The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nancy S. Lowery ("Respondent"), violated Subsections 231.2615(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2001),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 365470, issued by the Department of Education. The certificate covered the area of family and consumer science and was valid through June 30, 2002. During the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent was a teacher at Oakridge High School ("Oakridge"), a school in the Orange County School District ("School District"), and taught exceptional education students. On February 1, 2002, while employed as a teacher at Oakridge, Respondent showed the movie, "Jaws III," in her classroom to the students in her fourth-period class. That day there were about ten students in Respondent's fourth-period class. Prior to or soon after starting the movie, Respondent turned off the lights in the classroom, and the lights remained off while the movie was playing. While the movie was playing, the students in Respondent's class sat at their desks. However, at some point during the movie, D.C., a female student in the class, asked J.G., another student, if she (J.G.) gave "head." In response, J.G. answered in the affirmative. After J.G. responded, D.C. and G.J., a male student in the class, then coaxed J.G. to perform oral sex on G.J. Then, G.J. unzipped his pants and told J.G. to put her head "down there," and she did so. At or near the same time, G.J. put his hand in J.G.'s pants. For most of the class period, J.G.'s head was in G.J.'s lap. While J.G. was performing oral sex on G.J., some of the students in the class positioned their desks so that Respondent could not see what J.G. and G.J. were doing. At all times relevant to this proceeding, B.D. was about 16-years-old and a student at Oakridge. B.D. was in Respondent's fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, and observed the events and incident described in paragraphs four through six. Petitioner was in the classroom during the entire fourth period while "Jaws III" was playing. However, once the movie began playing, Petitioner was at the computer in the classroom "working on" or "typing" something. Petitioner was working at the computer most of the class period and did not see J.G. and G.J. engaging in the inappropriate sexual conduct described in paragraph five. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Kari Sperre was the chairman of the Exceptional Education Department at Oakridge, the department in which Respondent worked. On the morning of February 1, 2002, Ms. Sperre took her class on a field trip. Ms. Sperre and her class returned to the school during the fourth period. As Ms. Sperre walked by Respondent's classroom, she noticed that the lights in that classroom were out. Later that day, it was reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. had told another student, L.C., that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J. Upon hearing this report, Ms. Sperre investigated the matter. Ms. Sperre first talked to L.C., a female student in the ninth grade at Oakridge. L.C., who was not in Respondent's fourth-period class, reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. told her (L.C.) that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J. After she spoke with L.C., Ms. Sperre then talked to J.G. Although initially reluctant to talk to Ms. Sperre, J.G. eventually told Ms. Sperre what had happened that day in Respondent's class. J.G. told Ms. Sperre that she had only recently transferred to Oakridge, that she was in Petitioner's fourth-period class, and that the lights in the class were out during class that day. J.G. also reported to Ms. Sperre that two students in the class, D.C., a female student, and G.J., a male student, encouraged her to perform oral sex on G.J. According to J.G., D.C. and/or G.J. told her that all she had to do was put her head underneath G.J.'s jacket and nobody would know what was going on. J.G. also told Ms. Sperre that G.J.'s pants were open and admitted that, "I just bent down and did it." J.G. told Ms. Sperre that this incident occurred while the class was watching the movie and while Respondent was working on the computer. At all times relevant to this proceeding, J.G. was classified as an exceptional education student, having been classified as educable mentally handicapped. A student classified as educable mentally handicapped has an IQ of below 70, well below the average IQ of 100. After the February 1, 2002, incident that occurred in Respondent's class, J.G. was suspended from school for engaging in inappropriate conduct at school. Also, since the incident, J.G. withdrew from school and is no longer enrolled in the School District. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated several policies of the School District. First, the School District requires that teachers supervise their students at all times when they are in the classroom. In order to do this, the teacher should have the students within sight. This is especially important with regard to exceptional education students, who have special and unique challenges. Respondent did not supervise her fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, although she was in the classroom. Instead of supervising her class, Respondent was working at the computer most of the class period and was unaware of what the students were doing. Clearly, Respondent was not supervising her students, as evidenced by her failure to ever notice or observe the sexually inappropriate conduct by students in her class. By failing to properly supervise her class on February 1, 2002, Respondent failed to protect her students from conditions harmful to their learning and/or physical health and/or safety. The incident that occurred on February 1, 2002, in Respondent's class could have a negative impact on both the students who observed the incident, as well as the student who was encouraged to perform oral sex on the male student. The educable mentally handicapped student who was coaxed into performing the act could be the victim of teasing as a result of her involvement in the incident. According to Ms. Sperre, those students who witnessed the incident could also be negatively impacted by being exposed to and observing the incident. For example, many of the students in the exceptional education class could also be encouraged to engage in the same type of activity that they witnessed in Respondent's fourth-period class on February 1, 2002. The School District has a policy that prohibits teachers from turning out all the lights in their classrooms during class time. This policy is for safety reasons and requires that even if there is a need to turn off the classroom lights, at least one "bank" of lights must remain on at all times. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy discussed in paragraph 22, by turning off all the lights at or near the beginning of the fourth period, and they remained off while the students were watching the movie. This violation contributed to Respondent's failure to supervise the students because with all the lights out, even though she was in the classroom, Respondent was unaware and unable to see what the students, including J.G. and G.J., were doing. During the 2001-2002 school year, Oakridge had a policy that allowed teachers to show only movies that were educational or had some relevance to the lesson being taught in the class. At the beginning of every school year, including the 2001-2002 school year, teachers at Oakridge are given faculty handbooks, which include various policies and procedures that they are required to read. In addition to these written policies and procedures, Oakridge administrators would "discuss" various "oral procedures" with teachers at facility meetings. It is unclear if the policies or procedures regarding the kinds of movies that could be shown at Oakridge and the prohibition against having all the lights off in classrooms at Oakridge were written or oral policies and/or procedures. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy related to the kind of movies that are allowed to be shown in the classroom by showing the movie, "Jaws III." "Jaws III" is not an educational movie, nor was it relevant to any lesson being taught by Respondent at or near the time it was being shown to the students. The School District investigated the February 1, 2002, incident, and thereafter, the committee reviewed the incident and voted unanimously to recommend that Respondent be terminated as a teacher in the School District. Despite the unanimous recommendation of termination, because Respondent's teaching contract for re-appointment was to be considered soon, instead of terminating Respondent, the School District decided that it would simply not recommend her for re-appointment for the 2002- 2003 school year. On February 20, 2002, after the February 1, 2002, incident was investigated, Oakridge's principal, J. Richard Damron, issued to Respondent a letter of reprimand and a letter of directives regarding the incident that occurred in Respondent's classroom on February 1, 2002. The letter of reprimand specifically referenced the February 1, 2002, incident and stated that Respondent had "failed to use reasonable care in supervising" the students in her class. Next, the letter of reprimand stated that a directive would be issued in a separate correspondence that outlines the School District's expectations regarding Respondent's conduct in the future. Finally, the letter of reprimand noted that "should there be another incident of a similar nature in the future[,] discipline, up to and including dismissal could be recommended." On February 20, 2002, Principal Damron issued written directives to Respondent which required her to do the following: (1) establish a safe, caring, and nurturing environment conducive to learning and the physical and psychological well- being of students; (2) refrain from showing films that are not directly associated with lessons that contribute to the education of children; (3) keep children under her [Petitioner's] direct supervision at all times and not leave students alone, with other teachers, or be absent from her duties unless she makes prior arrangements with the principal or one of the assistant principals; and (4) comply with all district and school directives, policies, rules, and procedures. Respondent's job performance as a teacher at Oakridge for the 2001-2002 school year was evaluated in March 2002. The results of the evaluation are reported on the School District's form entitled, Instructional Personnel Final Assessment Report ("Assessment Report"). The Assessment Report dated March 25, 2002, noted two areas in which Respondent "Needs Improvement": (1) Professional Responsibilities; and (2) Classroom Management and Discipline. Respondent was rated as "Effective" in four areas: (1) Curriculum Knowledge; (2) Planning and Delivering Instruction; (3) Assessment of Student Performance; (4) Development and Interpersonal Skills. On March 25, 2002, the same day the Assessment Report was completed, Principal Damron notified Respondent that he was not recommending her for re-appointment for the 2002-2003 school year. According to the letter, Principal Damron decided to not recommend Respondent for re-appointment "based upon performance- related reasons and the temporary contract" that she held at that time. Alfred Lopez, a senior manager with the Orange County School District, testified that by failing to supervise the students in her fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the School District had "definitely" been reduced. Ms. Sperre testified that she would not ever want Respondent employed in a school in Orange County in which she (Ms. Sperre) was employed. Notwithstanding the beliefs of Mr. Lopez and Ms. Sperre, based on the letter of reprimand and the letter of directives issued on February 20, 2002, it appears that Respondent continued to teach at Oakridge after the February 2002 incident through the end of the school year. Furthermore, no evidence was presented which established that after the incident, Respondent was reassigned, relieved of, or otherwise removed from her position as an exceptional education teacher at Oakridge after the incident.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding that Respondent violated Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.006(3)(a), but did not violate Subsections 231.2615(1)(a) and (f), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.006(3)(e). It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order impose the following administrative sanctions on Respondent: Upon employment in any public or private position requiring an educator's certificate, Respondent shall be placed on two years' probation with the conditions that during this period, she shall: Notify the Education Practices Commission, upon employment and immediately upon termination of employment in any public or private position requiring a Florida educator's certificate; Have her immediate supervisor submit annual performance reports to the Education Practices Commission; Violate no law and fully comply with all School District regulations, school rules, and the State Board of Education; Satisfactorily perform assigned duties in a competent, professional manner; and Bear all costs of complying with the terms of this probation. Enroll in and successfully complete a three-hour college course in classroom management within the first year of probation and submit to the Bureau of Education Standards an official college transcript verifying successful completion of the course with a grade of "B" or higher. This course must be taken in person, and a correspondence or on-line course will not satisfy this requirement. Issue a letter of reprimand, with a copy to be placed in Respondent's certification file. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Pinellas county School Board, operated the primary and secondary public school system for Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Herbert Latimore, was employed by the Petitioner as a continuing contract teacher of physical education at Tyrone Middle School, a school operated by Petitioner. On August 25, 1993, very early in the school year, Respondent made a presentation to a group of sixth grade students in a physical education class. In prior years, Respondent had experienced a reluctance on the part of some students to take showers after physical education classes, and to forestall that problem, he indicated verbally that he did not want the boys to stand outside the showers looking at each other because, "...there were no faggots around here." He also told the students he expected compliance and that he did not want parents calling the administration about student shower misconduct because that created problems for him and would get him "pissed off." It is also alleged that in the course of his presentation he told a group of male students who were not paying attention that he spoke clearly and did not talk like a "nigger." Respondent, who is, himself, African-American, denies making that comment though, according to Mr. Valdes, the vice principal, Respondent admitted doing so to him in an interview the day after the alleged incident took place. It is found that Respondent did, in fact, use the word, "nigger" in his discussion with the students, but it can not be said, under the circumstances, that it was used in a racist or manner derogatory toward any student or group of students. One of the students in the Respondent's class to whom he made the comments complained of was Stephanie Zavadil, a young female who did not want to be in a physical education class in the first place and who was supposed to be in a music class instead. The incident took place the first day of school which was, coincidentally, the first day of middle school for the students in this particular class. After school that day, Stephanie, who was quite upset by the Respondent's use of the language alleged, told her mother what had happened and indicated she would rather go to summer school than be in Respondent's class. She also cried when recounting the story and indicated she was so afraid of Respondent, she would not appear to testify at hearing even under subpoena. Mrs. Zavadil, herself a high school teacher in the Pinellas County system, after discussing the matter with her husband, reported it to the school principal, Ms. Desmond. She also indicated she did not want her daughter in Respondent's class. There is no indication any other student or parent has indicated a similar objection, though as a result of the press' attendance at a School Board meeting at which this matter was discussed, an article appeared in the Clearwater edition of the St. Petersburg Times reporting the incident. Before she could call Respondent in to discuss the matter, Ms. Desmond was approached by him in the school cafeteria the following day. Ms. Desmond, who was on cafeteria duty at the time, told Respondent she would discuss the matter with him later, but he followed her to the side of the room, still trying to talk with her. When she finally had the quiet to talk with Respondent, she reported to him the substance of the complaint she had received from Mrs. Zavadil and told him that in her opinion his use of the words alleged was inappropriate and a demonstration of bad judgement. Respondent acknowledged he had used the words. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the office of the Superintendent of schools, where the matter was investigated by Mr. Barker who interviewed Stephanie and other students involved. He also spoke with Respondent who admitted the use of all words alleged except "nigger." Mr. Barker also reviewed Respondent's personnel file in which he found two prior disciplinary actions taken against Respondent. In 1982, Respondent was reprimanded for pushing a student, and in 1992, was again reprimanded for using poor judgement in making inappropriate statements in front of a student and the use of physical force with a student. On the basis of his investigation, Mr. Barker, utilizing the school board's unwritten progressive discipline policy, recommended that disciplinary action to include a suspension without pay for five days be imposed. His recommendation was based on his conclusion that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired by his use of the words alleged. Mr. Barker is of the opinion that teachers should comport themselves in a manner which causes students to look up to them. Here, Respondent's comments could affect the way students perceived him and also might frighten some students who, as a result, might not want to take classes from him. Respondent's use of the word "faggot", as alleged here, complicates the already existing problem schools have regarding the reluctance of some elementary and middle school children to dress out for physical education training. Mr. Barker's opinion regarding Respondent's effectiveness was reinforced by those of Dr. Hinesley, Ms. Desmond, and Mr. Valdes. Dr. Hinesley believes that teachers should be role models and Respondent's use of the language alleged was a violation of the Teacher Code of Conduct which could undermine public support for the educational process if left unpunished. Ms. Desmond agrees with the proposed suspension because of her belief that Respondent's language was both frightening to the students and inappropriate. Students and their families discuss what happens at the schools and if Respondent, because of his language, were to develop an unfavorable reputation within the community, it would make it difficult for him to establish credibility and would also impact the school's effectiveness in the community. Respondent does not contest his use of the terms "pissed-off" and "faggot" but claims he has heard them used many times by other teachers and had never been told by the principal or anyone else that they were bad words. He claims that had he considered the words to be inappropriate, he would not have used them. He also claims, and it is so found, that he did not call any student either a "faggot" or a "nigger", not did he claim to be "pissed-off" at any particular student. Respondent has three daughters and professes to love children, asserting he would never intentionally use bad language to hurt anyone. With regard to his alleged admissions to Ms. Desmond and Mr. Valdes, he claims neither one specifically asked him about his use of the words alleged. Mr. Barker did do so, however, and Respondent admitted to the use of "faggot" and "pissed-off." He has been a teacher for 18 years and during that time has never received a bad evaluation. He claims he has never been cautioned about his language, and the reprimand administered in 1992 relates more to the use of poor judgement in attempting to intimidate student rather than to the use of "inappropriate" language.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Herbert Latimore, be suspended from employment as a teacher with the Pinellas County School Board, without pay, for a period of five (5) days. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 15th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-5748 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 to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. & 15. Not relevant to the issues herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: ARGUMENT paragraphs, unnumbered, as treated in sequence. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 4. Accepted as a correct comment on the state of the testimony. 5. & 6. Accepted as a correct comment on the state of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not evidence but argument and statement of position. Accepted as an accurate recounting of Respondent's testimony. Accepted as an accurate comment on the evidence. Accepted as Respondent's position. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 650 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 34640-3625 J. Howard Hinesley, Ed.D. Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 34649-2942
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida teaching certificate of Respondent, Edith E. Gonzalez, should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined for the alleged violations set forth in an Administrative Complaint entered on September 21, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent has been a certified teacher in Florida holding Certificate No. 194394. Respondent is certified in the areas of administrative supervision, elementary education, varying exceptionalities, French, Spanish, gifted and special learning disabilities. Her certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Miami Carol City High School (the "School") in the Dade County School District. The students enrolled in the Dade County Public School System hail from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Miami Carol City High School has a student population that is predominantly black. Respondent is 62 years old and will be 63 in December. She is an immigrant from Lima, Peru and Spanish is her native language. Respondent has been a teacher for the School Board for 24 years. She also taught for 5 years in Catholic schools. In addition, she has taught in Korea and Ecuador. The evidence indicates that from 1985 through 1992, the School Board received various complaints regarding Respondent and/or her conduct in the classroom. Except as set forth below, the specific nature of those complaints was not established in this proceeding. In 1987, Respondent was investigated by the Professional Practices Services of the Education Practices Commission for inappropriate discipline techniques. As a result of that investigation, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Respondent was placed on probation for one and a half years and issued a letter of reprimand. During the 1991/92 school year, the School Board was requested by the School to investigate allegations of inappropriate and derogatory comments purportedly made by Respondent. A formal fact finding investigation was conducted by the School Board. After the investigation was completed, a "conference for the record" was held between Respondent and School Board officials during which the investigative report was reviewed and Respondent's entire record with the School Board was discussed and considered. Respondent did not have an opportunity to review or provide input into the investigation until the conference for the record. During the conference, the School Board advised Respondent that the investigative unit concluded that the allegations of inappropriate and derogatory comments were true. Respondent was further advised that the Regional Supervisor for the School Board was going to initiate the steps necessary to suspend and dismiss her from employment. The evidence established that the School Board's decision to seek termination of Respondent's employment was based upon a review of her entire employment record with the School Board. The School Board investigation was completed on February 10, 1992, and the School Board moved to suspend Respondent and terminate her employment on or about April 1, 1992. While Respondent initially challenged the termination of her employment, on or about June 4, 1992, she decided to resign her position without a hearing. As a result, she never had an opportunity to confront the witnesses and/or challenge the investigation conducted by the School Board. The only direct evidence presented in this case regarding racial slurs and/or inappropriate and derogatory comments by Respondent was testimony from D. P., who was a student in Respondent's fourth period Spanish Class during the 1991/92 school year, and from Roxanne Mendez, who worked as a Media Specialist at the School. Their testimony was insufficient to establish that Respondent was racially prejudiced, or that she intentionally belittled, degraded, or made fun of students. The evidence established that Respondent's fourth period Spanish class was very difficult to control and included many students who misbehaved on a regular basis. Respondent admittedly had a difficult time in dealing with the class. On a couple of occasions, out of frustration, she told the students they were acting like "animals" or "savages" and told them they needed to be locked in a cage. While these comments may have been insensitive, they were not intended as racial slurs. The only student in the class who testified admitted that the comments were only made when the class was acting up and he was not personally offended by them. The evidence also established that, on some occasions when Respondent could not remember the name of a student, she would refer to them as "boy" or "girl". These comments were made to both black and white students and were not intended to be racially disparaging. While Petitioner contends that Respondent advised her students that she was prejudiced against blacks, the evidence established that any such comments were made sarcastically and/or in jest and were not taken seriously by the students. On one occasion when the students were particularly rambunctious, Respondent reprimanded them and told them they were acting "like a bunch of Haitians just off the boat." The exact circumstances surrounding this comment were not clearly established. Apparently, the aunt of one of the students was present when this remark was made and took great offense. As a result of this incident, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher at the School was reduced. No evidence was presented of any other incidents which would justify discipline or revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate. Respondent clearly had a difficult time dealing with the serious discipline problems that existed at the School. Many of the students made virtually no effort to learn. On several occasions, students deliberately disrupted classes and Respondent's class in particular. Some of the students referred to Respondent as "Taco Bell." Based upon the evidence presented, it is concluded that Respondent was a dedicated teacher who was trying her best in a difficult situation. Respondent often emphasized to her class the need to be tolerant and overlook cultural differences with other individuals. R. W. was one of Respondent's students during the 1991/92 school year. Even though she was not in the fourth period class, her testimony was very persuasive and is given great weight. She testified that at no time during that year did she ever feel uncomfortable in any way by what the Respondent said or did in the classroom. She also testified that the Respondent never showed disrespect toward her or the class and that the Respondent never referred to students in any way which would indicate that she was prejudiced against black children. The only other student who testified, D. P., confirmed that Respondent did not make him feel ill at ease or uncomfortable or hurt or sad or offended in any way. According to him, the only critical comments made by Respondent were directed to students who were misbehaving. While on some occasions Respondent's comments may have been insensitive and ill- advised, the evidence was insufficient to establish that Respondent was racially prejudiced, and/or that she intentionally embarrassed students or deliberately made racial slurs or disparaging comments. The evidence presented regarding Respondent's personal life confirmed that she harbors no racial prejudices.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, but dismissing the remaining Counts. As a result of her violation of Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, Respondent should be reprimanded and placed on probation for one year. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of August 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 18th day of August, 1993.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent’s professional service contract as a teacher for unsatisfactory performance or incompetence.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner first employed Respondent on August 23, 1977, in a paraprofessional position as a bilingual tutor. While so employed, Respondent attended Nova University working toward a degree in early education. She earned her degree in 1989 and received a teaching certificate in elementary education and English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). Respondent’s first instructional assignment was as an ESOL teacher at the start of the 1989-90 school year. She did not have a classroom, but taught as a pullout teacher. She remained in this position for four years. Respondent was first assigned to a regular classroom in the 1993-94 school year when her ESOL program was terminated. She taught a combined first and second grade class for the 1993- school year and then taught a second grade class for the 1994- school year. On March 1, 1994, Susan Griesinger became the principal of Tice Elementary School. There was little substantive contact between Dr. Griesinger and Respondent during the 1993-94 school year. During the 1994-95 school year, Dr. Griesinger twice observed and evaluated Respondent’s classroom performance. The evaluations were satisfactory. The Summative Observation Instrument for an observation of a second-grade mathematics class on November 17, 1994, contains numerous indications that Respondent has adequately organized and presented the instructional material. Student misbehavior was not an issue during the class. Dr. Griesinger concludes the evaluation by writing: “Your enthusiasm is catching! Many concepts in one lesson. Students enjoyed the clocks.” Dr. Griesinger prepared a second Summative Observation Instrument for an observation of another second-grade mathematics class on February 27, 1995. This evaluation is much the same as the first and concludes: “This was a hard concept. I am glad you gave the children actual shapes.” On March 6, 1995, Dr. Griesinger prepared Respondent’s year-end Performance Assessment. Respondent received satisfactory grades in all 40 categories. These grades are “Effective level of performance,” which is the only satisfactory grading option on the form. However, for two categories for which Respondent received satisfactory grades, Dr. Griesinger noted the need for “Focus for development/feedback.” Falling under “Presentation of Subject Matter,” the two categories were “Teaches a systematic process for developing academic values” and “Demonstrates knowledge of subject matter.” The Performance Assessment concludes: “Carmen has tried very hard this year to reach all students. She has a positive attitude.” Between the preparation of the Performance Assessment and the end of the 1994-95 school year, Dr. Griesinger and her assistant principal, Holly Bell, began receiving parent complaints about Respondent. The parents questioned whether Respondent could control her class. When Dr. Griesinger asked Respondent about the complaints, Respondent attributed the problems to a handful of misbehaving students. The following school year, Dr. Griesinger observed Respondent’s teaching more closely to see if there was a problem. Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, and the guidance counselor conducted several informal observations of Respondent’s classroom. During the summer, Tice Elementary School had received a grant to hire an outside teaching consultant to train teachers in peer coaching. Dr. Griesinger asked the consultant, Kaye Sutcliff, to observe Respondent and make suggestions. Ms. Sutcliff observed Respondent and suggested that she find other employment. On October 24, 1995, Dr. Griesinger sent a memorandum to Respondent confirming a meeting that they had had the prior day. The memorandum memorializes a concern with the “lack of classroom management we see this year” and states that Respondent is not consistent with discipline. The memorandum also mentions another concern as to how Respondent “present[s] your content to the students.” The memorandum elaborates: Last year I had a difficult time following your lesson when I came in to do your observation. I talked with you about some things you could have done differently. You need to be very specific when you are introducing new concepts. The memorandum concludes that Dr. Griesinger will be doing formal and informal observations to assist Respondent. The memorandum restates that Dr. Griesinger has asked Respondent to work closely with her coach and video and audio tape her lessons to see how she can improve and make her content clearer. The memorandum tells Respondent that Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, and Lynn Pottorf will work with Respondent to try to help her. Ms. Pottorf was the Elementary Generalist Coordinator employed in the District office. On January 4, 1996, Dr. Griesinger wrote a memorandum to Dr. Madeline Doran, Director of Personnel, asking that she place Respondent in the Intensive Assistance Program as soon as possible due to “extreme difficulty with classroom management, curriculum content and lesson delivery.” Acting on the advice of Dr. Griesinger and Dr. Doran, Dr. Jerry Baker, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, informed Respondent by letter dated January 24, 1996, that he was placing her in the eight-week Intensive Assistance Program. As part of the program, Dr. Doran formed an assistance team consisting of Dr. Griesinger, Ms. Bell, Ronalee Ashby, and Ms. Pottorf. Ms. Ashby is the District Coordinator of Personnel Services. The purpose of the team is to help the teacher as much as possible through observing her classroom teaching and discussing their findings with the teacher at weekly meetings. The team reviews the teacher’s performance and recommends further action to Dr. Doran. The Intensive Assistance Program informs the teacher that, based on input from the team and Dr. Doran, Petitioner may determine that the teacher’s performance is adequate, extend the Intensive Assistance Program for another eight weeks, recommend reassignment to a more suitable position, withhold recommendation for an annual reappointment, determine that the teacher’s performance is inadequate and recommend dismissal or recommend acceptance of the teacher’s resignation. On January 30, 1996, Ms. Ashby had a meeting with Respondent during which Ms. Ashby explained the Intensive Assistance Program in detail. Respondent completed an interview form for the Intensive Assistance Program. In the form, Respondent noted no particular problems interfering with her teaching. She stated that she was “okay with subj[ect],” but had some problems gathering materials. She mentioned two students out of 20 in her class who presented behavioral problems and one student who presented academic problems. She stated that she would like to get the students more involved. She stated that her general health was “good--some headaches,” and she denied having any nonschool problems adversely affecting her teaching. On March 20, 1996, Jo Ellen Kessler, Coordinator of Curriculum Services, conducted a two-hour observation, concluding that she never saw Respondent provide instruction for the students. Ms. Kessler stated: Dr. [Griesinger] asked that I spend at least one hour in the classroom. I spent approximately two hours there because I kept waiting for Ms. Hernandez to provide instruction for the students. During the time I was in the classroom, there was no review of any material. There was no introduction, no initial instruction. No clear directions were given for doing the activities on the chalkboard. The students were given no reason for learning. There was no motivation for learning, no personal connections made. There were no instructional materials prepared for them to use during the lesson, other than the things written on the chalkboard--certainly not the best way to engage students. There was no evidence of any materials prepared for students of differing abilities. There was no instruction given to help any of them learn the skills involved. . . . The children who behaved nicely were not really acknowledged for their attention or behavior. No specific praise was given to any student. Most of the well behaved children were not given an opportunity to be involved in the tasks. They sat with nothing to do. The students were given no clear expectation of what their behaviors should be. They had no limits set, no idea of what was acceptable and what was not. The students were not engaged in any of the tasks. They hung over their desks, put their heads down and appeared quite bored. In summary, the students did almost nothing for a two-hour period. The teacher was not teaching and was completely ineffective in managing their behavior. They were not involved in meaningful review or practice. Their behavior would be much improved if they had well-planned instruction and materials and if they were given meaningful learning tasks. The children in the room appeared to be bright and willing to learn, but they were not given the opportunity to do so. On March 22, 1996, Dr. Baker, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, sent a letter to Respondent giving her official notice, pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, that her performance was “unsatisfactory” and, if the deficiencies were not corrected next year, he would recommend that the School Board terminate her at the close of the 1996-97 school year. On March 25, 1996, Dr. Griesinger prepared Respondent’s year-end Performance Assessment. In contrast to the preceding year, Respondent received only four satisfactory grades, all in conformance to school and district rules. Nearly all of the other grades were “Unacceptable level of performance observed.” The Performance Assessment concludes: “Carmen needs to improve drastically in all areas.” On the same day, Ms. Bell had to go to Respondent’s classroom to restore order. Hearing Respondent and students shouting from outside the door, Ms. Bell found seven students out of their seats and the remaining students seated with nothing to do. The prior day a substitute teacher had had no problem with the class. On or about April 4, 1996, Respondent went on medical leave for the rest of the school year due to anxiety and menstrual problems. At the hearing, Respondent produced little, if any, evidence concerning the onset of her medical problems or their effect on her teaching. The preponderance of the evidence proves that demands that Respondent improve her classroom performance preceded the medical problems, although Respondent’s complaints of anxiety may have been exacerbated by these demands. Dr. Griesinger hired a substitute teacher for the remainder of the school year. The substitute teacher had no problem teaching Respondent’s class for the next two months. Respondent returned to work at the start of the 1996-97 school year with clearance from her physician. She was assigned a second grade class. Separate observations on September 4, 1996, by Dr. Griesinger and Ms. Bell record a boy barking like a dog in the back row during class without notice from Respondent, a boy sleeping so soundly that Respondent twice could not awaken him and gave up trying with a shrug of her shoulders, and motivated students losing interest after Respondent never called on them despite having their hands up for long periods of time. In all cases of misbehavior, Respondent imposed no consequences. During an observation on September 5, 1996, Respondent repeatedly asked the class what mountains look like. While she was doing so, one boy, who had been in and out of his seat for five minutes, managed to get the teacher’s manual off Respondent’s desk, give it to the observer, and tell the observer that this is where Respondent gets all her questions. At the same time, a girl, who was playing while in her seat, made two trips to the bathroom in 30 minutes, spending the second visit playing in the bathroom, turning the fan on and off. After teaching from August 20 through September 12, 1996, Respondent again went on medical leave. Dr. Griesinger hired a new teacher to take over the class. On October 3, 1996, Ms. Ashby sent a memorandum to the then-counsel for Petitioner advising him that Respondent’s classroom performance has continued to deteriorate and that he should review the file for proceeding with a predetermination hearing for “incompetency,” noting that Petitioner had given her notification last spring that she had “one year and six weeks to improve.” On October 21, 1996, Dr. Griesinger sent a letter to Respondent confirming their conversation of October 7 in which Respondent informed Dr. Griesinger that she would be taking the year off for medical reasons. The letter asks Respondent to call Dr. Griesinger prior to October 25 if this is incorrect. Respondent did not call Dr. Griesinger in response to the October 21 letter. Instead, a few days before Christmas vacation was to start, Respondent contacted Dr. Griesinger and told her that she would be returning to teach when school started again in January. Dr. Griesinger justifiably decided not to disturb the second grade class that the replacement teacher was handling quite well. Dr. Griesinger instead formed a new fourth grade class and assigned it to Respondent. Respondent began teaching the class on the first day of school after vacation, which was January 6, 1997. On January 9, 1997, Ms. Pottorf observed Respondent’s fourth grade social studies class. She found that the students were well-behaved and on-task for only about 10 minutes. The lesson was “disjointed,” and Respondent displayed an obvious unfamiliarity with the subject matter, as evidenced, for instance, by her inability to find a definition for “pioneer” in the text or her incorrect assumption that the Miami Indians were a tribe in Florida, not Ohio. She referred to the two or three students who had read the lesson as “her friends who knew the answers,” excluding the remainder of the class. Respondent failed to guide students’ responses, allowing the same answers and silly answers to continue. Unaware of the time, Respondent allowed the lesson to end without review or conclusion. The next class was reading. Respondent immediately lost the attention of the class by engaging in a discussion with a child about the seating arrangements. For no good reason, Respondent required the class to cover material that had been covered earlier in the week. She displayed a poor command of the reading material. For instance, telling the students that “errors” were to be called “challenges,” Respondent proceeded to use the words, “error” or “mistake” throughout the lesson, each time adding that “We are to call them challenges.” Randomly checking workbooks, Respondent failed to note which students had done their work and which had not. After a student was left without a reading partner, Respondent said she would be his partner, but she never returned to be his partner. When the students became loud and off-task, Respondent required them to call out the reading words in unison with her arm signals. She made them repeat words numerous times, to the obvious irritation of the students. After one child asked her not to do this, and, in response to Respondent’s inquiry, the rest of the class asked to be spared the repetition, Respondent agreed not to continue asking them to repeat the same word. But she continued to do so. At one point, she made them start over because they did not show enough energy, as the task became filler for the period, which ended without review or conclusion. On the same date, Ms. Bell did an observation of Respondent. She noted that the majority of the students were off-task. Respondent repeatedly tried to restore order by telling the students to look at the rules, but there were no rules posted anywhere in the classroom. On January 10, 1997, Respondent enlisted the students’ assistance in adopting classroom rules. A list of seven rules was disorganized, with some rules encompassing all of the others. The students became more restless when Respondent asked about consequences. No one answered her questions about consequences as the process became more disordered. Respondent evidently did not understand the point system that she had developed, leaving the whole system confusing and unmanageable. Later, a child privately asked to be Respondent’s helper. Respondent announced this request to the class, but did not otherwise acknowledge it. Respondent moved into a lesson on pronouns, but could not define a pronoun. Abruptly leaving this lesson after only three minutes, Respondent presented a new lesson on narrative writing, which she explained in one rambling sentence interspersed with frequent allusions to the rules and consequences that they had just worked out. Few students were on-task by this time. Respondent taught through February 6, 1997. At that time, Petitioner suspended her for her poor classroom performance. Respondent’s three major problems in the classroom were that she did not know her material, could not teach, and could not control the behavior of her students. She wasted time in transitions, such as to lunch, physical education, or taking attendance. She missed many opportunities to reinforce good behavior and frequently reinforced bad behavior by ignoring visible defiance or even unwittingly rewarding it. She confused students as often as she instructed them and displayed no idea of how she could explain content to her students. She sometimes displayed an uncertain grasp of even elementary materials. The result of these deficiencies is that Respondent impeded learning by repeatedly failing to communicate with and relate to the students to the point that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. There is evidence of effective instances of teaching by Respondent. Undoubtedly, Respondent had some days that were better than others. However, Respondent’s performance as a teacher was so bad so often that she was ineffective and incompetent as a teacher. Numerous individuals observed her work in the classroom and found it seriously deficient. Ms. Ashby ultimately opined that, after a long career in education, Respondent, whom she described as a “horrible teacher,” was “one of the worst teachers I ever worked with.” Respondent tried to show at the hearing that her teaching problems were the result of her health problems. As already noted, the evidence shows that her teaching problems preceded the emergence of her health problems. However, even if the health problems preceded the teaching problems, Respondent, with the approval of her physician, returned to the classroom in January 1997 and performed abysmally. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that her health problems, or other mitigating factors, induced Respondent (and her physician) to decide that she could return to the classroom in January. The impact of her poor performance was dramatic, as the learning of her students slowed and even ended upon her return to the classroom. Respondent argues that Dr. Griesinger and others in the administration were biased against her for reasons that are unclear from the record. Although Dr. Griesinger decided by no later than January 1997 that Respondent was not going to be able to eliminate her performance deficiencies, this determination was supported by the record and was not indicative of bias. Dr. Griesinger’s determination did not distort her observations, which were corroborated by several other individuals. Respondent understandably draws support from Dr. Griesinger’s initial positive evaluation. This evaluation was more likely due to a combination of her carelessness and optimism, as she converted an evaluative instrument to a device designed to encourage and promote one of her classroom teachers. Most likely, Respondent was ill-suited to assume the responsibilities of a classroom teacher when she began teaching second grade in the fall of 1993, but may have initially escaped the serious problems that later befell her due to a combination of factors, such as the youth of her students, extraordinary effort of what was effectively a new teacher, and inattentiveness of the school administration.
The Issue The issues in this case concern whether the Petitioner may lawfully terminate the Respondent's employment as a teacher by reason of alleged acts of misconduct set forth in an Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Ms. Engar Dennard (the Respondent) was employed as a teacher by the Palm Beach County School Board (the Petitioner). During the 1999/2000 school year, the Respondent was an Emotionally Handicapped (EH) teacher at H. L. Watkins Middle School until she was reassigned on January 6, 2000, pending an investigation. During the 1999/2000 school year, M. M.2 was a seventh grade student at H. L. Watkins Middle School. M. M. was a student in the Respondent's classroom for one period each day. Prior to December 17, 1999, M. M. had not created any behavior problems in the Respondent's classroom, although the Respondent knew that he was sometimes a behavior problem in the classrooms of other teachers. On Friday, December 17, 1999, M. M. misbehaved in the presence of the Respondent. While outside on the school grounds, M. M. made several inappropriate, vulgar, and offensive remarks to a girl who was passing by. Another student told M. M. that he should not use that type of language in the presence of the Respondent. M. M. replied by saying, "Fuck her." The Respondent promptly reported M. M.'s conduct to a Crisis Intervention Teacher (CIT) who was nearby.3 The CIT interviewed and redirected M. M. On Monday, December 20, 1999, M. M. and several other students were approximately ten minutes late for class because another teacher had kept them in class longer than usual. The Respondent told all of the late students, including M. M., that, because they were late, they had to get a pass before they could come into her class. With the exception of M. M., all of the late students left, presumably to obtain the necessary pass. M. M. remained and began to address the Respondent in terms that were confrontational, vulgar, offensive, and obscene.4 The Respondent brought this tirade to an end by closing and locking the classroom door with M. M. on the outside. A moment later, another teacher arrived and explained why the students had been late. The Respondent allowed all of the late students, including M. M., to enter her classroom. M. M. did not engage in any further misconduct on December 20, 1999. The Respondent did not write a referral about M. M.'s misconduct on December 20, 1999, because use of inappropriate language was a manifestation of one of M. M.'s handicaps and was an issue targeted in his Individualized Educational Plan (IEP). On December 21, 1999, M. M. arrived at the Respondent's classroom approximately twenty minutes late. All of the other students were engaged in taking a final exam. M. M. entered the classroom quietly, took a seat, and began taking the final exam. Moments later, M. M. began to disturb the class by talking to other students. The Respondent asked him to be quiet, and he complied, but only for a moment. When M. M. again disturbed the class by talking, the Respondent told him that if he could not be quiet, he would have to leave the classroom. In response to the Respondent's admonition, M. M. used confrontational, vulgar, and offensive language to tell the Respondent that she could not tell him what to do.5 At this point the Respondent became upset and embarked on a series of inappropriate overreactions to M. M.'s misbehavior. The Respondent began walking towards M. M. and M. M., concerned about what she might do to him, stood up from his desk and began backing away from his desk and from the Respondent. When the Respondent reached the desk that was between her and M. M., she violently shoved the desk to one side, causing the desk to fall over on its side. When the Respondent knocked over the desk, M. M. shouted "fuck you" and ran out of the classroom. The Respondent ran out after him. M. M. ran directly to the nearby office of the CIT, Curtis White. As M. M. ran to the back of Mr. White's office, he shouted, "Mr. White, get that lady!" Before Mr. White could figure out what was happening, the Respondent rushed into his office and headed straight for M. M. As the Respondent approached, M. M. backed up as far as he could until he was against a row of boxes stacked against the wall. The Respondent pushed M. M. back against the row of boxes and then grabbed his shirt with one hand and kept him pressed against the boxes while she slapped him in the face three times with her other hand. When the Respondent pushed and slapped M. M., he was shouting vulgar and offensive things to her, but his hands were down by his sides and he did not attempt to push or hit the Respondent. Immediately after the Respondent slapped M. M., another student in the CIT office grabbed the Respondent and began pulling her away from M. M. The Respondent turned and began to leave the CIT office. At that point, M. M. balled up his fists and it appeared that he might attempt to hit the Respondent. Yet another student grabbed M. M. and restrained him from following the Respondent. During the course of the events in the CIT office described above, M. M. and the Respondent were offensive and confrontational to each other. The Respondent's remarks to M. M. included, "Don't you ever fucking call me that again." The Respondent also told M. M. that she would "beat his ass" if he did not stop saying offensive things to her. The Respondent also said to M. M., "Boy, you don't know who you're messing with! I'll kill your ass!" On at least two prior occasions the Respondent has lost control and engaged in inappropriate conduct directed towards students. In 1999, the Respondent received a five-day suspension without pay for inappropriate physical contact with a student. The inappropriate contact on this occasion was grabbing a student by the face when the student misbehaved in a car. Later in 1999, the Respondent received a verbal reprimand with a written notation for throwing water on a student and calling the student a "faggot." Among the consequences of the Respondent's conduct on December 21, 1999, is the notoriety which resulted from publication of information about the incident in a local newspaper. M. M. cried as a result of the incident and was reluctant to return to school. At least one student who witnessed the events in the CIT office was worried that in the future a teacher might strike him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order terminating the Respondent's employment and denying all relief sought by the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2000.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for alleged violation of various provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B
Findings Of Fact Respondent Clayton McWilliams holds Florida teaching certificate number 653517, covering the area of substitute teaching, which is valid through June 30, 1994. He is 27 years of 1989, from Valdosta State College in Valdosta, Georgia. After a few brief months employment in retail sales in Tallahassee, Florida, Respondent returned to Madison, Florida, where he was born and lived prior to attending college. Respondent returned to Madison in August of 1989, after being contacted by the high school coach there regarding the possible employment of Respondent as an assistant coach at the high school from which Respondent graduated. He was employed in the 1989 County School Board. Subsequently, he was employed by the Board during the 1990 high school. Respondent served as an assistant coach during this period. While serving as a substitute teacher during the 1989 Respondent was responsible for a ninth grade science class. Female students M.B., R.B., J.D., and R.C., were in a group surrounding Respondent's desk, talking with Respondent. All the students in the group were curious about Respondent and asked him such questions as what are you going to coach, are you married, do you have a girl friend, and why did you come back to Madison? Respondent knew many of the students on a first name basis and, in the course of bantering with the group, responded at one point to the students' questions about his private life by asking the students about their social lives, if they kissed their boy friends with their mouths open, and if they used their tongues. There was general laughter from the students, although R.B. didn't think the question was "any of [Respondent's] business." This was the only question or comment that Respondent ever made that bothered R.B. R.B. regarded Respondent's conduct in the ensuing two years as "flirting" and "didn't ever think anything bad about it." The next year when R.B. was in the tenth grade (1990 photograph. Respondent later told R.B. that he stared at the photograph every night. When R.B. was in the eleventh grade and not a student in a class taught by Respondent, Respondent jokingly asked R.B. in the presence of D.C., her boyfriend at the time and an athlete with whom Respondent enjoyed a rapport, why she wanted to date such a "big, old dummy." There were other times that Respondent would see R.B., tell her that she looked nice, wink at her and blow her kisses. During the 1990 M.B., by asking her if she kissed with her mouth open, and would she teach Respondent how to do this. Respondent also told M.B. that she looked beautiful. M.B. was not a student in a class taught by Respondent. During the 1991-1992 school year, M.B. was a high school junior and a varsity cheerleader. Respondent continued to speak to M.B., although she was not his student, when he saw her on the school campus or at sporting events. He continued to ask M.B. about kissing with her mouth open, whether she would teach Respondent how to do this, and when could she teach him. M.B. declined to specify any time or place to meet with Respondent. M.B. did not disclose Respondent's behavior to anyone at this time. On one occasion, M.B. and other eleventh grade students, including her boyfriend, were in the high school library, ordering their class rings. Respondent became involved in conversation with the students and asked M.B. again about teaching him to kiss open would lose his job for M.B. Although he heard these comments, M.B.'s boyfriend considered Respondent to be joking. In the fall of the 1991 Wakulla County for a game which would determine whether the team could compete in the district championship playoff. Upon boarding the bus after the game for the trip home, Respondent was asked by M.B. if he was going to sit with her on the bus. He replied that he would if she saved him a seat. Respondent stored the athletic equipment which he was carrying, returned to the forward section of the bus and assumed the vacant seat beside M.B. Since the team had lost the game, most passengers on the bus were despondent. In the course of the trip, M.B. and Respondent leaned their heads against the back of the seat in front of them and Respondent talked about college and how being from a small high school had been difficult when he had attended the University of Florida before transferring to Valdosta State. Respondent had his hands between his knees as he talked and at one point placed it on M.B.'s knee or patted her knee. She, feeling discomfited by the gesture, brushed his hand away. This was the only time that Respondent touched a student where such touching was interpreted by a student to have sexual significance. Respondent testified that he patted M.B. because she acted as though "something had been bothering her" and characterized the pat as something he would give "football players or baseball players at school." Eventually, M.B. became sleepy and rested her head against the bus window. Respondent in a normal tone of voice offered to let her place her head on his shoulder, but M.B. declined. During the 1991 photographs. On the back of his photograph, Respondent wrote: M., I remember when I first saw you, you struck me as beautiful. I really think you are. You are truly special to me. Please know that I love you. Stay sweet and pretty. Love, Clayton. P.S., Please teach me sometime. Mary Rice, a teacher at the high school, began teaching there at approximately the same time as Respondent. Rice, like Respondent, was single. Rice, like Respondent, enjoyed informal relationships with some students, such as the cheerleaders for whom she served as staff sponsor. The cheerleaders, similar to many students who called Respondent by his first name, referred to Rice as "Mary". She became engaged in October of 1991 to Scott Alley, another teacher who occasionally substituted at the school. Rice and Respondent had a normal collegial relationship. Prior to Christmas of 1991, Rice and Respondent were in the school office discussing what they were getting their significant others for Christmas. Respondent told Rice that he would tell her what he was getting his girl friend for Christmas if Rice would have sex with him. Later in the day, Respondent got down on his knees in the hallway outside of Rice's classroom in the presence of students and asked Rice to "go with me before you get married". While Respondent meant that he wanted to have sex with Rice, he did not explicitly state such in the hallway. Later, Respondent sent Rice a note containing four blanks for letters. According to Rice, the note stated that Respondent would tell Rice what he was getting for his girlfriend for Christmas if Rice would " ". Rice assumed the four blanks to represent a sexually suggestive word. Rice stored the note in her desk drawer. She determined not to tell anyone about the note. In February of 1992, her fiancee, Scott Alley, discovered the note in the desk while he was substituting for Rice. He showed the note to Debra Wetherington, a school secretary, and later asked Rice about the note. Rice was startled that Alley had found the note and became upset. Later, in a telephone conversation initiated by Respondent, he discussed the note with Alley. Respondent apologized to Alley for any misunderstanding about the note, stating that he had written it merely to get a laugh from Rice. Respondent told Alley that he, Respondent, just flirted with everyone and that was "how I broke the ice with everyone." After Respondent's apology, the two men agreed to remain friends. Subsequently, the note was destroyed by Alley. Debra Wetherington, the secretary at the high school, frequently interacts with the teaching staff. Initially, Respondent and Wetherington enjoyed a good working relationship no different than those she shared with other teachers. She had known Respondent all of his life. Over a period of time, Respondent began to flirt with Wetherington, asking her about open mouth kissing. At these times, Wetherington ignored his remarks or laughed them off as a joke. When his behavior persisted, she told him that his conduct bothered her and that he should stop. She never told her husband or any one else about Respondent's attentions, hoping to resolve the matter without confrontation and embarrassment. On or about February 25, 1992, Respondent came into the school office and physically put his arms around Wetherington in a "bear" hug and, according to Wetherington, tried to put his tongue in her ear. Also present in the room were the school resource officer and another office worker. No eyewitness corroboration of Wetherington's allegation that Respondent attempted to put his tongue in her ear was offered at the final hearing and she had not reported this detail in an earlier affidavit regarding the incident. Respondent denies he attempted to put his tongue in her ear. Respondent's testimony is more credible on this point and it is not established that he attempted to put his tongue in Whetherington's ear. Wetherington later complained about Respondent's conduct to Lou Miller, the school principal. Miller called Respondent into her office, discussed the incident with him, and directed him to have no such contact with Wetherington in the future. Respondent apologized for his conduct, both to Miller and Wetherington. While Respondent and Wetherington had no further contact, Wetherington later asked another teacher, Tony Stukes, if Respondent was angry with her since she had not seen or heard from him lately. On or about March 24, 1992, Respondent saw M.B. in the hallway outside the door of his classroom while classes were changing. Respondent spoke to M.B. and told her that he had a dream about her. M.B. went to see Mary Rice, the cheerleading sponsor, who had earlier asked M.B. if she was having any problems with a teacher. Rice had taken this action following the discovery of Respondent's note in Rice's desk by Rice's fiancee. M.B. had confided in Rice about Respondent's previous flirtatious behavior toward her. Rice told her to write down future incidents. After relating to Rice the comment of Respondent about having a dream, M.B. was asked by Rice to go back to Respondent and find out more about the dream. M.B. went into Respondent's class where the students were working on a geography project. An overhead projector displayed the continent of South America on a board. Some students were tracing the projection on the board, preparatory to cutting the shape out of the board. Other groups were cutting out other continents. The lights in the room were turned on. Respondent was sitting at his desk, cutting out the Asian continent. M.B. went to a chair by Respondent's desk and sat down. M.B. was on her lunch break and was not a student in the class. However, in the context of the situation, her entry into the classroom was not that unusual. Respondent had on previous occasions entered an art class where M.B. was a student and had spoken with her or, on some of these occasions, had also spoken with the teacher in the class. After seating herself by his desk, M.B. asked Respondent to tell her about his dream. Respondent replied that he couldn't, but M.B. persisted. Finally, Respondent wrote on a piece of paper, "I had a dream about you and me." M.B. then wrote on the paper, "Well, what happened?" The rest of the written exchange is as follows: Respondent: "Well, all I remember is you were teaching me." M.B.: "Teaching you what?" Respondent: "Guess." M.B. "I don't know. Why don't you tell me what I was supposedly teaching you." Respondent: "How to kiss with my mouth open. I liked it, too. I woke up sweating and holding my pillow to my mouth." M.B. then took possession of the piece of paper on which she and Respondent had been writing, left the class and went back to see Mary Rice. M.B. discussed the matter with Rice. After this discussion, M.B.'s feelings about Respondent solidified and she determined that she detested Respondent. At Rice's suggestion, she then went to see Principal Miller. Miller and School Superintendent Eugene Stokes confronted Respondent with the note. Respondent stated he meant no harm by his conduct, recognized that he had a problem and needed help for his aberrant behavior. After a discussion of options, including suspension or resignation, Respondent thought about the matter overnight and submitted his resignation to Stokes on March 27, 1992. Respondent was told that the matter must be reported to the Professional Practices Commission. Respondent was, however, under the impression that his resignation would conclude the necessity for any further proceedings of a disciplinary nature. Until the time of his resignation, Respondent had received good evaluations. His contract was renewed annually. However, as expressed at final hearing by Miller and Stokes, they would not rehire Respondent in view of his past behaviors which now, in their opinion, would reduce his effectiveness as a teacher at Madison High School. Subsequently, Respondent was informed on May 28, 1992, that an investigation regarding alleged misconduct been instituted by the Professional Practices Commission. In August of 1992, Respondent sought and was appointed to a teaching position in Hawthorne, Florida, at the combined junior/senior high school in that city for the 1992 completion of course work for issuance of a five year teaching certificate from the State of Florida which he received in October of 1992. Dr. Lamar Simmons, the supervising principal at the school in Hawthorne, Florida, where Respondent is presently employed is acquainted with Miller. Simmons contacted Miller at the Madison High School, prior to employing Respondent. Miller informed Simmons that Respondent had been a satisfactory employee. Miller did not disclose Respondent's alleged misconduct to Simmons because she assumed Respondent was receiving professional help for his problem and that the issuance of Respondent's five year certificate indicated that further disciplinary proceedings by the Professional Practices Commission had been abandoned. Respondent later disclosed the instant disciplinary proceeding to Simmons. To date of the final hearing, Respondent continues to teach at the school in Hawthorne without apparent incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the third, fourth, and fifth count of the Administrative Complaint, and placing Respondent's teaching certificate on probation for a period not to exceed three years upon reasonable terms and conditions to be established by Petitioner, including the following requirements: That Respondent present himself for psychological evaluation by a qualified professional selected by Petitioner. That Respondent complete such course of psychotherapy as may be prescribed as a result of that evaluation. That Respondent assume the cost of such evaluation and subsequent therapy, if any. That Respondent enroll and complete a minimum of six hours of continuing education courses in the area of professional conduct for educators. That in the event that Respondent fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of probation, Respondent's teaching certificate shall be subjected to a period of suspension not to exceed two years, and that compliance with these conditions of probation serve as the prerequisite for any reinstatement of Respondent's teaching certificate in the event that suspension for noncompliance with these conditions occurs. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 1st day of June, 1993. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following constitutes my specific rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Petitioner's proposed findings 1.-12. Accepted. Rejected as to D.C.'s feelings, hearsay. Accepted. (Note: this is the second finding numbered 13.) Rejected as to "two or three times", accepted as to touching on the knee one time, on the basis of resolution of credibility on this point. (Note: this is the second finding numbered 14.) Accepted. Accepted in substance, not verbatim. 16.-18. Accepted. Rejected as to tickling reference since no sexual significance was ascribed by M.B. to this action, she did not supply a point in time when this occurred and inclusion would imply a significance not proven at the final hearing. Rejected, unnecessary. 21.-23. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer findings on this point. 24.-42. Accepted, but not verbatim. 43. Accepted as to bear hug, remainder rejected on basis of creditibility. 44.-57. Accepted, but not verbatim. Respondent's proposed findings 1.-20. Accepted, but not verbatim. 21. Rejected, unnecessary. 22.-23. Accepted, but not verbatim. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Thomas E. Stone, Esquire Post Office Box 292 Madison, Florida 32340 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practice Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sidney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact One of the statutory duties of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") is to evaluate the performance of every teacher employed in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"), at least once per year. To accomplish this, the Board uses a personnel assessment system known as "PACES," which is an acronym for Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. PACES is the product of collective bargaining between the Board and the teachers' union, and it has been duly approved by the Florida Department of Education. The Board's evaluation procedure begins with an observation of the subject teacher, conducted by an administrator trained in the use of PACES. On a score sheet called the Observation Form for Annual Evaluation ("OFAE"), the evaluator rates the teacher's performance on 44 independently dispositive "indicators." The only grades assignable to the respective indicators are "acceptable" and "unacceptable"; thus, the evaluator's decision, for each indicator, is binary: yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down.1 A negative mark on any one of the 44 indicators results in an overall performance evaluation of "unsatisfactory." For the teacher under observation, therefore, each indicator constitutes, in effect, a pass/fail test, with his or her job hanging in the balance. If the teacher passes all 44 of the independently dispositive indicators, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory" and the evaluative process is complete. If, on the other hand, the teacher is given a failing grade on one or more of the 44 indicators and hence adjudged an unsatisfactory performer, then the initial observation is deemed to be "not of record" (i.e. inoperative) and a follow-up, "for the record" evaluation is scheduled to occur, upon notice to the affected teacher, about one month later. In the meantime, the teacher is offered the assistance of a Professional Growth Team ("PGT"), a group of peers who, having received special training in PACES, are in a position to help the affected teacher correct performance deficiencies in advance of the follow-up evaluation. The follow-up evaluation is conducted in the same manner as the initial "not of record" evaluation. If the teacher passes all 44 indicators, then his performance is deemed satisfactory and the evaluative process is complete. If he fails one or more of the indicators, however, then the teacher is placed on probation for a period of 90 calendar days (excluding vacations and holidays). The probation period is preceded by a formal Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), at which notice of the specific performance deficiencies is provided to the teacher. As well, the teacher is given a Professional Improvement Plan ("PIP"), wherein particular remedial tasks, intended to help the teacher correct the noted performance deficiencies, are assigned. During the performance probation, the teacher must be formally observed at least twice, by an evaluator using the OFAE. If, on any of these probationary observations, the teacher fails at least one indicator, then another PIP is prepared and offered. Within 14 days after the end of probation, a "confirmatory evaluation" is conducted, using the OFAE. The purpose of the confirmatory evaluation is to determine whether the noted performance deficiencies were corrected. If they were, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory." If not, the principal then makes a recommendation to the superintendent whether to continue or terminate the teacher's employment. As mentioned above, a PACES evaluation takes account of 44 crucial indicators.2 The indicators are organized under "components." The 44 outcome determinative indicators fall within 21 components, which are identified on the OFAE. These components are organized, in turn, under "domains," of which six are identified on the OFAE. Each domain has been assigned a Roman numeral identifier: I through VI. The components are distinguished alphabetically: A, B, C, etc. The indicators are numbered using Arabic numerals. Each specific indicator is named according to the Roman numeral of its domain, the letter of its component, and its own Arabic number. Thus, for example, the first indicator under Component A of Domain I is referred to as "I.A.1." Notwithstanding the PACES taxonomy, the classifications of "domain" and "component" are useful only as a means of organizing the indicators. This is because a teacher does not pass or fail a performance evaluation at the domain level or at the component level; rather, he passes or fails at the indicator level, for, again, each of the 44 indicators is independently dispositive under PACES.3 Thus, each of the determinative 44 indicators is of precisely equal weight. None is more important or less important than another.4 B. At all times material to this case, Respondent Sergio H. Escalona ("Escalona") was a teacher in the District. From 2000 until May 19, 2004, when the Board suspended him pending termination of employment, Escalona was a science teacher at Miami Springs Senior High School ("Miami Springs"), a typical high school in the District. During the 2003-04 school year, an evaluator observed Escalona in his classroom on five separate occasions, each time using the OFAE. The dates of these evaluations were, and the names of the respective evaluators are, as follows: Evaluation Date Evaluator November 5, 2003 Carlos M. del Cuadro, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs December 2, 2003 Mr. del Cuadro January 16, 2004 Douglas P. Rodriguez, Principal, Miami Springs February 17, 2004 Deborah Carter, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs April 5, 2004 Mr. Rodriguez The Board contends that Escalona failed all five evaluations; the first, however, was deemed "not of record" and thus is relevant only insofar as it opened the door to the process that followed. The following table shows, for each evaluation (including the first), the indicators that the respective evaluators thought Escalona had failed: IA1 IA2 IB1 IB3 IE3 IF1 IF2 IIA1 IIA3 IIB2 IIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x 01-16-04 x x x 02-17-04 x x x x 04-05-04 x x x IID1 IID3 IID4 IIE1 IIE2 IIE5 IIIA1 IIIA3 IIIB1 IIIB3 IIIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x 01-16-04 x x 02-17-04 x 04-05-04 x x x x x IVA3 IVA 5 IVA6 IVB1 IVB2 IVB 3 IVC2 IVD1 IVD3 IVD6 IVE2 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x 02-17-04 x x x x x 04-05-04 x ? x ? x ? x x IVE4 VA1 VA4 VB1 VB2 VC1 VIA2 VIB1 VIB3 VIC2 VIC4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x x 02-17-04 04-05-04 x ? ? ? x ? x x Because Mr. del Cuadro identified 10 performance deficiencies on December 2, 2003, Escalona was placed on performance probation, pursuant to the procedure described in detail above. Mr. Rodriguez held a CFR on December 9, 2004, to review with Escalona the identified deficiencies and explain the procedures relating to the 90-day probation. Following the CFR, Escalona was given written notice of unsatisfactory performance, in the form of a Summary of Conference-For-The-Record And Professional Improvement Plan (PIP), dated December 9, 2003 ("Summary"). In the Summary, Mr. Rodriguez charged Escalona with failure to satisfactorily perform the following PACES indicators: II.B.4, II.E.5, III.B.3, IV.A.5, IV.B.1, IV.D.1, V.A.1, V.A.4, V.B.1, and VI.A.2. (These 10 indicators are highlighted vertically in the table above.) At the same time, Escalona was given a PIP, and a PGT was assembled to provide assistance. Following the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, based on which Mr. Rodriguez identified 24 deficiencies as shown in the table above, Mr. Rodriguez notified the superintendent that Escalona had failed to correct noted performance deficiencies during a 90-day probation and recommended that Escalona's employment be terminated. The superintendent accepted Mr. Rodriguez's recommendation on April 12, 2004, and shortly thereafter notified Escalona of his decision to recommend that the Board terminate Escalona's employment contract. On May 19, 2004, the Board voted to do just that. C. Of the four evaluations "for the record," the two that were conducted during Escalona's probation (on January 16, 2004, and February 17, 2004) are presently relevant mainly to establish that the proper procedure was followed——a matter that is not genuinely disputed. The substance of these probationary evaluations cannot affect the outcome here because even if Escalona's performance had been perfect during probation, Mr. Rodriguez nevertheless found deficiencies during the post- probation, confirmatory evaluation, which is the only one probative of the dispositive question: Had Escalona corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period after the close of the 90 calendar days' probation? In view of the ultimate issue, the evaluation of December 2, 2003, is primarily relevant because it established the 10 "noted performance deficiencies" that Escalona needed to correct. For reasons that will be discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, the Board cannot terminate Escalona's employment based on other deficiencies allegedly found during probation or at the confirmatory evaluation; rather, it must focus exclusively on those 10 particular deficiencies which Escalona was given 90 calendar days to correct. Thus, stated more precisely, the ultimate question in this case is whether any of the 10 specific deficiencies identified in the Summary provided to Escalona on December 9, 2003, persisted after the 90-day probation. As it happened, Mr. Rodriguez determined, as a result of the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, that Escalona had corrected three of the 10 noted performance deficiencies, for Mr. Rodriguez gave Escalona a passing grade on the indicators II.B.4, II.E.5, and III.B.3. The remaining seven deficiencies upon which termination could legally be based are identified in the table above with the "?" symbol. It is to these seven allegedly uncorrected deficiencies that our attention now must turn. The Board contends, based on Mr. Rodriguez's confirmatory evaluation of April 5, 2004, that Escalona was still, as of that date, failing satisfactorily to perform the following PACES indicators: 5: The purpose or importance of learning tasks is clear to learners. 1: Teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. IV.D.1: Learners have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level or to integrate knowledge and understandings. V.A.1: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in developing associations. 4: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. 1: A variety of questions that enable thinking are asked and/or solicited. VI.A.2: Learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks is monitored. The only descriptive evidence in the record regarding Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004——and hence the only evidence of historical fact upon which the undersigned can decide whether Escalona failed adequately to perform the seven indicators just mentioned——consists of Mr. Rodriguez's testimony. Mr. Rodriguez, who had observed Escalona in the classroom for 50 minutes that day, recounted at final hearing what he had seen as follows: Again, there were students that were simply not engaged at all in learning. For example, there was a student that put his head down at a particular time. He slept for about fifteen minutes. Mr. Escalona never addressed the student, never redirected the learning, never tried to engage that student. Overall the students continued to pass notes in class. The students simply——there was really no plan at all. That was get up, give a lecture. Kids were not paying attention. No redirection for student learning. Questions again very basic. Most of the questions had no response from the students. And [they] just seemed very disinterested, the students did, and the lesson was just not acceptable. Final Hearing Transcript at 103-04. To repeat for emphasis, any findings of historical fact concerning Escalona's performance during the confirmatory evaluation must be based on the foregoing testimony, for that is all the evidence there is on the subject.5 Mr. Rodriguez did not explain how he had applied the seven indicators quoted above to his classroom observations of Escalona to determine that the teacher's performance was not up to standards. D. The seven indicators at issue in this case, it will be seen upon close examination, are not standards upon which to base a judgment, but rather factual conditions ("indicator- conditions") for which the evaluator is supposed to look. If a particular indicator-condition (e.g. the purpose of learning tasks is clear to learners) is found to exist, then the evaluator should award the teacher a passing grade of "acceptable" for that indicator (in this example, Indicator IV.A.5); if not, the grade should be "unacceptable." The indicator-conditions are plainly not objective historical facts; they are, rather, subjective facts, which come into being only when the evaluator puts historical facts against external standards, using reason and logic to make qualitative judgments about what occurred. Subjective facts of this nature are sometimes called "ultimate" facts, the answers to "mixed questions" of law and fact. To illustrate this point, imagine that the class Mr. Rodriguez observed on April 5, 2004, had been videotaped from several different camera angles. The resulting tapes would constitute an accurate audio-visual record of what transpired in Escalona's class that day. Anyone later viewing the tapes would be able to make detailed and accurate findings of objective historical fact, including words spoken, actions taken, time spent on particular tasks, etc. But, without more than the videotapes themselves could provide, a viewer would be unable fairly to determine whether, for example, the "[t]eaching and learning activities [had been] appropriate for the complexity of the learning context" (Indicator IV.B.1), or whether the questions asked adequately "enable[d] thinking" (Indicator V.B.1).6 This is because to make such determinations fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the rule of law requires the use of standards of decision, yardsticks against which to measure the perceptible reality captured on film. Another term for standards of decision is "neutral principles." A neutral principle prescribes normative conduct in a way that permits fair judgments to be made consistently—— that is, in this context, enables the reaching of similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time. A neutral principle must not be either political or results oriented. It must be capable of being applied across- the-board, to all teachers in all evaluations. In the unique milieu of PACES, neutral principles could take a variety of forms. One obvious form would be standards of teacher conduct. Such standards might be defined, for example, with reference to the average competent teacher in the District (or school, or state, etc.). In an adjudicative proceeding such as this one, expert testimony might then be necessary to establish what the average competent teacher does, for example, to monitor learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks (Indicator VI.A.2) or to create opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive level (Indicator IV.D.1).7 Other standards might be definitional. For example, to determine whether teaching and learning activities are appropriate (Indicator IV.B.1) practically demands a definition of the term "appropriate" for this context. Still other standards might be framed as tests, e.g. a test for determining whether a question enables thinking (Indicator V.B.1). However the neutral principles are framed, at bottom there must be standards that describe what "satisfactory" performance of the indicators looks like, so that different people can agree, most of the time, that the indicator- conditions are present or absent in a given situation——and in other, similar situations. Without neutral principles to discipline the decision-maker, the indicators can be used as cover for almost any conclusion an evaluator (or Administrative Law Judge) might want to make. In this case, the record is devoid of any persuasive evidence of neutral principles for use in determining, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether the conditions described in the seven relevant indicators were extant in Escalona's classroom on April 5, 2004, or not. E. In this de novo proceeding, the undersigned fact- finder is charged with the responsibility of determining independently, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether, as of the two-week period following probation, Escalona had corrected all of the performance deficiencies of which he was notified at the outset of probation. The only evidence of Escalona's post- probation teaching performance consists of Mr. Rogriguez's testimony about his observation of Escalona for 50 minutes on April 5, 2004, which was quoted above. Mr. Rodriguez's testimony gives the undersigned little to work with. His observations can be boiled down to four major points, none of which flatters Escalona: (a) Escalona lectured, and the students, who seemed disinterested, did not pay attention——some even passed notes; (b) Escalona asked "very basic" questions, most of which elicited "no response"; (c) one student slept for 15 minutes, and Escalona left him alone; (d) the lesson was "just not acceptable." On inspection, these points are much less helpful than they might at first blush appear. One of them——point (d)——is merely a conclusion which invades the undersigned's province as the fact-finder; accordingly, it has been given practically no weight. The only facts offered in support of the conclusions, in point (a), that the students "seemed" disinterested and were "not paying attention" to Escalona's lecture is the testimony that some students passed notes, and some (many?) did not answer the teacher's questions. But this is a rather thin foundation upon which to rest a conclusion that the students were bored because Escalona's teaching was poor. And even if they were (or looked) bored, is it not fairly common for teenaged high-school students to be (or appear) bored in school, for reasons unrelated to the teacher's performance? There is no evidence whatsoever that student boredom (or note passing or non- responsiveness) features only in the classrooms of poorly performing teachers. As for the supposedly "basic" nature of Escalona's questions, see point (b), the undersigned cannot give Mr. Rodriguez's testimony much weight, because there is no evidence as to what the questions actually were or why they were so very basic. Finally, regarding point (c), the fact that a student slept during class is, to be sure, somewhat damaging to Escalona, inasmuch as students should not generally be napping in class, but without additional information about the student (who might have been sick, for all the undersigned knows) and the surrounding circumstances the undersigned is not persuaded that the sleeping student is res ipsa loquitur on the quality of of Escalona's teaching performance. There is certainly no evidence that students doze only in the bad teachers' classes. More important, however, than the paucity of evidence establishing the objective historical facts concerning Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004, is the failure of proof regarding neutral principles for use in determining the existence or nonexistence of the relevant indicator-conditions. Even if the undersigned had a clear picture of what actually occurred in Escalona's classroom that day, which he lacks, he has been provided no standards against which to measure Escalona's performance, to determine whether the indicator- conditions were met or not. The absence of evidence of such standards is fatal to the Board's case. To make ultimate factual determinations without proof of neutral principles, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Escalona.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Florida Statutes. When a teacher contests a superintendent's recommendation of dismissal, as here, the ensuing hearing must be conducted "in accordance with chapter 120." See § 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Fla. Stat. A "chapter 120 proceeding [entails] a hearing de novo intended to 'formulate final agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily.'" Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So. 2d 831, 833 (Fla. 1993)(quoting McDonald v. Department of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)). Thus, the Board's burden in this case was not merely to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators sincerely believed, after conducting a legally sufficient assessment, that Young's performance was deficient, nor even to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators' judgment was factually and legally tenable. Rather, the Board's burden was to persuade the undersigned himself to find, independently, that Young's performance was deficient. Because this case is a proceeding to terminate a teacher's employment and does not involve the loss of a license or certification, the Board was required to prove the alleged grounds for Escalona's dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas County School Bd., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. School Bd. of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Bd. of Lake County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). B. Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, which governs the process for evaluating teachers, provides in full as follows: 1012.34 Assessment procedures and criteria.-- For the purpose of improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory services in the public schools of the state, the district school superintendent shall establish procedures for assessing the performance of duties and responsibilities of all instructional, administrative, and supervisory personnel employed by the school district. The Department of Education must approve each district's instructional personnel assessment system. The following conditions must be considered in the design of the district's instructional personnel assessment system: The system must be designed to support district and school level improvement plans. The system must provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous quality improvement of the professional skills of instructional personnel. The system must include a mechanism to give parents an opportunity to provide input into employee performance assessments when appropriate. In addition to addressing generic teaching competencies, districts must determine those teaching fields for which special procedures and criteria will be developed. Each district school board may establish a peer assistance process. The plan may provide a mechanism for assistance of persons who are placed on performance probation as well as offer assistance to other employees who request it. The district school board shall provide training programs that are based upon guidelines provided by the Department of Education to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities understand the proper use of the assessment criteria and procedures. The assessment procedure for instructional personnel and school administrators must be primarily based on the performance of students assigned to their classrooms or schools, as appropriate. Pursuant to this section, a school district's performance assessment is not limited to basing unsatisfactory performance of instructional personnel and school administrators upon student performance, but may include other criteria approved to assess instructional personnel and school administrators' performance, or any combination of student performance and other approved criteria. The procedures must comply with, but are not limited to, the following requirements: An assessment must be conducted for each employee at least once a year. The assessment must be based upon sound educational principles and contemporary research in effective educational practices. The assessment must primarily use data and indicators of improvement in student performance assessed annually as specified in s. 1008.22 and may consider results of peer reviews in evaluating the employee's performance. Student performance must be measured by state assessments required under s. 1008.22 and by local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the state assessment program. The assessment criteria must include, but are not limited to, indicators that relate to the following: Performance of students. Ability to maintain appropriate discipline. Knowledge of subject matter. The district school board shall make special provisions for evaluating teachers who are assigned to teach out-of-field. Ability to plan and deliver instruction, including implementation of the rigorous reading requirement pursuant to s. 1003.415, when applicable, and the use of technology in the classroom. Ability to evaluate instructional needs. Ability to establish and maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement. Other professional competencies, responsibilities, and requirements as established by rules of the State Board of Education and policies of the district school board. All personnel must be fully informed of the criteria and procedures associated with the assessment process before the assessment takes place. The individual responsible for supervising the employee must assess the employee's performance. The evaluator must submit a written report of the assessment to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee's contract. The evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the assessment takes place. The evaluator must discuss the written report of assessment with the employee. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the assessment, and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or her personnel file. If an employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination. The notice must describe such unsatisfactory performance and include notice of the following procedural requirements: 1. Upon delivery of a notice of unsatisfactory performance, the evaluator must confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance in helping to correct deficiencies within a prescribed period of time. 2.a. If the employee holds a professional service contract as provided in s. 1012.33, the employee shall be placed on performance probation and governed by the provisions of this section for 90 calendar days following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are not counted when calculating the 90-calendar-day period. During the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract must be evaluated periodically and apprised of progress achieved and must be provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies. At any time during the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract may request a transfer to another appropriate position with a different supervising administrator; however, a transfer does not extend the period for correcting performance deficiencies. b. Within 14 days after the close of the 90 calendar days, the evaluator must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the district school superintendent. Within 14 days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the district school superintendent must notify the employee who holds a professional service contract in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the district school superintendent will recommend that the district school board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the district school superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 days after receipt of the district school superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. The hearing shall be conducted at the district school board's election in accordance with one of the following procedures: A direct hearing conducted by the district school board within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of ss. 120.569 and 120.57. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain the district school superintendent's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment; or A hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services. The hearing shall be conducted within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal in accordance with chapter 120. The recommendation of the administrative law judge shall be made to the district school board. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain or change the administrative law judge's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment. The district school superintendent shall notify the department of any instructional personnel who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and who have been given written notice by the district that their employment is being terminated or is not being renewed or that the district school board intends to terminate, or not renew, their employment. The department shall conduct an investigation to determine whether action shall be taken against the certificateholder pursuant to s. 1012.795(1)(b). The district school superintendent shall develop a mechanism for evaluating the effective use of assessment criteria and evaluation procedures by administrators who are assigned responsibility for evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. The use of the assessment and evaluation procedures shall be considered as part of the annual assessment of the administrator's performance. The system must include a mechanism to give parents and teachers an opportunity to provide input into the administrator's performance assessment, when appropriate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant a probationary employee a right to continued employment beyond the term of his or her contract. The district school board shall establish a procedure annually reviewing instructional personnel assessment systems to determine compliance with this section. All substantial revisions to an approved system must be reviewed and approved by the district school board before being used to assess instructional personnel. Upon request by a school district, the department shall provide assistance in developing, improving, or reviewing an assessment system. The State Board of Education shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54, that establish uniform guidelines for the submission, review, and approval of district procedures for the annual assessment of instructional personnel and that include criteria for evaluating professional performance. (Underlining and italics added). Under Section 1012.34(3), school districts must establish a primarily student performance-based procedure (or system) for assessing the performance of teachers. In other words, the method of accomplishing the assessment must be tailored to meet the goal of forming evaluative judgments about teachers' performance based mainly on the performance of their students. In clear terms, then, the legislature has announced that the primary (though not exclusive)8 indicator of whether a teacher is doing a good job is the performance of his students. If a teacher's students are succeeding, then, whatever he is doing, the teacher is likely (though not necessarily) performing his duties satisfactorily. It is plainly the legislature's belief that if we do not know how the teacher's students are performing, then we cannot make a valid judgment as to whether the teacher is performing his duties satisfactorily.9 The statute further mandates that, in assessing teachers, indicators of student performance——which performance is assessed annually as specified in Section 1008.22——must be the primarily-used data. (In contrast, evaluators are permitted, but not required, to make use of peer reviews in assessing teacher performance.) Section 1008.22, which is referenced specifically in Section 1012.34(3)(a), requires that school districts participate in a statewide assessment program, the centerpiece of which is the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). See § 1008.22(3), Fla. Stat. The FCAT is a standardized test that is administered annually to students in grades three through 10. Id. Section 1008.22 is not concerned only with the FCAT, however. Subsection (7), for example, provides as follows: (7) LOCAL ASSESSMENTS.--Measurement of the learning gains of students in all subjects and grade levels other than subjects and grade levels required for the state student achievement testing program is the responsibility of the school districts. Thus, the school districts are charged with developing their own local assessment tools, to fill in the gaps left open by the statewide FCAT testing program. Section 1008.22(5) provides additionally that "[s]tudent performance data shall be used in . . . evaluation of instructional personnel[.]" Section 1012.34(3)(a) prescribes two and only two permissible measures of student performance for use in evaluating teachers: (a) the statewide FCAT assessments and (b) the gap-filling local assessments, both of which measures are required under Section 1008.22. It is clear that Sections 1012.34(3) and 1008.22 have at least one subject in common, namely, student performance-based assessment of teachers. Being in pari materia in this regard, Sections 1012.34 and 1008.22 must be construed so as to further the common goal. See, e.g., Mehl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 1993)(separate statutory provisions that are in pari materia should be construed to express a unified legislative purpose); Lincoln v. Florida Parole Com'n, 643 So. 2d 668, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(statutes on same subject and having same general purpose should be construed in pari materia). When the requirements of Section 1012.34(3) are read together with Section 1008.22, several conclusions are inescapable. First, FCAT scores must be the primary source of information used in evaluating any teacher who teaches an FCAT- covered subject to students in grades three through 10. Second, school districts must develop, and annually administer, local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT. Third, student performance data derived from local assessments must be the primary source of information used in evaluating teachers whose subjects are not covered on the FCAT and/or whose students do not take the FCAT. The absence of evidence in the record concerning the performance of Escalona's students either on the FCAT or on local assessments, as appropriate, see endnote 5, supra, deprives the undersigned of information that the legislature has deemed essential to the evaluation of a teacher's performance. Having neither state nor local assessments to review, the undersigned cannot find that Escalona's performance was deficient in the first place, much less whether he corrected the alleged performance deficiencies in accordance with Section 1012.34(3)(d). Without such findings, the Board cannot dismiss Escalona for failure to correct noted performance deficiencies. C. It was stated in the Findings of Fact above that the Board can terminate Escalona's employment only if, based on an assessment of his performance as of the two-week period following the 90 calendar days of probation, the teacher had failed to correct the particular performance deficiencies of which he had been formally notified in writing prior to probation; other alleged deficiencies, whether observed during probation or thereafter, cannot be relied upon in support of a decision to dismiss Escalona. Standing behind this observation is Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The pertinent statutory language instructs that a teacher whose performance has been deemed unsatisfactory must be provided a written "notice of unsatisfactory performance," which notice shall include a description of "such unsatisfactory performance" plus recommendations for improvement in the "specific areas of unsatisfactory performance." The statute then specifies that the teacher must be allowed 90 calendar days "following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance" to correct "the noted performance deficiencies." Clearly, the "noted performance deficiencies" are the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance described in the notice of unsatisfactory performance. Finally, the statute mandates that the teacher shall be assessed within two weeks after the end of probation to determine whether "the performance deficiencies" have been corrected. It is clear, again, that "the performance deficiencies" are "the noted performance deficiencies" described in the written notice of unsatisfactory performance. See § 1012.34(3)(d)1. & 2.a., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The reason why a decision to terminate a poorly performing teacher must be based solely on the specific performance deficiencies described in the pre-probation notice of unsatisfactory performance is plain: allowing the school district to rely on subsequently observed deficiencies would defeat the teacher's unambiguous statutory right to have 90 post-notice calendar days in which to correct the noted performance deficiencies that triggered probation in the first place. This case exemplifies the problem posed by post-notice deficiencies. The notice of unsatisfactory performance (the Summary) that gave rise to Escalona's probation, which was based on Mr. del Cuadro's evaluation of December 2, 2003, charged the teacher with 10 specific performance deficiencies. By February 17, 2004, when Ms. Carter formally observed Escalona for the last time before the end of probation, Escalona had corrected all but one (Indicator IV.A.5) of the noted performance deficiencies——suggesting that he had made significant improvement. Unfortunately for Escalona, however, Ms. Carter believed that the teacher had exhibited nine deficiencies besides the noted performance deficiencies, with the net result that, near the end of probation, Escalona still had 10 deficiencies. Of these nine post-notice deficiencies, four (Indicators I.F.1, I.F.2, II.A.1, and IV.B.3) were recorded for the first time ever on February 17, 2004. Obviously, Escalona was not given 90 days to correct these four alleged deficiencies. Yet another three of the post-notice deficiencies reported by Ms. Carter (Indicators I.A.1, IV.A.6, and IV.B.2) had not been seen since Mr. Cuadro's initial evaluation of November 5, 2003. This initial evaluation, being "not of record," cannot count as a notice of unsatisfactory performance to Escalona. Hence he was not given 90 days to correct these three alleged deficiencies. For that matter, the remaining two post-notice deficiencies alleged to exist on February 17, 2004—— Indicators II.D.4 and IV.A.3——had not been observed, post- notice, until January 16, 2004, which means that Escalona did not have 90 days to correct them, either. For the above reasons, when assessing whether, in fact, Escalona had corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period following probation, the undersigned focused, as he was required to do, exclusively on the 10 deficiencies described in the Summary, seven of which were alleged not to have been timely corrected. Having determined as a matter of fact that the evidence was insufficient to prove these seven alleged deficiencies existed or persisted, it must be concluded that the Board has failed to carry its burden of establishing the alleged factual grounds for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Escalona of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Escalona be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended; and (c) awarding Escalona back salary, plus benefits, to the extent these accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application of Petitioner, Kenneth Crowder, for a Florida Educator's Certificate should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons issued on July 22, 2005, by Respondent, John Winn, acting in his capacity as the Commissioner of Education.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 28, 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education notified Petitioner, Kenneth Crowder, that it intended to suspend, revoke, or limit his teaching certificate. The proposed action was based on allegations that Petitioner engaged in inappropriate conduct with three female students, engaged in inappropriate conduct with a female teacher in December 2000, and was convicted of disorderly conduct, which was amended from a charge of domestic violence. An administrative hearing was conducted with respect to Petitioner's Ohio teaching certificate on March 11 and 14, 2002. The hearing was conducted in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Ohio Revised Code. Petitioner appeared at the hearing, was represented by counsel, and testified on his own behalf. There were three alleged incidents involving allegations of Petitioner's inappropriate conduct with female students that were litigated during the Ohio administrative proceedings. The first alleged incident occurred during the 1999-2000 school year when Petitioner was employed at Northland High School. The other two incidents allegedly occurred during the 2000-2001 school year when Petitioner was employed as a teacher at Brookhaven High School. The Ohio State Board of Education alleged that during the 1999-2000 school year, while a teacher at Northland High School, Petitioner inappropriately touched Ms. Tranette Nicole Jackson, a student in his science class. At the time of the incident, Ms. Jackson was about fifteen and a high school freshman.3 During the Ohio administrative proceeding, Ms. Jackson testified that on March 21, 2000, Petitioner called Ms. Jackson up to his desk and told her he wanted to see her after class.4 At the end of class, with no one else present in the classroom, Ms. Jackson reported to Petitioner's desk. Petitioner then touched Ms. Jackson's leg and rubbed her skirt, raising the skirt. Petitioner then told Ms. Jackson that he needed to see her in the supply room, which was across the hall from the classroom. Ms. Jackson accompanied Petitioner into the supply room, where Petitioner put both hands on Ms. Jackson's buttocks and stated, "This is what I wanted to talk to you about. Keep it to yourself." Ms. Jackson testified that Petitioner then gave her a pass to her next class. Ms. Jackson testified that she was "confused," "scared," and "uncomfortable" about the incident and that she reported it to one of her teachers that same day. The incident was then reported to the school principal and the Franklin County Children Services. After the incident, Ms. Jackson was reassigned from Petitioner's science class to another class. During the Ohio proceedings, Petitioner testified that he never touched Ms. Jackson, but that he reprimanded her for her inappropriate attire. Petitioner testified that in instances where students had on inappropriate attire, the school policy required teachers to send such students to the front office. Notwithstanding the school policy, Petitioner testified that he spoke with Ms. Jackson alone and after class concerning her attire. This failure to abide by school policy lends credence to Ms. Jackson's version of events. Moreover, Petitioner's complete inability on cross-examination during the instant hearing to provide his version of the incident leads the undersigned to accept Ms. Jackson's testimony.5 In the 2000-2001 school year, Petitioner was transferred from Northland High School to Brookhaven High School (Brookhaven), where he taught ninth grade science. The Ohio State Board of Education alleged that during the 2000-2001 school year, while he was employed as a teacher at Brookhaven, Petitioner engaged in two incidents involving inappropriate conduct with female students and one incident involving inappropriate conduct with a female teacher. In one instance, it was alleged that on December 19, 2000, about a day before the Christmas break, Petitioner asked a female student, identified as Student 2, to come to his room after school and give him a hug. It was alleged that the student refused to comply with Petitioner's request and reported the alleged incident to school officials. Student 2 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding. However, Judith Gore, the assistant principal for student services at Brookhaven, one school official to whom Student 2 reported the incident, testified at the Ohio administrative proceeding. Ms. Gore testified that in January 2001, Student 2 told her that on or about December 19, 2000, Petitioner approached Student 2 and told her to give him a hug after school and that when she came to the room she should not wear her jacket. Ms. Gore also testified that Student 2 reported that although Petitioner approached her and requested a hug in December 2000, Student 2 told her that she reported it in January 2001, soon after and because Petitioner approached her in January 2001, after the Christmas break, and asked why she had not come to his room and hugged him in December 2000, before the winter holiday. Ms. Gore also testified that as a result of Petitioner's comments, the student was extremely uncomfortable. Ms. Gore testified that she later attended a conference with the student's father and Petitioner regarding the incident. Student 2 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding. However, Petitioner testified at the Ohio administrative hearing that he asked Student 2 for a hug on or about December 19, 2000, the day before winter recess. Petitioner testified that Student 2 was in the hallway, and he said to her, "Hey, yeah, give me a hug. It's Christmas time. I wish you a Happy New Year and a Merry Christmas." Petitioner testified that at the time he requested that Student 2 give him a hug, she was not in any of his classes, but was one of his student assistants. In fact, Petitioner testified that when he requested that Student 2 give him a hug after school, she was not in his classroom, but was in the hall at her locker. Petitioner testified that because December 19, 2000, was the day before the Christmas recess, it was not unusual for students to hug him. However, Petitioner testified that Student 2 did not make any overtures indicating she wanted to hug him. Rather, Petitioner testified that he approached Student 2 and asked her to hug him. Based on Petitioner's testimony in the Ohio hearing and the instant proceeding, regarding Student 2, it is found that in December 2000, Petitioner approached Student 2 while she was in the hall at her locker and asked her to give him a hug. Ms. Gore testified that during December 2000, a different female student, Student 3, complained to her that Petitioner had touched her buttocks while passing behind her. Student 3 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding, and no evidence was presented at the Ohio administrative proceeding or the instant administrative hearing to establish this charge. At the Ohio administrative proceeding, the Ohio State Board of Education litigated the allegation that Petitioner had engaged in inappropriate behavior with a teacher at Brookhaven. Mary Williams, who was a co-worker of Petitioner at Brookhaven High School, testified in the Ohio administrative proceeding. Ms. Williams testified that, in December 2000, while she was standing at the counter in the main office of the school, Petitioner passed by and intentionally brushed against her buttocks. Ms. Williams also testified that the office was large enough so that Mr. Crowder needed not to touch her at all. Ms. Williams was upset by Petitioner's actions and informed him, in graphic language, what would happen if he ever did it again. Petitioner then apologized to Ms. Williams. Petitioner's testimony concerning the incident involving Ms. Williams is conflicting. For instance, Petitioner testified during the Ohio proceedings that if he brushed his hand against Mr. Williams' buttocks, it was purely accidental. During the instant proceedings, however, Petitioner acknowledged that he touched Ms. Williams' buttocks, but explained that it occurred accidentally as a result of his carrying a meter stick through the office area. At no time during Petitioner's prior testimony did he mention that the touching occurred with a meter stick, or even that he was carrying a meter stick. Accordingly, the undersigned finds Ms. Williams' testimony to be more credible. John Tornes, the personnel director for Columbus City Schools, testified at the Ohio administrative proceeding that as a result of the accumulation of allegations and incidents, Petitioner was assigned to work at home, effective January 29, 2001. The following day, January 30, 2001, Petitioner was assigned to a location where he had no contact with students. On March 26, 2001, Petitioner resigned from the Columbus City Schools, effective June 8, 2001. Mr. Tornes testified that Petitioner was not eligible for rehire. Mr. Tornes explained: During every year of Mr. Crowder's employment, there was an allegation of sexual harassment or abuse; three straight years of it while at Crestview Middle School [sic],[6] while at Northland High School, and then the incident just kept ballooning at Brookhaven High School. . . . His behavior became so questionable that it was no longer feasible for the district to continue his employment. The Ohio State Board of Education litigated the issue of Petitioner's conviction of disorderly conduct, which was amended from a charge of domestic violence. During the Ohio proceedings, Jill S. Harris testified on behalf of the Ohio State Board of Education. Ms. Harris testified that for about a year, beginning in 1999, she was involved in a rocky relationship with Petitioner. During that period, Petitioner and Ms. Harris were living together. According to Ms. Harris, on October 7, 2000, Petitioner, after a night of drinking, arrived home at approximately 5:30 a.m., at which point a violent argument ensued. During their confrontation, Petitioner struck Ms. Harris twice in the face, bruising her chin and cheek and cutting her lip. At some point during the argument, Ms. Harris summoned the police. However, when they arrived, Ms. Harris informed the responding officers that nothing was wrong due to her fear of retaliation from Petitioner. Ms. Harris testified that after the police left, the Petitioner picked up a glass table and threw it at her, breaking the table. Petitioner also grabbed Ms. Harris, at which point she cut her foot on the broken glass. Ms. Harris then left the house and called the police from the vehicle she was driving. Soon after Ms. Harris called, police officers met Ms. Harris and returned with her to the house where she and Petitioner lived. When they arrived there, Petitioner was not there. Officer Sheri Laverack was one of the police officers who met with Ms. Harris on October 7, 2000, shortly after the incident, and investigated the matter. At the Ohio administrative proceedings, Officer Laverack testified that soon after the altercation between Ms. Harris and Petitioner, she observed that Ms. Harris' "lip had been busted and her face was swelling and the bottom of her foot was cut." Officer Laverack also observed that there was bruising around one of Ms. Harris' eyes. At both the Ohio administrative proceeding and in the instant proceeding, Petitioner denied that he struck Ms. Harris in the face and caused the injuries to her face that were observed by Officer Laverack. However, it is found that his testimony was not found to be credible by the hearing examiner presiding over the Ohio administrative hearing. Petitioner has offered conflicting testimony with respect to the incident involving Ms. Harris and the cause of her facial injuries. During the Ohio administrative proceeding, Petitioner testified that he slammed his hand down on the glass table, causing it to come up and hit her. At no time during the Ohio proceeding did Petitioner testify that Ms. Harris lifted up the table or in any way contributed to the facial injuries she suffered. However, during the instant proceeding, Petitioner testified that when he hit the glass table, Ms. Harris "pulled the top of it up, and I think it [the glass portion of the table] hit her in the chin or something to that effect." Petitioner then testified that "I don't really recall . . . that's what I vaguely recall." Petitioner's testimony concerning the October 7, 2000, incident and how Ms. Harris sustained the injuries to her face is inconsistent and not credible. In light of the multiple injuries to Ms. Harris' face (a cut to her lip, swelling on the right side of her face, and bruising around her eye), it is unlikely that Ms. Harris' injuries could have been sustained in the manner described by Petitioner. Petitioner's testimony in the instant proceeding that he did not hit Ms. Harris is not credible. On the other hand, given the nature of the injuries, it is more probable that Ms. Harris' injuries resulted from Petitioner's hitting her, as she testified. It is found that Ms. Harris' testimony that Petitioner struck her in the face was credible. Moreover, Ms. Harris' credible testimony was substantiated by the testimony of Officer Laverack, who observed the injuries to Ms. Harris on October 7, 2000, shortly after the incident. As a result of the October 7, 2000, incident, Ms. Harris filed domestic violence and assault charges against Petitioner. Ultimately, as a result of the incident, Petitioner was charged with disorderly conduct. On June 25, 2001, Petitioner entered a guilty plea to the amended charge of disorderly conduct. Pursuant to an agreement with the State of Ohio, Petitioner was sentenced to 30 days in jail, with the sentence being suspended if and when Petitioner made restitution of $1,000 to Ms. Harris for the damage to her table. Petitioner paid the restitution. At the time of the Ohio administrative proceeding, Petitioner had a four-year middle school teaching certificate with an expiration date of June 30, 2002, and had applied for a temporary teaching certificate. On April 2, 2002, the Ohio hearing examiner submitted a recommended order to the Ohio State Board of Education. In the recommended order, the hearing officer found that Petitioner sexually abused Ms. Jackson, inappropriately touched Ms. Williams, and committed an act of violence against Ms. Harris. In addition, the hearing examiner recommended that the Ohio State Board of Education revoke Petitioner's teaching certificate and deny his application for a temporary teaching certificate. In a Resolution dated May 16, 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education revoked Petitioner's teaching certificate. The Resolution was adopted by the Ohio State Board of Education at its meeting on May 14, 2002. The Ohio State Board of Education's Resolution stated that it was revoking Petitioner's middle school teaching certificate "based upon his 2001 conviction for disorderly conduct stemming from domestic violence and inappropriate sexual contact with three female students and one female teacher during 2000 and 2001." Petitioner appealed the decision of the Ohio State Board of Education. The Ohio State Board of Education's decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Ohio Court of Common Pleas on August 11, 2003, in Case No. 02CVF06-6230.7 The testimony of Ms. Harris, Ms. Williams, Ms. Jackson, Officer Laverack, Mr. Tornes, and Ms. Gore in the Ohio proceeding constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule under Subsection 90.803(22), Florida Statutes.8 Therefore, the testimony of the foregoing named individuals in the Ohio administrative proceeding is sufficient in itself to support a finding of fact and does not run afoul of Subsection 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes.9 Petitioner's conduct fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defines good moral character. By any reasonable standard, it is wrong for a teacher to brush his hands on the buttocks of a student and of a fellow colleague. The wrong is compounded when the teacher instructs the student to conceal the fact that he engaged in such conduct. During his testimony, Petitioner admitted that he asked a high school student to give him a hug. By any reasonable standard, this conduct fell short of right behavior that defines good moral character. Petitioner's testimony regarding the circumstances and appropriateness of such a request is not credible or persuasive. Neither does Petitioner's explanation provide a reasonable basis for a teacher to solicit a hug from any student. Petitioner's conduct of committing acts of violence against the woman with whom he lived likewise fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defined good moral behavior. The three incidents in which Petitioner engaged in inappropriate conduct with Ms. Jackson, Student 2, and Ms. Williams, occurred at school. The incident involving Ms. Jackson, one of his students, occurred on school grounds in March 2000. The conduct in which Petitioner engaged with Student 2 and with Ms. Williams, his colleague, occurred at school in December 2000. Petitioner's pattern of conduct with two female students and a female teacher demonstrates that he is an unsuitable candidate for a teaching certificate. Moreover, Petitioner's conduct as established by the facts of this case, particularly as it directly involved students at the school, bears directly on his fitness to teach in the public schools of Florida. The evidence failed to establish that Petitioner possesses the good moral character required of a teacher in this state. For this reason, Petitioner is not eligible for certification. The evidence establishes that Petitioner committed an act or acts for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke a teaching certificate. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality of an act involving moral turpitude. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has had a teaching certificate revoked in another state. The evidence establishes that Petitioner pled guilty and was convicted of the misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules. The evidence establishes that Petitioner failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or public safety. The evidence establishes that Petitioner intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The evidence establishes that Petitioner exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct, which unreasonably interfered in an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment and, further, failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual was protected from such harassment or discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate and providing that he be permanently barred from re- application pursuant to Subsection 1012.796(7)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 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 24th day of May, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Since August 16, 1972, and at all times material to this case, Alfred Gorton (Respondent) was employed as a member of the Lee County School District instructional staff by a continuing contract with the Lee County School Board. In February, 1993, the Respondent was teaching a Social Studies class during third period at Dunbar Middle School. The Respondent had recently been moved into the classroom and much of his instructional material remained boxed. While his students were working on an assignment, the Respondent began to search for a book in his possession which had been requested by another teacher. He intended to deliver the book upon its discovery. As he went from box to box, he chanted, "ennie meenie miny moe...ennie meenie miny moe." Upon opening a box and locating the book, he exited the classroom and completed his "ennie meenie miny moe" chant while standing just outside the classroom door by saying "catch a nigger by the toe." Immediately upon making the statement, he realized his error. He delivered the book to the teacher and returned to his classroom. Upon entering his classroom, he was confronted by some of his students who had heard the remark. Some of the students took offense at the statement and the connotation of disrespect towards black persons. At that time, the Respondent engaged the class in a brief discussion during which he attempted to explain his statement. He stated that, in his opinion, the word "nigger" could be applied to white or black person, apparently believing that no one should be offended. The Respondent testified, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that he had not previously used the term "nigger" in the classroom other than as to the history of slavery. He further testified that he did not intend to offend anyone. He stated that the rhyme was one he learned as a child, and that he was reciting it apparently absentmindedly while searching through the boxes. One student took specific offense at the remark. Several days after the incident, the Respondent discussed the matter with both the student and his father and apologized for his statement. The student's father suggested that the Respondent should also apologize to the entire classroom. The Respondent discussed the matter with the school's principal. Because of the lapse of time since the incident, the principal thought it better to let the matter rest and directed the Respondent to refrain from further classroom discussions regarding the statement. The school principal testified that he does not condone the use of the word "nigger" and does not believe the Respondent's behavior was appropriate. In discussions with the school board officials, the principal recommended that the Respondent receive a written reprimand for his behavior. On April 13, 1993, the school board suspended the Respondent without pay and benefits for twenty (20) working days.,
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a Final Order rescinding the suspension of Alfred Gorton and providing for back pay and benefits for the 20 day period of suspension. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2936 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 5-8, 10-12, 20-23, 25-26. Rejected, subordinate, unnecessary. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 8. Rejected, subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James A. Adams, Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Marianne Kantor, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament, Esquire Kunkel & Hament Suite 785, 1800 Second Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for termination of Respondent's contract of employment with the Seminole County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for hiring, monitoring and disciplining teachers for the School. The School Board is the governing board of the School District of Seminole County, Florida, pursuant to Section 4, Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Sections 1001.32, 1001.33, 1001.41, 1001.42 and 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2009). (Unless stated specifically otherwise herein, all references to the Florida Statutes shall be to the 2009 codification.) Respondent is a licensed school teacher, certified by the State of Florida. She began teaching in 1992; her employment at the School started in 2002. Respondent is certified as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher and an Emotionally Handicapped (EH) teacher for grades K through 12. In the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was teaching social studies and math classes for mentally handicapped students at the School. On March 11, 2009, during her third period math class, Respondent engaged in an argument with one of her female students (J.P.). J.P. was a junior (11th grade student) at that time. The argument between J.P. and Respondent forms the basis of the School Board's decision to seek termination of Respondent's employment. On the date in question, another student (B.) had been disciplined by Respondent and sent to the dean's office, because the student lied to Respondent about why she was tardy to class. was upset about B. being disciplined, because B. was J.P.'s friend. After B. was sent to the office, there were five students remaining in Respondent's class. J.P. was observed by Respondent talking to one of the other students, L.S. Respondent told J.P. to stop talking and to do her work. J.P. took great offense to this and began to berate Respondent about not being an effective teacher. Up until this point in time, Respondent considered J.P. to be one of her favorite students. Respondent had taught J.P.'s brother in previous years and had taught J.P. for three years. The relationship between J.P. and Respondent had always been cordial, friendly, and positive. Respondent would purchase food for her students (including J.P.) and would subsidize her students' field trips out of her own funds. On the March 11, 2009, date, however, J.P. was very upset with Respondent and made several derogatory comments about Respondent. J.P. told Respondent that she (Respondent) did not teach well and did not help her students when they needed help. Among other comments, J.P. said that Respondent talked on the phone too much, did not go over work with students, and did not know how to teach. (There was no non-hearsay corroboration of these allegations by any other students at final hearing.) When J.P. first started talking, Respondent was calm and seemed amused by J.P.'s accusations. The discussion, however, then degenerated into a veritable shouting match between the student and the teacher. During that shouting match, ugly things were said by both Respondent and J.P. Respondent used several curse words that were inappropriate in the classroom setting. J.P. initiated the cursing between the parties, but Respondent, apparently in an effort to show J.P. that she was not going to be shocked by J.P.'s language, repeated the offensive words in response to J.P. Respondent made disparaging remarks bout J.P. and J.P.'s family and even made comments about J.P.'s mental capacity and inability to learn. The tone of the comments was very harsh. During the entire tête-à-tête between Respondent and J.P., there were other students in the classroom. While the debate was going on, some students were working on their assigned tasks. One student (L.S.) began taping the conversation at some point in time on her MP3 player. That recording was provided to administration at the School and formed the basis of an investigation by the School Board. The argument lasted for the majority of the class period on that date. The MP3 recording lasted 26 minutes and ended when the bell rang for the end of class. While the argument was going on, it seems that Respondent was moving around the classroom, but she was obviously not helping any students with problems at that time. Her entire energies were devoted to the argument with J.P. The tone used by Respondent and words she used were, she admits, inappropriate and wrong. It is clear the student was somewhat out of control, but engaging in a vicious debate with her was not the appropriate response from a teacher. Respondent is extremely remorseful about what transpired between her and the student on that day. Respondent had been previously reprimanded for using inappropriate words in a classroom setting in the 2003-2004 school year. In the 2004 incident, however, Respondent had written various curse words on the board after hearing a mentally handicapped student utter such a word. Respondent used that incident as a teaching moment to instruct her class that some words were not acceptable in the classroom or in public. For some reason, the School Board determined that the presentation of those words, even when intended to be instructional in nature, was wrong. (Apparently the only cursing condoned at all at the School is by sports coaches during practice times.) Respondent was issued a written reprimand for that incident and warned not to utilize those words in class again. During the March 11, 2009, argument with J.P. (five years after her prior reprimand), Respondent did utter some of the words she had been instructed not to repeat. Granted, her use of the words was in direct response to J.P.'s initiation of the words, but Respondent did technically violate her directive from the earlier reprimand. Besides the use of inappropriate language during the argument with her student, Respondent also overstepped the boundaries of professionalism in other ways. First, she disclosed certain confidential information about J.P. to other students. Respondent stated out loud that J.P. was seeking a special diploma, because J.P. was incapable of earning a regular diploma. Second, Respondent made disparaging remarks about J.P. and J.P.'s family, comments which were intended to embarrass or hurt J.P. The tone of the argument, though heated, carried an underlying hint of the long (and friendly) relationship between Respondent and the student. Respondent said she could not conceive of J.P.'s speaking that way to any other instructor; it was outside her normal behavior. J.P. apparently told the School administrators that she had never spoken to another teacher in that fashion. But J.P. obviously felt comfortable enough with Respondent to voice those opinions to Respondent in that manner. Respondent's tenure at the School has been generally positive. Her teaching skills have resulted in very laudatory annual evaluations. In September 2008, Respondent was provided an investigative summary of an incident, but there was no discipline imposed. A memorandum was issued by Assistant Principal Nash in May 2004 concerning an incident, but, again, no discipline was imposed. Respondent did receive a reprimand for the March 2004 incident concerning curse words mentioned above. Each of the students' parents who had met with Respondent and observed her teaching skills was complimentary about her. (The single parent testifying at the final hearing, who had negative comments about Respondent's working with ESE students, had never met Respondent, never attended his child's IEP meetings with Respondent, and had never had any communication with Respondent. Even that parent, however, said he believes Respondent "needs another chance.") Respondent has a good reputation with other educators and administrators. The School Board is seeking termination of Respondent's employment for the March 11, 2009, incident. The basis for the recommendation for termination seems to be that the argument was serious in nature and followed on the heels of a prior warning against using improper language in the classroom. However, other disciplinary cases against educators guilty of somewhat similar (though different in some respects) violations have resulted in much less severe punishment. For example: A letter of reprimand and two-day suspension without pay was given to an instructor who cursed at students in the stairwell of the school. A teacher who became upset over the change in her own son's schedule at the school simply left the campus, saying that she was sick of the place. She was charged with abandoning her classes and leaving the students without supervision. The teacher was docked pay for the time she was absent without leave and also suspended without pay for three days. A teacher who cursed at a school administrator in front of other staff members was disciplined with two days' suspension without pay. In the case of Respondent, it is clear that her actions are deserving of some form of discipline. Each witness who testified, including Respondent, agreed that some sort of discipline was warranted because Respondent's actions were wrong. At the time of the incident in question, Respondent's supervisor was Assistant Principal Cornelius Pratt. Respondent was considered by Pratt to be an exceptional teacher; he often used Respondent as a "lead" teacher, i.e., an experienced teacher, who could help new or struggling teachers succeed. Pratt considers Respondent's teaching style and skills to be first rate. Pratt, as Respondent's supervisor, was not asked to make a recommendation to the School Board as to what degree of discipline should be imposed on Respondent for this incident. Pratt believes termination is too severe a discipline based on Respondent's history, skills, and the fact that other teachers have been disciplined far less for similar violations. Respondent's behavior toward J.P. is contrary to her normal interaction with students. There is no evidence that Respondent ever acted in such a fashion prior to this incident. Respondent has been seen by a licensed mental health counselor, Dr. Trim. It is the opinion of Dr. Trim that Respondent would be able to safely return to the classroom and that, in the short term without any intervention, there is little likelihood of Respondent repeating her unprofessional behavior. (This is due to the amount of trauma experienced by Respondent as a result of her actions.) Dr. Trim further opined that Respondent could benefit from anger management counseling in order to ensure no further outbursts in the long term. The director of Human Resources for the School Board testified that in his experience, there was no other incident as severe as the one at issue in this proceeding. He recommended termination as the appropriate penalty. However, the director was not aware of the relationship between Respondent and J.P., he was not aware of the situation in Respondent's classroom as to the use of assistants (or lack thereof), and he had not talked to J.P. or J.P.'s parents. His recommendation, while reasonable based on his experience, lacks weight due to his unfamiliarity with other salient facts about the matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Seminole County School Board: (1) finding Respondent's behavior to be inappropriate; (2) upholding the suspension without pay to-date; (3) reinstating Respondent as a classroom teacher; and (4) placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 2nd day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Bill Vogel Superintendent of Schools Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Dr. Eric Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Tobe M. Lev, Esquire Egan, Lev & Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 231 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32801
