The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed or otherwise disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Miami-Dade County School Board's Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board, Respondent, and his Supervisors The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida, including Gertrude K. Edlelman/Sabal Palm Elementary School (Sabal Palm), Miami Norland Senior High School (Norland), and North Miami Senior High School (North Miami). The principals of these schools have ultimate supervisory authority over all School Board employees assigned to their schools, including custodial employees. Raul Gutierrez is now, and has been for the past three years, the principal of Sabal Palm. Mr. Gutierrez succeeded Gertrude Edelman, after whom the school is now named. Mr. Gutierrez had served as an assistant principal at the school under Ms. Edelman for five years before he became the school's principal. Selma McKeller is now, and has been for the past 11 years, the head custodian at Sabal Palm, having supervisory authority over all other members of the school's custodial staff. Willie Turner is now, and has been for the past four years, the principal of Norland. Gladys Hudson was an assistant principal at Norland during the 2002-2003 school year. Among her responsibilities was to oversee the school's entire custodial staff, including the head and lead custodians. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since March of 1989. Respondent was initially hired as a custodian and assigned to Sabal Palm. In August 1998, while still assigned to Sabal Palm, Respondent was promoted to his present position, lead custodian, which is a supervisory position. Respondent remained at Sabal Palm until August 2002, when he was placed on "alternate assignment" at Norland, where he worked under the direct supervision of the school's lead custodian, Leaford Harris. In December 2002, Respondent was placed on "alternate assignment" at North Miami. The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a lead custodian employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME) and, at all times material to the instant case, has been covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (AFSCME Contract). Article II of the AFSCME Contract is the contract's "[r]ecognition" article. Section 3 of Article II provides as follows: The provisions of this Contract are not to be interpreted in any way or manner to change, amend, modify, or in any other way delimit the exclusive authority of the School Board and the Superintendent for the management of the total school system and any part of the school system. It is expressly understood and agreed that all rights and responsibilities of the School Board and Superintendent, as established now and through subsequent amendment or revision by constitutional provision, state and federal statutes, state regulations, and School Board Rules, shall continue to be exercised exclusively by the School Board and the Superintendent without prior notice or negotiations with AFSCME, Local 1184, except as specifically and explicitly provided for by the stated terms of this Contract. Such rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, by way of limitation, include the following: (1) selection and promotion of employees; (2) separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; and (3) the designation of the organizational structure of the MDCPS and the lines of administrative authority of MDCPS. It is understood and agreed that management possesses the sole right, duty, and responsibility for operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following: Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; Direct the work force; Hire, assign, and transfer employees; Determine the missions of the Board agencies; Determine the methods, means, and number of personnel needed or desirable for carrying out the Board's missions; Introduce new or improved methods or facilities; Change existing methods or facilities; Relieve employees because of lack of work; I. Contract out for goods or services; and J. Such other rights, normally consistent with management's duty and responsibility for operation of the Board's services, provided, however, that the exercise of such rights does not preclude the Union from conferring about the practical consequences that decisions may have on terms and conditions of employment. Definitions are set forth in Article V of the AFSCME Contract. They include the following: * * * Section 17. Working Hours-- Those specified hours when employees are expected to be present and performing assigned duties. Section 18. Workday-- The total number of hours an employee is expected to be present and performing assigned duties. * * * Section 27. Unauthorized Absence-- Any absence without pay which has not been requested by the employee and approved by the supervisor, in writing, at least five days in advance. Employees are required to notify the work location, prior to the beginning of the workday, when they are unable to report to work or intend to be absent. Absences of the employee, where notice of absence is made prior to the start of the workday, but are not covered by the employee having accrued sick or personal leave, shall be charged as unauthorized absence and may result in disciplinary action in accordance with Article XI. Upon the employee reporting back to work, the employee shall be apprised of the unauthorized leave status; however, if the employee can demonstrate that there were extenuating circumstances (e.g., hospitalization or other unanticipated emergency), then consideration will be given to changing the status of leave. The work location supervisor has the authority to change an unauthorized leave; however, nothing herein precludes requested leave being determined to be unauthorized where the employee does not have available sick or sufficient personal leave. Section 4A of Article IX of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "[n]ewly-[h]ired [e]mployees." It provides as follows: Newly-hired employees in the bargaining unit (except temporary, hourly, or substitute employees) shall be considered probationary for the first three calendar months; thereafter, they shall be considered annual employees, subject to annual reappointment. During such probationary period, employees may be terminated without recourse under this Contract. If, at any time during the probationary period, the newly-hired employee's performance is considered unacceptable, the probationary employee shall be terminated. Section 13 of Article IX of the AFSCME Contract discusses the School Board's Employee Assistance Program. It provides as follows: AFSCME, Local 1184 and the Board recognize that a wide range of problems not directly associated with an employee's job function can have an effect on an employee's job performance and/or attendance. AFSCME, Local 1184 and the Board agree that assistance will be provided to all employees through the establishment of an Employee Assistance Program. The Employee Assistance Program is intended to help employees and their families who are suffering from such persistent problems as may tend to jeopardize an employee's health and continued employment. The program goal is to help individuals who develop such problems by providing for consultation, treatment, and rehabilitation to prevent their condition from progressing to a degree which will prevent them from working effectively. Appropriate measures will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of records for any person admitted to the program, according to established personnel guidelines and federal regulations. The Guidelines for the Employee Assistance Program, by reference, are made a part of this Contract. Employee Rights: Job security will not be jeopardized by referral to the Employee Assistance Program, whether the referral is considered a voluntary referral in which an employee elects to participate in the program, or a supervisory referral in which a supervisor uses adopted guidelines to refer an employee into the program. An employee has the right to refuse referral into the program and may discontinue participation at any time. Failure by an employee to accept referral or continue treatment will be considered in the same manner as any factor that continues to affect job performance adversely. Article XI of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "[d]isciplinary [a]ction." Section 1 of Article XI is entitled, "Due Process," and it provides as follows: Unit members are accountable for their individual levels of productivity, implementing the duties of their positions, and rendering efficient, effective delivery of services and support. Whenever an employee renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the deficiency or rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline steps should be followed, however in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee[']s record. Therefore, disciplinary steps may include: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); Letter of reprimand; Suspension/demotion; and Dismissal. A Conference-for-the-Record shall be held when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated investigation to determine if formal disciplinary action should be taken (i.e., letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or dismissal). A Conference-for- the-Record in and of itself shall not be considered disciplinary. The parties agree that discharge is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee's job, seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME, Local 1184 bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. The employee shall have the right to Union representation in Conferences-for-the- Record held pursuant to this Article. Such a conference shall include any meeting where disciplinary action will be initiated. The employee shall be given two days' notice and a statement for the reason for any Conference-for-the-Record, as defined above, except in cases deemed to be an emergency. A maximum of two Union representatives may be present at a Conference-for-the Record. The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notice of suspension, dismissal, or other actions appealable under this Section) against an employee in this bargaining unit. Section 2 of Article XI is entitled, "Dismissal, Suspension, Reduction-in-Grade," and it provides as follows: Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer or through the grievance/arbitration process as set forth in Article VII of the Contract. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action and to select the method of appeal. If the employee when appealing the Board action, does not select the grievance/arbitration process as set forth in Article VII of the Contract the Board shall appoint an impartial Hearing Officer, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the Hearing Officer shall present the findings. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and reductions-in-grade. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal or suspension, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or reduction-in-grade. Non-reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Section 3 of Article XI is entitled, "Cause for Suspension," and it provides as follows: In those cases where any employee has not complied with Board policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent. Section 4 of Article XI describes the "[t]ypes of [s]eparation." It provides in pertinent part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any of four [sic] distinct types of separation. Voluntary-- . . . . Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling ten or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence. Disciplinary-- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. Non-reappointment-- . . . . AFSCME, Local 1184 bargaining unit members employed by the school district in excess of five years shall not be subject to non- reappointment. Such employee may only be discharged for just cause. Layoff-- . . . . Section 6 of Article XI addresses the subject of "[p]ersonnel [f]iles," and it provides as follows: A. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 231.291 Personnel Files - Public school system employee personnel files shall be maintained according to the following provisions: Except for materials pertaining to work performance or such other matters that may be cause for discipline, suspension, or dismissal under laws of this state, no derogatory materials relating to an employee's conduct, service, character, or personality shall be placed in the personnel file of such employee. Materials relating to work performance, discipline, suspension, or dismissal must be reduced to writing and signed by a person competent to know the facts or make the judgment. No such materials may be placed in a personnel file, unless they have been reduced to writing within 45 calendar days, exclusive of the summer vacation period, of the school system's administration becoming aware of the facts reflected in the materials. The employee shall have the right to answer any material filed hereafter in his/her personnel file and the answer, if submitted, shall be attached to the file copy. No anonymous letter or material shall be placed in an employee's personnel file. The validity of items of a derogatory nature placed in an employee's personnel file shall be subject to the grievance procedure. There shall be no statements placed in an employee's personnel file unless the employee has been given a copy. Upon request, the employee, or any person designated in writing by the employee, shall be permitted to examine the personnel file. The employee shall be permitted, conveniently, to reproduce any materials in the file, at a cost no greater tha[n] five cents per page. Such request should be made to the custodian of a personnel file, who shall permit examination of the records at reasonable times, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision of the custodian of the record. The custodian of the record shall maintain a record in the file of those persons reviewing the file each time it is reviewed. "Personnel [i]nvestigations" are the subject of Section 7 of Article XI, which provides as follows: The Board shall take steps to ascertain the identity of the complainant, prior to authorization of an investigation. No investigation of an allegation against an employee shall be made on the basis of an anonymous complaint. In the event of allegations and/or complaints being made against any employee, an investigation which may result in information being placed in the employee's personnel file shall not be concluded by the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Police (MDCPSP) or any person prior to the time that the employee receives identification of the complainant and the nature of the complaint. In all Board investigations which may lead to suspension or dismissal of an employee, only the Superintendent or his/her designee may authorize such an investigation. When a formal investigation has been authorized, all personnel involved will be advised by the MDCPSP investigator of their legal rights, and the procedures available to them for representation. Information that is not substantiated will not be used for disciplinary action against the employee. In all Board investigations resulting in discipline, the employee shall be provided with a copy of the report. With the permission of the employee, the Union shall also receive a copy. When investigatory reports are provided, said reports shall be transmitted within a timeframe consistent and harmonious with basic due process. In all cases in which the preliminary investigation is concluded, with the finding that there is no probable cause to proceed further and no disciplinary action taken or charges filed, a statement to that effect signed by the responsible investigation official shall be attached to the complaint and the complaint and all such materials shall be open, thereafter, to inspection. Where allegations have not been proven against an employee, no reprisal or punitive action shall be taken against an employee. Pertinent School Board Rules As a School Board employee, Respondent is obligated to act in accordance with School Board rules and regulations,1 including School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.08 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08 is a "[g]eneral [p]ersonnel [p]olicy [s]tatement" regarding "[v]iolence in the [w]orkplace." It provides as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but it is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public Schools employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or the threat of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. September 1989 Investigation In September of 1989, Respondent was the subject of an investigation conducted by what was then referred to as the School Board's Special Investigative Unit (S.I.U.). The investigation culminated in an investigative report being issued on September 27, 1989 (in S.I.U. Case No. T1684). The report was written by Detective Sergeant Miriam McNeil-Green and read as follows: Allegation: On Wednesday, 09-13-89, Steven S. Newbold was arrested at Northwest 191 Street and 37 Avenue at 11:50 p.m. for driving with a suspended license, citation #55136-IR. The above allegation was reported to central S.I.U. office on September 14, 1989, by Sergeant Rudolf, Metro-Dade Police shift commander. Mr. Henry Hortsmann, Director, Office of Professional Standards, authorized a records check on September 14, 1989. I [Detective Sergeant McNeil-Green] responded to Metro-Dade headquarters building on September 20, 1989, in reference to the above offense. However, the traffic offense was not on file. I went to the Metro-Dade justice building, traffic division and was given a copy of the printout for the arrest of Steven Spencer Newbold. A copy of the printout is attached to this report. The arraignment date will be set. While at Metro-Dade headquarters building it was discovered that Steven Newbold has a felony and misdemeanor past as follows: On 02-24-88, Steven Newbold was arrested at Northwest 22 Avenue and 90 Street, Miami, Fl. 33142, for (1) No valid drivers license; (2) Driving with license suspended; (3) Grand theft auto; (4) Possession of marijuana (11 grams). On March 16, 1988, Newbold pled guilty to possession of marijuana. Adjudication was withheld and Newbold was placed on probation for one year. On March 16, 1988, Newbold pled nolo contendere to one count of grand theft auto and was placed on one year probation. Certified copies are attached. On May 11, 1988, Steven S. Newbold was arrested at 1461 N. W. 60 Street, apt. #5, Miami, Fl. 33141 for trespassing of structure. On July 14, 1988, Newbold pled guilty and was fined $78.75. Certified copies are attached. Vault information: Steven Spencer Newbold was hired on 03-22-89 as a custodian at Sabal Palm Elementary. On his application for employment, Mr. Newbold stated he had never been arrested. Conclusion: The allegation against Steven S. Newbold is substantiated, [in that] he was arrested on September 13, 1989 for a traffic offense. He also falsified his employment application by stating he had not been arrested. On October 1, 1990, Henry Horstmann, the director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards referred to in the investigative report, authored a memorandum concerning the report for placement in Respondent's personnel file. The memorandum read as follows: SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF INVESTIGATIVE
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating his employment with the School Board pursuant Article XI of the AFSCME Contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 13th day of August, 2004.
The Issue Whether the Early Learning Coalition of Duval (ELC of Duval) is a state agency as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes, and whether the quality improvement rating system identified in Petitioner's Amended Petition is an agency statement that constitutes an unadopted rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Association for Child Care Management, Inc. (FACCM) is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which serves as a trade organization of private child care facilities. Respondent, AWI, is the state agency that has the authority and obligations relating to school readiness programs as set forth in Section 411.01, Florida Statutes, and applicable federal law. Respondent, ELC of Duval, is an early learning coalition as that term is applied in Section 411.01, Florida Statutes. The School Readiness Act The Florida Legislature passed the School Readiness Act in 1999. The Act, codified at Section 411.01, Florida Statutes, required the creation of local school readiness coalitions with the goal of ensuring that children are eager to learn and ready to succeed when they enter kindergarten. The Act is directed toward at-risk children in the State. The following portions of Section 411.01, Florida Statutes, provide part of the framework for the school readiness programs in Florida: (2)(a) . . . Each school readiness program shall provide the elements necessary to prepare at-risk children for school, including health screening and referral and an appropriate educational program. * * * (d) It is the intent of the Legislature that the administrative staff at the state level for school readiness programs be kept to the minimum necessary to administer the duties of the Agency for Workforce Innovation, as the school readiness programs are to be regionally designed, operated, and managed, with the Agency for Workforce Innovation developing school readiness program performance standards and outcome measures and approving and reviewing early learning coalitions and school readiness plans. * * * (g) It is the intent of the Legislature that the federal child care income tax credit be preserved for school readiness programs. The administration of the school readiness programs was moved to AWI in 2001. The Agency now oversees the coalitions operating school readiness programs throughout the state, and is considered, for purposes of the administration of the federal Child Care and Development Fund, 45 C.F.R. parts 98 and 99, the lead agency for the State of Florida. The Agency's responsibilities with respect to school readiness programs include coordinating birth-to-kindergarten services for eligible children, as well as the programmatic, administrative and fiscal standards for all public providers of school readiness programs; providing leadership for school readiness through early learning coalitions; responsibility for prudent use of all public and private funds in accordance with all legal and contractual requirements; providing final approval and periodic review of early learning coalitions and school readiness plans; providing technical assistance to early learning coalitions; and developing and adopting performance standards and outcome measures for school readiness programs, which must address age-appropriate progress of children regarding school readiness skills and must be integrated with performance standards adopted by the Department of Education in the Voluntary Prekindergarten Education Program. See generally § 411.01(4), Fla. Stat. The Legislature has granted authority to the Agency to adopt rules with respect to the preparation and implementation of the school readiness system, the collection of data, the approval of early learning coalitions and school readiness plans, the provision of a method by which more than one county may be served by an early learning coalition, the award of incentives to early learning coalitions and the issuance of waivers. As of the date of hearing in this case, there are no rules adopted by the Agency regarding the approval of school readiness plans or performance standards and outcome measures for school readiness programs. Early Learning Coalitions and School Readiness Plans Services for at-risk children are furnished through child-care providers such as pre-schools. School readiness programs provide, through early learning coalitions, tuition vouchers to the parents of eligible children, and the parents use the vouchers to enroll their children with a provider. Priority for participation is afforded to children served by the Family Safety Program Office of the Department of Children and Family Services or a community-based lead agency under Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, and for whom child care is needed to minimize the risk of further abuse, neglect or abandonment. Section 411.01, Florida Statutes, authorizes a series of early learning coalitions throughout Florida to administer school readiness programs at the local level. The law contemplates 30 or fewer coalitions to be established, and requires that each one serve at least 2,000 children based upon the average of all children served per month through the program during the previous 12 months. Multi-county coalitions generally are established when a learning coalition would serve fewer than 2,000 children as described above. At present, there are 31 early learning coalitions in the State of Florida.1/ There are 12 coalitions that serve more than one county. Respondent ELC of Duval operates only in Duval County. It does not have the authority to act outside the bounds of Duval County, and has no rulemaking authority. Whether an early learning coalition serves one county or multiple counties, it is composed of 18-35 members, with the chair and two other members being appointed by the governor. In addition, each early learning coalition must include a Department of Children and Family Services district administrator or designee; a district superintendent of schools or designee; a regional workforce board executive director or designee; a county health department director or designee; a children's services council or juvenile welfare board chair or executive director, if applicable; an agency head of a local licensing agency as defined in Section 401.302, Florida Statutes, if applicable; a president of a community college or designee; a member appointed by a board of county commissioners; a central agency administrator, where applicable; a Head Start director; a representative of private child-care providers, including family day care homes; a representative of faith-based child-care providers; and a representative of programs for children with disabilities under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act. The last five categories of members are non-voting members. ELC of Duval was incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation in 2000. It provides school readiness services pursuant to a grant agreement entered into with the AWI and is considered an independent contractor. Under the grant agreement and in accordance with the provisions of Section 411.01, ELC of Duval must submit a school readiness plan detailing how the coalition will meet state and federal requirements for school readiness programs, including the implementation of quality initiatives. The AWI may suspend or terminate its agreement with the ELC of Duval, as it can with any early learning coalition, if it fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement. The grant agreement provides in pertinent part: In the Coalition's performance of its duties and responsibilities under the Agreement, it is mutually understood and agreed that the Coalition is at all times acting and performing as an independent contractor and not a division or subpart of the [Agency]. The [Agency] shall neither have nor exercise any control or direction over the methods by which the Coalition shall perform its functions other than as provided herein and in law. Nothing in the Agreement is intended to or shall be deemed to constitute a partnership or joint venture between the parties. Early learning centers operating in Duval County are not required to participate in any program or receive any funding from ELC of Duval to legally operate as an early learning center in Duval County. In fact, Section 411.01(4)(g), Florida Statutes, prohibits the Agency from imposing requirements on a child care or early childhood education provider that does not deliver services under a school readiness program or receive state or federal funds pursuant to Section 411.01. Participation in school readiness programs is voluntary. Payments for school readiness services are made by a transfer of funds from the ELC of Duval to legally operating school readiness providers that have entered into a negotiated service agreement with the coalition. In other words, while participation is voluntary, early learning centers wishing to participate must sign a contract saying that they will abide by certain minimal quality standards. There is, however, no requirement that any early learning center accept children requiring subsidies to pay for attendance as a condition of operating an early learning center in Duval County. There are between 500 and 600 preschools in Duval County, including family childcare homes. Of those, approximately 315 have contracts with the ELC of Duval to accept school readiness children. Approximately 7,500 children in Duval County receive school readiness subsidies. There are approximately 2,000 additional children on a waiting list for school readiness subsidies. One of ELC of Duval's obligations, under both its grant agreement and the terms of Section 411.01, is to submit a plan for implementing its school readiness program to the AWI for approval. The plan must demonstrate how the program will ensure that each 3 and 4-year-old in a publicly funded school readiness program receives scheduled activities and instruction designed to enhance the age-related appropriate progress of the children in performing the performance standards adopted by the Agency. The plan must also include a single point of entry and unified waiting list, which is part of a statewide information system established by the Agency. The plan must include developmentally appropriate curriculum designed to enhance the progress of the child; a character development program to develop basic values; an age-appropriate assessment of each child's development; a pretest administered when children enter the program and a posttest when they leave; an appropriate staff-to- children ratio; a healthy and safe environment; and a resource and referral network to assist parents in making an informed choice of a learning center for their children. An early learning coalition may not implement its school readiness plan until the Agency has approved it. Plans must also be reviewed by the Agency at least annually. The early learning coalition must review and revise the plans as necessary, at least biennially.2/ Revisions to the plan cannot be implemented until approved by the Agency. § 411.01(5)(d), Fla. Stat. The Agency has been given the authority to adopt rules related to the approval of early learning coalitions and school readiness plans. It has been directed to adopt criteria for the adoption of school readiness plans consistent with the performance standards and outcome measures adopted by the Agency and must require each approved plan to include certain minimum standards related to a sliding fee scale based upon ability to pay; a choice of settings and locations to be provided to parents; instructional staff with certain delineated training; specific eligibility priorities; performance standards and outcome measures; payment rates adopted by the early learning coalition and approved by AWI; certain delineated system support services and direct enhancement services to families and children; the early learning coalition's business organization; and strategies to meet the needs of unique populations, such as migrant workers. In the absence of a rule, AWI has provided to the early learning coalitions a "guidance document" for submitting their school readiness plans, entitled the Early Learning Coalition Guidance and Instruction Workbook (Workbook). This Workbook was developed at least by 2006. The Workbook was used by ELC of Duval in preparing its plan for approval by AWI. The ELC of Duval submitted its school readiness plan on July 22, 2006. This plan was approved by the Agency. ELC of Duval submitted amendments to the 2006 plan in early 2008. These amendments were approved by the Agency via letter dated March 6, 2008. Funding for Early Learning Programs In addition to the program components outlined above, both AWI and early learning coalitions must be mindful of the spending allocations outlined in federal regulations. School readiness programs administered by the early learning coalitions are funded by a combination of state and local funds. The federal portion of the school readiness funding comes from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 45 C.F.R. § 98.50 describes the required funding allocations for child care services related to school readiness programs: § 98.50 Child Care Services. Of the funds remaining after applying the provisions of paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of this section the Lead Agency shall spend a substantial portion to provide child care services to low-income working families. * * * Of the aggregate amount of funds expended (i.e., Discretionary, Mandatory, and Federal and State Share of Matching Funds), no less than four percent shall be used for activities to improve the quality of child care as described at §98.51. Of the aggregate amount of funds expended (i.e., Discretionary, Mandatory, and Federal and State share of Matching Funds), no more than five percent may be used for administrative activities as described in § 98.52. Not less than 70 percent of the Mandatory and Matching Funds shall be used to meet the child care needs of families who: Are receiving assistance under a State program under Part A of title IV of the Social Security Act, Are attempting through work activities to transition off such assistance program, and Are at risk of becoming dependent on such assistance program. 45 C.F.R. § 98.51 further describes quality activities: No less than four percent of the aggregate funds expended by the Lead Agency for a fiscal year, including the amounts expended in the State pursuant to §98.53(b), shall be expended for quality activities. These activities may include but are not limited to: Activities designed to provide comprehensive consumer education to parents and the public; Activities that increase parental choice; and Activities designed to improve the quality and availability of child care, including, but not limited to those described in paragraph (2) of this section. Activities to improve the quality of child care services may include, but are not limited to: Operating directly or providing financial assistance to organizations (including private non-profit organizations, public organizations, and units of general purpose local government) for the development, establishment, expansion, operation and coordination of resource and referral programs specifically related to child care; Making grants or providing loans to child care providers to assist such providers in meeting applicable State, local, and tribal child care standards, including applicable health and safety requirements, pursuant to §§ 98.40 and 98.41; Improving the monitoring of compliance with, and enforcement of, applicable State, local and tribal requirements, pursuant to §§98.40 and 98.41; Providing training and technical assistance in areas appropriate to the provision of child care services, such as training in health and safety, nutrition, first aid, the recognition of communicable diseases, child abuse detection and prevention, and care of children with special needs; Improving salaries and other compensation (such as fringe benefits) for full-and part-time staff who provide child care services for which assistance is provided under this part; and Any other activities that are consistent with the intent of this section. Development of the Quality Rating Improvement System In 2002, the ELC of Duval began discussions on how to best improve its school readiness program through the expenditure of "quality activity" funds contemplated by 45 C.F.R. §98.51. In September 2002, it began work on a quality rating system for school readiness programs operating in Duval County. The purpose of the quality rating system was to assist early learning centers providing school readiness services through contracts with ELC of Duval in improving their programs and to assist parents in selecting quality care for their children. The quality rating system was developed through two pilot programs. The initial pilot program involved 14 volunteer early learning centers. The second year pilot program, which began in 2005 and lasted until 2007, involved 100 centers. Participants for this portion of the pilot were taken from sites located in the boundaries of elementary schools where 75 percent or more of the children were on free or reduced lunch programs, and the site indicated a willingness to participate. The quality rating system was fully implemented in November 2007 and currently has 96 early learning centers participating in Guiding Stars. Seventy-two of the 100 centers in the second year pilot have graduated or exited the program. As will be discussed more fully below, the name of the program was changed in early 2008 to the Quality Rating Improvement System (QRIS). Phase I of the current program is called "Quality Connections." This phase involves an environmental assessment of the early learning center based upon rating scales referred to as ITERS (Infant/Toddler Environmental Rating Scale) and ECERS (Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale). The purpose of this phase is to determine the environmental needs of the provider and to determine whether the provider is ready for Phase II, which is known as the "Guiding Stars." Notably, assessment using ITERS and ECERS is required of all providers accepting school readiness children, and is not a requirement unique to the QRIS. There are presently 110 school readiness providers in Phase I. These providers receive grants from the ELC of Duval for books, materials, and equipment as indicated in the ITERS and ECERS assessments. If a participant receives a score of three (out of five) on the environmental assessments, then they are eligible to participate in Guiding Stars. Phase II is the portion of the QRIS that has 96 participants. However, Phase II envisions a two-year window of participation, and not all participants start on the same schedule. There was no testimony presented that any early learning center had completed Phase I and was denied entrance in Phase II for want of a slot. Based on the assessment in Phase I, the ELC of Duval assists the provider by supplying technical assistance support for up to two years. Technical assistance can include classroom assessments by trained evaluators, development of an action plan to address areas identified as needing improvement, training for staff members, educational stipends and scholarships, and wage incentives. Once the provider has had an opportunity to improve any shortcomings identified in the initial assessment, it is evaluated by a team of early learning professionals based on factors such as: a) the quality of a provider's facility; b) the quality of the educational environment at the provider's facility; c) the ratio of staff to children; d) the qualifications of the provider's staff members; e) the quality of the curriculum; and f) parental/family involvement with the children's learning and development. After the evaluation team has completed its assessment, a provider receives one to five stars, and each star represents an increasing level of quality. Once a child-care provider has received a star rating, it is considered to be an "exited" provider and receives a maintenance support plan which may include, but is not limited to quarterly contacts by the Guiding Stars program manager; on-site training opportunities and technical assistance for directors and teachers; educational scholarships for the professional development and continuing education of staff members; recognition through the Child Care Resource and Referral Network and the Northeast Florida Early Care and Education Guide; curriculum support; staff training; mini-grants to enhance program development; and wage incentives for staff. A significant amount of evidence was presented regarding the funding of the Guiding Stars program. In compliance with the federal requirements in 45 C.F.R. § 98.50, ELC of Duval allocates approximately 80 percent of its funds for child care slots (as opposed to the 70 percent required for this purpose). ELC of Duval devotes approximately 9 percent to quality enhancement activities, including the Guiding Stars program. The funding for services provided to exited centers comes from a combination of state, federal and private sources. While "quality dollars" from CCDF are used to finance the program, the majority of the funding (approximately $3.5 million) comes from the Mayor of Jacksonville's Early Literacy Initiative. The Guiding Stars program also receives significant funding from private sources, including the Rice Foundation and Blue Cross-Blue Shield. Early learning centers that participate in ELC of Duval's school readiness program are qualified to participate in the Guiding Stars program, but are not required to do so. There is no cost to early learning centers that accept children attending school readiness programs under tuition subsidies to participate in the Guiding Stars programs. Every early learning center who has a signed provider agreement with ELC of Duval receives the same amount of subsidy per eligible child whether or not they participate in the Guiding Stars program. Information regarding the rating received by participants in the program is available to parents seeking placement for their children. Reference to the Guiding Stars ratings is a way for parents to assess the provider's commitment to quality, and the program is featured in some of ELC of Duval's promotional materials. Description of quality activities and services is required in an early learning coalition's school readiness plan submitted to and approved by AWI. Reference to ELC of Duval's QRIS is included in "Section 5: Quality Activities and Services. The ELC of Duval could not have implemented the QRIS program unless some description of the program was included in the school readiness plan. The school readiness plan submitted by the Early Learning Coalition of Duval in 2006 did not contain documentation on the Guiding Stars Program itself. It did reference the program under the following categories in the School Readiness Plan (consistent with the format required by the Early Learning Coalition Guidance and Instruction Workbook): 1.92 (Evaluation Plan); 2.5 (Collaboration and Coordination of Services with Other Entities); and 3.4 (Parent Involvement and Skill Building). More substantial information is provided in Section 5 (Quality Activities and Services). When ELC of Duval decided to change the description of the program from a quality rating system to a quality rating improvement system, it submitted amendments to its school readiness plan to reflect the change. These amendments are included in the submission referred to in paragraph 26, above. The ELC of Duval's plan amendment likewise did not incorporate the actual workings or substance of the QRIS. It did not submit the material identified as an agency statement attached to the Amended Petition in this case. Brittany Birken, Director of the Office of Early Learning for the AWI, did not review the QRIS or Guiding Stars program as a part of the review of ELC of Duval's early learning readiness plan. On behalf of the Agency, she reviewed ELC of Duval's school readiness plan to make sure that it complied with federal and state law requirements that at least four percent of identified funding was being spent on appropriate quality activities. AWI determined that the wage incentives, technical assistance and professional development proposed through the QRIS were consistent with federal requirements for quality activities. AWI approved the ELC of Duval's school readiness plan. It did not approve the QRIS or endorse it. Standing The Florida Association for Child Care Management is a not-for-profit corporation that functions as a trade association for approximately 2,500 private child-care providers in Florida. It monitors legislation and provides lobbying services on behalf its members before both the executive and legislative branch. Ninety-three of its members are in the Duval county area. There was no indication of how many members receive children using vouchers via the school readiness program. However, thirty-three members participate in the Guiding Stars program. Two of the board members for FACCM own preschools in Duval County. In the one meeting called to discuss the challenge to the Guiding Stars program, approximately 20 to 25 members attended. There was no evidence presented to indicate how many of those in attendance supported the challenge in this case. With regard to its standing to initiate the challenge in this proceeding, FACCM alleged that a substantial number of FACCM members are substantially affected by the QRIS, which they claim is an unadopted rule, because only providers who participate in the Guiding Stars program are entitled to the benefits of the program; the star ratings are publicized as an indication of the quality of a program, and providers face increased costs to achieve higher star ratings. The Executive Director for FACCM testified that FACCM members are substantially affected by Guiding Stars because a) the funding of the Guiding Stars program reduces the funding that would otherwise be available for school readiness programs operated by FACCM members; b) providers who do not participate in the program are denied positive public promotion by ELC of Duval, mini-grants, educational scholarships and wage incentives for staff; c) the Guiding Stars program imposes additional regulatory costs on FACCM members; d) some providers are not eligible to participate in the Guiding Stars program even though they operate school readiness programs in Duval County; and e) the Guiding Stars program determines the level of benefits a participating member may receive. Only one child care program owner testified regarding participation (or lack thereof) in the program. Carol Moore is the owner/director of the Learning Tree Schools of Jacksonville. There are two locations: Fort Caroline and Hidden Hills. Both schools are in the Arlington area of Jacksonville. The Fort Caroline School has 160 preschool children, with 22 of them receiving subsidies. Hidden Hills has 80 preschool children, with 4 children receiving subsidies. At the time of hearing, both schools were at full enrollment with a wait list of about a year. Ms. Moore testified that she was visited by representatives from ELC of Duval in November or December 2007 regarding possible participation in the Guiding Stars program. She testified that sometime soon after the visit she was informed that only one of two schools could be accepted into the program. However, she could not identify who made this statement, when it was made or any reason provided for such a statement. Ms. Moore admitted that she never formally applied to participate in the program and never received any type of rejection in writing. She also indicated that things have changed since the time ELC of Duval representatives visited her program. Ms. Moore was only interested in being in the program if she could obtain a five-star rating. To do so, she claimed that she might be required to purchase an additional piece of playground equipment, although the type and price was not identified. Once again, she did not identify who told her such equipment would be required, and no documentation was produced. Indeed, Ms. Moore admitted that there was no regulatory cost to participate in the program, but "if you wanted to be a five-star school, yes, it's going to cost you some money." Ms. Moore has not suffered a decrease in enrollment or any other financial harm resulting from the existence of the program. As a program receiving subsidies for care, her schools are already assessed in terms of ITERS and ECERS, and her program is accredited as a Gold Seal Program through the Department of Children and Families. No other FACCM member was identified whose program had been denied participation in the Guiding Stars or who had suffered additional costs as a result of the program. The more credible evidence indicates that no provider accepting school readiness children has been denied access to participate in the Guiding Stars program. The program has sufficient capacity to serve current provider requests and ELC of Duval is attempting to recruit additional programs to participate. The ELC of Duval advertises the existence of the program encouraging additional child-care providers to enroll. Susan Main, the Executive Director for ELC of Duval, testified that she was unsure whether the program could accommodate all 315 child care programs accepting early readiness children if all of the programs wanted to participate in the program, and to do so would dilute the resources each program would receive. However, she believed that ELC of Duval would, in that instance, seek additional funding for the program. The more credible evidence indicates that the Guiding Stars program does not necessarily reduce the funding available for subsidies to school readiness children. ELC of Duval already exceeds the required level of funding for this component by ten percent. Much of the funding for Guiding Stars does not come from the funds received through AWI. There is no credible evidence from any witness in a decision to participate in decision-making that, absent the Guiding Stars program, funding would divert to providing additional subsidies. The more credible evidence indicates that providers who do not participate in the program choose not to participate. It cannot be said that they are denied promotion by ELC of Duval when they have declined participation in the program. Participation in the Guiding Stars program does not result in additional regulatory costs. The more credible evidence indicates that participation in the program results in additional funding being available to a child-care provider for improvements in the quality of its program. No credible evidence was presented indicating that there are programs that are not eligible for participation in the program. As noted above, the more credible evidence is that no program has been denied participation. Finally, Guiding Stars benefits are determined on a case by case basis, depending on the needs of the individual providers and the level of funding available. Petitioner has not established that it is substantially affected by the implementation of the Guiding Stars program by the ELC of Duval.
The Issue Petitioner Florida Education Association (FEA) filed a Petition to require Respondent Department of Education (DOE) to initiate rule-making and has challenged the validity of two documents issued by DOE, alleging that they are unpromulgated rules. The challenged documents are a January 22, 2001, memorandum to District Management Information System Coordinators and District Assessment Coordinators and a March 23, 2001, memorandum to District School Superintendents, regarding "Responsible Instructor--Reading, Writing, and Mathematics."
Findings Of Fact Petitioner FEA is an employee association representing over 100,000 Florida educators for collective bargaining, representation in administrative and legal proceedings, professional development, and political activity. Its standing to bring this challenge was stipulated. Two DOE memoranda are challenged herein as unpromulgated rules. It was stipulated that the memoranda were, in fact, disseminated to the recipients indicated on them. Their content is not at issue and is recited in Findings of Fact 23-25, infra. Petitioner's witnesses believe that teacher evaluations and compensation ultimately will be tied to student performance. A law is already in place providing for the award of bonuses to "outstanding" teachers, and efforts to implement evaluation of teachers based on student performance are underway in some school districts. Petitioner's witnesses have concluded that the challenged memoranda establish statewide criteria for identifying the "responsible instructor" for teacher (or educator) assessment, credit, and/or monetary rewards, and that the use of the "responsible instructor's" social security numbers will be subject to abuse of confidentiality. Petitioner's witnesses were unaware of rulemaking activities associated with amending Rule 6A-1.0014, Florida Administrative Code, in the year 2000 and were unfamiliar with the Rule itself. The Rule itself has not been challenged in this proceeding. The Commissioner of Education is charged with maintaining an integrated information system for educational management. Section 229.555(2), Florida Statutes. This is called the Comprehensive Management Information System. The system must collect data from school districts to determine student, school, and district performance, and to support management decisions at the departmental, district, and school levels. The Commissioner of Education's responsibilities include providing operational definitions for the proposed system (Section 229.555(2)(a)2., Florida Statutes), determining information and data elements required for management decisions (Section 229.555(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes) and developing standardized terminology and procedures. (Section 229.555(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes). Section 229.57, Florida Statutes, establishes the purpose, scope, and criteria of assessing student performance, and school and district accountability. The State Board of Education is authorized to adopt rules to administer the provisions of both laws. Sections 229.555(3) and 229.57, Florida Statutes. DOE's Bureau of Education, Information, and Accountability Services maintains the database established by Section 229.555, Florida Statutes. DOE has promulgated administrative rules to implement Section 229.555, Florida Statutes, which rules have been officially recognized for this proceeding. There is no DOE rule which, in and of itself, refers to "responsible instructor" or "responsible instructor data element." Those terms also are not specifically used anywhere in the Florida Statutes. Section 229.57(11)(e)1., Florida Statutes, was amended, effective upon becoming law in June 1999 (see Section 7, Session Law 99-398), to read: The statistical system shall use measures of student learning, such as the FCAT, to determine teacher, school and school district statistical distributions, which distributions: Shall be determined using available data from the FCAT, and other data collection as deemed appropriate by the Department of Education, to measure the differences in student prior year achievement against the current year achievement or lack thereof, such that the "effects" of instruction to a student by a teacher, school, and school district may be estimated on a per-student and constant basis. DOE considered that amendment to be a legislative directive to DOE to measure the "effects" of instruction by a teacher, school, and district, using data from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) "and other data collection as deemed appropriate by the Department of Education." Upon that basis, DOE set out to determine what method to use to collect the data. After considering various alternatives, DOE selected the "responsible instructor" approach. DOE held workshops and solicited input to determine the appropriate method of implementing the requirements of Section 229.57(11)(e)1., Florida Statutes. Three methodologies were considered: Using existing Management Information System components which were not adequate to meet the new statutory language; doing laborious surveys on the day each FCAT was administered, which surveys would be accurate only for that single day; or using the responsible instructor element. Ultimately, the responsible instructor element was selected by Lavan Dukes and Thomas Fisher after talking to District Management Information System officials and testing officials and key staff members. Lavan Dukes is DOE's Bureau Chief for Education, Information, and Accountability Services. Thomas Fisher is Administrator of DOE's Assessment and Evaluation Section. The "responsible instructor element" was first applicable to the 2000-2001 school year. The "responsible instructor element" was first included within the Comprehensive Management Information System in April 2000, effective July 2000. It provides a four-page form for reporting and the following instructions: Submit only for Survey Period 2 for all students in grades 3-10 to identify teacher primarily responsible for instructing the student in reading, writing end mathematics. Report Social Security Numbers for instructors in each of the categories, reading, writing and mathematics. ELEMENTARY SELF-CONTAINED: Social Security Numbers of teachers of students in elementary self-contained classes may be reported in all three responsible instructor categories. MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL LANGUAGE ARTS: unless a student has separate reading and writing classes, the language arts teacher would be reported for both the reading and writing category. KEY FIELDS: the key fields for this format are item numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7. If a key field needs to be changed, the record must be deleted and resubmitted as an add. (Joint Exhibit 4) As such, the "responsible instructor element" became part of a voluminous publication entitled 2000-2001 Automated Student Information System, Volume 1 ("The Manual"). (Joint Exhibit 3). Rule 6A-1.0014, Florida Administrative Code, prescribes data collection on an annual basis. The Rule was initially adopted in 1987. It has been amended 13 times between December 21, 1987, and October 17, 2000. Among other things, Rule 6A-1.0014, Florida Administrative Code, now incorporates, by reference, 2000-2001 Automated Student Information System, Volume 1 ("The Manual"). The collection of the "responsible instructor element" is contained for the first time in that publication as an automated student reporting format. Rule 6A-1.0014, Florida Administrative Code, cites as its legislative authority only Sections 228.093(3)(d), 229.555(2), 229.565.(3), and 229.781, Florida Statutes, and does not expressly purport to implement Section 229.57, Florida Statutes. Rule 6A-1.09422, pertaining to the creation, administration, and security of the FCAT, and Rule 6A-1.09981, involving implementation of Florida's system of school improvement and accountability do name Section 229.57, Florida Statutes. The evidence further shows that after the data element was included in the Rule, revised in October 2000, DOE staff conducted workshops around the state to explain and clarify changes in DOE's database requirements. Only after receiving input at its instructional workshops did DOE circulate the two memoranda at issue herein. On January 22, 2001, DOE promulgated a memorandum from Lavan Dukes and Thomas Fisher to District Management Information System Coordinators and District Assessment Coordinators throughout Florida. The memorandum's stated subject was "Responsible Instructor Data Element," and it states: Previously, you were given instructions by the Department's Education Information and Accountability Services Bureau relative to a new data element called "Responsible Instructor-Reading, Writing and Mathematics." The inclusion of this data element is related to the Department of Education's efforts to build a value-added accountability system in accordance with Section 229.57, F.S. We have received a number of inquiries concerning how districts should define and collect the requested data. This memorandum is being distributed to assist districts into [sic] submitting accurate and valid information about the "responsible instructor." The intent of the data element is to link each individual student to the person(s) primarily responsible for providing instruction in reading, writing and mathematics. While the concept is clear, in practice there may be more than one instructor identified. [T]he [sic] student at the high school level may be taking two mathematics courses, or the student may not be enrolled at the moment in either an English or mathematics course. This means that decisions about how to define and identify the "responsible instructor" must reside with the district and school staff. We are unable to provide a complete list of rules to follow since we cannot imagine all the permutations that may occur. We have received a number of specific questions that can be used to illustrate the principles that may be followed, and these are discussed in the attachment to this memorandum. Review of these examples should be of assistance to you in completing the data request. We recognize that there are other situations that will arise that have not been addressed in the attachment. Hopefully you will be able to make your local decisions within the framework established in this memorandum. After you have completed the data collection activities and have had time to think about the process, please send a note to either of us with your suggestions for improvements in the future. Thanks for your assistance. (Emphasis supplied). Attached to the foregoing memorandum was a document entitled "Questions and Answers About the Responsible Instructor Data Element": Q: Should the district inspect the student's course/class schedule to determine who the responsible instructor is? Should this be tied to a particular date? A: Each district must determine whether it will collect the data from original sources through the use of a paper form or if it will analyze existing computer files to extract the information. In either case, the data collection activity is associated with Survey 3. The "responsible instructor" will be either the person currently delivering the instruction or the person who most recently provided the instruction. The latter would be illustrated by a student who took a mathematics course in the fall semester but was not registered in a mathematics course at the time of the Survey 3. Q: In a block schedule school, a student might not currently be enrolled in either an English or mathematics course at the time of Survey 3. He/she may have taken such courses in a previous block. How should the data be returned? See previous question. The task is to identify the teacher most recently delivering instruction to the student in the specified subject area. This may well be a teacher who taught English or mathematics in the previous round of the "block schedule." Q: How should one respond if the student actually is enrolled in two English or math courses at the time of Survey 3? A: The decision must be made at the local level as to whether there is a single person who is primarily responsible for instruction in reading, writing, or mathematics. One way to handle the situation would be for one teacher's name to be entered but to understand that this person's name represents the work of two teachers. This principle could be followed in situations where the student is in a team teaching classroom. If this approach is used, backup information must be retained at the local level to interpret any future data analyses that may be disseminated. Q. If a student is not currently enrolled in a reading, writing or mathematics course how should the data element be defined? It is difficult to imagine a situation in which a student would not be receiving instruction in these areas, but if it happens, the data element should be zero filled. Q: Is the Department requesting one record per student? A: Yes. Q: Can the Department specify what course numbers to use from the MIS data fields? A: No. This is a local decision related to how your data is organized and maintained. Q: What course numbers would be used for reporting "reading and writing?" A: In most instances the student will be receiving instruction in reading and writing through the English courses. At the elementary level, either a self-contained classroom or a team teaching situation would be encountered. The former would require identification of a single teacher whereas the latter would require a solution as described above in question number 3. A high school student could be taking English as well as a special course in Reading; however most students do not take a course titled "Reading." If a student is enrolled in two such courses, the decision of how to code it should be made at the local level. Q: Should the district code the courses in which the student is enrolled at the time of Survey 3 or courses the student may have taken earlier in the school year? A: The records should reflect the current courses except as discuss [sic] question number 1 above. Q: How would the district code a student who is taking a course in the Adult Evening School to make up the credit in the regular school program? A: No courses taken in the Adult Evening School should be coded. Q: How should districts report ESE students? A: Districts have a choice of either coding all students or coding only those students who are pursuing an instructional program leading to a regular high school diploma. If you code a student who does not actually take the FCAT there will be no match and no further analysis by the department for that student. Q: Should we code students for attending Juvenile Detention Centers? A: Yes. Q: Should we code the responsible instructors for students attending Charter Schools? A: Yes. On March 23, 2001, DOE promulgated a memorandum to District School Superintendents from Betty Coxe, Deputy Commissioner for Educational Programs. That memorandum's stated subject was "Clarification of Memorandum dated January 22, 2001- Responsible Instructor-Reading, Writing and Mathematics." It reads: The new data element "responsible instructor- reading, writing, and mathematics" that is being collected will never be used by the Florida Department of Education to evaluate individual teachers. This new data is being collect [sic] at the state level for two primary reasons: to provide information to the State which allows the determination of the success of teaching programs and to track state-level educational trends. School districts have the sole responsibility of conducting teacher evaluations. Florida has a number of teacher-related initiatives that clearly need this data for program evaluation purposes. These include, but are not limited to, programs associated with teacher preparation, alternative certification, and interstate licensure reciprocity. Information must be gathered on the relative success of these programs to guide state policy. Trends must be identified in order to promote a system of ongoing quality improvement. Furthermore state law (F.S. 231.29) says that test scores are just one criteria [sic] used by school districts for evaluating teachers. Other criteria that districts should use are maintaining classroom discipline, knowledge of subject matter, ability to plan and deliver instruction, etc. In other words, there are various other criteria besides test scores that should be taken into account before school districts can evaluate teachers. Please disseminate this information as widely as possible within your district. Your assistance is, as always, much appreciated. The January 22, 2001, memorandum does not direct the school districts to submit the data element in any particular way and does not impose sanctions for any school district's failure to comply with its contents. It does contain the interesting language, for purposes of the case at bar, that DOE is "unable to provide a complete list of rules to follow since we cannot imagine all the permutations that may occur." The document issued on March 23, 2001, does not provide any directives as to the method for designating the data element or impose any sanctions. At most, it suggests possible alternatives in reporting, with final decisions left up to the reporting agency. Indeed, if any sanctions exist with regard to the two memoranda, the sanctions are imposed by existing rules or statutes. These memoranda were intended to advise districts as to possible optional methods of reporting the new data element. If they had not been generated, school districts still would be required to file the new data element. In either case, schools and school districts (not DOE) make the ultimate determination of how to report the data element. Petitioner presented no evidence to demonstrate that the challenged memoranda impose any requirements or solicited any information not already specifically required by statute or rule. The concerns of Petitioner's members related in Finding of Fact 3 are speculative. To the extent that educator assessment, credit, and/or money awards are at issue, they would be affected, if at all, by their respective district's decisions at a different level and in a function(s) subsequent to DOE data collection. These memoranda do not impinge on independent evaluations, etc., by school districts. As to concerns over confidentiality of social security numbers, there was no evidence presented that the new data element does anything other than collect data on registered educators whose social security numbers are already known to the districts and DOE for retirement and certification purposes. No reason was demonstrated to suppose that a breach in the confidentiality of those social security numbers would occur as a result of the new data element or as a result of the challenged memoranda. There was anecdotal testimony to the effect that teachers have been placed in improper competition with one another due to these memoranda (allegedly unpromulgated rules) and that, as a result of this competition, apparently based on some teachers' speculation as to what the respective school districts may ultimately do with the data collected, those teachers are teaching reading at the expense of other subjects and/or are emphasizing reading about science and other technical subjects while eliminating more worthy "hands-on" projects and laboratory experiments of greater benefit to their students. Similar anecdotal testimony suggested that all teachers are now teaching so that their students read objective textual as opposed to "fun" or subjective material and so that their students are able to answer the type of questions posed on the FCAT, instead of gaining a broader range of knowledge. While these side- effects of certain teachers' perceptions of how their respective districts may use the data gathered and processed by DOE may demonstrate that the concept of accountability of teachers via the FCAT is either good or bad or valuable or not valuable, it fails to define the memoranda at issue as rules.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Taylor County, Florida. A Master Teacher Contract between Petitioner and the Taylor Education Association governs relations between Petitioner and its teachers. Respondent is an educator, with 35 years of teaching experience. She is certified by the Florida Department of Education to teach students enrolled in the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. Respondent has at least 20 years of experience in teaching ESE students. During the 2009-2010 school year, Petitioner employed Respondent as an annual contract teacher at Perry Primary School. Pursuant to the contract, Petitioner hired Respondent to work from August 17, 2009, to June 9, 2010. Respondent’s class during the 2009-2010 school year was made up of students with varying exceptionalities. The exceptionalities included handicaps such as specific learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism, or emotional or physical handicaps. The class consisted of students in kindergarten, first, and second grades. At the outset of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was assigned eight students, two of which had a full-time personal assistant. Just prior to the Christmas break, Respondent was assigned another ESE student with a full-time personal assistant. The primary responsibility of the personal assistants was to help their designated students function successfully and safely in the classroom. Additionally, the personal assistants were supposed to support the classroom teacher as needed. In addition to the personal assistants, Respondent’s class utilized the services of Behavioral Management Center (BMC). The BMC consultants visited Respondent’s classroom frequently to develop and monitor the implementation of behavior modification plans for certain students. The school psychologist also visited the classroom frequently to assist the teacher and students. Petitioner uses many computer software programs for the testing and monitoring of student progress. The computer programs are necessary in order to comply with Florida Department of Education requirements. The computer programs are used throughout the state and require data entry and transmission at several points in the academic year. Gradequick is a program that enables teachers to electronically enter student grades. Among other tasks, the program calculates grade point averages. The grades and averages are then entered in the Edline program that is accessible by both parents and students. Administrators can access these programs to ascertain the level of progress by a particular class or student. For the 2009-2010 school year, the initial Gradequick and Edline training was conducted the first week of September 2009. Respondent attended the training session. Tienet is a computer program used to assist with the drafting of individual education plans (IEPs) for ESE students. It is a web-based program that also is used to monitor a student’s progress in accomplishing the goals and objectives on the student's IEP. Tienet generates a parent report that goes out with report cards. All students in Respondent’s 2009-2010 class were learning in accordance with an IEP. Aimsweb is a computer program that monitors compliance with state and federal guidelines regarding student achievement and progress in reading and math. Aimsweb requires that all students be tested at the beginning, middle and end of the school year. The teacher uses the initial test or “probe” to determine the child's baseline. Other probes are performed on a weekly basis throughout the school year. Petitioner can use the data to determine if a child is academically at risk and, if so, to implement interventions to address any deficiency. FAIR is a state-mandated assessment test in reading that also is given three times a year. FAIR provides for an exemption for students who are severely limited academically. However, Petitioner always completes the initial FAIR test for all students, regardless of academic ability. After assessing the results of the first probe, Petitioner can then determine whether students will be exempted from further testing. In the 2009-2010 school term, Jack Palaio was an ESE resource teacher and the Perry Primary School technology coordinator. As technology coordinator, Mr. Palaio had to make sure the teachers’ and students’ computers were up and running. He also trained staff and teachers on the use of the computer software programs referenced above. Mr. Palaio’s responsibilities included monitoring data collection and data transmission from the classrooms. On or about September 2, 2009, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent provide him with a list of her students. Mr. Palaio needed the names to made sure the students were placed in the proper Gradequick files. As of September 14, 2009, Respondent still had not provided Mr. Palaio with the list of names. In addition to the training sessions taught when school began, Mr. Palaio offered to assist Respondent on several occasions starting at the beginning of the year. At times, Respondent sought help from Mr. Palaio in person or by email. By mid-year, it should not have taken Respondent but a few minutes per student to enter weekly data on Gradequick. Aimsweb should have required no more than five minutes per student on a weekly basis. The FAIR data requires very little time because the teacher enters it while testing the students. Tienet data entry takes even less time because it requires formulation of IEPs only once a year and review and maintenance quarterly. Pam Padgett was the assistant principal at Perry Primary School. On September 15, 2009, Ms. Padgett advised Respondent to provide Ms. Padgett with a copy of Respondent’s class schedule. The schedule was necessary to show the times that Respondent intended to teach specific subject areas. On September 15, 2009, Ms. Padgett also informed Respondent that her students would need to take the initial FAIR and Aimsweb probes in order to establish baselines. Ms. Padgett advised Respondent that other staff members would do this testing for Respondent. In September 2009, two of Respondent’s students were exempt from taking the initial FAIR reading probe because of their disabilities. The two students were supposed to be tested using an alternative assessment known as the Brigance. Petitioner’s staff decided to test the two students on the FAIR material, using a paper test, in addition to the Brigance test. The Brigance test, in booklet form, was supposed to be given three times a year. Teachers used a different color to score students’ tests each time it was administered. On September 17, 2009, Mr. Palaio requested Respondent to see him about testing her students using the Brigance. Mr. Palio also offered to help Respondent set up Edline for her class. Alise Thompson is the Intervention Resource Compliance Specialist at Perry Primary School. In the 2009-2010 school year, she was responsible for ensuring that teachers properly drafted IEPs using Tienet and for scheduling IEP meetings. On September 21, 2009, Ms. Thompson instructed Respondent to prepare the IEP (goals and objectives) for a student. She reminded Respondent that the IEP meeting for the student was scheduled for September 25, 2009. On September 22, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that her class was set up in Gradequick so that she could start adding weekly grades. Mr. Palaio asked Respondent to see him for information about entering the grades in Gradequick. On September 29, 2009, Mr. Palaio again reminded Respondent that she needed to enter her grades in Gradequick so that she could send home midterm progress reports the next day. On September 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that her kindergarten student needed to have grades entered in the computer on a weekly basis for reading now and for reading, spelling, and math beginning in January. He also reminded Respondent that her first and second grade students needed grades for reading, math, and spelling. As of September 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio had prepared the midterm reports for Respondent’s first and second grade students. He also offered to do the same for the kindergarten student if Respondent would send him the necessary information. Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent that she had been provided with additional computer training in Edline and needed to post her grades in Gradequick on a weekly basis. The September 30, 2009, email to Respondent told her to put her Brigance booklets back in the students’ cumulative folders in the school office. This was necessary in order to ensure their safekeeping. On October 26, 2009, Perry Primary School was preparing to send report cards home for the first nine weeks. Mr. Palaio offered to help Respondent in this regard if she encountered any difficulty. On October 28, 2009, Mr. Palaio offered to help Respondent with entering grades in Gradequick because she was late in doing so. Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that he had corrected some of her inconsistencies, but that he was more concerned with her failure to enter all required grades for her students. Specifically, Mr. Palaio noted that Respondent had not entered grades for some children for over two weeks. George Clayton was the principal of Perry Primary School for the 2009-2010 school year. Around the end of October or the beginning of November 2009, Mr. Clayton sent Respondent a reminder that she was two weeks behind in posting her grades to Edline and entering grades to Gradequick. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to "take care of this matter." Anne Sesock, as the Response to Invention (RTI) Specialist for the 2009-2010 school term, was responsible for monitoring teachers’ data for FAIR and Aimsweb testing at Perry Primary School. Over time, Ms. Sesock became aware that Respondent was behind on her FAIR and Aimsweb testing and/or data entry. On October 29, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded all teachers that Thursday was the day they should monitor progress of their students in math using Aimsweb. Ms. Sesock had already entered the students’ names into the computer. Ms. Sesock then gave a brief description of how to perform the task. On October 30, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded certain teachers, including Respondent, that they needed to enter their reading/literacy scores into Aimsweb. This was necessary for the school to prepare for a data meeting. On October 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent that she needed to see about her Tienet progress reports that had to go home with student report cards. Mr. Palaio sent Respondent another message on October 30, 2009. In that message, Mr. Palaio stated that one of Respondent’s students still needed early literacy scores entered in Aimsweb. On November 2, 2009, Perry Primary School sent report cards home. Ms. Padgett asked Respondent to a meeting regarding Respondent’s failure to send Tienet parent reports out with report cards. On November 2009, Mr. Palaio responded to Respondent’s request for help in checking her students’ grades and parent reports. Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that he had corrected the grades in Gradequick so that she would now be entering grades for the second nine weeks. He stated that she had some grades missing and needed to be consistent in entering the grades. He also reminded Respondent that she needed to make corrections in the Tienet parent reports relating to student objectives, which should have been sent home with the last report cards. On November 17, 2009, Ms. Sesock directed Respondent to bring certain Aimsweb reading benchmark assessment sheets to a training session that afternoon. Ms. Sesock offered to enter them in the computer. In November 2009, Mr. Clayton became concerned with the lack of structure and student behavior problems in Respondent’s classroom. He subsequently initiated a plan to provide Respondent with help in this regard. On November 23, 2009, Ms. Padgett advised Respondent that a substitute would be available the next day so that Respondent could meet with school staff and the BMC consultant. The purpose of meeting was to develop a schedule and activities for Respondent’s class. On or about November 24, 2009, Respondent, the BMC consultant, and other school staff members met to develop a Tuesday/Thursday schedule for Respondent’s class. After the meeting, Respondent was supposed to develop a similar schedule for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever completed this task. The Tuesday/Thursday schedule provides for whole group time beginning at 8:00 a.m. As the day progresses, the personal assistants were assigned to work one-on-one with a student, in small groups, or large groups, while Respondent worked one-on- one or two-on-one with specific students. To supplement the Tuesday/Thursday schedule, Respondent and the BMC consultant developed a Tuesday/Thursday Lesson Plan of 1:1 or 2:1 Instructions. The lesson plan names specific students and the skills/materials to be used with that student. On December 1, 2009, BMC staff visited Respondent’s classroom to observe implementation of the new schedule. They advised Ms. Padgett that Respondent stayed on the schedule for part of the day, but failed to follow it for the rest of the day. On December 1, 2009, Ms. Padgett provided Respondent with a copy of a walk-through monitoring form to be used when she and other administrative staff visited Respondent's class. Ms. Padgett reminded Respondent to post her class schedule for all support staff during the times that Respondent and the personal assistants were working one-on-one with students and in group time. On December 2, 2009, Ms. Padgett shared BMC’s concerns with Mr. Clayton. On December 3, 2009, Ms. Padgett visited Respondent’s classroom to observe a reading lesson under the new Tuesday/Thursday schedule. Ms. Padgett noted that Respondent was behind schedule but appeared to be implementing the new plan. Ms. Padgett subsequently provided Respondent with written observations, setting forth strengths, missed opportunities, and something to work on. In December 2009, Ms. Padgett became aware that Respondent had not done the required mid-year FAIR testing or had done the testing but failed to enter the data in the computer. On December 3, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Ms. Padgett that Respondent had not started a single FAIR test. The next day, Ms. Padgett directed Respondent to begin FAIR-testing her students and to get help from Mr. Palaio and/or Ms. Sesock, if needed. On December 4, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent and another teacher that they needed to complete the regress/recoupment forms for their students before Christmas break. The forms are used three times a year to record test data on the same specific skill. The data is used to determine whether a student requires an extended school year (summer school) as an accommodation. On December 7, 2009, Mr. Clayton responded to Ms. Padgett that he was disappointed in Respondent’s failure to adhere to the new schedule. Mr. Clayton stated that he would be visiting Respondent’s class that day. From December 8, 2009, through December 11, 2009, Respondent was absent from school because she had pneumonia. During that week, Respondent came to school one time for a meeting at Mr. Clayton’s request. The meeting related to a student that would soon be entering Respondent’s class. There is no record of Respondent receiving emails from school while she was home sick. Accordingly, the following emails dated December 8 through 11 may not have been read by Respondent until she returned to school on December 14, 2009. On December 8, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. He advised her that certain students were missing a spelling score in the FAIR testing. On December 9, 2009, Ms. Thompson reminded Respondent that an IEP meeting was scheduled on December 11, 2009, for "O." Ms. Thompson had started the IEP but reminded Respondent to add the goals. The December 11, 2009, IEP meeting obviously had to be cancelled because Respondent was home sick and had not completed drafting the IEP. On December 10, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. Once again, he reminded her that she needed to enter FAIR scores for spelling. On December 11, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. Once again, he reminded Respondent to complete the regress/recoup form with all students that week. On December 16, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that the initial regress/recoup testing had been done by another staff member the week before and that he had entered the scores. Mr. Palaio provided Respondent with a spreadsheet showing the results of the first probe that needed to be repeated the first day after Christmas break and then again two weeks later. On December 17, 2009, Mr. Palaio reviewed the policy at Perry Primary School regarding the need to check email three or four times a day. Teachers were supposed to read email before school, after reading, during lunch, and after school. Respondent was advised that teachers are held responsible for knowing the information contained in school emails, including requests for specific data. On December 17, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded all teachers to complete their Aimsweb math and reading probes. Ms. Sesock wanted all teachers to enter the data that day or the next day so that the data would be available in January for intervention assistance team meetings. In an email dated January 3, 2010, Ms. Sesock wanted to know about missing scores in Respondent’s Aimsweb progress monitoring. Ms. Sesock could not run charts on the students until all scores were entered in the computer. January 4, 2010, was a teacher-planning day. During the day, Mr. Palaio sent Ms. Sesock a list of teachers, including Respondent, who had missing Aimsweb data as of December 18, 2009. Ms. Sesock responded with an email inquiring whether they could give Respondent an explicit instruction booklet on how to input scores so Respondent would learn to do it herself and quit bothering them. On January 4, 2010, Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent and other teachers that they needed to complete the second set of regress/recoup progress monitoring. He advised them to use the spreadsheet started before Christmas and to repeat the process on January 19, 2010. On January 5, 2010, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent see him about Aimsweb and Brigance. He wanted to assist her with the Brigance books and Aimsweb probes. On January 5, 2010, Respondent injured her shoulder and knee when she fell after tripping over a student at school. She was prescribed pain medication (Vicodin and Celebrex) and required to wear a leg brace. Respondent claims that the medications made her sleepy and made it difficult for her to focus. However, she did not complain to anyone at Perry Primary School that the medications were interfering with her performance. On January 8, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent and other teachers about completing IEPs. Specifically, she reminded them that they needed to enter the accommodations for each child on an individual basis. On January 11, 2010, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent see him that day. Mr. Palaio wanted to discuss Respondent’s scores for Brigance, Aimsweb, and Tienet. By January 2010, Mr. Clayton was aware that Respondent and the three personal assistants in her classroom were not working as a team. The personal assistants resented having to work with small or large groups of students while Respondent worked with students on a one-on-one or two-on-one basis. Mr. Clayton had a meeting with Respondent and her personal assistants on January 13, 2010. He gave the personal assistants a copy of their job descriptions. He reminded them that Respondent was the class leader and that they were her support staff. On January 13, 2010, Mr. Clayton told the personal assistants that they had to stay with their assigned students when BMC staff came to model implementation or observe implementation of a behavior plan. He did not want the assistants to think they could take a break every time BMC staff visited the classroom. During the January 13, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton discussed the Tuesday/Thursday schedule developed by BMC staff. He requested that Respondent develop a Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule, using the same format, and give it to him. Mr. Clayton was concerned that there was not a consistent daily routine in Respondent’s classroom. Mr. Clayton also discussed Respondent’s lesson plans during the January 13, 2010, meeting. Mr. Clayton wanted Respondent to give him a copy of her lesson plans for the upcoming week every Friday before she left school. The first Friday that Respondent should have given Mr. Clayton her lesson plans was on Friday, January 15, 2010. As a general rule, teachers kept their lesson plans, two weeks in advance, in spiral notebooks provided by the school at the beginning of the school year. Teachers were supposed to keep the lesson plan books on their desks at all times. Mr. Clayton reviewed the lesson plans on a regular basis. Mr. Clayton made the special request on January 13, 2010, about Respondent’s lesson plans because he never saw her plan book on her desk. When he asked about the plan book, Respondent always said it was in her car or at home. During the January 13, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton instructed Respondent to provide each personal assistant with a copy of the IEPs and behavior plans for each student in the class. Mr. Clayton wanted the personal assistants to be familiar with all of the students’ IEPs and behavior plans so that they would know what to do in the absence of Respondent or a colleague. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent never complied with Mr. Clayton’s directive in this regard. Finally, Mr. Clayton told Respondent on January 13, 2010, that her class would be moved that weekend from a portable classroom to a classroom in the main building. The purpose of the move was to place the class closer to the school clinic to accommodate a student with medical issues. Mr. Clayton created written minutes of the January 13, 2010, meeting to share with Respondent and the personal assistants. Following the meeting on January 13, 2010, the assistants became more cooperative. On January 13, 2010, Ms. Sesock told Respondent how important it was for her to have up-to-date progress monitoring data for Aimsweb reading and math. At that time, Respondent had not entered the required weekly progress monitoring data, seven scores in math and five scores in reading. The second benchmark assessment for Aimsweb was due to be entered between January 11, 2010, and January 15, 2010. Ms. Sesock wanted to make sure that Respondent had all the materials she needed to perform the assessment. On January 13, 2010, Ms. Thompson reminded Respondent that "O's" IEP meeting was scheduled for Friday, January 15, 2010. Ms. Thompson requested that Respondent update his academic and behavior goals before the meeting. The next day, Ms. Thompson directed Respondent to update "O's" curriculum and behavior goals. On January 15, 2010, the IEP meeting had to be rescheduled because Respondent did not have “O’s” IEP properly drafted. Ms. Thompson sent an email to Respondent, stating that Respondent needed to separate goals and objectives on the IEP by subject area. For example, Respondent needed one goal and two objectives for reading, math, and behavior. After receiving a copy of Ms. Thompson’s January 15, 2010, email to Respondent, Mr. Clayton directed Respondent to complete “O’s” IEP goals by January 19, 2010. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to put the IEP in his mailbox before she left school on the 19th. On January 15, 2010, Respondent did not provide Mr. Clayton with the lesson plans for the upcoming week. Instead, she left school early for a doctor’s appointment and took the rest of the day off. On January 19, 2010, Mr. Clayton advised Respondent that he had reviewed her Aimsweb data and that it was not updated. He told her to update the reading and math data before she left school on January 21, 2010. During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent had completed two IEPs before attempting the IEP for “O.” However, Respondent failed to complete “O’s” IEP and place it in Mr. Clayton's mailbox on January 19, 2010, as requested. On January 19, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an internet link for Tienet. Apparently, Respondent had lost the website address. On January 21, 2010, Mr. Clayton issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for “insubordination” for failing to complete “O’s” IEP on time. Respondent received the January 21, 2010, letter of reprimand, concerning the IEP, in her mailbox at school. Respondent’s failure to timely complete the IEP was gross insubordination. Respondent had been given more than enough time and assistance to properly draft the IEP. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent’s pain medication was responsible for her inability to complete the IEP. On January 21, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent that corrections still needed to be made to “O’s” IEP. Respondent was told that each area of the IEP needed a present- level statement followed by at least one goal and two objectives. Later that day, Mr. Palaio gave Respondent additional suggestions to make the IEP meet Petitioner’s ESE standards. On January 21, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. The message reminded Respondent that most of her Aimsweb scores had not been entered. On the morning of January 22, 2010, Mr. Clayton shared some of his concerns with Respondent in an email. First, he discussed Respondent’s need to conduct Aimsweb progress monitoring probes in reading and math. Second, Mr. Clayton was worried about Respondent’s failure to enter grades in Gradequick, advising her to see Mr. Palaio by the end of the day to resolve this matter. Third, Mr. Clayton reminded Respondent that she needed to be using the school-wide behavior modification program. Fourth, Mr. Clayton noted some errors in “O’s” IEP. Fifth, Mr. Clayton told Respondent not to forget to do the ESE regress/recoup form. Finally, Mr. Clayton reminded Respondent that she was supposed to provide him with a copy of her lesson plans before leaving school that afternoon. Mr. Clayton wanted to make sure that Respondent received his January 22, 2010, email. He asked his assistant to call Respondent that afternoon. Realizing that Respondent was not in her classroom, Mr. Clayton requested the assistant to call Respondent’s cell phone and her husband’s cell phone. Because Mr. Clayton could not reach Respondent, he sent her another email at 3:55 p.m., telling her to contact Mr. Palaio if she and he were still on campus. Respondent left school on Friday, January 22, 2010, without giving Mr. Clayton her lesson plans. At 5:51 p.m. on January 22, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. He reminded her to do her quarterly Tienet progress reports that were due to go home with report cards on January 27, 2010. On Monday morning, January 25, 2010, Mr. Clayton sent Respondent an email. The message stated that administration wanted to meet with her at 2:30 in Mr. Clayton’s office. Respondent was advised that she could bring union representation to the meeting. During the meeting on January 25, 2010, Mr. Clayton discussed Respondent’s failure to provide him with her lesson plans as directed. Mr. Clayton also told Respondent that her failure to complete a task by a given date constituted insubordination and served as grounds for termination. During the January 25, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton told Respondent that she had a chance to resign. Mr. Clayton stated that if she did not resign, he would contact the Superintendant and recommend her termination. Respondent could not make a decision to resign without talking to someone. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to let him know her decision by Wednesday, January 27, 2010. Respondent did not do so. At some point in time, Mr. Clayton placed a letter of reprimand, dated January 25, 2010, in Respondent's mailbox for failing to provide him a copy of her lesson plans on January 15, 2010, and on January 22, 2010. Mr. Clayton noted in the letter that he still had not received Respondent's lesson plans. Following the meeting, on January 25, 2010, Respondent got materials ready for her students for the remainder of the week. Respondent did not return to work until Monday, February 1, 2010. On January 26, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent by email that “O’s” goals and objectives were looking better. However, Ms. Thompson noted certain corrections needed to be made. Ms. Thompson placed a draft copy of the IEP, with notations, in Respondent’s mailbox. When Respondent returned to school on February 1, 2010, she gave Mr. Clayton a very detailed copy of her lesson plans for February 1, 2010, through February 12, 2010. The lesson plans were in a narrative form and not in a lesson plan book form that contains plans for a week at a glance. Even though the plans were not drafted according to Perry Primary School policy and were not the plans expected, Mr. Clayton provided Respondent with a lengthy critique of the lesson plans. On February 1, 2010, Mr. Clayton advised Respondent that she needed to complete the regress/recoup spreadsheet. He also told her that she still needed to fix “O’s” IEP by February 3, 2010, and before the IEP meeting on February 10, 2010. Mr. Clayton directed Respondent to complete the January Brigance testing before she left work on February 5, 2010. On February 1, 2010, Ms. Padgett sent Respondent an email regarding the reading programs in Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Padgett told Respondent that Ms. Padgett and the BMC staff had made certain decisions about the reading program while Respondent was absent from school. On February 2, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent that "O's" IEP was better. However, Ms. Thompson noted that Respondent needed to work on the reading goal and two objectives. On February 3, 2010, Ms. Thompson stated that she had met with Mr. Palaio and that he had offered some suggestions for “O’s” IEP. Ms. Thompson's message included a copy of a draft IEP prepared by Mr. Palaio. In a letter dated February 3, 2010, Mr. Clayton recommended that the Superintendant terminate Respondent’s employment. The letter references Respondent’s failure to provide him with lesson plans and the associated reprimand. The letter does not refer to Respondent’s reprimand for not completing the IEP goals. Mr. Clayton’s February 3, 2010, letter also included the following deficiencies: (a) Respondent never provided the personal assistants with the student behavior plans as instructed on January 13, 2010; (b) Respondent did not have her Brigance testing up to date; and (c) Respondent’s Aimsweb data was not up to date. In a letter dated February 5, 2010, Paul Dyal, Superintendant of Taylor County School District, advised Respondent that her employment was suspended with pay as of February 8, 2010. Mr. Dyal stated that the action was based on Respondent’s insubordination as outlined in Mr. Clayton’s February 3, 2010, letter. Mr. Dyal’s letter was hand-delivered to Respondent on February 5, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That The Taylor County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela M. Ball, Esquire Post Office Box 734 Perry, Florida 32348 Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Dyal, Superintendent Taylor County School District Alton J. Wentworth Administrative Office Complex 318 North Clark Street Perry, Florida 32347 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has sufficient grounds to support dismissal of Respondent from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher by the School Board and currently holds a professional services contract. He began working for the School District on or about March 2007, in the middle of the 2006-2007 school year. His first assignment was at Holmes Elementary School where he worked on a “waiver,” since he did not have an elementary education certification. The principal asked him to get his certification in elementary education, which he did. According to Respondent, he was asked to start working early because the principal did not have enough teachers. During that year, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas of evaluation and was rehired for the 2007-2008 school year. Prior to becoming a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Respondent served in the United States military from 1978-1985, and had worked as a registered nurse. He holds an associate’s degree from Miami-Dade College, a bachelor’s degree from Florida International University (“FIU”), two master’s degrees from FIU, an academic certificate in gerontological studies from FIU, and an academic teaching certificate from FIU. For the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent worked at Little River Elementary School (“Little River”). The principal at Little River asked Respondent to work on another “waiver,” this time for teaching English as a Second Language students (“ESOL”). After completing the necessary coursework, Respondent received an ESOL certification. Respondent remained at Little River through the 2008-2009 school year until he was involuntarily transferred to Scott Lake Elementary School (“Scott Lake”) for the 2009-2010 school year. During the latter two years at Little River, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas. According to Respondent, he was transferred to Scott Lake because the administration of Little River objected to the number of student discipline referrals (“SCMs”) he was writing on students. Respondent reports having written somewhere between 600 and 700 SCMs on students over the years. Respondent freely admits he wrote many SCMs at every school he worked at and highlights that fact as an excuse for why he performed poorly. During Respondent’s first three years of employment at Holmes Elementary and Little River, he was evaluated across the board on his annual evaluations as “Meets Standards.” During this period of time, the only other rating an employee could receive was “Does Not Meet Standards.” During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent’s principal for his first year at Scott Lake was Valerie Ward. During the 2009-2010 school year, the School District made changes to the teacher performance evaluation system. Use of the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (“IPEGS”) was implemented. The IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluations (“SPEs”) were now comprised of eight Performance Standards, where a teacher could be rated “Exemplary,” “Proficient,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In her first year with Respondent, Ms. Ward rated him “Proficient” in all eight standards. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Ward placed Respondent on a 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34. During this 90-day probation process, he was observed by administration on at least five different occasions, was put on several improvement plans, and had several meetings with administrators. The 90-day probation process is very time- consuming for both the subject employee and the employee’s administration. In other words, it is not the preferred task of a busy principal, unless he or she must, and then only when it is warranted by poor performance. Respondent believes Ms. Ward placed him on performance probation to retaliate against him because he complained about the temperature in his classroom. This is the first of many excuses and justifications Respondent has offered to explain criticisms of his performance by administrators. For the 2010-2011 school year at Scott Lake, Respondent was again evaluated as proficient in all areas. On or about April 2012, Principal Lakesha Wilson- Rochelle assumed Ms. Ward’s role at Scott Lake. Principal Rochelle signed off on Respondent’s summative evaluation during the 2011-2012 school year, but did not fill it out, since it had already been completed by someone else. The score placed Respondent in the “needs improvement” category. She signed it only because she was required to do so, and the summative evaluation rating she gave him for the next school year was even worse by several points. It was also during the 2011-2012 school year that IPEGS underwent another change. Now there were seven professional practice standards on which teachers were evaluated and one standard that was based on actual student data. Use of IPEGS IPEGS was approved by the Florida Department of Education (“FDOE”) for all years relevant to this case. The IPEGS processes from the 2013-2014 school year forward consisted of the following: Each teacher that had been teaching for more than two years received one formal observation. If during that observation the teacher’s performance was sufficient, nothing more need be done, outside of a summative evaluation at the end of the year. However, informal feedback is given to teachers throughout the year after classroom walkthroughs and through other means. If a teacher was observed to be deficient in one or more standards during the formal observation, the teacher and administration would engage in something called “support dialogue” in which support in various forms is provided to the teacher, so that the deficiencies can be remediated. If the teacher still exhibits performance deficiencies after the support dialogue, they are placed on the 90-day performance probation. While on performance probation, the teacher is observed another four times after the initial observation. After the second, third and fourth observations, if the teacher has not remediated, the administration develops an improvement plan, which must be followed. The improvement plan gives the teacher assignments and assistance to aid him or her in remediating any deficiencies. Also, each teacher, regardless of whether placed on performance probation, receives an SPE, as well as a Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (“SPE Rating”) of either “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In addition to the seven professional practice standards, a data component is also factored into the SPE Rating known as the VAM. The VAM As explained by Director of Research Services Dr. Aleksander Shneyderman (“Dr. S”), the VAM is a statistical model that attempts to measure a teacher’s impact on student learning growth through the use of a multi-level lineal regression. Dr. S has been working with the VAM, since its inception in 2010-2011. He has studied it and keeps abreast of Florida’s rules and regulations of how to calculate it. Dr. S and his office calculate what is called “Local VAM” for the School District. He also provides trainings to School District employees on the use of the VAM. Dr. S was tendered and accepted in this proceeding as an expert in VAM calculation. Local VAM is usually calculated in September/October by his office after the previous year’s testing data become available. Various assessments are used to create the Local VAM. It is calculated in compliance with state statutes, and the methodology is approved each year by FDOE. Also, the methods for calculating the Local VAM are bargained for and ratified by the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”) teacher’s union. The Florida VAM is calculated by the State using a model that is approved by the Florida Commissioner of Education. The results of the Florida VAM are given to Dr. S’s office by the State. The Florida VAM is created using the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”). In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, Respondent’s Local VAM scores were calculated by Dr. S’s office and based upon his students’ results on the Stanford 8 Achievement Test, 10th edition. UTD approved the methodology in VAM calculation for both of these years. For the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent’s VAM score was the Florida VAM in English language arts for fifth grade. The goal of the VAM is to measure a teacher’s effectiveness on student learning growth. In order to do this as accurately as possible, students are compared to similar students for an “apples to apples” comparison. Only students with the same demographic characteristics, as well as the same prior year’s test scores are compared to one another. The demographic factors considered are English Language Learner (“ELL”) status, gifted status, disability status, relative age (which considers whether a child was retained in a previous grade), and attendance (which was added in 2014-2015). Student demographics and the prior year’s test scores must be exactly the same. Based on these demographics and past scores, an expected score is created for each student. If the student exceeds that score, the credit for that success is given to the teacher. The School Board and Dr. S concede that the VAM does not account for every possible student performance variable, because, simply put, this would be impossible, since there are a limitless number of factors that could be considered. Moreover, certain factors are forbidden to be used by the Legislature, including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and ethnicity. (See § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.). Respondent argues that because not every imaginable factor that might affect a student’s grade is captured, that the VAM is not useful. Respondent claims that factors beyond the teacher might be causing poor performance, for example: lack of parental engagement. While levels of parental engagement could impact student performance, the School Board states that it is following state statutes to the letter and doing the best it can within the applicable statutory framework. Moreover, just as factors outside of consideration might hurt student performance, other factors might enhance performance, and the teachers receive those possible benefits as well--for example, if parental engagement is good. Those benefits would flow to the teacher, despite not having earned them through his or her personal efforts. Moreover, the VAM score ranges that are used to classify teachers are bargained for with UTD. The ranges have confidence intervals developed through the application of margin of error calculations that mitigate uncertainty to protect and “safeguard” teachers from unfair classifications. In many instances these safeguards give the teachers the benefit of the doubt to make sure they do not fall into the lowest category, which is “unsatisfactory.” Noticeably absent from these bargained for “safeguards” is any mention of how much instructional time a teacher must have with a class before those students’ data can be used to calculate a teacher’s VAM score. UTD has not bargained for any special rules designating when teachers can and cannot be held accountable for their class’ data based on the time they have instructed that class. As such, the only relevant inquiry is whether those students are with that teacher during the FTE period in February. Also, the law (see § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.) makes no mention of any minimum length of instructional time necessary to hold a teacher accountable for his or her students. The 2013-2014 School Year at Scott Lake Refusal to teach basic Spanish In May 2013, near the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Rochelle advised Respondent that he would be teaching a kindergarten class for the 2013-2014 school year and that he would be required to teach them one hour of introductory Spanish. In an email to Principal Rochelle, Respondent asserted that he believed he was being assigned to teach Spanish to the kindergarteners in retaliation for his extensive reporting of student SCMs. In that same email, he advised her that he did not want to teach Spanish. Prior to being advised of this assignment, the School District conducted a language proficiency assessment for Respondent with both a written and verbal component, which he passed. Principal Rochelle had personally seen Respondent speak fluent Spanish to her school secretary and the art teacher. Because Respondent spoke fluent Spanish, or, at least, “conversational” Spanish (as admitted by Respondent’s counsel in his opening), she gave him the assignment. Moreover, as a principal, she had the right to assign Respondent as she saw fit. School Board Policy 3130 - Assignments reinforces this assertion stating, in relevant part, “Instructional staff members may be reassigned to any position for which they are qualified in order to meet needs of the District and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.” In order to teach the one-hour basic Spanish component of the class, Respondent did not need to be certified to teach Spanish. He only needed an elementary education certification, which he had. He even attended a training class on the implementation of the Spanish program. Respondent admits he can speak Spanish, write basic Spanish, has taken Spanish classes and passed the School District’s proficiency exam. Curiously, he objected to them giving the proficiency exam to him based on the grounds he was “singled out” for having a Hispanic last name, having been overheard speaking the language, and because he is not from a Spanish-speaking country. These are not reasonable objections when the School District explained the objective reasons listed above regarding Respondent’s qualifications to provide the basic- level Spanish instruction. Respondent persisted in his belief that he is “not qualified” to teach kindergarten Spanish despite all the evidence to the contrary. Respondent simply refused to do something that he was entirely capable of doing and that was within his ambit of responsibilities. He described one of the lessons he was allegedly incapable of teaching as follows, “You put a CD in the player. The kids sing songs in Spanish. The kids cut out pictures of objects and match them to a picture with the word in Spanish.” The kindergartners in his class did not speak Spanish; they spoke English. The Spanish component of the class was very basic and involved things like vowels, colors, puppets, basic books, and vocabulary words. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, no complex grammar or sentence structure was involved. Such things are not even part of ordinary English kindergarten instruction, as admitted by Respondent. Moreover, he was provided with materials from which to draw the instruction. Principal Rochelle does not speak Spanish herself, yet believes she could teach the Spanish component, as it is a “piece of cake.” Respondent filed a grievance regarding the Spanish assignment. In order to appease and accommodate Respondent, Principal Rochelle eventually sent a Spanish teacher to his room to teach the Spanish component. However, Respondent then complained that the grades she was entering still had his name attached to them in the computerized grading system. Finally, the principal decided to move him to a first-grade class in early November 2013. Undoubtedly, the requests of Respondent led to this assignment change. Formal IPEGS observation On March 11, 2014, Principal Rochelle performed her formal observation of Respondent pursuant to IPEGS. On that day, no performance deficiencies were noted. However, throughout the year, Principal Rochelle had conducted many informal observations and walkthroughs of his classroom and had already provided him feedback regarding his performance and her expectations. Examples of that feedback can be found in an August 27, 2013, email from Principal Rochelle to Respondent. Moreover, according to Principal Rochelle, teachers tend to be on their best behavior during these observations–-which makes sense, because they know the boss/evaluator is watching. The formal observation is also only a snapshot in time of the teacher’s performance on a particular lesson; it is not a reflection of the entire year’s performance. Respondent has argued that Principal Rochelle has retaliated against him. If that were the case, this observation would have been a perfect opportunity to retaliate against him. However, she found no deficiencies in his performance on this day. Scott Lake SPE—Professional Practice Throughout the rest of the school year, Principal Rochelle made other credible observations regarding Respondent’s performance. Despite her counseling that he meet with parents, he refused to do so. He refused to participate in activities, including field trips, school celebrations, and award ceremonies. Other teachers actually had to hand out awards for him at the ceremony. He refused to implement group instruction techniques and did not take advantage of the presence of reading and math coaches. He refused to implement progressive discipline and “red, green, yellow” behavior management techniques. He refused to implement various discipline strategies laid out in the Student Code of Conduct and school-wide discipline plan prior to writing SCMs on students. Principal Rochelle recalls that he wrote approximately 25 SCMs on one student within the first nine weeks of school and made no attempt to address the behavior issues with the student’s parents. At one point Principal Rochelle accommodated his request to have a student removed from his class. Since this was only Principal Rochelle’s first full year as principal of Scott Lake, and she was still new to the school, she tended to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt when completing their SPEs. She also had a few teachers who had to be terminated for lack of professionalism that were more of a priority for her than Respondent. As such, she rated Respondent as “effective” in six standards on his SPE and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Communication standard. In her view, “effective” is akin to a “C” grade, whereas “highly effective” is “A plus/high B” status, “developing/needs improvement” is a “D,” and “unsatisfactory” is an “F.” When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he testified he would have given himself five “highly effectives” and two “effectives.” He believes Principal Rochelle rated him lower than she should have as a result of retaliation against him for him not wanting to teach Spanish. This is Respondent’s second claim of retaliation against Principal Rochelle, and third claim of retaliation overall. Principal Rochelle’s denial of such retaliation is credited based upon her testimony at hearing and the exhibits offered in support. Despite the fact that Respondent’s 2013-2014 SPE seemed adequate to a casual observer (with the only obvious blemish being the “developing/needs improvement” in the Communication standard), when compared to his peers, a different story emerges. His professional practice points total put him in the bottom .8 percentile for all teachers district-wide and in the bottom 2.6 percentile for all first-grade teachers district-wide. Without belaboring the data, Respondent’s professional practice scores are at the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how you spin them. Scott Lake VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 12.5 points–-the lowest possible score. He was one of 11 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2013-2014 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 29 percent of his first-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent’s VAM was based on the performance of his first-grade students. Respondent believes that, since he was moved to the class in early November 2013, and the SAT exam was given in April, he should not be held accountable for their performance. In order for him to have a fair shake, he claims he would have had to be there instructing the students on week one. Respondent says the amount of time he was given was not fair because, “if I’m the lowest teacher in Miami-Dade County, and here for termination, no, sir, I don’t think it was fair.” If the rule Respondent proposes were implemented as policy, any teacher could simply avoid responsibility for their student’s performance by requesting a transfer sometime after the first week of the year. It is also not uncommon for teachers to have students added or subtracted from their classes throughout the year for a multitude of reasons. This is a fact of life that teachers have to be able to cope with in the ordinary course of business for the School District. Moreover, and somewhat ironically, if another teacher had been teaching Respondent’s students for a portion of the year, based on his SPE Ratings and student achievement data, Respondent probably would have had better scores. The students would likely have been getting a more effective teacher than he. Respondent also claims Principal Rochelle gave him a lower functioning group of students, who were behind in their learning. He explained that he knew they were low-functioning because he gave them “STAR tests” to gauge their ability levels. When pressed on cross-examination, Respondent admitted that he only tested his own students and never anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to know whether his students were any lower-functioning or further behind than any other teachers’ students. Respondent’s doubtful claim is further undercut by Principal Rochelle’s credible testimony that she selected the members of his first-grade class at random from overcrowded classrooms. Respondent’s claims that he was robbed of instructional time by field trips and fundraising activities, matters that are required of all teachers, are unconvincing excuses for his students’ poor performance. The 2014-2015 School Year at Norwood Shortly after the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent requested a hardship transfer to Norwood Elementary School (“Norwood”) because the school day at Scott Lake was going to be increased by one hour. Despite the fact that he would have been compensated approximately $4,500.00 for this time, he chose to transfer schools. Principal Kevin Williams (or Dr. Williams) had a teacher on leave so he assigned Respondent to fill that gap. Respondent started teaching a kindergarten class, but was moved to a second-grade class during the first week of school. Prior to conducting a formal IPEGS observation of Respondent, Dr. Williams had performed several walkthroughs of his classroom. Based on these walkthroughs, Dr. Williams advised Respondent that he was not properly implementing the school discipline plan. Respondent also refused to implement “grouping” of the students during instruction time. Dr. Williams also had a reading coach model lessons for Respondent and assigned him a teaching assistant. Respondent was the only teacher who received this level of assistance. Dr. Williams even went so far as to have two meetings with UTD prior to his formal evaluation of Respondent in order to help him. By October 2014, Dr. Williams had already explained his expectations to Respondent. Formal IPEGS observation On October 1, 2014, Principal Williams performed the formal IPEGS evaluation of Respondent. Principal Williams noted no deficiencies on that day. Generally speaking, Principal Williams does not view these observations as punitive. Over the years, Dr. Williams has conducted approximately 240 observations of teachers, and, generally, the employees are “on point” when being watched. Moreover, like Principal Rochelle, Dr. Williams views these observations as a snapshot of teacher performance while the SPE captures the year- long performance. In the report of the observation, Dr. Williams suggested that Respondent promote interactions with students, encourage more student participation, connect to prior student knowledge and interests, and present concepts at different levels of complexity, among other items. Norwood SPE—Professional Practice After the formal observation, Dr. Williams continued to conduct walkthroughs of Respondent’s class. He observed the same issues with refusing to use “grouping” and refusing to properly implement the discipline plan. Respondent never took advantage of the modeling techniques that were provided for him. He also was not implementing differentiated instruction. Dr. Williams himself held a professional development class on campus for the school discipline plan, which, instead of attending, Respondent attended a social studies class off campus. Instead of following the prescribed discipline plan, Respondent was trying to control the behavior of his students with treats. Similar to his time at Scott Lake, he refused to participate in field trips, staff gatherings, award assemblies, and student activity days. Respondent had lesson plans, but did not always follow them. He would spend an inordinate amount of time on vocabulary. He gave some tests, but would refuse to grade other tests. The pattern of his teaching was inconsistent, at best. On his SPE, Principal Williams rated Respondent as “effective” in five standards, “highly effective” in one, and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Learning Environment standard. Dr. Williams’ rating for Learning Environment was lower because Respondent failed to implement appropriate discipline strategies despite being told to do so. In eight years of being a principal, this was the first time he had ever given a teacher a “needs improvement” rating. He mostly gives his teachers combinations of “highly effective” and “effective,” if they do what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Dr. Williams testified he still went easy on Respondent because he was new to the school. In terms of his SPE professional practice points, Respondent scored in the bottom two percentile for second-grade teachers district-wide and was the worst rated second-grade teacher at Norwood. Instead of following the discipline plan, Respondent was using the emergency call button, writing SCMs, and writing to the superintendent to have ten students removed from his class. Another teacher at the school, Mr. W, had the exact same set of students as Respondent, only he taught them in the afternoon and not in the morning. He had none of the same behavior management issues Respondent had with this same group of children. Respondent claimed that Mr. W was able to manage the children better because, like the students, he was African-American. When asked how Respondent would have rated himself in these seven SPE standards, he would have given himself six “highly effectives” and one “effective.” He believes Principal Williams rated him lower than he should have as a result of retaliation against him for writing SCMs and because he complained about the size of his initial kindergarten class. This marked Respondent’s fourth claim of retaliation overall. Principal Williams credibly denied such retaliation at the hearing. Norwood VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 8.75 points-–the lowest possible score, again. He was one of 50 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only six percent of his second-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from Norwood should not be considered because of his students’ behavioral issues. He also stated he did not have enough textbooks to send home with students. Much like at Scott Lake, he believes he was intentionally given bad students. This is peculiar for two reasons. First, Dr. Williams first tried to assign Respondent another class, but Respondent complained that one was too big. To accept this argument, the viewer would have to believe Dr. Williams knew Respondent would reject the larger class, and the principal had another one in the wings filled with “bad” students to make Respondent look ineffective. Second, Mr. W had none of the same problems Respondent did with this same group of students in the afternoon. To accept this contention, Principal Williams’ plan only “worked” on Respondent, since he was singled out for retaliation. This line of argument is nonsensical, at best. The 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 School Years at Aventura Waterways K-8 In looking for the right fit, Respondent was sent to Aventura Waterways K-8 (“AWK8”) for the 2015-2016 school year. He remained there for the 2016-2017 school year until he was dismissed from his employment in March 2017. As at his previous school assignments, the administrators at AWK8 tried to work with Respondent and the UTD to let him know their expectations prior to the formal observations. During these two school years Respondent was observed formally by Principal Luis Bello and Assistant Principal Ileana Robles on no less than nine occasions. In both years, during his initial observations, his performance was found to be deficient; and he was immediately placed on support dialogue and, eventually, 90-day performance probation. During these two probationary periods, he was provided assistance through improvement plans and completed all his improvement plan assignments. The goal was to help him remediate his deficiencies. The only change he ever implemented was switching from block to weekly lesson plans. Both his instructional delivery and the learning environment never improved. During these observations, Principal Bello and Assistant Principal Robles both observed the same repeated deficiencies, which they described in meticulous detail at the hearing. Summarizing their testimony, the issues concerning Respondent were: Pacing. Respondent spends too much time on issues and did not complete entire lesson plans. Questioning students. Respondent only uses basic, easy to answer questions; does not ask enough questions; or is dismissive of questions. Failing to properly explain concepts to students or to activate prior knowledge. Respondent fails to prompt students in order to generate interest in the subject matter and holds no conversations about the material in class. Not using challenging enough material. Respondent’s material was so basic that parents were concerned their children were getting grades they did not deserve and not learning grade- appropriate material. Principal Bello described Respondent’s instruction as “robotic” and lacking any semblance of “passion.” AWK8—Professional Practice On his SPE, Principal Bello rated Respondent as “effective” in two standards, and “unsatisfactory” in five standards. Principal Bello’s ratings were in line with the repeated deficiencies discussed above. He awarded Respondent “unsatisfactory” ratings because Respondent never remediated his deficiencies. Principal Bello credibly stands by his SPE Ratings as honest and admits to spending a great deal of time on them. In terms of his SPE professional practice points for 2015-2016, Respondent scored in the bottom (0) percentile for fifth-grade teachers at AWK8, all teachers at AWK8, fifth-grade teachers district-wide, and all teachers district-wide. When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he would have given himself seven “highly effectives.” He believes Principal Bello rated him lower than he should have been rated, but could not say why. AWK8 VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s State VAM score for learner progress points was 8.5 points-–the lowest possible score, for the third year in a row. He was the only one of 98 fifth-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 32 percent of his fifth-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from AWK8 are not legitimate for a variety of reasons, none of which relate to his own shortcomings. Respondent’s excuses and the reasons not to credit those excuses are as follows: Respondent argues that his VAM cannot be counted against him because his afternoon class of fifth graders were ELL, and they spoke a variety of languages, including French, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. His theory was that they performed poorly because of their poor grasp of the English language. For VAM scoring purposes, this excuse should not be credited because the VAM already takes into account their ELL status by comparing them only to other ELL students with identical demographics and prior test scores; and they are not expected to perform as well as non-ELL students. However, by Respondent’s own admission his afternoon ELL class was the best class he had had in ten years of teaching. He said they had emotional balance, presence of mind, and good parental engagement. He even explained how his ESOL certification assisted him in understanding how to teach them. According to him, by the end of the year, the students were at the level where they would be having conversations. Respondent also had another ESOL-certified teacher assist him for a portion of the year, which was a standard practice. Finally, ELL students, who are brand new to the country, are not calculated into the VAM because there are no prior year scores for which they can be compared “apples to apples.” Respondent himself testified that the lowest level ELL students did not get graded. This makes sense because Respondent testified that his afternoon ELL class was 31 students-–yet only 15 ELL students were factored into the data used to calculate his VAM score for 2015-2016. In sum, the grades of the lowest English language functioning students were not even held against him. Respondent next argues that the numbers of students in both his morning and afternoon classes at AWK8 exceeded class size restrictions. Respondent “believes” his morning class had 24 or so students, but only 18 after the special education students were removed. When the student data is examined, it appears that Respondent only had 15 non-ELL students factored into his VAM score. As for the afternoon ELL class, otherwise considered by him the best class he has ever had, Respondent claims there were 31 in that class. Even assuming Respondent’s numbers are accurate (and they do not seem to be, given the VAM data), these class sizes do not run afoul of class size restrictions and are commonplace at AWK8. The School District operates on averages for class size compliance and everyone teaching fifth grade at AWK8 had similar class sizes. None of those other teachers had the same problems Respondent did. Moreover, Respondent reported the alleged class size violations to the FDOE, and they did nothing about it. Respondent further argues that his morning group of students was once again a “bad” group that did not give him a “fair shot.” According to Respondent, he had a student who would sit in a garbage can and another that would tell him “F_ _k you” every day. He had behavior concerns with four to five students in the morning class. Eventually, the student who sat in the garbage can was removed from the class. Respondent then testified that these behavior issues were exacerbated by his absence from the classroom when he was performing his improvement plan activities. He now appears to be placing his behavior concerns on the administration for doing their job by trying to assist him and by remediating his deficiencies. Behavior management is integral to being a teacher. A teacher must not be allowed to escape his or her own responsibility for performance shortcomings by blaming it on the students. At every school where Respondent has taught, he has admittedly written a large number of SCMs, had behavior issues with his students, and believes he was purposely given “bad” students. The only common thread among these schools is Respondent. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge that he might possibly be even a part of the problem and believes he has done nothing wrong. Respondent also blames his poor VAM on the fact that fundraising activities, book fairs, student activity days, and dances all detracted from instructional time at AWK8. This is the same excuse he used for his poor VAM at Norwood and holds no weight, since these are activities that all teachers at all schools must cope with as part of the instructional process. Respondent’s Termination by the School Board Respondent’s case was the first of its kind brought pursuant to section 1012.33(3)(b) (“3-year provision”), since this was the first time the School District had the requisite number of years’ data available. Of the thousands of teachers working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Respondent was part of a singular group of seven to nine teachers who fell into the three-year provision of the statute having the necessary combination of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” final overall SPE Ratings. Of that handful of teachers, Respondent was the single worst. Respondent’s performance actually declined each year despite the assistance provided for and made available to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 15th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent for 15 days without pay and return her to an annual contract.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Gabriele has been employed by the School Board since October 13, 1997. As a member of the School Board's instructional staff, Ms. Gabriele's employment was subject to section 1012.33, which provides that her employment will not be suspended or terminated except for just cause. During the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Gabriele was a teacher at Bashaw Elementary School (Bashaw). As a teacher, Ms. Gabriele was required to abide by all Florida Statutes which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board. On February 17, 2011, an Office of Professional Standards (OPS) file was opened regarding Ms. Gabriele based upon allegations that, on February 9, 2011, Ms. Gabriele asked a teacher's aide, Brenda Twinem (Ms. Twinem), in the presence of students, "Can I kill a kid today?", and, on February 16, 2011, Ms. Gabriele called a female student to the front of the classroom and yelled at her in the presence of other students and a parent. On April 18, 2011, another OPS file was opened regarding Ms. Gabriele based upon an allegation that she made intentional contact with a witness (Ms. Twinem) who was involved in a recent OPS investigation into the alleged misconduct of Ms. Gabriele. On April 19, 2011, the School Board notified Ms. Gabriele of its intent to place her on paid administrative leave pending the OPS investigation. On June 3, 2011, the superintendent notified Ms. Gabriele of his intent to recommend the suspension of her employment for 15 days without pay, the dates of which to be determined by her principal, and a return to annual contract status. The June 2011 AC notified Ms. Gabriele of the School Board's intent to suspend her employment and set forth the basis of the superintendent's recommendation for suspension. In the AC, the School Board charged that Ms. Gabriele had engaged in actions which constituted just cause under Section 6.11 of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board. These actions included: immorality, misconduct in office, corporal punishment, excessive force, and violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e). Joshua Bennett (Principal Bennett) became the principal of Bashaw in September 2010. Among his many other duties during the 2010-2011 school year, Principal Bennett was responsible for the supervision of the Bashaw teachers, including Ms. Gabriele, who was a fifth-grade teacher. Ms. Gabriele's class size fluctuated from 18 to 22 students during the 2010-2011 school year. It was noted that, during the math instruction period, there were changes in the number of students in her classroom, and it changed when Principal Bennett moved a student out of her class. Principal Bennett received some parent complaints and concerns regarding Ms. Gabriele shortly after he became Bashaw's principal. Based on these complaints, Principal Bennett collected information from the parents and decided to have an informal conversation with Ms. Gabriele. He also determined to walk through her classroom more frequently during the school year. Further, Principal Bennett recommended to Ms. Gabriele that she take some behavior management classes. Ms. Gabriele had the services of a paraprofessional (a/k/a a teacher's aide), Ms. Twinem, for a specific amount of time (40 to 50 minutes) during a particular day each week. While working for Ms. Gabriele as a paraprofessional, Ms. Twinem would check off homework, sort papers, grade papers, or work with groups of students as she was directed. In February 2011, Ms. Twinem approached Ms. Gabriele to provide her information. There were several students engaged in conversations in close proximity to Ms. Gabriele as she sat at her desk. According to Ms. Twinem, Ms. Twinem was standing beside Ms. Gabriele's desk when Ms. Gabriele looked at her and, in a frustrated tone, stated, "Can I kill a kid?" (Gabriele's Statement). Ms. Twinem was speechless because she thought it was inappropriate for Ms. Gabriele to make that statement in front of students. Ms. Twinem told Principal Bennett of Gabriele's Statement shortly thereafter. Ms. Twinem wrote her own account of Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Twinem's account contained her thought that Ms. Gabriele was joking, but she (Ms. Twinem) did not "know how it [Gabriele's Statement] was interpreted by the students." Clearly, at that time, Ms. Twinem had concerns about what the students thought of Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Gabriele admitted to making Gabriele's Statement. At hearing, she testified that, at the time she made the statement, the students were working with their partners, and it was loud in the classroom. After a student had asked her the same question several times, Ms. Gabriele made Gabriele's Statement. Although Ms. Gabriele testified that she was not frustrated, mad or upset when she made the statement, that she just made the statement "off-the-cuff kind of thing," this is not credible. According to Ms. Gabriele, the student's question involved a long-standing classroom practice of the students placing their completed assignments in a pink bin. If the student was indeed asking or questioning this long-standing practice, it would be natural for some type of frustration or exasperation to be expected. Ms. Gabriele conceded that, even if Gabriele's Statement had been made in jest or in a joking manner, it was inappropriate. Also in February 2011, Principal Bennett had a specific complaint involving a parent's (E.B.) observation during a visit to Ms. Gabriele's classroom. With Ms. Gabriele's knowledge that she was in the classroom, E.B. had come to pick up her student and to search for some misplaced homework in the classroom. E.B. observed a female student (later identified by the initials N.A.) go to the front of the classroom where Ms. Gabriele was yelling at her. E.B. described Ms. Gabriele's actions as ". . . really reaming the kid, . . . And she just didn't seem like she was letting up, and the child was just very distraught." E.B. observed N.A. to be "really teary eyed . . . Not in a full cry, but looked like she would break down." E.B. thought Ms. Gabriele's behavior was "pretty harsh," loud in a real demanding way, and fierce. E.B testified that, had Ms. Gabriele been yelling at E.B.'s student, she "probably would have yanked her in the hall and had a few words." E.B. was appalled at Ms. Gabriele's behavior and reported her observation to Principal Bennett. As a result of her conversation with Principal Bennett, E.B. followed up with a letter to the principal detailing what she had witnessed in Ms. Gabriele's classroom, as well as other observations she had while chaperoning a school field trip with Ms. Gabriele's class. E.B. requested to be kept informed of what action was being taken and volunteered to be in the classroom when her scheduled permitted. Shortly thereafter, an OPS investigation was opened regarding Ms. Gabriele. Debra Horne (Ms. Horne) is a specialist in the OPS. Ms. Horne conducted an investigation of E.B.'s classroom observation and Gabriele's Statement by interviewing Ms. Twinem; 11 students from Ms. Gabriele's class, including N.A.; and Ms. Gabriele. Ms. Twinem and the students' statements were taken on February 18, 2011, making them almost contemporaneous with the events. During the OPS interviews with the 11 students, all 11 stated that Ms. Gabriele yells at the students, and one student said her yelling was "extreme." Five of the students stated Ms. Gabriele embarrassed them or other students by her actions; four stated Ms. Gabriele called students different names, such as "toads," "toadettes," "hillbilly," or "baby"; and three said she made them cry or other students cry. During her OPS interview, N.A. stated that Ms. Gabriele had made her cry and that it embarrassed her a lot. N.A. further stated that Ms. Gabriele yelled at her and other students a lot.2/ During Ms. Twinem's OPS interview regarding Gabriele's Statement, she described Ms. Gabriele as being frustrated and using a frustrated tone when it was spoken. At the hearing Ms. Twinem also testified that she thought Gabriele's Statement was made "out of frustration," but that it was "inappropriate" nonetheless. Ms. Gabriele's OPS interview occurred on March 17, 2011. Ms. Horne conducted the OPS interview and followed her standard procedures in telling Ms. Gabriele the substance of the investigation. Aside from being told what her rights and duties were regarding the investigation, Ms. Gabriele was also reminded of the School Board policy regarding her cooperation with the investigation and her responsibility to not interfere with it or communicate with any witnesses to the investigation. Ms. Gabriele's interview included questions about E.B.'s letter, including E.B.'s classroom observations, and Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Gabriele confirmed she was aware that E.B.'s letter was sent "downtown." Ms. Gabriele maintained that she thought the only issue in the initial investigation was E.B.'s letter. This position is thwarted when one reviews her OPS interview wherein Ms. Gabriele was questioned about both E.B.'s letter and Gabriele's Statement. Although during the OPS interview Ms. Gabriele stated she did not remember the incident with N.A. crying, she did admit that if E.B.'s recollection of the incident with N.A. was correct that she, Ms. Gabriele, could "have handled it differently" by calling the student off to the side to discuss the issue. Also, during the OPS interview, Ms. Gabriele admitted that Gabriele's Statement was inappropriate when made to a coworker in the presence of students. Ms. Gabriele received a copy of the School Board's initial OPS investigative report in April 2011. Within that report, and through Ms. Gabriele's testimony, she acknowledged receipt of that investigative file,3/ which included all the information obtained during the initial OPS investigation, including her own interview regarding E.B.'s letter and Gabriele's Statement. In Section III of the initial OPS investigative report (for E.B.'s letter and Gabriele's Statement) and through her hearing testimony, Ms. Horne detailed her standard routine with respect to the description given to each witness at the start of his/her interview. Further, Ms. Horne advised School Board employees of their obligation to cooperate with the investigation as well as the School Board's Policy 6.13.4/ Ms. Gabriele testified that she was aware of the policies. On Monday morning, April 18, 2011, when Ms. Twinem reported to Ms. Gabriele's classroom to sort papers and check homework, she was subjected to questions by Ms. Gabriele regarding whether or not Ms. Twinem had, in fact, reported Gabriele's Statement to Principal Bennett. Ms. Gabriele testified she found out that Ms. Twinem was upset or bothered by Gabriele's Statement during one of her meetings with Principal Bennett. However, neither her testimony nor Principal Bennett's testimony reflected upon any meeting between those two on that Monday morning or the week prior for Ms. Gabriele to make that connection. Further, as Ms. Gabriele testified, she "obviously" knew that Ms. Twinem was the person who reported Gabriele's Statement, as she was the only other adult in the classroom at the time it was uttered. Ms. Twinem testified that she felt like "a deer in the headlights" when Ms. Gabriele asked her about reporting Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Twinem admitted to Ms. Gabriele that she had reported Gabriele's Statement to the principal "a long time ago." Ms. Twinem testified she was "anxious and nervous and like just didn't feel good" when Ms. Gabriele confronted her. Ms. Twinem reported this first encounter to Principal Bennett because she thought it should not have occurred. Later that same morning, Ms. Gabriele came into Ms. Twinem's office and told Ms. Twinem that she shouldn't tell anyone about their prior conversation because Ms. Gabriele could get in trouble. Ms. Twinem reported this second encounter to Principal Bennett. Still, later that same day when Ms. Twinem was in her office, Ms. Gabriele stood at the door and said that Ms. Twinem had gotten her (Ms. Gabriele) in trouble, because she had reported the second contact to the principal. Ms. Twinem reported this third contact to Principal Bennett. Principal Bennett testified that, after Ms. Twinem reported the first contact by Ms. Gabriele, he conferred with the OPS personnel as to what he should do. Based on direction from OPS, Principal Bennett hastily attempted to arrange a meeting with Ms. Gabriele to give her a verbal directive about contacting any witnesses involved with the investigation. Before the meeting could occur, Ms. Twinem reported that Ms. Gabriele had contacted her again. Prior to the third encounter, Principal Bennett issued a verbal directive to Ms. Gabriele about contacting any witnesses involved in the investigation. His directive included an admonishment "to cease and desist talking to the other employees about the OPS matter." Principal Bennett recounted that he told Ms. Gabriele that she was "not to talk to any other employees about the open investigation." Ms. Gabriele admitted she spoke with Ms. Twinem three times on April 18, 2011. Ms. Gabriele claimed that she did not understand who she could or could not talk to with respect to the investigation and that she only wanted to apologize for making Ms. Twinem upset about Gabriele's Statement. Ms. Gabriele admitted she knew it was Ms. Twinem who reported Gabriele's Statement to the principal. In the event Ms. Gabriele had questions about who she could or could not talk to, she had the opportunity to ask either Principal Bennett or Ms. Horne. Such dialogue apparently did not occur.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Manatee County School Board enter a final order suspending Ms. Gabriele for 15 days without pay and returning her to an annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's employment with the School Board of Dade County should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Dade County School Board is responsible for operating, controlling, and supervising all public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (1997). Ms. Scott is employed by the School Board as a custodian. She began working for the School Board in 1990 as a part-time food service worker at South Dade, and, in early 1992, she began working at South Dade as a full-time custodian. Custodians are classified by the School Board as maintenance workers, and Ms. Scott was a member of AFSCME at all times material to this action. The school's head custodian is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day performance of the custodians, which includes assigning duties to each custodian and developing a schedule for each custodian identifying the tasks that must be accomplished during specified blocks of time. The schedule is approved by the principal of the school. John Alexander is, and was at all material times, the head custodian at South Dade and Ms. Scott's immediate supervisor. Ms. Scott's job responsibilities and duties included "policing" 2/ all ten girls' restrooms after each class change; policing the girls' locker room; policing certain other areas, including designated corridors, the auditorium lobby, the clinic, and the band area; cleaning five girls' restrooms after 2:00 p.m.; cleaning designated cafeteria windows; removing graffiti from walls, mirrors, and corridors as needed; cleaning and disinfecting the drinking fountains in all corridors; cleaning graffiti off walls and doors in the ten girls' restrooms; and cleaning, dusting, and mopping the audio-visual room. Ms. Scott was also expected to respond to emergencies. These duties were the same as those assigned to the female custodian whom Ms. Scott replaced and as those currently being performed by the woman who replaced Ms. Scott at South Dade. Ms. Scott's training consisted, first, of working for several weeks with the female custodian she was hired to replace. Then, after Ms. Scott's predecessor retired, Mr. Alexander worked with her for approximately two weeks. Mr. Alexander noticed problems in her job performance shortly after Ms. Scott began working as a custodian. In a memorandum dated May 12, 1992, Mr. Alexander identified two specific incidents when Ms. Scott refused to follow his instructions. He notified Ms. Scott in the memorandum that he would recommend her termination as of May 19, 1992, during her probationary period, for lack of motivation and failure to perform her job responsibilities. As a result of this memorandum, on May 19, 1992, Ms. Scott, Mr. Alexander and Dr. Paul Redlhammer, the principal of South Dade at that time, met to discuss Ms. Scott's job performance. After this meeting, Dr. Redlhammer sent Ms. Scott a "Memo of Understanding: Job Performance," in which he summarized the reasons for the concern about her job performance and notified her that Mr. Alexander would work with her for two weeks to help her improve her job performance. Mr. Alexander did not notice any improvement in Ms. Scott's work during the two-week period or thereafter. On February 3, 1993, Mr. Alexander had a discussion with Ms. Scott about leaving work early, failing to empty the trash cans in her areas, and failing to clean the floor in the audio- visual room. On May 21, 1993, Mr. Alexander issued a Notification of Written Warning to Ms. Scott regarding her unsatisfactory performance, which included insubordination, disrespect, and improper behavior. Mr. Alexander proposed that Ms. Scott's file be reviewed and that she be given an opportunity to explain her performance. Mr. Alexander intended to recommend her termination from employment. From September 24, 1993, through October 27, 1993, Mr. Alexander kept a log of the time Ms. Scott reported for work and left work each day. The log reflected that Ms. Scott left work thirty to forty-five minutes early on fifteen days during that period, that she took a forty-minute morning break one day, and that she reported for work between one hour and forty minutes and two and one-half hours late on three days. In Ms. Scott's November 15, 1993, annual evaluation, Mr. Alexander rated Ms. Scott poor in the categories of taking lunch and breaks at the proper times, cleaning bathrooms, washing windows, following orders, following work schedules, and working well with other custodians. Mr. Alexander discussed the evaluation and her deficiencies with Ms. Scott, and she acknowledged by her signature that she had seen the written evaluation. Ms. Scott's job performance did not improve during the 1994-1995 school year. Despite being told repeatedly not to do so, Ms. Scott spent inordinate amounts of time talking with school security monitors in the school's corridors and in the school's north parking lot, sometimes spending an hour or more a day in these conversations. During most of that time, Ms. Scott was not on authorized breaks or lunch period. At the same time, Ms. Scott often did not properly police the girls' bathrooms or clean the areas for which she was responsible, and, on several occasions, she refused to obey direct orders from Mr. Alexander. In September 1994, Orlando Gonzalez, the assistant principal at South Dade, scheduled an informal conference with Ms. Scott to discuss the deficiencies in her work performance, including an incident in which Mr. Gonzalez observed Ms. Scott watching television at 9:30 a.m. in the audio visual room. Ms. Scott left the school before the scheduled conference without permission. As a result of this behavior, Mr. Gonzalez requested that Donald Hoecherl, the new principal at South Dade, schedule a formal conference for the record to discuss "serious deficiencies in her job performance." Mr. Gonzalez later withdrew the request for the conference on the record because he thought he could accomplish more by counseling with Ms. Scott informally to help her improve her job performance. Nonetheless, a conference for the record was held by Mr. Hoecherl in November 1994 for the stated purpose of addressing "continuous incidents of insubordination, failure to complete assigned work, and leaving work early." Ms. Scott was advised by Mr. Hoecherl that, if the problems were not resolved, another conference for the record would be held and that he would formally request her dismissal. Ms. Scott refused to sign the conference summary. Ms. Scott's job performance did not improve after the November 1994 conference for the record. Mr. Hoecherl tried to work with Ms. Scott on an informal basis, but his efforts to improve her job performance were not successful. In April 1995, Mr. Gonzalez received complaints from two parents about the lack of cleanliness in the ladies' restroom in an area which Ms. Scott was responsible for cleaning. Mr. Gonzalez told Mr. Alexander to direct Ms. Scott to clean that restroom. The next day, Mr. Gonzalez found that the restroom had not been cleaned. Mr. Gonzalez prepared a memorandum to Ms. Scott directing her to clean the restroom. In June 1995, a Notification of Written Warning was directed to Ms. Scott because she refused to obey direct orders from Mr. Alexander. Ms. Scott's job performance deteriorated during the 1995-1996 school year. On October 5, 1995, a Notification of Written Warning was issued for "[f]ailure to follow and complete assigned work." On November 8, 1995, a conference for the record was held and was attended by Ms. Scott and two representatives of AFSCME, as well as by Mr. Hoecherl, and Mr. Gonzalez. Three issues were discussed: Ms. Scott's direct and implied insubordination when she refused an order by Mr. Alexander to clean up the clinic area after a student became ill and when she twice refused to comply with Mr. Hoecherl's request that she step into his office to discuss the incident; Ms. Scott's pattern of failing to complete her job assignments; and her pattern of loitering on the job by talking to the security monitors in the corridors and in the north parking lot. The written summary of the conference for the record, dated November 13, 1996, included the following: In an effort to resolve these issues the following directives were outlined: Comply with all requests and directives issued by your immediate supervisor or administrator. . . . In regard to this issue failure to comply with the direction of an administrator or immediate supervisor constitutes insubordination and will result in additional disciplinary action. Follow your job assignments as given to you prior to this conference and again at this conference. The cleaning must be performed in a satisfactory manner meeting the requirements to maintain a clean and healthy school setting. Failure to complete your job assignments will result in additional disciplinary action. Refrain from loitering while on the job. You are reminded that you may spend your break and lunch time in dialog with others if you wish. You are not entitled to spend an inordinate amount of time talking and not performing your job assignments. Failure to meet this condition will result in additional disciplinary action. Ms. Scott refused to sign the written summary of the conference. Ms. Scott's job performance did not improve after the conference, and she did not follow the directives outlined for her. She continued to talk with other employees at times when she had no scheduled break; she failed to perform or inadequately performed her assigned tasks; and she engaged in a pattern of arriving at work late without authorization, taking time off during her shift without authorization, and leaving work before the end of her shift without authorization. On or about February 16, 1996, Mr. Alexander attempted to discuss these problems with Ms. Scott. She became angry and belligerent. Mr. Alexander stood in front of his office door to prevent Ms. Scott from going out into the corridor because the students were changing classes and he felt it would not be appropriate for them to see her in that frame of mind, but she left his office anyway. Ms. Scott was immediately summoned for a meeting with Mr. Hoecherl and Mr. Alexander. During the meeting, a school police officer arrived in response to a 911 call, which Ms. Scott had made, accusing Mr. Alexander of restraining her against her will. The police officer determined that there was no basis for this charge, and Ms. Scott left the meeting in an angry and belligerent manner. Mr. Hoecherl referred this incident to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. An administrative review was ordered, and Mr. Hoecherl was assigned to investigate the February 16 incident. On March 25, 1996, at Mr. Hoecherl's request, he and Ms. Scott met in his office. Mr. Hoecherl explained to Ms. Scott that he was trying to learn what had happened and wanted her to tell him her version of the incident. Ms. Scott became very agitated and left Mr. Hoecherl's office, slamming the door behind her. Her behavior as she left his office was very disruptive, but he nonetheless followed her to her car and asked that she return to his office to discuss the February 16 incident. Her response was belligerent and defiant, and Mr. Hoecherl told her to go home and not return to South Dade for the rest of the day. On the morning of March 26, Ms. Scott reported to work at South Dade. She was told that she had been reassigned to the Region VI administrative office and that she was not to return to the South Dade campus. In accordance with directions he received from the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Mr. Hoecherl instructed Ms. Scott to report to the personnel director at the Region VI office. At approximately 8:00 a.m. on March 27, Ms. Scott appeared at the custodial office at South Dade. Mr. Hoecherl again told her to report to the Region VI office and provided her with written notification of her reassignment. Ms. Scott reported to the Region VI office, but, a short time later, she left and returned to South Dade. Ms. Scott was again told to leave the school grounds and informed that failure to do so would be considered gross insubordination; she refused to leave South Dade despite repeated orders from Mr. Hoecherl and the school police. Ms. Scott was belligerent and disruptive, and she was placed under arrest by the School Board police. She was escorted out of the school building in handcuffs; Mr. Hoecherl covered her shoulders with a jacket to hide the handcuffs from the students, but Ms. Scott attempted to shrug it off. In a memorandum dated March 28, 1996, to the Office of Professional Standards, Mr. Hoecherl detailed Ms. Scott's poor job performance from January 12, 1996, through March 25, 1996. A conference for the record was scheduled for March 29 at 2:00 p.m. by James Monroe, the Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. Ms. Scott failed to report for the conference even though she was contacted at her home by telephone shortly after 2:00 p.m. and told that they would wait for her for one hour. The conference for the record was rescheduled for April 4, 1996, and the topics to be discussed were identified in the notice as follows: "[Y]our failure to report for a conference on March 29, 1996, at 2:00 p.m., as previously directed . . .; failure to comply with site directives; unauthorized departure from the work site; attendance/performance related issues; medical fitness for continued employment and your future employment status with Dade County Public Schools." During the conference, Ms. Scott was advised that her employment status would be reviewed in light of the facts discussed at the conference, and she was directed to report to the Region VI office pending formal notification of the decision of the Superintendent of Schools and to perform all tasks and duties assigned to her. During the time she was assigned to the Region VI office, from April 1996 until September 1996, Ms. Scott disregarded instructions and directives from her supervisors, she failed to perform her job responsibilities or performed them inadequately, and she was absent from work a number of times without authorization. From September 1995 to September 1996, Ms. Scott was absent from her job without authorization for 20 days. She was absent from her job without authorization for three consecutive workdays from March 28 through April 1, August 23 through September 5, 1996. 3/ Ms. Scott was suspended by the School Board at its September 11, 1996, meeting. Mr. Alexander, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Hoecherl tried for several years, through numerous informal memoranda and discussions, to help Ms. Scott bring her job performance up to an acceptable level. Ms. Scott was given several formal written notifications and warnings about the deficiencies in her job performance, and three formal conferences for the record were held to put Ms. Scott on notice of the perceived job deficiencies and of the complaints about her work and to allow her to explain the situation from her perspective. Ms. Scott did not comply with the directives for corrective action developed during the conferences for the record, and her attitude and job performance generally deteriorated from 1992 until September 1996, when she was suspended and dismissal proceedings instituted. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish that Ms. Scott's job performance was deficient in that she failed to perform or inadequately performed her assigned job responsibilities; that on numerous occasions she refused to comply with requests and direct orders from the head custodian, from the assistant principal, and from the principal of South Dade; that she accumulated excessive unauthorized absences; and that she abandoned her position with the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County issue a final order terminating Gale Scott's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent as a secretary at Lindsey Hopkins Prior to 2010, school administrators at Lindsey Hopkins had received numerous complaints from school employees that Respondent had verbally harassed them. On February 8, 2010, Esteban Sardon was working as Assistant Principal of Lindsey Hopkins. On that date he was in one of the school's administrative offices and Respondent was also present. Mr. Sardon coughed while in the office. Almost immediately, Respondent accused Mr. Sardon of having spit on her. Respondent sent Dr. Rosa Borgen, the principal of Lindsey Hopkins, a letter on February 10, 2010, that alleged that Mr. Sardon had deliberately twice spit and coughed in her face. In her letter, Respondent described "[t]wo big huge cough breath [sic] rate were [sic] about 70 to 80 wind speed with a [sic] some saliva." Respondent also sent Mr. Sardon a memorandum calling his behavior "unprofessional" and alleging that she was going to contact "CRC" (the Civil Rights Compliance Office). Mr. Sardon denied, credibly, that he spat on Respondent. The more credible evidence established that he did cough twice in Respondent's presence, but the coughs were dry coughs and not in the direction of Respondent. Respondent fabricated the allegation that Mr. Sardon had purposefully spat on her. In an attempt to resolve the issues related to Respondent's allegations that Mr. Sardon had spat on her, Mr. Gornto, a district administrator, decided that the school administrators should meet with Mr. Sardon and Respondent. On March 9, 2010, Pamela Johnson, an instructional supervisor, from Mr. Gornto's office, met with Mr. Sardon, Respondent, Dr. Borgen, and another assistant principal of Lindsey Hopkins. At the meeting, Respondent presented a document entitled "What Would Make Me Happy" and asked Mr. Sardon to sign it. The "demands" were as follows: I will never ever to [sic] use you're [sic] inside waste on me [sic]. Meaning neither your breath, nor your saliva. I am not a toilet. I am Human [sic]. A Human Being [sic]. Not to try to embarrass me in front of my co-workers. Not to retaliate against me after this incident. Big apology. Mr. Sardon offered an apology to put the matter at rest, but he refused to sign the document. Shortly after the "spitting" accusation, Respondent had conflicts with Drusilla Sears and Donna Wallace, both of whom worked closely with Mr. Sardon. On March 2, 2010, Ms. Sears, a school account clerk, asked Respondent if she was finished using a copy machine. Respondent told her that she had asked a "stupid question," thereby starting a verbal altercation that included finger- pointing by Respondent and by Ms. Sears. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Ms. Sears did not threaten physical harm to Respondent. This run-in upset Ms. Sears. On March 3, 2010, Respondent sent another letter to Dr. Borgen claiming that Ms. Sears had tried to beat her up. In the letter Respondent also stated, in all capital letters, the following: "I AM NO FOOL. I KNOW SOMEONE TOLD DRUSILLA TO DO THIS TO ME." There was no credible evidence that anyone had instructed Ms. Sears to do anything to Respondent. To the contrary, the greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent provoked the incident with Ms. Sears. On March 5, 2010, Respondent wrote another letter to Dr. Borgen. That letter referenced the incidents with Mr Sardon and Ms. Sears and also asserted that someone had placed child pornography on her school computer. There was no credible evidence that anyone had placed pornography on Respondent's computer.1 On March 16, 2010, Mr. Gornto sent Respondent a memorandum related to an earlier correspondence he had received from Respondent. In the letter Mr. Gornto told Respondent that any future complaints regarding employees should be made to Dr. Borgen, to the CRC, or to the school police department. Despite this directive from Mr. Gornto, Respondent continued to contact Mr. Gornto. These contacts (Petitioner's Exhibits 9, 12, and 17-21) were in the form of emails that contained false (and often nonsensical) allegations of employee wrongdoing against her. Each of these emails constituted separate and distinct acts that contradicted Mr. Gornto's directives to Respondent. A recurring theme in those emails was that Dr. Borgen and other school employees were trying to "destroy" her or make her "miserable." In one email, Respondent alleged that one of Mr. Gornto's subordinates had been impersonating Mr. Gornto. In April 2010, Respondent approached school clerk Donna Wallace and accused her of saying something about Respondent to a school counselor. Ms. Wallace denied, credibly, that there was a factual basis for the allegation. Respondent told Ms. Wallace to "watch her back" and threatened to sue her for slander. The incident made Ms. Wallace feel uncomfortable and embarrassed. On April 13, 2010, Respondent engaged in a verbal altercation with Shundra Hardy, a data input specialist. Ms. Hardy worked in the student registration department. When Mr. Sardon was made aware of this incident, Mr. Sardon told Respondent that she was only to visit the registration area as long she did not disturb other employees. This directive caused Respondent to yell and confront Mr. Sardon in his office, As a result of that confrontation, Mr. Sardon called school security. On May 18, 2010, a conference for the record (CFR) was held with Respondent. Dr. Borgen, Mr. Gornto, and Dr. Anna Rasco (Administrative Director of Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards) represented Petitioner. The recent conflicts involving Respondent prompted a decision that she would have to undergo a fitness for duty evaluation. During the time the evaluation was to be completed, Respondent was placed on alternate assignment at her home. Respondent was directed to refrain from engaging in the behaviors that had prompted the need for the evaluation, and she was directed not to contact the school (other than through the principal's office to report her attendance) while on alternate assignment. By letter dated August 10, 2010, Stephen Kahn, M.D., advised Dr. Rasco that Respondent was not fit for duty due to her mental status.2 By letter to Dr. Rasco dated September 4, 2010, Richard S. Greenbaum, Ph.D., a psychologist, opined that Respondent could return to work if she continued to see a psychotherapist.3 On October 4, 2010, Respondent called Lindsey Hopkins and spoke with two employees. These contacts were in direct violation of the directives that had been issued to her.4 On October 14, 2010, a CFR was held with Respondent. Ms. Nyce Daniel (who had replaced the retired Dr. Borgen as Principal of Lindsey Hopkins), Mr. Gornto, and Dr. Brasco represented Petitioner. This CFR was held to address Respondent's non-compliance with the terms and directives given to her while on alternate assignment. Respondent was directed to refrain from engaging in the behaviors that had prompted the need for a fitness evaluation. Respondent was also advised that she would not be permitted to return to work because of the conflicting opinions between Drs. Kahn and Greenbaum. Respondent selected Joseph W. Poitier, Jr., M.D., to conduct her third evaluation. By letter to Dr. Rasco dated March 14, 2011, Dr. Poitier opined that within a reasonable medical certainty Respondent was able to return to work without restriction.5 On March 30, 2011, a CFR was held with Respondent. Ms. Daniel, Mr. Gornto, and Dr. Brasco represented Petitioner. Based on Dr. Poitier's opinion, Respondent was advised that she could return to work on April 4. Respondent was again given directives that included explicit directives to refrain from the behaviors that had caused the need for her fitness for duty evaluations. Specifically, Respondent was instructed to avoid altercations with school staff. On April 5, 2011, with people present in the office, Respondent, using vulgar language, told Cassandra Johnson (a teacher at Lindsey Hopkins) that her husband, Charles Johnson (the head custodian) had engaged in a sexual affair with Dr. Borgen and that Dr. Borgen had been "doing all the guys in school." Ms. Johnson attempted to distance herself from Respondent, but Respondent pursued Ms. Johnson down the hall and continued her verbal tirade. Ms. Johnson was humiliated and upset by the incident. Respondent's actions disrupted Ms. Johnson's ability to perform her duties that day. Mr. Johnson was very upset by Respondent's accusation and denied, credibly, that he had ever had a sexual relationship with Ms. Borgen. Mr. Johnson was concerned that the accusations could hurt his marriage, and he was concerned because his wife was very upset. On April 7, 2011, Respondent confronted Thomas Nunn (an automotive instructor at Lindsey Hopkins) and implied that he had been in an intimate relationship with Dr. Borgen. Mr. Nunn was not offended by Respondent's comments. However, Ms. Daniel learned of Respondent's comments to Mr. Nunn. On April 8 Ms. Daniel directed Respondent to refrain from such conduct. At the time Ms. Daniel gave those directions to Respondent, Ms. Daniel did not know about the incident involving Mr. and Ms. Johnson. On April 8, 2011, Respondent called Mr. Gornto's office to ask permission to take half-day leave. This call was in violation of the directives Mr. Gornto had given to her as to how she was to communicate with her supervisors. On April 11, 2001, Ms. Daniel learned of the incident involving Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. On or about April 28, 2011, Respondent complained to the CRC that Erinn Gobert (the ESOL chairperson at Lindsey Hopkins) and Sophia Hall (an assistant principal at Lindsey Hopkins) had been harassing her. She stated that they were mumbling things about her, taunting her, and teasing her. She further reported that Ms. Gobert and Ms. Hall made gestures that they wanted to fight with Respondent. Respondent's accusations of harassment triggered an investigation. Respondent's accusations were complete fabrications. Neither Ms. Gobert nor Ms. Hall had any meaningful contact with Respondent. On May 18, 2011, a CFR was held with Respondent to address her gross insubordination and violation of other school board rules. Ms. Daniel, Mr. Gornto, and Dr. Rasco represented Petitioner. As a result of her behaviors, Ms. Daniel had to constantly give Respondent specific tasks to minimize Respondent's interaction with other employees. Despite Ms. Daniel's efforts, Respondent's run-ins with co-workers were throughout the school and reached outside of Respondent's assigned work area. Many of her co-workers were not comfortable working with or near Respondent. The efforts to shield co- workers from Respondent created extra work for Ms. Daniel. Respondent's repeated contacts with Mr. Gornto and her baseless accusations towards co-workers disrupted his work and consumed an inordinate amount of his time. Respondent's behavior negatively impacted employee morale at Lindsey Hopkins and disrupted its operations. Respondent repeatedly refused to obey administrative directives that were reasonable in nature and given with proper authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 17th day of October, 2011.
