The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Leon County School District has just cause, as defined in Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), to end the Respondent's tenured employment as a teacher, due to allegedly deficient performance.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mr. Waters, has worked as a Special Education Teacher in Leon County for approximately 13 years. He most recently has worked in the field of Special Education at Oakridge Elementary School (Oakridge), starting in the school year 2001-2002 and ending in December 2005. Mr. Waters is married and has two children by a former wife, with whom he shares custody of his children. He has volunteered for 18 years as a Troop Leader for a troop of disabled Boy Scouts in Tallahassee. He has been recognized for those efforts by being the recipient of the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital Foundation's "everyday hero" award. He has also been a finalist for the Tallahassee area "volunteer of the year award" in 2005. When Mr. Waters was hired at Oakridge Elementary School he was interviewed by the head ESE teacher or "team leader", Donna George. He was chosen for the available position from three or four final applicants, based upon her favorable view of the qualities he could bring to the position, which she still believes to be the case. During the 2001-2002 school year the principal at Oakridge was Michelle Crosby. Ms. Hodgetta Huckaby was the Assistant Principal. Sometime during that school year Mr. Waters encountered a problem involving two of his students being engaged in an after school fight. He apparently referred the students for discipline to the Assistant Principal, Ms. Huckaby, and she sent the students back to his class. He disagreed with this disciplinary decision and appealed the matter to the principal, Ms. Crosby. Ms. Crosby resolved the disciplinary matter in favor of Mr. Waters' position. Ms. Huckaby thereupon called Mr. Waters to her office to upbraid him and express her anger at his having "gone over her head." After a heated exchange between the two she told the Respondent to "never come back into my office for any reason." Thereafter, for the remainder of his tenure at Oakridge their relationship was very strained, especially during the time Ms. Huckaby was Principal, which began at the beginning of the following year, the 2002-2003 school year, after Ms. Crosby left Oakridge and was replaced by Ms. Huckaby. In order to replace Ms. Huckaby's vacant former position as assistant principal, the District assigned Kim McFarland as the new assistant principal in the fall of 2002. Prior coming to the assistant principalship at Oakridge, Ms. McFarland had served as a fifth grade regular classroom teacher for 10 years in the District. She had no prior administrative experience and had no experience in Exceptional Student Education. Her degree field is in the area of elementary education. After the events at issue in this case, Ms. McFarland left Oakridge, on July 1, 2006, to become the assistant principal at Swiftcreek Middle School. Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland jointly performed the annual evaluation of the Respondent for the 2002-2003 school year. They used the "Accomplished Teacher Performance Feed Back Summary Form." Mr. Waters's overall rating for that year was "at expectancy level." Ms. McFarland wrote several positive comments concerning his performance on that document, but he also received ratings of "below expectancy" in two areas, teacher performance improvement and professional development. Also, in the Spring of 2003, Ms. McFarland observed his class on or about April 23, 2003. She was positive about that evaluation and wrote Mr. Waters a note wherein she indicated that he had "presented a great lesson" and that his students were engaged and on task. She praised him for monitoring student behavior using a behavior management point system and found his room "exciting" because he displayed a great deal of students work on the walls. In the 2003-2004 school year, specifically in November 2003, Ms. McFarland informed Mr. Waters that his lesson plans were not adequate because he was failing to incorporate a new component which required that notations of student remedial reading levels be made, represented by "lower case" roman numerals. She required him to submit his lesson plans to be reviewed each Monday while he was seeking to improve his lesson plans. Thereafter, on April 26, 2004, Ms. McFarland notified the Respondent that he had satisfactorily complied with lesson plan requirements and no longer needed to submit lesson plans for review each Monday. She also emphasized in that letter of April 26, 2004, that he should adhere to his lesson plans, as prepared, in his teaching presentation to the extent possible, so that when administrators observed his room they would be able to determine exactly what he was performing at the time simply by looking at his lesson plan book. In the meantime, Mr. Waters was given an improvement notice on February 20, 2004, by Ms. McFarland. This was because of her concern that he was not fully cooperating with procedures and recommendations concerning behavior management; recommendations made by behavior management consultants on contract with the School Board. Those consultants were working with him and his emotionally handicapped (EH) student class at that time. During their meetings and contacts with Mr. Waters and his EH student class that year he had exhibited a good level of agreement and cooperation with their recommendations to him regarding changes in behavior management methodologies for his class, but the consultant, Dr. Adams, perceived that he was slow or reluctant to actually carry them out. Later in the spring of that school year, Dr. Adams took Mr. Waters on a tour at Kate Sullivan Elementary and another school, to observe how behavior management models or methodologies were employed in EH classes at those schools and which Dr. Adams opined he was later reluctant to implement in his own class. They communicated these concerns about his perceived intransigence in changing his behavioral management style or methodology to the administration at Oakridge, which resulted in the February 20, 2004, improvement notice from Ms. McFarland. Significantly, however, Ms. Haff, in her observations of the Respondent's performance during the following school year found that he had received the higher level of training in the "Champs program" concerning behavioral management, and had been and was successfully implementing it in his class and with his students to a great degree, although, of necessity, adapting it to the needs of his students and his role then as a resource teacher, rather than as a discrete EH classroom teacher during the following 2004-2005 school year. Ms. Huckaby changed his assignment from duty as a direct class EH teacher to that of "resource teacher" after the 2003-2004 school year. Mr. Waters had a meeting with Ms. McFarland on February 20, 2004, to discuss that improvement notice, and her concerns that he was not fully cooperating with the recommendations of the behavior management consultants in terms of not carrying out their recommendations. During the course of that meeting she stated, "You know its not me that’s behind this" implying to him that Ms. Huckaby was actually the instigator of the improvement notice concerning this subject matter. Apparently Mr. Waters contacted union officials for the Leon County Teachers Association (LCTA) complaining that the improvement notice was too general and did not specifically point out what must be done to correct the perceived problem. In response to those concerns, in part, Ms. McFarland issued a subsequent improvement notice on April 27, 2004, with a few more specific expectations and which updated the status of Mr. Waters's efforts to address the concerns raised in the February 20th revised improvement notice. Ms. McFarland observed Mr. Waters' class on March 11 and March 16 and did a "part A" teacher's assessment document for each observation. Mr. Waters was due to be evaluated using the Accomplished Teacher Summary Form for 2003-2004 and so the assessment part A form was not required to be completed for him. Nonetheless, Ms. McFarland told Mr. Waters that these were really informal observations and she was completing these observation forms in order to get some practice using them since it was her first year as an administrator, formally observing and evaluating teachers independent of Ms. Huckaby. The Respondent did not get a copy of these assessment part A documents until June of that year and did not get an opportunity to discuss them with Ms. McFarland. Ms. McFarland also completed the Accomplished Teacher Feedback Summary Form for the 2003-2004 school year. That form states that overall assessments must be satisfactory if all the required areas are completed. Ms. McFarland described Waters' performance unfavorably in the "comments" section of the form and gave him an overall performance rating of "below expectancy level." He received this Accomplished Teacher Summary Form rating document on or about September 22, 2004. During the month of October he inquired of Ms. McFarland, union officials, and school district officials concerning the meaning of his overall "below expectancy" rating for the 2003-2004 school year. Apparently an attorney for the school district informed him that the evaluation was considered satisfactory on the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form, unless school administrators produced an evaluation document that indicated an overall "needs improvement" rating. Ms. McFarland had informed him that the Accomplished Teacher document reflecting the below expectancy rating was his only official evaluation. Although Mr. Waters received confirmation that the use of the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form rendered his 2003-2004 evaluation to be automatically a satisfactory one, it is also clear that Ms. McFarland intended to give him the below expectancy rating and for some reason mistakenly used the wrong form and procedure. During October 2004 the Respondent met with Ms. Huckaby to discuss some matter unrelated to his performance rating. During the course of that meeting, at which only Ms. Huckaby and the Respondent were present, Ms. Huckaby became angry at the Respondent and engaged in a tirade, calling him "the worst teacher she had ever seen, as well as making other unprofessional comments." Mr. Waters then stated to the effect that he did not think he was such a bad teacher since he had consistently received satisfactory evaluations. Ms. Huckaby then indicated that she felt he had received a needs improvement evaluation for the 2003-2004 school year, to which Mr. Waters retorted that based upon the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form being used his evaluation was deemed to be satisfactory overall. Ms. Huckaby then angrily threatened him with an unsatisfactory evaluation for the upcoming 2004-2005 school year. Only a week or two elapsed after this meeting and comment by Ms. Huckaby when, at Ms. Huckaby's behest, Mr. Waters inclusion class was changed to a "pull-out reading group," meaning that he then had to work with a new reading curriculum and plan his own reading lessons using that curriculum instead of relying upon and carrying out the regular classroom teacher's daily lesson plan reading goals, which had been the program he had been instructed to perform previously. Ms. Eydie Sands was dispatched by Ms. Huckaby to observe Mr. Waters' reading class and made critical observations during follow-up meetings with Mr. Waters and Ms. Huckaby; the team-taught writing group jointly taught by Mr. Waters and Ms. Wacksman, which had worked well in rendering progress to the students in writing, was abruptly separated into two sections by Ms. Huckaby with no explanation or apparent reason; thereafter on approximately November 6, 2004, Ms. Huckaby gave Mr. Waters a lengthy letter of harsh criticism as to almost all aspects of his teaching performance and directed him to immediately comply with 13 directives contained in the letter. Additionally, Mr. Waters' 2004-2005 school year resource teacher schedule was changed five times, adding further confusion to an already difficult year, which started with a new classroom assignment. The new room was piled high with boxes of materials for many teachers and classrooms other than his own. This circumstance required him to spend his entire pre-planning time moving and clearing out his newly assigned room so that he could use it. Significant changes and requirements were imposed for lesson plans, student progress monitoring requirements, and the new A3 computerized IEP technology, as well as a substantially increased amount of related paperwork burdens placed upon all teachers at the school, including Mr. Waters, through Ms. Huckaby's policy directives. One directive in the November 6, 2004, letter from Ms. Huckaby required Mr. Waters to again submit weekly lesson plans to school administrators by 8:00 a.m. every Monday morning. The normal procedure provided for having lesson plans to be examined from time to time, after advance administration notice to the faculty of their lesson plan review dates. Despite lesson plan component changes made unilaterally by the administration in both the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years which added several time-consuming, ill-defined requirements to the previous less formal structure for lesson plans, the Respondent's lesson plans during those years remained detailed and organized when compared to those of his fellow special education teachers who apparently were deemed to have performed this task appropriately. In carrying out this instruction Mr. Waters tried to obtain model lesson plans and to incorporate the new requirements into his plans. They were consistently unacceptable to Ms. Huckaby, however, and ultimately cited as one of the reasons for his termination recommendation. Similar, and even less detailed lesson plans of his colleagues that had been found acceptable, were not reviewed or remained the same even after administrators provided plan improvement instructions, without those teachers being subjected to discipline therefor. In an effort to comply with the directive concerning his lesson plans and because the new lesson plan components imposed were difficult to understand and reasonably apply, especially for an ESE teacher and students, Mr. Waters sought to obtain model plans and lesson plan advice, but received little or no meaningful help. His mentor teacher assigned for 2004-2005, Michelle Smith, did not respond to his request for samples of her lesson plans. The Oakridge administration gave him only limited excerpts of two teachers' lesson plans for 2004-2005, which were confusing and did not themselves comply with the new lesson plan format imposed that year. In the 2005-2006 year the Respondent was not asked to submit lesson plans on a weekly basis and received no assistance with lesson plans until Ms. Palazesi, who was observing his class or classes that fall, in early November, wrote a model lesson plan, adapted from one of his actual lessons. Ms. Palezesi, however, was not aware of the lesson plan requirements in place at Oakridge then, and even her lengthy lesson plan sample, for just one class period, did not meet all of Oakridge's lesson plan criteria imposed for 2005-2006. It is noteworthy that the lesson plans for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 of teacher Charles Robshaw, also a resource teacher for Special Ed at Oakridge clearly do not comply with the lesson plan requirements. This fact serves to corroborate the Respondent's contention that only he was held strictly accountable for the administration's excessively detailed and to some extent non-germane lesson plan requirements. In both pertinent school years the Respondent was deemed deficient by Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland in terms of timely or fully complying with student progress monitoring test data compilation requirements. The Respondent did keep abreast of his students daily classroom progress and maintained files on their work and test papers. In the 2004-2005 school year, however, in the early part of the year (September thorough mid- November) he encountered problems in timely complying with submitting the "cover sheet" student progress test data information as part of the curriculum notebook he was required to supply the administration, through the mechanism of either monthly or bi-weekly progress monitoring meetings between teachers and the administration. He was given a needs improvement notice as to this issue, and as the year progressed, he complied with these requirements. In the 2005-2006 school year he inadvertently missed the initial progress monitoring meeting because he became confused as to when his fourth grade team was supposed to meet for the progress monitoring session and he candidly admitted that was his own mistake. Ms. McFarland did not criticize him for that, but simply reminded him that he had missed the meeting. A subsequent meeting early in the fall of 2005 was scheduled with Ms. McFarland and he did attend with his notebook (or other required data) for a 3:00 p.m. meeting. He had an pre-existing appointment after school at 3:30, which he could not miss, and he informed Ms. McFarland of that fact. She excused him from the meeting. After those two early progress monitoring meeting discrepancies in September 2005, however, the Respondent complied with his progress monitoring requirements and those issues were not again raised with him, until raised as one of the reasons in Ms. Huckaby's final decision in late December 2005 as to why she recommended his termination. Significantly, the school administration only checked to see that teachers other than Mr. Waters had completed similar student data compilations only once or twice early in each school year. Subsequently, each year the administration was less interested in actually inspecting such data and course test score charts plotted on spread sheets/graphs by most teachers. In neither of the two school years in question was Mr. Waters given a full planning period or a week after students arrived to prepare for his resource assignment ESE students. These are privileges which were customarily given to resource teachers in prior years. Despite the meager planning time he was accorded on the administrator's schedule, in reality he lost significant valuable planning time by escorting students to and from classes and due to his morning duties. Adequate planning time is crucial to the work of special education teachers, particularly if one is deemed to be struggling with lesson planning, IEP preparation and timeliness issues, and related A3 IEP technology time demands. The Respondent asked for schedule changes to improve his ability to meet the new administration demands, as, for instance, to allow time during the day to input IEP requirements into the A3 system to prepare IEP documents, instead of at the end of the school day when all the ESE teachers were on the A3 system, which slowed it down drastically. Ms. Huckaby, however, never agreed to provide such schedule changes so that he could more efficiently use his planning time. Indeed, in the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Huckaby scheduled Mr. Waters to spend 26.25 hours teaching students each week which is more than the 25 hour per week maximum teaching time provided by the collective bargaining agreement while still providing him less than a full class period of uninterrupted planning time. Sometime in the 2003-2004 school year the system for generating individual education plans (IEP) changed from paper IEPs or the so called "gibco" IEP system (apparently a school based software operated system) to a district-wide computer net system called the "A3 IEP." This was a difficult system to learn and to use in completing IEP's without mistakes in the first effort. The District made training available in 2004, particularly in the summer of 2004 and subsequently. It can take as much as three hours to create IEP's "from scratch" on the A3 system and to input all the necessary student demographic and test score history data to upgrade a previously hand-written or gibco-generated IEP in converting it to an A3 IEP. This is especially so for newly trained or partially trained teachers. Complicating these time constraints were the Respondent's limited planning time, with competing meetings being held in the conference room area where cumulative ("cume") folders were housed at Oakridge, which are necessary to the student data research required to generate the IEP's. Thus teacher access to the demographic and testing information needed for IEP completion was somewhat restricted at times. Moreover, Mr. Waters had his only significant block of continuous planning time, when he could work on IEP's, immediately after school. This is the time of day when the A3 IEP computer network operates very slowly because most of the ESE teachers in the entire district are attempting to use it immediately after school hours. These factors are part of the reasons Mr. Waters in the Spring of 2004 had an occasion when IEP's were prepared somewhat late and computer-generated progress reports on one occasion were submitted several days late. It is also true that the Respondent and Ms. Wacksman were not formally trained on the A3 system until late January 2005. This delay in receiving the A3 system training appears to have been due to both the Respondent's and Ms. Wackman's delay in seeking the training and the district's and the school's inattention to scheduling the training sessions. With regard to the occasion testified to by Ms. Petrick concerning his late preparation of, or need to correct mistakes in some IEPs, the Respondent established that he immediately corrected the minor mistakes in several of the IEPs he prepared and that, when Ms. Petrick contacted him about the need for him to make corrections, in several instances the corrections had already been made on the original IEP in question but had not gotten corrected on her copy. Moreover, four or five of the students who had to have corrected IEPs, or whose IEPs were submitted slightly late were students who the Respondent himself had identified to his administration as being wrongly placed by the administration. The students were supposed to have been in a fourth grade level program and instead were in a first or second grade level program. This necessitated re-constituting their IEPs. The Respondent, after alerting the administration to its error also completed the new IEPs on these students. In any event, it is true that Mr. Waters could have begun sooner and more timely prepared the IEPs involved and the same is true of the occasion when the somewhat late progress reports caused his reprimand by Ms. McFarland. It is also true, however, that the requirement of using the cumbersome A3 system to prepare IEPs, more particularly the lack of adequate usable planning time, and the somewhat chaotic effects of five schedule changes during that school year imposed by Ms. Huckaby also contributed to the issue encountered near the end of that year concerning timeliness and corrected IEPs. Although the Respondent received less than satisfactory evaluation ratings as to professionalism and ethics because of the issue regarding delays and mistakes in the IEPs described above, these were a small number of occurrences, concerning very few students, at one particular period of time in the school year. They did not cause any delay or other adverse effect in the provision of ESE services to students nor the loss of any federal, state, or other special education funds, or adverse effects on the school's rating. Moreover, this aspect of Mr. Waters' performance improved after this occasion. Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland made significant changes in required lesson plan and progress monitoring formats, and student progress charting. These requirements were considerably more time demanding and were accompanied by rigid reliance on upgraded, scripted reading and standardized math curricula with the advent of the 2005-2006 school year. These new requirements were to be applied by all ESE teachers for their students. Ms. Huckaby imposed a severely time-constrained, scripted reading curriculum for Mr. Waters' class and also a mandatory new vocabulary program that took up to 15 minutes more of his reading class time block each day. She also required an additional fluency probe-recording requirement to be carried out weekly in all reading classes, including Mr. Waters', which required an average time for completion of five minutes per student. Mr. Waters' reading mastery (RM) curriculum required class time scheduled during the first ninety minutes of his day in the 2005-2006 year. This was clearly impossible to carry out and remain consistent with the RM program's lesson sequence requirements, particularly with the addition of the fluency probe and vocabulary project requirements that Mr. Waters and all teachers were required to include in their reading classes that year. In fact, the reading mastery schedule for Mr. Waters was impossible to carry out within the allotted time period, even when one was not additionally delivering the required vocabulary project lesson and doing the reading probe requirement. In this regard one of the individuals asked to assist Mr. Waters in the 2005-2006 school year was Donna Haff, of the FDLRS staff. Ms. Haff, in working with Mr. Waters, tried to develop a better means for him to address the RM scheduling problem. She began that effort by "model teaching" his scripted RM classes in order to better understand his problem. This means that she simply tried to teach the RM class herself to see if it could be done within the mandatory curriculum and time period in which Mr. Waters was required to do it. Despite her extensive experience and familiarity with RM curriculum and her experience teaching it as a trainer for teachers, Ms. Haff was unable to complete the RM lesson in the time allotted to Mr. Waters, even without performing the mandatory new vocabulary program or any reading fluency probe requirements. She concluded that his RM schedule could not reasonably be carried out. She informed Ms. Huckaby of that conclusion. Ms. Huckaby expressed her frustration to Ms. Haff concerning this problem by asking, "Do you realize how much time we have put into this?" Ms. Huckaby decided not to act on Ms. Haff's advice and decided not to make any changes in Mr. Waters' 2005-2006 RM schedule. On or about June 3, 2005, Ms. Huckaby imposed an improvement notice on Mr. Waters, listing items in his instruction and teaching management that she felt needed improvement and concomitantly imposing a 90-day probationary period running from a date in September through early December 2005. Making only two observations of Mr. Waters' teaching herself, she relied upon reports of Margot Palazesi's 13 observations of Mr. Waters' classroom and teaching during the 2005-2006 school year from generally September through December. Ms. Palazesi's primary expertise, however, was in IEP compliance, IDEA compliance and grant funding compliance. She has a great deal of training in exceptional student education including a PHD degree, but she was not trained or qualified to work within and with regard to Leon County's performance observation and assessment for teacher evaluation, as either an administrator or a classroom mentor. Ms. Palazesi was unfamiliar with the lesson plan requirements at Oakridge and with the CHAMPS behavioral program requirements. She acknowledged that she understood Mr. Waters had the CHAMPS program implemented in the behavioral management aspect of his class and teaching, but she had little familiarity with what it entailed. She did acknowledge, however, that he had an award system for behavior and academic performance for his students built into and actively followed in his classroom. Ms. Palazesi also was not certified in reading and had not taught a reading mastery class in 20 years. Nonetheless, she made 8 of her 13 observations of Mr. Waters' teaching in his RM class. She did not have any understanding of the impossible double-scripted reading class schedule for his two reading groups that he was required by Ms. Huckaby to execute within the 90 minute time block. Through her interaction with Mr. Waters she came to understand from him that there was more material in the double-scripted reading curriculum than could be delivered in the 90 minute period, as Ms. Haff's testimony also showed. Ms. Palazesi, nonetheless, criticized his lecture teaching style, without acknowledging that that teaching method might have been effectively imposed on Mr. Waters in large part due to the impractical time constraints placed upon his delivery of the reading program, the vocabulary requirement and the reading fluency assessment requirement, imposed on him by Ms. Huckaby. Ms. Palazesi also noted, early in her observations, that Mr. Waters did not, in her view, engage in a review of material previously instructed, as, for instance, the day before, or inform the students what they would be learning in the lesson that day. Concerning one or more of her October observances, however, she acknowledged in her testimony that he had done that or started doing that. Moreover, one of her notations was acknowledged by her to be inaccurate in that she criticized him for not doing an introductory portion to his lesson, but then acknowledged that she had arrived some 10 minutes late, missing that portion of his lesson for that day. She also acknowledged that he was receptive to following her suggestions for improvements she thought should be made in his classroom management, in terms of assigning student desks, changing the arrangement of the room as to where a work table was placed, etc., and he did so. Ms. Palazesi also noted that he had a very good rapport with his students, and that his students behaved well and did their work in his classroom. They were on task much of the time. Although she criticized him for departing from his lesson plan on her first observation, in later observations she acknowledged he appeared to adhere more to his lesson plan. Ms. Palazesi was ostensibly dispatched to Mr. Waters' classroom to provide him technical ESE department-type assistance. However, she primarily engaged in making suggestions concerning ways that Mr. Waters could improve otherwise acceptable lessons and lesson plans and make improvements to his classroom management and the physical layout of his classroom. She acknowledges in her testimony that this was an exercise that she could have undertaken in any teacher's classroom and instructional regimen, and could have found ways to suggest improvements. Her suggestions, however, to the extent they were criticisms, appeared to have been relied on, and, inferentially, used to corroborate Ms. Huckaby's negative findings. During the second part of the 2004-2005 school year and the first half 2005-2006 school year Mr. Waters used computer technology in his classroom. He received advice from Ms. Donna Haff on how to incorporate it as a relevant and exciting way to reinforce his course curriculum and began doing so. In each of the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, he used power point technology in the form of game show question and answer formats ("Who Wants to be a Millionaire," "Jeopardy," and "Hollywood Squares/Tic Tac Toe"). He also employed other types of computer technology in his classroom on a regular basis, whether or not they were also noted in his lesson plans or were specifically observed by Ms. Huckaby, Ms. McFarland, or Ms. Palazesi. He demonstrated an ability to incorporate technology into his classroom instruction at least as effectively as most of his colleagues. Despite this fact and Ms. Huckaby's own praise for Mr. Waters' use of power point technology as a reinforcement tool in her December 14, 2005, observation, Ms. Huckaby still asserted to the Superintendent of the District in her letter recommendation for his termination that Mr. Waters did not adequately incorporate technology into his teaching and claimed that the December 14, 2005, lesson where she observed his use of technology marked "the first and only time he has integrated technology in the teaching and learning process." If Ms. Huckaby had made adequate observations of his teaching and his classes, or had even adequately conferred with Ms. Haff, she would have known of the extent of his use of technology in the classroom (or else perhaps she knew it and disregarded it). This statement to the Superintendent is one of the indicators of the level of bias Ms. Huckaby bore towards Mr. Waters. Most of the ESE teachers, including Ms. George, Mr. Waters, and Ms. Wacksman customarily do not employ computerized grading of their students because of the unique, singular nature of each ESE student's problems, learning styles, abilities, and each ESE student's goals and the varying curriculum and social needs of each ESE student. These and the other individualized differences among ESE students render a hand-written old fashioned grade book the most effective way to make a record of each student's progress toward that student's IEP- codified goals. Ms. Huckaby gave Mr. Waters a negative rating in the area of technology use partly because he did not use a computerized grading system, but neither did any other ESE teacher at Oakridge. Mr. Waters was singled out for criticism for that aspect of his teaching and the others were not. All teachers at Oakridge, particularly ESE teachers, during both the relevant school years, worked under increasing lesson plan requirements and student performance monitoring and documentation requirements and changes, as well as curriculum changes and related paperwork and time constraints. These were very stressful and no doubt were related in a significant part to the fact that the school had slipped from a "C" rating to a "D" rating on Ms. Huckaby's watch as principal. This no doubt caused significant tension and anxiety for all concerned on the instructional staff and in the administration. Only Mr. Waters, however, was held strictly accountable to all deadlines and all aspects of the burdensome documentation requirements and time constraints imposed during those two school years. In the context of his limited planning time, the excessive student contact time scheduled for him in 2005-2006, the delays he encountered in getting A3 IEP System training (some of which were self-inflicted), the difficulties encountered in gaining sufficient access to the conference room where the cume folders were maintained in order to comply with progress monitoring requirements, as well as the repeated schedule changes to his 2004-2005 assignment schedule and the time constraints of his 2005-2006 reading mastery schedule, put the Respondent in a position where it was impossible for him to timely and fully comply with every requirement imposed on him. Ms. Huckaby's close monitoring of the Respondent, as compared to other teachers, under such circumstances, is reflective of her bias in favor of a recommendation of termination. It impelled her, Ms. McFarland and Ms. Palazesi to document and exaggerate the significance of every minor error or omission that involved Mr. Waters. Arranging for ESE meetings, monitoring and complying with deadlines related to IEP's, monitoring ESE consult situations and completing all IEP-related paperwork are the responsibilities of the assigned ESE teacher. The carrying out of these tasks, however, often involves frequent communications among, and timely cooperation with several other people, such as other ESE teachers, regular classroom teachers, school administrators, the District Staffing Specialist, and the ESE students' parents. Mistakes, delays, and miscommunications concerning these ESE teacher responsibilities will occur and while they are not desirable they are not unusual. When such problems arise they are normally corrected by all persons involved as quickly and cooperatively as possible without resort to blame. Although Ms. Petrick became critical of paperwork problems and delays Mr. Waters was responsible for in the last half 2004-2005 school year, Oakridge school lost no federal funding because of them nor was it shown that any students suffered in academic or behavioral progress because of them. It is noteworthy that the IEP-related deficiencies concerning Mr. Waters began to arise only in the second half of the 2004- 2005 school year around the same time that critical memoranda from both Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland were becoming the norm. In any event, Mr. Waters improved in these areas in the 2005-2006 school year. Mr. Waters received little of the help promised him in the September 2005 revised improvement notice document. He did not have a national board-certified mentor assigned him for 2005- 2006, did not get to meet with consultants from the Reading Mastery Plus Program, "Open Court," the "Great Leaps," or the Harcourt Brace Mathematics Programs. He did not meet with anyone from the Florida Inclusion Network. The administration did not provide adequate or meaningful assistance to him in either school year, but rather denied, delayed answering, or ignored his specific requests for more planning time, model lesson plans which would comply with Ms. Huckaby's lesson plan changes and requirements, relief from his impossible RM schedule for 2005- 2006, and his request for a transfer to another school. Instead of providing practical help to him (with the exception of Dr. Adams), the District focused its "assistance" mostly upon sending more staff and district employees to observe him and provide resulting reports to Ms. Huckaby. (Ms. Smith and Ms. Sands in 2004-2005 and Ms. Palazesi in 2005-2006.) During the 2005-2006 school year Mr. Waters work was being scrutinized over the 90 day performance improvement probationary period imposed by Ms. Huckaby which ended on December 8, 2005. During that time, however, his classroom activities were observed only once by Ms. Huckaby, on November 8, 2005. Ms. Huckaby's second observation of him took place nearly a week after the end of the probation period and was two and one- half hours long. It resulted in a critical observation report based primarily upon the last third of that classroom time when Mr. Waters had a formal lesson plan to take his writing class students to a "writing boot camp" session to be attended by all fourth grade teachers and students. Ms. Huckaby, however, refused to let him follow his lesson plan for that day's writing class and insisted that he teach the group there in his room. It was the last day his writing class would meet before the Christmas break which is why he planned to let them go to the writing boot camp with students from other classes on that day. There were no lesson plans for the rest of that week that he could adapt to the remaining one- third of his class that day, with the students unexpectedly present because of Ms. Huckaby's order; it was the last day of school before the Christmas break, and lesson plans for the next day or other days remaining in the week were thus unnecessary. Nevertheless, Ms. Huckaby made negative comments concerning allegedly inadequate planning for his writing group for the class that day after she concluded her observation. Ms. Huckaby had access to Mr. Waters' lesson plans for his December 14, 2005, class and before her observations that day. She had previously reviewed his lesson plans while observing his class to be sure he was precisely following those plans as he had often been instructed to do. She no doubt reviewed his plans for the December 14th lesson and had to have seen the writing boot camp entry. Nevertheless, she refused to let his students attend the writing boot camp. It was by this means that she was able to document a purportedly inadequately planned writing class activity for that day and then relied upon those negative comments in support of her termination recommendation to the superintendent which, inferentially, she had already decided to write. Ms. Huckaby only observed Mr. Waters classroom activities one time during the probationary period. Her only other observation of his classroom activities occurred on the December 14, 2005, occasion, approximately a week after the probation period ended. School administrators, however, are required to periodically evaluate and apprise teachers of their progress during such a 90-day probationary period, which Ms. Huckaby did not do.1/ The Respondent was confronted with a significant increase in time consuming paperwork/reporting requirements lesson plan requirements and the other burdens depicted in the above findings of fact, which Ms. Huckaby placed upon him. Other teachers and ESE teachers had to contend with some of these as well, although to a lesser extent and with less micro- management by Ms. Huckaby. Nonetheless, the Respondent made significant improvements in teaching methods, lesson plan quality and organization, classroom organization, the variety of planned classroom activities and his technology-supported lesson delivery methods. Mr. Waters was effective enough in his teaching and had made sufficient progress so that he received the second highest number of votes for "teacher of the year" from Oakridge's faculty and staff. He thus only ranked behind one revered teacher who had received the award before and who had more recently received the most votes, but declined the award in order to allow someone else to get it. Mr. Waters complied with all reasonable requests made of him, by and large, and in those areas of less than acceptable compliance made the necessary improvements in his compliance. He satisfactorily executed his job duties in both 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years as long as he was at Oakridge. Notwithstanding those improvements in performance, Ms. Huckaby continued to evaluate him as if he had made no improvements, pronouncing in June 2005 the results she had angrily promised him in their October 2004 meeting. She re- confirmed that negative assessment in December 2005 with her termination recommendation, made with only one observation by her during the actual period of his 90-day probationary status. Mr. Waters' teaching and classroom management performance in 2004-2005 as well as 2005-2006 and Ms. Huckaby's and Ms. McFarland's criticism of it, culminating in the termination recommendation by Ms. Huckaby, did not result and was not predicated on his students' FCAT scores. Ms. Huckaby admitted as much in her testimony as to both relevant years. The Petitioner attempted, in its rebuttal case only, to introduce test-related evidence that students of Mr. Waters in the 2004-2005 school year did not do well on standardized tests. That exhibit, and the information it was prepared from, however, were not made available at the hearing, during discovery, were not disclosed in the pre-hearing stipulation, and were not disclosed as a reason for Mr. Waters' performance criticism and termination by any charging document, notice or pleading by the Petitioner made a part of this record. The Petitioner in essence was using or attempting to use the proffered Exhibit 46 to buttress its case-in-chief because it was not rebuttal of anything raised or offered in the Respondent's case. Therefore, it was excluded on the basis that it constituted improper rebuttal evidence and, moreover, because of the non-disclosure problem referenced above, was not admissible on due process of law and "notice pleading" principles. Moreover, the information included in the charts in Petitioner's proffered Exhibit 46 is misleading with respect to comparative student progress issues by teacher. There is confusion as to which student was the pupil of Mr. Waters or another ESE teacher or teachers. It is difficult to determine based upon that exhibit, and the testimony proffered concerning it, an accurate comparison of student progress by the students depicted under Mr. Waters's teaching performance versus that of other teachers. Further, the "Writes Upon Request" chart comparison contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 48 and the testimony related to it, was clearly not a reason used or considered in lodging performance-related criticism against Mr. Waters or ultimately in the decision to terminate him. It clearly could not have been considered until several months after Mr. Waters had been removed from the Oakridge school. Had those Writes Upon Request chart results been considered by Ms. Huckaby in the context of this case, they would not serve as preponderant evidence of sub- standard performance by Mr. Waters, considering the other evidence of the circumstances and abilities of his students in conjunction with his performance. Mr. Waters is at minimum an adequate teacher and in some aspects of his performance a superior teacher, as, for instance, in his ability to advance his students' performance in writing and in terms of his ability to motivate his students and establish a good rapport, with an interest in learning, in his students. His classroom management skills, instructional methods and classroom demeanor fall within the parameters of acceptable performance and behavior as a teacher and an ESE teacher. He consistently and successfully relied upon his own behavior management reward system for his students, employed the Champs Program in his classroom and was successful at motivating his students to enjoy learning. In demonstrating a very good rapport with his students, he always created a classroom environment of mutual respect that is conducive to student learning and his students were learning. His overall performance for both school years at issue was objectively satisfactory despite Ms. Huckaby's biased assessment of his performance during those years and in her ultimate termination recommendation. In fact, the excessive number of areas of criticism by Ms. Huckaby concerning Mr. Waters job performance made it quite difficult to demonstrate mastery of every criticized area, much less to demonstrate it all in only two formal observation attempts by Ms. Huckaby. Ms. Donna George is a 21-year career ESE teacher. She has a master's degree in the areas of learning disabilities, emotional handicap, and varying exceptionalities. She has spent 13 of her teaching years at Oakridge school. She is the ESE Department Team Leader at Oakridge, as well as the "technology contact" teacher, who trains and assists other teachers in implementation of technology programs and equipment at Oakridge. She assists in teacher technology training. She is also a National Board Certified ESE Teacher. Ms. George is thus a leader on the staff at Oakridge. She has observed in ESE meetings and in school-wide faculty meetings, throughout Ms. Huckaby's tenure as Principal, that Ms. Huckaby has an autocratic, dictatorial management style, and an aversion to allowing commentary or questions regarding her policies, directives or programs at Oakridge. Ms. Huckaby has demonstrated little tolerance for questions or comments she perceives to reflect less than complete agreement with her positions or policies. Indeed, although Ms. George is the ESE team leader, she seldom has asked questions or sought clarifications of Ms. Huckaby during such meetings, because of her fear that she would be yelled at, treated with disdain, anger or even with reprisal. Such has also been the experience of Ms. Wacksman and others. Ms. George established that Ms. Huckaby's management style had driven many good teachers away from Oakridge. A survey by the district staff concerning long-term teacher retention rates showed that Oakridge had the lowest retention rate at 17 percent. The next lowest school in the survey had approximately 30 percent retention rate. This survey encompassed the period beginning with the 1999-2000 school year to present. Ms. George observed that Ms. Huckaby often responded to questions or comments from Mr. Waters with both verbal and non-verbal ques, such as eye rolling or turning away or other mannerisms, that generally showed disdain for his questions or his opinions. Ms. George unequivocally opined upon cross- examination by the Petitioner that Ms. Huckaby clearly does not like having Mr. Waters on her staff and was "out to get him." According to Ms. George, Mr. Waters asked questions more frequently than others in faculty meetings, but his questions generally were reasonable ones. He apparently also would attempt to make humorous comments, at times which often irritated Ms. Huckaby and other teachers as well. It is likely that some of his motivation to question Ms. Huckaby and her motivation to treat him with disdain, stemmed from their strained relationship starting with the student disciplinary incident described above. In any event, Ms. George's testimony is accepted in establishing that Ms. Huckaby had a bias in favor of removing the Respondent from her staff, which colored her judgment in making many of her criticisms of his teaching, which long pre-dated his probationary period and which, along with her scant actual observations of his instructional prowess, caused some of his improvements to be overlooked or disregarded, and which caused him to be evaluated more critically than his colleagues as to some performance requirements. In fact, the preponderant evidence establishes that in an objective sense his performance as a teacher, although not flawless, was acceptable and improved in a number of areas. As found in more detail above, in consideration of the circumstances imposed on him by the school administration, in his capacity as a resource teacher, with the time and schedule constraints and disadvantages that status entails, he performed in at least a satisfactory way in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 years at issue.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Leon County School Board re-instating the Respondent to a similar special education teaching position, with reimbursement for lost wages and benefits, in a manner so as to be "made whole" from the date of termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of a handicap or disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner became employed on an annual non-renewing contract as a paraprofessional at Park Elementary School during the 1993-94 school year. The Petitioner was assigned to work in a classroom program for developmentally disabled preschool children. The children were three to four years of age and very active. There were between five to nine children in the classroom. The Petitioner was generally assigned to work with two children and was responsible for monitoring their activity. She was also responsible for physically controlling the children and changing diapers when required. The substantial part of the workday was spent standing, bending, lifting, and moving about with the children. The Petitioner continued her employment in the 1994-95 school year and received satisfactory evaluations. During the 1995-96 school year, the Petitioner continued her employment as a paraprofessional. Although there is evidence that the Petitioner's job performance was of some concern to the class teacher and to the school principal, the Petitioner was not formally evaluated because her employment was interrupted as set forth herein. There is no evidence that anyone discussed the concerns with her or that she had an opportunity to remedy any alleged deficit in her job performance. On January 2, 1996, the Petitioner was riding in a car being driven by her husband and was involved in an automobile accident when another driver struck the Petitioner's car. The Petitioner was injured in the accident and was taken to a hospital where she was treated and released. Subsequent to the accident, the Petitioner continued to have pain in her neck and sought treatment from a chiropractor. Eventually, the chiropractor referred the Petitioner to a neurologist in an attempt to determine the cause of the pain. The medical professionals determined that the Petitioner's injuries were not permanent. The Petitioner's chiropractor described the pain as a "typical soft tissue injury" and eventually stopped treating the pain because the pain did not improve and was not supported by diagnostic testing. The Petitioner's neurologist opined that the neck pain was not a "disability." The Petitioner returned to the school on February 14, 1996, and discussed her physical limitations with the school principal. She showed the principal a copy of a letter from her chiropractor to an insurer that stated that she was "able to work in a limited capacity . . . with a 15 pound limit" and that "she is to avoid excessive bending, stooping and standing." The Petitioner asserts that the school principal told her to go home and return a week later. The Respondent asserts that the Petitioner informed the Principal that she could do the job but only under the restrictions set forth in the chiropractor's letter. The evidence establishes that the discussion related to whether or not the Petitioner was able to return to work was centered on her ability to perform her responsibilities and that the Petitioner decided she was unable to return to work at that time and would return a week later. By letter dated February 15, 1996, the School Board's personnel coordinator advised the Petitioner that she had used all of her sick leave and would not receive any additional pay until she returned to work. The letter suggested that she request an official leave of absence effective January 2, 1996, in order to permit her retirement benefits to be maintained because "time spent on an official leave of absence can be bought back by the employee from the Division of Retirement." On February 21, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the school principal and informed him she would be unable to return on that day due to family matters. On February 22, 1996, the Petitioner returned to the campus and spoke with the principal. The Petitioner told the principal she did not feel physically capable of working as a paraprofessional in the preschool classroom and asked him to provide her with other employment. The principal told the Respondent he did not have any open positions at the school for which she would be physically suited. The principal was also concerned that because the Respondent was physically restricted from bending, stooping, and standing for an extended time, she would not be able to perform the responsibilities of her employment. There is no evidence that on February 22, 1996, or at any time during the remainder of the 1995-96 school year, there were jobs available at the school that did not require physical activity beyond the Petitioner's abilities. On February 26, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the school principal and said she wanted to take a leave of absence as suggested by the personnel coordinator. The principal believed there was a misunderstanding about the availability of the leave of absence to an annual contract employee and suggested that she speak to the personnel coordinator. The principal also called the coordinator and requested that he clarify the matter with the Petitioner. On February 27, 1996, the personnel coordinator telephoned the school principal and said that the Petitioner had been informed that she was not eligible for a leave of absence and said that the Petitioner had suggested she would resign her employment. On March 1, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the principal and said she wanted to apply for a leave of absence. The principal contacted the personnel coordinator who suggested that the Petitioner submit to the school superintendent a letter requesting the leave along with a copy of the chiropractor's letter and then let the superintendent decide whether or not he would recommend to the school board that her leave request be granted. The information was relayed to the Petitioner, who stated that she would submit the letter. By letter dated March 7, 1996, the Petitioner relayed the events to the superintendent and requested "any consideration you can give in resolving this matter." In the March 7 letter, the Petitioner writes, "[d]ue to the activeness of the children in this class the possibility of re-injuring myself is very high." She also advises that she informed the principal that the personnel coordinator suggested that she request the leave of absence and that the principal suggested that she write the letter to the superintendent. The Petitioner asserted that she would not resign from her position. Attached to the March 7 letter were past evaluations, a March 6 letter "to whom it may concern" from her chiropractor restating the symptoms of her injury, and the February 15 letter she received from the personnel coordinator suggesting the leave of absence. By letter dated March 19, 1996, the Petitioner referenced a March 15 meeting with the superintendent and states "[i]f there are no reasonable accommodations for a job replacement, I would like to request a medical leave of absence for the remainder of this year." She enclosed the letter from the chiropractor with the letter to the superintendent. There appears to have been no response from the superintendent to the Petitioner's request for a leave of absence. By letter dated June 4, 1996, the personnel coordinator responded to the request for leave of absence by stating that because the Petitioner was on an annual contract, the request for a leave of absence could not be granted. The letter also stated that due to a lack of funding, some employees would not be called back to work in the 1996-97 school year, and suggested that she should apply for a future vacant position "when you are again able " According to the leave policy set forth in the school board's employment handbook, any employee may request a leave of absence. Such requests must be made at least seven days prior to the requested leave period except in the case of emergency when the request must be made "as soon as possible." The policy requires that the leave application be made in writing and on the form provided for such requests. The policy provides that the School Board "may grant leave, with or without pay." The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner followed the school system policy in requesting a leave of absence after her accident. The Petitioner did not complete and sign a form requesting a leave of absence. The first written request to the school superintendent for a leave of absence was the letter of March 19, approximately 70 days after the accident. The first time the issue of a leave of absence was verbally addressed by the Petitioner was on February 26, 1996, approximately 50 days after the accident, when she told the school principal that she wanted to take a leave of absence as suggested by the personnel coordinator in his letter of February 15. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner has a handicap or disability as those terms are defined under applicable statutes and case law. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner in any employment decision on the basis of a handicap or disability. There is no credible evidence that the Petitioner filed a Request for Disability Accommodation at any time prior to the end of the 1995-96 school year. For the remainder of the 1995-96 school year, a substitute teacher filled in for the Petitioner. The job remained open and available to the Petitioner through the end of the school year. The position was not filled on a permanent basis because school officials were uncertain about whether the Petitioner would be able to return for work. Paraprofessional employees working for the Highlands County School System are employed as annual employees for the first three years. After successful completion of the third year, the paraprofessional becomes eligible for consideration for continuing contract employment. An employee under an annual contract has no automatic right to re-employment. Continuing contract employment provides increased job security to an employee because termination of employment must be for "just cause" or when required by a "reduction in force." Continuing contract employees also receive preference over non-contract employees when workers are recalled after a reduction in force. The successful completion of the third year does not guarantee that the paraprofessional will receive the continuing contract, but only provides that such employee is eligible to receive such a contract The Respondent requires that in order to work a "complete" year, an employee must work for at least 150 days in a school term. Because the Petitioner did not work for at least 150 days in the 1995-96 school term, she did not complete the third year of employment and is not currently eligible for a continuing contract as a paraprofessional employee. The Respondent may permit a paraprofessional employee to work a fourth year, after which the employee automatically receives a continuing contract. Because there were concerns related to the Petitioner's job performance in the 1995-96 school year, the principal of the school would not likely have recommended that a fourth year of employment (and a resulting automatic continuing contract) be permitted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Mary Ann Kerney. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 1st day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Katherine B. Heyward, Esquire John K. McClure, P.A. 230 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Mary Ann Florida Kerney 33870 4524 Elm Sebring, Avenue Florida 33870 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Wallace Cox, Superintendent Highlands County School Board 426 School Street Sebring, Florida 33870-4048
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching contract should be renewed for school year 1995-96.
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this proceeding, petitioner, Suwannee County School Board (Board), seeks to terminate respondent, Lallah P. Singh, a teacher, on the ground his classroom performance in school years 1993-94 and 1994-95 was unsatisfactory. In doing so, petitioner relies upon Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, which authorizes a school board to terminate an employee with a professional services contract (PSC) when that employee has an unsatisfactory performance rating for two consecutive years. This proceeding represents the first occasion on which the Board has utilized the statute for a PSC teacher. Respondent, who has been employed in the Suwannee County school system since December 1977, is certified as a teacher in the areas of biology and mathematics for grades 6-12. A native of India, he holds the equivalent degree of a doctor in veterinary medicine from a university in that country. He has also obtained a master's degree in veterinary science in this country and is certified as an education specialist in mathematics. Until school year 1993-94, respondent was employed in a variety of positions, including a regular classroom teacher (1977-86), a home study teacher (1987-89), and an alternate education teacher (1990-92). During school year 1993-94, respondent was assigned to the Branford Pre K-12 School in Branford, Florida where he taught the in-school suspension (ISS) class. That class is made up of high school level students suspended from their regular classes for disciplinary reasons. The assignment required that respondent maintain discipline and assist students with work assigned by their regular teachers. Based on observations conducted by his principal during the school year, respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation for his classroom performance. He was notified of these deficiencies in writing and was told that such deficiencies must be corrected by the end of the following school year, or else he would face possible non-renewal of his contract. For school year 1994-95, respondent was reassigned to an ISS classroom four periods per day but was also required to teach a general science class one period per day. During that year, respondent was observed by his principal in the general science class on four occasions to determine if the deficiencies noted in the prior year had been remediated. While most of the earlier deficiencies were eventually corrected, respondent was still unsatisfactory in one performance area noted in the prior year, as well as two other areas, and his performance was accordingly deemed to be unsatisfactory. On May 15, 1995, he was notified that his contract would not be renewed. By letter dated May 19, 1995, respondent requested a hearing to contest the Board's action. Although Section 231.36(3)(e)4.b., Florida Statutes, requires that the hearing be scheduled within 45 days of receipt of the written appeal, the parties have waived this requirement by requesting hearing dates beyond that timeframe. As clarified by his counsel, respondent generally contends the Board erred in the termination process by (a) providing him untimely and insufficient notice, (b) performing an inadequate evaluation, and (c) offering him inadequate assistance to correct his deficiencies. He asks for reinstatement of his professional services contract, as well as back pay. Events Leading up to School Year 1993-94 Around 1982, the legislature amended Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, to create a professional services contract under which teachers could be employed. Prior to that time, teachers not on annual contract status were employed under what was known as a continuing contract. Both a PSC and a continuing contract are considered a form of tenure for public school employees. After the new law became effective, teachers employed under a continuing contract were given the option to convert to a PSC. The advantage to a PSC is that if a teacher is cited for unsatisfactory performance in a given year, he or she has the following year in which to remediate those deficiencies. If the deficiencies are not remediated in the second year, a school board can change the teacher to annual contract status and decline to renew the teacher's contract. This procedure contrasts with the continuing contract process which, after an unsatisfactory rating is given but is not remediated by the teacher, allows a school board to change the teacher to annual contract status and not renew the contract at the end of any given year. In school year 1991-92, respondent was still employed under a continuing contract. When he received an unsatisfactory evaluation, and was threatened with the possibility of being changed to an annual contract and not renewed, he consulted with a teacher's union field representative, Richard E. Layer, on his procedural and substantive rights. During their discussions, the two talked about whether respondent should remain on a continuing contract or switch to a PSC. According to Layer, he explained to respondent "how the statute (governing a PSC) worked," advised him that a PSC offered more job security than a continuing contract, and recommended respondent switch to a PSC since this would give him two years in which to correct any deficiencies that might occur in the future. Layer added that after their conversation, respondent "knew exactly what the (PSC) provided." Based on Layer's advice, in April 1992 respondent requested that he be converted to a PSC. This was done for school year 1992-93, and he remained in that status until his contract was terminated in May 1995. The Evaluation Process Generally When evaluating classroom performance in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Board used standard evaluation forms developed by representatives of the Board and teacher's union. The evaluation, which must be performed at least once a year for teachers having a PSC, is conducted by the teacher's immediate supervisor, who in this case was the school principal, Melvin McMullen. McMullen had assumed that position during the latter part of school year 1992-93, had received special training for conducting evaluations, and was required to perform evaluations for over fifty teachers in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The evaluation process for a teacher on a PSC consists of at least one classroom evaluation during a given school year. The results of the first evaluation are recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. Within five days after the observation, a principal-teacher conference must be held for the purpose of reviewing the outcome of the observation. At that meeting, the teacher must sign the form, which includes a written admonition that "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to your dismissal or non- renewal." Subsequent evaluations during the year, if any, are also recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. For all evaluations, the teacher is given an acceptable ("A") or unacceptable ("U") rating for each evaluated area. Although the assessment forms used herein changed in some minor respects from school year 1993-94 to school year 1994-95, their substance was essentially the same. Each assessment form for a classroom teacher contains six overall performance standards, including planning, teaching procedures, classroom managment, presentation and knowledge of subject matter, assessment techniques and personal characteristics and professional responsibilities. Under the performance standards are found a total of twelve "indicators." Finally, within the indicators are found a "checklist of observable teaching behaviors," consisting of twenty-seven behaviors, each requiring a rating of "U" or "A." If any teaching behavior is given a "U," the indicator likewise requires a rating of "U." If an indicator is marked "U," the performance standard is also scored unacceptable. A total score is then assigned to the teacher, with one point given for each indicator with an "A," and the highest score being twelve. Anything less than a twelve is considered unsatisfactory and, if not corrected, may result in the teacher's dismissal. If the first observation of a PSC teacher results in an unsuccessful rating in any area, a "level-one" assistance plan is instituted by the principal, which consists of a principal-teacher conference to discuss the deficient areas, suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies, and a timeframe to correct the substandard performance. If insufficient progress has been made by the end of the timeframe, at the option of the assessor, the level-one assistance process can be repeated or a "level-two" assistance plan can begin. The latter level of assistance generally mirrors the assistance given during level-one but the assessor must also notify the superintendent that level-two has been initiated. If the deficiencies are still not corrected by the end of the school year, the superintendent is notified, and the teacher is again placed on notice that he must correct those deficiencies during the following school year or suffer the risk of being reverted to an annual contract status and not being renewed. Finally, during the subsequent school year, the same observations are conducted, and level-one and two assistance plans are implemented if deficiencies are observed. If remediation does not occur by the end of the second school year, the superintendent has the authority to recommend that the school board decline to renew the teacher's contract. School year 1993-94 Respondent was first evaluated by principal McMullen on February 23, 1994. He received a total credit of 10 out of 12 possible points. For the indicators "Recognizes and provides for individual differences" and "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," respondent received a "U." A conference was held by McMullen and respondent the same day, at which time respondent was given a form entitled "Related Work Performance Form (Appraisal III)." It contained not only an explanation of unacceptable areas and recommended procedure for correction, but also a notation that respondent had "2 weeks from today to demonstrate acceptable teacher corrective action." On March 14, 1994, respondent was again evaluated by principal McMullen. Although McMullen noted that "improvement" had occurred since the earlier evaluation, respondent received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Indeed, he was still deficient in the area of "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." At a conference held the same day, respondent was given an explanation of his unacceptable area, a recommended procedure for correction, and the following timeframe for improvement: "2 weeks approximately from 3/14/94.". On March 15, 1994, respondent was given a lengthy list of resource materials available for use in correcting his deficiencies, including videos, journals and publications. In addition, he was given written instructions for use of the materials. Based on the unsatisfactory performance rating, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent on March 25, 1994: This letter is to notify you that you have demonstrated unsatisfactory performance on the Final Observation/Assessment Form (Appraisal I), with deficiencies noted in the folowing areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum These deficiencies must be corrected by April 1, 1995. I am requesting that your employ-ment be continued an additional year in order to provide you assistance. If you wish to discuss this matter with me further, please schedule an appointment through Mrs. Cannon. I look forward in continuing to work with you on classroom management issues. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same day. On March 31, 1994, principal McMullen wrote the following letter to superintendent Blaylock: Dr. Lallah Singh has been notified of unsatis- factory performance on the Final Assessment Form with deficiencies noted in the following areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum I request that his employment be followed for an additional year to allow the opportunity to correct these deficiencies by April 1, 1995. Whether respondent received a copy of this letter is not of record. Although the March 14, 1994 evaluation was ostensibly used for personnel decisions that year, on May 6, 1994, a third formal assessment of respondent's classroom performance was conducted by principal McMullen. On that date, he received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Even so, respondent was still deficient in "Classroom Management" and the related indicator based on unacceptable ratings given for the following observable teaching behaviors: "Maintains rules of conduct" and "Maintains instructional momentum." Thus, no matter whether the March or May evaluation was used, at the end of the first school year in question, respondent's only noted deficiency continued to be for classroom management and the related indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." On May 10, 1994, respondent and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's latest assessment. Although McMullen noted that respondent had made "progress in meeting recommended procedures to help correct areas of concern," he noted that his level of improvement was "still not acceptable" and that respondent must continue the earlier suggestions for improving his performance. The two agreed to meet during the next school year's pre-planning period to discuss a plan of improvement for that year. This was embodied in a letter sent by McMullen to respondent on May 11, 1994. Sometime after receiving this notification, respondent contacted his local teacher's union representative, Willie Veal, Jr., for advice and assistance. On April 21, 1994, acting on the superintendent's recommendation, the Board reemployed respondent for the following year and placed him in a status known as "Professional Services Contract continuation (2nd year)," which is the Board's terminology for the "subsequent year" described in section 231.36(3)(e). Respondent did not receive a copy of this action. On June 7, 1994, however, respondent received a letter from the superintendent advising that the Board had approved him for a PSC for school year 1994-95. School year 1994-95 On August 19, 1994, respondent, union representative Veal, and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's teaching status for the 1994-95 school year. At that meeting, respondent learned he would be reassigned to ISS but would also be required to teach general science one period per day. Although respondent says general science was not his strongest suit, which was mathematics, it was a subject within his certified area of biology. He also understood that his contract was subject to being non-renewed if he did not correct his deficiencies during the school year. This was confirmed by witness Veal. The following letter was given to respondent on August 29, 1994, to memorialize the substance of the meeting: Thank you for meeting with me while Mr. Veal had a moment last Friday (August 19th., 1994) to generally discuss plans for teaching improvement for the 1994-95 school year. As we discussed, I believe the opportunity to teach a General Science class and Mr. Brown spending two periods a days (sic) with I.S.S. students (doing Drop-Out Prevention counseling) will be two positive techniques to aid improvement as noted on the Appraisal II Form from last year. You and I will meet again soon, to review matters particular to unacceptable areas noted on the May 6th., 1994 Observation/ Assessment. We will then outline other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist this teacher improve- ment process. On November 15, 1994, respondent was sent the following letter by principal McMullen: As we discussed at our 8/25/94 (sic) meeting, and briefly the other day, we need to meet this coming week to discuss items noted on the Appraisal II Form. We will review the items which were unacceptable on the 5/6/94 Observation/Assessment Form. Can a meeting between you and I be set up for Tuesday afternoon, about 2:30 in your room? Please let me know. Pursuant to this letter, a meeting was held on November 20, 1994. During the meeting, principal McMullen further discussed respondent's deficient areas in the prior year and suggested ways to improve them. He also recommended that informal observations be made in an effort to prepare respondent for his formal observations during the following months. While respondent contends this assistance was begun too late in the school year to be of any meaningful value, it was rendered more than four months before the final evaluation on March 29, 1995. Then, too, respondent's most persistent problem continued to be in the area of classroom management, for which assistance to remedy that problem had been offered throughout the previous year. On December 12, 1994, principal McMullen conducted the first of four observations of respondent's performance in his general science classroom. That classroom, rather than the ISS class, was chosen out of fairness to respondent in order to assess him in a controlled classroom environment. On that day, respondent received a score of 7 out of 12 possible points. More specifically, he received an unacceptable rating for the following indicators: "Uses instructional materials effectively," "Displays skills in making assignments," "Recognizes and provides for individual differences," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The following day, or December 13, 1994, petitioner was placed in the level-two assistance process. He was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance observed at the December 12 evaluation and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct each of those deficiencies. Late on the morning of the same day, or December 13, 1994, principal McMullen walked by the building in which respondent taught and "noticed (him) sleeping at (his) desk" with his shoes off and leaning back in his chair. There were four students in his classroom at the time. Respondent was given a letter confirming this incident and told that if he had a medical reason which caused him to sleep to provide the principal with a doctor's note by December 16, 1994. Respondent provided a letter from his doctor the following day in which the physician listed four medications being taken by respondent, none of which would cause him to sleep. However, the physician noted that respondent "occasionally" took an over the counter cough syrup "that may cause drowsiness." Whether respondent was taking a cough syrup that day is not of record. This incident is relevant to the charge that respondent did not properly manage his classroom. On January 24, 1995, principal McMullen again performed an assessment of respondent's classroom performance. On this occasion, respondent received a score of 10 out of a possible 12 points. He received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." On January 27, 1995, and pursuant to the level-two assistance program, respondent was again given a written, detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and a list of recommended procedures for correction. He was told that he would be reevaluated on or about February 17, 1995. Finally, respondent was given the following written notice: Failure to satisfactorily correct all area(s) of unacceptable performance within the expected timeframe may result in returning the teacher holding a CC/PSC contract to annual contract status. If area(s) of unacc- eptable performance are not satisfactorily corrected during the second year, the teacher may be recommended for non-renewal. On February 21, 1995, another classroom observation was conducted by principal McMullen. That day, respondent received a score of 10 out of 12 possible points. Respondent again received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." At a conference the same date, respondent was advised in writing that the following administrative assistance would be rendered: "Arrange conference time with fellow teachers/administrators, help secure resource materials and arrange for time to visit (illegible), etc." Respondent was also told that "(b)y April 5th (approximately six weeks), 1995 all observed/assessed areas should be scored acceptable." In addition, respondent was given a more detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and recommended procedures for correction of those areas. On March 13, 1995, principal McMullen acknowledged receipt of certain corrective measures which respondent proposed to use at his next observation. These corrective measures were considered by principal McMullen at the next observation. A final observation of respondent occurred on March 29, 1995. Respondent received three unacceptable ratings which resulted in a score of 9 out of 12 points. On that occasion, he received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Uses appropriate motivating techniques," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The second noted indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitiation and control," was the same indicator for which respondent had received an unacceptable rating the prior year. On March 30, 1995, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent: This letter refers to our meeting today on your 3/29/95 Observation/Evaluation. Having gone over that with you, I wanted to highlight the fact that you still have three areas deficient in evaluation of your classroom teaching. These areas are noted on your evaluation form. Instructional recommendations are due to the Superintendent April 1, 1995. Due to this being the second year in the process to correct noted deficiencies and those continue, I have no choice but to recommend non-renewal at that time. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same date. On March 31, 1995, principal McMullen notified the superintendent by letter that he could not recommend respondent for the 1995-96 school year term given his failure to correct the deficiencies. The superintendent accordingly recommended to the school board on April 21, 1995, that respondent not be rehired for the following school year. The recommendation was accepted by the school board at its April 25, 1995 meeting. On May 15, 1995, the superintendent advised respondent by letter that his contract was not being renewed for the following school year. This notice prompted respondent to request a formal hearing to contest the school board's proposed action. Was There Adequate Notice, Evaluation and Assistance? Notice Respondent contends that the school board erred by giving him inadequate and untimely notice of its actions. At the same time, respondent asserts that he was unaware of the consequences of the unsatisfactory performance ratings in school year 1993-94. He claims that, before the middle of school year 1994-95, no one ever specifically told him that his employment status was in jeopardy if his deficiences were not corrected by the following school year. Respondent's contention that he was unaware of the consequences of the 1993-94 unsatisfactory rating is not deemed to be credible. As early as 1992, respondent was given an explanation on how section 231.36(3)(e) "worked" by a field representative of the teacher's union, and according to the representative, "knew exactly what the law provided." Based on that advice, he switched from a continuing contract to a PSC since he had been told that this would give him two years to correct deficiencies before his employment could be terminated. Beginning in the summer of 1994, he was also represented by the president of the Suwannee County teacher's union, Willie Veal, Jr. At a meeting with Veal and principal McMullen in August 1994, respondent was told that he must correct his deficiencies before the end of the school year or face non- renewal. In addition, respondent had been through a similar evaluation process several years earlier. In 1992, he received an unsatisfactory performance rating and was told that unless the deficiencies were corrected, his contract might be terminated. In that case, however, the deficiencies were corrected, and he retained his tenure under a PSC. Finally, each of the many assessment forms that respondent signed during this process specifically noted that his "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to (his) dismissal or non-renewal." Therefore, the totality of the evidence belies respondent's contention that he did not understand that this could happen. Statutory requirements The school board did not strictly follow all requirements of the law in terminating respondent. For example, the law requires that the superintendent provide the teacher in writing "no later than 6 weeks prior to the end of the postschool conference school period, of performance deficiencies which may result in termination of employment, if not corrected during the subsequent year of employment." In this case, respondent received this notice from his principal, rather than the superintendent. However, such notice was sufficient to inform respondent of the gravity of the situation. In the subsequent year, or school year 1994-95, the same notice must again be provided to the employee "no later than 6 weeks prior to the close of the postschool conference period." In this case, the notice was given by the superintendent, but this occurred less than "6 weeks prior to the postschool conference period." Although several errors in procedure occurred during the termination process, they were not so serious as to impair the fairness of this proceeding, or to cause prejudice to respondent in the defense of this case. Therefore, the errors in procedure are deemed to be harmless. Evaluation and Assistance The statute also calls for the employee to be "provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." However, the specific type of assistance and opportunties to be afforded a teacher is not statutorily defined. Respondent contends that such assistance and opportunities were never provided. Beginning with his first evaluation in February 1994, respondent was given assistance in the form of specific suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies. Also, numerous principal-teacher conferences were held to discuss the observation findings. After the March 14, 1994 evaluation, respondent was given a lengthy list of videos, journals and publications to use in an effort to correct his deficiencies. He was also given written instructions for the use of the materials. At the beginning of school year 1994-95, respondent had a pre-school meeting with both his principal and union representative concerning this matter. He also met with the principal on November 20, 1994, and the two discussed "other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist (his) teacher improvement process." Following an evaluation on December 12, 1994, respondent was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct those deficiencies. After another evaluation on February 21, 1995, respondent was again given advice on how to correct his deficiencies before the next evaluation. Although respondent says he took this advice to heart, and did all of the things suggested by his principal, he was still unable to obtain an acceptable rating. The Board, however, cannot be faulted for respondent's continued inability to correct the cited deficiencies. Through his expert, respondent contended that the evaluation and assistance process was not adequate. In reaching this conclusion, the expert relied upon her experience in the States of Georgia and Texas, as well as Dade and Seminole Counties, Florida. She did not, however, have any teacher remediation experience in small, rural counties such as Suwannee. The expert pointed out that a peer teacher did not assist the principal in performing the evaluations and making subsequent recommendations on how to correct the deficiencies. But there is no requirement that more than one person conduct the evaluation, and respondent (and his union representative) did not request that someone other than principal McMullen perform the observation. The expert further contended the Board should have assigned a peer teacher to assist respondent throughout this process. She also recommended that the Board send him to various seminars relating to his deficient areas. Again, however, there is no statutory requirement that a school board provide this type of assistance, especially when other forms of assistance and opportunities being given the teacher are adequate. Finally, the criticism that the Board did not adequately formalize its planned assistance measures into a written document is deemed to be unavailing. Because the assistance and opportunties provided respondent were adequate, the Board met its statutory obligation to provide "assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." Summary After being evaluated in a fair and impartial manner, and receiving timely and adequate notice of his deficiencies, as well as adequate assistance and opportunities to correct those flaws, respondent did not remediate a noted performance standard and related indicator during two consecutive school years. Therefore, the Board could properly change respondent's contract status from PSC to annual at the end of school year 1994-95 and decline to renew his contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order terminating respondent from employment by not renewing his 1995-96 contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 4th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2988 Respondent: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 9-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being unnecessary. 15-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 18-19. Rejected as being unnecessary. 20-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 22-35. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-20. 36-56. Partially accepted in findings of fact 21-34. 57-67. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-46. 68-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 35-37. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Victor Africano, Esquire P. O. Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060-1450 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Charles F. Blaylock, Jr. Superintendent Suwannee County School Board 224 West Parshley Street Live Oak, Florida 32060-2396 Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue At issue is whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated July 30, 2002, and if so, whether his employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Mocombe has been employed by the School Board as a social studies teacher since 1997, when he graduated from Florida Atlantic University. He began his career substitute teaching at Sunrise Middle School (Sunrise), and later moved into a full-time position at Lauderhill Middle School (Lauderhill). In the years following graduation, while working as a teacher, Mocombe continued his studies at Florida Atlantic University and attained a master's degree and a Ph.D. He also received three formal reprimands, and a reputation as a person who could engage in adolescent behavior toward peers and insubordinate behavior to his principal without suffering any meaningful consequence. Mocombe calls himself a brilliant teacher, whose teaching philosophy is informed by his belief that "Revolution comes first. I'm a Marxist." Also a high priority for Mocombe is hedonism. Mocombe is known at Lauderhill as a "player," a term defined by one witness as "[S]omeone who has a lot of women and a lot of women [who] know about each other," a characterization which Mocombe embraces. Although married, Mocombe had a sexual relationship with a teaching colleague at Lauderhill by the name of Belinda Hope (Hope). He also was attracted to a first year teacher by the name of Kim Barnes (Barnes). Specifically, said he wanted to "get into her pants," during the 2000-2001 school year. Mocombe has no sense of boundaries in the workplace. He freely offers his opinions on religion, politics, and sex, some intended to be humorous, some not. Mocombe is aware of his need to be the center of attention and to shock people. He testified, "Even in school, I used to go walking around and said I was God just to get a reaction out of people." Most adults tread carefully, or not at all, around such deeply personal subjects. The training and ethics of the teaching profession emphasize respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, irrespective of his political and religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Teachers are educated to understand that sophomoric jokes about sex are not to be inflicted upon unwilling listeners. These lessons are reemphasized annually in sexual harassment training provided to all teachers employed by the School Board. Mocombe did not benefit from this training. He was known at Lauderhill for a constant stream of crude references to sex. He made no secret of his view that a woman's role is to have babies and serve men sexually. In addition, Mocombe would mock organized religion in the presence of colleagues who take their faith seriously. He often spoke of starting his own church, in which he would be known as Prophet Paul and the prerequisite for all women seeking to join the church would be to have his baby. Such comments, as well as his propensity to refer to women as "bitches" and "whores," were deeply offensive to some, but they kept silent. Lauderhill was an ideal environment for Mocombe. The atmosphere at the school is sexually charged to an extent inappropriate to the serious business of teaching children who are at a fragile stage of their own sexual development. Adolescent sexual banter consumes a great deal of time in and out of Lauderhill's teachers' lounge. At least in Mocombe's class, cursing and horseplay in the presence of the teacher-- even with the teacher--is acceptable. Unrebutted testimony placed an assistant principal in the main office discussing "sex, among other things," with Mocombe and other members of Lauderhill's staff in the main office at a time when at least one person not employed there could hear their discussion. Phillip Patton (Patton) was Mocombe's principal, first at Sunrise and later at Lauderhill. Patton's patience with Mocombe's behavior was seemingly boundless. In the lax atmosphere at Lauderhill, some of Mocombe's colleagues regarded his frequent references to sex, as well as to religion, politics, and the appearance of female colleagues, as harmless banter. Others, such as Marrisa Cooper (Cooper) who testified on Mocombe's behalf, felt that it was not the school's responsibility to deal with harassment; rather, the person at whom the harassment was directed should have the "balls" to deal with it. Cooper explained that it was understood at Lauderhill that Mocombe [believed] "that women are there to have children, which everyone always disagrees with statements because he always makes these general statements about women, and a lot of people take them as being belittling or degrading women. I don't take it personal because you are not talking to me, I know what I am made of and the way I am, so I never take them personally. But again, everybody maybe don't have the balls that I have." Others at Lauderhill were offended by Mocombe's conduct, but kept their silence, believing that Patton would not impose meaningful discipline on him. In fact, Patton's patience with Mocombe ran out only when Barnes and another teacher, Tracey Bryant (Bryant) put their complaints in writing, at which time Patton was required by School Board policies and procedures to forward the complaints for follow- up by trained investigators. The charges at issue here arise out of Mocombe's interaction with three individuals, student Hudson Mortimer (Mortimer), and the above-mentioned teachers Bryant and Barnes. Each situation is discussed separately in paragraphs 16 through 77, below. Hudson Mortimer: At the time of the incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Mortimer was a sixth grader at Lauderhill and a student of Mocombe's. Mortimer shares Mocombe's high opinion of himself as a teacher. Although Mortimer testified at the behest of the School Board, he volunteered, "I don't think he should get his license suspended." On October 11, 2001, Mocombe and Mortimer were "playing with each other." More particularly, Mortimer was "cracking" on his teacher, calling him "ugly and stuff." Mortimer's and Mocombe's accounts of the incident are consistent, and create a picture of two kids on the same level, playing together when they should be working. The incident began with Mortimer and Mocombe trading good natured insults, which included adolescent name-calling, using phrases such as "ugly-ass," while tossing whatever object was at hand at one another. Eventually Mocombe tossed a marking pen at Mortimer which hit the student over one eye, causing minor injury. The School Board contends that this incident constitutes the imposition of inappropriate discipline of sufficient severity to warrant termination. Pursuant to School Board rules and policies requiring that events which may give rise to litigation be documented, Patton, through a staff member, sent an accident report form to Mocombe for him to fill out. Mocombe refused, saying, "I'm not filling out anything, it was an accident. Patton wants to, he can fill it out himself." Patton took no disciplinary action against Mocombe for his refusal to comply with this routine and entirely appropriate request that he follow a reasonable School Board policy. This was not the first time, nor would it be the last, that Mocombe was given to understand that there would be no meaningful consequence to him for ignoring rules which he did not wish to follow. Tracey Bryant: Bryant is a 13-year teacher. Her complaint against Mocombe arises out of an incident which she characterizes as sexual harassment, and which occurred in the teachers' lounge at Lauderhill on April 5, 2001. At the time of the incident, Bryant was one of about a half dozen teachers present in the lounge. While conversing with a colleague, she was interrupted by Mocombe who asked, "Ms. Bryant are you pregnant?" Stunned, she coldly told him, "No." Referring to Bryant and to another teacher then present, Mocombe commented to the effect that their "butts were getting to be alike---hanging." Bryant quickly left the room. Here, as with the incident involving Mortimer, Mocombe and the alleged victim tell similar stories. Both agree that Mocombe was intending to be jocular in his interaction with them. But while Mocombe's alleged student victim supports the manner in which Mocombe interacts with him in general, and in particular is not offended by the allegedly inappropriate conduct set forth in the Administrative Complaint, Bryant felt "humiliated and disrespected" by Mocombe's comments about her size. In addition, Bryant was aware of Mocombe's history of making what she viewed as inappropriate comments about and to females. She had heard him make numerous comments she regarded as inappropriate in the workplace to Hope, a good friend of hers with whom Mocombe would eventually have an acrimonious break-up. When the offensive comment about Bryant's size was directed to her personally, she complained, in writing, to Patton. The conflict between Bryant and Mocombe continued at the hearing. At one point, Mocombe snickered during legal argument being made by the School Board attorney while Bryant was on the witness stand. Mocombe was provoked by a comment made to him by the School Board's attorney (who in turn was admonished to direct his comments to the tribunal, and not to parties or witnesses) and said of the School Board's charges against him, "I find it baffling and humorous, yes." Bryant immediately jumped in to say, "That's how he is, yes. No remorse or nothing." Bryant's reading of Mocombe's attitude is accurate. During his testimony, Mocombe supplied details of the incident which were not presented in the School Board's case, and which reflect a lack of understanding of why his conduct was so offensive. After having months to reflect on why Bryant brought these charges, Mocombe remains unembarrassed by his faux pas of assuming--and saying aloud to a roomful of colleagues--that Bryant's weight gain was due to pregnancy. He volunteered during his testimony that rather than drop the subject after Bryant made her displeasure clear, Mocombe persisted, discussing his exchange with Bryant about Bryant's weight with another colleague, Vicki Drane. While not denying the substance of Bryant's account of the incident in the teachers' lounge, Mocombe argues that Bryant is out to get him because of his break-up with Hope. However, neither Mocombe nor any of his witnesses offered any type of corroboration in support of his assertion that Bryant and others conspired to avenge his spurned lover by getting him fired. After carefully observing Bryant's demeanor under oath, and considering the entire record, the undersigned finds no evidence to suggest that Bryant's testimony was untruthful, or that her complaint was motivated by anything other than her own distress at Mocombe's callous behavior in calling attention to her weight gain, behavior which hurt and embarrassed her in front of her colleagues. Kim Barnes: Barnes met Mocombe in the office at Lauderhill, where she was being interviewed for what would become her first teaching job. As previously noted, the School Board provides annual training to its employees regarding sexual harassment and other types of conduct inappropriate in the workplace. But Barnes' first contact with Lauderhill employees in their main office, where the administrative staff, including the principal, have their offices, suggested an atmosphere inconsistent with what is to be expected in a well managed place of learning. Mocombe acknowledges that he wanted to "impress" Barnes in order to "get into her pants." This is his account of his first meeting with Barnes in the school office: The first -- the very first interaction I had with Ms. Barnes were the beginning of the last school year. We were in teacher planning. She came in for an interview and we were all in the student office discussing sex among other things. Q. Who was we? A. Ms. Cooper, Ms. Mayo, who was the office manager, the assistant principal at that time, Mr. King, myself, and Ms. Barnes. And I made the reference about I want six children. My actual reference was my goal is to have as many little Mocombes running around so I can start my own revolution, take over the world, my own Marxist revolution and indoctrinate them. And she made the reference that she wanted to have five children. I thought hey, we could work out if that's the case. (Transcript page 276, lines 2-19). In hindsight, it was a mistake for Barnes to tell Mocombe the number of children she might like to have. The above-mentioned defense witness, Cooper, was an office worker at Lauderhill and was present and participated in the discussion of "sex among other things." Cooper, knowing of Mocombe's obsession with sex, deemed that Barnes, having joined the discussion to the extent of remarking that she would like to have five children, had granted consent for Mocombe to make sexual advances. Barnes' account of the conversation is slightly different. She recalls telling Mocombe she might like to have five children in response to a direct question by him. Perhaps she voluntarily "made the reference," as Mocombe recalls. This is the type of minor discrepancy to be expected from witnesses asked to recall the details of an event which took place months ago. What is important is that Mocombe did not then and does not now see why the comments which he freely admits making are utterly inappropriate to the time and place where he made them. Although Cooper considers herself a friend of Mocombe, in giving testimony on his behalf, she volunteered that on the day of the Barnes' job interview, Cooper commented to Barnes that Mocombe was "no good." Counsel for Respondent did not suggest what issue this testimony goes to, but the testimony offered on Mocombe's behalf, taken together, suggests a belief by Mocombe and his friends that Barnes was on notice that as a "player," Mocombe was unable to relate to professional women in a professional way, and that he was not expected to do so by his colleagues or supervisors. Barnes was hired and began work at Lauderhill in the fall of the 2000-2001 school year. In the beginning, Mocombe confined his comments to Barnes to acknowledging her presence, usually in terms of her looks, such as, "Hi, sexy." Over time, the comments became more graphic. Mocombe would remark on the size of Barnes' breasts, her "phat (pretty hot and tender) ass" and would state his desire to have sex with her in stunningly offensive terms. In November 2000, Barnes expressed her distress about Mocombe's conduct to Reginald Edwards (Edwards), a substitute teacher who also works as a Baptist pastor. Edwards reported Barnes' concerns to principal Patton. Patton did nothing to follow up. Barnes also expressed her distress to her assigned teaching mentor, Arnetta Davis (Davis). Davis advised her that Mocombe was well known for this type of conduct, and recommended that she try to "nip it in the bud." Barnes is not an aggressive personality, but she tried to make Mocombe understand that she did not appreciate his comments. Mocombe was not deterred. Her efforts to nip Mocombe's conduct in the bud having failed, Barnes conferred again with Davis. Davis confirmed what Barnes had come to suspect: Mocombe conducted himself in this manner because he had been doing so for as long as he had been teaching, with no more than a wrist slap ever imposed. Barnes came to hold a reasonable belief that, in Davis' words, "apparently everyone knew about it, [Mocombe's inappropriate behavior] it was just how he was, and everyone just basically looked a blind eye about it." Davis could not provide Barnes with any assurance that if she complained to Patton, Mocombe would experience any meaningful consequence. Worse, Davis confirmed Barnes' fear that she, Barnes, might be deemed a troublemaker and be "blackballed" if she complained. Barnes was in no position to be blackballed. At the time she began her employment at Lauderhill, she had not yet received her permanent teacher's certificate. Moreover, she needed a summer teaching job and believed she was not likely to get one by being a "troublemaker." Based upon Davis' advice, and her own observation that Mocombe's constant sex talk was part of the landscape at Lauderhill, Barnes reasonably feared that Mocombe would continue to be protected by Patton, and that her own career might be seriously impaired if she sought to avail herself of School Board policies and procedures designed to provide employees recourse from sexual and other types of harassment. Davis' advice to Barnes was reasonable. Davis had witnessed Mocombe conduct himself in an unprofessional and disruptive manner at faculty meetings with no apparent consequences. Interestingly, at least by the time of the hearing, Mocombe's perception of his relationship with Patton differs from the perception shared by most of Lauderhill's professional staff. Mocombe came to feel that Patton would go out of his way to write [Mocombe] up for anything which Patton believed to be a challenge to his authority. But the totality of the evidence suggests that at all times material to this case, the belief widely held by Lauderhill staff that Patton's patience with Mocombe was practically unlimited, is closer to the truth. By March of 2001, Mocombe's conduct toward Barnes had escalated. One day, Barnes came in to the teachers' lounge to check mail. About a half dozen teachers were present. Mocombe freely--indeed proudly--described this incident: he said, for all to hear, "I can't stand up because my dick is hard, or I'm hard." Davis was coming to believe that she could no longer ethically ignore Mocombe's conduct toward Barnes. Around the time Bryant made her written complaint to Patton, Davis went to Patton on Barnes' behalf. Patton in turn went to Barnes and told her that she had to put her complaints about Mocombe into writing if anything was to be done. Barnes did so. By way of defense, Mocombe suggests that Barnes was the aggressor, pursuing him to consummate a physical relationship. Mocombe says he chose not to have sex with Barnes. This excerpt from Mocombe's testimony fairly summarizes his theory of the case: The same reason she was inquiring of Mr. Edwards about me, and she found out about my dealings with women. I turned her down, all right. If that's what you want to ask, we didn't have sex because I didn't want to have sex. Q. She wanted sex but you didn't? A. I didn't say that. I just said we didn't have sex. I chose not to have sex. I didn't say -- Q. Did you ask her? A. We came close a couple of times in the classroom. Q. To have sex with her? A. That's what you want. Yeah, we did. We came close a couple of times in the classroom. Every day for 20 to 25 days in the classroom with this woman, and you think -- maybe you [sic] blind. Yeah, I'm a good looking man. You must be out of your mind. (Transcript page 310, lines 6-24). Mocombe also claimed, with reference to Barnes, "This girl hugged me every morning in the lounge" and that on at least five occasions she voluntarily engaged with him in activities which, if done by teenagers, would be called "making out." Mocombe never attempted to reconcile this testimony with his admission that he wanted to "get into [Barnes'] pants." Moreover, there are numerous ways in which the colorful incidents recounted by Mocombe, if they occurred, could be corroborated. For example, Mocombe claims he said to Barnes in the presence of two teachers, one of whom testified at the hearing, that he confronted Barnes after learning she had filed a complaint. As he described the scene, "I was like, hell, no. I didn't do anything to this heifer. I was like just Friday you were kissing me." Leaving aside the use of Mocombe's highly derogatory term "heifer," had Mocombe said such a thing in the heat of this particular moment, it surely would have made an impression upon Barnes and the other witnesses. Yet none of them was questioned about it. Rather, Mocombe expects the trier of fact to accept his version because, as he put it, "Come on now. Hey, I'm a good looking man. Not only that, I'm intelligent too I don't know what [sic]. So she is ridiculous. But you know what, she got that off. They set me up. It's good. I like that." Upon receipt of the written complaints from Bryant and Barnes, Patton, in accordance with School Board procedure, informed Mocombe of the charges and instructed him not to contact either complainant. According to Patton, Mocombe's response to the accusations was nonchalant. In fact, Mocombe was enraged. He ignored Patton's no-contact directive and approached both Barnes and Bryant in an effort to convince them to drop their complaints. This is how Mocombe described the scenes when he made his unauthorized approaches to Barnes and Bryant: "You know what the fuck, I'm sorry whatever [sic], just cancel this shit. . . . And then I went over to Tracey Bryant, and I was like what, you were having a bad day. I was asking you are you pregnant. She was like, yeah, she was having a bad day. Ms. Russell asked me to apologize. I like apologized. And that was it. That was it. And Ms. Bryant said she was going to drop it, and then that was it. " Elsewhere in his testimony, Mocombe described the post-complaint encounter with Barnes in more detail: ". I walked to her classroom . . . I was like what the fuck is your problem. Are you a psycho. What's the [sic] fuck. You know what, I actually said you are a fucking nut bag. What the hell is this. She was like---she sat on the desk. She got on the desk and was like I'm afraid of you Mocombe. I was like what the fuck is wrong with you. I am like are you a psycho. I am like are you psychotic." Because Mocombe is not charged with insubordination or any other infraction based upon his disregard of the instruction that he not communicate with Barnes and Bryant, ordinarily testimony about these communications would be irrelevant and inadmissible. But, Mocombe did not object to testimony about these communications from School Board witnesses, and was eager to talk about these encounters himself. Mocombe appears to view his accounts of these incidents as exculpatory. To the contrary, if Barnes had ever pursued a sexual relationship with Mocombe, one would expect that his tirade about her complaint would have taken a very different form. Mocombe's testimony on cross-examination provides additional insight into Mocombe's sense of entitlement to disregard basic standards of civility and respect towards colleagues, and to view any attractive co-worker as a potential sex partner. This passage, which summarizes Mocombe's view of the charges against him, is instructive on that point, and also contains an additional admission that he was seeking to have sex with Barnes: Can you get to the real issue here? I don't believe Mortimer is the actual issue here. The actual issue is regarding Kim Barnes and Tracey Bryant. Simply add that on to show some kind of -- that I'm an ineffective teacher. I'm a brilliant teacher. Even Patton will admit to that fact, and nothing here has anything to do with my ability to teach. Because I'll be frank, I'm a brilliant teacher, I'm 27 years old. Continue. Q. Thank you. Let's then go on to the major issue. The heifer as you described Ms. Barnes, you were just seeking to have sex with her; is that right? A. For the most part, yes. (Transcript page 295, lines 11-24). On this and several other occasions during his testimony, Mocombe stated, "I'm 27," in contexts which suggested that in his view, his youth exempts him from standards of conduct which apply to older people. The law makes no such distinction. The common thread which runs through the testimony of witnesses for both sides is that Mocombe believes his youth, good looks and personality exempt him from the constraints of middle class morality, to the extent that it demands that teachers exhibit basic respect for all persons, whether or not, in the teacher's opinion, such respect is deserved. Mocombe is a young man of obvious intelligence and charisma, and Patton did him a disservice in turning a blind eye to his refusal to conform his conduct to the requirements of the standards of his profession. Even at the hearing, Mocombe was unable to control his desire to articulate, in crude terms, his contempt for those he disrespects. This exchange from Mocombe's cross-examination is illustrative: Q. All right. And you also touched her body parts; is that correct? A. Sure. Don't you touch your wife? (Transcript page 298, lines 6-8). Asked at the hearing if he acted inappropriately toward Barnes, Mocombe replied, "According to her I did. No, I honestly don't think so, no. I thought it was in jest. . . . I thought it was just we were something. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck for Christ's sake. I have a Ph.D. in philosophy. Anyway. No, I don't feel I acted inappropriately to Ms. Barnes." Mocombe has had months to think about it, but he continues to adhere to the belief that he is entitled to give free rein to his hedonistic impulses, and to express them in the crudest possible terms. Based upon the undersigned's careful observation of the parties and witnesses under oath, and throughout the hearing, and after careful consideration of the record as a whole, the suggestion by Mocombe and his witnesses that Barnes pursued Mocombe and was a willing participant in make-out sessions with him is expressly rejected. Neither has Mocombe proven a conspiracy by the friends of his former lover to destroy Mocombe's career. Even if School Board witnesses are motivated in whole or part by affection for Hope, and there was no competent evidence to support this view, the question of whether Mocombe may be lawfully terminated must be determined with reference to his conduct, and not the joy, or lack thereof, which witnesses may feel at the outcome. Prior disciplinary history: There is a theme which runs through the incidents which give rise to Mocombe's current difficulties. The common denominator is immaturity. Mocombe does not have an adult understanding of how his behavior offends contemporary standards of appropriate workplace behavior, and the corrosive impact of his coarse language and preoccupation with sex upon the professional environment which the public has a right to expect in its schools. In his short teaching career, he has received three reprimands, all relating to incidents in which he was unable to follow well known rules of acceptable workplace communication. Mocombe received his first reprimand while still a substitute teacher at Sunrise, where Patton was principal. He was reprimanded for using inappropriate language in the presence of students. The reprimand, dated January 5, 1999, included a directive requiring him to enroll in a teacher training class. On April 11, 2000, Mocombe was reprimanded for unprofessional and profane comments made toward his former lover, Hope. Mocombe's tirade occurred in Patton's presence. Mocombe screamed at Hope such comments as, "Fuck you, you bitch--yeah I fucked you, you ain't nothing but a damn whore; you're nothing but a good fuck; I am gonna put my foot up your ass." The letter of reprimand regarding this incident cited Rule 6B-1.006 which requires that educators refrain from engaging in "harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance or professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly process of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment. " The letter specifically warned that further misconduct of any nature could result in termination of employment. On January 10, 2001, Mocombe received a letter of reprimand for sending a chain letter to all of his teaching colleagues at Lauderhill in violation of well-established school board policy prohibiting the use of the in-house email system for communications unrelated to work. Mocombe's testimony revealed a complete lack of understanding that he has done anything wrong. Instead, he believes he is being "railroaded" in these proceedings. Based upon his prior disciplinary history, and the manner in which his defense was conducted, the conclusion is inescapable that if reinstated, Mocombe would continue to exhibit, during working hours, his passion for "revolution, education, and hedonism" in whatever manner he pleases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order discharging Mocombe from further employment in the Broward County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 14th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly & McKee 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316-1924 Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr., Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether it was appropriate for Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, to terminate the employment of Respondent, Curtis Brown, under Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes (2007), due to his failure to correct performance deficiencies after having been placed on Professional Services Contract Probation for 90 days, in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(t); his "incompetence," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u); his "insubordination," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u); and his failure to comply with "School Board Policy, State Law or the Appropriate Contractual Agreement," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(x) and Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the public schools of Pinellas County, Florida. It has entered into individual and collective agreements with the teachers it employs and publishes policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a math teacher at Johns Hopkins Middle School and has a Professional Services Contract. Petitioner employs a formalized teacher evaluation process that assesses 25 teaching "expectations." These "expectations" are grouped in three related categories: Highest Student Achievement, Safe Learning Environment, and Effective and Efficient Operations. Each "expectation" receives one of four ratings: Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, In Progress, and Not Evident. Assessments are made on specific and detailed indicia during observations, interviews, and review of data regarding student achievement. Depending on the number of indicia observed for each of the "expectations," a teacher receives a proficiency rating of Level 1 through 4, with Level 4 being the highest. Below a Level 1 is considered unsatisfactory. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory for school years 2006-07 and 2007-08. There are approximately 8,000 teachers in Pinellas County. Of the 8,000, 23 were rated unsatisfactory for the 2007-08 school year; only three were rated unsatisfactory for both 2006-07 and 2007-08. A state requirement of teacher appraisal includes student performance and learning gains for each student in a teacher's class. The Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test ("FCAT") is probably the most notorious student achievement data source in Florida. Unfortunately, the FCAT scores become available in July. Most annual teacher assessments are completed in April of each school year. However, there are other student achievement data sources that can be appropriately used in assessing student performance and learning gains. They include teacher-made pre- and post-tests, district developed assessments, student grades, and curriculum developed assessments. A teacher may offer any of these data sources during his or her evaluation. Because Respondent had received an unsatisfactory rating for the 2006-07 school year, administrators at his school and from the district office provided special attention and direction during the first months of the 2007-08 school year designed to help Respondent improve his teaching performance. The efforts of the administration were not successful. Respondent was placed on a 90-day probation period on January 14, 2008. He was advised of his unsatisfactory performance. At the same time, he received a revised "success plan" and a copy of Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Respondent received several formal observations and critiques during the probation period. Petitioner provided the requisite assistance, direction, and on-going assessment. During the 90-day probationary period, Respondent did not respond to specific corrective direction given him by administrators regarding a myriad of basic administrative details, teaching techniques, and methodology. Respondent's annual evaluation took place on April 24, 2008, after the conclusion of the 90-day probation. Even though requested, Respondent failed to provide any documentation of positive classroom results. Even though Respondent failed to present any evidence of positive classroom results, the evaluator (the school assistant principal) had monitored potential classroom progress through various data available to him. He failed to note any positive trend. Respondent received 19 "Not Evident" ratings in 25 "Expectations" and an unsatisfactory rating. Respondent's performance problems were increasing in spite of a concerted effort by the administration to correct the trend. In the 2005-06 school year, he received six "Not Evident" ratings; in 2006-07, 14 "Not Evident" ratings; and in 2007-2008, 19 "Not Evident" ratings. Over the several years contemplated by the testimony of school administrators who had supervisory authority over Respondent, he failed to teach the subject matter assigned, failed to complete lesson plans correctly and timely, failed to use a particular math teaching software program (River Deep) as required, failed to take attendance, and did not use the required grading software. In each instance he was encouraged and, then specifically directed, to comply with established policy regarding these areas of teaching responsibility; and yet, he failed to do so. Respondent's teaching record contains memos regarding the following: Two formal conferences regarding use of excessive force (12/6/02 and 10/29/03); A formal conference regarding growing number of parent concerns over penalizing students on academic work for behavioral problems and giving students F's for assignments that they couldn't complete due to lost work books (11/3/2004); A formal conference summary involving several issues including instructional methodology, leaving students unsupervised in class and leaving campus early (1/24/2005); Three reprimands for disparaging remarks made to or about students (1/19/05, 2/16/05, 4/02/07); A 15-day suspension for falling asleep in class and again leaving students unattended in class (7/12/2005); A formal conference summary for again leaving students unattended in the classroom and unsupervised outside of the classroom door (2/9/2007); and A formal conference summaries for missing a meeting and not turning in lesson plans and IPDP's (12/04/07, 1/29/08, 3/03/08).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Curtis Brown's, Professional Services Contract be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 23rd day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Julie M. Janssen Superintendent of Schools Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Laurie A. Dart, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
The Issue Whether Respondent's teacher's certificate should be revoked pursuant to Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, for alleged sale of marijuana, as set forth in Petition, dated May 11, 1979. The parties stipulated to the expected testimony of Petitioner's witnesses, and Respondent did not call any witnesses at the hearing. The parties further stipulated to the admission of Petitioner's Exhibits 1-5 and to Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1. This is an administrative proceeding whereby the Petitioner seeks to take adverse action concerning the teaching certificate of the Respondent based on an allegation the Respondent sold marijuana to a police officer on September 1, 1978. The matter was reported by the Superintendent, Polk County Public Schools, to Petitioner by letter of February 21, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The Petition herein was thereafter filed pursuant to directions of the State Commissioner of Education who on May 11, 1979, found probable cause to justify disciplinary action under the provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. Respondent requested an administrative hearing by Answer, dated May 22, 1979. Respondent filed a prehearing Motion to Strike the Petition on the grounds that the Polk County Superintendent improperly referred the matter to Petitioner on the basis of Respondent's nolo contendere plea in a criminal proceeding, and had suspended her from employment without an evidentiary hearing. The motion further alleged that Petitioner based its probable cause finding upon hearsay evidence and that it has no authority to make a finding of criminal guilt without a judicial adjudication of the same. Respondent's Motion is denied. Petitioner's Rule 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, prescribes procedures for revoking or suspending certificates. It provides, inter alia, that when a superintendent has "cause to believe" that a certificate holder is "guilty of any offense" for which the penalty is revocation or suspension, it is his duty to file a "signed report" with any supporting documentation with Petitioner. Such a report merely triggers an investigation by Petitioner's staff for consideration by its Executive Committee and ultimate finding of probable cause by the Commissioner of Education. All of these procedures are preliminary in nature. No definitive action can be taken against a certificate holder and no final adverse action may be taken without an opportunity for an adversary hearing. The cases cited by Respondent in support of the notion deal with evidentiary standards for the issuance of final orders and do not relate to such preliminary matters. Petitioner observed the requirements of its rules procedurally in this case.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Judy A. Cain holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 339186, Post Graduate Rank II, valid through June 30, 1983, covering the areas of English and junior college. She was employed in the public schools of Polk County at Wahneta Elementary School as a teacher in September, 1978. (Stipulation) During the evening of September 1, 1978, a police officer of the City of Dundee, Florida, who was working in an undercover capacity, had a conversation with a woman later identified as Respondent and another woman named "Candy" at Walker's Bar in Dundee. They told the officer that they were going to buy a "bag" and get "high." The officer asked if they knew where he could pick up a "bag," and Respondent told him that she would have to have money to get it herself. The officer gave Respondent $20.00 and the two women left the establishment. They returned a short time later, and the woman known as Candy took a plastic bag containing a brownish vegetable matter from her purse and both women stated that it was "dynamite dope." Thereafter, laboratory tests established that the bag contained 18 grams of marijuana. (Stipulated testimony of Castro, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) On October 17, 1978, Respondent was arrested for the offense of sale of marijuana. On February 8, 1979, upon Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to sale and possession of a controlled substance, in the Polk County Circuit Court, an order was issued by the Court withholding adjudication of guilt and placing the Respondent on probation for a period of three years. Respondent was dismissed from employment by the School Board of Polk County on May 21, 1979, for immorality based on the sale of marijuana. Evidence concerning the foregoing disposition of judicial and school board proceedings was received at the hearing upon stipulation of the parties, but will not be considered herein for purposes of determining grounds for disciplinary action under Section 231.28, F.S. (Stipulated testimony of Castro, Wilson, Petitioner's Exhibits 1- 2, 5) In the opinion of Respondent's former principal, the Polk County School Board Director of Employee Relations, the Chairman of the School Board, and several parents, a teacher who commits the offense of sale of marijuana would thereby set an improper example for students and seriously reduce the teacher's effectiveness as an employee of the school system. (Stipulated testimony of Miles, S. Wilson, Qualls, D. Wilson, Aggelis, supplemented by Petitioner's Exhibit 4) During the school year 1975-76 in the Polk County School System, Respondent received a "satisfactory" rating on her annual teacher assessment report. She received the highest rating of "good" during the 1976-77 school year, and a "satisfactory" rating for the 1977-78 year. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wallace L. Storey Post Office Box 796 Bartow, Florida 33830 Hugh Ingram, Administrator Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 David B. Clark, Respondent, is employed by the Leon County School Board on continuing contract and was so employed at all times here involved. By Request for Leave dated May 31, 1978 (Exhibit 2) Respondent requested leave without pay from August 1978 through June 1979 for the purpose of continuing education. The request was forwarded approved by the Respondent's principal and approved by N. E. (Ed) Fenn, Petitioner. The principal who recommended approval of Respondent's leave request testified he would not have recommended approval had he not believed Respondent would pursue graduate studies. At the time Respondent submitted his application for leave he had been assured of financial assistance from his family to provide him the necessary funds to be a full-time student at Florida State University in the Masters program in public administration. In July Respondent learned he would be unable to get the financing he had expected to allow him to attend school full time. He proceeded to the school personnel office, advised the personnel director of his dilemma and requested advice. She advised him to go to the school at which he was employed the past school year and ask for his position back for the 1978-79 school year. When he did so he found a new principal had been appointed who was unsure of the job availability but he advised Respondent that his previous year's position had been filled by someone else. Respondent went back to the personnel officer for Leon County School Board where he learned there were no jobs available but he could be listed on the rolls as a substitute. He also was told that he should attempt to take some graduate courses even if he couldn't afford to go full time. Respondent agreed to try and do so. By letter dated 31 July 1978 (Exhibit 5) Respondent applied to be placed on the rolls as a substitute teacher for the 1978-79 school year. Respondent then took a sales job at which he worked in the late afternoon and early evening while also working as a substitute teacher. After the first semester, Respondent quit his sales job and worked full-time as a substitute teacher until the end of the school year. He was then offered a summer job on a construction project in Georgia, which he took. After Respondent reapplied and was employed for the 1979-1980 school year, the charges of gross insubordination and misconduct in office followed. Respondent's evaluation reports (Exhibit 4) contain a satisfactory rating in all categories for the past three years. Only in the year 1974-1975 was a "needs to improve" rating given in any of the categories for evaluation. Subsequent to the 1974-1975 evaluation year Respondent was placed on continuing contract status.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Ms. Hymon is guilty of incompetency, and if so, whether she should be dismissed from employment with the School Board of Dade County.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Hymon was a teacher employed by the School Board and assigned to Oak Grove Elementary School (Oak Grove). She holds a continuing employment contract with the School Board pursuant to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, and a Florida teaching certificate in early childhood education, grades 1-6. She began teaching for the Dade County Public Schools in 1973. After several years of employment at Oak Grove, Ms. Hymon was observed crying in the classroom while students were present. In 1983, Respondent's principal, Beaulah Richards, observed that Ms. Hymon was having emotional problems, and asked Ms. Hymon if she needed help. The principal referred Ms. Hymon to the District's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Respondent began a course of professional counseling for her emotional problems at the North Miami Community Mental Health Center that year. Ms. Hymon has not followed through consistently with her counseling appointments. Each year as she exhausts her medical insurance benefits, she stops the counseling but resumes it again when the benefits become available the next year. 1984/85 School Year On October 11, 1984, Respondent's teaching was formally observed and evaluated in her fourth grade classroom by her principal, Robert Russell. He rated her performance unacceptable in techniques of instruction and student assessment techniques. The unsatisfactory rating in techniques of instruction was given because her instructional methods were not appropriate for the needs and abilities of her students. She taught the class as a total group, on one level, not implementing the standard practice of subdividing the class into two or three reading groups. She also failed to use any supplemental materials. Ms. Hymon was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not examine the pupils' work. There was no graded work in their folders. The principal prescribed help to aid in overcoming her deficiencies. She was to observe two other teachers, to take inventory of the classroom materials, and to be given an additional classroom aide for at least two hours per week more than was customary. On October 15, 1984, Mr. Russell held a conference with Respondent to discuss her observation and her prescription. On November 20, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed in her fourth grade classroom by Mr. Russell. She was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she had difficulty in keeping students focused on learning. She was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not identify areas likely to be confusing to students before the lesson began and she did not give individual students clarification when they needed it. Mr. Russell again prescribed help to aid Ms. Hymon in overcoming her deficiencies. She was directed to review sections of the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) Manual to provide her with ideas for classroom management and teaching strategies. She was to observe a reading class. Other teachers were to perform demonstration lessons for her. On November 27, 1984, Mr. Russell held a conference with Respondent to review her observation and prescription. On December 14, 1984, Mr. Russell held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to put her on notice that her unacceptable performance could lead to disciplinary action if not remediated. Respondent was formally observed in the classroom on January 24, 1985, February 20, 1985, and March 28, 1985. These observations were acceptable. Ms. Hymon had remediated her performance and received an overall acceptable evaluation for the 1984/85 school year. At the end of that year, Mr. Russell changed Respondent's teaching assignment to the third grade in an attempt to help her become more effective. Third grade classes were smaller. 1986/87 School Year On December 9, 1986, Mr. Russell held an informal conference with Respondent to discuss unprofessional behavior between her and a fellow teacher. The two teachers had loudly and heatedly argued with each other in the teacher's lounge. Respondent admitted her behavior to the principal. On February 13, 1987, Mr. Russell held a conference with Respondent and issued a letter of concern about conduct he deemed unprofessional. Ms. Hymon had neglected to give one of her students a report card and the student's parents complained to Mr. Russell. Respondent was directed to comply with School Board policy in the future about sending timely report cards home for all students. Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Mr. Russell on February 25, 1987. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management because numerous students were consistently off-task and she did not redirect them back to learning. Respondent failed to evaluate the students' progress during the class period. Mr. Russell prescribed help to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies. She was to review certain sections of the TADS manual and observe two math classes. In addition, the assistant principal was to observe two of her classes and discuss them with her. A district math teacher would provide a demonstration lesson for her. Again, Respondent was given additional aide time. On March 3, 1987, Mr. Russell held a conference with Respondent to review her observation and prescription. On March 11, 1987, Mr. Russell held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. Respondent was put on notice that disciplinary action could result from unremediated performance. Respondent's previous argument with the other teacher on February 13, 1987, was also addressed at this conference. The principal told Respondent that if incidents like these continued, she would be rated unacceptable in professional responsibilities (Category VII of TADS) and would be given a prescription. On March 25, 1987, Mr. Russell held an informal conference with Respondent. During the conference, she had a blank-faced look, and did not respond to the principal's questions. On March 30, 1987, Mr. Russell referred Respondent to the Employee Assistance Program because of inconsistent emotional behavior that affected the morale of her students and fellow teachers. She had developed a pattern of putting her head down in class and ignoring the students. Her emotional stability was inconsistent, with mood shifts from a passive, depressed demeanor to elation for no apparent reason. She was subject to moody outbursts. 1989/90 School Year For the 1989/90 school year, Mr. Russell changed Respondent's assignment to a kindergarten class. He had hoped that it would be easier for Respondent to work with younger children in a less demanding curriculum. In November 1989, her teaching was evaluated, and found acceptable. On January 26, 1990, Mr. Russell again referred Respondent to the EAP for marked changes in mood and activity level. She was exhibiting the same types of behavior for which Mr. Russell had referred her on March 30, 1987, and Mrs. Richards had referred her in 1983. On February 6, 1990, Mr. Russell held an informal conference with Respondent and issued a letter of concern to her. She had grabbed a kindergarten student in an unprofessional, confrontational manner, twisting him into his seat, using excessive restraint. She admitted this to Mr. Russell. They also discussed the fact that, despite a directive given at the faculty meeting on January 31, 1990, concerning the procedures for reporting to the office whenever parents were lingering in the halls, she had failed to report lingering parents on February 6, 1990, but engaged in an unprofessional, confrontational exchange of harsh words with a parent. Mr. Russell again directed Respondent to comply with school policies with regard to the handling of students, the reporting of lingering parents, and to refrain from conducting unprofessional conversations with parents. She was told that another violation of any of these policies could result in disciplinary action. In March 1990, Ms. Hymon became frustrated with a student and threw a kindergarten child's notebook out of the window into the courtyard and the papers flew all over. This took place in front of visiting principals who were at the school for a meeting. Shortly thereafter, Respondent took a leave of absence from March 16 to April 5, 1990. During May 1990, Respondent continued to exhibit frequent radical mood swings. She became hysterical in front of the assistant principal, Susie Robinson, and Mr. Russell. She was not properly supervising her students and allowed two boys to disappear from her classroom for an extended period of time. Respondent was the subject of numerous parental, student and teacher complaints. There were numerous instances of Respondent's screaming and yelling at students and parents. The parents complained about her discipline and the teachers complained about her arguments with them. As a result of an anonymous complaint to HRS about her treatment of students, an investigator came to the school. During this investigation Respondent's facial expression showed rage and she made a telephone call during which time she alternated between crying and whimpering. Respondent used profanity in front of administrators, e.g., "God damn," "shit." Mr. Russell requested that the Office of Professional Standards require Respondent to undergo an examination to determine her emotional fitness to continue teaching. On May 23, 1990, Respondent was directed to an alternate assignment at the School Board's Region II office where she would not have contact with students, while the Board's Security Investigative Unit (SIU) investigated the parental complaints and the anonymous HRS complaint. During the 1989/90 school year, Respondent was not an effective teacher. Her conduct had a negative, detrimental impact upon the students. Nevertheless, Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1989/90 school year was acceptable because it was based on the one classroom observation of November 8, 1989, which was acceptable. Mr. Russell did not find Respondent unacceptable in Category VII (Professional Responsibility), because Respondent had not been afforded her full due process rights. He had made the referral to the Office of Professional Standards and was awaiting a decision on the fitness determination. In addition, he was awaiting the results of the SIU investigation. Mr. Russell was still trying to help Ms. Hymon. 1990/91 School Year Respondent was formally observed in her third grade classroom on October 1, 1990, by her new principal, Dr. Elaine Lifton. Ms. Hymon's performance was unacceptable in techniques of instruction, because she presented a lesson so confusing that the students could not achieve the lesson's objectives. Respondent did not address the student's confusion. When they demonstrated unsatisfactory performance, she made no adjustment to her instruction, and gave students no suggestions on how to improve their performance. Respondent did not allow for oral interaction from the students; they had no opportunity to ask questions or to offer examples. The components of the lesson were inappropriately sequenced, for necessary background was not established and there was no closure to the lesson. Dr. Lifton prescribed help to aid Ms. Hymon in overcoming her difficulties by referring her to various sections in the TADS Prescription Manual, in the hope that she could remediate her deficiencies though self- improvement. On November 26, 1990, Dr. Lifton again formally observed Ms. Hymon in the classroom and found her unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction. Her overall performance had not improved--she was still confusing her students. Students who did not understand still were not provided suggestions for improving their performance. No adjustments were made to the instruction when only 10-12 of the 22 students understood the directions and concepts. Respondent still did not allow for oral interaction from the students. Dr. Lifton again prescribed help in an attempt to aid Ms. Hymon in overcoming her deficiencies, but this time the prescription was more "hands-on." In addition to reviewing various TADS Prescription Manual sections, Respondent was to tape and review her lessons. She was to observe another teacher and discuss certain aspects of the lesson with that teacher. On November 28, 1990, Dr. Lifton conducted a conference-for-the-record with Ms. Hymon. They reviewed her performance and the assistance that had been given. They reviewed the TADS process and the disciplinary action which could result from unremediated performance deficiencies. In addition, Dr. Lifton referred Respondent to the EAP because of erratic behavior, her third principal to do so. Ms. Hymon continued to exhibit swings from depressed to euphoric behavior. Respondent next was formally observed in the classroom on December 4, 1990, by her assistant principal, Susie Robinson. Ms. Hymon was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management and techniques of instruction. She was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because students were off task, talking, moving around, and not listening, but she did not correct them or redirect them. Ms. Robinson found Ms. Hymon unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not involve all of the students in her lesson. She was only teaching to a small group. Ms. Robinson prescribed help in an attempt to aid Ms. Hymon in overcoming her deficiencies. She was referred to various sections of the TADS Prescription Manual, and scheduled to receive help from Bertha Neely, the Regional specialist. Ms. Neely assisted Respondent 10 to 12 times during the 1990/91 school year. Ms. Neely found Ms. Hymon's performance very inconsistent. She had good days and bad days, but more bad days than good. The class did not follow a consistent routine. Her students were inattentive and they appeared unaccustomed to following through on assignments. When they were off-task, Ms. Hymon made no attempts to redirect them. Students were allowed not to participate in a lesson at all. Ms. Neely helped Respondent and gave her suggestions. By her next appointment, Respondent would implement the suggestions and have an acceptable lesson. Then, when Ms. Neely would return, Respondent would revert to the unacceptable teaching methods. Ms. Neely found that the children tried to help Ms. Hymon, and treated her like a pet. On January 31, 1991, Dr. Lifton held a conference-for-the-record with Ms. Hymon to discuss three instances of inappropriate interpersonal on-the-job behavior with teachers, parents, and people from the community. The first, on January 15, 1991, concerned a fellow teacher, Ms. Beverly Gross. Respondent had approached Ms. Gross and had started to blame her and yell at her for scheduling Youth Fair activities during February, Black History month. Ms. Gross was not on the committee responsible for scheduling Youth Fair activities. The confrontation had a racial overtone, as Respondent accused Ms. Gross of having a "plantation mentality." Ms. Gross tried to calm Respondent, but Respondent continued to complain loudly to fellow teachers in the hall and in front of students who were entering the office. The principal already had held a meeting with Respondent on that day during which Respondent admitted the incident and regretted what had happened; however, during the January 31 conference, Respondent denied the substance of the incident except for using a loud voice with Ms. Gross. The second incident discussed was a confrontation with a parent, Mr. Willie Kemp, on January 25, 1991. Mr. Kemp was late for a meeting with Respondent. When the school registrar contacted Respondent on the intercom system, Respondent's response caused Mr. Kemp to become angry. Respondent then entered the school office loudly complaining that people were playing games with her and she did not like it. Dr. Lifton had to calm the parent down and the school counselor had to calm Ms. Hymon down. The third matter discussed was a confrontation with a business person from the community, Ms. Cheryl Raleigh. Ms. Raleigh operates a pizza restaurant in the Oak Grove neighborhood. A colleague of Ms. Hymon had ordered pizza from Ms. Raleigh and there was some confusion in the order. Respondent took it upon herself, during her lunch period, to call Ms. Raleigh to "set her straight." Respondent said to Ms. Raleigh: "I am presently a member of the Oak Grove staff and if you cannot act like you are supposed to, I'll call the NAACP and CORE to see if you can learn some manners." Ms. Raleigh complained about the incident to the region office and notified Dr. Lifton. That day Ms. Hymon admitted having made the statement, that she was loud, and that perhaps she had come across in an angry manner. At the January 31 meeting, however, Respondent denied the content of the conversation but did acknowledge the use of poor judgment in involving herself in make the telephone call. Dr. Lifton wrote a letter of apology to Ms. Raleigh and Ms. Hymon volunteered to call Ms. Raleigh to apologize. On February 25, 1991, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Lifton and a principal from another school, Steven Lovelass. This was an external review, which takes place after a prescribed number of unacceptable observations. Both observed a lesson at the same time and independently rated Ms. Hymon. They then merged their data and prepared a prescription. Both observers rated Ms. Hymon unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. This lesson was inadequate, and was worse than the previous lessons formally observed. It was disorganized and Ms. Hymon's classroom management was weak. Ms. Hymon was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plan did not provide for homework. She was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because Respondent moved indiscriminately from activity to activity without developing an appropriate sequence. Twenty out of a class of 23 students were off-task or confused. Respondent did not adequately define vocabulary words she used in the lesson. Respondent was found unsatisfactory in classroom management because she did not begin the instructional activities promptly. Ten minutes were wasted with housekeeping chores such as roll-taking, collecting homework, distributing papers and addressing organizational tasks such as locating papers and books for the day's lesson. During the lesson, seven students sharpened pencils and five asked for paper and pencils. Two students were permitted to leave to go to the restroom and were gone for 15 minutes. These students presented behavioral problems and should not have been allowed to depart together. They were not addressed when they came back. Respondent's transition from reading to writing was disjointed and the students were unable to follow the lesson. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because students were not given feedback about their deficiencies, and those who had difficulty were given no assistance. Respondent did not make adjustments to the instruction when necessary. She stopped the class in the middle of a reading selection, which meant that the students could not answer lesson questions on their worksheets. The lesson was fragmented, not properly sequenced, and did not have closure. The observers prescribed help in order to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies. This time the prescription was again a "hands-on" approach, less abstract and more specific. Ms. Hymon was directed to include homework assignments as part of her lesson plans. Respondent was again given exercises to complete out of the TADS Prescription Manual. She was directed to tape her lessons and to observe at least one language arts lesson and to describe particular aspects from those lessons. During the week of January 7, 1991, teachers at Oak Grove were provided with Weekly Bulletin No. 23, directing them to comply with district policies on grading and attendance. On February 27, 1991, Dr. Lifton reviewed Respondent's gradebook and found that it was out of compliance with district grading policies and local school directives. Her gradebook did not have a grading code and the grades were not labeled. Attendance was not maintained in the gradebook. Respondent was directed to maintain up-to-date records of specific assessments and of attendance in her gradebook, and was told that failure to comply with this directive would be viewed as insubordination. In May of 1991, Ms. Neely conducted a formal observation of Respondent and found her teaching acceptable. Ms. Neely attributed Respondent's success to the preparation she had given Ms. Hymon the week before; however, Ms. Neely found that Respondent subsequently did not perform acceptably and could not teach appropriately without continuous support. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1990/91 school year was unacceptable. Dr. Lifton conducted a conference-for-the-record with Respondent on June 4, 1991. They discussed Respondent's performance and her future job status. Ms. Hymon was notified of the potential negative impact on her employment if her performance deficiencies were not corrected. Respondent was given a detailed prescription in an effort to help her over the summer. 1991/92 School Year Dr. Lifton changed Respondent's teaching assignment to the second grade level in an effort to give her a greater opportunity for success. The scope of material in second grade is easier to teach, since much of it is a review of first grade work. Ms. Neely continued to help Respondent during the 1991/92 school year, but not as often. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom on October 14, 1991, by Dr. Lifton. She was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. This was a very poor lesson with many serious errors in content and sequence. Respondent confused the signs for "greater than" and "less than" six times, which confused her students. Respondent's sequencing was not logical. She jumped from unfinished examples to dissimilar patterns, again confusing the students. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because of the poor sequencing and because necessary topics were not included in the lesson. Respondent was prescribed help in an effort to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies. Again, Dr. Lifton gave her a concrete prescription. Respondent was directed to the mathematics teacher's manual and was directed to specifically follow the directions. She was also to observe a fellow teacher at Oak Grove and another excellent teacher at another elementary school. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Ms. Robinson on November 26, 1991. She was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because of numerous errors in her presentation. Respondent was prescribed help in an effort to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies. Two of her fellow teachers were to observe her and give her suggestions regarding subject matter. Respondent was to observe her department chairperson teach. On December 9, 1991, Dr. Lifton conducted a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to review her performance and job status. Dr. Lifton told Ms. Hymon that she needed to remediate her deficiencies in order to continue her employment. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Lifton on January 16, 1992. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, classroom management and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because very little of her lesson was covered. Her lesson contained three objectives but only covered one. The students could have completed more than the one activity during the 35 minutes. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because of wasted time in starting the class and during the lesson. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because she did not encourage students who responded poorly or who were having difficulty. She did not give assistance to students who made incorrect responses. She did not solicit involvement from students who did not participate, but only called on the students who were not having difficulty. Out of 21 students, 11 were not called upon, while one was called upon eight times. Respondent was prescribed activities in an attempt to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies. She was to prepare a checklist of objectives for every lesson and to check off all those that were covered. She was to develop a system of distributing papers, books, and materials so that less time would be spent doing these ministerial tasks. She was to observe another teacher's class for techniques and strategies to involve all students in class activities. Another external review was conducted on March 5, 1992, by Dr. Lifton and Marguerite Radencich, the district's reading supervisor. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory by both observers in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because while presenting a lesson on the vocabulary words "desire," "crave," and "require," Respondent gave the same definition for two of the words, thereby confusing students. Moreover, the examples she gave could have applied to more than one of the words, further confusing the students. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because while preparing the students for the Stanford Achievement Tests (SAT), she used a worksheet in which the reading level was too high for the students so they did not understand the humor in the story. In addition, the worksheet was not a timed exercise and was not multiple choice, as is the SAT. Respondent was prescribed help in an attempt to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies. She was to research and write strategies for teaching vocabulary words. She was to identify them on her lesson plans and to monitor them. She was to meet with the grade level chairperson to review SAT preparation techniques. She was to meet with the grade department chairperson to review the next two weeks of the basal reader lessons and to write out sequencing of lesson components in her lesson plans. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1991/92 school year was unacceptable. On June 17, 1992, Dr. Lifton held a conference-for-the-record with Ms. Hymon. They reviewed her unsatisfactory teaching performance, and the fact that she had filed 108 accident reports that year for students she was assigned to supervise. Respondent was given an end-of-the-year prescription and was given directives to maintain a safe learning environment in her classroom and to employ preventive strategies to decrease the number of class-related injuries. On numerous occasions throughout Respondent's employment, she was informally observed by various administrators to have the same or similar deficiencies which were observed during the formal observations. There were times when things went well and other times when her teaching was poor. She was subject to mood swings. She was observed with her head down in the classroom. At times she sat in the dark with her hands folded and appeared upset; on occasion, she was too angry to teach. Respondent would have to go to the teachers' lounge to lie down and sometimes her husband was called to calm her down. This called him away from his duties as a Dade County public school teacher. When Ms. Hymon had lapses of emotional stability, she felt unable to manage life, was very anxious and excitable. During the last 4-5 years, she has called her therapist about five times from school while she was experiencing an emotional lapse, so that she and her therapist could "talk it out." Based on her conduct when viewed as a whole, she has failed to teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction. She used isolated worksheets as the basis for her teaching. The worksheets were not developmentally appropriate for young children. She did not use the basal reader approved by the School Board, which is a developmental reading series. She was not following the School Board's curriculum. Respondent failed to communicate with and relate to the students in her class to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimally acceptable educational experience. When she had her head down or was experiencing mood swings, she was not fulfilling her duties as a teacher. If she became upset in the morning, she would not calm down for the rest of the day. When she was teaching, the students were generally not actively involved in the learning. The subsequent teachers for her students had to pay "catch up" with them. In spite of Respondent's emotional instability, there were days when she was observed to present an adequate lesson. The bad days, however, outnumbered the good days. Her students cannot be required to suffer while Respondent is attempting to overcome her emotional problems. Respondent's behavior in dealing with parents, students, staff members and members of the community did not reflect credit upon herself and the school system. Her behavior indicated that she did not value the worth and dignity of every person. She did not exercise good professional judgment. She failed to maintain the respect and confidence of her colleagues, students, parents, and members of the community. She did not make a reasonable effort to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning, health or safety. She subjected students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Respondent was offered a position as a paraprofessional so that she could maintain a job and fringe benefits while she undergoes treatment. She would have aided a teacher and would not have been responsible for a class. Respondent declined the offer, however. On August 19, 1992, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings against her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining Ms. Hymon's suspension without pay and dismissing her from employment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of March 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 31st day of March 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5531 The following are my rulings on proposed findings filed by the parties, as required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1991). Rulings on findings proposed by the School Board: After careful review of my notes from the hearing, I find that the proposed findings of the School Board closely comport with my view of the evidence. Consequently, all findings proposed by the School Board have, essentially, been adopted, though they have been edited. Rulings on findings proposed by Ms. Hymon: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1. Rejected as unneccessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1. Implicit in Finding 11, 20 and 27. The first year she received an unacceptable annual evaluation was in the 1990/91 school year, although her performance was not actually acceptable in the 1989/90 school year for the reasons stated in Finding 27. Adopted with the explanation found in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 45 and 63. This Finding is made in several Findings of Fact, and had its beginning early in her period of employment, see Finding 2. Generally adopted in Findings 65 and 66. Adopted in Finding 2, although the nature and the significance of the medication is not clear from the record made. The predominate form of dealing with her problem was counseling. Rejected as not relevant. Although I believe that Respondent did attempt to perform her duties, the question is whether her teaching was adequate, not whether she tried to teach. Adopted in Findings 28 through 66, although her performance in the 1989/90 school year was not actually acceptable, although she received an acceptable evaluation, see Findings 21 through 27. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Attorney for Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 William du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132
