The Issue Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined by Petitioner, the Education Practices Commission and whether Respondent should be dismissed as an instructional employee from the Pinellas County School Board based on allegations set forth in the administrative complaint filed herein and the charges and amended notice of charges filed herein by the School Board by letters dated March 5 and July 8, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Respondent currently holds Florida teaching certificate No. 179606, covering the areas of administration and supervision, elementary education, french, spanish, special learning disabilities and varying exceptionalities. That certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the Pinellas County School Board at Lealman Comprehensive Middle School (Lealman) and Tyrone Middle School (Tyrone). On November 5, 1976, Respondent received a letter of reprimand for striking a student with a belt. During various times in the 1978 and 1979 school year, Respondent appeared at work with alcohol on his breath which was noticed by administrators at Lealman. On April 30, 1987, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from Scotty East, principal at Lealman because of excessive absences and violation of school procedures. Respondent was advised to follow proper procedures for notifying the administration of his absence(s). Respondent was charged a personal day for the noted procedural infractions. During the 1986-87 school year, Pamela Coachman and Donna Strongoski were instructors at Lealman and worked with Respondent. Prior to and during the 1986-87 school year, Respondent made comments and inappropriate sexual advances to Pamela Coachman. Ms. Coachman rejected Respondent's advances. Respondent retaliated by making harassing and degrading comments such as calling her a "whore with champagne taste." Respondent's actions were offensive to Ms. Coachman. Respondent made inappropriate comments to Donna Strongoski about her appearance, the tone of her voice and her marital status. Specifically, from 1986-1988, Respondent questioned Strongoski's womanhood often telling her that she was "too strong to be a woman", that she had a voice like a man and questioned why she had never been married. Strongoski was angered by Respondent's comments. As a result of Respondent's comments to Strongoski and Coachman, they notified school administrators and district officials about his conduct. Nancy Zambeta, Director for Personnel Services, discussed the allegations with Respondent and advised him to refrain from making personal comments to colleagues and to avoid similar situations in the future. Coachman and Strongoski met with Respondent and cautioned him that they would not tolerate his behavior. Respondent received a memorandum from Lealman's principal advising him to refrain from similar behavior of a harassing nature. Respondent thereafter submitted his resignation but later rescinded it prior to the Board's acceptance. Respondent was permitted to return to employment as an annual contract teacher and was transferred to Tyrone. On March 7, 1988, Lois Beacham, assistant principal at Tyrone, observed Respondent acting in an incoherent manner and detected the odor of alcohol on his breath. Ms. Beacham requested a substitute for Respondent's class and later spoke to him about changing his behavior. Beacham advised Respondent to follow procedures to indicate absences in the future. On the same day, Tyrone's principal, Paul Brown, advised Respondent by letter not to arrive at work in an unprofessional condition (under the influence of alcohol). On January 3, 1989, Respondent requested a day off from work whereupon Principal Brown noticed that Respondent's speech was slurred and he detected an odor of alcohol on his breath. On January 4, 1989, Sandy Murray, secretary at Tyrone, encountered Respondent when he arrived at the office to pick up his paycheck. Ms. Murray noticed that the air "reeked of alcohol" around Respondent. On January 6, 1989, Steve Crosby, Director of Personnel Services for Petitioner School Board, met with Respondent to discuss allegations that Respondent reported to work under the influence of alcohol. Crosby warned Respondent that such conduct constituted poor judgment and misconduct in office and would not be tolerated by the Board. On January 25, 1989, Respondent entered into a stipulation with the Board agreeing to accept a three-day suspension without pay for reporting to work under the influence of alcohol. On April 17, 1989, Respondent encountered teachers Barbara Skatzka and Evelyn Villazon in a school hallway. Respondent improperly touched Ms. Skatzka's pants and commented that he had seen a lesbian who wore similar clothing. Respondent commented upon the fact that Ms. Skatzka was divorced, asked her if she was a lesbian and asked her if she had a man in her life. Such comments caused Ms. Skatzka to feel uncomfortable. On April 19, 1989, Charles Einsel, the Director of Personnel Services, met with Respondent to discuss the allegations. On April 25, 1989, School Superintendent Scott Rose issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent for the referenced unprofessional conduct. On June 7, 1989, Commissioner Castor filed an administrative complaint against Respondent. The complaint alleged several incidents including one that Respondent reported to work under the influence of alcohol, made improper comments to colleagues, used inappropriate corporal punishment and made improper comments to a student. On January 3, 1990, Commissioner Castor and Respondent entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the charges. The EPC accepted the settlement in its final order of February 26, 1990 (EPC Case No. 89-092-RT[PE4]). The agreement included the following provisions: Respondent received a letter of reprimand for the misconduct alleged. Respondent was placed on probation for three years. Respondent agreed to attend Alcoholics Anonymous and be subjected to random alcohol testing. Respondent agreed to undergo psychological evaluations. Respondent agreed to violate no law and to fully comply with all school rules, district school board regulations and rules of the State Board of Education. On February 4, 1990, Respondent was arrested in Pinellas County and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. He was adjudicated guilty of the DUI charge on June 29, 1990. On February 16, 1990, Personnel Director Steve Crosby met with Respondent to discuss the arrest. Mr. Crosby subsequently issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent warning him that any future instance of poor professional judgment by him could result in his dismissal. On or about December 20, 1990, Commissioner Castor filed a second administrative complaint against Respondent. The complaint alleged that Respondent violated the terms of his EPC probation as a result of his DUI conviction. On May 7, 1991, Commissioner Castor and Respondent entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the charges. The EPC accepted the settlement on June 25, 1991. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) The May 7, 1991 agreement included the following provisions: Respondent agreed to undergo psychological evaluations. Respondent agreed to complete two courses in the area of classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent agreed to submit to evaluation and counseling with a substance abuse program. Respondent was placed on probation for an additional three years to begin at the expiration of his current probation which, by its terms, ends March 3, 1993. Respondent agreed to violate no law and to fully comply with all school rules, district school board regulations and rules of the State Board of Education. During the 1990-91 school year, Kimberly Coleman worked as a teacher's aide in a class for emotionally handicapped (EH) students taught by Barbara Day. After one of the EH students was assigned to Respondent's class, Respondent approached Coleman to discuss the student although Ms. Day was the teacher who supervised that student's progress. Respondent often looked at Coleman in a sexually suggestive manner and, as a result, Coleman attempted to avoid contact with Respondent whenever possible. During the 1990-91 school year, Kenneth LeBrant, a teacher at Tyrone, while checking on plants that he planted under Respondent's classroom window, observed a student misbehave in Respondent's classroom whereupon LeBrant shouted at the student to "knock it off". At about the same time, Respondent entered his classroom, angrily belittled LeBrant and demanded that he leave his class. LeBrant felt embarrassed at being shouted at in the presence of students and returned to his classroom. Respondent later encountered LeBrant in the faculty lounge and attempted to continue to confront LeBrant in a threatening manner. Both Respondent and LeBrant received a reprimand from the principal about their conduct in the faculty lounge. During the 1990-91 school year, Respondent entered the teacher's lounge and called Larry Mann, a "judaist" in an angry manner. Respondent used profanity in his classroom during the 1991-92 school year. Specifically, on occasion he called his class a "bunch of motherfuckers" and "you white motherfuckers". On one occasion while students prepared to leave his class, Respondent said "so long, motherfuckers". Respondent also directed profanity at specific students in his classroom. On occasion, Respondent's students heard him shout at students the words "dumb motherfucker", "asshole", "fuck off", "bitch" and "dumb bitch". On one occasion, Janet Masciotra, a teacher at Tyrone, entered Respondent's classroom while he yelled at an African American male student "you dumb nigger". Ms. Masciotra was surprised at Respondent's language and left the room without Respondent having observed her. Throughout the period, Respondent yelled similar disparaging remarks to students who wanted to make up homework after being ill and absent from class. Respondent often times made disparaging comments to students concerning their ability to learn and referred to students as "retarded" and "EH". On numerous occasions, Respondent slept in class by putting his feet on his desk, leaning back in his chair and closing his eyes. Respondent engaged in such behavior for varying lengths of time and while so doing, his class was most often not engaged in any school related or other meaningful activity. Respondent on occasion drank mouthwash from a bottle in the presence of students. Also, during this period Respondent often asked students in his class for gum and breath mints. When he did so, students complained of smelling alcohol on his breath. During this period, Respondent also left his classroom for varying periods of time leaving students unsupervised and left school grounds during the day. Respondent was familiar with the rules and procedures in effect at Tyrone Middle School and was aware of the expected hours for instructional employees to be on campus. Respondent was often late to school and was absent without following the proper procedures of notifying the school administration. On one occasion, the school resource police officers covered Respondent's classroom during his absence. Respondent's tardiness and absences during the school day meant that other staff members had to open Respondent's classroom and supervise his students. Students and parents expressed concern throughout the 1991-92 school year that Respondent was not properly teaching his classes and that he did not assign enough work. One student asked to withdraw from his class because "nothing was really happening". Other parents expressed concern about the Respondent's use of profanity in class. One student, P.K., went home after Respondent used inappropriate language. P.K. became upset to the point of crying while telling her mother what Respondent said. P.K.'s mother was offended by Respondent's conduct. During the 1991-92 school year, Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct toward Bennie Smith, a teacher at Tyrone. Respondent's comments to Ms. Smith included attempting to solicit her to have an affair with him. Ms. Smith told Respondent that she was married and tried to avoid further contact with Respondent. During the spring semester of 1992, Smith rushed down a hallway in order to make "dittos" for her class. Respondent called to Ms. Smith and she slowed down. Respondent caught up with Ms. Smith and brushed his genital area against her buttocks. Later in the semester, Smith and Mark Benson, another instructional employee, walked down a school corridor on the way to a meeting. Respondent, who was walking behind them, reached forward and grabbed Ms. Smith's buttocks. Because the incident happened in the proximity of students and other teachers, Ms. Smith did not confront Respondent however she later made Respondent's conduct known to administrative officials. Mark Benson observed Respondent's hand move toward Ms. Smith's buttocks and later discussed it with Smith. Josephine Trubia worked as an aide in Barbara Day's EH classroom during the 1991-92 school year. Respondent made comments about Trubia to Kimberly Coleman, the sister- in-law of Josephine Trubia. Respondent told Coleman that Trubia was a "sixties kind of woman" that "walked like she was going places". When Coleman told Respondent that Trubia was her sister-in-law, and that her husband was a police officer, Respondent backed off. Respondent made compliments to Trubia about her appearance and attire which Trubia found to be sexually suggestive. Specifically, on one occasion, Trubia went to Respondent's classroom with a student to retrieve the student's make-up work. Respondent made comments about her appearance and asked her if she would wear her black skirt and pantyhose. Respondent further asked Trubia to date him and go with him (on a date) to Tampa. Trubia declined Respondent's advances although he continued to make suggestions that they go on a date and on one occasion backed Trubia toward a wall in his classroom. Trubia returned to her classroom whereupon teacher's aide Ronnell McDaniel noticed that she was visibly upset and nervous. Trubia confided to Ms. McDaniel that Respondent had made comments about her appearance and cornered her in his classroom. The following day, Trubia reported the incident to Barbara Day and expressed concerns about Respondent. Ms. Day advised Trubia to discuss the incident with the school's administration. Trubia resigned and found employment elsewhere. Respondent's actions made Trubia feel uncomfortable and was a factor in causing her to leave her employment at Tyrone. During the 1991-92 school year, Respondent was a member of an academic team with three other teachers. In January 1992, Respondent met with the three academic team members in the teacher's lounge. Respondent appeared incoherent and spoke in a disjointed fashion. Respondent became agitated and accused the team members of "playing games". He further threatened them by remarking that things were going to get physical. Respondent's actions caused the team members to feel upset and uncomfortable causing one team member to start locking her classroom door after school. On February 20, 1992, while walking behind several teachers including Jim Joyer, David Blacuk and Richard Bessey, Respondent was heard to use profanity. On another occasion, Blacuk walked down a school corridor when Respondent stepped out of his room and used profanity such as "motherfucker" and "son-of-a-bitch" in the presence of Blacuk and other students. During a faculty meeting held in the media center after school, Respondent became visibly agitated while Blacuk spoke. Respondent stood up and stated "bullshit. This is bullshit" in a tone loud enough to be heard by everyone in the room. Carolyn Chester was employed as an aide at the media center during the 1991-92 school year. On a Monday morning in January, Ms. Chester went to Respondent's classroom to retrieve some video equipment. Ms. Chester encountered Respondent outside his classroom door as he approached from the parking lot. Respondent angrily told Chester not to play games with him and shouted that he did not have the equipment. Ms. Chester returned to the media center and told media specialist Sheila Chaki about the incident. A few minutes later, Respondent entered the media center and again spoke to Chester in a loud and angry manner. Respondent had also became upset about the S.O.S. table which was set up in the media center with self-help books for students. Respondent threw down a flier about the S.O.S. table and stated "this is bullshit, too". Respondent's conduct in the media center was observed and heard by Ms. Chaki and several students who were present. During the 1991-92 school year, staff members detected the odor of alcohol on Respondent's breath. Article XVI, Section E of the agreement between the School Board and the Pinellas County Teachers Association provides that "teachers are to treat other employees of the system in a professional manner at all times". According to Miller, the principal at Tyrone, Respondent's sexually offensive actions and confrontational conduct caused morale problems among some staff members at Tyrone. Respondent's use of profanity directed toward students and his sleeping while in the classroom undermined the confidence of parents and caused a disruption in the educational process. Doctor Howard Hensley, superintendent of schools for Pinellas County, and who was qualified as an expert in the area of education and education administration, testified as to the manner in which Respondent's conduct reduced his effectiveness as an instructional employee. The Pinellas School Board expects its instructional employees to be role models and to avoid the use of profane language as it fails to set a proper example as role models for students. The use of racial epitaphs and derogatory comments are also counter- productive to Pinellas County School Board's policies and its attempts to promote cultural diversity and tolerance among its students. Likewise, vulgar language directed toward other members of the school staff is unacceptable in that it harms the ability of staff members to work together cooperatively. Inappropriate and threatening comments reduce the effectiveness of the person making the comments and adversely affect staff morale. The Pinellas County School District intends that all employees feel comfortable in their work places and that they be free from sexual harassment and confrontational conduct from its fellow employees. Sexual harassment of staff members violates this intention and possibly subjects the district to legal liability. Sleeping in class violates the School Board's expectations that its teachers supervise and set a good example for students. Vulgar language directed towards students violates the expectations of the Pinellas School District in that it sets a poor example for students and reduces that teacher's effectiveness. Individual ridiculing of a student by the use of profane or disparaging comments subject the students to embarrassment. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, enter a Final Order terminating the professional service contract between Respondent Jerome W. Jackson and the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioner, Betty Castor as Commissioner of Education, the Education Practices Commission, enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of seven (7) years to be followed by a three (3) year period of probation with the Education Practices Commission upon his recertification following the period of revocation. The terms of the probation shall include the requirement that Respondent follow such terms and conditions imposed by the Education Practices Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 7th day of December, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Lake County School Board, has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, teacher Karen Holcomb.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Karen Holcomb is a member of the Lake County Education Association, the collective bargaining unit for teaching personnel. She is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Lake County Education Association (the "CBA"), and holds a professional service contract with the School Board pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes.1/ Ms. Holcomb's complete employee file was not presented at the hearing. Performance evaluation documents that were entered into evidence show that she was an employee of the School Board for at least the following periods and in the following capacities: eighth grade math teacher at Eustis Middle School for the 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 school years; guidance counselor at Mount Dora Middle School for the 2005-2006 school year; math teacher at South Lake High School for the 2007-2008 school year; and art teacher at Eustis High for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. The School Board employs a performance evaluation methodology called "Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System" or "IPPAS." The standards for evaluation, the methodology to be used by evaluators, and the documents used in the evaluation of instructional personnel are set forth in the IPPAS Handbook. Article XI of the CBA acknowledges that the IPPAS is the vehicle for the evaluation and assessment of teachers employed by the School Board. Section 7 of Article XI of the CBA provides that an IPPAS Joint Committee composed of an equal number of representatives of the School Board and the Lake County Education Association will coordinate and monitor the development and implementation of the assessment process. Section 12 of Article XI of the CBA states that any teacher in danger of dismissal because of poor performance will be afforded the procedure set forth in section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. This procedure is given the colloquial acronym "NEAT," which stands for: N-- Notice of alleged deficiencies which, if not corrected, would lead to dismissal; E-- Explanation to the teacher of alleged deficiencies and suggestions for correction; A-- Assistance rendered by the administration to correct alleged deficiencies; and T-- Time for alleged deficiencies to be corrected. In accordance with the CBA and the IPPAS Handbook, the School Board evaluates teacher performance using an "Observation/Assessment of Professional Performance Standards" form in a procedure called an "Appraisal I." The Appraisal I is the standard evaluation for teachers employed by the School Board. The Observation/Assessment form contains six sections and 12 subsections. The subsections are further divided into sub-subsections.2/ The evaluator gives the teacher a score of "acceptable" or "unacceptable" in each sub-subsection. The overall evaluation is graded on a 12-point scale, one point for each of the 12 subsections. If the teacher's performance is graded unacceptable in even one sub-subsection, then the teacher receives an unacceptable score for the overall subsection. The only acceptable overall score on the Observation/Assessment form is a perfect 12. If a teacher does not receive an acceptable score in each of the 12 subsections, then the teacher's overall performance is deemed deficient. A deficient Appraisal I results in probationary status for the teachers, triggering the NEAT procedure and further evaluations. When a teacher receives a deficient Appraisal I, the NEAT procedures require that the teacher also receive a Prescription/Assistance Form to outline areas for improvement, recommendations on how to accomplish those improvements, and a time period for a follow-up observation. Finally, the IPPAS contains an evaluation instrument called a "Professional/Personal Action Report Relating to Work Experience," or "Appraisal II." The Appraisal II is used to document individual instances of deficiency in a teacher's work performance that have been identified outside of the formal evaluation process. The record evidence indicates that Ms. Holcomb received a grade of 12 on her Appraisal I for the 2002-2003 school year, dated February 10, 2003, as a math teacher at Eustis Middle School and on her Appraisal I for the 2005-2006 school year, dated March 1, 2006, as a guidance counselor at Mt. Dora Middle School. On March 21, 2006, Ms. Holcomb received an Appraisal II for her failure to timely update a student's accommodation plan under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. On April 25, 2006, Ms. Holcomb received two Appraisal IIs. One cited Ms. Holcomb for a failure to report to work, stating that she did not inform administration or school site personnel that she would not be at work on April 7, 19, 20, and 21, 2006. The Appraisal II gave Ms. Holcomb until May 24, 2006, to show improvement in notifying her worksite of her absences. In response, Ms. Holcomb submitted an affidavit from her husband stating that on the dates in question, Ms. Holcomb was either sick with a severe headache or in the hospital for cardiac problems. Ms. Holcomb's husband took responsibility for any failure to contact the proper school authorities regarding Ms. Holcomb's absences from work on those dates. The other April 25, 2006, Appraisal II stated that Ms. Holcomb was "not able to perform her job requirements due to excessive absences. The total number of days out as of April 21, 2006 is 31.5 days." The "recommended procedure for correction" was that Ms. Holcomb should "come to work on time and when required by work calendar designated by School Board and school site policy." The Appraisal II gave Ms. Holcomb until May 24, 2006, to show improvement. In response, Ms. Holcomb filed a memorandum explaining that her absences were due to legitimate illness and injury, including a 15-day hospitalization for broken ribs and collarbone, two days missed due to severe headaches, and four days missed due to hospitalization with heart attack symptoms. Ms. Holcomb suggested that the Appraisal II was part of an effort by school administrators "to undermine my current Professional Services Contract with Lake County Public Schools and destroy my reputation, due to an unknown agenda." As noted above, Ms. Holcomb began work as an art teacher at Eustis High during the 2009-2010 school year. On October 27, 2009, she received an Appraisal II from then- assistant principal Kristine Durias due to her classroom management. Ms. Durias explained the unacceptable aspects of Ms. Holcomb's classroom management as follows: I noted on several occasions that students in your classroom were not abiding by District, school and classroom procedures and were without correction from you as their teacher. On my last visit to your classroom on 10/22/09, 3 students had iPods out, 5 students were wandering around the classroom not engaged in the project and 1 student had their head down, all without regard from the teacher. Ms. Durias also provided Ms. Holcomb with a Prescription/Assistance Form setting forth the areas of performance that required improvement and providing resources to assist Ms. Holcomb in bringing her performance level up to the School Board's standards. These resources included page references to the IPPAS Handbook section on "Classroom Management," in-service classes on "Effective Classroom Management Strategies" and "Classroom Management for Secondary Teachers." The Prescription/Assistance Form also stated that Ms. Durias would contact the instructional coach to assist Ms. Holcomb and would ask another staff member to mentor Ms. Holcomb on school policies and procedures. The Prescription/Assistance Form provided that Ms. Holcomb's performance should show improvement "immediately," but also stated that her performance would be checked within three weeks. On November 17, 2009, from 12:40 p.m. until 1:20 p.m., Ms. Durias observed Ms. Holcomb and scored her on the Appraisal I form. Ms. Durias gave Ms. Holcomb a score of 10 on the appraisal, rating her unsatisfactory in two of the 12 subsections. The section "Classroom Management" contains a single subsection titled "Creates and maintains positive environments in which student are actively engaged in learning," for which Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score. Ms. Durias found Ms. Holcomb's performance deficient in two sub- subsections: "Applies the established rules and standards for behaviors consistently and equitably" and "Uses learning time effectively, maintains instructional momentum, and makes effective use of time for administrative and organizational activities." Under the section "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter," Ms. Holcomb was rated unsatisfactory in the subsection titled "Communicates and presents subject matter in a manner that enables students to learn." She was graded as unsatisfactory in four of seven sub-subsections: "Treats concepts/cause and effect/or states and applies rules;" "Uses questioning techniques;" "Recognizes response/amplifies/gives corrective feedback;" and "Directs lesson." At a post-appraisal conference on December 2, 2009, Ms. Durias gave Ms. Holcomb a Prescription/Assistance Form. This form essentially directed Ms. Holcomb to continue with the recommendations set forth in the Prescription/Assistance Form issued on October 27, 2009. Because the November 17, 2009, evaluation resulted in a score that was below the minimum IPPAS requirement of 12, Ms. Durias designated it as an "Observation" rather than a formal Appraisal I that would immediately affect Ms. Holcomb's employment status.3/ In the Prescription/Assistance form, Ms. Durias informed Ms. Holcomb that another IPPAS appraisal would be conducted within three weeks. The appraisal was not conducted within the stated three weeks because Ms. Holcomb was out on sick leave from January 21, 2010, through April 20, 2010. On April 23, 2010, two days after Ms. Holcomb returned to work from her lengthy absence, an Appraisal I of her performance was conducted by assistant principal Marta Ramirez, who joined the staff at Eustis High School in March 2010. Ms. Ramirez testified that it is not at all unusual to evaluate a teacher who has been out of work for a long period of time. Teachers are frequently out on maternity leave or due to illness. Ms. Ramirez stated that the School Board expects every teacher to perform at the level required to pass an IPPAS appraisal whenever she comes to teach, whether it is the first day of school or the first day back from an extended leave. Ms. Ramirez observed Ms. Holcomb from 12:44 p.m. until 1:44 p.m. and scored her on the Appraisal I form. Ms. Ramirez gave Ms. Holcomb a score of 8 on the appraisal, rating her unsatisfactory in four of the 12 subsections. The section "Teaching Procedures" contains four subsections, one of which is "Displays skills in making assignments." Ms. Ramirez found Ms. Holcomb's performance deficient in that subsection due to an unsatisfactory score in the sub-subsection titled "Gives clear and explicit directions." The section "Classroom Management" contains a single subsection titled "Creates and maintains positive environments in which student are actively engaged in learning," for which Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score. Ms. Ramirez found Ms. Holcomb's performance deficient in three of the four sub-subsections: "Applies the established rules and standards for behaviors consistently and equitably," "Uses learning time effectively, maintains instructional momentum, and makes effective use of time for administrative and organizational activities," and "Provides conscious modeling to modify attitudes and behaviors." Under the section "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter," Ms. Holcomb was rated unsatisfactory in both subsections: "Demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the subject matter" and "Communicates and presents subject matter in a manner that enables students to learn." As to the first subsection, Ms. Holcomb was graded as unsatisfactory in one of two sub-subsections, "Sequence is logical." As to the second subsection, she was graded as unsatisfactory in three of seven sub-subsections: "Treats concepts/cause and effect/or states and applies rules;" "Uses questioning techniques;" and "Directs lesson." At the hearing, Ms. Ramirez testified as to her observations of Ms. Holcomb's teaching methods. Ms. Ramirez stated that there is a standard procedure for ensuring a prompt start to the class. Before the students come into the classroom, the teacher writes a "bell ringer" on the blackboard, i.e., an activity that the students are expected to work on while the teacher takes attendance. Ms. Holcomb had no bell ringer activity prepared for her students, who sat down at their tables with nothing to do. The students talked among themselves, a distraction that lengthened the process of taking attendance to six minutes. Ms. Ramirez found Ms. Holcomb's performance deficient in the areas of starting class promptly and being on task. Ms. Ramirez stated that another standard classroom procedure is the teacher's stating the objective of the day's lesson. Ms. Holcomb stated no objective either orally or in writing. Because there was no stated objective, the lesson did not proceed in a meaningful, orderly fashion. Ms. Holcomb seemed to jump from one thing to another. Some students were confused, looking to Ms. Holcomb and trying to figure out what they were supposed to do. Ms. Ramirez noted that the lack of a set procedure or guidance from the teacher naturally leads the students to lose focus and begin talking among themselves. Ms. Holcomb's students began chatting, which led Ms. Holcomb to attempt disciplinary measures. She began by saying "cut." Ms. Ramirez was not sure what "cut" meant, but surmised that it was Ms. Holcomb's instruction to the students to stop talking. The instruction had no effect on the students. Ms. Ramirez testified that there was still some confusion 20 minutes into the class period. The students still did not understand the assignment. They were blurting out questions such as, "What are we doing?" and "Is this for a grade?" They were asking each other what they were supposed to be doing. At some length, they understood the assignment and began work, though an undercurrent of confusion remained. Ms. Ramirez attributed this undercurrent to Ms. Holcomb's failure to state an objective or purpose to the assignment. Ms. Ramirez was also critical of Ms. Holcomb's interactions with the students. Ms. Ramirez stated that accepted practice is for the teacher to state a single question, wait for a moment, call on a student, and affirm the correct answer. If the answer is incorrect, the teacher provides feedback that steers the class toward the correct answer. Ms. Ramirez testified that Ms. Holcomb allowed the students to shout out answers in a chaotic manner. Ms. Ramirez stated that the class period lasted for 90 minutes, but that she left after an hour because the class "didn't seem to be headed any direction, just headed downhill." The students were not on task and were not learning anything. As a result of the substandard Appraisal I score, Ms. Ramirez completed a Prescription/Assistance Form that she gave to Ms. Holcomb at a post-observation conference on April 29, 2010. Eight areas for improvement were listed, corresponding to the eight sub-subsections for which Ms. Holcomb received unsatisfactory scores on the April 23 Appraisal I. Eight pages of the IPPAS Handbook were attached as reference resources to assist Ms. Holcomb to improve her performance. The Prescription/Assistance Form also provided that an instructional coach would assist Ms. Holcomb in applying best teaching practices and that she could obtain in-service instruction in classroom management. The form also "encouraged" Ms. Holcomb to take staff development workshops provided by Lake County. Also on April 29, 2010, Eustis High principal Al Larry issued a memorandum to Ms. Holcomb advising her of performance deficiencies in the areas of "Teaching Procedures," "Classroom Management," and "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter," as reflected in the April 23 Appraisal I. Mr. Larry noted that as to the latter two areas, Ms. Holcomb had shown deficiencies in the observation of November 17, 2009, and that those deficiencies had not been corrected. Mr. Larry's memorandum closed as follows: "Based on the performance deficiencies, I am placing you on performance probation for 90-calendar days beginning on Monday, August 23, 2010. The 90-calendar days will end on Monday, November 22, 2010." By letter dated May 7, 2010, Superintendent of Schools Susan Moxley warned Ms. Holcomb of the consequences of failure to correct her performance deficiencies: Pursuant to Florida Statutes 1012.33, I am writing to inform you that performance deficiencies have been identified by your principal. I understand that your principal has already met with you and made recommendations for improvement. Your principal will provide assistance to help you correct the performance deficiencies during the subsequent school year. Please be advised that your contract with the Lake County Schools District may be terminated without correction of these performance deficiencies. Pursuant to s. 1012.33, you may request to meet with the Superintendent or her designee for an informal review of the determination of unsatisfactory performance. You may also request to be considered for a transfer to another appropriate position under a different supervising administrator for the subsequent school year. Such transfer, however, does not reverse this year's identification of performance deficiencies. Ms. Ramirez testified that she contacted Claude Pennacchia, a former principal who acts as instructional coach for eight schools. Mr. Pinnachia agreed to contact Ms. Holcomb and set up a meeting. Because she called Mr. Pennacchia near the end of the school year, Ms. Ramirez contacted him again at the start of the new school year in August to remind him of the need to provide training to Ms. Holcomb. Mr. Pennacchia told her that he had tried to arrange a meeting with Ms. Holcomb, but they could not agree on a time. Ms. Ramirez testified that to the best of her knowledge Ms. Holcomb never made herself available to meet with Mr. Pennacchia. Ms. Ramirez was not aware that Ms. Holcomb ever did anything that was recommended by the April 29, 2010, Prescription/Assistance Form. Ms. Ramirez testified that Ms. Holcomb was in school for the first two weeks of the 2010-2011 school year, then became ill and was out until sometime in November 2010. The follow-up observation was conducted by Ms. Ramirez on December 1, 2010, after the running of the 90-day probation period. Ms. Ramirez observed Ms. Holcomb from 10:23 a.m. until 11:00 a.m.4/ and scored her on the Appraisal I form. Ms. Ramirez gave Ms. Holcomb a score of 7 on the appraisal, rating her unsatisfactory in five of the 12 subsections. The section "Classroom Management" contains a single subsection titled "Creates and maintains positive environments in which student are actively engaged in learning," for which Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score. Ms. Ramirez found Ms. Holcomb's performance deficient in two of the four sub- subsections: "Applies the established rules and standards for behaviors consistently and equitably" and "Uses learning time effectively, maintains instructional momentum, and makes effective use of time for administrative and organizational activities." Under the section "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter," Ms. Holcomb was rated unsatisfactory in one subsection, "Communicates and presents subject matter in a manner that enables students to learn." Within that subsection, Ms. Holcomb was graded as unsatisfactory in two of seven sub- subsections: "Uses questioning techniques" and "Recognizes response/ amplifies/ gives corrective feedback." Under the section "Assessment Techniques," Ms. Holcomb was rated unsatisfactory in the sole subsection, "Uses assessment strategies to assist in the continuous development of the student." Within that subsection, Ms. Holcomb was graded as unsatisfactory in one of four sub-subsections, "Checks student progress based on the performance standards required of students in Florida public schools, analyses data, including annual learning gains at the classroom and school levels, and makes appropriate adjustments." Under the section "Personal Characteristics and Professional Responsibilities," Ms. Holcomb was graded as unsatisfactory in one of three subsections, "Engages in continuous professional improvement for self and school." This subsection contained four sub-subsections, in two of which Ms. Holcomb's performance was graded as unsatisfactory: "Demonstrates effective communication in order to establish and maintain a positive, collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement" and "Presents evidence that the Individual Professional Development Plan is in progress." At the hearing, Ms. Ramirez explained that the sections of the Appraisal I document being scrutinized during the observation are "Teaching Procedures," "Classroom Management," and "Presentation and Knowledge of Subject Matter." The sections titled "Planning," "Assessment Techniques," and "Personal Characteristics and Professional Responsibilities" are covered in the post-observation conference with the teacher, at which time the teacher shares her portfolio or other evidence of compliance with IPPAS standards with the evaluator. Ms. Ramirez testified that on this occasion Ms. Holcomb had an assignment on the board as the students entered, but that the students still appeared confused. They did not seem to know what they were supposed to be doing. The students continued to talk among themselves even when Ms. Holcomb began a review. Ms. Ramirez noted that Ms. Holcomb was still using "cut" to end the students' conversations, and that it was still being ignored. Ms. Holcomb had posted rules of conduct in her classroom that included raising one's hand and being called on by the teacher before asking a question. Ms. Ramirez testified that this rule was ignored by the students and Ms. Holcomb. The students would blurt out questions, and Ms. Holcomb would answer them. Ms. Ramirez found it highly problematic that Ms. Holcomb was not even attempting to enforce her own rule. Ms. Ramirez noted that students walked into class several minutes after the bell and Ms. Holcomb took no notice. Students walked into the class with food and started eating. Other students simply stood up and walked out of class. Ms. Holcomb did not address any of these misbehaviors. Ms. Ramirez testified that before leaving the classroom, a student is supposed to ask permission, get a pass, and sign out. Ms. Holcomb seemed unaware that students were walking in and out of the classroom while she taught the lesson. Ms. Holcomb's failure to observe the hall pass protocol created a dangerous situation because there was no accountability for these children. They were without adult supervision outside the classroom and could go anywhere or do anything. During cross-examination, Ms. Ramirez was questioned regarding the size and configuration of Ms. Holcomb's classroom in connection with the fact that Ms. Holcomb was using a wheelchair during this period. Counsel was attempting to demonstrate that at least some of the discipline problems were not Ms. Holcomb's fault because the layout of her classroom ensured that she was unable to see all of her students from her position in the wheelchair. Ms. Ramirez acknowledged that Ms. Holcomb's art class was large, between 35 and 40 students, and that Ms. Holcomb had to navigate the room in a wheelchair. However, Ms. Ramirez also testified that being in a wheelchair did not absolve Ms. Holcomb of her responsibility for the safety of the children in her classroom. More than one person in the Eustis High administration had urged Ms. Holcomb to rearrange the tables in her classroom to give herself a clear view of all the students. Ms. Holcomb had been advised to look at the classroom of the art teacher next door for ideas on how to arrange the tables. For some reason, Ms. Holcomb declined to change the configuration of the tables in a way that would curtail the students' ability to essentially hide from her. Ms. Ramirez conducted a post-observation conference with Ms. Holcomb on December 6, 2010. Prior to the conference, Ms. Ramirez spoke to Mr. Larry about the results of the Appraisal I. She told Mr. Larry that Ms. Holcomb had requested that her union representative be present at the conference and that "it doesn't look good" for Ms. Holcomb because she received unsatisfactory scores in two of the same subsections she had failed on the April 23, 2010, Appraisal I. In light of this information, Mr. Larry decided that he would attend the conference as well. On December 7, 2010, Ms. Holcomb submitted written comments that provided as follows, in relevant part: To begin, this is the culmination of Mr. Larry's hostile attitude toward my... appointment to Eustis High School.... Mr. Larry has not spoken one kind word to me since the appointment in August of 2009. Since my appointment to Eustis High School, I have had to work in a hostile environment where Mr. Larry has been using the Florida Statute 1012.34 assessment procedures as a weapon to fire me. Using an assessment procedure where nothing less than perfect is failing, Mr. Larry used his assistant principals to do his bidding where acceptable or unacceptable grades are completely subjective. In other words, the assessment is biased where any teacher that the principal does not like has no chance of passing and there is no supervisory protection or due process afforded to the teacher. . . (Emphasis in original.) Ms. Holcomb also alleged that Mr. Larry "violated the intent of the ninety days rule" for performance probation when he did not extend the time for improvement of her deficiencies in light of her eight-week stay in the hospital. Ms. Holcomb also alleged that Mr. Larry refused her request to move to an open guidance counselor position that would not require her to show classroom management skills. There was no record evidence that Mr. Larry held any grudge against Ms. Holcomb.5/ Ms. Ramirez denied receiving any instruction or direction from Mr. Larry as to her evaluations of Ms. Holcomb's performance as a teacher. There was no record evidence that Ms. Holcomb applied for a guidance counselor position during the period in question. By letter dated December 7, 2010, Mr. Larry informed Superintendent Moxley that Ms. Holcomb had failed to correct her performance deficiencies, that Mr. Larry did not believe Ms. Holcomb capable of correcting those deficiencies, and recommending that Ms. Holcomb's employment be terminated. In a letter to Ms. Holcomb dated December 10, 2010, Superintendent Moxley wrote as follows: Pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.34, I am writing to inform you that you have failed to correct your performance deficiencies as identified by your principal. Please be advised that I will recommend to the Board that your employment be terminated as of January 10, 2011. You are entitled, if you so choose, to a due process hearing pursuant to the procedures contained in Florida Statute 1012.34(3)(d)2.b. To exercise your due process rights, you must request a hearing in writing within fifteen (15) days of the date you receive this letter. Your principal will meet with you in the near future to answer any questions you may have. Ms. Holcomb filed a grievance pursuant to School Board Policy 6.35. In light of that grievance, Superintendent Moxley rescinded Ms. Holcomb's termination until such time as Ms. Holcomb could receive a second Appraisal I observation by an administrator from outside Eustis High. June Dalton, the principal of Tavares High School, was selected by chief of curriculum Nancy Velez to conduct the observation. Ms. Dalton began teaching in Lake County in 1978 as a physical education teacher. After teaching for 13 years, Ms. Dalton became an administrator. She has served 14 years as a principal, including eight years at the high school level. Ms. Dalton has been trained in use of the IPPAS Handbook and sat on a committee charged with updating the IPPAS program. She has trained administrators on the IPPAS system. At the time she accepted the assignment from Ms. Velez, Ms. Dalton had never met Ms. Holcomb. Ms Dalton met Ms. Holcomb for the first time at the pre-observation conference on January 11, 2011. They discussed the appraisal form, including every aspect of the observation and the areas on which Ms. Dalton would focus. Ms. Dalton assured Ms. Holcomb that she was there to help her meet the minimum standards in her appraisal. Ms. Dalton testified that Ms. Holcomb had some concerns about the layout of her classroom and asked for her ideas. Ms. Holcomb told Ms. Dalton that she had trouble maintaining order with some of the students in her classroom. Ms. Dalton testified that Ms. Holcomb's classroom was long and narrow, with tables arranged in such a way that at times some students were facing away from the teacher. Ms. Dalton suggested setting the tables end to end along the length of the room, so that Ms. Holcomb could lecture in front and be seen by all of the students. Ms. Dalton stated that when she came to the room for the observation, the tables had not been moved.6/ Ms. Dalton asked to see Ms. Holcomb's individual personal development plan ("IPDP"), a document that all teachers are required to complete that identifies individual goals and objectives designed to promote their personal growth. The teacher is required to state objectives that are feasible and primarily under her control, are measureable and/or observable, and are agreed to and signed by the teacher and her supervisor. Ms. Dalton stated that it is her practice at Tavares High School to review her teachers' IPDPs before their observations. Ms. Holcomb told Ms. Dalton that she had turned in her IPDP to Ms. Ramirez, but that she could not find her copy of the signed document. Ms. Holcomb printed a copy of the IPDP to show to Ms. Dalton. After reviewing the IPDP, Ms. Dalton concluded that it was not a workable plan as written because there was no way that Ms. Holcomb could document the student progress that she intended to bring about. Ms. Dalton gave Ms. Holcomb some suggestions for making her IPDP into an acceptable document. Ms. Holcomb agreed that she would rewrite the IPDP and have it ready for Ms. Dalton at the time of the observation. However, on the day of the observation, Ms. Holcomb told Ms. Dalton that she had not had time to work on it. Through his questioning of Ms. Ramirez, counsel for Ms. Holcomb insinuated that that Ms. Holcomb had turned in an IPDP to Ms. Ramirez in October 2010, but that Ms. Ramirez had lost the IPDP by the time she performed her Appraisal I on December 1, 2010. Ms. Ramirez testified that the first time she ever saw an IPDP from Ms. Holcomb was at the December 6 post- observation conference. The document was handwritten and was missing significant information. Ms. Holcomb had been notified that that the IPDP was part of her Appraisal I and that she needed to bring it to her post-observation conference. Ms. Ramirez gave her an unsatisfactory mark for the incomplete IPDP. The testimony of Ms. Dalton and Ms. Ramirez is credited as to the IPDP. It is apparent that Ms. Holcomb created a typed IPDP at some point between December 6, 2010, and January 11, 2011, but that she never gave it to her supervisor at Eustis High for review and approval. Ms. Holcomb tried to make Ms. Dalton believe that the IPDP she printed at the pre- observation conference on January 11 was an approved, finished product when in fact it was, at best, a draft IPDP. After they finished with the pre-observation conference, Ms. Dalton and Ms. Holcomb discussed dates for the observation. Ms. Holcomb did not want the observation to take place until after semester exams. Ms. Dalton agreed that little would be gained from having her observe Ms. Holcomb as she proctored an exam. They agreed on a date, but Ms. Holcomb was out sick on the scheduled date. After a few reschedulings, the observation took place on February 17, 2011. Ms. Dalton's observation lasted from the time the bell rang at 12:44 p.m. until class was dismissed at 2:14 p.m. Ms. Dalton was in the classroom several minutes before the opening bell. On the Appraisal I form, Ms. Dalton gave Ms. Holcomb a score of 6, rating her unsatisfactory in six of the 12 subsections. The section "Planning" contains a single subsection titled "Plans, implements, and evaluates instruction," for which Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score. Within that subsection, Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score on one of the four sub-subsections, titled "Develops short and long term personal and professional goals related to instruction as evidenced by an Individual Professional Development Plan." The section "Teaching Procedures" contains four subsections, in two of which Ms. Dalton graded Ms. Holcomb's performance as unsatisfactory. Under the subsection titled "Uses instructional materials effectively," Ms. Holcomb was graded unsatisfactory in the sub-subsection titled "Uses technology in the teaching and learning process." Under the subsection titled "Recognizes and provides for individual differences," Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score in the sub-subsection titled "Attends to student needs." The section "Classroom Management" contains a single subsection titled "Creates and maintains positive environments in which students are actively engaged in learning," for which Ms. Holcomb was given an unsatisfactory score. Ms. Dalton found Ms. Holcomb's performance deficient in three of the four sub- subsections: "Applies the established rules and standards for behaviors consistently and equitably," "Uses learning time effectively, maintains instructional momentum, and makes effective use of time for administrative and organizational activities," and "Provides conscious modeling to modify attitudes and behaviors." Under the section "Personal Characteristics and Professional Responsibilities," Ms. Holcomb was graded as unsatisfactory in two of the three subsections. The first subsection, "Engages in continuous professional improvement for self and school," contained four sub-subsections, in two of which Ms. Holcomb's performance was graded as unsatisfactory: "Demonstrates effective communication in order to establish and maintain a positive, collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement" and "Presents evidence that the Individual Professional Development Plan is in progress." The second subsection was titled "Complies with Board rules, policies, contract provisions, and published school-site rules and policies consistent with Board rules and contract provisions" and contained no sub-subsections. Ms. Dalton testified that Ms. Holcomb did not have a bell ringer activity to keep the students engaged while she took attendance. Ms. Holcomb frequently had to stop taking attendance to admonish talkative students. Ms. Dalton stated that Ms. Holcomb was still taking attendance at 12:53, nine minutes after the opening bell. She started entering the attendance into her computer at 12:58, and was not finished with marking attendance until 1:01, seventeen minutes into the class period. Ms. Dalton found it apparent from the start that there was no class routine. The students had to be told what to do at every step of the way. At the end of attendance, Ms. Holcomb explained a journal assignment she had written on the board, but most of the students talked all the way through her explanation and some did not perform the assignment at all. There were no consequences for their misbehavior. Ms. Holcomb held up samples of a project the class had begun in a previous session and was continuing to work on. The students in the middle of the room had a good view of the samples, but the students at the far end of the room had a hard time seeing. Ms. Dalton noted that some students were working on the project and some were not. Some were talking. Students at two different tables were texting or playing with their cell phones. Ms. Dalton stated that Ms. Holcomb frequently stopped to announce that she was waiting for the class to be quiet. She also used a technique called "harsh desist," singling out a student to threaten with removal from class. One such student replied, "Good, get me out of here." Ms. Holcomb called out to Table Five that she was taking away five points for talking, though not everyone at the table was talking. Ms. Dalton heard one of the students at the table say, "Well, it doesn't matter, she doesn't know our names anyway." Ms. Dalton took this statement as a sign that Ms. Holcomb's method of correcting misbehavior was not effective. Ms. Dalton noticed that Ms. Holcomb did not have current class rosters. The rosters and seating charts in her folder were from the previous semester. Ms. Holcomb did not know the names of the students at Table Five and therefore was unable to deduct points from them. Ms. Holcomb told another table that she was awarding it bonus points, but Ms. Dalton wondered how Ms. Holcomb could do that when she did not know the students' names. Ms. Dalton noted that Ms. Holcomb's voice was loud to the point of yelling. Ms. Dalton believed that if Ms. Holcomb would use a quieter voice, then the students who were not being intentionally disruptive might quiet down. Ms. Dalton testified that in her experience students will stop talking if they cannot hear what the teacher is saying. If they can hear the teacher over their own quiet conversation, then they will go on talking. Ms. Dalton stated that Ms. Holcomb had some technology in the classroom but for some reason declined to use it. Ms. Holcomb had a document camera that could have been used to show a document to the entire class. All of the components to the camera appeared to be present, but Ms. Holcomb failed to use it. Ms. Dalton observed three students at one table who did nothing for 35 minutes but draw on their arms, talk, and play with their phones. Finally, Ms. Holcomb addressed two of the students. However, they continued to draw on their arms and not work even when Ms. Holcomb sat next to one of them. Ms. Holcomb gave these students no further corrective feedback. Ms. Holcomb attempted to gain control of the class by threatening detention for the next Tuesday. She stated that if a student receiving a detention became argumentative or disrespectful, she would escalate the discipline to a referral. Ms. Dalton saw Ms. Holcomb's threats as empty because the promised detentions were five days in the future. Ms. Dalton also noted that Ms. Holcomb had not yet contacted the parents of any of the disruptive students. Ms. Dalton testified that Ms. Holcomb did some things well. She worked with some students individually. She gave them feedback. Overall, Ms. Dalton saw a class in which some students were trying to do their work, and in which many other students were talkative, did not seem to care about their work, and did not fear any consequences. Ms. Holcomb's method of dealing with the discipline problem was to make empty threats. Ms. Dalton acknowledged that the score of six was "a bad score." The observation gave her concerns about Ms. Holcomb's ability to teach in a classroom. Ms. Dalton stated, "It was a difficult class to watch." The students who wanted to learn were not getting what they needed because the teacher was spending so much time ineffectively trying to get minor misbehaviors under control. Ms. Dalton testified that the post-observation conference, held on February 18, 2011, was uneventful. She asked Ms. Holcomb whether she had called the parents of the students who were disrupting her class. Ms. Holcomb stated that she intended to commence calling them that evening. From Ms. Holcomb's reply, Ms. Dalton concluded that Ms. Holcomb was not taking charge or involving the parents in getting the misbehaviors under control. On February 22, 2011, Ms. Holcomb submitted her written comments on the evaluation. She again decried the subjectivity of the evaluation criteria and the fact that a perfect score is required for a satisfactory appraisal. She alleged that Eustis High and the School Board were "using the Florida Statute 1012.34 as a tool to fire me because I am a handicapped teacher in a wheelchair." Ms. Holcomb stated that she had turned in her IPDP more than once but that her administrator never signed it. She stated that the document camera did not work properly. She argued that the school had a faulty system for removing disruptive students and that her phone calls to parents had not improved the students' behavior. Ms. Holcomb argued that she could not properly manage the classroom when there were students in the room who did not want to be there but whom Mr. Larry would not permanently remove from her class. Ms. Dalton testified that during the post-observation conference, Ms. Holcomb said nothing about the document camera not working. Ms. Dalton saw only one student who expressed a desire to be out of Ms. Holcomb's classroom. She reiterated her opinion that the disciplinary problem in Ms. Holcomb's classroom was minor but that Ms. Holcomb escalated the problem through her mishandling of the disruptive students. Ms. Dalton saw nothing in Ms. Holcomb's comments that changed her mind about the scores she gave Ms. Holcomb on the Appraisal I. In a letter to Ms. Holcomb dated March 14, 2011, Superintendent Moxley wrote as follows: Pursuant to Florida Statutes 1012.33 and 1012.34, I am writing to inform you that you have failed to correct your performance deficiencies as identified by your principal. Due to the global nature of the identified performance deficiencies, you have demonstrated incompetence and the lack of the qualifications needed to be an effective teacher. Please be advised that I will recommend to the Board that your employment be terminated as of March 28, 2011. You are entitled, if you so choose, to a due process hearing pursuant to the procedures contained in Florida Statute 1012.34(3)(d)2.b. To exercise your due process rights, you must request a hearing in writing within fifteen (15) days of the date you receive this letter. Your principal will meet with you in the near future to answer any questions you may have. Ms. Holcomb timely requested a due process hearing by letter dated March 18, 2011. On the same date, Superintendent Moxley notified Ms. Holcomb in writing that she would recommend that Ms. Holcomb be placed on unpaid suspension at the March 28, 2011, School Board meeting and that the suspension last until the conclusion of the due process proceeding. The first duty of school administrators is to ensure that the children in their charge receive adequate instruction from a qualified, competent teacher. The evidence established that the process followed by School Board personnel in evaluating Ms. Holcomb's performance before and during her probationary period followed the letter of the IPPAS and the CBA, including the NEAT procedure set forth in Section 12 of Article XI of the CBA.7/ The criteria and forms used to evaluate her performance were taken directly from the IPPAS Handbook. At the outset of the final hearing, the School Board announced that it intended to proceed exclusively pursuant to the "just cause" provision of section 1012.33. Therefore, there is no need for extensive findings as to whether the School Board met all of the substantive criteria for teacher dismissal set forth in section 1012.34(3).8/ The issue is whether the School Board has established sufficient grounds for "just cause" termination pursuant to section 1012.33(1). On the sole statutory ground available under the evidence of this case, incompetency, the School Board has met its burden and justified its decision to terminate Respondent's employment. The evidence produced at the hearing demonstrated that the School Board had just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Holcomb for incompetency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's professional service contract and dismissing Respondent on the ground of incompetency. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 14th day of March, 2011.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Virginia Young (Respondent or Ms. Young) violated: section 1012.795(1)(g) Florida Statutes (being found guilty of personal conduct, which seriously reduces effectiveness as an employee of the school board); section 1012.795(1)(j) Florida Statutes (violating the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession as prescribed by the State Board of Education rules); Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. (failure to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental health and/or physical health and/or safety); and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e) (intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement)1/; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state agent responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 624273 in the areas of: Educational Media Specialist; English; Elementary Education; English for Speakers of Other Languages; Guidance and Counseling; Physical Education; Social Science; Business Education; Family and Consumer Science; and Exceptional Student Education. Respondent’s certification is valid through June 30, 2017. Respondent is also certified in Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, which is valid through June 30, 2017. Respondent taught in the Polk County School District (PCSD) for eight years and retired two years ago. At all times material to these allegations, Respondent was employed as a social studies teacher at Traviss or as an elementary combination teacher at PVS in the PCSD. BATHROOM HALL PASS 2013-2014 School Year For the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent taught tenth- grade English and World History at Traviss. Her classroom was a portable building in the school’s parking lot. Although there was a bathroom in the portable, it had been disassembled and was unusable. When a student needed to use the bathroom, the student obtained a bathroom pass to leave the portable and go to another building where there was a functioning bathroom. Respondent’s policy for any student (pregnant or not) to obtain a bathroom pass was simple: the student had to sign in, find their assigned seat, write down the “SMART Board question” of the day, and go to the classroom aide (or paraprofessional) to obtain a bathroom/hall pass. Each student had an agenda book, and the aide would mark the time of the bathroom pass. If the student was gone too long, the aide would try to find them. Respondent never denied a student’s request for a bathroom pass although she had, on occasion, asked a student if they could wait “five minutes” because Respondent was starting a clip and was concerned she could not replay the clip. Respondent never signed a bathroom pass, but had her paraprofessional or classroom aide handle the passes. There was no evidence adduced by any former student, pregnant or not, who was denied a bathroom pass. E.G. testified there were “students” in her class who were pregnant and, with the assistance of counsel, she confirmed one student’s identity, A.G. However, A.G. did not testify that she was pregnant and A.G. did not testify that she was denied the opportunity to use the restroom. E.G. heard Respondent deny “those students’” request to go to the restroom on a “few occasions.” E.G.’s testimony was unpersuasive. Petitioner’s Exhibit 29 is a verbal warning with a written confirmation regarding Respondent’s alleged denial of pregnant students’ rights to use the restroom when asked. The undersigned acknowledges this warning; however, the non-hearsay testimony at hearing failed to support such a finding. INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE 2013-2014 School Year As part of the English curriculum, Respondent taught literature. Each year she used the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee, which was on the approved reading list in her tenth-grade, English 2 class. In that novel, the “n” word is used once or twice. Respondent does not use the “n” word. E.G. and Ms. Ibarra were questioned about inappropriate language used during their class. Ms. Ibarra thought she was in Respondent’s eleventh or twelfth grade English class, yet she did not recall if the class was discussing a book or a movie when she claimed to have heard the “n” word used. E.G. knew Respondent was her English teacher, but could not recall if the class had been discussing the book when the “n” word may have been used. Both students’ testimony was vague and unpersuasive. TREE NUT ISSUE 2015-2016 School Year Respondent moved to PVS for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. At PVS she taught grades kindergarten through fifth grade. Respondent had multiple preparations for the different classes she taught at PVS. Elementary students are young, and in addition to the virtual teaching time, each grade level is brought into the “brick and mortar” school once a month for a two-hour “face-to- face” class. This is to ensure that each PVS student is progressing appropriately and to ensure that each student is not being unduly assisted by their “learning coach,” an adult or other person. At PVS, teachers were expected to contact each student’s parent(s) prior to the school year starting. This “welcome call” was to introduce themselves, provide a course overview, and to chat about the individual student who would be in Respondent’s class. During the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent taught PVS’s first-grade virtual class in addition to other grades. S.D. was in Respondent’s first-grade class. S.D. is now an eight-year-old student residing and attending school out of Florida. While residing in Florida, S.D. was home schooled for the kindergarten school year. S.D. attended PVS as a first-grade student during the 2015-2016 school year. The following year S.D. attended PVS for second grade. S.D. has an allergy to tree nuts. Prior to the start of S.D.’s first-grade year, Respondent called and spoke with S.D.’s mother. During that telephone call, Respondent explained that she incorporated food in her classroom. At this mention, S.D.’s mother first raised S.D.’s severe tree nut and sesame seed allergy. S.D.’s mother advised Respondent that S.D. would probably stay home if the parents were told walnuts were going to be used in the face-to- face classroom exercise. S.D.’s mother offered to bring in other equivalent materials when food was to be used in the classroom. In September 2015, at the first face-to-face classroom meeting, S.D.’s parents spoke with Respondent, and reaffirmed S.D.’s tree nut allergy. S.D.’s parents renewed their offer to supply equivalent things for S.D. to use when food was to be used in the classroom curriculum. On October 6, 2015, Respondent entered school counselor Balladin’s office and noticed an EpiPen. In her discussion with Ms. Balladin, when told the EpiPen was S.D.’s, Respondent said the EpiPen could not be S.D.’s because it was an adult, expired EpiPen. Ms. Balladin directed Respondent to telephone S.D.’s mother about the EpiPen left in Ms. Balladin’s office. Respondent confirmed she spoke with S.D.’s mother as directed. Respondent recorded the conversation in the PVS computer system as “[Respondent] called LC to inform that they [S.D.’s parents] had left [S.D.’s] peanut allergy pen in Ms. Balladin’s office. Mom said she had a spare and would pick it up on Friday morning.” On December 8, 2015, S.D. and one other student were the only two students to participate in the face-to-face first- grade class at PVS. Towards the end of the class, Respondent provided each student with a “Christmas tree brownie still in the wrapper on the plate.” Respondent told the students not to eat the brownie until they checked with their respective mothers as it was close to lunch time. Respondent walked the two students to the front office area of the school. When S.D.’s mother saw S.D., she noticed that S.D. had a partially eaten brownie. S.D.’s mother noticed there was no wrapper to the brownie and she asked Respondent about it. S.D.’s mother wanted to know the brand to purchase it. Respondent admitted that she read the label of ingredients on the box before she purchased the brownie treats, and she did not think it would harm S.D. S.D.’s family left PVS to drive home, which was an hour or more away from PVS. Shortly after the family left PVS, S.D. became ill, frequently vomiting into a bucket on the way home. S.D.’s parents reported the illness to PVS. The brownie given to S.D. came from a box labeled “Christmas Tree Brownies [by] Little Debbie.” The brownies were Christmas tree shaped with green icing and small edible “candy toppers” on top. The box contained a list of more than 15 ingredients and also contained the following: ALLERGY INFORMATION: CONTAINS WHEAT, SOY, MILK, EGG. MAY ALSO BE PRESENT IN THIS PRODUCT: PEANUTS, TREE NUTS. Respondent thought the brownie was safe for S.D. It was not. Respondent initially testified that she did not receive any training from the school about how to deal with students’ allergies, but then immediately claimed she obtained allergy training three months after this December 8 event. The source of that training was unclear. The evidence regarding the tree nut allergy issue was established through clear and convincing evidence: Respondent provided a food product that contained tree nuts to S.D., a student who was known to have a tree nut allergy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of Counts 2 and 3 in the Amended Administrative Complaint, suspending her educator certificate for 18 months, placing her on probation for two years with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission, and dismissing Counts 1 and 4. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 20th day of February, 2018.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact A review of Exhibit 1, the personnel record of Respondent, discloses that Respondent has been employed by the Pinellas County School Board since 1959; that he has taught science at various junior high schools and middle schools from 1958 to present; that deficiencies in maintaining discipline in his classes, judgment, maturity, and planning have been noted on his evaluation reports throughout that period; his evaluation reports have generally been below average; after extending his probationary period he was granted continuing contract status in 1971; and his evaluations have been unsatisfactory for the last three years. All of the witnesses called by Petitioner have been associated with Respondent in the school system and all considered his performance as a classroom teacher unsatisfactory. Specific incidents observed by the witnesses which led to their evaluation an characterization of Respondent include: Children in Respondents classroom intentionally hyperventilating and passing out while Respondent was in the room presumably continuing his instruction. Children in Respondent's classes more disorderly, rowdy, and noisy than in any other class. Noises from Respondent's classes of sufficient volume to disturb adjacent classes. Respondent continuing his reading of a lesson in a voice that could be heard only a few feet away while the students in other parts of the classroom talked, fought, played games and otherwise ignored Respondent. No rational grading system adopted or used by Respondent. This resulted in numerous complaints from both students and their parents respecting the grades assigned. In this respect more complaints were registered against Respondent's grades that any other teacher. Respondent often sent children to the principal for minor disciplinary problems while he ignored much more serous misconduct. Lack of coherence in Respondent's instruction in jumping from one subject to another with no plan and no continuity. Children in Respondents class recognized his inability to control the class and evinced lack of respect for Respondent. Despite numerous counselling sessions and help, Respondent never produced adequate lesson plans for his classes. Lack of plans led to less continuity in the lessons and a lower teaching level. A combination of lack of discipline, lack of proper planning and inconsistent reaction to the students in his class led to the inevitable conclusion that the students in Respondent's classes were not learning those things he was supposed to teach them. On one or more occasions Respondent disobeyed the orders of his principal to come to his office to discuss problems. respondent refused to be counselled without a union representative present. Following nearly three years of counselling, guidance and attempts to assist Respondent to improve his effectiveness at Fitzgerald Middle School, the school authorities apparently determined that Respondent should be terminated and requested an evaluation of Respondent by a Professional Practices Council Evaluator. Respondent was advised some two weeks before his arrival that an evaluator would come to observe Respondent conduct his classes and that the evaluator would submit a report following the observation. Pursuant thereto the evaluator spent February 27, 28, and March 1, 1979 observing Respondent conduct his classes. His report of this evaluation comprises Exhibit 11. In this report Respondent was evaluated as unsatisfactory in the following duties expected of a teacher: Grade record book from which students grades are taken was improperly kept and contained insufficient information to make a rational determination of the grade actually earned by each student. Respondent made no distinction among his diverse students and consequently gave them all the same assignments. Respondents lack of control over the classroom was so inadequate that an incredible amount of cheating was going on. Answers to questions were exchanged orally between students during tests and this was ignored by Respondent. As a result there was no incentive for learning and little, if any, learning took place in Respondents classes. Classroom management and discipline was practically non-existent. As stated in Exhibit 11: "Mr. Barlow cannot discipline his students well enough to get their cooperation to carry out what would otherwise be an almost acceptable (1.e. needing some definite improvement) program. Thereafter the evaluator submitted three pages of specific incidents occurring in Respondent's classes on February 27, and three more pages of incidents which generally support the conclusion that in such an atmosphere either teaching or learning is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Planning of lessons by Respondent, both short and long-term, was so inadequate that these plans across school year 1978-79 were described to "violate, more than follow, those guidelines" [established for lesson plans]. Instead of having self-confidence and self-sufficiency in exercising authority Respondent "radiates insecurity in the classroom". Following these unsatisfactory reports the evaluator concludes that Respondent's students are being deprived of a vital part of their education. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of all other witnesses. Even those witnesses who testified on behalf of Respondent acknowledged that Respondent did not maintain order and discipline in his classes. Even those witnesses who testified on behalf of Respondent acknowledged that Respondent did not maintain order and discipline in his classes. Testifying in his own behalf Respondent did not deny that his classes were disorderly and unruly, or that the incident of the children in his class hyperventilating and passing out occurred. He contends that if he had more administrative help he could operate effectively in a classroom. His problems at Fitzgerald Middle School he blames largely on the Assistant Principal in charge of the seventh grade teachers, who, while frequently visiting Respondent's classes, undermined him. Other than Respondent's testimony no credible evidence was submitted that the Assistant Principal was doing anything other than trying to help Respondent improve his performance.
The Issue The issue is whether the allegations contained in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner are true, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board has employed Dr. Whalen since 1997. She first worked as a teacher at Gladys Morse Elementary School. When Morse closed she was transferred to Taylor Elementary School, a new school. She continued teaching at Taylor Elementary School until January 19, 2005. Her employment was pursuant to a professional services contract. Dr. Whalen holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 530568. Dr. Whalen has been confined to a wheelchair for almost 55 years. She cannot move her lower extremities and she is without feeling in her lower extremities. On January 19, 2005, she was approximately 58 years of age. During times pertinent Dr. Whalen taught a "varying exceptionalities" class. A "varying exceptionalities" class is provided for students who have a specific learning disability, or have emotional difficulties, or who have a physical handicap. She has been an exceptional student education teacher for about 20 years. She has never been disciplined by an employer during her career. In addition to her teaching activities she is also County Coordinator for the Special Olympics. The Commissioner of Education is the chief educational officer of the state and is responsible for giving full assistance to the State Board of Education in enforcing compliance with the mission and goals of the K-20 education system. The State Board of Education's mission includes the provision of certification requirements for all school-based personnel. The Education Practices Commission is appointed by the State Board of Education and has the authority to discipline teachers. Nonviolent Crisis Intervention Kathy Kriedler is currently a teacher at Taylor Elementary School. She is certified in teaching emotionally impaired children and has taught emotionally impaired children in Taylor County since 1983. She is an outstanding teacher who was recently named Taylor County Elementary School Teacher of the Year and Taylor County District Teacher of the Year. Ms. Kriedler is a master level instructor in Nonviolent Crisis Intervention, which is a program of the Crisis Prevention Institute. The use of skills associated with the program is generally referred to as CPI. CPI arms teachers with the skills necessary to de-escalate a crisis involving a student, or, in the event de-escalation fails, provides the skills necessary to physically control students. Ms. Kriedler has been the School Board's CPI teacher since 1987. CPI teaches that there are four stages of crisis development and provides four staff responses to each stage. These stages and responses are: (1) Anxiety-Supportive; (2) Defensive-Directive; (3) Acting Out Person-Nonviolent Physical Crisis Intervention; and (4) Tension Reduction- Therapeutic Rapport. The thrust of CPI is the avoidance of physical intervention when possible. The CPI Workbook notes that, "The crisis development model . . . is an extremely valuable tool that can be utilized to determine where a person is during an escalation process." It then notes, helpfully, "Granted, human behavior is not an orderly 1-4 progression." The CPI Workbook provides certain responses for a situation that has devolved into violence. CPI physical control techniques include the "children's control position" which is also referred to as the "basket hold." CPI also provides a maneuver called the "bite release" which is used when a child bites a teacher and the "choke release" which is used when a child chokes a teacher. CPI specifically forbids sitting or lying on a child who is lying on the floor because this could cause "positional asphyxia." In other words, an adult who lies upon a child could prevent a child from breathing. CPI holds are not to be used for punishment. The School Board encourages teachers to learn and apply CPI in their dealings with students. The use of CPI is not, however, mandatory School Board policy nor is it required by the State Board of Education. Dr. Whalen took and passed Ms. Kriedler's CPI course and took and passed her refresher course. She had at least 16 hours of instruction in CPI. She could not accomplish some of the holds taught because of her physical handicap. The alleged chain incident Ms. Amanda Colleen Fuquay taught with Dr. Whalen when both of them were teachers at Gladys Morse Elementary School. Ms. Fuquay, like Dr. Whalen, taught exceptional children. Ms. Fuquay's first teaching job after receipt of her bachelor's degree was at Morse Elementary School. At the time Ms. Fuquay began teaching, Dr. Whalen was also a teacher at Morse. The record does not reveal when Ms. Fuqua initially began teaching at Morse, but it was after 1997 and before August 2002, when Morse Elementary merged into the new Taylor Elementary School. During Ms. Fuqua's first year of teaching she entered Dr. Whalen's class. She testified that upon entry she observed a male student chained to a chair at his desk. The chain may have been about the size of a dog choker. She said that the chain ran through the student's belt loop and around the chair. Ms. Fuqua said that she inquired of Dr. Whalen as to the reason for the chain and she replied, in perhaps a joking way, that the student wouldn't sit down. The evidence does not reveal when this occurred or even in what year it occurred. The evidence does not reveal the name of the alleged victim. The evidence does not reveal the victim's response to being chained to the chair. The evidence does not reveal whether Dr. Whalen chained the child or if someone else chained the child or if it just appeared that the child was chained. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide for school years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001, and she testified at the hearing. She did not mention this incident. Ms. Fuqua could not discern if this was a serious matter or whether it was some sort of a joke. She said, "I didn't have a clue." Ms. Fuqua failed to report this incident because she was new to teaching and she had not, "learned the ropes." Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she had ever chained a student to a chair, and specifically denied that she had done it in 1999, which is within the time frame that Ms. Fuqua could have observed this. Moreover, she specifically denied having chains in her classroom. The Commissioner has the burden of proving the facts in this case, as will be discussed in detail below, by clear and convincing evidence. Undoubtedly, Ms. Fuqua saw a chain of some sort that appeared to be positioned in such a manner as to restrain the unidentified student. However, the lack of any corroborating evidence, the paucity of details, and the denial of wrong-doing by Dr. Whalen prevents a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of maltreatment. The alleged incident involving S.A. On August 13, 1998, at Morse, Ms. Kriedler was called by Dr. Whalen to her class. When Ms. Kriedler entered the class she observed Dr. Whalen holding S.A.'s arms to his desk with her right hand and holding the hair of his head by her left hand. She stated to Ms. Kriedler that, "If he moves a quarter of an inch, I'm going to rip the hair out of his head." Dr. Whalen also related that S.A. had kicked her. Dr. Whalen also said to S.A., in the presence of Ms. Kriedler, "Go ahead and kick me because I can't feel it." This referred to her handicap. By this time S.A. was motionless. After a discussion with Ms. Kriedler, Dr. Whalen released S.A. and Ms. Kriedler took him to her classroom. Subsequently, Ms. Kriedler requested that he be transferred to her class and that request was granted. Ms. Kriedler reported this incident to Shona Murphy, the Taylor County School District Exceptional Student Education Administrator. Ms. Murphy stated that Ms. Kriedler reported to her that that S.A. was flailing about and kicking when Dr. Whalen threatened to pull his hair. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide on August 13, 1998. She recalls S.A. and described him as a troubled young man who was full of anger. He would sometimes come to school appearing disheveled. He had blond hair that was usually short. Ms. Whiddon has observed him lash out at others with his hands. Ms. Whiddon was not present in the classroom when the incident described by Ms. Kriedler occurred. However, upon her return to the classroom, Dr. Whalen informed her that she had grabbed S.A. by the hair until she could control him. Ms. Murphy discussed the incident with Principal Izell Montgomery and Superintendent Oscar Howard in late August 1998. As a result of the discussions, these officials decided to video-tape Dr. Whalen's classroom, and to take no other action. Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she grabbed S.A.'s hair. Despite Dr. Whalen's assertion to the contrary and upon consideration of all of the evidence, it has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Whalen grabbed and held S.A.'s hair and threatened to pull it out. Grabbing a student's hair is not an approved CPI hold. However, at the time this occurred Dr. Whalen was not required to use CPI methods. Grabbing a student's hair is generally unacceptable conduct unless, for instance, it is done in self- defense, or in order to protect the student or others. It has been not been proven by clear and convincing evidence that grabbing S.A.'s hair was impermissible. Dr. Whalen told Ms. Kriedler that S.A. had been kicking her. This statement raises the possibility that the action was initiated as a self-defense measure. When one considers that Dr. Whalen has limited mobility, and that her aide was not present, she was permitted to take reasonable actions to defend herself. Grabbing a student's hair may have been reasonable under the circumstances and, in the event, the record does not provide enough evidence to permit a determination. The video-tape of November 20, 2002 A video-tape, that included audio, and which was made part of the record of the case, portrays events on the morning of November 20, 2002. The video-tape was brought to the attention of the school administration by a parent who had received the video-tape from Dr. Whalen. The picture quality of the video is satisfactory but the audio is derived from a microphone near Dr. Whalen's desk. Therefore, it is clear that the microphone did not record all of the words spoken in the classroom at the time and date pertinent. Accordingly, facts found as a result of viewing the video-tape are limited to those which are clearly depicted by it. The School Board had discussed the wearing of apparel with representations of the Confederate battle flag on them in a meeting immediately prior to November 20, 2002. Early in the morning of November 20, 2002, there was a discussion with regard to the School Board deliberations among some of Dr. Whalen's students. The discussion came close to degenerating into physical conflict. This was reported to Dr. Whalen's aide, Ruth Ann Austin. It was further reported that some students called some of their fellow students "rebels," and others called other students "Yankees" and "gangsters." Assistant Principal Verges visited the classroom at the beginning of the school day, at Dr. Whalen's request, and he explained the matters discussed at the School Board meeting. Upon the departure of Assistant Principal Verges, Dr. Whalen unleashed a torrent of criticism upon her students addressing the subject of name-calling. Dr. Whalen spoke to the students in a loud and threatening tone of voice. While delivering this tirade, Dr. Whalen traveled to and fro in her motorized wheelchair. The video-tape revealed that this wheelchair was capable of rapid movement and that it was highly maneuverable. The lecture was delivered in a wholly confrontational and offensive manner. The lecture continued for more than 30 minutes. This behavior was the opposite of the de-escalating behavior that is suggested by CPI. However, Dr. Whalen had never been directed to employ CPI. S.O. was a student in Dr. Whalen's class and was present on November 20, 2002. He was a student of the Caucasian race who had, prior to this date, displayed aggressive and violent behavior toward Assistant Principal Verges and toward Ruth Ann Austin, Dr. Whalen's aide. Some on the school staff described him, charitably, as "non-compliant." S.O. was quick to curse and had in the past, directed racial slurs to Ms. Austin, who is an African-American. Because of his propensity to kick those to whom his anger was directed, his parents had been requested to ensure that he wear soft shoes while attending school. On November 20, 2002, S.O. was wearing cowboy boots and a Dixie Outfitters shirt with the Confederate battle flag emblazoned upon the front. Subsequent to Dr. Whalen's tirade, S.O. slid out of his chair onto the carpeted floor of the classroom. Dr. Whalen instructed him to get back in his chair, and when he did not, she tried to force him into the chair. She threatened S.O. by saying, "Do you want to do the floor thing?" When S.O., slid out of his chair again, Dr. Whalen forcibly removed S.O.'s jacket. Thereafter, Ms. Austin approached S.O. Ms. Austin is a large woman. Ms. Austin removed S.O.'s watch and yanked S.O.'s boots from his feet and threw them behind his chair. Dr. Whalen drove her wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair with substantial violence. Thereafter, Ms. Austin removed S.O. from the classroom. Removing S.O.'s jacket, watch, and boots was acceptable under the circumstances because they could have been used as weapons. The act of driving the wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair, however, was unnecessary and unhelpful. A memorandum of counseling was presented to Dr. Whalen by Principal Ivey on December 2, 2002, which addressed her behavior as portrayed by the video-tape. The S.O. and C.C. incidents Reports from time to time were made to Assistant Principal Verges, and others, that Dr. Whalen engaged in an activity commonly referred to as "kissing the carpet." This referred to physically taking children down to the floor and sitting on them. During April 2003, Dr. Whalen reported to Assistant Principal Verges and Ms. Kriedler that she had recently put two students on the carpet. During the four years Mr. Verges was Dr. Whalen's Assistant Principal, Dr. Whalen reported a total of only about four instances of having to physically restrain students. Dr. Whalen has never told Mr. Verges that she has regularly restrained children on the floor. Dr. Whalen's agent for using physical restraint is her aide, Ms. Austin, because Dr. Whalen's handicap does not permit her to easily engage in physical restraint. Ms. Austin physically restrained children five or six or seven times during the four years she was Dr. Whalen's aide. On four occasions a child actually went to the floor while being restrained by Ms. Austin. One of the two students who were reported to have been physically restrained during the April 2003, time frame was S.M. During this time frame S.M. became a new student in Dr. Whalen's class. S.M. was unhappy about being placed in a "slow" class. It was Ms. Austin's practice to meet Dr. Whalen's students when they exited the school bus in the morning. Accordingly, she met S.M., the new student. S.M. was "mouthy" when she exited the bus and would not get in line with the other children. S.M. and the rest of the children were taken to the lunch room in order to procure breakfast. While there, S.M. obtained a tray containing peaches and other food and threw the contents to the floor. Ms. Austin instructed S.M. to clean up the mess she made. S.M. responded by pushing Ms. Austin twice, and thereafter Ms. Austin put S.M. in a basket hold. S.M. struggled and they both fell on the floor. Ms. Austin called for assistance and someone named "Herb" arrived. Herb put a basket hold on S.M. while Ms. Austin tried to remove S.M.'s boots because S.M. was kicking her. S.M. was almost as tall as Ms. Austin and was very strong. At the end of the day, Ms. Austin was trying to "beat the rush" and to get her students on the school bus early. She was standing in the door to the classroom attempting to get her students to form a line. She and Dr. Whalen had planned for S.M., and another student, with whom she had engaged in an ongoing disagreement, to remain seated while the rest of their classmates got on the bus. While the line was being formed, S.M. and her fellow student had been directed to sit still. Instead, S.M. rose, said that she was not going to wait, and tried to push by Ms. Austin. Ms. Austin responded by asking her to sit down. S.M. said she would not sit down and pushed Ms. Austin yet again. Ms. Austin tried to restrain her and told the other students to get to the bus as best as they could because she was struggling with S.M. and was having substantial difficulty in restraining her. Ms. Austin asked for help. She and S.M. fell to the floor. S.M. was on the carpet. Dr. Whalen slid from her wheelchair and attempted to restrain the top part of S.M.'s body. Ms. Austin held the bottom part of her body and attempted to remove her boots with which S.M. was kicking. S.M. was cursing, screaming, and otherwise demonstrating her anger. Dr. Whalen talked to her until she calmed down. They then released S.M. The actions taken by Ms. Austin and Dr. Whalen were appropriate responses to S.M.'s behavior. The S.M. affair precipitated the C.C. incident. C.C. was a large male student who had no history of violence. C.C. teased S.M. about having been "taken down" by Ms. Austin. C.C., teasingly, told Ms. Austin, that he did not think Ms. Austin could take him down. Ms. Austin said she could put him in a basket hold which she did. C.C. challenged Ms. Austin to put him on the floor and she did. This was considered a joke by C.C. and Ms. Austin. This incident was nothing more than horseplay. As the result of the comments made by Dr. Whalen, addressing the S.M. and C.C. incidents, to Ms. Kriedler and to Assistant Principal Verges, a memorandum issued dated April 7, 2003. It was signed by Principal Sylvia Ivey. The memorandum recited that Dr. Whalen's comments raised concerns with regard to whether Dr. Whalen was using appropriate CPI techniques. The memorandum stated that Dr. Whalen's classroom would be video-taped for the remainder of the school year, that Dr. Whalen was to document each case of restraint used, that she should use proper CPI techniques, and that she should contact the office should a crisis situation arise in her classroom. The J.R. incident On January 19, 2005, J.R. was a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom. On that date, J.R. was a ten-year-old female and in the third grade. J.R. had been a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom only since about January 10, 2005. Dr. Whalen did not know much about J.R.'s history on January 19, 2005. At the hearing J.R. appeared physically to be approximately as large as Dr. Whalen. A determination as to exactly who was the larger could not be made because Dr. Whalen was seated in a wheelchair. Assistant Principal Verges found that J.R.'s physical strength was greater than average for an elementary school student on an occasion when he had to restrain her after she bit another person. J.R. brought a CD player to class on January 19, 2005, and after lunchtime, Dr. Whalen discovered it and confiscated it. Dr. Whalen took possession of the CD player because school rules forbid students to have CD players in class. Dr. Whalen put it in a drawer by her desk. When this happened, in J.R.'s words she, "Got mad." A heated discussion between Dr. Whalen and J.R., about the dispossession of the CD player ensued, but after a brief time, according to Dr. Whalen's aide, Angela Watford, "the argument settled." Even though Ms. Watford's lunch break had begun, she remained in the room, at Dr. Whalen's request, until she was satisfied that the dispute had calmed. Subsequent to the departure of Ms. Watford, J.R. approached Dr. Whalen, who was seated behind her desk working. The configuration of the desk and furniture used by Dr. Whalen was such that she was surrounded by furniture on three sides. In order to obtain the CD player, it was necessary for J.R. to enter this confined space. J.R. entered this space, moving behind Dr. Whalen, and reached for the drawer containing the CD player in an effort to retrieve it. When Dr. Whalen asked her what she was doing, J.R. said, "I am getting my CD player and getting out of this f class." Dr. Whalen told J.R. to return to her desk. J.R. continued in her effort to obtain the CD player and succeeded in opening the drawer and grasping the headset part of the CD player. Dr. Whalen attempted to close the drawer. J.R. reacted violently and this surprised Dr. Whalen. J.R. attempted to strike Dr. Whalen. Dr. Whalen reared back to avoid the blow and then put her arm around J.R. When J.R. pulled away, this caused Dr. Whalen to fall from her wheelchair on top of J.R.'s back at about a 45-degree angle. Immediately thereafter, J.R. bit Dr. Whalen several times. The bites broke Dr. Whalen's skin in three places and the pain caused her to cry. J.R. began cursing, screaming, and kicking. J.R. said she was going to "kick the s _ _ _" out of her teacher. In fact, while on the carpet, J.R. kicked Dr. Whalen numerous times. Dr. Whalen believed she would be in danger of additional harm if she allowed J.R. to regain her feet. This belief was reasonable. J.R. was in no danger of asphyxiation during this event because Dr. Whalen removed part of her weight from J.R. by extending her arms. Upon returning from lunch Ms. Watford spotted T.B., a boy who appears to be eight to ten years of age. T.B. was standing outside of Dr. Whalen's classroom and he calmly said to Ms. Watford, "Help." Ms. Watford entered the classroom and observed Dr. Whalen lying on top of and across J.R., who was face down on the carpeted floor, and who was cursing and kicking while Dr. Whalen tried to restrain her. Ms. Watford ran over to assist in restraining her by putting her legs between J.R.'s legs. J.R. thereafter tried to hit Ms. Watford with her right hand. Ms. Watford grabbed J.R.'s right arm and was severely bitten on the knuckle by J.R. The three of them ended up, Ms. Watford related, "in a wad." Within seconds of Ms. Watford's intervention, Frances Durden, an aide in the classroom next door came on the scene. She was followed by Takeisha McIntyre, the dean of the school, and Assistant Principal Verges. Ms. McIntyre and Mr. Verges were able to calm J.R. and safely separate her from Dr. Whalen. Then J.R. stated that Dr. Whalen had bitten her on the back. Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford went to the school's health clinic to have their wounds treated. The wounds were cleaned and Ms. Watford subsequently received an injection. While Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford were at the health clinic, J.R. was ushered in by Ms. McIntyre. J.R.'s shirt was raised and the persons present observed two red marks between her shoulder blades. Dr. Whalen said that the marks must have been produced by her chin or that possibly her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. She said that she had forced her chin into J.R.'s back in an effort to stop J.R. from biting her. Ms. McIntyre took photographs of the marks. The photography was observed by Mr. Verges. The photographs reveal two red marks positioned between J.R.'s shoulder blades. The two marks are vertical, parallel, and aligned with the backbone. They are from one, to one and one half inches in length. The skin is not broken. There is no wound. Teeth marks are not discernible. A teacher who has many years of experience in the elementary or kindergarten education levels, and who has observed many bite marks, may offer an opinion as to whether a mark is a bite mark. Mr. Verges has the requisite experience to offer an opinion as to the nature of the marks on J.R.'s back and he observed the actual marks as well as the photographs. It is his opinion that the two marks were caused by a bite. Ms. McIntyre, who has also observed many bite marks in her career, and who observed the actual marks as well as the photographs, stated that the marks were consistent with a bite. Registered Nurse Cate Jacob, supervisor of the School Health Program observed Julia's back on January 19, 2005, and opined that the red marks on J.R.'s back were bite marks. J.R. reported via her mother, the day after the incident, that she had been bitten by a boy on the playground of Taylor Elementary School, by a black boy with baggy pants, possibly before the incident with Dr. Whalen. Facts presented at the hearing suggest that it is unlikely that J.R. was bitten on the playground under the circumstances described in this report. T.B. was the only nonparticipant close to the actual combat who was a neutral observer. He did not see Dr. Whalen bite J.R., but did see her chin contact J.R.'s back and he heard Dr. Whalen say words to the effect, "I am going to make you say 'ouch.'" Dr. Whalen denied biting J.R. She stated at the time of the event, and under oath at the hearing, that she forcibly contacted J.R.'s back with her chin. She stated that it was possible that in the heat of the struggle her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. The opinion of the school personnel as to the origin of the marks upon J.R.'s back is entitled to great weight. On the other hand, a study of the photographs exposed immediately after the incident, reveals no teeth marks and no broken skin. The marks could be consistent with pressing one's chin upon another's back or pressing one's teeth in one's back. In the latter case, whether J.R. was bitten may be a matter of definition. Generally, a bite occurs when the victim experiences a grip or would like that experienced by Ms. Watford or Dr. Whalen in this incident. Although J.R. asserted that the marks occurred because of the actions of, "a boy on the playground," given J.R.'s general lack of credibility, that explanation is of questionable reliability. The evidence, taken as a whole, does not lend itself to a finding of the origin of the marks on J.R.'s back. Because proof by clear and convincing evidence is required in this case, it is not found that Dr. Whalen bit J.R. Principal Ivey's memorandum of April 7, 2003, specified that ". . . Mr. Howard and I informed you that we will video-tape your classroom . . . ." Thus it is clear that it was not Dr. Whalen's duty to cause the classroom to be video-taped. It is clear that for many months Dr. Whalen's classroom was video-taped and until the November 20, 2003, incident, none of her actions caused attention to be drawn to her teaching methods. It is found that the assault on Dr. Whalen was sudden and unexpected. Any actions taken by Dr. Whalen were taken in permissible self-defense. J.R. was suspended from Taylor Elementary School for ten days following this incident. Miscellaneous Findings Sylvia Ivey has been the principal of Taylor Elementary for three years. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen three times. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen as "effective," which is the top mark that a teacher may receive. From approximately 1997, when the S.A. hair pulling allegedly occurred, until December 2, 2002, not a single document was created indicating dissatisfaction with Dr. Whalen's teaching methods. Dr. Whalen's normal voice volume is louder than average. She would often elevate her already loud voice, intimidate students and pound on her desk. The aforementioned activities are not part of CPI. On the other hand, these methods worked for Dr. Whalen for 20 years. She was not required to use CPI until subsequent to the memorandum of April 7, 2003. There is no evidence that she failed to use CPI once she was required to employ it. As revealed by the testimony of Dr. Whalen, Ms. Kriedler, Assistant Principal Verges, Ms. Austin, and others, some of these children would strike, kick, bite, throw objects, curse, and hurl racial epithets at their teachers. Teaching some of these children was difficult.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of Counts 3 and 4, that she be issued a reprimand, that she be placed on probation as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.008, for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 15th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent, Ullyses Wynn, violated Pinellas County School Board policies related to unsatisfactory performance, misconduct, and insubordination and, if so, whether the violations constitute cause for his termination as a plant operator.
Findings Of Fact Beginning July 5, 1994, and at all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Ullyses Wynn (Respondent), was employed by Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board (School Board), as a plant operator at Gibbs High School. As a plant operator, at Gibbs High School, Respondent was responsible for cleaning designated areas of the school, including Buildings One and Four. In addition to cleaning these buildings, Respondent's duties included helping other crew members on his shift to clean the cafeteria. Respondent was also required to participate in “gang cleaning.” Gang cleaning is a term used when one crew member is absent and the crew members on duty join together to complete the duties of the absent crew member. At all times relevant hereto, Mark Sprecher was the Head Plant Operator at Gibbs High School. In that capacity, Mr. Sprecher was responsible for assigning and supervising the work of all plant operators and the night foreman. When the regularly assigned night foreman was not on duty, Mr. Sprecher assigned or designated the plant operator who would perform those tasks in his or her absence. 4. At all times relevant hereto, Freddie Fussell was the night foreman at Gibbs High School and was Respondent’s direct supervisor. At all times relevant hereto, Wayne Nundy was the assistant principal at Gibbs High School. In that capacity, Mr. Nundy’s responsibilities included supervising maintenance of the physical facility as well as the plant operators. In order to evaluate the job performance of plant operators, Mr. Sprecher regularly completed quality control sheets after inspecting areas cleaned by plant operators. The form, issued at the district level, is an evaluative tool designed to record areas of satisfactory as well as unsatisfactory performance. When Respondent initially began working at Gibbs High School, problems related to Respondent’s work surfaced, but were not documented. However, after about six months, it soon became evident to Mr. Sprecher that merely talking to Respondent about the problems related to his job performance was not effective and that formal disciplinary action would need to be taken. On May 25, 1995, Mr. Sprecher issued a reprimand to Respondent for excessive absences. Between January 1995 and May 1995, Respondent missed five and one-half days from work. This absentee rate is considered excessive. To the extent that Respondent is absent from work, his areas must be cleaned by other crew members, thereby reducing the amount of time that they can spend cleaning their designated areas. Due to his excessive absences, Mr. Sprecher met with Respondent for a summary conference and issued the reprimand. On June 1, 1995, a maintenance man replaced some of the ceiling tiles in the Gibbs High School gym. After completing the job, the maintenance man removed the large pieces of old ceiling tile that were on the floor. However, some debris from tile replacement project remained on the gym floor. Later that day, when Mr. Sprecher observed the debris on the gym floor, he directed Respondent to clean up the debris. The next day, while in the gym, Mr. Sprecher noticed that the debris was still on the gym floor, and again directed Respondent to clean it up. Respondent told Mr. Sprecher that he would not clean up the debris because that was not his job, and, in fact, did not clean it up. On January 8, 1996, Respondent left his assigned area during his shift to watch a basketball game in the Gibbs High School gym. When told to return to work by his supervisor, Night Foreman Fussell, Respondent began to argue with Mr. Fussell. The disagreement became so heated that the school resource officer had to intervene. Following this incident, Respondent received a county-level reprimand for poor job performance and insubordination. This letter of reprimand indicated that further problems in these areas may result in further disciplinary action, and that such action "may include suspension or dismissal." On or about March 15, 1996, Mr. Sprecher and Respondent’s direct supervisor, Mr. Fussell, made random inspections of the classrooms to determine if they were cleaned properly. The inspection of classrooms in Respondent’s building revealed that the carpets had not been vacuumed; the pencil sharpeners had not been emptied; and the chalkboards had not been cleaned. These cleaning deficiencies were noted on quality control forms and shared with Respondent during a conference. On or about March 15, 1996, and after the conference, Mr. Sprecher issued a warning letter to Respondent regarding the cleaning deficiencies. During the conference, Respondent did not deny the cited cleaning deficiencies. Rather, Respondent claimed that, because his area was so large, it was impossible for him to clean it during his shift. Thereafter, Mr. Sprecher checked the square footage of Respondent’s area and determined that Respondent’s assigned work area was actually 2800 square feet less than that recommended by the employees' union and the school district. On March 19, 1996, Mr. Nandy, accompanied by Mr. Sprecher, inspected Building One. Mr. Nandy’s observed that Respondent had failed to carry out his assigned cleaning responsibilities. By failing to satisfactorily clean his assigned areas, Respondent had completely disregarded instructions given during the previous conference with Mr. Sprecher and in the warning letter. During the March 19, 1996, inspection of Building One, numerous cleaning deficiencies were found. Specifically, the following cleaning deficiencies were observed in classrooms assigned to Respondent: low dusting not done; pencil sharpeners not emptied; chalkboards not cleaned; chalk trays not cleaned; floor not spot-mopped in room where coffee had spilled; furniture not spot-cleaned; graffiti on walls not removed; and window sills and audio visual screen not dusted. As a result of these cleaning deficiencies and the previous warning issued to Respondent, Mr. Nandy issued a school-level reprimand to Respondent on March 22, 1996, for insubordination and poor job performance. The reprimand stated that should similar problems occur in the future, Respondent might be subjected to further disciplinary action. On September 27, 1996, Mr. Sprecher observed several deficiencies in the second floor boys' bathrooms assigned to Respondent. There were cigarette butts and paper towels on the bathroom floor and urine in the toilets. Although the second floor bathrooms are usually locked and not normally used by students, Respondent was responsible for checking and cleaning his entire assigned work area. Later that day, Mr. Sprecher wrote a note to Respondent pointing out the cleaning deficiencies and indicating that Respondent had not cleaned all of his assigned areas the previous night. October 18, 1996, was designated a “Pro-Ed” day in the Pinellas County School District. On these days, students do not attend school. Because students are not in school, all plant operators work from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and are expected to do more extensive cleaning than can be done on days that students are in school. On the morning of October 18, 1996, Mr. Sprecher accompanied Respondent to Building Four to point out several cleaning deficiencies. As a result of deficiencies observed on that day, Mr. Sprecher directed Respondent to clean the graffiti off the wall and paper towel dispenser in the boys' bathroom; clean the stairs and stair treads; pick up the trash on the floor; and vacuum the carpets. These deficiencies required Respondent’s immediate attention and were all tasks that Respondent should have completed the night before. In response to Mr. Sprecher’s directive, Respondent became argumentative with and enraged at Mr. Sprecher. Respondent yelled at and accused Mr. Sprecher of “picking on" him. On October 18, 1996, after this encounter with Respondent, Mr. Sprecher wrote a Foreman’s Complaint to Mr. Nundy, the assistant principal, regarding cleaning deficiencies in Respondent’s assigned area in Building Four. In the complaint to Assistant Principal Nundy, Mr. Sprecher stated that he found it impossible to talk to, reason with, or give simple directions to Respondent. Mr. Sprecher further stated that he was verbally abused, and given no respect by Respondent. On Monday morning, October 21, 1996, Mr. Sprecher checked the area that had been assigned to Respondent. Upon inspection, Mr. Sprecher found that the cleaning he had directed Respondent to complete on October 18, 1996, had not been done. Also, many of the classrooms in Respondent’s area had not been cleaned. Mr. Sprecher noted these deficiencies on the quality control sheets completed for Respondent’s area. On October 22, 1996, Mr. Sprecher wrote a Foreman’s Complaint to Assistant Principal Nundy stating that the specific items Respondent had been directed to complete on the October 18, 1996, had not been done, Later, on October 22, 1996, Mr. Sprecher and Mr. Fussell met with Respondent and talked with him about his failure to complete the assignments. Respondent offered no reason for his failure to perform his assigned tasks. On November 7, 1996, a Foreman’s Complaint was made to the Gibbs High School principal, Ms. Shorter, indicating that Respondent had been involved in a conflict with one of the plant operators in the cafeteria. This complaint was based on an incident that occurred when the entire twelve-member crew was cleaning the cafeteria. Pursuant to instructions of Foreman Fussell, all crew members were required to simultaneously mop the cafeteria, beginning in the front of the cafeteria and moving to the back. Respondent refused to mop in the same direction as the other plant operators, and insisted on mopping in the opposite direction from the other crew members. When Mr. Sprecher requested that Respondent perform the task as directed by Foreman Fussell, Respondent became upset and threw a cup of water and ice into the air and left the cafeteria. It was Respondent’s responsibility to lock all of the classrooms in Building Four. Nonetheless, on November 7, 1996, a complaint was made by the teacher assigned to Room 406, Building Four, that her classroom, had been left open the night before. Respondent’s failure to secure the room was of particular concern to the teacher because there were several new computers in the classroom. On November 12, 1996, while on duty at Gibbs High School, Respondent became engaged in a heated verbal confrontation with Mr. Willie Jones, another plant operator. The verbal exchange took place in the maintenance shop in the presence of other crew members working the night shift. At one point during the argument, Respondent pulled a box cutter from his pocket and moved toward the table where Mr. Jones was sitting. Upon the advice of another plant operator and in an effort to de-escalate the situation, Mr. Jones left the maintenance shop. As the night foreman, one of Mr. Fussell’s responsibilities was to return golf carts used by the school staff to the maintenance shop and to recharge them for the next day. On the evening of November 19, 1996, while Mr. Fussell was driving one of the golf carts into the maintenance shop, Respondent intentionally stood in the path of the golf cart. After Mr. Fussell asked Respondent to move, Respondent reluctantly moved to the side to let Mr. Fussell pass. However, as Mr. Fussell drove the golf cart past Respondent and into the maintenance shop, Respondent called Mr. Fussell a “mother fucker.” At the time Respondent made this comment to his supervisor, other crew members were in or near the maintenance shop and heard Respondent’s comment. On December 5, 1996, Assistant Principal Nundy received a complaint from a female student that graffiti containing her name had been in the girls' bathroom in Building Four for three weeks. Because Respondent's shift had not begun, Mr. Sprecher enlisted the assistance of a Plant Operator from the day crew to remove the graffiti. The crew member immediately removed the graffiti, using a heavy duty cleaning agent. Later that day, Mr. Nandy had a conference with Respondent regarding the graffiti in the girls' bathroom of Building Four. During the conference, Respondent acknowledged that the graffiti had been on the wall, but said it had been there only two weeks. According to Respondent, he had been unable to remove the graffiti with his cleaning supplies. The cleaning agent used by the day crew member to remove the graffiti from the girls' bathroom was readily available to plant operators who requested it from the night foreman. Respondent never informed Foreman Fussell that there was graffiti in the girls' bathroom in Building Four that Respondent was unable to remove. Also, at no time did Respondent ever request from the foreman a cleaner which might remove the graffiti in the girls' bathroom in Building Four. On the following day, December 6, 1996, Mr. Nundy and Mr. Specher checked the bathrooms in Respondent’s assigned areas and found "gang" graffiti in the other three bathrooms. Mr. Specher cleaned the graffiti from all three bathrooms in about five minutes, using cleaning supplies from Respondent’s custodial closet. On December 17, 1996, at about 6:30 a.m., after opening one of the buildings Respondent was responsible for cleaning, Mr. Sprecher observed obscene graffiti on walls in several different locations. Upon discovering the graffiti, Mr. Sprecher immediately cleaned all the graffiti from the walls. Mr. Sprecher was able to remove all the graffiti from the walls in about fifteen minutes with supplies that he obtained from Respondent’s custodial closet. On December 17, 1996, Mr. Specher wrote a note advising Respondent that earlier that day graffiti was again observed in the area assigned to him; that it was Respondent’s responsibility to remove all graffiti nightly; and that Mr. Sprecher had cleaned graffiti off the wall in fifteen minutes with cleaning supplies from Respondent’s custodial closet. Mr. Sprecher gave the note to Respondent, but Respondent refused to sign the note acknowledging that he received it. On January 7, 1997, Mr. Sprecher and Mr. Fussell had a conference with Respondent regarding his attendance. Respondent had been absent from work twelve days in the preceding months. That number of absences over the time period in question was considered excessive. Respondent was given a written notice regard the excessive absences, but he refused to sign it. On February 13, 1997, Respondent told Mr. Sprecher that he had heard someone walking through his building the night before. Respondent stated that he would not be held responsible for his actions if someone came into his building unannounced. It was later discovered that Mr. Fussell had entered the Respondent’s building to set a timer. Mr. Sprecher was concerned by the statements made by Respondent, and was fearful that Respondent would harm someone who had innocently entered the building for a legitimate reason. Mr. Sprecher wrote a letter to Respondent expressing these concerns. In the letter, Mr. Sprecher also reminded Respondent that he was an adult employee of the Pinellas School Board, and would be held responsible for his actions. The following day Mr. Sprecher and Foreman Fussell met with Respondent, discussed the context of the letter, and gave the letter to Respondent. A day or so after he received the letter discussed in paragraph 32 above, Respondent went to the maintenance shop about 3:15 p.m., and approached Mr. Sprecher. With the letter in hand, Respondent asked Sprecher, “What to you mean by this letter?” Mr. Sprecher told Respondent that he had some place to be at 3:30 p.m. and asked if they could discuss the matter the following day. Respondent never answered the question, but instead yelled at Mr. Sprecher and accused him of lying. While Mr. Sprecher was walking away from Respondent to leave the maintenance shop, Mr. Sprecher told Respondent that he would see him later. Respondent replied, “Damn right, you’ll see me later.” On February 14, 1997, Mr. Sprecher wrote a note to Principal Shorter stating that he could no longer supervise Respondent, and that he believed Respondent was a danger to himself and the crew. On February 27, 1997, Respondent complained to Mr. Sprecher that a co-worker was not fulfilling his responsibilities relative to assisting fellow crew members in cleaning the cafeteria. Mr. Sprecher told Respondent that the co-worker would be observed and cautioned if necessary. Respondent immediately became visibly angry, raised his voice, and accused Mr. Sprecher of not reprimanding the plant operator whom Respondent had accused of not helping to clean the cafeteria. Respondent left the cafeteria and did not return to assist other crew members in completing the cafeteria cleanup. As Respondent left the cafeteria, Respondent yelled to Mr. Sprecher, "Write me up." On March 5, 1997, when a crew member was absent, Mr. Sprecher received a complaint that Respondent was not participating in “gang cleaning.” Night Foreman Fussell confirmed that, in fact, Respondent did not participate in the gang cleaning that night and had not done so on several previous occasions. On May 7, 1997, Mr. Sprecher, Mr. Fussell, and Respondent met to discuss and review the quality control sheets detailing recent deficiencies observed in Building Four. Respondent refused to sign the quality control sheets and left the maintenance shop. After this meeting, Respondent was to assist in cleaning the cafeteria. However, Respondent never reported to the cafeteria that day to assist other crew members in cleaning the cafeteria. On three separate days, during the week of May 19, 1997, Respondent was observed sleeping in the auditorium while a play was being rehearsed. At other times during this week, Respondent was in the auditorium watching the rehearsal. Respondent had no duties in connection with the auditorium, and without exception, these incidents occurred when Respondent was on duty and should have been cleaning his assigned area. During the summer, on the morning of June 11, 1997, Respondent was assigned to thoroughly clean a teacher’s small workroom. Completion of this job should have taken approximately two hours. Two hours after Respondent was left in the workroom to perform this assignment, Mr. Sprecher returned to the workroom to check on Respondent’s progress. Mr. Sprecher found that Respondent not only had failed to complete the cleaning as expected, but had done very little cleaning in the workroom. When questioned on his lack of progress, Respondent became agitated and yelled at Mr. Sprecher and stated that he would not be able to finish cleaning this area in an additional two hours. Mr. Sprecher testified that in his twelve years as a Head Plant Operator, Respondent’s performance was the worst that he has ever observed. The Pinellas County School Policy 6Gx52-5.31, entitled “Disciplinary Guidelines for Employees," states that the school district generally follows a system of progressive discipline with its employees and that the severity of the employee’s conduct will determine if all steps will be followed or a recommendation will be made for dismissal. Employee conduct which may lead to a recommendation for suspension and/or dismissal during the term of appointment includes, but is not limited to the following: (1) failure to correct performance deficiencies, (2) insubordination, and (3) misconduct. On December 5, 1996, Respondent was sent a certified letter by Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools, recommending that he be suspended for five days without pay. The recommendation was based on Respondent’s unsatisfactory performance, after receiving reprimands from supervisors; misconduct; and insubordination. On January 10, 1997, Respondent wrote a letter requesting a hearing in response to the superintendent's recommendation for a five-day suspension. After Respondent requested a hearing, but prior to the hearing being conducted, Respondent engaged in additional acts of misconduct and insubordination, by stating to Mr. Sprecher that Respondent would not be responsible for his actions if anyone came into his area without his knowledge, and refusing to perform job-related tasks directly assigned to him by Mr. Sprecher. As a result of Respondent’s further misconduct and insubordination, on April 1, 1997, Respondent was sent a second letter by Dr. Hinesley recommending the Respondent be suspended for a total of seven days, an increase of two days over the original recommendation. Following the recommendation for a seven-day suspension, Respondent engaged in additional acts of misconduct, including occasions when Respondent was observed to be in the auditorium, off-task, sleeping, and watching rehearsals of a play during work time. Respondent also failed to correct performance deficiencies. As a result of Respondent’s further misconduct, Dr. Hinesley sent a letter to Respondent dated August 7, 1997, advising him that Dr. Hinesley would recommend termination of Respondent’s employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter the final order dismissing Respondent, Ullyses Wynn, from his position as a plant operator. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Wesley Bridges II, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 33779-2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Ullyses Wynn 2242 Lakeview Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following facts are found: With respect to an appropriate bargaining unit: Employees of the Pinellas County School system are classified into three categories for pay purposes. These classifications are for non-instructional or support persons, administrative persons, and instructional persons. The instructional classification or teacher salary schedule is reflected in a document entitled Pinellas County School Board Instructional Lists by Job Code, which was received into evidence as Exhibit No. 10 and contains approximately 5,200 persons. Members of the administrative and supervisory staff do not appear on this list, nor do supporting services personnel. Principals, deans, registrars and substitute teachers do not appear on this list. Curriculum specialists and coordinators, social workers, psychologists, learning disability specialists and attendance officers do appear on this list. Exhibit No. 16 depicts the organization of administration of the Pinellas County School system as it presently exists. Principals would appear on this organizational chart in the place marked "x" on Exhibit No. 16 in the box labeled local schools. All personnel above that level effectively recommend the hiring and firing of employees, direct other Employees, are paid on the administrative salary schedule, and participate in the preparation of budgets, the adjustment of grievances and in the process of collective bargaining. A stipulation that all persons depicted on this chart above the level of principals (whom are not depicted, but would appear at the local school levels) be excluded from the bargaining unit could not be reached. The following persons or classifications effectively participate in the preparation of the budget, have the ability to hire and fire or effectively recommend hiring and firing and are paid on the administrative salary schedule: the Superintendent, the associate Superintendent and assistant Superintendents. The School Board, CTA & AFT all stipulated that these three positions should be excluded from the bargaining unit. Attendance officers are included on the instructional, teacher's salary list, but they do not hold teaching certificates. They report to the administrative assistant to the associate superintendent and work out of the central administrative offices. It was stipulated by all the parties that attendance officers would not be appropriate in a bargaining unit. Principals and deans effectively recommend the hiring and firing of other employees, participate in the preparation of the budget and in the adjustment of employee grievances and are paid on the administrative salary schedule. It was stipulated that principals and deans should be excluded. The duties and functions of assistant principals are essentially the same as those of principal in the principal's absence. They are certificated, but generally not do classroom teaching. They participate in the formulation of the school budget and in the disposition of employee grievances. They effectively recommend the hiring, firing or disciplinary actions of employees, evaluate employees and are paid according to the administrative salary level. Not every school has an assistant principal. The elementary schools generally do not have one, unless they are on double session. Assistant principals are approved by the School Board, as is anyone who is on a supplement. No stipulation was reached as to assistant principals. Registrars participate in budgeting, are paid on the administrative salary schedule and come in contact with confidential material from time to time. They do have an office in the school, have daily contacts with students, receive essentially the same fringe benefits as classroom teachers. They do not have the authority to direct other teachers or employees in the performance of duties. By reason of their confidential status, it was stipulated by all the parties that registrars be excluded from the unit. The Pinellas County school system hires persons known as directors, associate directors and assistant directors. In a vocational program or center, the principal is known as the director and the assistant principal is also called an assistant director. Also there is a director of the budget and other types of directors. There are now approximately 50 directors, 2 or 3 assistant directors and no associate directors. They are paid on the administrative pay scale, have supervisory functions, assist in the preparation of the budget and in the collective bargaining process, deal with confidential materials, supervise employees and recommend hiring, firing or discipline and adjust employee grievances. They are generally at the county level and not the school level. It was stipulated that directors should be excluded from the bargaining unit, but no stipulation was reached with respect to assistant and associate directors. Supervisors are generally curriculum persons who supervise the formulation of the curriculum and supervise the teacher in working with the curriculum. They are paid pursuant to the administrative salary schedule, work out of the central office, evaluate other employees and effectively recommend hiring, firing or discipline, prepare and handle confidential materials and participate in both budgetary policies and the processes leading to collective bargaining. It was stipulated by all parties that supervisors should be excluded. Activity directors work in the schools, but do not teach classes. They are more of a business management type of person. They schedule activities and events, handle ticket or club monies, and hire teachers as ticket sellers at events. While they have occasion to work in the preparation of the budget for their particular school, they do not evaluate other employees, do not assist in the adjustment of Employee grievances, do not effectively recommend the hiring, firing or discipline of other employees and do not handle or prepare confidential records. They are on the instructional salary schedule. While they are not required to hold a teaching certificate, almost all do, and they are on ten-month contracts. No stipulation was reached as to the inclusion or exclusion of activities directors. Curriculum assistants, curriculum coordinators psychologists learning disabilities specialists and social workers are all regular, full-time instructional personnel and are listed on the instructional salary schedule, are not paid for vacations and do not accrue vacation time, have no power or control over budgeting and do not hire, fire or promote. In the same manner as classroom teachers, they earn sick leave, receive group health insurance, have the same retirement benefits and pay increases, have pupil contact and are certified employees. All are located within the schools, with the exception of psychologists and social workers, who are not assigned to a specific school, but work out of the county office. There is a classification known as specialist. There are approximately twelve persons in this classification such as a computer specialists and they are paid pursuant to the administrative salary schedule. If they perform supervisory and/or managerial functions, it would generally be over service personnel rather than instructional personnel. However, there is a group of specialists who fall within a category of a federal program which is in contact with students. No stipulation was reached as to this classification. In addition to curriculum coordinators, there is a classification known as coordinators. Some are purely classroom teachers such as a diversified education coordinator. Coordinators work predominantly in the schools with children and are paid on the instructional salary schedule. There are approximately 75 coordinators, and they receive the same paid holidays, the same group health insurance, the same retirement benefits and earn sick leave the same as classroom teachers. These people are required to hold a teaching certificate, although there may be one or two who do not. Most are in the vocational field. They do not supervise other employees nor do they have the ability to effectively recommend hiring or firing of other personnel. They have no power to establish a budget. No stipulation was reached on this position, or any of the remaining positions which follow. 1/ There is also a vocational teacher coordinator. The person occupying this classification teaches students in class and then coordinates their work outside of class and sees to it that students obtain jobs. They are generally assigned to a school and report directly to the principal of that school. They have no budgetary functions and they do not evaluate other teachers. They are usually certified. Also, there is a classification known as health coordinator. Most are certified and they work primarily with students. They coordinate the various phases of the health programs in the school to which they are assigned. They are on the instructional pay scale, have no power to make budgetary determinations and do not supervise instructional personnel. There are also secondary education coordinators who deal with the vocational aspects of a school. They work with students, receive regular retirement benefits and do not evaluate other teachers. There is one person involved in a classification known as RESRVOL. This is a federal program pertaining to the recruiting of adult volunteers to help senior citizens. While she is on the instructional payroll, she does not teach and she is not certificated. On the instructional payroll, there is a classification known as self- renewal. This too is a federal program comprising about four persons. While certification is not required, all who occupy the position are certified. Their function is to deal with children who have lost confidence in themselves and attempt to restore self-confidence. They receive the same emoluments as a classroom teacher and are not involved in the evaluative process of other teachers. They are not assigned to any particular school, but work out of a county office. This description would also fit a Position known as educational self-renewal. Enhanced learning personnel supplement the classroom teachers with respect to teaching the gifted child. They do not evaluate other teachers nor do they have any role in the budgetary Process. Some are permanently assigned to a school and others are on a county-wide basis. Their emoluments with respect to retirement, sick leave and vacation are the sane as classroom teachers. A curriculum assistant helping a kindergarten teacher exists on the instructional salary list. Only one person is involved. This person does evaluate teachers, has no classroom duties and is involved in the budgetary process. She reports to the supervisor of kindergarten and receives the same emoluments as classroom teachers with respect to retirement, sick leave and pay and vacations. Other helping teachers do exist and the positions are supervisory, supportive type positions. They evaluate teachers and report to their supervisors. A junior high school work experience teacher teaches children and finds them jobs outside of school. They do not coordinate teachers and they receive the same emoluments as a classroom teacher with respect to retirement, sick leave and vacation. An adult home economics teacher teaches post high school students in the evenings. They do not evaluate other teachers and report to their supervisor in the evening program. Substitute teachers are hired and paid on a daily basis. They are not required to be certified. However, there is a distinction between a short-term and a long-term substitute teacher. The long-term substitute takes a regular teacher's place over a long period of time. After the first ten days, the long term substitute is allowed to go on a teacher's contract (whatever contract they would be eligible for were they a regular teacher) for the period of time they are going to be substituting, if it is determined that the period of substitution will be extended. It was not determined whether long-term substitutes go on the same instructional list as Exhibit No. 10, but no long- term substitutes are now on said list due to the recent opening of school. They do not participate in the same retirement or receive the same insurance that a classroom teacher does. While several other positions were discussed, there were no other employees who were in the list of instructional personnel (excluding personnel heretofore discussed) who have the ability to effectively recommend the hiring or firing of other employees, who participate in the adjustment of Employee grievances or evaluate other employees, or who work in the preparation of the budget. All remaining positions receive their pay on the same day, earn sick leave in the same fashion, participate in the same group insurance and retirement benefits as regular classroom teachers and are required by the School Board to be certified. With respect to requests for recognition and bargaining history: Pursuant to local legislation enacted in 1971 granting to instructional personnel employed by the School Board the right to bargain collectively, the CTA has engaged in collective bargaining with the School Board. The first contract was ratified in September of 1971. The last contract expired on August 1, 1975. The 5,018 employees covered by this latter contract included counselors, librarians, classroom teachers, media specialists, special education teachers, vocational teachers, curriculum coordinators, psychologists, social workers and other employees of the public schools having whole or in part classroom teaching duties. This is essentially the same group listed in Exhibit 10. The CTA made a formal request for voluntary recognition by the School Board on April 30, 1975. Certain events (unfair labor practice charges and the filing of RC petitions) then ensued, which events are well known and are on file with the Public Employees Relations Commission. On or about April 24, 1975, the AFT requested, by letter, the School Board to officially recognize the AFT for the rights to bargain collectively with the School Board for the teachers. As noted above in the Introduction, the parties agreed that the School Board is a public employer; that both petitioners are employee organizations, and that there is no contractual bar to the holding of an election. In accordance with F.S. s. 447.307(3)(a) and F.A.C. Rule 8H-3.23, no recommendations are submitted. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
