The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission should deny Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate on the grounds that Petitioner lacks the requisite good moral character and that he has committed an act or acts for which such a certificate could be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. During the 1999-2000 school year, Rolle was employed as a public school teacher in the Miami-Dade County School District (the "District"). He was assigned to Mays Middle School, where he taught drama to sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students. Holding a temporary Florida Educator's Certificate, Rolle was hired initially to work as a substitute teacher. Later during the 1999-2000 school year, Rolle's contract status was reclassified, and he became a "3100" or "temporary" teacher. A 3100 teacher's contract automatically expires at the end of the school year. Before the close of the subject school year, Rolle was removed from the classroom after allegations of misconduct were made against him. When the school year ended, Rolle's supervisor gave him an unsatisfactory evaluation and recommended that the temporary teacher not be re-hired. Consequently, Rolle separated from employment with the District following the 1999- 2000 school year. In the meantime, Rolle applied to the Department of Education for a professional (i.e. non-temporary) teaching certificate, pursuant to Section 231.17, Florida Statutes. On March 28, 2001, the Commissioner, as the head of the Department of Education, issued a Notice of Reasons setting forth the grounds for denying Rolle's application. In a nutshell, the Commissioner alleged that Rolle lacked the good moral character required of a teacher and that he had violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. Below are the relevant historical facts concerning the specific incidents upon which the preliminary denial of Rolle's application was based.2 The Vulgar Joke On March 17, 2000, Rolle told a vulgar joke to his sixth grade class. One of his students, an 11-year-old girl named D. M., reported the joke to the school's administration, submitting a handwritten statement dated March 23, 2000, that quoted Rolle's monologue.3 Rolle admits having told the joke; indeed, he repeated it in full while testifying at hearing. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by including the entire joke in this Recommended Order. The punch line——"Your mouth smells exactly like your butt"——is sufficient to convey the crudity of Rolle's ill-considered attempt at comedy, which would have been inappropriate in polite adult company. Telling such a coarse joke in the classroom to a group of young schoolchildren at a minimum reflected appallingly poor judgment on the teacher's part. The R-Rated Movies On several occasions during the school year, Rolle showed movies to his sixth and seventh grade classes.4 At least two of the movies, Rolle admitted, are rated "R." Another, Rolle claimed, is rated "PG-13."5 Rolle did not obtain the permission of his students' parents to show the children any of these films in class. While the movies themselves were not offered into evidence, it is a matter of general knowledge based on common experience that R-rated movies are intended for a "restricted" audience and typically contain language, images, and plots to which children under the age of 17 should not be casually exposed. At any rate, clearly, children aged 11 and 12 should not be shown R-rated movies in a public school classroom without parental knowledge and consent. Rolle showed these movies, not for a pedagogic purpose, but merely to entertain the children. Making matters worse, Rolle instructed his students to have sheets of paper on their desks while a videotape was playing so that they could pretend to be "critiquing" the movie if someone (presumably another teacher) were to enter the classroom. Rolle also directed the children not to tell others that R-rated films were being screened in his class, warning the students that if word got out, then someone might complain, with the predictable result that the school's administration would forbid such movies from being shown in the future. The Impromptu Skits In class, Rolle often required small groups of his students to act in impromptu skits as a means of developing improvisational skills. Rolle would describe a scene in broad terms, and the students selected to perform would play assigned parts, making up appropriate dialogue extemporaneously. The plots for some of these impromptu skits were taken from the students' textbooks. But Rolle required the students to act out some other scenes that he had imagined on his own. Several of these skits were highly inappropriate, to say the least. In the sixth grade class, for example, Rolle assigned children to play in a scene involving a lesbian having an affair with her female boss at work; a skit in which a girl describes losing her virginity and becoming pregnant; and a vignette wherein a girl who has been raped reports the crime to her parents and the police. Students not chosen to perform in these skits were obligated to watch them. D. M., the young girl who reported the gauche joke discussed above, was one of the sixth-grade students chosen to play a lesbian. She refused the assignment, whereupon Rolle threatened her with a failing grade. Rolle also instructed his seventh grade students to perform in impromptu skits having adult themes.6 More than once, the plot required these adolescent (or pre-adolescent) children, aged 12 and 13, to explore the subject of homosexual relationships. On one occasion, according to the credible testimony of a (then) seventh-grade student named M. M., Rolle suggested that two girls kiss. One of the girls refused. M. M. described a separate incident during which she and another girl, playing lesbians in an impromptu skit under Rolle's direction, actually did kiss one another, although M. M. professed not to have been adversely affected by the experience. Rolle's Explanations Rolle conceded that he had exercised "bad judgment" in connection with the incidents described above and stressed that he had been "reprimanded" by the District for them. Rolle admitted that he had believed his actions were appropriate at the time taken, but upon reflection he now recognizes that he made what he calls "first year teacher" mistakes. Rolle adamantly denied having intended to harm or embarrass any student. Ultimate Factual Determinations Rolle's classroom conduct during the 1999-2000 school year repeatedly fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defines good moral character. By any reasonable measure, it is wrong for a teacher to show R-rated movies to impressionable sixth and seventh grade students; when that teacher, an authority figure acting in loco parentis, further instructs the students to be prepared to lie about or conceal the fact that such films are being shown, as Rolle did, he not only exhibits a propensity for dishonesty that is incompatible with the position of great trust he holds but also encourages the children in his charge likewise to be deceitful. Similarly, when Rolle told that scatological joke to his sixth grade class, he revealed a lack of respect for the rights of others and behaved in a manner inconsistent with the high standard expected of a public school teacher. Finally, asking children as young as 11 years old to act out or watch scenes in which lesbians discuss an illicit workplace romance; a rape victim describes her trauma; and a pregnant girl speaks about her first sexual experience, as Rolle did, reveals a personality that is preoccupied with subjects unsuitable for the middle school curriculum. If Rolle were soon permitted to teach again, parents understandably would question their children's safety and well-being. The risk of allowing Rolle to return to the classroom, at this juncture, is too great. The conduct in which Rolle engaged, moreover, took place in the classroom during the 1999-2000 school year and directly involved the students in his care. Thus, the conduct involved in this case is both recent and rationally connected to Rolle's fitness to teach in the public schools of Florida. In sum, the evidence fails to establish that, more likely than not, Rolle possesses the good moral character required of a teacher to whom the custody of children is entrusted. For that reason, Rolle is not eligible for certification. There is, further, ample proof that Rolle failed on numerous occasions to exert a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, health, or safety as required under Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which is part of the Principles of Professional Conduct. Rolle's multiple violations of this Rule would be grounds for revocation of a teaching certificate and hence independently justify the denial of his application for one. Finally, the greater weight of evidence does not demonstrate that Rolle specifically intended to expose his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying Rolle's application for a teaching certificate and providing that he shall not be eligible to reapply for certification for a period of 15 years from the date of the final order, during which time the Department of Education, in its discretion pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(a), Florida Statutes, may refuse to consider his application, neither granting nor denying same. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of December, 2001.
The Issue Whether Sharon V. Eaddy (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Miami-Dade County School Board (the School Board) on August 29, 2014, and whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a paraprofessional.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Campbell Drive Center is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, the School Board employed Respondent as a paraprofessional pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. The School Board assigned Respondent to a Pre-K special education classroom at Campbell Drive Center taught by Pascale Vilaire. Respondent has worked at Campbell Drive Center as a paraprofessional for 13 years. During the 2013-2014 school year, 14 special needs students were assigned to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. Those students were between three and five years of age. L.H., a four-year-old boy who was described as being high functioning on the autism spectrum, was one of Ms. Vilaire’s students. L.H. had frequent temper tantrums during the 2013-2014 school year. Prior to the conduct at issue in this matter, Respondent had had no difficulty managing L.H.’s behavior. There was a conflict in the evidence as to the date the conduct at issue occurred. The undersigned finds that the conduct occurred April 9, 2014, based on the Incident Information admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 4, on the testimony of Yamile Aponte, and on the testimony of Grisel Gutierrez.1/ Ms. Aponte had a daughter in Ms. Vilaire’s class and often served as a parent-volunteer. Ms. Aponte was at Campbell Drive Center’s cafeteria on the morning of April 9, 2014. Present in the cafeteria were Ms. Vilaire, Respondent, some of Ms. Vilaire’s class (including L.H.) and students from other classes. When Ms. Aponte entered the cafeteria, L.H. was crying and hanging on to a trash bin. Ms. Vilaire was attending to another student. Respondent was trying to deal with L.H. to prevent him from tipping over the trash bin. Respondent led L.H. by the wrist back to a table where they sat together. Ms. Aponte approached them and offered L.H. a milk product referred to as a Pediasure. Because L.H. was allergic to milk, Respondent told Ms. Aponte that L.H. could not have the product. When Ms. Vilaire lined up her class to leave the cafeteria, L.H. threw a tantrum because he was still hungry. Ms. Aponte testified that Respondent grabbed L.H. by the wrist and pulled him up. Ms. Vilaire observed the entire interaction between L.H. and Respondent in the cafeteria. Ms. Vilaire did not witness anything she thought was inappropriate or caused her concern. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent became physically aggressive toward L.H. in the cafeteria by dragging him across the floor or otherwise grabbing him inappropriately. Paragraph nine of the Notice of Specific Charges contains the allegation that while in the cafeteria, “Respondent forcefully grabbed L.H. and dragged him across the floor.” Petitioner did not prove those alleged facts. After the class finished in the cafeteria, the students lined up to go back to the classroom. Ms. Vilaire was at the front of the line, and Respondent was ten to fifteen feet behind at the end of the line with L.H. Ms. Aponte was part of the group going from the cafeteria to the classroom. During the walk back to the classroom, Ms. Vilaire did not see or hear anything between Respondent and L.H. she thought was inappropriate. She did not hear anything that diverted her attention to Respondent and L.H. At the time of the conduct at issue, Barbara Jackson, an experienced teacher, taught first grade at Campbell Drive Center. While Ms. Vilaire’s class was walking from the cafeteria to the classroom, Ms. Jackson had a brief conversation with Respondent about getting food for her class from McDonald’s. Ms. Jackson did not hear or see anything inappropriate between Respondent and L.H. After stopping to talk with Ms. Jackson, Respondent resumed walking to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. L.H. continued to cry and attempted to pull away from Respondent. L.H. wanted to be the leader of the line, a position that is rotated among the class members. Ms. Vilaire led the other class members into the classroom while Ms. Aponte, Respondent, and L.H. were still outside. While still outside, they saw Grisel Gutierrez, a teacher at Campbell Drive Center. L.H. began to throw himself on the ground on top of his backpack. Ms. Aponte and Ms. Gutierrez saw Respondent grab L.H. forcefully by the arm and hit him on his shoulder with a slapping sound.2/ After Respondent returned L.H. to the classroom, L.H. tried to push over a bookcase containing books and toys. To prevent L.H. from pushing over the bookcase, Respondent grabbed L.H. by his hands and held them behind his back. Ms. Vilaire witnessed the interaction between Respondent and L.H. in the classroom and thought Respondent acted appropriately. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent acted inappropriately towards L.H. while in the classroom. Ms. Aponte reported what she had seen to the school principal the day of the incident. Respondent learned that Ms. Aponte had complained against her the day of the incident. After school the day of the incident, Respondent angrily confronted Ms. Aponte and asked her why she had lied. Rounett Green, a security guard at Campbell Drive Center, stepped in to end the confrontation between Respondent and Ms. Aponte. There was no evidence that Respondent attempted to threaten Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not use inappropriate language towards Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not make physical contact with Ms. Aponte. L.H.’s mother heard about the alleged interactions between Respondent and L.H. When L.H. returned home after school, the mother examined L.H. and found no bruises or other unusual marks on L.H.’s body. At its regularly scheduled meeting on June 18, 2014, the School Board suspended Respondent’s employment and instituted these proceedings to terminate her employment.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: It is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate the employment of Sharon V. Eaddy. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 2015.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Thomas Miller Collins, held teaching certificate number 489045 covering the area of substitute teaching. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1985. On July 2, 1982 Petitioner, Department of Education, Education Practices Commission, filed an Administrative Complaint alleging generally that on three occasions between November 1974 and November 1981 Respondent had pled guilty to various criminal charges which constituted conduct sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against his teacher's certificate. Respondent's request for an administrative hearing precipitated the instant proceeding. On or about November 20, 1974, Respondent was arrested for possessing in excess of five grams of cannabis. After pleading guilty to this offense on March 3, 1975, the Circuit Court in and for Broward County withheld adjudication and placed Respondent on probation for a period of eighteen months. On or about October 4, 1975, Respondent was arrested in Broward County for (a) possession of cocaine and (b) delivery of cocaine. As a result of a plea of guilty to delivery of cocaine on January 19, 1976, he was adjudged guilty and sentenced to state prison for a term of two years. The remaining charge was dropped. Respondent's civil rights were later restored on April 28, 1978 by the Office of Executive Clemency. On or about November 22, 1981, Respondent was arrested for (a) possession of a controlled substance, (b) possession of a drug without a prescription, and (c) for driving while intoxicated. He later pled nolo contendere to driving while under the influence and received six months reporting probation, a suspension of his driver's license for 90 days, a $236 fine, and a requirement that he attend and complete a DWI course. The other two charges were dismissed. On September 22, 1980 Respondent filed an application for employment as a part-time (substitute) teacher with the School Board of Broward County. Question ten of the application asks the following: Have you ever been convicted of a felony or a first degree misdemeanor? If a yes answer was given the applicant was then requested to state the charge, where convicted, and date of conviction. Respondent answered the question in the affirmative and then stated "will explain upon request." A copy of his fingerprints was also submitted with the application. After receiving the application, the School Board of Broward County conducted an investigation of Respondent. It required that Collins fill out an "arrest record information sheet" explaining the details of his arrest. Collins did so and stated only that he had been arrested by the Fort Lauderdale Police Department in 1974 for possession of cocaine and was found guilty. Since his arrest in 1974 was for possession of cannabis vis a vis cocaine, it is unclear whether he was referring to his 1975 arrest when he was arrested and convicted of delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine). However, based upon this explanation, and an interview with the Board's Division of Internal Affairs, he was authorized to be employed as a substitute teacher. After receiving a complaint from an undisclosed parent, the principal of Crystal Lake Middle School in Broward County, where Respondent occasionally taught, contacted the Division of Internal Affairs regarding Collins. It then ran a fingerprint check on Respondent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation which confirmed the arrests and convictions in 1974 and 1975. Thereafter, on November 5, 1981 the Board's associate superintendent wrote Respondent to advise him that his name was being removed from the substitute teacher list, and that he could not accept any further assignments within the County. Despite this letter, Collins was again employed as a substitute teacher. On January 14, 1982 the Board's director of personnel wrote Collins and stated that he was no longer authorized to substitute in the Broward County school system. On December 8, 1980 Respondent filed an application with the Teacher Certificate Section of the Department of Education in Tallahassee, Florida. In response to question 5, which asks whether the applicant has .... ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation...", and if applicable to state where the arrest occurred, the date, the nature of charges, and disposition, Collins answered "yes" and indicated he had been arrested in Fort Lauderdale in 1974 and 1975 for possession of marijuana and cocaine and was found guilty of both charges. He also noted that his civil rights had been restored. On March 26, 1981, the Department's Professional Practices Services consultant wrote Collins requesting "more details regarding (his) arrest in order to complete the processing of (the) application." It asked that he be more specific concerning the date of arrest, date of adjudication, the court address where final disposition was rendered, and the nature of the charges. Before Respondent replied to this request a certificate was issued by the State at a later date. Petitioner contends it had no choice except to issue a certificate since the ninety-day statutory time period for issuing or denying a certificate had expired. It conceded it erred in not processing the application in a more timely manner so that a reasoned decision could be made within the statutory time constraints. There was no testimony to demonstrate whether Respondent's conduct "seriously reduced his effectiveness as a teacher." His principal at Crystal Lake Middle School characterized his work as "satisfactory", and stated that no complaints had been made regarding his school work performance from any other teacher or member of the administrative staff. Respondent did not testify in this proceeding. However, he did introduce letters from his pastor and a former employer which were treated as hearsay.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be given a public reprimand for violating Subsection 238.28(1) for having in his possession two marijuana cigarettes and one diazepam tablet; all other charges against Respondent should be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Philip James Chase, II, was employed under a continuing contract as a classroom teacher at Dunedin High School (DHS) in Dunedin, Florida. The school is under the jurisdiction of petitioner, School Board of Pinellas County (Board). During school year 1990- 91, respondent was a physical education and driver's education teacher and also served as wrestling coach. He has been an employee of the Board since 1975 and a teacher since 1971. The facts underlying this controversy are relatively simple. On December 18, 1990, respondent was seated at his desk in the DHS physical education office talking to two students. At the same time, several other students were in line to weigh themselves on a weight scale which was located a few feet from respondent's desk. After one student had jumped on the scale, respondent, without looking up, said to the students still in line, "on the scale gently, please". The next student in line, Derek Carson, ignored respondent's instructions and jumped on the scale causing a loud banging noise. Respondent rose out of his chair and at the same time gently swung his foot and hit Carson's buttocks. He also told Carson, "I told you gently, please." Carson immediately launched into a tirade of verbal obscenities at the top of his voice against respondent. Realizing that Carson was obviously upset, respondent initially ignored the remarks, but after the verbal abuse continued, he told Carson that he (Carson) ought to try to talk to him in that manner "on the street". Carson then departed. At no time did Chase become upset or lose his composure during the incident, and he drew praise for his cool demeanor from his department chairman who was an eyewitness to the incident. There is no competent evidence that Carson "reasonably interpreted" respondent's remarks as "fighting words" as charged in the suspension letter. 1/ Since the incident occurred in the presence of a number of students and two members of the faculty, it may be reasonably inferred from the evidence that Carson was embarrassed by the incident. The student then reported the incident to the principal, John McLay, who investigated the matter and initially concluded that respondent should be given a written reprimand. However, after McLay learned that Carson's grandparents (guardians) had filed a complaint with the Board, he turned the matter over to the Board for further action rather than handling it at the local school level. Because the Board's superintendent has proposed to increase the severity of the penalty from a reprimand to a three day suspension, Chase has requested this hearing. 2/ According to McLay, the faculty is given specific training at the beginning of each school year on how to resolve conflicts of this nature and is warned that a student may react negatively to physical discipline. He added that a teacher should never place his hands on a student for any reason unless the teacher is in fear of bodily harm or is trying to break up a disturbance among students. McLay also placed importance on how the student perceived the actions of the teacher. In other words, if the student perceived a light tap from the teacher as being deliberate or malicious when in fact the teacher was only kidding, McLay felt the action by the teacher would probably be unjustified. He agreed, however, that other factors, besides the student's perception of the incident, were also relevant to a final determination. McLay also emphasized the importance of teachers maintaining a good rapport with a student's parents since the education of the child required their cooperation. Further, the Board's director of personnel services, Steven Crosby, established that the incident undermined the parents' confidence in respondent. He characterized the action of respondent as "poor judgment" and one which diminished his effectiveness as a teacher. This testimony on the issue of teacher effectiveness is accepted as being more credible than that offered by a student and fellow teacher who testified on respondent's behalf. Crosby added that simply because Chase was a coach who worked in a more informal atmosphere than did other teachers did not excuse his conduct. Crosby noted that school policy generally calls for a three day suspension without pay for a teacher "who has struck a student". Although Chase had previously been given a reprimand for using poor judgment in 1988, Crosby felt that such a penalty was especially appropriate here without regard to the previous reprimand because Chase "had lashed out at a student, physically, out of frustration or during a time of upset." However, as noted in a prior finding, Chase did not tap the student on his buttocks out of anger or because of frustration. Two witnesses to the incident described the kick to Carson's buttocks as having insufficient force to cause any injury to the student. This was not credibly contradicted. Further, one witness characterized the kick as actually being a "tap" while the other stated he was under the impression respondent was kidding when he swung his foot towards the student. Respondent added that the kick was intended to be "negative reinforcement" after his verbal instructions were ignored. He now agrees that it was a mistake to touch the student in that manner and recognizes that he violated school policy. Other than the reprimand in 1988, respondent has an unblemished tenure with the school system. The Board has adopted a Code of Student Conduct (Code) which prescribes the type of disciplinary action permitted to be taken by school personnel against students. Section (7)(a) of the Code provides as follows: (7) DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND PROCEDURES: (a) TYPES OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION PERMITTED The following types of disciplinary action may be considered. 4. Corporal Punishment: For purposes of this code, corporal punishment shall refer to physical punishment (as) opposed to other forms of punishment. The use of corporal punishment is not permitted as a type of disciplinary action. (emphasis added) Thus, corporal punishment of any form is prohibited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of misconduct in office and that he be given a written reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1991.
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not the Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the Dade County School Board. Petitioner called Mrs. Rose Ann Collum, Keith William Reilly (a minor), Anthony Rossi (a minor), Mrs. Carol Zappi, Robert Staelen, and Desmond Patrick Gray and had admitted Exhibits 1 and 2. Respondent testified on her own behalf. The Pre-Trial Stipulation was admitted as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. No transcript was provided and the parties' failure to file proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within the time stipulated therefor is deemed a waiver of that right.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was an employee of the School Board of Dade County under a continuing contract of employment as an elementary school teacher at Madie Ives Elementary Community School in Miami, Florida. She has taught there successfully since 1966 or 1967. Beginning on or about September 1, 1983 and continuing through and including May of 1984, Respondent engaged in a course of conduct with the students assigned to her which included paddling, and on multiple occasions during this period she administered this paddling, which is in the nature of corporal punishment, to various students (more than 20) in her class. The type of paddling involved was described variously by the two students who testified live at formal hearing as "did not hurt," "just an attention getter," "not bad," "only a little sting," "only when I was bad," and "I was never injured or hurt." Parents were never contacted in advance of the paddlings which seem to have had a spontaneous quality. These paddlings occurred always in the Respondent's 5th Grade classroom in front of the class at the side of Respondent's desk, and a thin narrow wooden paddle was used. The paddle was applied to the child's buttocks through his/her clothing. Paddlings never occurred in the principal's office or in the presence of any other adult. Respondent made no attempt to hide what was going on, but she admitted that some students would excitedly post "look-outs" at the classroom door, so it appears that there was a belief, at least on the children's part, that the paddlings were contrary to the School Board's or principal's stated policies. These paddlings occurred on an almost daily basis. Some children received a stroke once a week or every other day. It seldom occurred to the same child two days in a row. Keith William Reilly, now 12 years old, described the 1983-84 year's punishment for fighting as 4 strokes and for talking as less. Anthony Rossi, also now 12 years old, testified he was paddled 8 or 9 times in the 1983-84 school year and no one else was paddled more often than he. Most students got no more than two strokes on a single occasion. There is no evidence of physical or emotional harm to these students. The majority of parents contacted by School Board Investigator Robert Staelen indicated that if they had been contacted before the paddling incidents they would have or might have given permission to paddle. The two mothers who testified live corroborated this as to their own children. At least one set of parents, Mr. and Mrs. Zappi, objected to not being noti- fied before their daughter was paddled. They experienced diffi- culty getting the child to return to school after she related to them the paddling incident or incidents. There is no evidence of paddling of any child under psychological or medical treatment. During Conferences for the Record, conducted by Dr. Desmond Patrick Gray, Executive Director, Director of Personnel Control, Division of Management for the School Board of Dade County, after the School Board became aware of the paddling incidents, Respondent acknowledged that she was familiar with School Board Rule 6GX13-5D-1.O7. Normally, Dr. Gray would have recommended that Respondent be given a 10 working days' suspen- sion upon the facts of the paddlings as he understood them, but thereafter, believing that Respondent had been paddling for two school years and had been previously reprimanded for similar incidents, he recommended dismissal. Indeed, on January 29, 1982, Respondent had been formally reprimanded (P-2) by her then-principal, Robert D. Conk, for four apparently unrelated "events," the only pertinent one of which is phrased: "(1) You are frequently out of your room and students were left unsupervised. Upon your return, absences were reprimanded by your students who had misbehaved during your spanking them with a ruler or paddle." Respondent acknowledges that she received this reprimand, but states that it slipped her mind in her discussions with Dr. Gray because it was of a minor nature and the emphasis was not directed against paddling or corporal punishment, because Dr. Conk told her to forget the reprimand as an unimportant formality, and because Dr. Conk frequently sent students to her for discipline, including paddling. On or about August 22, 1984, Respondent was suspended from employment with the Dade County School Board upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, and misconduct in office.
Recommendation That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order limiting the suspension of Respondent to a total of 90 working days, applying that period to the time she has already been suspended and reinstating her thereafter with any appropriate back pay and benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 22nd day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Robertson, Esquire McCormick Bldg., 3rd Floor 111 S.W. Third St. Miami, Florida 33130 William DuFresne, Esquire One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1782 Two South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131 Phyllis O. Douglas Esquire Dade County School Board 1410 N. E. Second Ave. Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1410 N.E. Second Ave. Miami, Florida 33132 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations of Petitioner Castor's Administrative Complaint executed on May 26, 1988. Whether Respondent's continuing contract with the Collier County School Board should be terminated based upon the allegations set forth in the Notice of Intent to Take Action dated June 10, 1988. Whether the School Board properly suspended the Respondent without pay.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate #117082. During the August 1987-June 1988 school year, the Respondent was employed as a second grade teacher at Highlands Elementary school by the School Board of Collier County. The Respondent had continuing contract status which she had received prior to July 1, 1984. The Respondent was suspended as an employee with pay effective January 1, 1988. The reason for this suspension by the School Board was the pending investigation by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services regarding alleged child abuse to a child in the Respondent's classroom. A second suspension without pay for which no reasons were given occurred on September 1, 1988, and was made retroactive to August 16, 1988. The Respondent was not given prior notice the School Board's plan to consider her employment status during a meeting in September 1988. She was notified after the fact, by letter dated September 2, 1988. On November 17, 1987, the principal asked to see the Respondent's grade book. The grade book, as reviewed by the principal on November 17, 1987, contained very few recorded grades for the initial marking period and the portion of the second quarter which had already passed. After the grade book was returned on November 17, 1987, the Respondent made additional entries for the second marking period. The principal reviewed the grade book again on November 18, 1987. Shortly thereafter, when the principal asked the Respondent to demonstrate that the new entries were related to exams or class work evaluated by her, the Respondent was unable to do so. During the administrative hearing, no evidence was presented which would justify the assigned grades on the report cards or in the grade book. It was not demonstrated that there was a correlation between the marks given and the level of skills demonstrated by students on either exams or seatwork for the dates recorded. The Respondent did not administer corporal punishment to any second grade students during the 1987-1988 school year. The Respondent did pinch the child Lucretio Gutierrez on his outer lower left thigh while he was seated in a reading group session on December 7, 1987. The general location where the child was touched was the outer seam of his long dungarees. The Respondent did not slap this child on the arm on another occasion during the 1987-1988 school year. The pinching of the child Lucretio Guiterrez did not occur in a setting where the child was being punished. The child was reading out loud for the teacher. During the performance, the Respondent reached over and squeezed his leg in a manner the child described as a "pinch." The incident did not rise to the level of child abuse, either physical or mental, as defined by Florida Statutes. No physical or mental harm occurred to the child as a result of the incident. No other children were inappropriately touched or pinched by the Respondent in the 1987-1988 school year. The Respondent did not make inappropriate and profane comments to students in her second grade classroom. She did not tell the students they would "go to hell" if they did not complete their reading assignments. She did not tell the students that they would "go to hell and burn forever, but their souls would never die" if they did not abide by the rules. The children were not told that they would "go to hell" if they did not complete their reading assignments. The Respondent did not describe a lurid tatoo to the students, nor did she state that she was going to have a similar tatoo place upon her "titty." When a student note was confiscated by the Respondent which included the sentence "I like your dick," the Respondent did not make comments to the class such as, "This is not something you should do now, but its okay when you get older." She did not explain that "it gets better as you get older." The Respondent did not mentally abuse, as defined by Florida statutes, any of the children in her classroom.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), and 6B-1.006(3)(h), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, on behalf of the Education Practices Commission, is charged with the responsibility of certifying and regulating public school teachers in Florida. In accordance with the Order of Pre-hearing Instruction entered in this cause the parties submitted a Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Included in that document were the following stipulations of fact: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 798852, covering the area of Athletic Coaching, which is valid through June 30, 2012. At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint in this case, Respondent was employed as an Exceptional Student Education Teacher at Atlantic High School in the Volusia County School District. C. W. was a sixteen-year-old female student at Atlantic High School. On or about December 2, 2008, while C. W. was in another teacher’s geometry class, Respondent sat next to C. W. at a table toward the rear of the class. Respondent initiated an exchange of notes (sic) between himself and C. W. The note stated: Respondent: What’s your boyfriends name? Student: Don’t have one why? Respondent: I don’t believe that!! Student: Why not???? Respondent: Because you look like you should have one! Student: Why do I need one LOL no guys are attractive here . . . why do I look like I should have one? Respondent: I never said you needed one!! You just have that look and I can’t say why. Student: ooo so there’s a look that people have when they have a b/f or g/f. Why can’t you say why? Respondent: You are too sexy not to have a ton of guys chasing after you and one of the (sic) should have caught you. If I was in high school I would most definitely be one of them. Student: haha well its not like that at all. They are all UGLY Respondent: So what are you looking for? A super model? The above-referenced note between Respondent and C. W. was inappropriate. C. W. put the note away and did not respond to Respondent’s last inquiry. Respondent attempted to retrieve the note from C. W. C. W. kept the note and turned it in to school administration and reported the Respondent’s conduct. As a result of the foregoing exchange, the student, C. W., was very uncomfortable. She began to think that Respondent had been "coming on" to her. Although Respondent denied that assumption, he acknowledges that the exchange was inappropriate and in poor judgment. Further he acknowledged that the exchange had left C. W. uncomfortable. At no time has Respondent ever denied that the exchange took place and he has not attempted to avoid punishment for the incident. After the exchange and becoming aware of C. W.'s unease, Respondent made every effort to avoid C. W. so that neither would be uncomfortable. To that end the school administration moved Respondent from the classroom where C. W. was assigned, to another classroom. Respondent was disciplined by the school district and remained at Atlantic High School for the remainder of the school year. C. W.'s mother believes Respondent should have been removed from the school. When he was not, ultimately C. W. transferred to another school to complete her senior year. C. W. believes that she was treated unfavorably by students who endorsed Respondent and did not support her decision to report the note-writing incident. Respondent was previously disciplined by another school district for whom he worked. The prior disciplinary event also led to action by the Education Practices Commission. The prior act was dissimilar in facts to the instant case. Respondent is a well-educated and experienced teacher. He holds bachelor and master degrees. Respondent became a teacher in 1998 and has been continuously employed by various school districts since that time. Additionally, he taught at a detention center for youthful offenders for approximately one year. In short, Respondent should have known better than to engage in note writing with C. W., and should not have initiated the note. In addition to distracting C. W. during a class when she should have been allowed to engage in learning, Respondent's conduct in continuing the note writing was immature and contrary to meaningful teaching practices. Respondent has always achieved acceptable performance evaluations. Despite the unrelated lapses in judgment resulting in disciplinary actions, Respondent has continued in employment with the school district. At no time has Respondent ever attempted to touch C. W. inappropriately. At no time did Respondent actually verbally speak to C. W. The entire inappropriate exchange consisted of note writing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a panel of the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the standards of conduct applicable to educators in Florida, found in Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B- 1.006(3)(a), and 6B-1.006(3)(e), imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00, and requiring a period of probation not less than one year under the terms and conditions deemed most appropriate by the panel. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2010 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Joan Stewart, Esquire FEA/United 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marion Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practice Service Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate number 852375, valid through June 30, 2006, and covering the area of specific learning disabilities. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed as a teacher in an exceptional student education class at Middlebrook Middle School in the Orange County School District. Her students were 13 to 14 years of age. On more than one occasion during January of 2005, the Respondent read sexually explicit material from a book called "Dumb as Me" to her classroom. The book, admitted as the Petitioner's exhibit, includes graphic and explicit sexual content and frequent use of vulgar language. The classroom paraprofessional reported the matter to the school's principal, Valeria Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell went to the Respondent and discussed the report. During the discussion, the Respondent acknowledged that she read from the book to her students. Ms. Maxwell testified that the Respondent had not been authorized to read the book to her class. There is no evidence that the book was part of any lesson plan created by the Respondent. Ms. Maxwell testified that the students interviewed reported being embarrassed by the Respondent's reading the book to them during class, but none of the students testified at the hearing. Ms. Maxwell also testified that the Respondent's use of the text in the classroom seriously reduced the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher and created a condition in the classroom that was harmful to learning. The Respondent's employment with the Orange County School Board was terminated on June 14, 2005.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order determining that the Respondent has violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), (1)(f), and (1)(i), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and revoking the Respondent's educator's certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 24th day of June, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Cynthia Bradford 428 Los Altos Way, No. 201 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Cynthia Bradford 30700 Wekiva River Road, No. 395 Sorrento, Florida 32776-9003 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 975296. He has been employed as a teacher with the Hernando County School Board for six years. During the 2009-10 school year, Respondent taught 11th grade English III at Central High School. As a teacher, Respondent expects his students to behave and pay attention. He expects his students to interact with him about the lesson, and he expects the students to stay awake in class. On February 16, 2010, near the beginning of his second class of the morning, Respondent noticed several students had their heads on their desks and appeared to be sleeping. One of these students was K. G. K. G. was 17 years old at the time and was approximately 5 feet, 8 inches tall and weighed 145 pounds. Respondent attempted to awaken K. G. by calling his name, but K. G. did not respond. Respondent became, in his own words, "not angry," but rather “frustrated” and “perturbed” when K. G. did not wake up. Respondent knew that K. G. would not get the material if he was not awake, and Respondent felt that it was his responsibility as the teacher to try and keep the students engaged during class. After K. G. did not respond, Respondent went over to K. G.’s desk, took hold of a leg of the desk with one hand, put his other hand under the desk, and shook the desk. Respondent shook K. G.'s desk with the intention of waking K. G. Respondent did not intend to push the desk over. Nevertheless, while Respondent was shaking the desk, K. G.'s desk flipped over while K. G. was in it. After he fell, K. G. got up and threw the desk back toward Respondent, cursed, abruptly left the classroom, and reported the incident to the assistant principal. Respondent attempted to continue to teach, but the class was disrupted and would not settle down. Respondent then calmly asked Beverly Salkin, a substitute teacher who was assisting in Respondent's classroom that day, to please take over the classroom. After that, Respondent went to the front office, clearly upset, and reported the incident to Principal Joe Clifford. Respondent told Mr. Clifford that he had done something really stupid, that he was not feeling well, but there was no excuse for his behavior. Respondent reported to Mr. Clifford that K. G. was sleeping in the classroom and that he had flipped the desk while K. G. was in it so that the student landed on the floor. Mr. Clifford then went to the assistant principal’s office to check on K. G. to find out whether he was injured. K. G. told Mr. Clifford that he had already hurt his hand2/ but reinjured it in the fall from his desk. The school nurse checked K. G.’s hand and put ice on his hand. K. G. did not seek further medical treatment for his hand, and attended sports practice a day or two after the incident. Respondent asked Mr. Clifford for permission to apologize to K. G. for what he had done. Mr. Clifford allowed Respondent to apologize to K. G., and Respondent apologized to K. G. that same day. Respondent showed remorse and concern when he apologized to K. G. In reaction to the incident, Mr. Clifford removed Respondent from the classroom and reported the incident to Heather Martin, the Executive Director of Business Services for the Hernando County School District. The same day, Mr. Clifford asked some of the students and Ms. Salkin who were in the classroom during the incident to write a statement regarding what had occurred. Mr. Clifford also prepared an Employee Conference Form and a statement regarding his interviews with Respondent and K. G. Later that day, Mr. Clifford met with Respondent and Respondent’s union representative. At that meeting, in the presence of his union representative, Respondent again stated that he had flipped over a student's desk while the student was in it. Mr. Clifford completed the Employee Conference Form in the presence of Respondent and his union representative. On the form Mr. Clifford wrote “Mr. Budd self-reported that he flipped over a student while that student was sitting at his desk.” Respondent and his union representative were given an opportunity to review the completed form and request changes if necessary. Respondent signed the form and did not state that anything on the form was incorrect. Mr. Clifford then forwarded the Employee Conference Form, his statement, and the witness statements to Heather Martin. Heather Martin’s responsibilities include handling teacher discipline matters for the school district. On February 17, 2010, Ms. Martin received the report from Mr. Clifford. Following her receipt of the report, Ms. Martin scheduled a predetermination meeting with Respondent and his union representative. On February 25, 2010, Ms. Martin met with Respondent and his union representative. During the meeting, Respondent told Ms. Martin that K. G. had fallen asleep in class, that he had tried to get K. G.’s attention, and at that when K. G. did not respond, he grabbed K. G.'s desk, shook it, and the desk flipped over and K. G. fell on the floor. During the meeting, Respondent admitted that he went to K. G.’s desk with the intent to shake the desk, and that he “took ahold of a leg here and somehow used [his] other hand under the desk.” After the meeting, a written summary of the meeting was prepared. Copies of the summary, statements from classroom witnesses, the employee form, and Mr. Clifford’s statement were all given to Respondent. Respondent was informed that he had ten days to rebut any information in those documents, which he did not do. After investigation, the school district determined that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a) and (3)(e), and gave Respondent a letter of reprimand and a two-day suspension without pay. Respondent did not challenge the determination and accepted the discipline in order to put the incident behind him. According to Mr. Clifford, the appropriate course of action to awaken a student sleeping in class is to use proximity or tap on the students’ desk. Mr. Clifford testified that he would not recommend taking a hold of a student's desk and shaking it. Respondent explained at the final hearing that he had already tried other methods of getting students' attention that day, including tapping on a number of desks. Evidence of Respondent's demeanor both at the final hearing and during his earlier explanations to his superiors demonstrated that Respondent regrets the results of his actions. In his testimony at the hearing, Respondent explained, however, that he did not know how his actions resulted in the desk turning over. Respondent further explained that he would never put his hands on a student. Prior to the instant action, Respondent did not mention that he thought K. G. might be responsible for the desk falling over. However, during depositions and at the administrative hearing in this case, Respondent suggested that K. G. may have contributed to the desk falling over by lurching when the desk was shaken. Respondent also testified that he (Respondent) may have inadvertently assisted in the desk falling over by pulling it back away from K. G. as it went over in order to avoid injury to K. G. It is found that Respondent's other explanations for K. G.'s desk falling over, although stated later than his initial explanations of the incident, are not inconsistencies or excuses, but rather are reflective of Respondent's attempts to explain a result which the credible evidence showed he never intended. It is also found that Respondent never intended to embarrass or ridicule K. G., and, further, that K. G. was not embarrassed by Respondent's actions. While the whole school knew about the incident within an hour, some students teased K. G. and made jokes about the incident, and the incident was reported in the local newspaper, K. G. did not testify that he was embarrassed by Respondent's actions. In fact, K. G. laughed at jokes about the incident. Prior to the incident, Respondent had never used the technique of shaking a student's desk to awaken a student. During the final hearing, Respondent gave credible testimony that he never intends to use that technique again.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2011.
