned to the classroom "a little after noon." At this point, Respondent, Ms. Banagale, and Ms. Brown were in the classroom. Ms. Porter's scheduled lunch was from noon to 12:30 p.m., and nothing in the record suggests that she did not take her lunch as scheduled. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, analysis of whether Respondent failed to meet a reasonableness standard may be facilitated by consideration of the burden of taking precautions sufficient to prevent an escape, the probability of an escape, and the magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety, if he escaped. The burden of taking additional precautions was not insubstantial. The classroom has three exits, and D.R. used each of them in connection with the three incidents. In the first incident, as noted above, D.R. used a side exit through the teachers' offices to get to the adjoining classroom of Ms. Barnabei. In the second incident, D.R. used the front door to get to the courtyard. In the third incident, D.R. used the rear door to access the adjoining breezeway, where Ms. Zimmerman found him no more than 75 feet from the rear door. Evidence suggests that locking the doors at each of these exits was forbidden, possibly due to fire regulations. Although three adults were supervising only five ESE students at the moment of D.R.'s escape in the third incident, the paraprofessional who normally taught D.R. one-on-one at the time of the escape was absent. It is not entirely clear how long Respondent was in the classroom before D.R. escaped, but Respondent was performing instructional duties at the moment of the escape, so additional attention by Respondent to security would have meant reduced instruction, at least of the child whom she was teaching one-on-one at the time of the escape; this adds to the burden of taking escape precautions.4/ The probability of D.R.'s escape was demonstrably very high, as evidenced by his three escapes in a single hour on December 4. The magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety from an escape is difficult to assess. D.R. was a medically fragile, highly vulnerable child. However, he suffered no injuries in any of the three escapes that are the subject of this case. The magnitude of the threat posed to D.R.'s safety from escaping was thus low. Considering that the burden of taking additional precautions was moderate, the probability of escape was high, and the magnitude of threat to D.R.'s safety from an escape was low, it is impossible to find that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety by preventing the escape in connection with the third incident. The analysis in the preceding paragraphs focuses on Respondent's failure at the moment of D.R.'s escape, not on the duration of his absence from the classroom and any ongoing failure to notice that the child was missing from the classroom. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner did not plead these failures as grounds for disciplining Respondent, but, in an abundance of caution, the following findings address these alternative grounds for determining that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety in connection with the third incident. There is no direct evidence of how long D.R. was out of the classroom in connection with the third incident. There is only one point in time established by direct evidence: Ms. Zimmerman first saw the child at 12:10 p.m. There is no direct evidence of when D.R. escaped from the classroom, nor could there have been such evidence from the known witnesses. Ms. Zimmerman's written statement notes that all of the physical education teachers, which may include her, were in the area of the breezeway from noon to 12:07 p.m., and they never saw D.R. Ms. Zimmerman's statement implies that someone would have seen D.R. if he had been anywhere in the breezeway by himself. Although Ms. Zimmerman could have estimated how long she had the child before turning him over to Ms. Perrino, no one asked her to do so.5/ And there is no other direct evidence of how long Ms. Zimmerman had the child. Based on the evidence cited in the preceding paragraph, D.R. escaped the classroom between 12:08 p.m. and 12:10 p.m. and returned to the classroom between 12:11 p.m. and 12:13 p.m. Limiting inferences to those supported by clear and convincing evidence, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the earliest that D.R. left the classroom was 12:09 p.m., and the latest that D.R. returned to the classroom was 12:11 p.m. This means that Petitioner has proved that D.R. was absent from the classroom for no more than two minutes: one minute by himself and one minute accompanied by Ms. Zimmerman. The burden of taking adequate precautions to detect the child's absence and return him to the safety of the classroom is lower than the burden of preventing the escape, which can occur in a few seconds, although it is difficult to assess what exactly would have been required of Respondent to conduct a search or, by notifying school administrators, to cause a search to be conducted. The burden of preventing an escape is much greater than the burden of noticing, within two minutes, that a child is missing from a five-student classroom. The magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety rises the longer that he is out of the classroom, especially unescorted. Presenting a closer case than the pleaded case involving only an escape, the claim that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort, when directed to the length of time that D.R. was out of the classroom, requires consideration of any effort that Respondent made during D.R.'s absence. The duration of D.R.'s absence is thus linked to whether Respondent noticed that D.R. was missing and, if so, what Respondent did upon discovering that he was gone. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, because inferences are limited to those supported by clear and convincing evidence, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent and the paraprofessionals failed to notice that D.R. was missing. There is no direct evidence that Respondent and the paraprofessionals failed to notice that D.R. was missing from the classroom. The record lacks admissions from Respondent and the two paraprofessionals in the classroom during the third incident that they were unaware of D.R.'s absence.6/ Both Ms. Zimmerman and Ms. Perrino testified that they did not see anyone in the vicinity of the classroom looking for D.R., and this testimony is credited, but supports no more than an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults in the classroom were not looking for the child, and does not support even an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults in the classroom had failed to notice that D.R. was missing. Ms. Perrino testified that when she returned D.R. to the classroom, none of the adults present seemed to have realized that the child had been missing. This testimony is credited, but, lacks important detail, including on what this testimony is based and whether this observation applied to Respondent, so as to support no more than an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults had not noticed that D.R. was missing. Thus, even if Petitioner has pleaded the duration of D.R.'s absence and a failure to notice the absence of the student as grounds for determining that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect his safety, Petitioner failed to prove these claims by clear and convincing evidence
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's educator certificate should be disciplined for a confrontation, in the presence of students, that she had with a colleague and an administrator.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida educator certificate number 725822. She has been employed as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County School Board for 17 years. During the 2010-11 school year, Respondent taught sixth-grade science at Thomas Jefferson Middle School, which is operated by the Miami-Dade County School Board. At the time of the hearing, Respondent stood at 63 inches and weighed 145 pounds. Marie Wallace is a reading coach. She has 11 years' experience in education, including seven years as a reading coach at Thomas Jefferson Middle School, where she also worked during the 2010-11 school year. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Wallace stood at 60 inches and weighed 140 pounds. Patrick Lacouty is an assistant principal at Thomas Jefferson Middle School. He has been employed in various professional capacities by the Miami-Dade County School Board for 15 years. Given his limited role in the confrontation between Respondent and Ms. Wallace, described infra, Mr. Lacouty's size is irrelevant. On March 11, 2010, FCAT testing was taking place at Thomas Jefferson Middle School. Respondent's science classes were scheduled for first, third, and fifth periods on that day. The fifth period class started around 2:00 pm. The administration had selected Respondent's classroom as a location for FCAT testing. This testing proceeded without incident at all times that Respondent's classroom actually hosted testing. The confrontation between Respondent and Ms. Wallace arose after FCAT testing had been completed on March 11. After being informed that her classroom would be used for FCAT testing during first and third periods on March 11, Respondent planned alternative locations for these classes. Respondent took her first-period class to the auditorium and her smaller second-period class to the science lab. Respondent was informed that her classroom would be available for her fifth- period class. Third period immediately preceded lunch. Either during class or lunch, Respondent checked her classroom and found Ms. Wallace packing up her materials. Respondent asked her if she was done with the classroom, and Ms. Wallace replied that she was and that she would send some students to rearrange the desks and tables to their normal classroom configuration. When Respondent returned to the classroom shortly prior to the start of fifth period, she was displeased to find that the desks and tables were not back in their normal places. Respondent instructed a few waiting students to move the furniture and told the rest to remain in the hallway. Ms. Wallace returned to the classroom at this time, and Respondent complained loudly that Ms. Wallace had not rearranged the room, as she had promised and as she had found it. According to Ms. Wallace, her behavior at all times during this incident was exemplary. However, her testimony to this effect is not credited for the reasons set forth below. Ms. Wallace testified that it was normal for a teacher not to rearrange a classroom, essentially admitting that she had not returned the classroom furniture to its original configuration. Ms. Wallace's testimony that it is normal for a teacher not to rearrange a classroom is not credited. Ms. Wallace appears to have an imperfect understanding as to customary practices concerning the temporary uses of classrooms. Ms. Wallace complained that Respondent had locked up some supplies, also contrary to custom, but Respondent explained persuasively that she had locked up those supplies because she had purchased them with her own money and, from time to time, they were removed without authorization by persons unknown to her. Respondent and Ms. Wallace briefly disagreed over the location of the furniture in the classroom and whose job it was to restore the original configuration. The situation was exacerbated by a mutual feeling of disrespect that each employee had for the other. In her statement, Ms. Wallace eagerly described incidents taking place at undetermined times prior to the incident. She clearly has determined that Respondent has behaved unprofessionally for a long time. As is obvious from what Respondent said to Ms. Wallace, discussed infra, it is equally plain that Respondent does not hold Ms. Wallace in high regard either. Some tension may have developed between the two employees given Respondent's role as a steward in the teachers' union and Ms. Wallace's selection by the district office to serve as its professional liaison to the classroom teachers. According to her statement and testimony, Ms. Wallace recounts only three things said by Respondent during the confrontation. The first was a directive to her students to remain outside the classroom. The second was directed at Ms. Wallace: "Go! Be gone, go away! By the way, you don't do anything. You don't have a clue." The third was an invitation from Respondent to Ms. Wallace to return the next morning so Respondent could show her how to test students without moving any classroom furniture. Around the time that Respondent told Ms. Wallace to leave the classroom, Mr. Lacouty appeared. He told Respondent not to misbehave in front of the students. Respondent held out her hands in front of her and said, "I will deal with you later," as she returned to her classroom to set it up for her waiting class. Mr. Lacouty instructed her students to go inside the classroom and left the area. Ms. Wallace has characterized Respondent as "ranting and raving" and "deranged," but has only recounted the statements set forth supra as to the contents of Respondent's ranting. However, Respondent's directive to her students to remain outside the classroom and her demand for Ms. Wallace to leave the classroom so she could do what Ms. Wallace had agreed to do and get to work teaching her class were not irrational. A parenthetical observation followed by an invitation to return the following day do not suggest the ravings of someone deranged. Ms. Wallace's characterization of Respondent as "ranting and raving" and "deranged" is not credited. Ms. Wallace's credibility also suffers in her description of her feelings during this confrontation. In her statement, Ms. Wallace reported, "I felt that my safety along with the safety of the student who witnesses this entire display was threatened by [Respondent's] irrational behavior." Ms. Wallace added: "In addition, as a larger built woman, I felt that she was using her size . . . to instigate a fight in the presence of the students." Questioning during the hearing clarified this statement to mean that Respondent, not Ms. Wallace, the reading coach, was the larger-built woman. But as noted supra, the women are of approximate equal size. Ms. Wallace's statement about her safety being threatened is entirely disingenuous. She testified at the hearing that she was unafraid of Respondent, who does not impress as a woman capable of inflicting physical injury on another adult. The disingenuous statement of Ms. Wallace about her safety is linked with her statement about her fear for the students' safety. This statement is also disingenuous. At hearing, when asked about the reaction of the students to the exchange between the two employees, Ms. Wallace testified that she based her conclusory opinion that the students were "terrified" on the facts that she could see the faces of the students sitting along the outside wall of the classroom and that the students were seated "timidly." But other facts speak more loudly than Ms. Wallace's conclusory testimony concerning the impact of this confrontation on the students. First, not a single student testified at the hearing. Second, as noted supra, Mr. Lacouty formed his own opinion as to the safety of Respondent's students when, after witnessing the incident, he merely instructed them to return to Respondent's classroom. If Respondent had posed a risk to her students' safety, Mr. Lacouty would have relieved Respondent of her duties that afternoon and assigned another teacher to the class. At hearing, Mr. Lacouty failed to provide any details of students' reaction to whatever part of this relatively brief exchange they may have witnessed. Third, the principal testified that Ms. Wallace reported to her only that the students were staring, wondering what was going to happen. Fourth, Respondent testified that instruction proceeded in normal fashion for this class for the rest of the term. On these facts, there is no basis to find any impact to the students who may have witnessed all or part of a frustrated exchange between two teachers during the week of FCAT testing. Just a few months later, the school principal assigned Respondent and Ms. Wallace to attend a summer workshop together in Orlando that summer. This decision suggests that the confrontation between the two employees was not as significant as Petitioner alleges. Respondent and Ms. Wallace are examples of different kinds of nonresponsive witnesses. Repeatedly, Respondent would not answer simple questions; instead, she answered questions that she wanted to answer. She was evasive and stubborn. Ms. Wallace was nonresponsive in a different way. Answering the question posed to her, she would then enthusiastically answer what she anticipated would be the next several questions. She was less a witness than a prosecutorial assistant, who seized the opportunity to obtain justice for years of what she perceived to be Respondent's unprofessional behavior. The credibility of Respondent was further undermined by repeated inconsistencies in her testimony and statements. Not to be undone, though, Ms. Wallace's credibility, at least as to her claim that she never lost her composure, was undermined by her repeated losses of composure while testifying. Because Ms. Wallace became agitated in the controlled environment of an administrative hearing, it is very likely that she also become agitated during the confrontation itself, especially given her longstanding list of grievances concerning Respondent.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner dismiss the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street, Suite E Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Jana Lantz Post Office Box 813853 Hollywood, Florida 33081
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has violated Sections 231.28(1)(b), 231.28(1)(f), and 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate number 335745. He is certified to teach Social Science Education through June 30, 1998. The Duval County School District employed Respondent as a teacher at Highlands Middle School for the 1993-1994 school year. Respondent taught geography during his first period class at the middle school. On or about February 10, 1994, a student in Respondent's classroom, C. L., was talking to a student in an adjacent classroom through a hole in the wall. Respondent lost his temper and threw a geography book at C. L., hitting him in the head. Respondent's testimony that the book slipped from his hand is not persuasive. After the book-throwing incident, the Duval County School District transferred Respondent from Highlands Middle School to the district's book depository. Two months later, the school district transferred Respondent to Joseph Stilwell Middle School for the remainder of the 1993-1994 school year. The principal of Highlands Middle School, George Reynolds, prepared Respondent's annual evaluation on March 1, 1994. Mr. Reynolds found that Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in the following two areas: (a) demonstrates ability to utilize appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; and (b) shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining positive school environment. These ratings resulted in a deduction of four points and an overall "unsatisfactory" evaluation. Mr. Reynolds, however, inadvertently marked Respondent's overall evaluation as "satisfactory." The Duval County School District transferred Respondent to Landon Middle School for the 1994-1995 school year. Within weeks, it became apparent that Respondent had difficulty controlling the students in his classes. In September 1994, Respondent called one of his student's a "trashy kid." During a subsequent parent-teacher conference, Respondent referred to his students as "bad" kids. As to classroom control, he stated that "a teacher can only do so much" and that "his hands were tied." After the parent-teacher conference, the Landon Middle School principal, Elaine Mann, had a conference with Respondent. During this conference, Respondent stated again that he had trouble maintaining classroom control because he had a number of bad students. Ms. Mann and Respondent agreed that she would observe his second period class on October 3, 1994. Ms. Mann observed Respondent's sixth grade World History class on the agreed date. Respondent's performance during this observation was unsatisfactory in the following ways: (a) Respondent allowed students to spend too much time on one activity; (b) Respondent's lesson did not include a way to evaluate classwork; (c) Respondent's lesson did not include an introduction or summary; (d) Respondent's lecture was disjointed; and (e) Respondent's stated objectives were not appropriate. In a memorandum dated October 6, 1994, Ms. Mann described Respondent's strengths and weaknesses and included recommendations to improve his teaching techniques. Ms. Mann conducted a conference with Respondent on October 10, 1994, to discuss her observations and recommendations. Ms. Mann observed Respondent's eight grade U.S. History class on November 14, 1994. For the second time, Ms. Mann found that Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory. A memorandum dated November 16, 1994, lists the following weaknesses: (a) Respondent did not require students to be in class on time; (b) Respondent wasted instructional time; (c) Respondent permitted students to sleep in class; (d) Respondent did not introduce the lesson or use a handout appropriately; (e) Respondent's lecture/discussion lacked organization; (f) Respondent turned his back to one side of the room for most of the period; and (g) Respondent only interacted with six students. Ms. Mann provided Respondent with a written memorandum dated November 16, 1994, setting forth his strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for improvement. She advised Respondent that she would request assistance for him from the Professional Development office. Ms. Mann wanted that office to establish a support team to work on a "success plan" to improve Respondent's performance. Ms. Mann set a goal for Respondent to achieve a satisfactory evaluation by March 15, 1995. On January 3, 1995, Ms. Mann observed Respondent's class informally. She found that the students were not under control. Their behavior towards Respondent was disrespectful. Ms. Mann and Respondent signed a written success plan on January 11, 1995. The plan included strategies to meet the following objectives: (a) demonstrate effective classroom management skills; and (b) demonstrate effective presentation of subject matter. A member of the support team, Marlene Rasmussen, observed Respondent on January 19, 1995 and January 23, 1995. The focus of the observations was Domain Four, presentation of subject matter. Based on her observations, Ms. Rasmussen recommended that Domain One, lesson planning, be added to Respondent's success plan. Ms. Rasmussen also recommended that Respondent attend a workshop to learn effective teaching behaviors. Ms. Mann arranged for Respondent to attend this three-day workshop. On January 13, 1995, Ms. Mann received a complaint that Respondent used the word "shit" in addressing a student in his class. Ms. Mann admonished Respondent regarding his inappropriate language in a written memorandum dated January 30, 1997. Peggy Clark, a member of the in-service support cadre, provided assistance to Respondent beginning in February 1995. She worked with Respondent in the area of lesson planning. Ms. Clark observed Respondent's classroom performance on two occasions. She conducted two post-observation conferences with Respondent. Ms. Clark was unable to complete her duties in assisting Respondent because of his absences. Louise Peaks, the eight-grade house administrator, was a member of Respondent's success team. As a resource person, she assisted him, on an informal basis, by providing him with feedback from his student disciplinary referrals. She counseled him during casual conversations in the hallway and in his classroom. Respondent never implemented any of the advice or suggestions that Ms. Peaks gave him. Ms. Peaks received complaints from Respondent's fellow teachers concerning his failure to follow school procedures. He allowed his students to come and go as they pleased. His classroom was very disorganized. Pat Barker, the sixth-grade house administrator, was a member of Respondent's success team. She observed him on March 10, 1995, and March 13, 1995. Ms. Barker found that Respondent's students were disorganized. She saw no evidence of classroom management. According to Ms. Barker, Respondent appeared to be unaware whether certain students were in or out of the room. Ms. Barker observed that a majority of the students were uninvolved in Respondent's lesson. Some of the students were asleep. Respondent was not alert to student misbehavior. Ms. Mann issued her annual evaluation of Respondent on March 15, 1995. She found that his over-all performance was unsatisfactory. Specifically, Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in the following areas: (a) demonstrates ability to plan and deliver instruction; (b) demonstrates ability to utilize appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (c) shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining positive school environment; (d) demonstrates abilities to evaluate instructional needs of students; and (e) shows evidence of professional characteristics. On May 26, 1995, Ms. Mann received a written complaint from the teacher whose classroom was located above Respondent's classroom. The complaint concerned disturbing noise from Respondent's room on May 25 and 26, 1995, days during which standardized tests were being administered. Following receipt of Ms. Mann's evaluation, Respondent requested a transfer to another school for the 1995/1996 school year. In response to this request, the Duval County School District transferred Respondent to Paxon Middle School. On August 24, 1995, Respondent's new principal, Quentin Messer, held a private conference with Respondent to develop a plan to improve Respondent's teaching performance. That same day, a written success plan was signed by Respondent and Mr. Messer. The objective of the plan was to provide Respondent with assistance in demonstrating effective classroom management skills and effective presentation of subject matter. The success plan identified support team members, outlined strategies to meet the objectives, and set timelines for completion of proposed activities. Ms. Arnette Smith was a cadre assistant and trainer from the Professional Development office during the 1995/1996 school year. On September 18, 1995, Ms. Smith received a request to assist Respondent in improving his lesson planning skills. Ms. Smith met with Respondent and Dr. Ben Titus, assistant principal, on September 22, 1995. During this meeting, Ms. Smith reviewed Respondent's success plan and arranged a time for an informal observation in Respondent's classroom. In a subsequent meeting, Respondent and Ms. Smith discussed the ways she could assist him with his lesson plans. Respondent expressed a negative attitude toward his students during his conversations with Ms. Smith. He told her that his students did not have values and did not want to learn. Ms. Smith observed Respondent informally on October 11, 1995. After the observation, Ms. Smith discussed her suggestions with Respondent and provided him with a copy of her notes, which outlined specific recommendations. Ms. Smith offered to demonstrate the planning and teaching methods that Respondent could use to enhance his classroom effectiveness. Principal Messer observed Respondent formally and informally through out the 1995/1996 school year. Most of his informal observations were in response to complaints from students, parents, and other teachers. On October 25, 1995, Mr. Messer conducted his first formal observation of Respondent. Mr. Messer found that Respondent's performance was at the lowest or next to the lowest level in 17 out of 24 criteria. Mr. Messer found that Respondent's lesson plan, consisting of one word, was inadequate. Respondent wasted valuable class time collecting papers, sharpening pencils, and arguing with students. Mr. Messer noted that there was no rapport between Respondents and his students. Ms. Smith, personnel development cadre assistant, met with Respondent again on November 7, 1995. The purpose of the meeting was to prepare for her observation of Respondent's class at a later time. Ms. Smith and Respondent reviewed the planning- data form in detail. She advised Respondent to have the form complete prior to the planned observation on November 9, 1995. After observing Respondent on November 9, 1995, Ms. Smith found that Respondent needed improvement in thirteen of twenty-four indicators. Respondent had not adopted or followed any of Ms. Smith's suggestions. He was inadequately prepared and had not completed the planning documents. Ms. Patricia Downs, house administrator of the sixth grade, provided Respondent with assistance in the 1995/1996 school year. She conducted formal and informal observations of Respondent in November 1995, in the area of classroom management, Domain Two. Classroom management was an area of concern due to the number of complaints received from students, parents, and faculty regarding the noise and confusion in Respondent's classroom. Ms. Downs observed Respondent's sixth grade social studies class on November 13, 1995. During that observation, Respondent exhibited a total of 10 effective behaviors and 44 ineffective behaviors. For example, she observed that students were sleeping, working off-task, and otherwise not participating in the lesson, while Respondent proceeded as if those students were not present. The following day, November 14, 1995, Ms. Downs reviewed her findings with Respondent. She discussed specific incidences showing Respondent's lack of classroom control and made suggestions to improve his classroom management. On December 4, 1995, Mr. Messer made a written suggestion that Respondent contact the Duval County School Board's Wellness Center because he appeared nervous and disoriented. On February 6, 1996, Mr. Messer conducted his second formal observation of Respondent. Mr. Messer concluded that Respondent's performance was only marginally satisfactory. That same day, Mr. Messer advised Respondent that if his performance was not elevated to an acceptable level by March 15, 1996, he would be given an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1995/1996 school year. Mr. Messer continued to observe Respondent informally after February 6, 1996. Based on these informal observations, Mr. Messer concluded that Respondent had not improved over the course of the school year in any of his areas of deficiency. Principal Messer asked Dr. Titus, assistant principal of Paxon Middle School, to assist Respondent with his success plan. Dr. Titus coordinated cadre support for Respondent. On March 7, 1996, Dr. Titus observed Respondent in his classroom. When Dr. Titus arrived for the observation, three students in the hall said that Respondent would not let them enter the room. Respondent explained that he closed the door because the students were late. During his observation, Dr. Titus noted a lack of order, confusion, and negative interaction between Respondent and his students. A majority of the students were off-task because Respondent had no apparent system for classroom management. Respondent's performance was very unsatisfactory. Ms. Downs, sixth-grade house administrator, observed Respondent for the second time on March 8, 1996. She again concluded that Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory. Ms. Downs reviewed her observations with Respondent on March 13, 1996. During that meeting, Respondent told Ms. Downs that he considered the school to be a "cesspool." He also stated that the students were impossible to teach. On March 29, 1996, Mr. Messer issued an overall unsatisfactory annual evaluation for Respondent. This decision was based on the results of Mr. Messer's formal and informal observations and the input he received from Dr. Titus, Ms. Smith, and Ms. Downs. Pursuant to a resignation agreement with the Duval County School District, Respondent resigned his employment effective June 12, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 14 South Ninth Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Francis W. Keefe 6176 Fordham Circle Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Cynthia A. Foy (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint; whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of Subsection 1012.795(1)(b), (c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2003),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e) and (5)(d); and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed on Respondent's teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent, Cynthia Foy, holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 468641, covering the areas of early childhood education, elementary education, and English to speakers of other languages, which is valid through June 30, 2007. Respondent had been employed with the Hillsborough County School Board 17 years as of the 2002-2003 school term. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a first-grade teacher at Colson Elementary School (Colson) in the Hillsborough County School District (School District). Respondent worked as a teacher at Colson for about five years, beginning the 1998-1999 school year. During her employment in the School District, including her employment at Colson, Respondent never had any disciplinary action taken against her. From 1986 through 1996, Respondent consistently received satisfactory ratings on her annual teacher evaluations, except for one school year when she had three deaths in her family, including the sudden death of her father and of her 38-year-old brother. Respondent's Absences Respondent was absent from work 22 days during the 1998-1999 school year, her first year at Colson. Some of the absences were related to Respondent's health issues. However, most of Respondent's absences were related to her mother's illness. During the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent's mother was confined to a nursing home and had become very ill and frail. Due to her mother's failing health, Respondent wanted to be with her mother, to watch and take care of her. Also, even though Respondent's mother was in a nursing home, Respondent was responsible for taking her mother to her own doctors to make sure she got the proper care. During the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent was absent from work 13.5 days. Respondent's mother died during that school year. As a result, Respondent missed 13.5 days to deal with matters related to her mother's death. During the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years, Respondent was absent from school for 19.45 and 16 days, respectively. These absences were because of Respondent's own health issues. During these school years, Respondent was under an extreme amount of stress due to what she perceived to be a hostile work environment at school. Mary Clark, principal of Colson, was concerned about Respondent's absences and specifically noted this concern on all of Respondent's evaluations, which are at issue in this proceeding. The reasons for Respondent's absences were not disputed, and there is no assertion that the absences were unauthorized. However, Mrs. Clark believed that Respondent's absences resulted in the lack of continuity of instruction and negatively impacted the learning of students in Respondent's first-grade classes. Mrs. Clark testified that because of their concern about their children's progress, some parents requested that their children be transferred from Respondent's class to another first-grade class. Records of such requests and actual transfers were not presented at hearing. However, Mrs. Clark recalled that at least one student had been transferred from Respondent's class. Whether the only reason for the transfer was Respondent's absences is unclear. Notwithstanding Mrs. Clark's concern and belief that Respondent's absences had a negative impact on the students in her class, no basis for this concern was established. To the contrary, during Respondent's tenure at Colson, her students consistently performed well academically as reflected by their scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, a nationally normed test. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Stanford Achievement Test was used by the School District to assess first-grade students' achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the test was administered to first-grade students at Colson in March or April of each school year. In March 2000, there were four first-grade classes at Colson. Of those four classes, Respondent's students made the highest scores in both the reading section and the math section of the Stanford Achievement Test. The results of the Stanford Achievement Test administered in April 2001, reflect that of the four first-grade classes, the students in Respondent's class made significantly higher scores in both reading and mathematics than the students in the other three first-grade classes. As of April 2002, Colson had six first-grade classes. Of the six first-grade classes, Respondent's class ranked first on the reading section and second on the mathematics section of the Stanford Achievement Test. Respondent's Annual Performance Evaluations The School District utilizes the Classroom Certificated Instructional Effectiveness Evaluation Form (Evaluation Form), which has been approved by the Hillsborough County School Board (School Board) as the instrument by which its teachers are evaluated. Typically, tenured teachers with professional service contracts are evaluated annually, but if the tenured teacher is experiencing difficulties in the classroom, the school administrator may evaluate the teacher more than once a year. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Evaluation Form consisted of the following categories in which teachers are evaluated: Category I, Planning and Preparation, which includes six subsections or areas; Category II, Professional Behaviors, which includes 12 areas; Category III, Techniques of Instruction, which includes 15 areas; Category IV, Classroom Management, which includes seven areas; and Category V, Instructional Effectiveness, which includes one area. The Evaluation Form requires that the teacher's performance in each area be rated as "satisfactory," "needs improvement," or "unsatisfactory." The highest possible rating is "satisfactory," and the lowest rating is "unsatisfactory." In addition to the areas under the various categories in which teachers are rated, the evaluation requires that the teacher be given an "overall rating" of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory." As principal of Colson, one of Mrs. Clark's responsibilities was to supervise and evaluate the teachers at the school. Consistent with that responsibility, Mrs. Clark supervised and evaluated Respondent. Mrs. Clark evaluated Respondent once in the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 school years, usually in April. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mrs. Clark evaluated Respondent twice, in December 2001 and in March 2002. Mrs. Clark decided to evaluate Respondent twice in the 2001-2002 school year. Given Respondent's status as a tenured teacher and Mrs. Clark's "concerns over the years with her performance," by evaluating Respondent in the fall, Mrs. Clark would be able to give Respondent notice of the areas in which she still needed to improve. During the period between the fall evaluation and the spring evaluation, Respondent would have an opportunity to work to improve in those areas.2/ The ratings assigned to Respondent's performance on each of the Evaluation Forms are based on data that is collected by Mrs. Clark through her observations and while "walking into [the] classroom on a regular basis." The Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 through the 2001-2002 school years indicated that she needed to improve in specified areas under the following categories: Category II, Professional Behavior; Category III, Techniques of Instruction; and Category IV, Classroom Management.3/ Although Respondent worked at Colson during the 2002-2003 School year, there is no evidence that she was evaluated that year as required by law. If an evaluation was completed for that school year, the Administrative Complaint does not allege that the evaluation indicated any areas in which Respondent needed to improve. Professional Behavior The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received several evaluations from 1999 through 2002 that indicated she needed to improve in the following areas under the Professional Behavior category: 1) observes confidentiality related to students; 2) works cooperatively and supportively with school staff; and 3) responds reasonably to and acting appropriately to constructive criticism. With regard to the first area of concern, "observes confidentiality related to students," none of Respondent’s evaluations for the relevant time period, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years, indicated that she needed to improve in that area. In fact, contrary to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, all five of Respondent's evaluations for that time period indicate that her performance in that area was rated as "satisfactory." The second area under Professional Behaviors in which it is alleged that Respondent's evaluations indicated she needed to improve is "works cooperatively and supportively with school staff." Respondent's evaluations for her first three school years at Colson--1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001--reflect that her performance in the area, "works cooperatively with school staff," was "satisfactory." However, after receiving "satisfactory" ratings in this area for three consecutive years, for the first time, Respondent's evaluation for the 2001-2002 school year indicated that Respondent needed to improve in this area.4/ The evaluations gave no reason for the "needs improvement" rating in the area, "works cooperatively with school staff," on Respondent's December 2001 and April 2002 evaluations. Although no specific basis for the rating is given on the evaluation, it is noted that these evaluations coincide with the area supervisor's observations. The third area under the Professional Behavior category in which it is alleged that Respondent received several evaluations that indicated she needed to improve is the area, "responds reasonably to and acts appropriately upon constructive criticism." Contrary to this allegation, none of Respondent's evaluations indicated that she needed to improve in this area. Rather, Respondent's performance in the area, "responds reasonably to and acts appropriately upon constructive criticism," was rated as "satisfactory" on all five of the evaluations she received during the relevant time period. Techniques of Instruction The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received several evaluations that indicated she needed to improve in the following areas under the Technique of Instruction category: (1) uses instructional time efficiently; presents subject matter effectively; and (3) uses praise appropriately. Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years indicated that Respondent needed to improve in the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." As a possible rationale for the rating assigned in the 1998-1999 evaluation, Mrs. Clark wrote on the evaluation, "I am concerned about the slow pace of her lesson as well as the pacing through reading." The evaluations for the 2000-2001 and the 2001-2002 school years gave no rationale for the "needs improvement" rating in the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." Additionally, there is no indication that Mrs. Clark told Respondent the basis of the rating or offered any recommendations as to how Respondent could improve in this area. Upon Respondent's receiving the December 2001 and the March 2002 evaluations, she requested, in writing, a detailed written explanation of the basis for each of the "needs improvement" ratings, which included the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." There is no evidence that Mrs. Clark ever provided the requested explanation. Additionally, the evidence does not establish a basis for the "needs improvement" rating in this area. The next area at issue under the Techniques of Instruction category is, "presents subject matter effectively." Respondent's evaluations for the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 school years indicate that Respondent needed to improve in this area. However, neither the evaluation, nor any evidence at the hearing, offered or established a basis for this rating. On Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 school year, and most recently for the 2001-2002 school year, her performance in the area, "presents subject matter effectively," was rated as "satisfactory." Clearly, the "satisfactory" ratings on the December 2001 and March 2002 evaluations, which were for the 2001-2002 school year, marked an improvement over Respondent's ratings in that category for the immediate prior two school years. Finally, it is alleged that the third area under the Techniques of Instruction category in which Respondent's evaluations indicated she needed to improve is, "uses praise appropriately." Respondent's evaluation for 1998-1999, her first year at Colson, indicated that she needed to improve in this area. The next three school years, however, Respondent's performance in this area improved to "satisfactory," as reflected by the four evaluations for the 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years. Classroom Management Under the category, Classroom Management, it is alleged that Respondent's evaluations indicated that she needed to improve in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self- esteem." On Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 school years, her first two years at Colson, Respondent's performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was rated "satisfactory." Respondent's evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year indicated that her performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was unsatisfactory. It is specifically found that the Administrative Complaint makes no allegations regarding the "unsatisfactory" rating. Accordingly, except for limited purposes, issues related to that rating will not be addressed. Respondent's performance in the area, "enhancing and maintaining students' self-esteem," improved in the 2001-2002 school year from "unsatisfactory" to "needs improvement," as reflected in both her December 2001 and April 2002 evaluations. Instructional Effectiveness The Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent's evaluations reflect that she needs to improve in the Instructional Effectiveness category. However, in order to present a more complete picture of Respondent's performance, as rated on her evaluations, this category and Respondent's ratings thereunder are considered. The Instructional Effectiveness category includes only one area, "promotes academic learning which results in improved student performance."5/ This area is concerned with and assesses whether actual learning is taking place as a result of the teacher's instruction. 39. For the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years, Respondent's performance in the area, "promotes academic learning which results in improved student performance," is rated as "satisfactory." Overall Rating Category Respondent's "overall rating" in all five of her evaluations for the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001- 2002 was "satisfactory." 6/ Transfer of Student to Respondent's Class (January 2001) In January 2001, a student, F.R., was transferred to Respondent's class from another first grade class because of his behavioral problems. When such a transfer takes place, the teacher to whom the student is being transferred is given prior notice that the student is being assigned to her class. In this instance, that was not done. Respondent was not informed in advance that F.R. was being transferred to her class. On the first day the students returned to school from winter break, F.R. just "showed up" in Respondent's class. Later, Respondent was told that the child was transferred to her class because he was having peer conflict problems, and, as a result, he was acting out. Respondent was told that the student’s acting out behavior included such things as spitting on children, stabbing children with forks, knocking things off the children's desks, and having outbursts. Respondent thought this was a new chance for the child, and she attempted to make the new class assignment work. For example, rather than isolate the child, as his former teacher had recommended, Respondent assigned F.R. to a seat between two very well-behaved little girls, who she knew would never say anything mean to him. Despite Respondent's efforts to work with F.R., he exhibited lashing out and angry behaviors. Due to F.R.'s exhibiting lashing out behavior, Respondent was concerned for the safety of the other students in the class. In January or early February 2001, Respondent shared her concern with Mrs. Clark and asked that F.R. be removed from her class. Mrs. Clark responded that F.R. was just a little boy and said, "Let's see how he does." No offers for assistance were made, and Respondent felt that her request was simply ignored. Later, in January or early February 2001, as Respondent's class lined up and walked to the lunchroom, F.R. deliberately "high stepped and slid on the heels" of the child in front of him. When Respondent asked F.R. to stop, he just laughed, looked at Respondent, and repeated the behavior. Respondent told F.R. to stand out on the side of the line and walk with her. At first he complied, but then he started to get back in the line. Respondent then told F.R., "You're walking with me." After F.R. ignored Respondent, she took his hand so that he could walk with her. F.R. then yanked and pulled Respondent's fingers back, kicked Respondent "really hard" in the upper ankle, and "took off running." Respondent reported the incident to Mrs. Clark and the vice-principal and completed an incident report, reporting her injury and indicating her belief that F.R.'s behavior described in paragraph 44 constituted an assault/battery. After the incident, Respondent again asked Mrs. Clark to transfer F.R. from her class. Mrs. Clark never responded to Respondent's request. In fact, Mrs. Clark never talked to Respondent about the incident. Some time after the February 21, 2001, observation discussed below, there was a second incident where F.R. was physically aggressive toward Respondent. F.R. ran out of the lunchroom to return to the classroom to get the check he had forgotten. Concerned about his past behavior of destroying and "messing up" the other children's belongings, Respondent went to get F.R. Before Respondent could get to the classroom, F.R. had gotten the check and was running back to the lunchroom and toward Respondent. Respondent stuck her arm out to stop him and he continued running around her. Once in the lunchroom, Respondent "pulled" or "grabbed" the check from F.R.'s hand and asked the aides in the lunchroom to call Mrs. Clark. F.R. then seemed to explode, and he began punching Respondent with his fists and biting her. By the time the assistant principal got to the lunchroom, four students had pulled F.R. off Respondent, and Respondent was holding F.R.'s hand. When the vice-principal arrived, she did not discuss the incident with Respondent, but began screaming and told Respondent, "Go, get out of here, leave!" Following the lunchroom incident, Respondent filed another assault report and, for the third time, asked Mrs. Clark to transfer F.R. from her class. After there was no response to her verbal request, a union representative advised Respondent to make the request in writing. Initially, Mrs. Clark denied the request because it was not on the proper form, but once Respondent made the request on the appropriate form, F.R. was transferred from her class. Prior to the requests related to F.R., Respondent has never requested that a student be transferred from her class. Observations of Area Supervisor Ms. Daryl Saunders, an area supervisor for the School District, went to Respondent's classroom on five different occasions between February 21, 2001, and March 21, 2002, twice during the 2000-2001 school year, and three times during the 2001-2002 school year, to conduct observations. On a visit in February 2002, Ms. Saunders did not conduct an observation. With the exception of the first visit to Respondent's classroom, all of Ms. Saunders' visits were for the purpose of observing Respondent. Of the four times Ms. Saunders went to observe Respondent, she actually conducted observations three times. First Observation (February 21, 2001) Ms. Saunders' first visit to Respondent's classroom was on February 21, 2001. At the request of Mrs. Clark, Ms. Saunders went to Respondent's classroom to observe a student, F.R., who had been displaying inappropriate behavior in class and is described above.7/ During the time Ms. Saunders observed F.R., he did not have any outbursts, engage in any physically aggressive behavior, or display any disruptive or inappropriate behaviors. Ms. Saunders noted that the student delayed starting his assignment and took breaks between work, but did not bother any other student. Based on her observation of F.R. and the manner in which Respondent communicated with him, Ms. Saunders wrote in the summary letter to Mrs. Clark, "I believe F.R. is trying to survive in a room where he feels he is not valued." While Ms. Saunders was observing F.R., she also observed Respondent teaching and interacting with the students. Ms. Saunders was particularly concerned with Respondent's frequent verbal reprimands that were audible to the entire class. During the observation, Ms. Saunders also noticed that Respondent seemed to be easily frustrated and that when communicating with students, her voice vacillated between a friendly tone to an aggressive tone. Ms. Saunders expressed this and other concerns, not relevant to this proceeding, to Mrs. Clark in a letter dated February 22, 2001. According to the letter, a verbal reprimand to a particular student in front of the entire class is "damaging to [a] student's self-esteem." Ms. Saunders further noted that "considering the environment, I was surprised there were no behavioral issues while I was present." In the February 22, 2001, letter to Mrs. Clark, Ms. Saunders recommended that "we provide [Respondent] with some assistance so that the classroom environment is more conducive for instruction and learning." As a means of supporting Respondent in this effort, Ms. Saunders recommended that Mrs. Clark "have [Respondent] take two courses through the staff development office." The two classes that Ms. Saunders recommended were Cooperative Discipline and Effective Teaching Strategies. Finally, Ms. Saunders' letter stated, "the Language Arts Frameworks document should be reviewed with [Respondent]." There is no indication that Mrs. Clark discussed these recommendations. Second Observation (May 7, 2001) At Mrs. Clark's request, Ms. Saunders visited Respondent's classroom on May 7, 2001, to observe Respondent's teaching practices. This was about two weeks after Respondent received her evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year, which had rated her performance as unsatisfactory in the area of "enhancing and maintaining student's self-esteem." Pursuant to an earlier suggestion by Ms. Saunders, Respondent allowed herself to be videotaped in order that she could better critique her own behavior in the classroom. To implement this recommendation, the school's media specialist was in the classroom to set up the video equipment on the day of Ms. Saunders' observation. Soon after Ms. Saunders arrived, the media specialist asked Respondent if she should put the tape in the video recorder. Respondent answered, "Please, I don't want to be accused of using three minutes of my time up." Ms. Saunders believed that Respondent's tone of voice was "unprofessional" and that the comment was directed at her. During the May 7, 2001, observation, a student who was speaking to other students in a group had her back to them. Respondent's voice "became aggravated" as she told the student to turn around. Respondent placed her hands on the student's shoulders and physically turned her, but did not do so forcibly. During the May 7, 2001, observation, Ms. Saunders noted improvement in Respondent's communication with her students. In her written summary of the observation dated May 16, 2001, Ms. Saunders wrote: Based on that first encounter [February 21, 2001], I would say my greatest concern was how you communicated with both students and adults. However, this time your demeanor in front of the children was quite different than when I last observed in your classroom. I believe having the video camera present helped to keep you focused on appropriate communication with the children. I was pleased to hear more of a pleasant tone. Ms. Saunders' summary also stated that she counted four times when Respondent appeared to become frustrated and her tone of voice changed to a negative one. Ms. Saunders' summary of the May 7, 2001, observation included the following recommendations: One way to support and assist you regarding classroom environment, instruction and planning would be to have someone review with you, the six domains from the Florida Performance Measurement System. This information is based on research and would be beneficial to again cover. In addition, I recommend that you attend training provided by the elementary education department specifically in the area of writing. Enrollment can be done on-line. . . . There are many courses offered this summer. The Language Arts Frameworks document should also be reviewed. This will provide information about our district's curriculum and the writer's workshop model. Other staff development offerings related to classroom management are offered periodically through the staff development office. I suggest you take one of their courses to assist you with classroom management. You can register on line any time. . . . In the May 16, 2001, summary, Ms. Saunders notified Respondent that she planned to observe Respondent's classroom again soon. Additionally, Ms. Saunders indicated that she expected to see "appropriate and timely instruction and activities based on student need and planned from grade level expectations." Third Observation (December 6, 2001) Ms. Saunders conducted the third observation on December 6, 2001, seven months after the previous observation. Ms. Saunders summarized her observations in a letter dated December 17, 2001. In the letter, Ms. Saunders advised Respondent, for the first time, that the December 6, 2001, observation was part of a plan to assist Respondent with teaching practices. On December 6, 2001, Ms. Saunders arrived at Respondent's classroom at 8:30 a.m. and stayed until 9:10 a.m., when the children left the room for an activity. During the 40-minute observation, Ms. Saunders heard Respondent communicating with students and observed her conducting a review of telling time. Ms. Saunders was complimentary of Respondent's review of telling time. In the written summary to Respondent, Ms. Saunders wrote: You try hard to provide ways for students to remember abstract concepts. You use pneumonic devices, short stories, rhymes and other ways to assist with memorization. By calling the numbers bases and relating the time to the name of the base they passed, students more accurately read time when the short hand falls somewhere between two numbers. This seemed quite effective. Ms. Saunders observed an incident which she perceived to be negative. There was a student who was off task. Respondent directed her attention to the student and asked the student, "Would your mother [or family] be proud of you?" Ms. Saunders believed that when Respondent made this statement, her voice "sounded with disapproval." Ms. Saunders suggested that in the situation described in paragraph 66, Respondent should have "encouraged" proper behavior by asking the student a question that would have him participate so that he becomes on task rather than off task. In another situation, Ms. Saunders observed Respondent interact appropriately and effectively with a student she was reprimanding. In that case, Respondent asked the student, "What time is it?" Before that student could answer, another student shouted out the answer. Recalling Respondent's positive response in that situation, Ms. Saunders stated the following in the December 17, 2001, summary: A boy shouted out the answer and you began to reprimand him. You began to speak, stopped yourself, and continued with this carefully crafted sentence. "Tell me the rule about calling out." It was nice to see you stop yourself in mid-stream, rethink a way to correct this misconduct while still preserving the child's dignity. Based on the December 6, 2001, observation, Ms. Saunders had two areas of concern, only one of which is relevant in this case. That area relates to Respondent's "appropriate use of instructional time." Ms. Saunders' concern is stated in the summary as follows: In my opinion, a second area of concern relates to planning and appropriate use of instructional time. I entered your room at 8:30 and the instructional day begins at 8:00 a.m. Instruction in your room did not begin until 8:44 and the fifteen minutes suggested for calendar math was stretched to 21 minutes. I suggest you utilize time more wisely by beginning calendar math immediately after announcements. Then spend the rest of the morning on shared, guided and independent reading when youngsters are fresh and ready to learn. Beginning instruction nearly 45 minutes after the day begins will allow you to cover all the curriculum. Although the "instructional day," to the extent that term refers to Respondent's teaching a lesson to the class, did not begin at 8:00 a.m., or soon thereafter, there was a reasonable explanation for the delay. First, three students were assigned to Respondent's class that day because their regular teacher was absent. Prior to beginning instruction, Respondent met with those students, asked them their names, assigned them desks, and explained her classroom management system. Respondent's classroom management system involved giving each student a certain number of clothes pins at the beginning of the day. During the school day, the students could lose and/or earn clothes pins, depending on their conduct. The second reason for the delay in beginning the instructional day was that several students in Respondent's class had been allowed to go to the media center to "Santa's Book Fair." As Ms. Saunders noted in her written summary, several of Respondent's students did not return to the classroom from the book fair until 8:36 a.m. In light of the foregoing circumstances, it was reasonable that Respondent did not begin the "instructional day" at 8:00 a.m., or immediately after announcements were made. Admittedly, Ms. Saunders did not know what, if any, instructions or directions Respondent gave to students prior to 8:30 a.m. However, when Ms. Saunders entered Respondent's classroom, the students were actively engaged in various activities. For example, one student was working on math worksheets. Another student was at the computer taking an Accelerated Reading test. Respondent was working with the student at the computer. In addition to Ms. Saunders' concern that the instructional day did not begin until 8:44 a.m., she believed that Respondent spent too much time teaching the "calendar math" activity. Respondent began the activity at 8:44 a.m., and completed it at 9:05 a.m. Even though Ms. Saunders complimented Respondent on her presentation of the activity, as discussed in paragraph 65, she criticized Respondent for spending too much time teaching or reviewing the lesson. According to Ms. Saunders, the "suggested" time for "calendar math" was 15 minutes, but Respondent "stretched" the activity to 21 minutes, which was six minutes longer than the "suggested" time. Ms. Saunders offered no explanation of why or how Respondent's extending the calendar math activity by six minutes was not an "appropriate use of instructional time." At 9:10, a.m., five minutes after the calendar math lesson, Respondent's students had to leave the classroom to attend a health presentation. The five minutes between the end of "calendar math" and when the children left the classroom for the health presentation, allowed time for the children to return to their seats and for Respondent to pass out name tags to the students and have them line up before leaving the room. Ms. Saunders offered no suggestions as to a more appropriate or acceptable way Respondent could or should have used the extra six minutes that Respondent used teaching the calendar math activity. Ms. Saunders summarized the December 6, 2001, observation and made recommendations in a letter dated December 17, 2001. Based on Ms. Saunders' concerns about Respondent's teaching practices, Ms. Saunders recommended that Respondent "have someone review with [her] the six domains from the Florida Performance Measurement System." Also, she recommended that Respondent take training provided by the elementary education department and a classroom management course, both of which were offered "periodically" through the staff development office. Attempted Observation (February 2001) On an unspecified day in February 2002, Ms. Saunders went to Respondent's classroom to conduct her fourth observation. After Ms. Saunders entered the classroom, Respondent told her that she had no notice of the observation. Ms. Saunders then advised Respondent that Mrs. Clark knew that Ms. Saunders would be observing Respondent's class that day, but that "neither of us [Saunders nor Clark] chose to make you [Respondent] aware of the visitation." Respondent espoused the view that she should have received notice of the observation. Ms. Saunders disputed Respondent's view that she should have been given notice and indicated that the observation was part of the assistance plan laid out in May 2001. Respondent replied that an assistance plan could only last 90 days and, thus, this observation could not be part of any such plan. Ms. Saunders then asserted that she could do an observation any time as part of her normal duties. Respondent disagreed and requested that Ms. Saunders provide her with a written explanation of the reason why Ms. Saunders was visiting the class, the instrument she would be using, what she would be observing, and how long she would be staying. As the verbal interchange proceeded, Ms. Saunders thought that Respondent's voice became more aggressive and that she was also getting upset. Because Respondent's students were in the classroom, Ms. Saunders decided to leave the classroom and return at another time. Although students were in the classroom during the verbal exchange concerning whether Ms. Saunders' visit was authorized, there is no evidence that the students heard the conversation. Fourth Observation (March 21, 2002) On March 21, 2002, Ms. Saunders conducted an observation in Respondent's classroom. Upon Ms. Saunders' entering the room, Respondent advised her that she had no notice that Ms. Saunders was coming to her class. Respondent also told Ms. Saunders that the students were taking a school-wide writing assessment. Ms. Saunders acknowledged that, but still indicated that she would be seated and conduct an observation. Respondent then approached Ms. Saunders and asked why she was in the class, what instrument she was using, and what she was observing. Ms. Saunders reiterated her prior position that she was there as part of the assistance plan and that she would be taking anecdotal notes. Respondent then asserted her earlier position, that an assistance plan was only for 90 days. Consistent with Ms. Saunders' previous recommendation that Respondent tape herself in class as a way to critique herself, Respondent told Ms. Saunders and the class that she was turning on the tape recorder. Ms. Saunders began the observation at or about 8:58 a.m., and ended it at 9:16 a.m. In all, the observation lasted only about 18 minutes. During most of that time, Respondent's students were completing a school-wide writing assessment. As students finished the writing assessment, Respondent gave them books to read silently, while the other children continued to work on the writing assessment. Ms. Saunders summarized the March 21, 2002, observation in a letter dated April 18, 2002. Due to the duration of the observation, 18 minutes, and the fact that the students were taking a writing assessment, Ms. Saunders reported only a few specific observations. None of those observations concerned or were related to Respondent's teaching techniques or classroom management.8/ In the April 18, 2002, letter, Ms. Saunders summarized the March 21, 2002, observation and made conclusions. In the letter, Ms. Saunders stated she continued to see the "same behaviors" from Respondent. She further stated, Each time I visit your classroom I continue to see the same behaviors from you. Though discussion has occurred regarding ineffective practices, visitation were made to a number of other classrooms at Yates Elementary, suggestions regarding inservice courses have been made, yet your practices have not changed. I continue to see an emphasis on students being silent unless called upon. I continue to hear you speak gruffly to students. I continue to see you punish students for very minor infractions like wiggling or whispering. I continue to see you isolate students from the group. I continue to see you go over concepts, like vocabulary orally in order for students to memorize things rotely. I continue to see calendar math exceed the 15 minutes it is intended to occupy of the mathematics instructional time. I continue to see only one student engaged at a time. It was the intention of the assistance plan to have you reevaluate some of your ineffective practices and work to make some changes. I have yet to witness any of that nor do I think you are even trying to make strides toward improvement. Despite her recitation of areas in which Respondent still needed to improve, Ms. Saunders offered no recommendations in the April 18, 2002, summary letter to assist Respondent. However, Ms. Saunders stated that she "plan[ned] to make an unannounced observation in [Respondent's] class again soon," but she never did. The conclusions in Ms. Saunders' April 18, 2002, letter are inconsistent with some of her earlier observations discussed in paragraphs 59, 65, and 68 above. Moreover, there was no connection between the conclusion Ms. Saunders articulated in the summary letter and what she observed on March 21, 2002. Area Supervisor's Criticism of Respondent's Reprimand Method Ms. Saunders was critical of the way Respondent reprimanded students. During Ms. Saunders' observations, Respondent sometimes would call the name of the child who was being reprimanded and tell him what he should or should not be doing. At the hearing, Ms. Saunders testified to maintain order in the classroom, Respondent should have used "public praise" and "private criticism." Notwithstanding this position, Ms. Saunders admitted that this method or principle is not an established policy and procedure of the School District. While Ms. Saunders testified that the "public praise, private criticism" principle is simply an "educational belief that many people subscribe to," she acknowledged that other models exist. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Ms. Saunders ever specifically discussed the "public praise, private criticism" philosophy that she believed Respondent should have used in the classroom. Observations of the School Principal Mrs. Clark frequently observed Respondent in the classroom as part of her routine of visiting all the classrooms at Colson. During her observation of Respondent, Mrs. Clark saw and heard Respondent sometimes use a "harsh desist" in reprimanding students. According to Mrs. Clark, the term "harsh desist" means "harshly reprimanding a child to stop doing something." Mrs. Clark described an example of a "harsh desist" by Respondent's saying, "Shhhh" to the class in a loud way, and talking to children in a way that was "derogatory." Mrs. Clark believed that the children were impacted by the way Respondent spoke to them. She based this belief on the expressions she saw on some of the children's faces. Mrs. Clark testified, "In some instances, they [the students] would cringe." Mrs. Clark testified that she talked to Respondent about her "harsh desist," but Respondent did not change this classroom management method. These discussions were not documented, and no reference to this issue was ever noted on Respondent's evaluations. The record fails to establish when or how often Mrs. Clark observed Respondent engaging in a "harsh desist," to whom any particular "harsh desist" was directed, and if and how the "harsh desist" affected the student. Mrs. Clark testified that she observed situations in which she observed Respondent talk to students in a derogatory manner. In one instance, the student referred to in paragraph 41 above, who had been transferred to Respondent's class because of behavioral problems he was having in another class, left Respondent's classroom without permission and was returned to the room by Mrs. Clark. The student told Mrs. Clark that he had left the room to look for a pencil or scissors. Mrs. Clark asked Respondent if the student could borrow one from another student or if she would give him the tool that he needed. Respondent said she would not give him the particular tool. Respondent continued, "He breaks them all the time. He doesn't deserve them." Although students were in the classroom when Respondent made the comments, there is no evidence that they heard the comments. The other incident in which Mrs. Clark described Respondent as using derogatory language when talking to a student involved T.B., a student in her class. On an unspecified date, Respondent was walking down the hallway with her students, taking them to the buses. Respondent was holding T.B. by his arm, presumably for misbehaving. At the time, Mrs. Clark was in the hallway, but some distance away. When Respondent saw Mrs. Clark in the hallway, she told T.B., "If you don't behave, you're going to get a referral to that lady over there," pointing to Mrs. Clark. Mrs. Clark testified that there is nothing wrong with reminding a child that he could have to go the principal's office if he or she misbehaves, "if it [is] handled in the appropriate way." The clear implication was that the manner in which Respondent handled the situation described in paragraph 98 was inappropriate. However, no evidence was presented to establish the appropriate way to remind the student that his behavior needs to improve and that there are consequences for misbehavior. Recommendations of Mrs. Clark Respondent's 2000-2001 evaluation indicated that her performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was unsatisfactory. To address this rating, Mrs. Clark issued a letter to Respondent which made two recommendations to assist Respondent in improving in this area. The letter is referred to on the evaluation and was given to Respondent on or about April 24, 2001, the day she received the 2000-2001 evaluation.9/ The first recommendation was that Respondent attend a Cooperative Discipline Workshop that was offered by the School District or "something similar to that that was offered by the district." The other recommendation was that Respondent go and observe behavior management in classrooms at other schools. No specifics were given as to who would schedule the time, place, and number of observations. With regard to the classroom management course, no information was provided as to what, if any, approval would be needed prior to taking the course. In neither instance was a time specified that Respondent would have to complete the observations and/or the classroom management course. During Respondent's tenure at Colson, the only written recommendations she received from Mrs. Clark were the two made in the letter issued to Respondent. As reflected on the 2000-2001 evaluation, Mrs. Clark issued the letter to address the "unsatisfactory" rating Respondent received in that evaluation. In such a case, a tenured teacher who receives an "unsatisfactory" rating, a letter and/or form of assistance is required to be provided pursuant to Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent's Efforts to Comply With Assistance Plans and/or Recommendations In an effort to comply with Mrs. Clark's recommendation that she observe other classes, Respondent asked several teachers on her first-grade team, including one who was nationally-certified, if she could observe them. Some of these teachers had been held out by Mrs. Clark as using behavioral models that were ones that Respondent might use in her class. All of the teachers agreed to allow Respondent to observe their classes, but Mrs. Clark denied Respondent's request to observe any of the teachers at Colson. Eventually, someone, likely Ms. Saunders or Mrs. Clark, scheduled an observation for Respondent at Yates Elementary School (Yates). On an unknown date between May 7, 2001, and December 6, 2001, Respondent went to Yates to observe several first-grade classes pursuant to Mrs. Clark's April 24, 2001, recommendation. Ms. Saunders accompanied Respondent to the class for the observations. As Respondent and Ms. Saunders went to observe in the various classrooms, it appeared to Respondent that the teachers in those classrooms had no prior knowledge of the observations. During the observations at Yates, Ms. Saunders directed Respondent to write down anything positive she saw regarding classroom management, as well as anything she found pedagogically unsound.10/ Ms. Saunders referenced and discussed Respondent's observations at Yates in the summary letter dated December 17, 2001. In that letter, Ms. Saunders recalled the following: During the visit to Yates, we witnessed some wonderful classroom strategies and we also saw some things that perhaps would not be helpful. I know, based on our conversation, that you saw some things that you might like to try implementing. I hope that you will continue to reflect on that day and try some of the things you think might work well in your room. Ms. Saunders also noted in the December 17, 2001, letter that at the time of the visit to Yates, she asked Respondent to write a plan that included trying or applying some of the classroom management strategies that they witnessed. Respondent complied with this directive as reflected in Ms. Saunders' letter in which she stated, "A copy of that plan was to be given to Mrs. Clark[,] and I am aware that you submitted something to her." As requested by Ms. Saunders, Respondent submitted a classroom management plan to Mrs. Clark based on what she observed at Yates that she could implement in her classroom. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate whether Respondent's plan was ever reviewed or critiqued by either Mrs. Clark or Ms. Saunders. After Mrs. Clark recommended that Respondent take a classroom management course, she attempted to do so, but was unsuccessful. Respondent's initial failure to take the classroom management course after the April 2001 evaluation, was based on a misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or no communication between Mrs. Clark and Respondent. Later, Respondent's efforts to take a classroom management course were thwarted by Mrs. Clark. The misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or lack of communication between Mrs. Clark and Respondent is evident. Almost eight months after Mrs. Clark initially recommended that Respondent take a classroom management course, she wrote in the "comment section" of Respondent's December 19, 2001, evaluation that she was "not sure" if Respondent had taken the course. In response, Respondent wrote on the same evaluation, "It was my understanding that a workshop would be scheduled for me during the school year." Mrs. Clark testified that Respondent had "repeatedly kept asking" for which workshop Mrs. Clark had signed her up. Based on the apparent misunderstanding discussed in paragraph 109, Respondent selected at least two different classroom management courses. She then requested Mrs. Clark's consent, because the course required payment of a fee and a substitute teacher for the time Respondent would be attending the course. Both courses were approved by the Hillsborough County School Board. Although in the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent made several requests to take a management course, Mrs. Clark denied all the requests, indicating that no money was available. In one case, a person from the School District office called Respondent and told her that no money was available for her to attend the courses she had requested. The payment for one of the courses was about $135.00 and required that a substitute teacher be hired to cover Respondent's class on the day of the course. Having been unsuccessful in obtaining permission or approval to attend two School Board-approved courses, on September 20, 2002, Respondent wrote an e-mail letter to Mrs. Clark regarding Respondent's efforts to take a classroom/behavior management course. In the e-mail, Respondent indicated that she had looked to take the recommended course on a professional study day (when students are not present), but had not found any such course being offered. In light of Mrs. Clark's and/or the School District's failure to approve a course for Respondent to take, Respondent requested that Mrs. Clark provide Respondent with the name of the classroom/behavior management course that Mrs. Clark wanted her to take and the date and time of such course. There is no evidence that Mrs. Clark ever responded to Respondent's September 20, 2002, e-mail or ever provided Respondent with the name of a classroom management course to attend. Moreover, no evidence was presented that the School District actually offered the recommended classroom management course during the relevant time period. Despite the recommendation that Respondent take the classroom/behavior management course, she was not provided with the assistance and in-service opportunity to help correct or improve the noted performance deficiency. Nonetheless, through her own effort, she increased her performance area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," from "unsatisfactory" in the 2000-2001 school year to "needs improvement." Incidents Involving Respondent and School Principal and Staff First Incident (January/February 2001) In January or February 2001, during the lunch break, Vicki Davis, one of the other first-grade teachers, was sitting near Respondent and noticed that Respondent was writing in a notebook. Ms. Davis then asked Respondent, "What are you doing? Writing about kids or something?" Respondent did not elaborate, but told Ms. Davis that it was a behavior book. Ms. Davis was concerned because she saw her name in the book, but beyond that, she could not say what was in the book. Exactly what Respondent was writing in the "behavior book," is unknown, but this incident occurred soon after the student referred to in paragraph 41 was transferred from Ms. Davis' class to Respondent's class. Respondent implied that she was writing down observations about the child. Even though the precise contents of the "behavior book" were not clearly visible, Ms. Davis felt uncomfortable when she saw what she believed to be her name in the "behavior book." Second Incident (July 2001) In July 2001, when school was not in session, Respondent telephoned the school and asked Mrs. Clark to provide her with a report that Ms. Saunders had prepared. Before leaving the school, Mrs. Clark advised Jennifer Connolly, her secretary, that Respondent was coming to get the report and told Ms. Connolly to put the report in Respondent's mailbox. When Respondent arrived at Colson, she checked her mailbox, but did not see the report that she had come to retrieve. At the time, no one was in the front office area so Respondent went into Mrs. Clark's office and looked on her desk for the document. While Respondent was in Mrs. Clark's office looking through papers in an effort to locate Ms. Saunders' report, Ms. Connolly saw Respondent and asked why she was in the office. After Respondent explained that she was looking for Mrs. Saunders' report, Ms. Connolly told Respondent the report was in Respondent's mailbox and to leave Mrs. Clark's office. Ms. Connolly left the office and walked down the hall. After Ms. Connolly left Mrs. Clark's office, Respondent turned out the light in Mrs. Clark's office and closed the door to the office as she exited. By the time Respondent got to her mailbox, Mrs. Saunders' report was on top of the stack of mail in Respondent's mailbox. After being informed about Respondent's going into her office, Mrs. Clark contacted the School District's Professional Standards Office. An investigation was conducted and based on the findings, a letter was issued to Respondent. It is unknown if the letter was a warning, reprimand, or other type of communication since the letter was not offered as evidence at this proceeding. There is no indication that Respondent was doing anything in Mrs. Clark's office other than looking for the report that she came to the school to retrieve; the report that Mrs. Clark had expected her to pick up. Nonetheless, Respondent's decision to go into the principal's office, without permission, reflected poor judgment on her part. This, however, was an isolated incident and is not indicative of Respondent's usual judgment. Except for this incident, Respondent's record indicates that she usually exercised good judgment as shown by her evaluations for the relevant time period. For example, for the three school terms immediately prior to the July 2001 incident, Respondent's performance in the area related to a teacher's judgment under the Professional Behavior category, "demonstrates logical thinking and makes practical decisions," was rated as "satisfactory."11/ The only evaluation that indicated Respondent "needed to improve" in that area was the December 2001 evaluation, the first evaluation she received after the July 2001 office incident. However, in Respondent's very next evaluation dated April 24, 2002, her performance in the area, "demonstrates logical thinking and makes practical decisions," was rated as "satisfactory." Third Incident (2001-2002 School Term) In or about the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent brought a tape recorder to a team meeting. When Ms. Davis, one of the team members, saw the tape recorder, she felt uncomfortable and told Respondent to turn off the tape recorder.12/ Ms. Davis knew that "something was going on between [Respondent] and Mrs. Clark" and seemed to suspect that Respondent's bringing the tape recorder into the meeting was somehow related to that. However, Ms. Davis did not want to be a part of that and told Respondent, "This [meeting] is not about anything. We're working together as a team." Respondent immediately complied with Ms. Davis' request and turned off the tape recorder. After that one incident, Respondent never again brought a tape recorder to a team meeting. Fourth Incident (February 25, 2003) On or about February 25, 2003, as part of her usual routine of visiting classrooms, Mrs. Clark went to Respondent's classroom, entering from the back door. At the time, Respondent was sitting with two students, working with them. When Respondent saw Mrs. Clark, she got up from her seat and walked over to where Mrs. Clark was standing. Respondent then asked Mrs. Clark, "Did you leave right after us?" Mrs. Clark correctly understood, and Respondent confirmed that the question referred to Respondent's grievance hearing that was held the previous day and attended by Respondent and her attorney, as well as Mrs. Clark and the area supervisor. Respondent apparently thought Mrs. Clark indicated that she had left immediately after the grievance hearing. Respondent challenged Mrs. Clark and indicated that Respondent and her attorney had waited outside for Mrs. Clark for 15 minutes. Respondent then moved closer to Mrs. Clark and whispered in her ear. Mrs. Clark understood Respondent to say, "You're a liar. You're devious. There is a God. I'm not through with you yet." Respondent denied that she made these statements. Given the conflicting testimony of Mrs. Clark and Respondent, both of whom appeared to be credible witnesses, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made the statements. Nonetheless, it is found that Mrs. Clark understood and believed that the statements in paragraph 130 were the ones Respondent whispered to her. Mrs. Clark responded to Respondent's statements in a voice that was not a whisper by asking, "You're not through with me yet?" According to Mrs. Clark, during this incident, she repeatedly kept turning to Respondent and kept telling her, "If you have something to say to me, we can meet in my office." There were children in Respondent's classroom during the incident described in paragraph 130, but Mrs. Clark's credible testimony was that the children could not hear Respondent's comments. Mrs. Clark described the comments Respondent whispered in her ear as "quite upsetting." While Mrs. Clark might have been upset, her conduct clearly indicated that she did not feel threatened by Respondent's comments. After the exchange between Respondent described in paragraphs 130 and 131, Mrs. Clark stayed in Respondent's classroom to continue her visit and look at the children's work. In fact, Mrs. Clark took time to talk to a student in the class who she believed was not working. Later, she asked the children about a large crayon that was on the floor. At some point during the visit, Respondent noticed that Mrs. Clark was holding something in one of her hands, both of which were behind her back. Believing that the object in Mrs. Clark's hand was a tape recorder, Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand and splayed it open in an attempt to completely display the object. As Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand, she asked Mrs. Clark if she had a tape recorder and if she were recording Respondent. Mrs. Clark stated that the object she was holding was a two-way radio. Even though the object Mrs. Clark was holding was a two-way radio, Respondent did not believe Mrs. Clark's explanation. After or as Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand, Mrs. Clark told Respondent, "Get your hands off me! Get away from me!" Respondent believed Mrs. Clark was going to strike her so she moved back, away from Mrs. Clark. Undoubtedly, Respondent's conduct, described in paragraph 134, grabbing her supervisor's hand, was inappropriate, unprofessional, and disrespectful. However, based on the record, this was clearly an isolated incident. Moreover, this conduct does not constitute any of the statutory or rule violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Mrs. Clark then left Respondent's classroom and continued visiting other classrooms. After completing her routine classroom visits, Mrs. Clark called the School District office to report the February 25, 2002, incident in Respondent's classroom. Respondent also called the School District office to report the incident. In addition to calling the School District Office, Respondent called a friend who was a retired teacher and reported that she believed Mrs. Clark had tried to record her and asked for advice on what she should do if Mrs. Clark returned to her room. The following day, an investigator with the School District went to the school to investigate the matter. School District Request for Fitness for Duty Evaluation By letter dated April 30, 2003, the School District referred Respondent to Dr. James Edgar, M.D., a psychiatrist, for an evaluation. In the referral letter, Linda Kipley, the general manager of the School District's Professional Standards Office, stated that the referral was due to the School District's "concerns for a pattern of personal and professional behavior which has negatively impacted her capability and competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of teaching." Ms. Kipley's letter went on to say, "After reviewing our most recent investigative report, there is a question if she is fit for her teaching responsibilities and to teach minor children." Also, Ms. Kipley requested that Dr. Edgar provide a written report of his assessment of Respondent's "capability to make sound professional judgments and her capability to safely instruct children." Opinion of James Edgar, M.D. Dr. James Edgar, who was qualified as an expert in the field of psychiatry, conducted an independent medical (psychiatric) evaluation of Respondent. Based on information provided to Dr. Edgar by School District staff, there were questions raised about Respondent's ability to safely instruct minor children and about her general mental health status. Along with the request for the evaluation, the School District provided Dr. Edgar with copies of all of Respondent's evaluations since she was employed by the School District and the February 22, May 16, and December 17, 2001, letters/reports from Ms. Saunders. For some reason, Ms. Saunders' last report dated April 18, 2002, and discussed in paragraphs 85 and 86, was not provided to Dr. Edgar. Dr. Edgar found that Respondent had normal motor activity and normal facial expressions; that she was polite and her appearance was neat; and that she was calm although anxious (which Dr. Edgar indicated was a natural reaction under the circumstances of an evaluation being ordered by her employer). He also found that Respondent's intelligence was normal, her memory was intact, her senses were good, her affect was appropriate, and there was no evidence of hallucinations. Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusions, in the "summary and recommendation" section of his report, Dr. Edgar opined, I do not feel [Respondent] is currently capable of safely instructing young children." As the basis for this conclusion, Dr. Edgar stated that when Respondent is stressed by routine events, such as constructive criticism, her ability to keep things orderly and controlled is impaired and she becomes anxious and depressed. He further stated that the combination of Respondent's "major depression and pre-existing personality disorder interfere with the usual psychological functions (i.e. judgment and problem solving ability, emotional stability, ability to conform to societal standards of behavior, interpersonal skills, integrity, responsibility, ability to cope with stressful situations, and decision making in a crisis). In the "summary and recommendation" section of Dr. Edgar's written report, he prefaces the above-quoted opinion by stating, "This summary is provisional because I have not had an opportunity to review medical records or mental health records." At the end of the report, Dr. Edgar states that "I may amend my report after reviewing the previously mentioned records." As of the date of this proceeding, Dr. Edgar had not yet reviewed any of Respondent's medical records and mental health records, although Respondent advised him that she was being treated for depression by a psychiatrist and was in counseling with a licensed mental health professional. Contrary to the School District's concern for Respondent's "competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of teaching," Dr. Edgar testified that his report made no finding that Respondent was incompetent to teach. Opinion of Gerald Mussenden, Ph.D. Dr. Gerald Mussenden was qualified as an expert in the area of psychology. On September 5 and 12, 2003, Dr. Mussenden conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Respondent to determine her overall mental functioning (i.e., whether she was mentally stable, well adjusted, and/or if she is a threat to herself or others). As part of the evaluation, Dr. Mussenden administered, among other instruments, the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, which has been developed and standardized since 1982. The Child Abuse Potential Inventory is valid in terms of content validity, construct validity, and predictive validity and is a tool used by psychologists who do testing specializing in abuse propensities. Based on the results of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, Dr. Mussenden concluded that Respondent had no child abuse potential characteristics and was not a danger to children. Moreover, Dr. Mussenden opined that Respondent was emotionally stable, had good skills by which to relate and interact with others, and had no problems or difficulties that would endanger others around her. Dr. Mussenden's evaluation report accurately notes that at the time of the evaluation, Respondent was under the treatment of a psychiatrist and in counseling with a licensed mental health counselor. Dr. Mussenden's opinion is that this course of treatment contributed to Respondent's mental health status at the time of the evaluation. In his report, Dr. Mussenden states, "Due to their success [the psychiatrist and mental health counselor], [Respondent] is relatively well adjusted and without signs of mental difficulties." Dr. Mussenden's credible testimony was that a person can suffer from depression and still be competent to handle one's duties as a teacher. When Respondent was evaluated by Dr. Mussenden, she was taking medication for depression. The purpose of such medication is to help people suffering from depression become well-adjusted. The fact that there was no evidence that Respondent was suffering from depression during the September 2003 evaluation indicates that the medication she was taking was effective in that it masked any depression that may have been present. Dr. Mussenden saw Respondent within 60 days of the hearing and based on that visit, he did not change his opinion that Respondent posed no risk of harm to children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered that finds Respondent not guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint and dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2006.
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.
