The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his position of employment as a School Monitor on the basis of conduct which is alleged to constitute conduct unbecoming an employee, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Hector Valdez, was employed by the School Board as a School Monitor and was assigned to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School. At all times material to this case, Michael Bowers (who is not a party to this proceeding) was also employed as a School Monitor and was assigned to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School. The Respondent and Michael Bowers were coworkers; neither was supervisor over the other. On September 25, 1991, for the first time ever, the Respondent gave Bowers a ride in the Respondent's car after work. First they went to the union office. Bowers' beeper went off and Bowers asked the Respondent to drive him to Bowers' mother's house. The Respondent complied. While the two men were at the residence of Bowers' mother, Bowers' beeper went off again. Bowers told the Respondent that the last beeper call was from a runaway girl or from a girl who had been thrown out of the house by her mother. Bowers went on to explain that he needed to meet the girl to talk to her and try to convince her to go home. To that end, Bowers asked the Respondent to drive him to one of the Metro stations. The Respondent complied with Bowers' request. At the Metro station Bowers met two girls. The Respondent had never seen either of the two girls before. From their age and appearance, they looked like they might be students, but the Respondent did not know whether they were students. The oldest of the two girls appeared to be pregnant. Bowers explained to the Respondent that he (Bowers) needed to go somewhere to talk to the girls and try to convince them to go home. Purportedly to that end, Bowers asked the Respondent to drive him and the two girls to a motel. The Respondent complied with the request. When they arrived at the motel, Bowers and the girls went into the motel and Bowers obtained a motel room. The Respondent remained in his automobile and played no part in obtaining the motel room. A few minutes later, Bowers asked the Respondent to take him to buy a pizza. The Respondent drove Bowers to a pizza shop and then drove Bowers and the pizza back to the motel. The Respondent left Bowers at the motel and did not see Bowers or the two girls again until the next morning at work. The Respondent did not know that Bowers intended to spend the night at the motel with the two girls, nor was he aware that Bowers intended to engage in any other form of improper conduct with either of the two girls. On September 26, 1991, when Bowers reported to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School, he brought with him the same two girls who had been with him at the motel the previous day. The Respondent did not play any role in transporting the two girls from the motel to the high school on September 26, 1991, and did not find out until several days later that Bower had spent the night at the motel with the two girls and had brought them to the school. 1/ On September 26, 1991, after the Respondent reported to work at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School, he saw the two girls who had been with Bowers at the motel the previous evening. The girls were on the school campus and the Respondent knew they were not supposed to be there because they were not students at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School. 2/ As soon as he saw the two girls on September 26, 1992, the Respondent went looking for Bowers. When the Respondent found Bowers he told him the girls were on campus, reminded him that the girls weren't supposed to be there, and told him that he (Bowers) needed to do something about it. Bowers assured the Respondent that he would so something to take care of the matter. Bowers did not do anything effective to take care of the matter, because the two girls remained at Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School all day on September 26, 1991. The Respondent knew that Bowers had not taken care of the matter because he saw the two girls on the school campus several times during the day on September 26, 1991. On September 26, 1991, the Respondent did not report to the school administrators of Hialeah Miami Lakes Senior High School that the two girls who had been with Bowers at the motel were on the school campus. The Respondent's duties as a School Monitor required that he make a report to the school administrators of any trespassers on the school campus. The Respondent was aware of his duty to report trespassers on the school campus. At the hearing the Respondent candidly admitted that he failed to follow proper procedure on September 26, 1991, by failing to report the presence on campus of the two girls who had been with Bowers the previous evening.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the School Board issue a Final Order in this proceeding to the following effect: Dismissing all charges against the Respondent and restoring him to his former position of employment with back pay from the date of his suspension. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of July 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has served in the field of education in the State of Florida for approximately twenty-seven years. He has worked as a teacher, a dean, an assistant principal, and a principal. From 1959 until June, 1972, he worked in the Broward County, Florida school system in various capacities. Prior to the 1972-73 academic year, the Petitioner moved to Lake County where he was hired as an assistant principal at Eustis High School. He served as the assistant principal at Eustis High School during the 1972-73 and 1973-74 academic years. During those two academic years there were two assistant principals employed at Eustis High School. The school was not large enough to justify two assistant principalships; however, racial tensions at the school had placed a strain upon administrative personnel, and two assistant principals were assigned to the school for that reason. During the spring of the 1973-74 school year, it became apparent that only one of the two assistant principals would be rehired for the next academic year. The principal at Eustis High School decided to retain the other assistant principal rather than the Petitioner. This was not because of any deficiency on the Petitioner's part, but rather because the other assistant principal was black man, and the principal felt it important to maintain a black person in a high administrative capacity at the school in view of the recent tensions. During the 1972-73 and 1973-74 school years, the Petitioner was employed with the School Board on an "annual contract" basis. He was eligible for a "continuing contract" for the 1974-75 school year. The principal at Eustis High School wished to recommend the Petitioner for continued employment as an administrator; however, he did not have a position available, and he recommended that the Petitioner be hired on a continuing contract basis as a teacher. The School Board voted to place the Petitioner on continuing contract status as a teacher. During the summer of 1974 additional funds became available, and the School Board elected to keep a second assistant principal at the Eustis High School. The Petitioner was offered that position. In the meantime, however, the Petitioner had applied for a vacancy as an assistant principal at the Mount Dora Middle School, within the Lake County school system. The Petitioner was hired for that latter position. During the 1974-75 school year the principal at the Mount Dora High School was removed, and the Petitioner was assigned as the principal. He served in that capacity for the remainder of that school year, and for the 1975-76 and 1976-77 school years. For each of those two latter years, he was given an annual contract as a principal. During February, 1977, the Superintendent of the School Board advised the Petitioner at a conference that the Petitioner would not be recommended for an administrative position within the school system for the 1977-78 school year, but that the Petitioner's continuing contract status as a teacher would be honored, and that he would be recommended for a teaching position. This oral notification was followed by letters dated March 7, 1977 and March 29, 1977 advising the Petitioner of the action. Petitioner is now employed on a continuing contract basis, as a teacher at the Eustis Middle School within the Lake County school system. At all times relevant to this action, the School Board has distributed contracts to its personnel in the following manner: During the spring or early summer of each academic year, two copies of proposed contracts are mailed to personnel who the Board has decided to rehire. If the employee agrees with the contract he signs both copies and returns them to the School Board, where the facsimile signatures of the Superintendent and Chairman of the School Board are affixed. One of the copies is then returned to the employee. Prior to the 1974-75 school year, a continuing contract of employment was forwarded to the Petitioner in this manner. The contract provided in pertinent part: WHEREAS, Section 231.36, et. seq., Florida Statutes, provides for continuing contracts with each School Board for members of the instructional staff in each district school system, who are qualified by the terms of said law, and WHEREAS, the School Board has appointed and employed the Teacher for continuing employment as teacher in the Mount Dora Middle School of the district. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements, covenants, terms, and conditions herein contained, it is expressly stipulated, understood, agreed, and covenanted by and between the parties hereto as follows: The School Board enters into this contract of continuing employment with the Teacher pursuant to the laws of Florida and to Section 231.36, et. seq., Florida Statutes, and the action of the School Board heretofore taken, whereby the Teacher was appointed and employed . . . The words "(Asst. Prin.)" had been placed after the words "whereas the School Board has appointed and employed the teacher for continuing employment as teacher". The words "(Asst. Prin.)" were also crossed out. It appears that these words were inserted in the contract after Mr. Ridaught had signed it and before the proper facsimile signatures of the Chairman of the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools were affixed to the contract. The Superintendent crossed out the words before the contract was signed by the School Board personnel. When the contract was returned to the Petitioner the words "(Asst. Prin.)" were placed on the contract and were crossed out. It does not appear that the words "(Asst. Prin.)" as above have any bearing on this case, or that they were intended to be a part of the contract by either of the parties. It appears that they were inserted by clerical error and were crossed out in order to obviate the error. The School Board has, in the past, offered continuing contract status to teachers, principals, and supervisors. The School Board has not, in the past, offered continuing contract status to assistant principals, or any administrators below the level of principal. It does not appear that the School Board has ever offered a continuing contract to an administrator other than a principal. As a result of a change in the pertinent statutes the School Board now gives tenure or continuing contract status only to teachers. Neither supervisors nor principals are granted continuing contract status. Assistant principals are classified for the School Board's purposes as teachers. Their paygrade is determined from the same scale that is used for teachers. Assistant principals are given an increment in their salary for the additional duties that they perform, in the same manner that coaches, librarians, and guidance counsellors are given an increment. There is no separate salary scale for assistant principals as there is for administrators and supervisors. Although the School Board classified the Petitioner as a teacher in the continuing contract that was granted to the Petitioner in 1974, the Petitioner had not, prior to that time, ever served within the Lake County school system as a teacher. All of his service prior to then was as an assistant principal. His duties as an assistant principal included administrative duties assigned by the principal of the school. At no time did he serve as a classroom teacher. Subsequent to 1974, the Petitioner continued to serve as an administrator within the school system, and not until the present school year did he ever serve as a classroom teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's prayer that the School Board be required to consider him as having continuing contract status as an administrator or assistant principal; and denying the Petitioner's prayer for loss of wages; and dismissing the petition herein. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Vossler, Esquire Harrison T. Slaughter, Jr., Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 610, Eola Office Center Suite 224 605 Robinson Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Orlando, Florida 32801 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact During the 1976-1977 academic school year, Taylor was employed by the School Board as a teacher at Shenandoah Junior High School. Taylor has been a teacher for twenty-two years and no evidence has been introduced to establish that Taylor has been the subject of prior disciplinary action as a teacher. Taylor's family has been deeply involved in education in Dade County and it was stipulated that education has been the dedication of Taylor's life. The notice of charges contains fourteen numbered paragraphs. The actual charges against Taylor are contained in paragraphs 3 through 13. As to paragraph 3, the School Board has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that on December 1 and 3, 1976, Taylor arrived late for her assigned duties and failed to report to her homeroom as required. As to paragraph 8, the School Board has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that on September 20 and 23, 1976, Taylor failed to report to her homeroom assignment. As to paragraphs 4, 10 and 13, the School Board has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that the charges contained therein are true. As to charge 9, the School Board has withdrawn the dates of September 28, 29 and 30, 1976. That which remains consists of five charges of refusing to report to homeroom assignment, six charges of being late for assigned duties and failing to report to homeroom assignment, ten charges of being late for homeroom assignment, one charge of absent without leave, and a final charge of failing to obey an order. Of these remaining charges the evidence fails to sustain the allegation that Taylor refused to report to her homeroom assignment on September 16 and 17, 1976. Furthermore, the evidence fails to sustain charge number 12 that on February 25, 1977, Taylor was absent without leave. It is found as a matter of fact that on September 21, 22 and 27, 1976, Taylor refused to report to her homeroom assignment. It is found as a matter of fact that on November 22, 23, 24, 29, 30 and December 2, 1976, Taylor arrived late for her assigned duties and failed to report to her homeroom as required. It is found as a matter of fact that on February 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 28, 1977, Taylor was late for her homeroom assignment. As to the remaining charge, it was alleged that Taylor had received an order from her department chairperson to provide emergency lesson plans, weekly lesson plans, and instructional objectives. There was no competent evidence introduced by the School Board to establish that the department chairperson had given such an order. Accordingly, charge number 5 is not proven by competent substantial evidence.
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether the Respondent, Linda Alexsuk, should be returned to annual contract by the Petitioner, School Board of Hernando County.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Linda Alexsuk, has been employed as a teacher by the Petitioner since the 1974-75 school year and has taught kindergarten in the Hernando County school district from the school year 1976-77 through the school year 1988-89. Linda Alexsuk was employed as a teacher by the Petitioner at the Moton School during the school year 1974-75 until the end of the school year 1988-89. Yvonne Brewer has been the principal at Moton School for 11 years during all of which Linda Alexsuk was a kindergarten teacher at Moton School. Linda Alexsuk received her first annual contract to teach at the Moton School from the Hernando County school district for the 1974-75 school year, and after four consecutive years of annual contracts, received a continuing contract of employment for the 1978-79 school year. Linda Alexsuk received annual evaluations that were conducted by the principal of the Moton School, Yvonne Brewer, beginning in 1980, and continuing up through the 1988-89 school year. In the annual evaluation for the 1980-81 school year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Average or better in every area except Behavioral Management, where she was evaluated Below Average. Early in the school year 1981-82 the Hernando County School Board employed an independent consultant, Dr. Clint Van Nagel, to observe Linda Alexsuk's classroom, which observation took place during one of her teaching sessions. Following the observation Dr. Van Nagel provided to Linda Alexsuk by letter ten to twelve suggestions of methods which could be used by her to improve her behavior management. In the annual evaluation for the 1981-82 school year, using a different form than in the previous year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Satisfactory in every area except four (Planning, Techniques, Student and Classroom Management, and Student Response) in which Improvement Required was indicated. In the annual evaluation for the 1982-83 school year, using a similar form to that used in the previous year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Satisfactory in every area except three (Techniques, Student and Classroom Management, and Student Response) in which Improvement Required was indicated. In the annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, using an identical form to that used in the previous year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Satisfactory in every area except two (Student and Classroom Management and Student Response) in which Improvement Required was indicated. In the annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year, using an identical form to that used in the previous year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Satisfactory in every area, including Student and Classroom Management and Student Response. In the annual evaluation for the 1985-86 school year, using an identical form to that used in the previous year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Satisfactory in every area, including Student and Classroom Management and Student Response. In the annual evaluation for the 1986-87 school year, using an identical form to that used in the previous year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Satisfactory in every area, including Student and Classroom Management and Student Response. The first disciplinary action ever instituted against Linda Alexsuk was a written reprimand attached to the annual evaluation for the 1987-88 school year, dated March 25, 1988. Yvonne Brewer sought legal advice on how to return Linda Alexsuk to annual contract status before she issued the written reprimand in March of 1988. Yvonne Brewer believed that return to annual contract was a prerequisite to transferring the Respondent to another school in the district. With that goal in mind, Yvonne Brewer conducted the annual observation and evaluation of Linda Alexsuk for the school year 1987-88 on March 25, 1988. The Respondent was informed that improvement was required in the areas of Techniques, Student and Classroom Management, and Student Response. In addition, the written reprimand from Yvonne Brewer to Linda Alexsuk was attached to the 1987-88 annual observation form, setting forth a chronological list of alleged written warnings which had previously been given to The Respondent concerning discipline. The reprimand set forth a period of time in which Yvonne Brewer expected to see improvement in Respondent's teaching performance. The time period by which marked improvement was required was until the last week of May 1988. The reprimand also stated that Linda Alexsuk would be closely observed and supervised during the 1988-89 school year and further disciplinary action (possible termination) would be considered at that time. At the time of the written reprimand, Yvonne Brewer scheduled a team observation of Linda Alexsuk. The team was to consist of Yvonne Brewer, Betty Durden and the Moton School primary specialist, during which observation Yvonne Brewer wished to see improvement in her performance. Subsequent to that date, the primary specialist, Karen Rice, was removed from the team, at her request, and Martin Yungmann was added to the team. A team consisting of Yvonne Brewer, Martin Yungmann and Betty Durden was then scheduled to observe Linda Alexsuk's class on May 4, 1988. At the time of the May 4, 1988, observation, Martin Yungmann was the district director of curriculum for the Hernando County school system. He holds a master's degree in education with 27 years of experience in the education profession. In addition, Martin Yungmann was certified to observe teachers' performance using the Florida Performance Measurement System (hereinafter referred to as F.P.M.S.). At the time of the May 4, 1988, observation, Betty Durden was the supervisor of elementary curriculum for the Hernando County school district, which position she had held for six years. Betty Durden holds a master's degree in curriculum and instruction and has 29 years of experience in the education profession. Betty Durden has also been certified as an observer using the F.P.M.S. Yvonne Brewer is certified to observe teachers using the F.P.M.S. and, in fact, because of her position as principal acts as an observer approximately 30-35 times per year. The F.P.M.S. is an objective system which is used by all school districts in the state of Florida, except the Dade County school district, for the purpose of conducting observations in the master teacher program. In addition, the system is used to observe teachers in the beginning teacher program in 50 school districts in the state of Florida. In total, the F.P.M.S. is used to observe approximately eight thousand teachers per year in Florida. The F.P.M.S. is not ordinarily used to evaluate an experienced teacher and it is not designed as a disciplinary evaluation. On May 4, 1988, Yvonne Brewer, Betty Durden and Martin Yungmann conducted an observation of Linda Alexsuk's class using the F.P.M.S. form. Following the observation, a conference was held between Linda Alexsuk, Martin Yungmann, Betty Durden and Yvonne Brewer to discuss the team's observation. On May 11, 1989, and May 25, 1989, Yvonne Brewer conducted additional observations of Linda Alexsuk's class using the F.P.M.S. form. Following those observations, Yvonne Brewer met with Respondent to discuss her observations. During those observations Yvonne Brewer observed the same recurring problems which had been identified in the May 4, 1988, observation. Following these observations some suggestions for improvement of her deficiencies were offered to Linda Alexsuk. Respondent followed up on some of those suggestions. She also consulted with other teachers and reviewed books and materials on her own. On June 2, 1988, Yvonne Brewer, Betty Durden and Martin Yungmann again observed Linda Alexsuk's class using the F.P.M.S. form. During that observation all three team members observed recurring problems which had been identified during the May 4, 1988, observation and saw only one attempt, that being the giving of more directions, to implement the suggestions that the team had made following the May 4, 1988, observation. Following the observation on June 2, 1988, a conference was held between Linda Alexsuk, Yvonne Brewer and Martin Yungmann, during which the team members discussed with Respondent the problems that they had observed. One of the suggestions made by the observation team following the June 2, 1988, observation was for Linda Alexsuk to seek assistance at the Teacher Education Center (hereinafter referred to as TEC). In response Linda Alexsuk checked the list of course titles that were available for the summer at TEC, but took no classes because she was unable to get some of the classes she thought might be useful based upon the course titles. Instead, Ms. Alexsuk went back over some books that she had at home. As part of the kindergarten curriculum, the kindergarten classes were to be taught a series of 20 words called the GINN words, which words are used in the first primer book at the first grade level. The kindergarten students were required to master a minimum of 80% of these words. During the May 4, 1988, observation, Yvonne Brewer moved around the room and quickly and informally tested ten children. None of the ten children could give her the words in the manner requested. After the observation Yvonne Brewer decided to have Linda Alexsuk's class tested in the GINN words by the Moton School primary specialist. Karen Rice is the primary specialist at Moton School. As primary specialist Karen Rice is responsible for the implementation of Florida's prep law in the school and for monitoring the education that is being received by the students to guarantee that each student is receiving the education he/she personally needs. The primary specialist is also responsible for testing children who are referred by teachers who believe the students may need special attention either because they are exceptional or have learning problems. On May 9, 1988, Karen Rice, at Yvonne Brewer's request, conducted a special achievement level test of the GINN words for children in Linda Alexsuk's class. At the time the test was given by Karen Rice, the majority of the students should have been at the 80% or better level. The results of the test Karen Rice conducted showed that of the 26 children in Linda Alexsuk's class, 22 did not know 80% of the words, 19 did not know 50% of the words, and 15 students knew 25% or less of the words. On November 17, 1988, Martin Yungmann observed Linda Alexsuk's class using the F.P.M.S. form, during which observation Yungmann once again saw no new instruction. In addition, he reviewed Respondent's lesson plan book, and the lesson plan did not indicate the activities that were actually taught or the instruction, goals or objectives that Ms. Alexsuk was attempting to get across to the students. Following the observation, Martin Yungmann discussed with Linda Alexsuk his observations and told Respondent that he had still not observed actual new skill instruction after three observations and that he had observed recurring problems from previous observations. During the conference Martin Yungmann indicated to Linda Alexsuk that he wanted to observe her class again primarily to observe the teaching of a new skill. On November 18, 1988, Linda Alexsuk, by note, notified Yvonne Brewer, who in turn notified Martin Yungmann, that Respondent would like to set Wednesday, November 30, 1988, as the date for Martin Yungmann to return to observe her class. When Martin Yungmann arrived on November 30, 1988, for the scheduled observation, Respondent's class was not in session in the room, so the observation had to be rescheduled. On December 5, 1988, Yvonne Brewer conducted her required annual observation of Linda Alexsuk's class, rating Respondent's overall performance as unacceptable. During the observation, Yvonne Brewer observed recurring problems from previous observations. Following the December 5, 1988, observation, Yvonne Brewer met with Linda Alexsuk and discussed her observation of Respondent's performance. On March 2, 1989, Betty Durden observed Linda Alexsuk's class, using the F.P.M.S. observation form. During the observation, Betty Durden observed recurring problems discussed with Respondent previously and, in fact, Betty Durden noted that the category of management of student conduct was worse that day than during previous observations. Following the observation, Betty Durden met with Linda Alexsuk to discuss the observation. On March 7, 1989, Martin Yungmann observed Linda Alexsuk's class. Prior to this observation, Yungmann had specifically instructed Respondent that he wanted to observe actual new skill instruction. Although Respondent presented new skill instruction, she had to practically read the instructions for the lesson to the students from note cards. Ms. Alexsuk did this in an attempt to satisfy Yungmann's purpose for the observation. During the March 7, 1988, observation, Martin Yungmann observed recurring problem areas which had been discussed with Respondent. Following the observation, Martin Yungmann discussed with Linda Alexsuk his observation and the recurring problems that he had observed. On March 9, 1989, Yvonne Brewer was scheduled to observe Linda Alexsuk's class. However, after approximately twenty minutes, Respondent approached Ms. Brewer and stated that she was not feeling well and requested permission to leave early to go to the doctors. During the shortened observation period, Ms. Brewer completed the Hernando County Classroom Observation form, the objective portion of which was taken from the F.P.M.S. form. This evaluation evidenced a recurring problem with student misconduct and student management. The comprehensive test of basic skills (hereinafter referred to as C.T.B.S.) is a standardized test which is given to all students in grades K through 9 in the seventh month of the school year. In addition, C.T.B.S. is an indicator that can be used to evaluate a teacher's performance in a class where children are randomly assigned, as they are in Hernando County. The C.T.B.S. is made up of two areas: math and reading. Ideally, since the test is given in the seventh month of the school year, kindergarten students should score at the K.7 level on the test. Following the 1988-89 school year, and in preparation for the formal hearing in this case, Betty Durden combined the figures for class performance on the C.T.B.S. for all 38 kindergarten teachers in Hernando County. She did this at Yvonne Brewer's request. The range of median class scores on the math portion of the C.T.B.S. for all 38 teachers was K.6 to 2.0. Linda Alexsuk's class median was K.6. There were three teachers at that lowest level of K.6. One teacher was not reappointed; one teacher had a class comprised of students repeating kindergarten. The third was Respondent's class. The range of median class scores on the total reading portion of the C.T.B.S. for all 38 teachers was K.S to 2.1. Linda Alexsuk's class median was 1.0. The total reading portion of the C.T.B.S. is made up of four subparts: visual recognition, source recognition, oral comprehension and vocabulary. In certain subparts of the total reading test, such as consonant recognition, Linda Alexsuk's class scored very low. Of eight consonants tested, Respondent's class had the lowest recognition scores in the district on three of the consonants. Although all classes in Hernando County are assigned to teachers in the same fashion (boy/girl/black/white), Linda Alexsuk was not as effective as most other teachers in maintaining classroom control. One of the major problems which observers of Linda Alexsuk's class noted was a recurring problem of student management/class control. Although Respondent received suggestions on methods of gaining control, including those from a special consultant hired to assist in her class, Ms. Alexsuk had difficulty keeping her students on task on a regular basis. Control is one of the major domains of an effective teacher. If a teacher lacks control, as was evidenced in Linda Alexsuk's class, there will be an effect on the learning environment in that room which will influence the ability of the average student to learn in that room. Linda Alexsuk sought the assistance of other peer teachers in preparing for her observations over the last two school years, and she practiced the lessons. In fact, she had one video taped. However, she received inadequate assistance from Yvonne Brewer and other administrators to effectively improve on her areas of weakness. Linda Alexsuk suffered from nervousness which also affected her performance during observations. This was particularly a problem after the written reprimand because Respondent believed that "she was under the gun" and that her job was in jeopardy. The F.P.M.S. forms from all of the observations were sent to the University of South Florida to be computer analyzed and compared to establish norms for the state of Florida. This was done after the recommendation to return Respondent to annual contract was made and was done solely in preparation for this hearing. The results of these analyses are not accepted or credited because they were not contemplated within the "good and sufficient reasons" alleged for the return of Ms. Alexsuk to annual contract. The analysis of the C.T.B.S. data performed by Betty Durden is likewise not credited as evidence of the alleged "good and sufficient reasons" because it was performed after the recommendation and solely for use as after- the-fact proof of the allegations. Linda Alexsuk received a bachelor's degree in elementary education from the University of South Florida in 1972 and a master's degree in educational administration in 1981. Ms. Alexsuk holds a teaching certificate from the Florida Department of Education authorizing her to teach students from the early childhood level through fifth grade. A teacher relies on the annual evaluation to gauge how she is performing and whether she is meeting the expectations of her superiors. Linda Alexsuk relied upon the satisfactory evaluations she received for three consecutive years to conclude that she was meeting the expectations of her principal, and she first became aware that Yvonne Brewer was unhappy with her classroom performance in March of 1988. Yvonne Brewer utilized the F.P.M.S. as an instrument of discipline to document the case for returning the Linda Alexsuk to annual contract commencing in March of 1988. Yvonne Brewer likewise approached the observations of Respondent and the other actions taken with the intention of justifying returning Ms. Alexsuk to annual contract. Inadequate offers of assistance were made to Linda Alexsuk to assist her in remediating her weak areas. The School Board did not establish good and sufficient reasons for returning Linda Alexsuk to annual contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Hernando County enter a Final Order denying the recommendation to return Linda Alexsuk to annual contract. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November , 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2520 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, School Board of Hernando County 1 Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed findings of fact: 1-3 (1-3); 7 (7); 14-19 (17-22) 22 (23); 32-34 (24-26); 36 (28); 37 (29); 39-59 (30-50); 62- 69 (51-58); and 72-74 (59-61). 2. Proposed findings of fact 4-6, 8-13, 20, 21, 35, 38, 60, 61, and 81-85 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 23-31, 71, and 75-80 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 70 and 86-88 are unsupported by the competent substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Linda Alexsuk Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (66); 2 (67); 3-5 (4-6); 6-12 (8-14); 13 (68); 14 (69); 15-16 (15); and 17 (70). Proposed findings of fact 22, 24, and 27 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 18-21, 23, 25, and 26 are irrelevant or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: John Jaszczak Attorney at Law Hogg, Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Hyde Park Plaza-Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 David Brooks Kundin Attorney at Law Meyer, Brooks and Cooper 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dr. Dan McIntyre, Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 U.S. Highway 41 North Brooksville, Florida 34601 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner under a continuing contract. The Respondent, Muriel Johnson Krueger, holds Florida teaching certificate number #0367469 issued by the Florida Department of Education covering grades K through 6. The Respondent is also certified in Florida for administration and supervision, grades K through 12. She also holds a Wisconsin teaching certificate. The Respondent taught in Wisconsin for a number of years; she taught in a one-room school house, grades 1 through 5. She began teaching in Florida in 1974 at Brooksville Primary School in Hernando County, where she taught first grade for two years. She next taught first grade at Moton School Center (Moton) also in Hernando County, for four years. She received her continuing contract in 1977. In 1979, the Respondent was appointed primary specialist at Moton; she held that position until August, 1985. As primary specialist, the Respondent was not assigned to a classroom; she worked primarily with teachers and teachers' aides. She was not responsible for drawing up lesson plans, recording grades, or developing pacing schedules, as those procedures are used in the ordinary classroom. The Respondent received favorable evaluations throughout her career in the Hernando County school system, until January, 1986. However, Respondent has never received an evaluation of her performance which would support her dismissal. In March, 1985, the Respondent was diagnosed as having certain physical and psychological problems, including diabetes and atypical psychosis. The Respondent's medical conditions, including the details regarding her psychological illness, were reported to the school system by the Respondent's doctors, Dr. Renee Haney, a psychiatrist and Dr. Joanne Pegg- McNab., a psychologist. In August, 1985, two days prior to the commencement of the school year, the Respondent was notified by the Petitioner that she would be teaching third grade at Spring Hill Elementary School (Spring Hill) during the 1985-86 school year. Previously, the Respondent had been given to understand, based on representations made to her by school administrators, that she would be teaching second grade in 1985-1986. The Respondent had prepared materials for the teaching of second grade, which she was unable to use in teaching third grade. Louise Ross, principal of Spring Hill, was aware that Respondent had not been a classroom teacher for at least four years prior to Respondent coming to Spring Hill in August, 1985. Ross was aware of Respondent's treatment for psychological illness. Prior to the students' return, the Respondent worked one week at Spring Hill. During that period, Respondent attended general meetings, and although Respondent received a packet of material during this period, it did not contain any specific instruction in regard to preparing lesson plans, grading or pacing. Respondent received specific written instruction regarding the recording of grades and pacing at a later date. Respondent did not receive any specific verbal or written instructions from Ross or any other person respecting the procedures in effect at Spring Hill in regard to grading and pacing until the memorandums of September 24, 1985 and November 19, 1985 from Ross concerning grades and pacing, and the December 16, 1985 letter to Respondent from Ross setting forth Ross' concerns about Respondent's procedures in grading, pacing, and lesson plan preparation that were covered in the meeting between Ross and Respondent on December 16, 1985. On September 24, 1985, approximately one month after school opened on August 22, 1985, Ross issued a memorandum regarding the number of grades to be recorded for each subject, and the procedure for recording the grades. On November 19, 1985 Ross issued a memorandum regarding the Ginn Reading Program (pacing student in reading). Both the memorandum and the chart attached pointed out it was a "guide" and that the primary concern was for the student to master the material. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent received this memorandum prior to returning to work on December 16, 1985. No documents concerning the pacing in other subjects were issued to Respondent. Pacing involves setting a pace for the teacher and the student to cover the required material in a set time and yet allow the student to master the subject matter. The failure to properly pace a class usually results in the student requiring remediation in the subject matter. Although Ross collected and reviewed Respondent's lesson plan books during the beginning of the school year and prior to Respondent going on sick leave in November, 1985, Ross did not make any suggestions or criticisms concerning pacing because when she checked the lesson plan books Ross found them sufficient. Respondent was aware of the requirement of preparing lesson plans in advance, but at Moton, where she had previously taught, the requirement was to prepare three days of lesson plans in advance, not five days as was required at Spring Hill. Spring Hill required lesson plans to be ready on the Friday immediately prior to week of the lesson plans, but Ross had allowed teachers to prepare lesson plans over the week-end for the following week. Respondent was absent from school beginning November 20, 1985 through December 16, 1985 on approved sick leave. Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans and leave them for her substitute. Respondent's illness prevented her from preparing lesson plans for the period beginning November 25, 1985 and up until Respondent returned on December 16, 1985. However, the lesson plans for November 20, 21 and 22, 1985 should have been prepared prior to Respondent's illness. On December 16, 1985, the day Respondent returned from sick leave, Ross held a meeting with Respondent to advise her of certain changes in performance expected by Ross. The expected changes were the result of Ross reviewing Respondent's grade book and determining that the grades were not recorded in accordance with the September 24, 1985 memorandum, and reviewing Respondent's lesson plan books and determining that Respondent's class (an average class) was ahead of the top class in the third grade in reading and math. Respondent was advised of how to effect the changes and that compliance was expected by the beginning of the second semester. Although Respondent's third grade class was ahead of other third grade classes during the period of school prior to December 16, 1985, the student's mastery of the subject matter covered during this period was within an acceptable range, and remediation was normal. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until the Respondent took leave on March 12, 1987, the Respondent's pacing of her students was in accordance with school policy. Respondent's grade books may have shed some light on whether Respondent had properly recorded the student's grades but the grade books were not introduced into evidence. Prior to taking sick leave on November 20, 1985, the Respondent had, in addition to those grades recorded in her grade, recorded grades on sheets of paper in the back of her grade book contrary to the instructions given in the September 24, 1985 memorandum from Ross. However, Ross permitted the Respondent to record these grades in her grade book at a later time. Without knowing that it was against school policy, Respondent allowed her aides to record grades in her grade book. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until she took leave on March 12, 1986, the Respondent's recording of grades in her grade books was in substantial compliance with school policy. Although Respondent did not totally comply with the December 16, 1985 memorandum from Ross, her compliance with the memorandum satisfied Sonia Terrelonge, the third grade chairperson, who Ross had assigned the duty of working with Respondent to bring about compliance with the memorandum. Ross did not check Respondent's plan book or grade book on a regular basis as she had indicated in her memorandum of December 16, 1985 but delegated that responsibility to Terrelonge. On March 7, 1986, Respondent escorted her students to Terrelonge's portable classroom to see a movie and, since Respondent had detention duty, she picked up the students from other third grade classes on detention and returned to her portable classroom. At lunch time Respondent returned the students on detention to Terrelonge's portable classroom and escorted her students to lunch. After lunch Respondent escorted her students back to Terrelonge's portable classroom for the balance of the movie; again picked up the students on detention, and returned to her classroom. At the time scheduled for the conclusion of the movie, Respondent returned to Terrelonge's portable classroom to escort her students back to her classroom. Upon arrival at Terrelonge's classroom, Respondent discovered that her students had left earlier with either Maria Wolf or Catherine Winemiller or Jacqueline Mitchie, the other teachers having students at the movie. Although one of these three (3) teachers would have been responsible for supervising the return of Respondent's students to her classroom since Respondent was on detention duty, there is insufficient evidence to show which one had that responsibility. Upon return to her classroom Respondent observed some of her students outside the classroom unsupervised. Some of the students were running around and some were standing on a railing attempting to rescue a shoe from the roof. Respondent summoned her students into the classroom. None of the students were injured in any way. After the movie and the shoe incident the Respondent's children were "hyper". To calm them down, Respondent decided to go to the playground rather than to the scheduled special class. Respondent notified the special class teacher of this change but, without knowledge that she was required to notify Ross, failed to notify Ross of this change. This was the only special class the Respondent's student's missed while under her care during the 1985-86 school year. Other teachers took their students out on unscheduled recess when the children would not settle down. The evidence does not reveal any written policy concerning unscheduled recesses. Respondent kept blank discipline slips and omni passes in an unlocked desk drawer, and that students had on occasions filled out these slips without Respondent's knowledge. There was insufficient evidence to show that the children were under Respondent's supervision at the time the slips were taken out of the drawer and filled out. There were a number of disruptive and behavioral problem students in Respondent's class, but the number of disruptive or behavioral problem children in Respondent's class was not shown to be greater than in any other average third grade class. During the 1985-86 school year, Ross made frequent, unscheduled visits to Respondent's classroom and found Respondent's performance, including her classroom management, satisfactory, except on one (1) occasion, March 12, 1986. As a result of the shoe incident and skipping the special class, Ross called Respondent to a meeting on March 7, 1986 with Edward Poore, Assistant Superintendent, and Cathy Hogeland, Union Representative being present along with Ross and Respondent. As a result of this meeting, Ross advised Respondent to take the rest of that day off, which was Friday, and March 10, 1986 which was Monday. Respondent complied and returned to work on Tuesday, March 11, 1986. On March 11, 1986, the day Ross returned to school her students went on a field trip but Respondent was not allowed to accompany them. During the day Respondent worked on grading, grade books and planning. Also, on March 11, 1986, Ross gave Respondent a handwritten memorandum instructing her in class management, specifically addressing the supervision of students, class discipline, the following of lesson plans and attendance of students at special classes. Additionally, the memorandum instructed Respondent that teachers were not to eat lunch in the classroom and listed those areas where Respondent could eat lunch. On March 12, 1986, around noon, Respondent met with Ross, with Joanne Knight, being present as Union Representative. This meeting occurred as a result of Ross visiting Respondent's classroom and finding the students particularly disruptive and disorderly. When Respondent indicated that she could resume teaching her class that afternoon, Ross informed Respondent that she must take a leave of absence and have a complete physical examination and psychological evaluation or Ross would recommend her termination to the school board. Respondent was also informed by letter from Ross dated April 8, 1986 that her return to work would be based on the psychologist's report which should be submitted no later than May 31, 1986. Due to Ross' demands, Respondent requested leave and signed the necessary papers which had been filled out by the school board office. Respondent was put on leave without pay for the balance of the school year. Respondent resumed seeing Dr. Haney in April, 1986 but due to Dr. Haney's, or Respondent's oversight, an evaluation was not submitted until July 30, 1986. However, on July 1, 1986, Ross had recommended Respondent's dismissal to the superintendent based solely on Respondent's failure to provide the evaluation by May 31, 1986 without any further notice to Respondent other than the letter of April 8, 1986. Respondent learned of Ross's recommendation of dismissal sometime around July 16, 1986 when Ross notified her by letter. The letter also informed Respondent that this recommendation would go to the school board on August 5 1986. During Dr. Haney's treatment of Respondent in 1986, she prescribed medication for her mental condition which had no detrimental side effects on the Respondent. Dr. Haney's report of July 30, 1986 made no recommendation as to Respondent's ability to return to the classroom but left to the school system the interpretation of her findings. Dr. Arturo G. Gonzalez, Respondent's treating psychiatrist, began treating Respondent in October, 1986. Dr. Gonzalez's opinion was that while Respondent does have a mental condition, it is treatable with medication and does not affect Respondent's ability to teach. Dr. Gonzalez prescribes the same medication for Respondent as did Dr. Haney. From his observations, the Respondent takes the medication as prescribed. It was also Dr. Gonzalez's opinion that Respondent understands the need for medication. It was the opinion of Dr. Haney that Respondent better understood the need for medication after her second hospitalization in April 1986 then she had after the first hospitalization in 1985. It was the opinion of both Dr. Haney and Dr. Gonzalez that Respondent's mental condition would not prevent her from being effective in the classroom and that her presence as a teacher would not endanger the welfare of the students. Respondent was a concerned teacher, interested in her student's welfare. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that Respondent had emotional outbursts in the presence of her students. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that, due to Respondent's action, the students in her third grade class were deprived of minimum education experiences. Respondent substantially performed her duties as prescribed by law. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that there was a constant or continuing intentional refusal on the part of Respondent to obey a direct order given by proper authority.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Hernando County, enter a Final Order dismissing all charges filed against the Respondent, Muriel Krueger. It is further RECOMMENDED Respondent be restored to her position as a continuing contract employee of the Hernando County School Board, and that she receive back pay for the entire period she has been in a non-pay status because of these charges. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2001 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 4, and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16 as clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 12 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 11-13. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraph 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23 except for the last clause which is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 17-19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, except for the one occasion on March 12, 1986 which would not be described as a chaotic condition. That classroom management was discussed with Respondent is adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 29. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. That students took discipline slips and filled them out is adopted in Finding of Fact 24, the balance of paragraph 23 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 24-27. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 24, 25, 26, and 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 31, 32, 33 and 34. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Rejected as not being relevant or material because that was Dr. Haney's provisional diagnosis which was changed when she made her final diagnosis. The first sentence of paragraph 31 is adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. The balance of paragraph 31 is rejected as not being relevant or material in that although Respondent admitted being acquainted with those school board policies there was credible evidence that Respondent was not aware at the beginning of the school year of Ross' or the Superintendent's specific instruction in regard to maintaining attendance records, grade books, etc. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 10 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20 and 21. 20.-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22 as clarified. Rejected as not being a finding of fact but only a restatement of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 25.-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34 and 35 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., Esquire 29 South Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 34601 Susan E. Hicks, Esquire Post Office Drawer 520337 Miami, Florida 33152 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300 James K. Austin, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Hernando County 919 U.S. Highway 41 North Brooksville, Florida 33512-2997
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 6A-10.081(2)(c)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, testimony, and stipulated facts, the following Findings of Fact are made. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to chapter 120, if the educator disputes the allegations in the complaint. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 834897, covering the areas of elementary education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (“ESOL”), and varying exceptionalities, which is valid through June 30, 2023. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an exceptional student education (“ESE”) teacher at Wyomina Park Elementary School (“WPES”) in the Marion County School District (“MCSD”). Ms. Miller has served as an elementary education teacher since the 2000-01 school year. Thus, she has a 20-year career with MCSD. From 2008 to 2018, Respondent taught third, fourth, and fifth grades at Reddick Collier Elementary (“Reddick Collier”’). Since she holds certification in ESE, she also taught ESE inclusion students in her general education classrooms. However, she has never taught a classroom of only ESE students. In 2018, Respondent’s value-added model (commonly referred to as VAM) scores rendered her ineligible to continue teaching at Reddick Collier because it was one of the District’s lowest performing schools. As a result, she was involuntarily transferred to WPES. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent was initially assigned to teach students with academic issues, not behavioral issues. The initial assignment was consistent with her experience and previous work with ESE inclusion students. Respondent had maintained certification in ESE so that she could better serve academically low-performing ESE students in a general education inclusion environment. While Respondent had training in an inclusion environment, she did not have training or certification in Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication Handicapped Children (“TEACCH”) or Crisis Prevention Intervention de-escalation techniques for use with students with behavioral issues. Ms. Baxley believed that Respondent had been trained to work with children with behavioral issues. After the initial assignment, students were reassigned between Ms. Miller and Patricia Poag. Respondent became responsible for only students with behavioral issues. Some of the students assigned to Respondent had extensive behavioral issues to the extent they required medication treatment. Respondent’s new assignment was a kindergarten through second grade self-contained ESE class of 12 to 13 students. Generally, a self- contained ESE classroom is a group environment with students who have special needs. Respondent’s students required increased supervision, structure, visuals, and very specific direct instruction. Respondent, Ms. Davis, and Ms. Poag testified that the classroom assignment was very “challenging, overwhelming, and distressing.” The new classroom structure included six or seven more students than previously assigned. Respondent had one paraprofessional to assist with supervision of the students. Respondent requested additional staff support, but never received it. In addition to learning to navigate the struggles with the student’s behavioral issues, Respondent was struggling with paperwork. Respondent made the effort to get help with completing necessary documents and learning how to complete IEP’s and behavior plans. She had no experience in completing these documents, or in working with “severe maladaptive behaviors” before being assigned to WPES. Allegations Involving Classroom Management As an ESE instructor, Ms. Miller’s primary responsibility was to ensure compliance with services or accommodations required for ESE students assigned to her classroom. Gina Gazzaniga is the MCSD ESE specialist. Her primary responsibility is to ensure compliance with services/accommodations required for all ESE students. Ms. Gazzaniga visited Respondent’s classroom. While in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Gazzaniga observed students run on tables, throw items, and elope from the classroom unsupervised. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that while students were engaged in this conduct, Respondent did not intervene. Ms. Gazzaniga also testified that when students eloped from the classroom, they would typically go to the Guidance office or the Dean’s office. Ms. Gazzaniga had the Behavior Team (behavior tech, behavior specialist and analyst, and school academic coaches) assist with structure and behavior/classroom management strategies in Respondent’s classroom. The team implemented procedures to help prevent students from eloping. However, Respondent would change the practices the behavior team implemented. Respondent testified that some of the practices put into place were not effective. For example, when tables were lowered, the students increased their jumping from table to table. In addition, the assistance button was not within the reach of the teachers in the classroom. Ms. Gazzaniga’s overall assessment was that she saw “limited improvement, or refusal to follow taught strategies.” Other members of the WPES administration expressed concerns about Respondent’s classroom management. While visiting Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley, along with Kendra Hamby, saw student W.H. pulling the hair of M.D. W.H., a male student, dragged M.D., a female student, by her hair as she screamed. Ms. Baxley testified that she heard Respondent say “stop.” Ms. Baxley then approached the students and removed W.H.’s hand from M.D. so that he would “stop pulling M.D. around like a caveman on the floor.” Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did not intervene to help M.D., but rather “she just stood there.” Ms. Hamby testified that “Ms. Miller was standing there, not intervening, not saying or doing anything. So that was extremely concerning.” On another occasion, while in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley saw students hitting each other with containers. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did nothing to intervene. Respondent testified that she approached the students and instructed them to return the containers. Jennifer Foster was a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent’s classroom. On one occasion two students were running around the room, fighting, and chasing each other. Ms. Foster tried to “get in the middle to separate them and they both ran behind the big solid wooden table.” When Ms. Foster went in front of the table in an effort to separate them, the two students picked up the table and tossed it over on the side. Ms. Foster was able to move one foot out of the way, but the table landed on her other foot. Ms. Foster testified “I eventually got up and hobbled over to push the panic button and asked for assistance.” Her foot was injured as a result of the incident involving the students. Ms. Foster indicated that Respondent did not assist her. Allegations Involving Failure to Supervise Students In addition to concerns about classroom management, the Administrative Complaint alleged Respondent failed to supervise students. One of those incidents involved K.C. K.C. was one of Respondent’s kindergarten students. He is an ESE student with a medical condition. On September 6, 2018, a teacher informed Assistant Principal Troy Sanford that Respondent’s student, K.C., was found standing at the exit door of a hallway that opens to the playground. Mr. Sanford saw K.C. approaching the exit doors to the playground alone at 11:24 a.m. K.C. stood there alone until 11:29 a.m., at which time the teacher spoke to K.C. After consulting with another teacher, Ms. Hawthorne, about where K.C. belonged, the teacher took him to Respondent’s classroom. Respondent denied allowing K.C. to stand alone in the hallway for several minutes. She testified that while standing at her classroom door, awaiting the arrival of students coming from the restroom, K.C. began to walk from Ms. Davis toward her. This was customary for her students if children needed additional time in the restroom. As K.C. got close to Respondent, L.G.R. began climbing on the top shelf of a bookcase in the classroom. Since their routine was for the students to come into the classroom, she assumed K.C. would follow the customary practice and enter the classroom. Respondent testified that she made a judgment call to turn her attention to L.G.R. to ensure his safety and prevent harm to him. Instead of entering the classroom, K.C. walked down the hallway. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s actions were reasonable. A second incident involved a different student. Two first-grade teachers, Nancy P. Neal and Ireina Hawthorne, were outside on the playground with their students. When recess was over, they were gathering their students and doing a head count to go back inside to their classrooms when they noticed there was “an extra child” in line. The student did not belong in their classroom. The student was nonverbal so they could not determine to which classroom he belonged. Ms. Hawthorne assumed that he belonged in Respondent’s class and took the student to Respondent’s classroom. When Ms. Hawthorne took the student to Respondent’s classroom, Respondent “ushered him into the classroom.” Respondent testified that she was in the hallway, counting her students before going to her classroom. She explained that she had a substitute paraprofessional, Ms. Foster, who did not know all of her students. In addition, this was the first time she had Ms. Foster serve as a substitute. To help remedy the issue regarding the student left outside, Respondent asked her assigned paraprofessional not to take breaks or lunch during recess. Whether Respondent was in her classroom (as stated by Ms. Hawthorne) or in the hallway, the student was left outside without her supervision, which could be harmful to the student’s safety. A third incident related to supervision involved student L.G.R. On October 19, 2019, L.G.R. entered Ms. Gazzaniga’s office and hid under a table. The evidence offered at hearing demonstrated that when the student eloped from the classroom, Respondent immediately followed the student into the guidance office. However, she did not see the L.G.R., so she continued to search for him. A minute or so later, Ms. Gazzaniga saw Respondent walk down the hallway towards the main office. Respondent later learned the student was in the guidance office at the time she initially searched that location. However, Ms. Gazzaniga did not alert Respondent that L.G.R. was in her office. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that she “kept an eye on him while he was there.” After a short time, Ms. Gazzaniga went over to L.G.R. and spoke to him. He came from under the table and went to the doorway of the office. At the same time, Respondent was walking back down the hallway and saw L.G.R. and took him back to her classroom. The credible evidence demonstrates that Respondent made reasonable efforts to locate the student by searching for him immediately after his elopement from the room. DP-3 Assessment On September 10, 2018, Ms. Scott gave Respondent a Developmental Profile Third Edition (“DP-3”) to complete for student A.M.S. Students who are developmentally delayed must have a DP-3 completed for re-evaluation to determine what ESE services need to be continued. A DP-3 is an assessment tool used to evaluate nonverbal or low achieving students that have not reached the cognitive level to take an IQ test. MCSD uses the DP-3 to assess the student’s level of achievement. The DP-3 assesses five areas of development, including the child’s cognitive functioning, physical development, communication skills, social, emotional, and adaptive skills. The assessment is completed by completing a series of questions on whether a student can or cannot perform a particular task. Respondent returned the DP-3 to Ms. Scott on September 25, 2018. Respondent circled items indicating a “yes” response. During the hearing, however, Respondent acknowledged the student would not be capable of performing the tasks. In addition, Ms. Scott did not believe A.M.S. could perform the skills for which Respondent answered yes. Based on the evidence offered at hearing, some of the responses Respondent provided on the DP-3 were inaccurate. Performance Assessments Throughout her career, Respondent had been assessed as progressing or effective related to instructional practice as an educator. For the 2018 informal classroom teacher instructional assessment performed by Ms. Baxley, Ms. Cino, and Mr. Sanford, Ms. Miller was assessed as unsatisfactory in multiple areas.1 However, in the areas of criticism, it was also noted that Ms. Miller was engaged in instruction of students. Interestingly, she was criticized for a child wandering to her desk, and then, criticized for leaving the group of students she was working with to redirect the wandering student. In another instance, the observers were critical of a Positive Behavioral Interventions Support plan but Ms. Miller was never trained in the area of behavioral management. For the 2019 informal classroom teacher evaluation, Ms. Miller was assessed effective in each category, including areas where she was assessed unsatisfactory in 2018. Disciplinary Action at WPES For the first time in her career, Respondent received disciplinary action while working at WPES. On or about September 10, 2018, Respondent was issued an oral reprimand for purported failure to supervise the students assigned to her. On or about September 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for misconduct for purported falsification of documents. On or about October 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for alleged failure to supervise a student assigned to her. On or about November 26, 2018, Respondent was issued Step One progressive discipline for substandard performance due to behavioral concerns in her classroom and failure to report grades. On or about December 11, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Two verbal reprimand regarding substandard performance. 1 In 2018, Ms. Miller was assessed unsatisfactory in the following areas: 2b. establishing a culture for learning, managing student behavior; 3b. using questioning and discussion techniques; and 3c. engaging students in learning. On or about December 18, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Three progressive discipline written reprimand regarding substandard performance. Respondent’s educator certificate has no prior discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that: Respondent violated the statues and rules as referenced above; Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2021. Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lisa M. Forbess Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent was a seventh grade student in Petitioner's Hialeah Junior High School. The proposed opportunity school placement is based on a single incident in May, 1984, involving a loaded handgun brought into the school by another student. Respondent received the weapon, had possession of it, and subsequently gave it to another student within Hialeah Junior High School. All students had previously been informed that possession of weapons within the school was strictly forbidden and was considered a serious offense.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order assigning Garrett Bernard Walker to its opportunity school. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. and Mrs. Willie Warren 2370 Northwest 66th Street Miami, Florida 33147 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent, a middle school teacher, violated section 1012.795(1)(d) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., (2)(a)5., (2)(a)8., (2)(c)1., (2)(c)8., and (2)(c)9., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint (AAC); and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate number 1299379, covering the area of music. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a Music Teacher at LMS in the Manatee County School District. The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796. The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Background On April 28, 2017, Respondent submitted a resignation letter to MCSD, and later that same day rescinded this resignation letter. Based on a prior investigation, on May 17, 2017, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the LMS principal for poor judgement and poor classroom management. MCSD Office of Professional Standards started another investigation of Respondent in May 2017. In June 2017, PPD served a subpoena on Respondent, and seized his electronic devices. On August 4, 2017, Respondent was temporarily reassigned to MCSD transportation office. On August 17, 2017, MCSD placed Respondent on paid administrative leave. In August 2017, Investigator Nelson completed an investigation report that went to MCSD senior administrators, including the superintendent and its legal counsel. A practice of MCSD is that once an investigation is opened involving a union member, that union member is represented by a union paid counsel. MCSD communicates solely through the employee’s counsel. At the time, Respondent was a union member, and was represented by counsel during the pertinent MCSD’s investigations. On August 30, 2017, Respondent was not present when his counsel met with Investigator Nelson and MCSD general counsel. They advised Respondent’s counsel of the evidence found regarding Respondent, and that MCSD was going to move forward with the termination of Respondent’s employment. Respondent’s counsel was informed that Respondent could resign his teaching position in lieu of termination. Respondent submitted a letter of resignation to the Manatee County School Board (Board), dated September 1, 2017, providing for his resignation to become effective on September 12, 2017. Further, this letter provided that Respondent would not seek “reemployment” with MCSD. The Board was scheduled to meet on September 12, 2017, and would have considered any termination requests. Once Respondent resigned, MCSD did not have any further jurisdiction over Respondent. Dr. Breslin served as an assistant principal at SCSD’s Booker High School (Booker) when Respondent applied for a position there shortly after he resigned from MCSD. She was on the committee that interviewed the various candidates, including Respondent, and decided to hire Respondent. Respondent was hired by SCSD and taught at Booker. During his probationary period, Respondent was released from his SCSD employment. Material Allegations The material allegations upon which the charged violations are predicated are, in their entirety, as follows: During the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with K.A., a sixteen year old female student, as evidenced by a picture of Respondent and K.A. kissing. On or about September 5, 2017, in the midst of a district investigation into inappropriate relationships between Respondent and female students, Respondent resigned in lieu of termination from his teaching position with the district, to be effective September 12, 2017. On or about September 22, 2017, Respondent submitted an application for a teaching position with Sarasota County Public Schools. Respondent fraudulently answered 'no' to the following questions: Have you ever: failed to fulfill a teaching or administrative contract? had any disciplinary action taken against you by any Board of Education? been removed or dismissed from any position? resigned in lieu of termination? On the last page of Respondent’s SCSD application, he certified that his answers were true and to the best of his knowledge. Pictures In June 2017, pursuant to a search warrant, the PPD seized Respondent’s laptop computer and two cell phones, and sent them to FDLE for analysis. FDLE Analyst Carson was assigned to retrieve any pictures and/or text messages from Respondent’s devices. FDLE Analyst Carson issued the results via a report to the PPD. The FDLE report was not admitted into evidence. Mr. Oyler (and other PPD officers) reviewed the FDLE report, including the pictures4/ taken from Respondent’s devices, and found no evidence of an inappropriate relationship as alleged by a female LMS student. However, Mr. Oyler observed pictures of Respondent with another young (female) person. Mr. Oyler contacted LMS Resource Officer Moore to determine the identity of this other young female. Officer Moore, a 17-year employee of PPD, has been a resource officer assigned and stationed at LMS since 2013. In early 2016, Respondent was investigated for “some allegations,” and Officer Moore had a conversation with Respondent about his interactions with female students. Officer Moore advised Respondent to: So you just protect yourself. Make sure you’re keeping the door [to his classroom] open if you can between classes with view so the other [band/orchestra] teacher has observation. Don’t be alone with students, especially female students. Make sure you’re protecting yourself and making smart choices about it. Officer Moore knows N.A., the mother of K.A.5/ During the 2016-2017 school year, Officer Moore and N.A. both worked at LMS. Officer Moore would see K.A., a MCSD student, when she came to LMS to wait for her mother. Additionally, Officer Moore socialized with the A. family at various parties, including K.A.’s graduation from high school in May 2018. At the hearing, Officer Moore was shown a picture retrieved from Respondent’s devices of two people kissing, specifically Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, page 39 (hereafter referred to as the “kissing photograph”). When shown the kissing photograph, Officer Moore expressed no doubt or hesitation in identifying the two persons kissing: Respondent and K.A. Further, Officer Moore identified Respondent and K.A., individually or together, in the remaining pictures of Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, pages 40-47. Officer Moore’s testimony is found credible. Investigator Nelson conducted two investigations of Respondent, and met with him five or six times. When shown the pictures retrieved from Respondent’s devices, Investigator Nelson expressed no doubt or hesitation in identifying Respondent in all of the pictures found in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, including the kissing photograph. Investigator Nelson’s testimony is found credible. Respondent’s counsel, through questioning of Mr. Oyler intimated that K.A. manipulated and uploaded multiple altered images to Respondent’s electronic devices. Mr. Oyler provided that he had heard K.A. “saying that she modified the images,” or that she had “doctored the photos.” K.A. did not testify in this hearing, nor did any other students. However, Mr. Oyler interviewed K.A. during the course of the PPD investigation. Initially K.A. denied having any relationship with Respondent. However, when Mr. Oyler presented K.A. with all the pictures found in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, her reaction left Mr. Oyler with the impression that K.A. and Respondent had “more of a romantic, physical relationship.” Mr. Oyler’s testimony is found credible. Pastor Mazon was asked the following question: “Do you recognize the male in that photograph [the kissing photograph]?” He answered “Not really, not from that angle . . . no, not really.” He was then asked specifically: “Does that appear to be Mr. Peterson [Respondent] in that photograph?” Pastor Mazon responded: “It would be hard for me to tell from the side view like that. I would have to see it from the front.” And when shown the same kissing photograph in color and asked if the male was Respondent, Pastor Mazon replied: “That’s still a hard call for me. You know, skin tone. But then I see a scar from – on behind the ear, which I never saw, which I never - - that’s kind of hard for me, yeah. . . . I wouldn’t be able to identify him in that fashion.” Pastor Mazon was unable to confirm or deny that Respondent was in the kissing photograph, yet he positively identified Respondent in each remaining picture of Petitioner’s Exhibit 18. Pastor Mazon’s testimony lacks clarity and credibility as he waffled on identifying Respondent in the first picture, but had no hesitation in the remaining pictures. Ms. Bellamy, Respondent’s aunt, testified that she did not recognize the male in the kissing photograph. In the remaining pictures, Ms. Bellamy confirmed Respondent was in the pictures on pages 40 and 42 of Exhibit 18, but was not in the pictures on pages 41 or 43 through 47. Ms. Bellamy did confirm that Respondent was in the picture in Petitioner’s Exhibit 20. As Respondent’s relative, Ms. Bellamy’s testimony appears to be selective and is not found credible. Sarasota County School District Petitioner’s Exhibit 17, which was admitted without objection, provided that Respondent was under contract with MCSD to serve as an instructional employee for the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, Respondent’s resignation letter, which was admitted without objection, provided that Respondent resigned his MCSD position for the 2017-2018 school year, effective September 12, 2017. Further, Respondent agreed to not seek reemployment with MCSD. Dr. Breslin was an assistant principal at Booker in Sarasota, Florida, for the 2017-2018 school year. She served on the committee that interviewed candidates for a teaching position at Booker. Dr. Breslin reviewed and relied upon Respondent’s SCSD application, and interviewed Respondent (with the other committee members) for the Booker teaching position. Further, Dr. Breslin performed the reference checks regarding Respondent’s application. Dr. Breslin was instrumental in the decision to hire Respondent for the position at Booker. Dr. Breslin was never provided a copy of Respondent’s letter of reprimand or his MCSD resignation letter. Further, during SCSD’s interview process, Dr. Breslin was not told that Respondent had been under investigation by MCSD. Dr. Breslin confirmed that by Respondent’s failure to tell her (or the committee) of these (the letter of reprimand, his resignation letter from MCSD, and/or the investigation), Respondent gave a false presentation. Had Dr. Breslin known of any of these, Respondent would not have been brought in for an interview and would not have been hired. Dr. Bowden testified that Respondent was released from his SCSD teaching contract during his probationary period. Typically, SCSD does not provide a reason for an employee’s release. However in this case, Respondent’s employment was terminated based on his arrest. Dr. Bowden also testified that Respondent’s failure to advise SCSD of his resignation from MCSD, his letter of reprimand, and that he was under investigation was tantamount to falsification of his application to work for SCSD. Respondent was represented by competent counsel, during MCSD’s investigation and his ultimate resignation from MCSD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty on Counts 1, 2, and 5 through 8, and permanently revoking his Educator Certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2019, 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 24th day of October, 2019.
Findings Of Fact In the summer of 1981, Christopher Max Grix (Chris), a tenth-grader, was one of some 1,100 students enrolled in the combined Miami Beach Senior High School-Nautilus Junior High School summer school program. On Monday, July 20, 1981, George Thompson, a security man at the school, took Chris, John DeBlasio, and a third youth to the school office. Mr. Thompson told Solomon Lichter, the principal, and Assistant Principal Nockow, that he had seen these three boys shoving one another. As a result, each student received a three-day suspension, ending with the opening of school on Thursday, July 23, 1981. At about 7:20 on the morning of July 27, 1981, Chris and John DeBlasio had another "confrontation." When it ended, Chris fled in his car to the principal's office. There he reported that some "niggers and spics" had jumped him on school grounds along 42nd Street, and complained that the principal had not done "a damn thing about it." Although Mr. Lichter asked Chris to remain seated, Chris jumped up and left the office after he had been there only two minutes. While Mr. Lichter summoned the police, Carlton Jenkins, Jr., another assistant principal who was in an office near Mr. Lichter's, followed Chris and watched him drive away recklessly, stop near some students, and emerge from the car with a tire iron. Chris asked John DeBlasio's brother Alfred where John had gone. Wielding a tire iron, Chris shoved Alfred and threatened to kill him. He made the identical threat to Mark Allen Uffner, and also shoved him. After the tire iron was back in Chris's car, and after Alfred and George Korakakos had subdued Chris in a fist fight, Uffner ran to meet Assistant Principal Jenkins and Principal Lichter as they approached from the school office, and gave them a full report. Chris was gone by the time the police arrived. Later on the morning of July 27, 1981, Messrs. Lichter and Nockow left the summer school grounds for the campus of Miami Beach Senior High School to look for some walkie-talkies. While they were there, Chris, his older brother, and a third young man arrived. When Chris's older brother asked what had happened, Chris gave his version in colorful language. Mr. Lichter told Chris he was going to suspend him from school if he did not calm down. After Chris continued complaining about "niggers, spics, and the school principal," Mr. Lichter announced that Chris was suspended and ordered him to stay off school grounds for ten days. The trio left the campus of Miami Beach Senior High School but later on, at midday on July 27, 1981, Alfred DeBlasio saw Chris and the others on the summer school (Nautilus Junior High School) campus near 42nd Street, with knives and crow bars. Chris and traveling companions were equipped with ax handles, and were threatening Uffner, among others. A security man told Mr. Jenkins that a gang of students was headed toward Chris's car behind the cafeteria. Mr. Jenkins called after Chris's car as it left, ordering Chris not to return to school for the rest of the day.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent’s employment for thirty days without pay based on the allegations in the Notice of Specific Charges.
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. Petitioner has continuously employed Respondent since 1984 as the band director at Nautilus. The band curriculum taught by Respondent consists of beginning band, concert band, jazz band, beginning guitar, guitar ensemble, and classical guitar ensemble. Respondent runs a very good band program at Nautilus. Ms. Bernstein, the current principal at Nautilus, opined that Respondent has done a remarkable job with his band students. Throughout his 24 years at Nautilus, Respondent has taken hundreds of field trips both in-state and out-of-state with band students. As a result of these trips, Respondent is fully aware of the paperwork required by the School Board to authorize band students to go on field trips. With the exceptions to be discussed below, Respondent has correctly filled out the required paperwork and has otherwise complied with School Board policies pertaining to field trips. The School Board has developed specific field trip procedures that have been adopted as School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A- 1.22 (Field Trips). The rule provides, in relevant part, as follows: Trips for students are permitted which have value in meeting educational objectives, are directly related to the curriculum . . . In the planning of field trips, absences from school should be restricted to the least number of school days possible. The educational purpose and length of the filed trip must be approved by the principal. Provisions for students to make up assignments for classes missed due to participation in field trips must be in accordance with procedures outlined in Board Rule 6Gx-5A-1.04 - - Student Attendance. A signed parental permission form must be on file at the school prior to student’s participation. . . . A roster is to be submitted along with the field trip application request that includes the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all students who are eligible to participate in the field trip regardless of the student’s decision to participate in said trip. . . . The School Board has also adopted a Field Trip Handbook, which sets forth the responsibilities of the field trip sponsor under the heading “Sponsor’s Responsibilities” (Petitioner’s Exhibit 25, at Bates stamp page 168). Among the delineated Sponsor’s Responsibilities, the sponsor is to secure completed and signed parent permission form from each student who will participate in the field. The sponsor is to place emphasis on complete medical information. The sponsor is to ensure that all chaperones have available and accessible to them during the trip a copy of all parental permission forms with emergency contact information. 2005 Field Trip Matthew Welker served as principal of Nautilus during the 2004-2005 school year. During the Spring term of the 2004- 2005 school year, Respondent sponsored a field trip for the Nautilus band to attend a music festival in Tennessee. Prior to the field trip, Mr. Welker was informed by parents of band students that Respondent intended to take one or more high school students on the field trip. Mr. Welker met with Respondent prior to the field trip to remind him of the field trip procedures and further advised him that he should arrange to ensure that only Nautilus students attend the festival. While the field trip was in progress, Mr. Welker learned that Respondent had permitted a former Nautilus band student to participate in the festival with the Nautilus band. The former Nautilus student was in high school when he was permitted to participate in the festival with the Nautilus band. Prior to seeing him at the festival, Respondent did not know that the former Nautilus student, who had traveled to the festival independently of the Nautilus band, would be at the festival. Respondent did not violate the festival rules by permitting the former student to participate in the festival. On or about May 31, 2005, following Respondent’s return to Nautilus, Mr. Welker conducted a “Conference for the Record” with Respondent, which was memorialized by a Memorandum (Petitioner’s exhibit 1).3 The Memorandum provides, in relevant part, as follows: . . . On Friday, August 13, 2004, you received documentation and in-service training regarding District and school site Field Trip procedures. On Friday, April 15, 2005, I conducted a personal conversation in my office with you regarding information that I received regarding the possibility that two former Nautilus Middle School students who are currently enrolled at Miami Beach High School would be participating with our students at the Smokey Mountain Music Festival in Tennessee. You indicated that you needed their presence to fill out the band. I stated to you that these students were not authorized to participate in the field trip nor were they eligible to participate in the festival as representatives of Nautilus Middle School. I further stated to you that no student or person who is not enrolled or directly affiliated with Nautilus Middle School may attend or participate in the festival. You stated that you understood. On April 29, 2005, I received information regarding the presence of a Miami Beach Senior High School student who was allowed by you to participate in the festival competition representing Nautilus Middle School. The student was also allowed to represent the school in both the ensemble and solo musical performances. On Wednesday, May 11, 2005, I questioned you regarding the participation of the students and you confirmed the fact the student was present at the festival and participated in performances representing Nautilus Middle School. I asked why you permitted the student to attend and perform after I gave you specific directions to the contrary. You responded that you needed the student to fill out the band. * * * Action Taken You were advised that this incident represents a violation of School Board Rule 6Gx-4A-1.21 Responsibilities and Duties. You were directed to follow all School Board and school-site rules and policies regarding field trips. You were directed that no student who is not enrolled as a seventh or eighth grade student at Nautilus Middle School may participate in any extra-curricular activity, co-curricular activity, performance, or field trip. These directives remain in effect as of the date of the conference and are restated to prevent adverse impact to the operation of the work unit and the services provided to students. Any non-compliance by you with respect to these directives will necessitate further review and the possible imposition of disciplinary measures. . . . Copies of the following documents were given to you and discussed at the conference: Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx- 4A-1.21 Responsibilities and Duties The Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida Field Trip Procedures Common sense suggestion for instructional personnel . . . The Memorandum also contained the following statement: You were advised that the information presented in the conference is confidential and you were directed not to disclose or discuss the information presented with students and staff. The Memorandum contains no statement that the Respondent had been reprimanded or otherwise disciplined because of the 2005 field trip. 2008 Field Trip Respondent sponsored the subject Field Trip for certain members of the Nautilus band to the Fiesta Val National Festival in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, in April 2008. The subject Field Trip left on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, and returned on Sunday, April 27, 2008. The Nautilus band participants consisted of members of the following: the concert band, jazz band, guitar ensemble, and classical guitar ensemble. The participants included Respondent, the band students, and volunteer, adult chaperones. Respondent, his students, and parents of band members began planning for the trip in October 2007. Fund raisers were held to help defray the costs of the trip. Respondent and the band members worked hard to prepare for the trip. As the sponsor of the subject Field Trip, Respondent was required to complete several forms, including a Field Trip Request Form, a Field Trip Chaperone List, Field Trip Permission Request Form, Travel Expense Report, and a Field Trip Roster. The Field Trip Permission Request Form (School Board’s Exhibit 7) includes the following statement: PARENT PERMISSION SLIPS for participating students must be on file in the Office of the Principal prior to the field trip. [Emphasis is in the original.] Both the School Board Rule on field trips and the Field Trip Handbook clearly require a signed parental permission form for each participating student prior to the field trip. The parental permission forms for the subject Field Trip required the parent or guardian to give permission for the student to participate in the subject Field Trip, provide emergency contact information, and authorize medical treatment for the student in the event of accident or illness.4 The Field Trip Roster, which identifies all student participants, is used to excuse the days the students are absent from school because of the field trip. As of the afternoon of April 22, 2008, Respondent had completed or otherwise secured all appropriate paperwork. The subject Field Trip had been approved by Dr. Bernstein as the principal of Nautilus and by the appropriate Regional Director. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on April 22, 2008, Respondent heard that a drummer who had been scheduled to go on the subject Field Trip may have gotten into trouble. Because he was packing musical instruments and equipment for the trip, Respondent did not further investigate. Between 4:30 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. on April 22,5 Dr. Bernstein reached Respondent on his cell phone and informed him that a band member who played drum for the jazz band and the guitar ensemble had been suspended from school (the suspended drummer) and would not be permitted to go on the subject Field Trip, which was scheduled to leave early the next day. Dr. Bernstein stated that Respondent would have to find one of his other students to fill in. The jazz band and the guitar ensemble could not have performed without a replacement for the suspended drummer. The concert band and the classical guitar ensemble could have performed without the suspended drummer. Shortly after his conversation with Dr. Bernstein on the afternoon of April 22, 2008, Respondent began receiving calls from parents of band students who were worried that the subject Field Trip would be cancelled. Rueben Coto, a band parent and volunteer chaperon for the subject Field Trip, called Respondent between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m. on April 22. Respondent was uncertain as to what would happen and stated to Mr. Coto: “Look, I don’t think we’re going to be able to pull this off because we don’t have a drummer. We can’t perform without a drummer.” (Transcript, page 157, beginning at line 14). Mr. Coto located a replacement drummer for the suspended drummer. The replacement drummer (a male) was an ex- Nautilus band member who in April 2008 was a senior at Miami Beach Senior High School. Respondent told Mr. Coto to get something in writing from the replacement drummer’s parents giving permission for the replacement drummer to go on the subject Field Trip. The replacement drummer’s mother never gave written permission for her son to go on the subject Field Trip. Mr. Coto did not follow up on Respondent’s request to obtain written permission from the replacement drummer’s mother. On the morning of April 23, 2008, Respondent knew that the replacement drummer’s mother had not signed a written parental permission form.6 Respondent did not attempt to contact Dr. Bernstein or any other administrator after learning that the replacement drummer did not have written permission to participate in the subject Field Trip. Respondent permitted the replacement drummer to travel with the other students on the bus to and from Tennessee and to participate in certain of the activities of the Fiesta Val. While the subject Field Trip was in progress, Dr. Sidener, principal of Miami Beach Senior High, received a complaint from the band director at her school that the replacement drummer was absent from school and did not attend band rehearsal because he was on the subject Field Trip. Dr. Sidener immediately called Dr. Bernstein to determine whether she knew that the replacement drummer was participating in the subject Field Trip. Dr. Sidener did not excuse the replacement drummer’s absences from Miami Beach Senior High for the school days on which the replacement drummer participated in the subject Field Trip. The subject Field Trip was unrelated to the replacement drummer’s curriculum at Miami Beach Senior High. The subject Field Trip participants returned to Miami as scheduled on April 27, 2008. Prior to Dr. Sidener’s call, Dr. Bernstein was unaware that the replacement drummer was on the subject Field Trip. Respondent did not inform Dr. Bernstein before or during the subject Field Trip that the replacement drummer would be participating in the subject Field Trip. Immediately after Dr. Sidener’s call, Dr. Bernstein requested that the School Board’s Civilian Investigation Unit (CIU) conduct an investigation as to the replacement drummer’s participation in the subject Field Trip.7 The CIU investigation report was forwarded to the School Board’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS) for a CFR with Respondent. After the CFR, OPS sought input as to the appropriate discipline from Dr. Bernstein and Mr. Greenfield (the Administrative Director for the North Regional Center). OPS convened a disciplinary review team, which reviewed all available information. The disciplinary review team recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent’s employment by suspended without pay for 30 days. Following his review, the Superintendent adopted the recommendation from the disciplinary review team and forwarded the recommendation to the School Board. At its meeting of October 15, 2008, the School Board voted to suspend Respondent’s employment for a period of 30 days without pay. The School Board followed all relevant procedures leading up to its vote to discipline Respondent by suspending his employment for 30 days. Although Respondent has served his 30-day suspension without pay, Respondent timely requested a formal administrative hearing to challenge the suspension.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner 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 uphold the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay for 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 2nd day of June, 2009.
