Findings Of Fact Thomas L. Berkner, Petitioner, holds a continuing contract status as principal of elementary school in Orange County. During the 1977-1978 school year Petitioner was assigned as principal of the Winter Garden Elementary School which had a student enrollment of approximately 250 and consisted of kindergarten, first and second grades only. The Orange County School Board consolidated Winter Garden and Dillard Street Elementary Schools for the school year 1978-1979 leaving one principal for the school which retained the separate facilities, but was called Dillard Street Elementary School. The job of principal of the consolidated schools was given to the Dillard Street School principal and Petitioner was transferred to the position of Program Coordinator, ESEA Title I at the same salary he was paid as principal. The ESEA Title I Program is a federally funded project to serve economically disadvantaged and educationally deprived or disadvantaged children in grades 1, 2, and 3 but math is extended to grades 4, 5, and 6. The pay grade for Program Coordinator Title I was pay grade 46 and when first assigned Petitioner's personnel records reflected this pay grade (Exhibit 3). However, the records were corrected to reflect his continuing contract status and his pay grade was increased to 48 (Exhibit 4) the same pay grade for elementary school principals for schools with enrollment below 800. Although program coordinators are on annual contract status, Petitioner does not, while serving in this capacity, lose the continuing contract status as an elementary school Principal which he acquired in 1970. Scholastic and experience requirements for various positions in the Orange County school system are revised when these positions are advertised for applicants and generally reflect the highest qualities available in the local job market. At the present time elementary school principals and program coordinators are required to hold a masters degree. In addition program coordinators must be certified in elementary education and supervision, and have a minimum of five years teaching experience at the elementary level. Elementary principals must be certified in elementary school administration and supervision, and have a minimum of five years teaching experience (Exhibits 5, 7, and 9). Both principals and program coordinators perform primarily administrative functions as opposed to teaching functions. The principal is given overall responsibility for the school to which he is assigned and has certain statutory duties and authority that are not visited upon other positions. These include administrative responsibility for evaluating the educational program at his school, recommending the transfer and assignment of personnel at his school, administrative responsibility for school records, authority to administer corporal punishment and suspension of students, and perform such other duties as may be assigned by the Superintendent. Those duties assigned by the Superintendent are contained in the Job Description, Elementary School Principal (Exhibit 7) and phrased in the lexicon of education administrators, call upon the principal to promote, develop, coordinate, formulate, involve, manage and initiate programs and relationships to optimize the effectiveness of the school. The job description of the Program Coordinator ESEA, Title I (Exhibits 5 and 9) assigns to him responsibility for supervision of the Title I Program. The program coordinator's typical duties include interpreting the philosophy and goals of the program, assisting teachers, planning activities, participating in program planning, assisting principals and staffs, preparing and submitting reports and records, and performing other duties that may be assigned. Both jobs involve dealing with teachers and students, supervision, and administrative functions in carrying out the program for which each is responsible. The principal carries out his duties in the school to which he is assigned and works from his office while the program coordinator is responsible for the Title I program in several schools and spends a large part of his time away from the "office" he shares with other program coordinators. The principal has a secretary while the program coordinator must share a secretary with other program coordinators. However, one witness described the secretary at one elementary school as a school secretary and that the secretary did not work solely for the principal. Of those 15 typical duties of an elementary school principal listed on Exhibit 7, the program coordinator performs all but 5 and they involve duties that may be described as school-oriented rather than program-oriented. Of those 7 typical duties listed on Exhibit 9, Job Description for ESEA Title I Program Coordinator, the elementary school principal performs all except serve on Title I advisory council. Several witnesses testified that the position of principal was more prestigious than that of program coordinator, however, when all the evidence is considered it appears that prestige, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. While testifying in his own behalf Petitioner averred that as a program administrator he had no administrative duties and no personnel duties. Other program coordinators testified that they did have administrative and personnel duties. Petitioner acknowledged that most of the typical duties listed on Exhibit 7 were also performed by program coordinators.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner acted properly in discontinuing the employment of Helen T. Arnold pursuant to a continuing contract of employment with the Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact The School Board operates five schools and the St. Marks Adult Community Center. The schools include Sopchoppy Elementary School, Crawfordville Elementary School, Shadeville Elementary School, Wakulla Middle School and Wakulla High School. The School Board employed approximately 175 instructional personnel during 1988. The Wakulla Classroom Teachers Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") represents instructional personnel of the School Board in labor negotiations. The Association has entered into a "Master Contract Agreement", a collectively bargained agreement, with the School Board. Article I, Section B of the Master Contract Agreement provides that the School Board has the right to "direct its employees, take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons." The Master Contract Agreement does not provide the method for determining which instructional personnel may be fired by the School Board. Helen T. Arnold was certified by the Florida Department of Education as a teacher in the area of guidance in elementary and secondary (middle and high schools) schools. During the 1987-1988 school year Ms. Arnold was employed by the School Board pursuant to a Continuing Contract of Employment for Instructional Personnel of the Public Schools (hereinafter referred to as the "Continuing Contract"). The Continuing Contract was entered into on June 6, 1980. Ms. Arnold was employed a total of twelve years by the School Board. During her employment by the School Board, Ms. Arnold was employed as a guidance counselor, an alternative education teacher, an in-school suspension teacher and as an itinerant substitute teacher. The School Board employed two itinerant substitute teachers during the 1987-1988 school year. These positions were to be held by individuals fully certified by the Florida Department of Education on a full-time basis as substitute teachers throughout the school district. During the 1987-1988 school year, Ms. Arnold was employed as one of the itinerant substitute teachers. She was based at Wakulla High School. Ms. Arnold only taught at Wakulla High School during the 1987-1988 school year. The Continuing Contract designates Ms. Arnold for reference purposes as the "Teacher". This designation, however, does not specify Ms. Arnold's function with the School Board. The Continuing Contract specifically provides that "the School Board has appointed and employed the Teacher [Ms. Arnold] for continuing employment in the position of "Counselor". [Emphasis added]. The Continuing Contract is to remain in force and effect "from year to year . . . except that the Teacher may be suspended or removed for cause as provided by law." The Continuing Contract is subject to any and all laws, lawful rules and regulations, and policies of the State Board of Education and the School Board. The Continuing Contract provides that it will not operate to prevent discontinuance of a position as provided by law. Under the Continuing Contract, Ms. Arnold had the right to continue in a position as a counselor or a similar position, without the necessity for annual nomination or reappointment. Pursuant to the Continuing Contract, the School Board could assign Ms. Arnold to perform services consistent with the Continuing Contract and to assign her throughout the school district. The School Board had an operating budget for the 1987-1988 school year of approximately eleven to twelve million dollars. Prior to the 1987-1988 school year the School Board directed that a reserve of $350,000.00 should be maintained. This directive was not adopted as a policy of the School Board. The amount of the reserve is approximately three percent of the School Board's 1987-1988 budget. Five percent is generally accepted as adequate. The purpose of a reserve is to meet unanticipated expenses, shortfalls in State sales taxes, which determine the State's funding of the School Board, and changes in the projected student population of the School Board during the year. In January of 1987, the School Board estimated the number of students they would have during the 1987-1988 school year. This estimate was used to determine, in part, the amount of funds which the School Board expected to receive between July 1, 1987, and June 30, 1988, from the State of Florida. The estimate of students also determined the staff which the School Board anticipated it needed for the 1987-1988 school year for each of its five schools. The funds anticipated to be received by the School Board were allocated to meet the projected number of students at each of the schools in the school district. In October of 1987, and February of 1988, the School Board was required to count the actual number of students. Based upon these counts, the State can adjust the amount of State funds payable to the School Board retroactively to July 1, 1987. Based upon the October, 1987, count of students the School Board discovered that it had a greater number of students (approximately 100 more students) in its elementary schools and a lesser number of students in its middle and high schools than had been estimated in January of 1987. Therefore, the School Board received more funds overall from the State. The School Board determined, based upon the actual count of students in October, 1987, that it needed additional staff and other items at the elementary schools, however, and fewer staff and other items at the middle and high schools. The School Board therefore hired additional staff for the elementary schools. The School Board did not transfer or reduce staff from the middle and high schools. The hiring of additional staff and the failure to reduce unneeded staff at the middle and high schools increased the total expenses above budgeted expenses of the School Board for the 1987-1988 school year. The net effect of the October, 1987, count of students was that the school boards reserve was reduced from $350,000.00 to $217,000.00. It was also determined that unless steps were taken to reduce expenses, the reserve would be reduced further for the 1988-1989 school year. The Director of Business of the School Board informed the Superintendent of the School Board that he believed that it would be necessary to reduce expenses in order to meet the School Board's directive to maintain a $350,000.00 reserve for the 1988-1989 school year. Approximately 79% of the School Board's budget is allocated to personnel expenses. The Superintendent concluded that the best way to reduce expenses for the 1988-1989 school year was through a reduction in staff. It was not possible to achieve the necessary reductions of expenses by reducing other costs. The School Board, however, hired new employees for the 1987-1988 and 1988- 1989 school years. The Superintendent decided to recommend a reduction in personnel which would have the least impact on instruction of the core curriculum first. Ultimately, the Superintendent recommended elimination of the following positions: One elementary school teacher at Crawfordville Elementary school; One study hall teacher at Wakulla High School; One guidance counselor at Wakulla High School; One social studies teacher at Wakulla High School; One mathematics teacher at Wakulla High School; Two itinerant substitute teacher positions; and One district-level administrator. At a School Board meeting held on March 14, 1988, the School Board accepted the recommendation of the Superintendent and abolished the recommended positions, including the two itinerant substitute teacher positions, effective for the 1988-1989 school year. Pursuant to Continuing Contract, Ms. Arnold continued in the employment of the School Board even though her itinerant substitute teacher position had been abolished. After approval of the abolishment of the positions recommended by the Superintendent, the School Board needed to determine which employees would have to be terminated as a result of the reduction in positions. The Superintendent concluded that Rule 3.08 of the School Board should govern the selection of the employees to be terminated by the School Board. Rule 3.08 of the School Board provides, in pertinent part: REDUCTION IN PERSONNEL--If a reduction in personnel requires the School Board to choose from its employees the Board shall retain the employees best qualified. In determining qualifications the Board shall consider without limitation educational qualifications, efficiency, compatibility, character and capability to meet educational service needs of the community. The Superintendent and the Principal of Wakulla High School met with Ms. Arnold on March 15, 1988, in the Principal's office. Ms. Arnold was informed that the itinerant substitute teacher position she occupied was being eliminated for the 1988-1989 school year. She was also informed that she would be considered pursuant to Rule 3.08 of the School Board along with Art Mainwood and Betty Jensen for the one remaining guidance position at Wakulla High school. Ms. Jensen was certified in guidance and was employed by the School Board pursuant to a continuing contract. Mr. Mainwood was also certified in guidance and was employed by the School Board pursuant to an annual contract. Ms. Jensen and Mr. Mainwood worked at Wakulla High School. Ms. Arnold was informed during the March 15, 1988, meeting with the Superintendent that a recommendation would be made to the School Board at its March 21, 1988, meeting as to which of the three guidance personnel should be retained. No written notice of the School Board's March 21, 1988, meeting was provided to Ms. Arnold. The Superintendent decided that Ms. Arnold should be considered for the guidance position because that was the area she was certified in. The Superintendent decided that Ms. Arnold should be considered only with others certified in guidance currently employed at Wakulla High School because that was where Ms. Arnold had been "stationed". At no time was Ms. Arnold considered for other guidance positions in the school district. In order to determine the "best qualified" personnel, the Superintendent selected six administrators to independently review Ms. Arnold comparatively with Ms. Jensen and Mr. Mainwood. The six administrators included the Principal of Wakulla High School, the Director of Instruction for the School Board, the Assistant Principal for Instruction at Wakulla High School, the Assistant Principal at Wakulla High School, the Coordinator of Personnel and Automated Student Records for the School Board and a former principal of Wakulla High School. The six administrators did not meet with Ms. Arnold, Ms. Jensen and Mr. Mainwood. They performed their review based upon their knowledge of the three individuals. The three were compared by each of the six administrators based upon the specific criteria listed in Rule 3.08 of the School Board. At least four of the six administrators had never directly supervised Ms. Arnold or made any formal observation of the performance of her duties. Some of the evaluators knew very little about Ms. Arnold. Although the six administrators applied the criteria of Rule 3.08 of the School Board independently, it was not possible for the six reviewers to effectively determine who was the "best qualified" of the three persons they reviewed because of their limited knowledge of the three persons. Ms. Jensen was given the highest overall score. Ms. Arnold received the lowest overall score and the lowest individual score from all six of the evaluators. The method of review employed with regard to Ms. Arnold was not followed in evaluating all of the persons affected by the School Board's reduction in staff. Mary Nasby, another employee on continuing contract, was evaluated in a similar manner to Ms. Arnold. Hossein Achtchi, another employee on continuing contract, was not, however, evaluated in a similar manner. The Superintendent considered the scores of the six administrators in conjunction with the teacher evaluations and other documents in the files of Ms. Arnold, Ms. Jensen and Mr. Mainwood. Based upon this evaluation, the Superintendent concluded that Ms. Jensen was the best qualified of the three individuals and that she should be retained in the one guidance position at Wakulla High School. The Superintendent recommended that the School Board retain Ms. Jensen and that Ms. Arnold's Continuing Contract be terminated. The Superintendent also determined that the annual contract of Mr. Mainwood would not be renewed. The Superintendent's recommendation concerning the guidance position at Wakulla High School was approved by the School Board at a meeting on March 21, 1988. During the March 21, 1988, meeting of the School Board, the School Board terminated the employment of eight individuals. Of these eight individuals, three had continuing contracts of employment with the School Board: Ms. Arnold, Ms. Nasby and Mr. Achtchi. Ms. Arnold and Ms. Nasby are Black females and Mr. Achtchi is an Iranian male. The other five employees terminated by the School Board were all on annual contracts of employment. Ms. Arnold was provided a letter dated March 21, 1988, from the School Board Chairman informing her that her Continuing Contract had been terminated effective June 7, 1988. The letter was hand delivered to Ms. Arnold on March 22, 1988. Ms. Arnold was informed that she had the right to request a formal administrative hearing to contest the School Board's action. Ms. Arnold exercised her right and requested a formal administrative hearing. At the time that the decision was made to terminate Ms. Arnold's employment with the School Board there was at least one individual employed by the School Board in a guidance position for which Ms. Arnold qualified who was not certified in the area of guidance: Melinda Young. Ms. Young was assigned as a counselor at Wakulla Middle School but was not certified in the area of guidance. Ms. Young applied for certification in guidance in May of 1988, but did not receive it until August, 1988. Additionally, there was at least one individual employed by the School Board in a counselor position for which Ms. Arnold was qualified who was employed under an annual contract of employment: Deborah Thibos. The contracts of Ms. Young and Ms. Thibos, as well as the continuing contract of Nancy K. Pope, another person filling a counselor position, all provided that they were employed in the position of "teacher" as opposed to the position of "counselor", as specified in Ms. Arnold's Continuing Contract. Ms. Arnold was not considered for the counselor positions held by Ms. Young, Ms. Thibos or Ms. Pope. Nor was Ms. Arnold compared with Gregory Burns, another guidance counselor of the School Board. Subsequent to the school Board meeting of March 21, 1988, but before the proposed action of the School Board became final (which still has not occurred), Ms. Jensen resigned from the School Board. Therefore, before the School Board's action with regard to Ms. Arnold became final, Ms. Arnold may have become the "best qualified" person of the three considered for the position. Despite Ms. Arnold's availability and desire to continue with the School Board, she was not considered for the counselor position when Ms. Jensen left or when the position became available a second time after Ms. Arnold's termination. Instead, the School Board hired two successive people from outside the School Board under annual contracts. Despite the fact that Ms. Arnold had been employed in positions other than guidance, she was not considered for any other positions with the School Board before her termination or after her termination when openings, including substitute teacher positions, became available. Ms. Arnold applied for vacancies which arose with the School Board after she was terminated. The School Board therefore should have known that she still desired to be employed by the School Board. Ms. Arnold has been employed during the 1988-1989 school year by the Leon County School Board pursuant to an annual contract and at a salary of $26,311.00. Had she continued with the School Board during the 1988-1989 school year, she would be making $24,307.00. Ms. Arnold's rights under her Continuing Contract, however, are greater than her rights under the annual contract with the Leon County School Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board offer Ms. Arnold a counselor position for the 1989-90 school year at the same salary she would have been entitled to if she had worked for the School Board for the 1988-1989 school year. It is further recommended that the School Board tender contributions to the State pension fund on Ms. Arnold's behalf in the amount which will insure that Ms. Arnold is entitled to the same retirement benefits as if she had worked for the School Board for the 1988-1989 school year. It is further recommended that the School Board ensure that Ms. Arnold receives retirement credit as if she had worked for the School Board for the 1988-1989 school year. It is further recommended that the School Board pay Ms. Arnold the moneys it would have contributed to the State pension fund on Ms. Arnold's behalf if she had worked for the School Board for the 1988-1989 school year, if the School Board is unable to insure that Ms. Arnold receives retirement credit for the 1988-1989 school year. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 3rd day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2022 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 8 and 12. 2 10. 3 11-12. 4 7. 5 1-2. 6 3-5. 7 16. 8 17-19. 9 20. 10 23. 11 24-25. The shortfall was $133,000.00. 12 26. 13 24. 14 Hereby accepted. 15-16 25. 17 18. 18 Hereby accepted. 19 28. 20 29. 21 30-31. 22 31. 23 49. 24 5 and 33-34. 25 34. 26 35. 27 37. 28 38 and 40. 29 43-44. 30 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 31 46. 32 46-47. 33 48. 34 50-51. 35 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 36 See 56-58. 37 Not relevant to this proceeding. 38 14. 39-40 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 59. 42-45 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 17. 2 See 20-22. 3 23. 4 24. 5 2 and 27. 24. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 8-9 29-30. Only one guidance counselor position at Wakulla High School was abolished. 10 23 and 28. 11 24. 12 Hereby accepted. 13 34. See 40. Not relevant to this proceeding. Hereby accepted. 17 40 and 45. 18 45. 19-20 See 46. 21 Not relevant to this proceeding. 22-23 41-43. 24-25 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 26 48-49. 27 49. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 30 Not relevant to this proceeding. 31 37. 32 50-51. 33 51. 34 Not relevant to this proceeding. 35 4 and 6. 36-46 Not relevant to this proceeding. 47 7. 48 8. 49 1. 50 13-15. 51-52 15. 53 10. 54 12. 55 31. 56 14. 57 Hereby accepted. 58 52. 59 53. 60 54. 61 55. 62 35 and 39. 63-64 Not relevant to this proceeding. 65 57. 66-68 Hereby accepted. 69 59. 70-71 Hereby accepted. 72 Not relevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger Stokley, Superintendent School Board of Wakulla County Post Office Box 100 Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Marva A. Davis, Esquire Anna Bryant Motter, Esquire MARVA A. DAVIS, P.A. 379 East Jefferson Post Office Drawer 551 Quincy, Florida 32351 J. David Holder, Esquire Rigsby & Holder Suite 200 1408 North Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32312
The Issue Whether Petitioner Rayburn should have been re-nominated and reappointed by Respondent as a teacher aide.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Doris Faye Rayburn was employed by the School Board of Leon County, Florida from 1973 to 1977: 1973-74 teacher aide, Nims Middle School; 1974-75 teacher aide, Nims Middle School; 1975-76 secretary/bookkeeper, Nims Middle School, later transferred during the school year to a teacher aide position at Nims Middle School; 1976-77 teacher aide, Nims Middle School. She was not reappointed for the 1977-78 term and thereupon filed a grievance procedure and then a petition for this administrative hearing. Petitioner's contract of employment as a teacher aide each year was for 180 days and included the right to participate in the State Personnel Retirement System to accumulate sick leave, and participate in the payroll deduction plan for 12 months insurance coverage. Thirty-six of the 165 teacher aides employed by the School Board in 1976-77 were not reemployed including Petitioner. The procedure for employment of teacher aides is by a recommendation from the Principal to the School superintendent, a nomination by the Superintendent and subsequent approval by the School Board. This procedure takes place each year for each teacher aide. Petitioner was not promised reemployment and was not reemployed. The principal testified that his decision not to recommend Petitioner for reemployment was not based alone on her comments to the Superintendent's wife or for things she had said concerning the operation of the school, although he was aware of her activities. There were some complaints about Petitioner "over- stepping" her job and posing as a counselor. After the expiration of Petitioner's last contract two assistant principals urged the Principal not to recommend Petitioner for future employment. Petitioner satisfied at least two guidance counselors with whom she worked. She is active and interested in school activities. Petitioner feels that she was not reappointed because of things she said concerning the school and its policies. She wanted to be reappointed and had so planned. Petitioner contends: Petitioner was denied employment as a result of exercising her first amendment right of freedom of speech. Mrs. Rayburn voiced her general concerns about the quality of education provided by the school system. These comments were within her right as a public employee, parent and citizen to publicly comment on events of community interests and her speech did not disrupt the efficiency of providing educational services. Section 231.141, Florida Statutes, gave Mrs. Rayburn an objective expectation in her employment as a teacher aide, protected by the fourteenth amendment. That she had "de facto" tenure and should have been reemployed. Respondent contends: Petitioner was a "non-instructional employee" and not entitled to tenure under the statutes. The fact that Mrs. Rayburn had been appointed to four previous years and the fact that 78 percent of the 1976-77 teacher aides were reemployed did not give Petitioner a constitutionally protected interest in continuing employment. That the incident of the comments Petitioner made regarding the school policy to the School Superintendent's wife was not constitutionally protected speech and that there is no showing that the Superintendent's decision not to again nominate her for employment as a teacher aide was related in any way to any speech or communication by Petitioner.
Recommendation Dismiss the petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joyce Davis, Esquire Steven Seliger, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. 822 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 C. Graham Carothers, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Dodson, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful employment practice based on sex.
Findings Of Fact Since November 2006, Petitioner, Michael J. Pappas, was a male employee of Respondent, Bay County School Board. Initially, he was employed as a part-time substitute teacher at Patronis Elementary School (Patronis). Patronis has an “A” ranking under Florida’s school accountability program and was ranked as a Top 100 School in 2005. Eventually, Petitioner became a full-time para-professional (aide) assigned to work exclusively with an autistic child enrolled at the school. Ellie Spivey (female), the principal at Patronis, recommended Petitioner for the full-time position. Petitioner was hired under an annual contract. In addition to his employment with Respondent, Petitioner served as Captain of a Dolphin tour boat he operated out of Panama City. In his para-professional position, Petitioner worked with Art Beakley (male) and Mary Martin (female). Both were third grade teachers at Patronis. Mr. Beakley was Petitioner’s direct supervisor and, like Petitioner, had been recommended for his teaching position by Ellie Spivey. Petitioner’s performance as a para-professional was mixed. At best, both teachers indicated Petitioner’s performance was adequate, when he was present at the school. Often Petitioner was absent from school or left school early to go on dolphin tours. Petitioner often did not notify either teacher that he would be absent. Petitioner told Mr. Beakley that he could make more money as a boat captain on the dolphin tours. On the days Petitioner was absent, the autistic student’s mother would act as his caretaker during the day. Eventually, both teachers complained to the principal about Petitioner’s absences from school. The principal did not discipline Petitioner because the absences were taken on allowable personal leave days. However, Petitioner’s clear preference for working the dolphin tours as opposed to working at the school did not reflect well on his dedication or enthusiasm for a career at the school. Brooke Loyed, an Assistant Principal at Patronis, evaluated Petitioner’s employment based on her observations of Petitioner. She was unaware of Mr. Beakley’s and Ms. Martin’s complaints regarding Petitioner’s absences. On April 3, 2007, Petitioner received a good evaluation with no problems noted. However, funding for Petitioner’s para-professional position was not available for the next school term. In mid-to- late April 2007, Petitioner was advised his contract would not be renewed. That same month, after learning of the non-renewal, Petitioner asked Mr. Beakley and Ms. Martin for a letter of recommendation. Mr. Beakley reluctantly agreed to give Petitioner a letter of recommendation and drafted a letter highlighting Petitioner’s good-qualities. The letter did not mention Petitioner’s absences and lack of enthusiasm. Initially, Ms. Martin refused to sign the letter by making excuses about why she had not signed the letter drafted by Mr. Beakley. However, she finally signed the letter so that Petitioner would stop asking her to do so. Ms. Martin now regrets that she signed the letter. In May 2007, Ms. Spivey was developing classes and personnel pairings for the next school term. She asked Kara Powell, a teacher at Patronis, if she was willing to work with a full-time para-professional in her classroom. Ms. Spivey did not indicate to Ms. Powell who the para-professional would be. Ms. Powell was not aware that Petitioner’s contract would not be renewed for the next term. Ms. Powell told Ms. Spivey that she would not be interested in working with a para-professional in her classroom if that person was Petitioner. Ms. Powell told Ms. Spivey that Petitioner made her uncomfortable because he would sit very close to her in the lunchroom and that he sometimes made comments she did not care for. She also told Ms. Spivey that Petitioner had once invited her and some other female teachers to go on a dolphin tour in their bathing suits without their husbands. Ms. Powell felt the invitation was inappropriate and made for sexual purposes. The evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner invited the teachers to go on a dolphin tour for inappropriate reasons. From Petitioner’s point of view, the invitation was made to a group of teachers sitting as a group in the cafeteria during a light-hearted conversation at the table. He invited his co-workers because he thought they might enjoy going on a dolphin tour. He limited the invitation to his co-workers because his boat was not big enough to take spouses or boyfriends. On the other hand, other teachers confirmed Ms. Powell’s story, and also indicated that Mr. Powell made them feel uncomfortable. Since the school year was through and Petitioner’s contract was not going to be renewed, Ms. Spivey did not investigate further and did not take any formal action against Petitioner regarding the reports of these teachers. Eventually, due to the lack of funds, Petitioner’s contract expired and was not renewed. There was no evidence that demonstrated the non-renewal of Petitioner’s contract was based on Petitioner’s gender. In the summer of 2007, Patronis had several open teaching positions. Respondent advertised the positions for 5 days. Eventually, the District Office developed an applicant list for Patronis and forwarded it to the school. There were over 90 applicants on the list, of which almost 95 percent were female. A minimum of five applicants was required to be interviewed by the school with the same questions and scoring form used for each candidate. In June and July 2007, interviews for the open teaching positions were held at Patronis. Ms. Spivey and Ms. Loyed selected Petitioner for an interview. Other candidates were Sarah Patterson, Jessica Kelley, Debra Holbrook, Kim Rogers, Sasha Aufschieider and Jana Jackins. Petitioner did not have a good interview and did not promote himself or his qualifications during the interview. He was not particularly enthusiastic or upbeat about teaching. Other than his application, Petitioner did not bring any letters of recommendation or updated resume to the interview. He did not provide the Bleakley letter discussed earlier. He did not discuss current teaching methods or techniques even though the interview questions provided him an opportunity to do so. Importantly, Petitioner did not appear to be current with those methods. From his application, it was clear that he had received his teaching degree over 20 years ago and had had no full-time classroom teaching experience since that time. Petitioner refused to be considered for a special education teaching position. The refusal did not reflect well on his dedication or enthusiasm for teaching. Petitioner also had no “English as a second language (ESOL)” experience or certification. ESOL certification is a desirable skill for teachers today. Because of the poor interview and given the recent allegations that he made other teachers uncomfortable, Petitioner was not offered any of the open positions at Patronis. The evidence did not demonstrate that the reasons for not hiring Petitioner were invalid or a pretext to mask discriminatory action. The successful applicants for the open positions at Patronis were Sarah Patterson, Jessica Kelley, Debra Holbrook, Kim Rogers, Sasha Aufschieider and Jana Jackins. All of the candidates hired for the open positions were female. However, that fact alone is not demonstrative of discrimination given the fact that the applicant pool was almost 95 percent female. The evidence demonstrated that all of these candidates were more qualified for the open teaching positions than Petitioner. All of the applicants had better interviews. All showed more enthusiasm and dedication to teaching. All demonstrated that they had knowledge of the latest teaching methods and techniques. Finally, all scored higher in the interview. Kim Rogers had three years of teaching experience at a Title I school. Her Title I experience was a good indication that she had experience in teaching at-risk children. Sarah Patterson had a year of classroom experience and ESOL certification. She also was known to be a very hard worker at school. Jessica Kelley and Debra Holbrook were new teachers who had recently completed their teaching internship at Patronis. Both were current in the latest teaching methods and techniques and had demonstrated such during the interview. Both were highly thought of by their teaching peers. Sasha Aufschieider was ESOL-certified. She also was highly recommended by her peers. Likewise, Jana Jackins was highly recommended by her teaching peers. When Petitioner discovered that he would not be offered a position, he complained to Dr. Richardson at the District Office. At the time, he did not indicate that he thought he had been discriminated against based on his sex. Instead, he indicated that he thought he had been promised a position. Dr. Richardson determined that the District hiring policies had been followed. She offered to help Petitioner and contacted the principals at Cedar Grove Elementary School, a Title I school, and Surfside Middle School. On July 19, 2007, Petitioner interviewed at Cedar Grove Elementary for a position involving remediation of students who failed the FCAT. The school and the position required an enthusiastic and motivated person who could work with high-risk, failing students. The interview was conducted by the principal, Billy May (male). Petitioner performed adequately in his interview with Mr. May. Petitioner was not selected for the position. The successful candidate, Heather Six (female), was more qualified for the position. She scored higher and had ESOL certification. Indeed, there was no evidence that demonstrated Petitioner was discriminated against based on his sex when he was not hired for the Cedar Grove position. Similarly, Petitioner was not hired for the position at Surfside Middle School. The interview was conducted by the principal, Sue Harrell (female). Petitioner again did adequately in the interview. The successful candidate for the position was Kenneth Stem (male). As with Cedar Grove, there was no evidence of discrimination or pretext in the hiring of Mr. Stem over Petitioner and the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 8th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Pappas 6208 North Lagoon Drive Panama City Beach, Florida 32408 Robert C. Jackson, Esquire Harrison, Sale, McCloy, Duncan & Jackson, Chtd. 304 Magnolia Avenue Post Office Drawer 1579 Panama City, Florida 33402-1579
The Issue Issues for consideration in this case include whether there exists an adequate factual basis for Petitioner Duval County School Board (the Board) to terminate Respondent's employment as a principal and teacher for those violations of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida, 1941, as amended (the Act), which are alleged by the Board's Notice of Dismissal; and whether there exists an adequate factual basis for the Education Practices Commission (EPC) to revoke or suspend Respondent's teaching certificate or otherwise discipline Respondent for violations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate number 263958, covering the areas of physical education and school principal (all levels). The certificate is valid through June 30, 2001. Respondent is a certified teacher who, on the basis of his long-term employment by the Board, has tenure as a result of the length of his service in a satisfactory capacity. Respondent was employed as the Principal at Sandalwood High School by the Board from 1988 through the spring semester of 1994. Commencing in the summer of 1994 and continuing through October 20, 1995, Respondent was employed by the Board as Principal at Forrest High School. Respondent has been removed from his position as Principal of Forrest High School, but continues as a salaried employee of the Board pending resolution of the charges which form the basis for this proceeding. During Respondent's tenure as Principal at Forrest High School, he supervised teachers Julie T. Lee, Kimberly L. Smith, Pamela W. Bean, and Karen E. Jones. Julie T. Lee, Teacher During the 1994-1995 school year, Lee was both the Student Activities Director and the Cheerleading Coach for Forrest High School. In addition, she taught two classes on the subject of ecology. As Student Activities Director, she had an office centrally located, apart from the classroom she used. In November of 1994, Respondent called Lee into his office. He shut and locked the door. He asked Lee to sit down in a chair that Lee noted had been turned and was out of place. She sat down. Respondent then went behind her and proceeded to rub her shoulders. Lee was uncomfortable and did not welcome or encourage Respondent's actions. On February 6, 1995, Respondent again called Lee into his office and shut and locked the door. After a conversation with Lee, Respondent approached Lee and said he need a hug. He proceeded to hug Lee without her consent. In May of 1995, while Lee was using the telephone in the Principal's office for a long distance call, Respondent returned unexpectedly, shut and locked the door, and sat down in a chair behind Lee. He proceeded to grab Lee about her hips and pull her down to sit in his lap. He told her if she would take care of him, she could have anything she wanted at the school. Lee got up, said she would take care of student activities and left. About a week later, Respondent encountered Lee outside her office and asked her if she had thought about his offer. Lee acted as if she didn't know what Respondent was talking about. Later, before the end of the school year, Respondent informed Lee that he was moving her office. The new location for Lee's job as Student Activities Director was a weight room near the school gym. The room was bright red, smelled of sweat, and was located in an out of the way place for purposes of student activities. Lee commenced using the new location prior to the end of the school year for a period of approximately four weeks. At the end of the four week period, Respondent came to Lee's office and told her that she had one hour in which to move. The new office was a former special education classroom at the other extreme end of the building, away from a central location, flooded with water and dirty. A few days thereafter, Respondent also told Lee that she would have to teach three out-of-field social studies classes in addition to the Cheerleading Coach and Student Activities Director jobs. Lee felt she could not do all three jobs under any circumstances. Further, she felt that teaching a majority of out- of-field classes would subject her to being surplussed the following year unless she became certified in those areas in the interim. Lee did not accept the justification that the additional class assignment was purely the result of budgetary constraints and felt that she was being subjected to retaliation for not meeting Respondent's sexual overtures. She talked with Mark Scott, a music teacher, about the matter on September 18, 1995. Scott had heard about difficulties that another teacher was having with Respondent. Scott revealed his discussion with the other teacher, Kimberly Smith, to Lee. Lee subsequently contacted Smith. Kimberly Smith, Teacher Sometime near the middle of the 1994-1995 school year, Respondent walked up behind Smith in the school library and massaged her shoulders. Smith did not welcome or invite Respondent's conduct. On or about June 14, 1995, Respondent asked Smith into his office and locked the door. After a conversation relating to her resignation as basketball coach, Respondent asked Smith for a hug. As Smith attempted to pull back from the hug, Respondent pulled Smith against his body and with his face on her neck told her that she smelled good. Respondent then told Smith to get out of there before he forgot who he was. The next school year, on September 18, 1995, Respondent approached Smith in the hallway near the library and after some conversation grabbed her arm, pulled her to him and requested that Smith come to his office and give him "some tender loving care." If she complied, Respondent promised to "see what I can do for you." Smith told Jon Nerf, an English teacher at Forrest High School, about the September 18, 1995 incident shortly after it occurred. Nerf's testimony establishes that Smith was emotionally upset by Respondent's action. Pamela W. Bean, Teacher In April of 1995, Respondent asked Pamela W. Bean, a teacher, to come into his office when she asked to talk with him. He closed the door. After she was seated and talking, Respondent told Bean that she "looked stressed." He stepped behind her and began to rub her shoulders. When Bean got up, Respondent told her that he "needed a hug." Bean, nonplussed by the unsolicited and unwelcome advance of Respondent, complied with a brief hug and left. The next day, a similar incident with Bean occurred in Respondent's office. Again, Respondent's back rub and hug overtures were unsolicited by Bean who complied again with Respondent's request for a hug. Karen Jones, Teacher In the spring of 1995, Karen E. Jones, another teacher, asked to speak with Respondent. He asked her into his office and closed the door. Respondent then told Jones "I need a hug" and proceeded to hug her. After hugging Jones, Respondent told her that "we need to do that more often." In the first half of September of 1995, Respondent asked Jones to come into a room near his office called "Trawick's Trough." After entering the room, he again asked for a hug and hugged Jones. Jones did not solicit or welcome the hug. Jones later confided prior to initiation of any formal charges against Respondent in her long-term friend, Susan Ingraham, who is a school board employee, regarding Respondent's overtures. Julie A. Gray, Teacher Julie A. Gray was a first year teacher of Spanish and the yearbook sponsor at Sandalwood High School during the 1991-1992 school year when Respondent was her supervisor and the Principal at that school. Respondent approached Gray in the hallway during the early part of that school term. Respondent told Grey that he liked to get hugs from his faculty members. Gray patted him lightly on the shoulders. Respondent then said,"oh, I didn't mean here. I meant in my office." Later in the school term, Gray went to report to Respondent that all the yearbooks had been sold. Gray found Respondent near the bookkeeper's office and started talking to him. He leaned over and tried to kiss her on the mouth. When she backed away, Respondent tried to hug Gray. She was embarrassed by the incident and informed Peggy Clark, a professional support staffer for new teachers, that Respondent had made remarks of a sexual nature to Gray. Gray's roommate was also informed by Gray regarding Respondent's attempt to kiss Gray. The Teachers As a result of Lee's conversation with Mark Scott, Lee subsequently compared experiences with Smith. Bean, assigned by Respondent to sit in the student activity office during one of Lee's social studies classes also had a discussion with Lee. The three, Lee, Smith and Bean, decided to lodge complaints with the school administration and did so in early October of 1995. Lee felt she had not choice if she did not want to lose her job. Smith would have reported Respondent's behavior toward her earlier, but felt that she was alone and could not succeed. Bean, likewise, had felt she was alone and would not be believed over the word of a principal. Jones learned about the other teachers and their grievances a couple of weeks following Respondent's last advance toward her and decided to join the others in making a complaint. Gray had considered bringing sexual harassment charges against Respondent in the spring of 1992, but felt it would simply be her word against Respondent. She decided to come forward with her allegations in response to requests by the Board's representative who had learned of Respondent's behavior in 1992 toward Gray. Based on their candor and demeanor while testifying, as well as the consistency of their testimony with earlier statements made by them to persons with whom they spoke following various incidents, the testimony of all five teachers, Lee, Smith, Bean, Jones, and Gray, is fully credited and establishes that Respondent's conduct toward them was intimidating and adversely affected their abilities and enthusiasm for teaching in such situations. Stefani Powell, Contract Manager Stefani Powell was a district supervisor for ARAMARK, the operator of the Board's food service in the school system during the 1994-95 school year. In her capacity, Powell managed 14 school cafeterias, including the one at Forrest High School. Respondent, as the Principal at Forrest, was a client of ARAMARK's, oversaw what happened in the cafeteria, and approved certain aspects of the cafeteria's functioning. In meetings with Powell in his office, Respondent began closing and later locking the doors, commencing in October of 1994. He initiated hugs with Powell at the end of these meetings. On approximately eight to 10 occasions, the last in January or February of 1995, Respondent hugged Powell. Initially, the hugs were light, but progressed and grew stronger with Respondent eventually placing his hand on Powell's back and pushing inward. On the last occasion, Respondent kissed Powell on the cheek. None of these attentions by Respondent was solicited by Powell and were unwelcome. Since Respondent's advances made Powell uncomfortable, she eventually confided in her supervisor who advised that Powell always take someone with her or ensure the presence of a third person at conferences with Respondent. Powell followed this practice with regard to future meetings with Respondent. After reading in the newspaper of the allegations of the teachers at Forrest High School, Powell told her mother, a school board employee, of her experiences with Respondent. As a result, Powell was put in touch with the Board's investigator and her complaint against Respondent followed. Due to her candor and demeanor at the final hearing, as well as consistency of her testimony with statements made by her to others, Powell's testimony is totally credited. Dishonesty In The Course Of Employment Carol Abrahams was a clerk one at Forrest High School during the 1994-1995 school year. She shared a social relationship with Respondent and his wife. In April of 1995, Respondent made Abrahams the Principal's secretary. Abrahams was a clerk one. A clerk three is the customary rating and higher paying position normally assigned duties as a Principal's secretary. Respondent sought to augment Abrahams' pay since she was paid less than a Principal's secretary would normally receive. Respondent directed the use of Community School funds to pay Abrahams for work after the normal school day hours. Commencing with the beginning of the 1995-1996 school year, Abrahams was paid $9.50 per hour for the hours of 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. each day that Community School functioned, Monday-Thursday, through September of 1995. Abrahams did not work during all the hours for which she claimed payment for the period of August 23, 1995 through September 28, 1995. Specifically, Abrahams went to an aerobics class conducted at Forrest High School from 3:30 until 4:30 p.m. almost every Monday, Wednesday and Thursday of each week during August and September, 1995. On three payroll hour certifications signed by Respondent, payment was made to Abrahams for a total of 16 hours during 16 days that were not actually worked at the times claimed. Respondent knew that Abrahams was attending the aerobics classes, but it was assumed by he and others that Abrahams would make up the missed hours. Abrahams testimony that she did school work at home, on weekends and at other times in an amount of hours sufficient to more than make up for the hours claimed on the subject pay roll certifications, while creditable, is not corroborated by any record of such "comp" time and cannot serve to extinguish the commission by Respondent of the technical violation of approval of those time sheets for subsequent payment when he knew those records were not accurate. Conduct And Effectiveness Respondent's misconduct, as established by the testimony of Lee, Smith, Bean, Gray, Jones and Powell, constitutes personal conduct reducing Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Board.
Recommendation Pursuant to provisions of disciplinary guidelines contained within Rule 6B-11.007, Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by EPC revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of two years, with recertification at the conclusion of that time conditioned upon Respondent's acceptance of a three year probationary period upon terms and conditions to be established by the EPC, and it isFURTHER RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board dismissing and discharging Respondent from his position of employment with the Board.DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Ernst D. Mueller, Esquire Office of the General Counsel City of Jacksonville 600 City Hall 220 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 J. David Holder, Esquire 14 South 9th Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 William J. Sheppard, Esquire Sheppard and White, P.A. 215 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Larry Zenke, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8154
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of a handicap or disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner became employed on an annual non-renewing contract as a paraprofessional at Park Elementary School during the 1993-94 school year. The Petitioner was assigned to work in a classroom program for developmentally disabled preschool children. The children were three to four years of age and very active. There were between five to nine children in the classroom. The Petitioner was generally assigned to work with two children and was responsible for monitoring their activity. She was also responsible for physically controlling the children and changing diapers when required. The substantial part of the workday was spent standing, bending, lifting, and moving about with the children. The Petitioner continued her employment in the 1994-95 school year and received satisfactory evaluations. During the 1995-96 school year, the Petitioner continued her employment as a paraprofessional. Although there is evidence that the Petitioner's job performance was of some concern to the class teacher and to the school principal, the Petitioner was not formally evaluated because her employment was interrupted as set forth herein. There is no evidence that anyone discussed the concerns with her or that she had an opportunity to remedy any alleged deficit in her job performance. On January 2, 1996, the Petitioner was riding in a car being driven by her husband and was involved in an automobile accident when another driver struck the Petitioner's car. The Petitioner was injured in the accident and was taken to a hospital where she was treated and released. Subsequent to the accident, the Petitioner continued to have pain in her neck and sought treatment from a chiropractor. Eventually, the chiropractor referred the Petitioner to a neurologist in an attempt to determine the cause of the pain. The medical professionals determined that the Petitioner's injuries were not permanent. The Petitioner's chiropractor described the pain as a "typical soft tissue injury" and eventually stopped treating the pain because the pain did not improve and was not supported by diagnostic testing. The Petitioner's neurologist opined that the neck pain was not a "disability." The Petitioner returned to the school on February 14, 1996, and discussed her physical limitations with the school principal. She showed the principal a copy of a letter from her chiropractor to an insurer that stated that she was "able to work in a limited capacity . . . with a 15 pound limit" and that "she is to avoid excessive bending, stooping and standing." The Petitioner asserts that the school principal told her to go home and return a week later. The Respondent asserts that the Petitioner informed the Principal that she could do the job but only under the restrictions set forth in the chiropractor's letter. The evidence establishes that the discussion related to whether or not the Petitioner was able to return to work was centered on her ability to perform her responsibilities and that the Petitioner decided she was unable to return to work at that time and would return a week later. By letter dated February 15, 1996, the School Board's personnel coordinator advised the Petitioner that she had used all of her sick leave and would not receive any additional pay until she returned to work. The letter suggested that she request an official leave of absence effective January 2, 1996, in order to permit her retirement benefits to be maintained because "time spent on an official leave of absence can be bought back by the employee from the Division of Retirement." On February 21, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the school principal and informed him she would be unable to return on that day due to family matters. On February 22, 1996, the Petitioner returned to the campus and spoke with the principal. The Petitioner told the principal she did not feel physically capable of working as a paraprofessional in the preschool classroom and asked him to provide her with other employment. The principal told the Respondent he did not have any open positions at the school for which she would be physically suited. The principal was also concerned that because the Respondent was physically restricted from bending, stooping, and standing for an extended time, she would not be able to perform the responsibilities of her employment. There is no evidence that on February 22, 1996, or at any time during the remainder of the 1995-96 school year, there were jobs available at the school that did not require physical activity beyond the Petitioner's abilities. On February 26, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the school principal and said she wanted to take a leave of absence as suggested by the personnel coordinator. The principal believed there was a misunderstanding about the availability of the leave of absence to an annual contract employee and suggested that she speak to the personnel coordinator. The principal also called the coordinator and requested that he clarify the matter with the Petitioner. On February 27, 1996, the personnel coordinator telephoned the school principal and said that the Petitioner had been informed that she was not eligible for a leave of absence and said that the Petitioner had suggested she would resign her employment. On March 1, 1996, the Petitioner contacted the principal and said she wanted to apply for a leave of absence. The principal contacted the personnel coordinator who suggested that the Petitioner submit to the school superintendent a letter requesting the leave along with a copy of the chiropractor's letter and then let the superintendent decide whether or not he would recommend to the school board that her leave request be granted. The information was relayed to the Petitioner, who stated that she would submit the letter. By letter dated March 7, 1996, the Petitioner relayed the events to the superintendent and requested "any consideration you can give in resolving this matter." In the March 7 letter, the Petitioner writes, "[d]ue to the activeness of the children in this class the possibility of re-injuring myself is very high." She also advises that she informed the principal that the personnel coordinator suggested that she request the leave of absence and that the principal suggested that she write the letter to the superintendent. The Petitioner asserted that she would not resign from her position. Attached to the March 7 letter were past evaluations, a March 6 letter "to whom it may concern" from her chiropractor restating the symptoms of her injury, and the February 15 letter she received from the personnel coordinator suggesting the leave of absence. By letter dated March 19, 1996, the Petitioner referenced a March 15 meeting with the superintendent and states "[i]f there are no reasonable accommodations for a job replacement, I would like to request a medical leave of absence for the remainder of this year." She enclosed the letter from the chiropractor with the letter to the superintendent. There appears to have been no response from the superintendent to the Petitioner's request for a leave of absence. By letter dated June 4, 1996, the personnel coordinator responded to the request for leave of absence by stating that because the Petitioner was on an annual contract, the request for a leave of absence could not be granted. The letter also stated that due to a lack of funding, some employees would not be called back to work in the 1996-97 school year, and suggested that she should apply for a future vacant position "when you are again able " According to the leave policy set forth in the school board's employment handbook, any employee may request a leave of absence. Such requests must be made at least seven days prior to the requested leave period except in the case of emergency when the request must be made "as soon as possible." The policy requires that the leave application be made in writing and on the form provided for such requests. The policy provides that the School Board "may grant leave, with or without pay." The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner followed the school system policy in requesting a leave of absence after her accident. The Petitioner did not complete and sign a form requesting a leave of absence. The first written request to the school superintendent for a leave of absence was the letter of March 19, approximately 70 days after the accident. The first time the issue of a leave of absence was verbally addressed by the Petitioner was on February 26, 1996, approximately 50 days after the accident, when she told the school principal that she wanted to take a leave of absence as suggested by the personnel coordinator in his letter of February 15. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner has a handicap or disability as those terms are defined under applicable statutes and case law. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner in any employment decision on the basis of a handicap or disability. There is no credible evidence that the Petitioner filed a Request for Disability Accommodation at any time prior to the end of the 1995-96 school year. For the remainder of the 1995-96 school year, a substitute teacher filled in for the Petitioner. The job remained open and available to the Petitioner through the end of the school year. The position was not filled on a permanent basis because school officials were uncertain about whether the Petitioner would be able to return for work. Paraprofessional employees working for the Highlands County School System are employed as annual employees for the first three years. After successful completion of the third year, the paraprofessional becomes eligible for consideration for continuing contract employment. An employee under an annual contract has no automatic right to re-employment. Continuing contract employment provides increased job security to an employee because termination of employment must be for "just cause" or when required by a "reduction in force." Continuing contract employees also receive preference over non-contract employees when workers are recalled after a reduction in force. The successful completion of the third year does not guarantee that the paraprofessional will receive the continuing contract, but only provides that such employee is eligible to receive such a contract The Respondent requires that in order to work a "complete" year, an employee must work for at least 150 days in a school term. Because the Petitioner did not work for at least 150 days in the 1995-96 school term, she did not complete the third year of employment and is not currently eligible for a continuing contract as a paraprofessional employee. The Respondent may permit a paraprofessional employee to work a fourth year, after which the employee automatically receives a continuing contract. Because there were concerns related to the Petitioner's job performance in the 1995-96 school year, the principal of the school would not likely have recommended that a fourth year of employment (and a resulting automatic continuing contract) be permitted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Mary Ann Kerney. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Katherine B. Heyward, Esquire John K. McClure, P.A. 230 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Mary Ann Florida Kerney 33870 4524 Elm Sebring, Avenue Florida 33870 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Wallace Cox, Superintendent Highlands County School Board 426 School Street Sebring, Florida 33870-4048
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should enter into a new professional service contract with Respondent and whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated, due to Respondent's failure to correct his teaching deficiencies.
Findings Of Fact John Kent (Respondent) was employed with the Palm Beach County School Board (Petitioner) as a social studies teacher since 1980 at Palm Beach Lakes High School (PBL High) and its predecessor school, Twin Lakes High School (TL High). During his employment with Petitioner, Respondent held a professional service contract. Respondent has been a teacher for over 30 years, having taught in both the Illinois and Florida school systems. In the latter part of 1996, concerns regarding Respondent's performance, as a teacher, were first raised in Petitioner's school system. Prior to that time, his teaching performance was evaluated as being satisfactory. From 1992 to 1996, PBL High's principal, Nat Collins, evaluated Respondent's teaching performance as satisfactory, with no record of incidents. Principal Collins is a certified Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) observer. FPMS is the system adopted by Florida's Department of Education for measuring the performance of teachers, using domains and concepts for each domain. Principal Collins had specifically praised Respondent's planning abilities and lesson delivery skills in three evaluations. Principal Collins' last evaluation of Respondent was in May 1996, in which he specifically praised Respondent for Respondent's lesson delivery skills. In August 1996, PBL High was assigned a new assistant principal, Thomas Carroll. Assistant Principal Carroll notified the teaching staff at PBL High in his first faculty meeting in August 1996 that he would be performing more critical observations of them. Assistant Principal Carroll is a certified FPMS observer. Principal Collins considered Assistant Principal Carroll's remark to be of poor judgment and chastised Assistant Principal Carroll for making such a comment. For the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years, the assessment instrument used by Petitioner to evaluate its teachers was the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS). Using CTAS, teachers received a rating of either a one (a concern) or a two (acceptable) in 16 areas of teacher performance. A satisfactory evaluation of a teacher was one in which the teacher received a rating of 28 or above, out of a maximum of 32, or of 5 concerns or less. School-site improvement efforts may accompany a rating in which one concern is noted. During the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years, the CTAS required a teacher at PBL High, whose performance was rated unsatisfactory at the end of the school year, to be placed in a District-Level Professional Development Plan (District-Level Plan) during the entire following year of improvement. If the teacher failed to sufficiently improve during the subsequent year, as determined by the principal, the teacher would be dismissed. During the 1996-97 school year, Respondent received a CTAS mid-year evaluation dated December 9, 1996. He received a score of 27 and was rated as unsatisfactory, with five concerns, also referred to as deficiencies. The concerns listed were Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively; and Demonstrates Ability to Evaluate Instructional Needs. Subsequently, during the same school year, on April 16, 1997, a CTAS annual evaluation of Respondent was conducted. Respondent received a score of 28 and was rated as satisfactory on the annual evaluation. Four areas of concern were listed: Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; and Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively. During the 1996-97 school year, Respondent was not pleased with Assistant Principal Carroll's assessment of his teaching performances as inadequate. Respondent expressed his displeasure to Principal Collins regarding Assistant Principal Carroll's assessments. During the 1997-98 school year, on November 21, 1997, Assistant Principal Carroll observed Respondent. He determined that Respondent failed to teach any concepts during the class period. Subsequently, Principal Collins conducted a CTAS mid- year evaluation of Respondent on December 4, 1997. Assistant Principal Carroll provided input to Principal Collins regarding Respondent's mid-year evaluation. Respondent received a score of 30 and was rated satisfactory, with two concerns being listed. The concerns were Instructional Organization and Development; and Presentation of Subject Matter. Principal Collins was concerned that Respondent's last annual evaluation, which was performed on April 16, 1997, identified four concerns. As a result, on December 4, 1997, a School-Site Assistance Plan (School-Site Plan) was developed for Respondent. The School-Site Plan included professional standards seminars. Assistant Principal Carroll notified Respondent that the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program was also available to provide assistance. The PAR Program is a master teacher assistance program. Both the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association (Union) and Petitioner developed the PAR Program to assist teachers with the correction of deficiencies. As Respondent had raised concerns regarding Assistant Principal Carroll's observations of him, Principal Collins requested that an outside observer from Petitioner's district school staff observe Respondent. By memo dated February 27, 1998, Principal Collins noticed Respondent of the observation by the outside observer. The outside observation was to take place on March 10, 1998. As a result of the satisfactory mid-year evaluation, Respondent could not understand why he was being observed again and, this time, by an outside observer. In March 1998, Respondent expressed his concern in a memo to Principal Collins regarding the observation by the outside observer. Prior to the observation, Respondent's wife learned that Respondent was going to be evaluated by one of Petitioner's district staff persons. By letter dated March 4, 1998, to the General Counsel of the Florida Department of Education (DOE), Respondent's wife made allegations of ethical violations by Assistant Principal Carroll, regarding Respondent's observations, and requested an ethics inquiry by DOE. She copied the letter to Petitioner's chief personnel officer (Dr. Joanne Kaiser); Principal Collins; one of Petitioner's members; Petitioner's superintendent; and the Union's Executive Director. On March 9, 1998, Principal Collins completed a CTAS annual evaluation of Respondent. Respondent received a score of 29 and was rated satisfactory, with three concerns being noted. The concerns listed were Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; and Presentation of Subject Matter. Principal Collins did not recommend placement of Respondent in a District-Level Professional Development Plan. On March 10, 1998, Dr. Jeanne Burdsall, manager of Petitioner's Professional Standards, observed Respondent. She developed both the instructional and non-instructional evaluation and assistance plans. Dr. Burdsall's duties include monitoring the evaluation system. She is a certified FPMS observer. Dr. Burdsall had no knowledge of Respondent's prior evaluations. She noted six areas of deficiencies or concerns in Respondent's teaching and provided him with recommendations for improvement. The deficiencies were Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal; Classroom Climate; and Planning. Dr. Burdsall determined that Respondent had conducted an ineffective lesson. On April 21, 1998, Respondent experienced a classroom management problem. Unidentified students in Respondent's classroom had covered his clothing with ketchup. Dr. Burdsall met with Respondent subsequent to the observation. She discussed the observation with Respondent and provided him with suggestions for improvement, employing a behavior management system and teaching a lesson. Dr. Burdsall urged Respondent to become involved in the PAR program. The Union filed a grievance challenging Respondent's observation of March 10, 1998. The grievance was denied at Step II of the process and was not pursued any further. Respondent was entitled to request a deficiency hearing and he did so. A deficiency hearing was held and Respondent's deficiencies were reviewed with him. On May 18, 1998, Patricia Kaupe, Petitioner's Instructional Support Team Member, Area 3 Administration, observed Respondent. Her duties include observing and assisting teachers with teaching performance deficiencies. Ms. Kaupe is a certified FPMS observer. She determined that Respondent had an ineffective lesson. Ms. Kaupe met with Respondent subsequent to the observation and provided him with feedback regarding more effective teaching practices. She concluded that Respondent was an incompetent teacher. At his discretion, on May 29, 1998, Principal Collins completed a second CTAS annual evaluation of Respondent. Assistant Principal Carroll provided input and expressed his concern that classroom management remained a concern and that Respondent continued to need improvement in that area. Principal Collins considered input by Assistant Principal Carroll, prior observations, including the observations of Dr. Burdsall, and the ketchup incident in April 1998. Respondent received a score of 26 and was rated unsatisfactory, with six deficiencies. The deficiencies were Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; and Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively. Principal Collins had further concerns regarding the safety of students and of Respondent and regarding the instruction level being provided by Respondent. This second CTAS annual evaluation, which rated Respondent unsatisfactory, was less than "6 weeks prior to the end of the postschool conference period." 4/ Respondent had requested a transfer and on July 17, 1998, he met with Petitioner's chief personnel officer, Dr. Joanne Kaiser. Those in attendance included Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Carroll, and Respondent's union representative. Respondent's request for transfer was denied in that Dr. Kaiser determined that Respondent's main concern was Assistant Principal Carroll, which concern was resolved; that Respondent's needs could be met at PBL High; and that Respondent was not on a District Plan as statutorily required. The granting or denial of the transfer was within the complete discretion of Dr. Kaiser. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Dr. Kaiser abused her discretion in denying the transfer. In addition to Respondent's transfer request, the discussion at the meeting on July 17, 1998, included Respondent's concern regarding Assistant Principal Carroll's being on Respondent's review team. Principal Collins recommended and it was agreed that Assistant Principal Marjorie Lesser would replace Assistant Principal Carroll. It was further agreed that Respondent would be placed on a 30-day School-Site Plan at the upcoming Fall term of school. Assistant Principal Lesser developed a 30-day School- Site Assistance Plan for Respondent. She met with Respondent on August 31, 1998, and reviewed the plan with him. Respondent's union representative did not attend the meeting and his presence was not a requirement. The focus of the School-Site Plan was to address Respondent's six teaching deficiencies listed on Respondent's CTAS annual evaluation of May 29, 1998, and to structure activities to assist him, which included reading materials; viewing professional development video tapes, regarding the deficient teaching domains; observing other teachers; being assisted by peer teachers; having other professionals observe his teaching; and meeting with Respondent and providing feedback on his teaching behaviors. Additionally, Assistant Principal Lesser arranged several seminars and workshops for Respondent. Respondent was also recommended for the PAR Program but he declined. On September 1, 1998, Assistant Principal Lesser observed Respondent. She is a certified FPMS observer. During the observation, Assistant Principal Lesser observed Respondent's efforts in complying with her suggestions; however, he was not successful. Assistant Principal Lesser determined that Respondent's teaching was ineffective and six deficiencies or concerns were identified. The deficiencies were as follows: Domain 3--inadequate directions provided to the students; Domain 3--too many students off-task; Domains 3 and 5--students sent mixed communication message; Domain 5--used a monotone voice; and Domain 2--a lack of consistency in management of student conduct. Periodically, during the implementation of the School- Site Plan, Assistant Principal Lesser met with Respondent, his union representative, and Principal Collins to review Respondent's progress and to discuss continuing concerns and the direction needed to be taken between meetings. The contents of each meeting were recorded and signed off by everyone. At no time did Respondent or his union representative raise a concern as to the timing or the appropriateness of the School-Site Plan. On September 16, 1998, Ms. Kaupe observed Respondent again. She determined that Respondent had failed to teach any concepts and concluded that his lesson was ineffective. Ms. Kaupe offered Respondent suggested strategies for improvement. On October 12, 1998, Assistant Principal Lesser again observed Respondent. She determined that Respondent's teaching was ineffective and that the same six deficiencies remained. Assistant Principal Lesser provided recommendations for improvement to Respondent. Safety concerns arose regarding Respondent's management of student conduct in his classroom because problems erupted into incidents involving students. To ensure safety in Respondent's classroom, Principal Collins implemented a physical change in Respondent's classroom. Principal Collins directed the removal of the light switch in Respondent's classroom, so that it could not be manually turned on and off, and the placement of a device which required a key to turn the light on and off. To further ensure safety in Respondent's classroom, not for behavior management or teaching, Principal Collins placed a teacher's aide in Respondent's classroom at the recommendation of Dr. Kaiser. In October 1998, Principal Collins' concern for safety heightened after a student was injured in Respondent's classroom. After the incident, Dr. Kaiser met with Principal Collins and others, regarding the student injury, and recommended the placement of a teacher's aide in Respondent's classroom for safety reasons, not for behavior management of the students, which was Respondent's responsibility, or for teaching of the students. On November 3, 1998, which was near the end of the 30- day School-Site Plan, Principal Collins observed Respondent. Principal Collins determined that a sufficient number of deficiencies were not corrected but remained. The deficiencies were as follows: Domain 1--Planning; Domain 2--off-track behavior; Domain 3--instructional organization; and Domain 5-- communication verbal and nonverbal. Principal Collins provided recommendations for improvement to Respondent. Respondent agreed, after encouragement, to participate in the PAR Program and to have a PAR teacher. Principal Collins referred Respondent to the PAR Program. At the end of the 30-day School-Site Plan, Respondent was given a CTAS mid-year evaluation by Principal Collins on November 10, 1998. Principal Collins considered the observation that he conducted on November 3, 1998, and Respondent's past observations on September 1, 1998, September 16, 1998, and October 12, 1998. 5/ Respondent received a score of 26 and was rated unsatisfactory, with six deficiencies. The deficiencies were Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; and Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively. Principal Collins recommended the placement of Respondent on a 90-day District Level Professional Development Plan (District Plan). The purpose of the 90-day District Plan was to assist in the remediation of the deficiencies. On November 16, 1988, Dr. Jeanne Burdsall met with Respondent and his union representative to review the 90-day District Plan. The meeting was also attended by Principal Collins and Assistant Principal Lesser. Neither Respondent nor his union representative raised an objection to the applicability of the 90-day District Plan to Respondent. At that meeting, among other things, Respondent's union representative requested a transfer of Respondent and a deficiency hearing. Petitioner's Superintendent noticed Respondent that he was being placed on a 90-day District Plan. Respondent's 90-day District Plan was the first teacher assistance District Plan implemented by Petitioner under the change in Florida Law which Petitioner interpreted as now requiring 90 days of assistance. As interpreted by Petitioner, the 90-day District Plan was effective beginning the 1997-98 school year. The 90-day District Plan consisted of an additional 30-day School-Site Plan followed by the now statutorily required 90 days of assistance. Under the new and revised 90-day District Plan, a new evaluation instrument was used, which required only three teaching deficiencies versus the five teaching deficiencies that were required under the former District Plan. For Respondent's 90-day District Plan, a decision was made to continue evaluating Respondent using the prior instrument requiring five deficiencies. The prior District Plan was not a part of the Union contract. However, the new 90-day District Plan, requiring a 30 plus 90-day assistance plan, was adopted by the Union and incorporated by reference in the Collective Bargaining Contract in Spring 1999. The Union and Petitioner worked for several years developing the new 30 plus 90-day assistance plan. Respondent's 90-day District Plan consisted of workshops, professional observations and feedback from the observers, peer teaching observations and school sites visits, and special assistance with planning. Periodic assistance and progress meetings were also held, which included the attendance of Principal Collins, Respondent, Respondent's union representative, and Dr. Burdsall or one of her staff members. The content of those meetings were recorded and signed-off on. On December 4, 1998, Dr. Lisa Troute, Petitioner's instructional specialist, Professional Standards, observed Respondent. Dr. Troute is a PAR teacher and is a certified FPMS observer. She determined, among other things, that Respondent had failed to develop any concepts. Dr. Troute concluded that Respondent's lesson was ineffective. She provided Respondent with recommendations regarding the six deficiencies. Dr. Troute returned to Respondent's classroom on December 15, 1998, and did not notice that any of her recommendations had been followed by Respondent. On December 10, 1998, Dr. Burdsall observed Respondent. As to the six deficiencies, she provided Respondent with the same teaching strategies for improvement that she had provided at her observation of March 10, 1998. Dr. Burdsall determined that Respondent failed to teach anything relative to the lesson and that his student management remained a problem. She concluded that Respondent's teaching was ineffective and that he was an incompetent teacher. A meeting regarding Respondent's 90-day District Plan was held on December 10, 1998. Persons in attendance included Respondent and his union representative, Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Lesser, and Dr. Burdsall. In January 1999, Dr. Kaiser held a meeting with Respondent and his union representative to address Respondent's request for a transfer. Dr. Kaiser held the meeting in January 1999, because she wanted a 90-day District Plan in place before considering the request. Granting the transfer was in Dr. Kaiser's sole discretion. She considered Respondent's, as well as the district's, concerns in making her decision. Dr. Kaiser denied Respondent's request. She determined that PBL High had taken sufficient precautions to assure the safety of Respondent and his students and that, even though vacancies existed at other schools in social studies, Respondent's remaining at PBL High would serve the best interest of everyone concerned. By letter dated January 15, 1999, Respondent was noticed of the denial. Respondent was placed on a 30 plus 90-day School-Site and District Plan. The statutory provision in effect at the time, as interpreted by Petitioner, only required 90 days of assistance. An adjustment in the 90-day timeline was made due to a hurricane make-up day in February. The timeline was changed to March 11, 1999. On January 14, 1999, Steve Byrne, Petitioner's program planner for social studies, multi-cultural students, and students who speak languages other than English (ESOL), observed Respondent. He is a certified FPMS observer. Respondent had requested that a content teacher observe him to assist him with content and teaching strategies; and Mr. Byrne's observation was for the purpose of content and teaching strategies. Mr. Byrne determined that Respondent had failed to teach any concepts and concluded that Respondent's lesson was ineffective. He met with Respondent and provided Respondent with feedback and strategies for improvement, including suggesting the use of cooperative learning as a more effective strategy. A deficiency hearing was held. A determination was made that sufficient evidence was present to warrant Respondent being placed on a 90-day District Plan to correct the deficiencies. On January 20, 1999, Dr. Mary Gray, assistant professor at Florida Atlantic University, observed Respondent. Since around 1982, she has trained trainers in the FPMS. Dr. Gray is a certified FPMS observer. For several years for PBL High, she observed teachers on District Plans and diagnosed teaching problems. When Dr. Gray observed Respondent, she observed, among other things, serious management problems and nothing meaningful being taught. Dr. Gray provided Respondent with improvement strategies. She concluded that Respondent's lesson was ineffective and that Respondent was incompetent as a teacher. Dr. Gray reviewed Respondent's School-Site Plan, other observations, and the 90-day District Plan. She determined that a pattern existed which demonstrated a lack of teaching concepts, inability to manage student conduct, and off-task behavior. Dr. Gray concluded that Respondent was an incompetent teacher. On January 28, 1999, Ms. Kaupe observed Respondent again. She completed an anecdotal observation, as there was no interaction between Respondent and his students. Ms. Kaupe determined, among other things, that Respondent had failed to teach any concepts and that students were off-task. She concluded that Respondent's teaching was ineffective. Ms. Kaupe provided Respondent with feedback and information regarding more effective teaching strategies. On February 10, 1999, a meeting regarding Respondent's 90-day District Plan was held. Persons attending the meeting included Respondent and his Union representative, Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Lesser, and Dr. Burdsall. On February 24, 1999, Principal Collins observed Respondent. The six deficiencies were addressed, and recommendations were made; the six deficiencies remained. Student misconduct remained a problem. On March 11, 1999, a meeting regarding Respondent's 90-day District Plan was held. Persons attending the meeting included Respondent and his union representative, Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Lesser, and Dr. Burdsall. Principal Collins conducted a CTAS annual evaluation of Respondent on March 12, 1999, at the conclusion of the 90-day District Plan. In preparing the evaluation, Principal Collins considered the following observations: December 4, 1998, observation by Dr. Troute; December 10, 1998, observation by Dr. Burdsall; January 14, 1999, observation by Mr. Byrne; January 20, 1999, observation by Dr. Gray; January 28, 1999, observation by Ms. Kaupe; and February 24, 1999, observation by Principal Collins, himself. 6/ Principal Collins determined that Respondent had not corrected the six deficiencies. These deficiencies were the same deficiencies that were present at the conclusion of the 30-day School-Site Plan. The deficiencies were in the areas of Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal; Presentation of Subject Matter; and Demonstrates an Ability to Plan Effectively. Principal Collins determined further that Respondent was an ineffective teacher and that Respondent's teaching did not meet minimum standards to obtain a satisfactory evaluation. Respondent received a score of 26 and was rated unsatisfactory. Principal Collins recommended to the Superintendent the termination of Respondent's employment with Petitioner. By letter dated March 23, 1999, Respondent was noticed by the Superintendent that she was going to recommend his suspension without pay, effective April 8, 1999, and termination, effective 15 days after Petitioner's scheduled meeting on April 7, 1999. Petitioner's professional development plan had several components, including a School-Site Plan, the PAR Program, and the 90-day District Plan. Respondent was provided all of the aforementioned three components. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent cooperated with Petitioner and attempted to comply with the recommendations and assistance provided by Petitioner even though his attempts were deemed unsuccessful by Petitioner to correct the deficiencies. Respondent is a diabetic and some of the assistance conflicted with his medically required living- routine. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Petitioner provided Respondent sufficient assistance to correct one of the deficiencies or concerns. Observers noted that one deficiency was that Respondent spoke in a monotone and lethargic manner. Respondent's speech is as described but such speech, as observed by the undersigned and supported by the evidence, is considered by the undersigned to be a part of Respondent's make-up, his nature and has been so apparently throughout his teaching career. The responsibility was upon Petitioner to assist Respondent in correcting his deficiencies. The evidence demonstrates that the assistance provided to correct this deficiency did little, if anything, to remedy Respondent's speech pattern. Petitioner did not ascertain as to whether Respondent's speech pattern was capable of being changed through avenues other than that provided by Petitioner, such as speech therapy, since peer observation was obviously not a remedy. Speech therapy was not even suggested by Petitioner as a remedy. Petitioner failed to provide Respondent sufficient assistance to correct his speaking in a monotone and lethargic manner. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that PBL High has a significant discipline problem. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent has meticulously prepared lesson plans and that his lesson plans are satisfactory. The evidence also demonstrates that he becomes frustrated when he has to deviate from his lesson plans. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent is knowledgeable in the subject area of social studies. Respondent had requested two significant forms of assistance, which were denied. The first assistance Respondent requested was to have his PAR teacher model more effective teaching behaviors with his students using his course curriculum. According to Dr. Troute, Petitioner can make modeling services available upon request from principals at "D" and "F" rated schools, such as PBL High, to assist teachers experiencing performance problems at such schools. Principal Collins was unaware of the availability of modeling services and, as a result, Respondent's request was denied. The evidence fails to demonstrate that the denial was a detriment to Respondent's performance in correcting his deficiencies. The second assistance Respondent requested repeatedly was a voluntary transfer. The granting of Respondent's transfer requests was discretionary with Dr. Kaiser. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Dr. Kaiser abused her discretion. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Principal Collins, Assistant Principal Carroll, Assistant Principal Lesser, any of Petitioner's administrative or management staff who observed Respondent, or any of the observers retaliated against Respondent. Furthermore, the evidence fails to demonstrate that any of the aforementioned persons retaliated against Respondent because of the letter written by Respondent's wife, dated March 4, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order and therein: Refusing to uphold the suspension without pay and recommendation for termination. Reinstating John Kent with full backpay and lost benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Respectively on September 20 and September 9, 1988, the Petitioner and the Respondent submitted to the Hearing Officer their proposed Findings of Fact. In the Appendix To Recommended Order the Hearing Officer submitted recommending rulings thereon. The following constitutes the rulings in this Final Order on those proposed Findings of Fact. The petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact numbers 1 and 5 are hereby accepted and adopted in that they are supported by competent substantial, evidence. The petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 2 is hereby rejected in that the petitioner did not terminate her position on August 17, 1987, and she was not reemployed on September 29, 1987, for the reasons stated above in paragraphs numbers 1 through 12. The Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 3 is hereby rejected upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in paragraphs No. 7 and 8 above. The Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact No. 4 is rejected as phrased, for the reasons and upon the grounds set forth in paragraph No. 4 above. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact numbers (1) through (7) are each hereby accepted and adopted in that they are each based upon competent, substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner became a member of the Florida Retirement System in September 1987 and allowing Petitioner to transfer her previously-earned Teachers' Retirement System credits to the Florida Retirement System. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 1st day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0673 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-5 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 6 and 7 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Ann Ash, Esquire Harold N. Braxton, Esquire One Datran Center, Suite 406 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Burton M. Michaels, Esquire Department of Administration 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner has cause to terminate Respondent's professional service contract based on his failure to correct his performance deficiencies during his 90-Day Performance Probation. Whether Respondent’s performance was properly evaluated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a classroom teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a classroom teacher since 1993. He taught at Redland Middle School from 1993 to 1996. He taught at South Miami Senior High School from 1996 to 1999. During the times pertinent to this proceeding (the school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001) Respondent taught eighth grade math at Palmetto. Between 1984 and the school year 1999/2000 all teachers employed by Petitioner were evaluated under the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). The United Teachers of Dade (UTD) is the collective bargaining unit representing all classroom teachers employed by Petitioner, including Respondent. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-day performance probation period for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. 1/ Petitioner and the UTD collectively bargained a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the 90-day performance probation. The new evaluation system is known as PACES, an acronym for the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. The MOU amended the collective bargaining agreement between the UTD and Petitioner to authorize the replacement of TADS with PACES. During the 1999/2000 school year, the School Board piloted PACES in selected schools. During the 2000/2001 school year, PACES was utilized throughout the school district. Teacher evaluations at Palmetto were performed pursuant to PACES during the 1999/2000 and the 2000/2001 school years. The evaluations at issue in this proceeding were performed pursuant to PACES. PACES has been approved by the Florida Department of Education. PACES observers must be extensively trained to observe and evaluate teaching performance and student learning. School supervisory personnel perform PACES observations and evaluations. The principal and two assistant principals at Palmetto performed the observations and evaluations at issue in this proceeding. Respondent asserted at the final hearing that certain administrators who participated in observing and evaluating Respondent were insufficiently trained. That assertion is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. PACES was a major district initiative, and both teachers and administrators received extensive training in PACES. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the principal and the assistant principals at Palmetto who observed and evaluated Respondent were appropriately trained in observing and evaluating teachers in accordance with PACES procedures. 2/ Individual schools across the district, including Palmetto, conducted PACES training for teachers. During the 2000/2001 school year each faculty member at Palmetto had a handbook which contained PACES information, including discussion on each domain, the indicators, the PACES website, and training videos on the website. Several faculty meetings were devoted to discussions of PACES. There were mini-workshops within various departments at Palmetto and all-day workshops for teachers were available in the district. The Palmetto assistant principals divided all six domains between themselves and explained and discussed them with the faculty. A projector was used to show the teachers how to get to the PACES website on the computers. There were 300 computers for teacher use at Palmetto by which Petitioner’s website could be accessed. The faculty meetings at Palmetto were mandatory. If a teacher missed any of the meetings, it was the teacher’s responsibility to come to an administrator to find out what was missed. Teachers who missed meetings were given the handouts that had been utilized at the faculty meetings. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew, or should have known, the evaluation criteria of PACES. 3/ Prior to the beginning of the 90-day probation under PACES an appropriately trained administrator must observe the teacher's classroom performance and find that performance to be below articulated standards. This observation is officially referred to as the “initial observation not of record.” Unofficially, this observation is referred to as the “freebie.” The freebie observation triggers the probation process, but it is not used to terminate a teacher’s employment. The same administrator who conducted the freebie observation meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed in approximately one month. The administrator offers a PGT to the teacher, the use of which by the teacher is voluntary at this point. Next is the “first observation of record,” which is unofficially referred to as the "kickoff observation." If this observation is below performance standards, a Conference-for- the-Record (CFR) is held. Next, a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) is first given to the teacher, and the 90-day Performance Probation begins the next day. The Performance Probation lasts 90 days, not counting certain specified weekends and school holidays. There must be two official observations within the 90-day period. A PIP is given after any official observation that is below performance standards. If the second official observation is below performance standards, a confirmatory observation takes place after the end of the 90-day period to determine whether the teacher has corrected the deficiencies. The confirmatory observation must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the probationary period. The evaluator must thereafter forward to the Superintendent a recommendation whether to terminate the teacher's employment. In PACES, there are six domains. Each domain has components and each component has indicators. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for an observation to be rated below performance standards. If a teacher improves in a particular indicator from one observation to the next, but becomes unacceptable in another indicator, the second observation is rated below performance standards. Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s freebie observation on October 24, 2001. The observation did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on October 24, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because he was going over 30 homework problems and simply giving out the answers, not making an effort to know whether the students understood. He did not seek input from the students. The students had no opportunity to participate. There was no interaction between Respondent and the students. There was no introduction to the lesson, thereby failing to establish motivation to learn. Respondent did not tell the students what they should learn from the lesson or why it was important that they understand the material. Respondent failed to provide a logical sequence and pace. He was going much too fast for the students. Respondent only demonstrated one math problem, failing to demonstrate any of the others, although there were six different types of problems for review. Respondent failed to utilize higher order cognition, teaching at only one cognitive level. There was no effort to clarify, using different words or examples. The students were not encouraged to make any association or consider examples from their own experience. The students were not asked questions and were not given an opportunity to answer questions. Respondent did not monitor the engagement or involvement of the students in the learning process. He made no effort to gauge whether the students understood the material. He sought no questions from the students and gave no feedback. Then Respondent sat down for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. He did not walk around to monitor what the students were doing. Most of the students were not doing their work. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher- Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom- based Assessment of Learning. Mr. Cromer met with Respondent on November 1, 2001, and went over each item on the observation and explained why Respondent did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer made suggestions for improvement. He advised Respondent that he would be coming back to do a follow-up observation and that Respondent was entitled to have a PGT. At first Respondent declined the PGT, but the next day, he accepted it. PGTs are for first year teachers and for any teacher on a PIP. PGTs are made up of seasoned teachers who are trained in PACES and give support and assistance to other teachers. Usually the administration chooses one member of the PGT and the teacher chooses the other. In this case, Respondent was permitted to choose both teachers. He chose Vivian Taylor and Maria Mayo. Both teachers gave appropriate assistance to Respondent. Under PACES, the same administrator who conducted the freebie observation must conduct the kickoff observation. On November 26, 2001, Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s kickoff observation. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on November 26, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because many of the students in his class were excluded from the first twenty minutes while Respondent focused exclusively on two students at the board. One student finished her problem very quickly. The other student was completely confused. Respondent did the problem for him but did not make sure the student understood. The rest of the class was ignored during that time. The students were not given any explanations as to what the two students had done. The remainder of the class talked among themselves, looked around the class, and one student was sleeping. There was no introduction to the lesson and no transition into the second portion of the lesson. The students were not engaged in critical analysis or problem solving. Respondent did not develop any associations between the pie graph he was working on and its relationship to percentages and fractions. Respondent did not provide sufficient “wait time” after questions to encourage the students to think about the answers. Instead, the same few students called out answers. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher/Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. On December 5, 2001, Mr. Merker and Mr. Cromer held a CFR with Respondent and Respondent’s union representative to address Respondent’s substandard performance, his Performance Probation, recommendations to improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent’s future employment status with the School Board. Respondent’s input was sought. Those in attendance at the meeting on December 5, 2001, met again the following day. Respondent’s input was again sought. He was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP at that time. The PIP required Respondent to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manuals. Respondent’s Performance Probation began on December 7, 2001. The time frame was established with the help of OPS. Respondent was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed timeframe. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 10, 2002. On January 15, 2002, Mr. Merker conducted an official observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on January 15, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not actively engaged in learning. Only six students out of 27 were involved in the lesson. Many of the students did not have the materials and were not able to follow through with the lesson. Respondent did not monitor what the students were doing. Many students were off-task, inattentive, and bored. Respondent did not re-engage the students. Respondent did not re-direct the off-task behavior, which persisted for the entire period. Learning routines were not apparent. Respondent did not give directions for the lesson. Respondent’s explanations were unclear. No adjustments were made. Respondent did not assess the learning progress during the lesson. Respondent solicited only basic knowledge in his questioning. He did not utilize a range of questions to assess student understanding. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning. Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on January 24, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 22, 2002. On February 27, 2002, Mr. Meneses conducted the second official formal observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Meneses testified as to his observation of Respondent on February 27, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Meneses’ testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not engaged in learning. After wasting 27 minutes copying numbers from the board, only three to four minutes were left for the main part of the lesson. Respondent wasted a lot of time during the lesson going over non-essential information, and the students were only presented with basic knowledge-level tasks. Inaccurate information was given by Respondent and accepted by the students. Students were not given "wait time" after a question to think about the answers. The learners were not given any introduction to the learning outcomes of the lesson. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. Mr. Meneses and Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on March 5, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent’s PIP required him to complete a self- assessment through the PACES website. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was March 22, 2002. Respondent’s Performance Probation ended on March 24, 2002. Respondent completed all of the activities required by all of his PIPs. He never indicated that he had any difficulty understanding them. Because Respondent’s second observation within the Performance Probation was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether or not Respondent had corrected his performance deficiencies. On March 26, 2002, Mr. Merker completed Respondent’s confirmatory observation. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on March 26, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning, because the lesson appeared staged. It was a lesson on fractions that had been presented approximately five weeks earlier. Respondent went full steam ahead regardless of what the students were doing. Respondent had not improved his questioning techniques since Mr. Merker’s prior observation. Mr. Merker notified Respondent on March 26, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and that Mr. Merker was going to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent’s employment be terminated. 4/ Mr. Merker notified the Superintendent of Schools on March 29, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 3, 2002, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that the Superintendent was going to recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract because Respondent had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation. Petitioner established that it met all procedural requirements and time frames set forth by statute, by PACES, and by the MOU. Under the collective bargaining agreement and under PACES, a teacher is entitled to a fair, equitable, and impartial evaluation. Respondent’s evaluations were fair, equitable, and impartial. On April 17, 2002, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Respondent's employment contract subject to his due process rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the termination of Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 17, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2002, 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 10th day of September, 2002.
