The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent without pay for a total of ten days, based on two separate incidents.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Marshall has been a teacher in Broward County for approximately 20 years. At all times pertinent to the instant case, Mr. Marshall was employed as a math teacher at McArthur High School. Prior to working at McArthur High School he had taught math at Hollywood Hills High School, and then at Flanagan High School. During his tenure at Hollywood Hills High School, Mr. Marshall was placed on a Performance Development Plan (PDP), which required Mr. Marshall to remediate and reteach math lessons in an effort to obtain 70 percent comprehension in his classes. During his tenure at Flanagan High School, Mr. Marshall was once again placed on a PDP, which included the same requirements as the previous PDP at Hollywood Hills. Mr. Marshall was next transferred to McArthur High School for the 2007-2008 school year. Because Mr. Marshall had not completed the second PDP while at Flanagan High School, he was placed on a PDP and 90-day probationary period to start his tenure at McArthur High School. He successfully completed the PDP. During the fall of 2010, Mr. Marshall complained about Mr. Jose Gonzalez, the assistant principal who supervised the math department at the time. Mr. Marshall was then permitted to choose which assistant principal would supervise him. He chose Shawn Aycock, who at the time worked as the assistant principal for the language arts department. On November 5, 2010, Ms. Aycock observed Mr. Marshall in his classroom. Ms. Aycock noticed the following deficiencies: Mr. Marshall did not have the students start an activity as soon as the students entered the room, he had the students perform a task that had no educational value and was not tied to the day's activity, he gave inappropriate responses to students' questions, the students were confused with the lesson, he did not provide proper feedback to the students, he did not provide complete answers to student questions, he used vocabulary that was beyond the students' ability, he gave the students a sample problem but did not work through the problem with the students, and he made no attempt to re-teach the lesson or remediate in any way. On November 16, 2012, Ms. Aycock met with Mr. Marshall to discuss the observation. Mr. Marshall was confrontational, denied that the observation of hers was accurate, and accused Ms. Aycock of lying. Ms. Aycock had observed many teachers before she observed Mr. Marshall, but had never seen the need to write up notes after a meeting with a teacher. But after her meeting with Mr. Marshall, she did. Since then, she has not seen the need to write notes arising from a meeting with any other teacher. During the meeting, Mr. Marshall indicated that he would not water down his instruction for any student, and that he would have no problem with observations that were done ethically and did not consist of lies that were made by unqualified individuals. On November 19, 2010, Ms. Aycock provided Mr. Marshall with a memo detailing her concerns and expectations: Concerns: Students were asked upon entering the class to copy the day's objective. Students did not understand all of the math vocabulary used to explain the lesson. A student seeking further explanation on a problem was told,"If you didn't get it not to worry. It will not be on the quiz." Students were referred back to their notes when they questioned the lesson. Only two math problems were worked during a half an hour review. Expectations: All student activities should be of value and tied to the day's activity. Teacher will use math vocabulary consistent with student ability level and explain lessons in multiple ways. Insinuating that lessons are learned only for a test is inappropriate. All student questions will be answered and explained in full. During a review a minimum of five review problems will be worked per concept. Additionally, we discussed the importance of you checking your email. I am directing you to check your email prior to the conclusion of first period and again prior to the conclusion of fourth period. It is important for you to know and understand that these are the same issues that you have had in previous years. Your previous Performance Development Plans (PDPs) have addressed these same concerns. You have received hours upon hours of assistance in these areas. My expectation is that you will follow the directives listed above immediately. If you feel you need assistance, please see me. Next, Ms. Aycock requested that Principal LaPace, who had an extensive math background, observe Mr. Marshall. He did so on January 7, 2011. Mr. LaPace's extensive notes regarding the observation detail Mr. Marshall's failure to have a proper lesson plan, his scattered presentation manner, and his ineffective management of the classroom. Mr. LaPace prepared a memo detailing his concerns and expectations: Concerns: Students were not given clear directions causing confusion among the students. The lesson was not sequential. The objective on the board did not match the lesson being taught. Modeling sample problems were ineffective. Expectations: Always give clear and concise directions to students. Plan and deliver lessons so that are presented in sequential order. The lesson presented in class will align with the objective posted for the day. During a lesson a minimum of three sample problems will be worked per concept. It is important for you to know and understand that these are the same issues that you have had in previous years. Your previous Performance Development Plans (PDPs) have addressed these same concerns. You have received adequate assistance in these areas. My expectation is that you will follow the directives listed above starting immediately. When Mr. LaPace met with Mr. Marshall regarding his observation, Mr. Marshall disagreed with Mr. La Pace's observations, but did not indicate why he did. Mr. Marshall also declined all types of support from other staff members. The administration asked Mr. Marshall to provide documentation of remediation and retesting of students if he had over 35% of his students earning Ds or Fs. The documentation needed to be specific information regarding times that Mr. Marshall sat down with students in small group settings, or phone logs regarding communication with parents, or any type of specific information regarding steps that Mr. Marshall was taking to raise the level of success of his students. Mr. Marshall was never observed remediating or re-teaching, despite the fact that all teachers were asked to allot the final 30 minutes of a class to these activities. On February 17, 2011, Ms. Aycock, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Marshall met for a Pre-Disciplinary Meeting. Mr. Marshall was given a verbal reprimand for insubordination. In the memorandum which documented the verbal reprimand, Ms. Aycock directed Mr. Marshall to: Reduce the number of students in your class receiving D's [sic] and F's [sic] to at or below thirty-five percent through re-teaching and remediating of those students. Check your school email throughout the day, a minimum of twice per day. Follow all directives given by and with proper authority. Failure or refusal to follow the above directives will result in further disciplinary action. On September 20, 2011, Ms. Aycock again met with Mr. Marshall to discuss concerns and expectations, and also to conduct a Pre-Disciplinary Meeting, wherein Mr. Marshall was issued a second verbal reprimand for insubordination. On September 22, 2011, Ms. Aycock wrote a memorandum detailing the conversation during the meeting, and reminding Mr. Marshall that from June 2010 through September 2011, he had attended seven meetings regarding the high percentage of students in his classes that were receiving Ds and Fs. At each meeting, he had been directed to reduce the number of students receiving Ds and Fs to at or below 35 percent, through remediation and re-teaching. Because Mr. Marshall had failed to comply with these directives, and had failed to provide a reason why he should not be disciplined, he was issued the second verbal reprimand. He was also directed to: Reduce the number of students in your class receiving Ds and Fs to at or below thirty-five percent through re-teaching and remediation of those students. Follow all directives given by and with proper authority. Stemming from the same meeting, Ms. Aycock documented her concerns and expectations: Concerns: You are receiving a large number of student and parental complaints in relation to your teaching practices. Students are not being graded in a fair and consistent manner. The department grading policy is not being followed. Meaningful assignments are not being given to students. Students are not receiving corrective and immediate feedback as it relates to their assignments. Expectations: You will model lessons for students. You will differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all the students. You will develop and implement rubrics so students have clear expectations of class participation and effort requirements. All assignments will correlate to the standards as tested by the Geometry EOC. Students will receive corrective feedback within seventy-two hours. It is important for you to know and understand that these are the same issues that you have had in previous years. Your previous Performance Development Plans (PDPs) have addressed these same concerns. You have received adequate assistance in these areas. My expectation is that you will follow the directives listed above starting immediately. Around December 2011, Ms. Aycock was promoted to the position of Principal for a middle school, and Ms. Arnita Williams became Mr. Marshall's supervising Assistant Principal. Ms. Williams and Ms. Aycock once again conducted a classroom observation of Mr. Marshall, and Ms. Williams documented her concerns and expectations as follows: Concerns: Students were not given clear directions causing confusion among the students. The lesson was not sequential. You did not address students' questions and concerns. Modeling sample problems was ineffective. You did not provide and use the correct mathematical vocabulary. Expectations: Always give clear and concise directions to students and check for understanding. Plan and deliver lessons so they are presented in sequential order. Students' questions and concerns need to be addressed. Mathematical vocabulary on student's level should be used. In previous memos additional directives were given. Below were the following expectations: You will develop and implement rubrics so students have clear expectations of class participation and effort. Provide a copy of your participation rubric to Ms. Aycock by the close of business on Friday, September 26, 2011. Differentiate instruction every day the last 30 minutes of class the [sic] meet the needs of ask [sic] your students. Student will receive corrective feedback within seventy-two hours on all graded work. Reduce the number of students receiving Ds and Fs to at or below thirty-five percent through re-teaching and remediation of those students. Daily indicate in your lesson plans interventions and strategies used to differentiate instruction. A minimum of two grades each week must be entered into pinnacle per student. Vocabulary used in class must be consistent with student's ability. Check your school email throughout the day, a minimum of twice daily (before and after school). During a lesson a minimum of three sample problems will be worked per concept. Follow all directives given by and with proper authority. You have been given the above directions numerous times in the past. It is my expectation that all directives will be implemented immediately. On December 12, 2011, Ms. Williams issued a written reprimand for failing to meet the performance standards required of his position as a math teacher. As grounds for the written reprimand, Ms. Williams focused on Mr. Marshall's repeated failure to reduce the number of students receiving Ds and Fs to at or below 35 percent through remediation and re-teaching, and his failure to follow all other directives given by and with proper authority. School administration consistently directed Mr. Marshall to remediate and re-teach daily; he advised the administration that he would do so on one particular day of the week. The administration denied that request. As a result of Mr. Marshall's non-compliance, students were moved from Mr. Marshall's class to other classes, which resulted in a disparate amount of students in other classes. While most math teachers had from 30-35 students in their classes, Mr. Marshall's class was reduced to about 17 students. On January 5, 2012, Ms. Williams conducted a pre-disciplinary meeting with Mr. Marshall, for failure to provide daily re-teaching and remediation for students the last 30 minutes of class, as he had been instructed to do numerous times. He was informed by letter that he was being recommended to the School Board for a three-day suspension. On October 10, 2012, approximately nine weeks into the next school year, Ms. Williams sent Mr. Marshall a memorandum that stated: Due to the large number of complaints, schedule changes, high failure rate and conferences, you are hereby directed to provide the following documentation for each of the 93 students (Juniors) who presently have a grade of F in your class at interims by October 15, 2012. Please provide copies to Ms. Williams and Ms. DiPaolo by 2:45 p.m. Interventions and strategies for each student Parent phone contact log On that same date, Mr. Marshall responded to this request by giving Ms. Williams a document that read as follows: MATHEMATICAL RUBRIC Tests/Quizzes Correct Problems 10pts. Completely Wrong 0pts. Total is 100% Please note that the total number of questions can affect the outcome. Since the reply by Mr. Marshall was completely lacking in usefulness and did not supply the information requested by Ms. Williams, she attempted once again to solicit the proper information from Mr. Marshall by sending an e-mail to him on October 15, 2012, at 6:03 a.m., giving him a second notice that the deadline for production of the requested information was that same day. Mr. Marshall never complied with the directive to provide information on each student who was failing his class. He never asked for more time to collect the information, and despite that fact that he admitted it would have been easy to retrieve his phone log and submit it, he never did so. Ms. Williams met with Mr. Marshall, informing him that he would be recommended to the School Board for a seven-day suspension. The greater weight of the evidence established that Mr. Marshall is guilty of gross insubordination for his conduct before and after July 2012.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order suspending Mr. Marshall without pay for a total of ten days, based on his conduct before and after July 2012. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 August, 2013.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Diane Velez, violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the testimony given, and the documentary evidence received, the following Findings of Fact are made. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 789520, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages, (ESOL), and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at Stillwell Middle School (Stillwell) in the Duval County School District. She has been teaching for approximately 20 years, with no prior discipline. Respondent teaches in a wing at Stillwell that is referred to as the SLA Unit, which stands for Supported Level Academics. The students in the SLA Unit are cognitively delayed and have all of their classes in this self- contained unit. The SLA Unit is located in a wing at the back of the school, near the bus loop. If someone is looking down the hall from the doors closest to the rest of the school, there are female and male bathrooms for students to the left and right, respectively, closest to those doors. From those bathrooms, there are five classrooms on each side of the hall. Ms. Velez’s classroom is the third classroom on the right-hand side of the hallway. There are additional restrooms in the wing, all congregated in the area between the third and fourth classrooms on the left hand side of the hallway. At least one of those bathrooms is entered from within a classroom. Stillwell had a policy that if a student was given permission to leave the classroom, the student should not be gone for more than eight to ten minutes without the teacher calling for assistance to locate the student. Teachers could call for assistance from Ronald Messick, the lead ESE teacher; send a paraprofessional to look for the student; or call the front office or a resource officer. The eight-to-ten minute window was not a written policy, but was discussed during pre-planning meetings at the beginning of the year, as well as at faculty meetings. While attendance logs from pre-planning and faculty meetings were not introduced to establish that Respondent was present during faculty meetings or pre-planning meetings, no evidence was presented to indicate that she was absent. In addition, the 2017-2018 Faculty Handbook (Handbook) for Stillwell had more than one section that addressed supervision of students. For example, under the caption “Supervision of Students,” beginning on page 12 of the Handbook, it states:1 It is the responsibility of the school to provide supervision for students in attendance. It is the teacher’s responsibility to make sure that students in his/her charge are supervised at all times. Teachers should be aware of the legal and progressive discipline aspects of failure to provide adequate supervision. Students should always have adult supervision. Under the caption “Hall Passes,” on page 16 of the Handbook, it states: Hall passes are to be used for emergencies only. In an effort to reduce the number of students out of class during instructional time, each classroom will have either a lime/orange vest or a Colored clipboard. Students needing to leave the classroom are required to wear the vest or carry the clipboard. Please make sure students continue to sign-out when leaving/returning to your classroom so if the vest/clipboard disappears, you will know who was in possession of it last. Only one student per class may be on a hall pass at any given time. If it is necessary that a student leave your classroom to go to an Administrative Office and your vest/clipboard is already being used, security will need to escort student(s) to and from the classroom. While it is our desire that no student be in the halls during instructional time, there are absolutely NO hall passes for any reason during the first/last 30 minutes of each class and NO hall passes during 2nd block each day unless called by an Administrator. Students who are found out of class during the first/last 30 minutes of the block will have the vest or clipboard taken and given to the Assistant Principal for you to retrieve. Students who are out of class, unaccompanied by security, and do not have a vest/clipboard will be 1 All italics, underlining, and bold used in the quoted material is as it appears in the Handbook. considered skipping and appropriate consequences will be assigned. The teacher will also be held accountable if not following school procedure. Finally, under the heading “Hall and Campus Monitoring,” it states in all capitals and bold letters, “STUDENTS SHOULD NEVER WALK BY THEMSELVES.” On or about January 11, 2018, J.L. was an 11-year-old female student in the sixth grade. J.L. was assigned to Respondent’s classroom, and has an Individual Education Plan (IEP). J.L. was a student in a class containing students who functioned cognitively at the lowest level for students at Stillwell. While those who testified could not state definitively what the IQ level was for the class, it was generally around 67-70. Ms. Velez described the class as one for which there was “a need to have eyes on them.” J.L. was new to the school during the 2017-2018 school year. On August 22, 2017, Ronald Messick sent an email to J.L.’s teachers, including Respondent, stating that J.L. could not be left alone and that she would “leave with a complete stranger.” He advised that when J.L. uses the restroom, she likes to play in it, and directed that the teacher who has J.L. the last period of the day needed to make sure she used the restroom. J.L.’s mother had called Mr. Messick the first week of school with concerns that J.L. had been unsupervised in the bus pick-up area. Her mother explained her concerns to Mr. Messick regarding J.L.’s need for constant supervision. The email referenced making sure that J.L. went to the bathroom before boarding the bus simply because she would have a long ride home from school. An IEP meeting was conducted for J.L. on October 12, 2017. Mr. Messick was present as the LEA (lead educational agency) representative, along with Ms. Velez, who wrote the IEP, and three others. J.L.’s IEP states that “[s]he has Williams Syndrome which is a developmental disorder that affects many parts of her body.” The IEP also states that J.L. “is a very trusting child and will walk away with a stranger. She does not distinguish friend from stranger and this causes danger to her safety,” and that J.L. “needs increased supervision to ensure her safety.” The statement that J.L. needs increased supervision to insure her safety is included in two separate sections of her IEP. Respondent was J.L.’s case manager. As her case manager, Respondent reviews, completes entries, and inputs other appropriate data in J.L.’s IEP. She was aware of the information contained in J.L.’s IEP. On January 11, 2018, J.L. was present in Ms. Velez’s classroom during the last period of the day. At approximately 2:05, she asked for, and received, permission to go to the bathroom. Ms. Velez allowed J.L. to go by herself. No adult or other student accompanied her. Allowing J.L. to go the restroom alone was not permitted by her IEP. Further, it appears to violate the policies outlined in the Handbook, which prohibits allowing hall passes for the first 30 minutes of each class. The final class of the day began at 2:05.2 It also runs afoul of the email sent by Mr. Messick at the beginning of the school year, which specifically directed that J.L. not be left alone. After J.L. was permitted to leave the classroom, T.B., a male student in Respondent’s class, also asked to go the bathroom, and was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez did not check to see where J.L. was before letting T.B. leave the classroom. T.B. was also unaccompanied. J.L. was absent from the classroom for approximately 24 minutes. There are no credible circumstances presented at hearing by which a student should be absent from the classroom for that length of time, regardless of 2 The Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with violating this policy, and no discipline is recommended for apparently doing so. It is included simply to show that there were multiple guidelines in place to prohibit allowing J.L. outside of the classroom alone. their mental capacity, the policy contained in the Handbook, or any policy discussed at faculty meetings. T.B. returned to the classroom before J.L. After he entered Ms. Velez’s classroom, T.B. apparently told Ms. Velez that J.L. was in the boys’ bathroom. Ms. Velez testified that she was about to look for her when J.L. returned to the classroom. Ms. Velez testified that she noticed J.L. had “a lot of energy,” and was breathing hard and her hands were shaking. Ms. Velez asked J.L. if she had been in the boys’ bathroom, and testified at hearing that J.L. responded that she did not want to get in trouble. J.L. became upset and asked to speak with the school nurse. Ms. Velez allowed her to go to the nurse’s office, this time accompanied by an eighth grade girl. While Ms. Velez described the child who accompanied J.L. as “very responsible,” it is noted that she was also a child in this classroom of children who represented the lowest functioning students at Stillwell. Lana Austin was the school nurse at Stillwell, and her office was down the hall from Ms. Velez’s room in the SLA wing. She testified T.B. was in her office when J.L. arrived. It was not explained at hearing whether T.B. had also asked Ms. Velez to go to the nurse’s office or just how he came to be there. When she arrived at the nurse’s office, J.L. was crying and somewhat distraught, and T.B. was also getting upset. Ms. Austin tried to get J.L. to tell her what was wrong, and J.L. kept saying they were trying to get her in trouble. J.L. wanted to call her mother, and Ms. Austin let her do so, because she believed it would calm her down. A paraprofessional came into Ms. Austin’s office while J.L. was on the phone with her mother. So while the paraprofessional was in the office with the students, Ms. Austin contacted Ms. Raulerson, the principal at Stillwell, and notified her there might be a problem so that someone could look at the hallway video and find out if anything happened. Ms. Austin knew that J.L. was a student who needed to be escorted. She was always brought to the nurse’s office by an adult. On this occasion, there was no adult. Jennifer Raulerson was the principal at Stillwell during the 2017-2018 school year. She is now the executive director for middle schools in Duval County. Ms. Raulerson testified that J.L.’s father came to the school immediately after J.L.’s telephone call home, and started asking questions. Because of the nature of his questions, consistent with school protocols, Ms. Raulerson contacted Stillwell’s school resource officer (SRO), Officer Tuten, as well as Mr. Messick and Ms. Hodges, who was the dean of students, to discuss with J.L.’s father what needed to be done to investigate what actually happened.3 The following morning, Ms. Raulerson, Ms. Hodges, and Mr. Messick spoke to J.L., T.B., and M.N., another student in the hallway, about what happened the day before. Based on their answers, Ms. Raulerson gave Ms. Hodges a basic timeframe, and asked her to check the cameras to see if she saw anything that would indicate that something happened involving J.L. and T.B. Ms. Hodges testified that a person can type in a date and time on the computer and look at a specific timeframe on the video, which is what she did. Once she viewed the video and realized how long a student had been out of the classroom, she went to Ms. Raulerson and they looked at the video again. Mr. Messick also watched the video with them. Administrators at the school could access the surveillance video on their computers. The surveillance video software has dates and times from which you can retrieve a time period to watch. However, when you download 3 Although they were under subpoena, neither J.L. nor J.L.’s father appeared to testify at hearing. Any statements attributed to them cannot support a finding of fact for the truth of the matter asserted. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Statements by J.L. that are included in this Recommended Order are not intended to establish the truth of her statements, but rather, to explain why teachers and administrators took the actions they did in response to the situation. a section of the surveillance video, the downloaded portion does not include the timestamp. When Ms. Raulerson viewed the surveillance video on the computer screen, she could see the time stamp. While the video in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E does not contain the time stamp, Ms. Raulerson credibly testified that it is the same video she and the others viewed to determine whether J.L. and T.B. were out of the classroom and how long they were out of the classroom. Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E is a type of evidence commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their responsibilities as a school administrator. There is no evidence that the tape itself has been altered, edited, or tampered with in any way. The lack of a time stamp is not all that important. What is important is not so much the time of day when J.L. and T.B. were absent from Respondent’s classroom, but the length of time that they were absent.4 Ms. Velez admits that she allowed both students to leave her classroom on January 11. She simply disputes how long J.L. was gone. The surveillance video is 39 minutes and 53 seconds long. The times given in the summary of the video activity below are based on the times recorded on the video, as opposed to the time of day. A comparison of those timeframes with the timeline made by Ms. Austin and Mr. Messick shows that the timelines are essentially the same. The video shows the following: 4 Respondent claims she is prejudiced by the admission of the video, because she was not able to view it with the time-stamps to verify that it was, in fact, the video for January 11, 2018. It is noted that Respondent initiated no discovery in this case. Petitioner filed an exhibit list that included a reference to a video as early as July 24, 2020, some three weeks before hearing. Moreover, the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions specifically requires not only a list of all exhibits to be offered at hearing, but also any objections to those exhibits and the grounds for each objection. Respondent did not note any objection in the Second Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Statement to the admission of any of the videos admitted as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17. At eight minutes, 17 seconds, J.L. leaves Ms. Velez’s classroom and heads down toward the girls’ bathroom at the end of the hall.5 She is wearing an over-sized jacket, but is not wearing a vest or carrying a clipboard. At nine minutes, 15 seconds, she comes out of the girls’ bathroom and speaks to an adult in the hallway, and then heads back to the bathroom. At the 13-minute, 4-second mark, T.B. walks down the hall from Ms. Velez’s classroom and, curiously, walks over toward the girls’ bathroom before going over to the boys’ bathroom. At 14 minutes, 39 seconds, T.B. comes out of the boys’ bathroom and walks over toward the girls’ bathroom a second time. After approximately ten seconds, he exits the area near the girls’ bathroom and heads back to the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 15 minutes into the video, and almost seven minutes after leaving Ms. Velez’s classroom, J.L. comes out of the girls’ bathroom, peers down the hallway in both directions, and goes over to the boys’ bathroom. At this point, she is still wearing her jacket. At approximately 18 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, a second male student, later identified as M.N., walks down the hall. M.N. is not in Ms. Velez’s class during this class period. He also goes toward the girls’ bathroom first, and then stands in the hallway outside the boys’ bathroom. After approximately 30 seconds, he walks down the hall and back, before going toward the boys’ bathroom and out of sight at 19 minutes and 40 seconds. At 20 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, other students start lining up in the hallway. Approximately four classes line up in the hallway, with no one coming out of the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 29 minutes, 5 Respondent established at hearing that one cannot actually see students enter and exit the bathrooms from the surveillance video. The sight line for the video stops just short of the doors to the two bathrooms. However, the only other alternative to going in the bathrooms would be for students to exit the SLA unit through the doors near the bathrooms. If that were the case, J.L. would be subject to harm as well, given that the doors lead to the rest of the school and the bus loading zone. 26 seconds, girls in line outside the bathroom are seen looking toward the boys’ bathroom and appear to be laughing. J.L. comes out of the boys’ bathroom at the 29-minute, 53-second mark, followed by T.B. J.L. is not wearing her jacket, and her belt is undone. T.B. throws J.L.’s jacket on the floor and walks down the hallway with his hands up in the air. Both J.L. and T.B. walk down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s room, and then turn around and return to their respective bathrooms. At the 31-minute, 53-second mark, J.L. comes out of the bathroom with her shirt tucked in and her belt fastened. She is still not wearing her jacket, a small portion of which can be seen on the floor of the hallway. She does not pick it up, but stays in the hallway until T.B. comes out of the bathroom, then both go down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s class, with T.B. running and J.L. walking. J.L. re-enters Ms. Velez’s classroom at 32 minutes, 21 seconds into the video. Finally, at 32 minutes, 30 seconds, M.N. comes out of the boys’ room, picks up J.L.’s jacket and heads down the hall. Based on the surveillance video, J.L.was out of the classroom for slightly over 24 minutes. T.B. was absent from the classroom for over 18 minutes. Ms. Velez is never seen in the hallway. There is no admissible evidence to demonstrate what actually occurred during the time that J.L. appeared to be in the boys’ restroom. Regardless of what actually happened, no female student should be in the boys’ bathroom, and a female student already identified as needing increased supervision should not be allowed to be unsupervised outside of her classroom at all, much less for such a lengthy period of time. The potential for harm was more than foreseeable, it was inevitable. Ms. Velez did not go in the hallway or send Ms. Kirkland, the paraprofessional present in her classroom that day, to check on J.L. or T.B. She did not call the SRO, the front office, or Mr. Messick to ask for assistance in locating either child. She also did not contact Ms. Raulerson, Mr. Messick, or J.L.’s parents after T.B. told her that J.L. had been in the boys’ restroom. She testified that, while J.L. certainly should not be in the boys’ restroom, there was nothing that led her to believe or suspect that there could be neglect or abuse. Ms. Velez acknowledged that she allowed J.L. to go to the bathroom unsupervised, and stated that she was training J.L. to go to the bathroom by herself. If that was the case, doing so was directly contrary to Mr. Messick’s email of August 22, 2017, and to the requirements of J.L.’s IEP. Ms. Velez had approximately 18 students in her classroom. Her focus, according to her, was on providing instruction to the students in her class. She denied losing track of time, but stated that once the students were engaged, she took her time with the lesson, which “led me to not noticing what time it was as normally as I should,” and she “possibly got distracted.” She did not take any responsibility for her actions. Instead, she blamed the situation on the fact that, at the time of the incident, she did not have a full- time paraprofessional assigned to her classroom. While the paraprofessional position for her class was not filled at the time of this incident, Ms. Kirkland traveled with the class and was present in Ms. Velez’s class when J.L. was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez also appeared to minimize the importance of providing increased supervision for J.L., and claimed that she was training her to go to the bathroom by herself. Yet, she described the class as a whole as one that needed “eyes on them” at all times. Further, J.L.’s parents clearly felt the increased supervision was crucial, and called early in the school year to make sure that staff knew J.L. was not to be left alone. Ms. Velez gave no explanation as to why she would “train” J.L. to leave the room unsupervised (and one wonders what training could be taking place, if the child is allowed to go alone outside the classroom), when she knew that to do so was clearly contrary to J.L.’s parents’ wishes. On January 22, 2018, the Duval County School District (the District) began an investigation into the incident concerning J.L. that occurred on January 11, 2018. During the District investigation, Ms. Raulerson notified the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and law enforcement of the incident. Both entities conducted investigations. The results of those investigations are not part of this record. On March 16, 2018, the District reprimanded Respondent and suspended her for 30 days for failing to provide adequate supervision of her students. The School Board’s approval of the suspension and the basis for it was reported in the press.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent pay a fine of $750, and that her certificate be suspended for a period of one year, followed by two years of probation, with terms and conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Stephanie Marisa Schaap, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 6A-10.081(2)(c)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, testimony, and stipulated facts, the following Findings of Fact are made. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to chapter 120, if the educator disputes the allegations in the complaint. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 834897, covering the areas of elementary education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (“ESOL”), and varying exceptionalities, which is valid through June 30, 2023. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an exceptional student education (“ESE”) teacher at Wyomina Park Elementary School (“WPES”) in the Marion County School District (“MCSD”). Ms. Miller has served as an elementary education teacher since the 2000-01 school year. Thus, she has a 20-year career with MCSD. From 2008 to 2018, Respondent taught third, fourth, and fifth grades at Reddick Collier Elementary (“Reddick Collier”’). Since she holds certification in ESE, she also taught ESE inclusion students in her general education classrooms. However, she has never taught a classroom of only ESE students. In 2018, Respondent’s value-added model (commonly referred to as VAM) scores rendered her ineligible to continue teaching at Reddick Collier because it was one of the District’s lowest performing schools. As a result, she was involuntarily transferred to WPES. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent was initially assigned to teach students with academic issues, not behavioral issues. The initial assignment was consistent with her experience and previous work with ESE inclusion students. Respondent had maintained certification in ESE so that she could better serve academically low-performing ESE students in a general education inclusion environment. While Respondent had training in an inclusion environment, she did not have training or certification in Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication Handicapped Children (“TEACCH”) or Crisis Prevention Intervention de-escalation techniques for use with students with behavioral issues. Ms. Baxley believed that Respondent had been trained to work with children with behavioral issues. After the initial assignment, students were reassigned between Ms. Miller and Patricia Poag. Respondent became responsible for only students with behavioral issues. Some of the students assigned to Respondent had extensive behavioral issues to the extent they required medication treatment. Respondent’s new assignment was a kindergarten through second grade self-contained ESE class of 12 to 13 students. Generally, a self- contained ESE classroom is a group environment with students who have special needs. Respondent’s students required increased supervision, structure, visuals, and very specific direct instruction. Respondent, Ms. Davis, and Ms. Poag testified that the classroom assignment was very “challenging, overwhelming, and distressing.” The new classroom structure included six or seven more students than previously assigned. Respondent had one paraprofessional to assist with supervision of the students. Respondent requested additional staff support, but never received it. In addition to learning to navigate the struggles with the student’s behavioral issues, Respondent was struggling with paperwork. Respondent made the effort to get help with completing necessary documents and learning how to complete IEP’s and behavior plans. She had no experience in completing these documents, or in working with “severe maladaptive behaviors” before being assigned to WPES. Allegations Involving Classroom Management As an ESE instructor, Ms. Miller’s primary responsibility was to ensure compliance with services or accommodations required for ESE students assigned to her classroom. Gina Gazzaniga is the MCSD ESE specialist. Her primary responsibility is to ensure compliance with services/accommodations required for all ESE students. Ms. Gazzaniga visited Respondent’s classroom. While in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Gazzaniga observed students run on tables, throw items, and elope from the classroom unsupervised. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that while students were engaged in this conduct, Respondent did not intervene. Ms. Gazzaniga also testified that when students eloped from the classroom, they would typically go to the Guidance office or the Dean’s office. Ms. Gazzaniga had the Behavior Team (behavior tech, behavior specialist and analyst, and school academic coaches) assist with structure and behavior/classroom management strategies in Respondent’s classroom. The team implemented procedures to help prevent students from eloping. However, Respondent would change the practices the behavior team implemented. Respondent testified that some of the practices put into place were not effective. For example, when tables were lowered, the students increased their jumping from table to table. In addition, the assistance button was not within the reach of the teachers in the classroom. Ms. Gazzaniga’s overall assessment was that she saw “limited improvement, or refusal to follow taught strategies.” Other members of the WPES administration expressed concerns about Respondent’s classroom management. While visiting Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley, along with Kendra Hamby, saw student W.H. pulling the hair of M.D. W.H., a male student, dragged M.D., a female student, by her hair as she screamed. Ms. Baxley testified that she heard Respondent say “stop.” Ms. Baxley then approached the students and removed W.H.’s hand from M.D. so that he would “stop pulling M.D. around like a caveman on the floor.” Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did not intervene to help M.D., but rather “she just stood there.” Ms. Hamby testified that “Ms. Miller was standing there, not intervening, not saying or doing anything. So that was extremely concerning.” On another occasion, while in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley saw students hitting each other with containers. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did nothing to intervene. Respondent testified that she approached the students and instructed them to return the containers. Jennifer Foster was a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent’s classroom. On one occasion two students were running around the room, fighting, and chasing each other. Ms. Foster tried to “get in the middle to separate them and they both ran behind the big solid wooden table.” When Ms. Foster went in front of the table in an effort to separate them, the two students picked up the table and tossed it over on the side. Ms. Foster was able to move one foot out of the way, but the table landed on her other foot. Ms. Foster testified “I eventually got up and hobbled over to push the panic button and asked for assistance.” Her foot was injured as a result of the incident involving the students. Ms. Foster indicated that Respondent did not assist her. Allegations Involving Failure to Supervise Students In addition to concerns about classroom management, the Administrative Complaint alleged Respondent failed to supervise students. One of those incidents involved K.C. K.C. was one of Respondent’s kindergarten students. He is an ESE student with a medical condition. On September 6, 2018, a teacher informed Assistant Principal Troy Sanford that Respondent’s student, K.C., was found standing at the exit door of a hallway that opens to the playground. Mr. Sanford saw K.C. approaching the exit doors to the playground alone at 11:24 a.m. K.C. stood there alone until 11:29 a.m., at which time the teacher spoke to K.C. After consulting with another teacher, Ms. Hawthorne, about where K.C. belonged, the teacher took him to Respondent’s classroom. Respondent denied allowing K.C. to stand alone in the hallway for several minutes. She testified that while standing at her classroom door, awaiting the arrival of students coming from the restroom, K.C. began to walk from Ms. Davis toward her. This was customary for her students if children needed additional time in the restroom. As K.C. got close to Respondent, L.G.R. began climbing on the top shelf of a bookcase in the classroom. Since their routine was for the students to come into the classroom, she assumed K.C. would follow the customary practice and enter the classroom. Respondent testified that she made a judgment call to turn her attention to L.G.R. to ensure his safety and prevent harm to him. Instead of entering the classroom, K.C. walked down the hallway. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s actions were reasonable. A second incident involved a different student. Two first-grade teachers, Nancy P. Neal and Ireina Hawthorne, were outside on the playground with their students. When recess was over, they were gathering their students and doing a head count to go back inside to their classrooms when they noticed there was “an extra child” in line. The student did not belong in their classroom. The student was nonverbal so they could not determine to which classroom he belonged. Ms. Hawthorne assumed that he belonged in Respondent’s class and took the student to Respondent’s classroom. When Ms. Hawthorne took the student to Respondent’s classroom, Respondent “ushered him into the classroom.” Respondent testified that she was in the hallway, counting her students before going to her classroom. She explained that she had a substitute paraprofessional, Ms. Foster, who did not know all of her students. In addition, this was the first time she had Ms. Foster serve as a substitute. To help remedy the issue regarding the student left outside, Respondent asked her assigned paraprofessional not to take breaks or lunch during recess. Whether Respondent was in her classroom (as stated by Ms. Hawthorne) or in the hallway, the student was left outside without her supervision, which could be harmful to the student’s safety. A third incident related to supervision involved student L.G.R. On October 19, 2019, L.G.R. entered Ms. Gazzaniga’s office and hid under a table. The evidence offered at hearing demonstrated that when the student eloped from the classroom, Respondent immediately followed the student into the guidance office. However, she did not see the L.G.R., so she continued to search for him. A minute or so later, Ms. Gazzaniga saw Respondent walk down the hallway towards the main office. Respondent later learned the student was in the guidance office at the time she initially searched that location. However, Ms. Gazzaniga did not alert Respondent that L.G.R. was in her office. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that she “kept an eye on him while he was there.” After a short time, Ms. Gazzaniga went over to L.G.R. and spoke to him. He came from under the table and went to the doorway of the office. At the same time, Respondent was walking back down the hallway and saw L.G.R. and took him back to her classroom. The credible evidence demonstrates that Respondent made reasonable efforts to locate the student by searching for him immediately after his elopement from the room. DP-3 Assessment On September 10, 2018, Ms. Scott gave Respondent a Developmental Profile Third Edition (“DP-3”) to complete for student A.M.S. Students who are developmentally delayed must have a DP-3 completed for re-evaluation to determine what ESE services need to be continued. A DP-3 is an assessment tool used to evaluate nonverbal or low achieving students that have not reached the cognitive level to take an IQ test. MCSD uses the DP-3 to assess the student’s level of achievement. The DP-3 assesses five areas of development, including the child’s cognitive functioning, physical development, communication skills, social, emotional, and adaptive skills. The assessment is completed by completing a series of questions on whether a student can or cannot perform a particular task. Respondent returned the DP-3 to Ms. Scott on September 25, 2018. Respondent circled items indicating a “yes” response. During the hearing, however, Respondent acknowledged the student would not be capable of performing the tasks. In addition, Ms. Scott did not believe A.M.S. could perform the skills for which Respondent answered yes. Based on the evidence offered at hearing, some of the responses Respondent provided on the DP-3 were inaccurate. Performance Assessments Throughout her career, Respondent had been assessed as progressing or effective related to instructional practice as an educator. For the 2018 informal classroom teacher instructional assessment performed by Ms. Baxley, Ms. Cino, and Mr. Sanford, Ms. Miller was assessed as unsatisfactory in multiple areas.1 However, in the areas of criticism, it was also noted that Ms. Miller was engaged in instruction of students. Interestingly, she was criticized for a child wandering to her desk, and then, criticized for leaving the group of students she was working with to redirect the wandering student. In another instance, the observers were critical of a Positive Behavioral Interventions Support plan but Ms. Miller was never trained in the area of behavioral management. For the 2019 informal classroom teacher evaluation, Ms. Miller was assessed effective in each category, including areas where she was assessed unsatisfactory in 2018. Disciplinary Action at WPES For the first time in her career, Respondent received disciplinary action while working at WPES. On or about September 10, 2018, Respondent was issued an oral reprimand for purported failure to supervise the students assigned to her. On or about September 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for misconduct for purported falsification of documents. On or about October 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for alleged failure to supervise a student assigned to her. On or about November 26, 2018, Respondent was issued Step One progressive discipline for substandard performance due to behavioral concerns in her classroom and failure to report grades. On or about December 11, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Two verbal reprimand regarding substandard performance. 1 In 2018, Ms. Miller was assessed unsatisfactory in the following areas: 2b. establishing a culture for learning, managing student behavior; 3b. using questioning and discussion techniques; and 3c. engaging students in learning. On or about December 18, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Three progressive discipline written reprimand regarding substandard performance. Respondent’s educator certificate has no prior discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that: Respondent violated the statues and rules as referenced above; Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2021. Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lisa M. Forbess Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The central issue in this cause is whether the Respondent, Jose Antonio Blanco, should be placed in the Dade County School Board's opportunity school program due to his alleged disruptive behavior and failure to adjust to the regular school program.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: During the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent attended Palm Springs Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. Respondent (date of birth: 11-13-72) was enrolled in the seventh grade and was administratively assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North on March 9, 1987, due to his alleged disruptive behavior and failure to adjust to the regular school program. Respondent's grades for the 1986-87 school year, the first grading periods, were as follows: COURSE ACADEMIC EFFORT CONDUCT GRADE Mathematics 1st F 3 F 2d F 3 F Physical 1st F 3 F Education 2d F 3 F Industrial 1st F 3 F Arts 2d F 3 F Education Language 1st F 3 F Arts 2d F 3 F Social 1st F 3 F Studies 2d F 3 F Science 1st F 3 F 2d F 3 F SYMBOLS: GRADE "F" UNSATISFACTORY EFFORT "3" INSUFFICIENT CONDUCT "F" UNSATISFACTORY Respondent did not enroll at the opportunity school and did not attend classes. Instead, Respondent's mother enrolled the student in a private school. His conduct has improved but his grades and academic progress are still below level. When a student is disruptive or misbehaves in some manner, a teacher or other staff member at Palm Springs Junior High School may submit a report of the incident to the office. These reports are called Student Case Management Referral forms, and are used to report behavior problems. During the first two grading periods of the 1986-87 school year, Respondent caused 16 Student Case Management Referral Forms to be written regarding his misbehavior. All incidents of his misbehavior were not reported. A synopsis of Respondent's Student Case Management Referral Forms is attached and made a part hereof. Eva Alvarado is a science teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Ms. Alvarado's class, Respondent was persistently disruptive. Respondent refused to do homework and in-class assignments. Respondent was unprepared 90 percent of the time and would disturb the class with loud talking. During lectures Respondent would attempt to talk to other students and ignore Ms. Alvarado's instructions. Ms. Alvarado tried to correct the situation by sending notices to Respondent's parents, but little improvement was made. Valdez Murray is a social studies teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Mrs. Murray's class Respondent was persistently tardy. Respondent refused to complete homework and in-class assignments. Mrs. Murray contacted Respondent's mother, but the student's work and conduct did not improve. Respondent talked in a loud voice to interrupt class. On one occasion, Respondent walked out of the class without permission and on two other occasions Respondent fell asleep at his desk. Respondent made a practice of talking to others who were trying to do their work, and would laugh at Mrs. Murray's efforts to control the situation. Mrs. Murray would instruct the class to ignore Respondent's noise making activities. Mrs. Alicia Robles is an English teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Mrs. Robles' class Respondent refused to perform any work assignments, including in-class oral work. Respondent would instead throw paper darts to the ceiling. Respondent tried to keep other students from working and would interrupt lectures. According to Mrs. Robles, Respondent played with the wires on his braces to create a reason he could be excused from class. Barry Jones is a physical education teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. Respondent refused to dress out and participate with the class. Despite Mr. Jones' effort to notify both Respondent and his parents of the problem, no change in conduct or performance was made. Mrs. Blanco acknowledged that her son has a behavior problem, but believes if given another chance his conduct would improve. During the time he has attended private school his conduct has improved tremendously. Although Respondent has not caught up academically, Mrs. Blanco believes he is ready to return to the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 8th day of October, 1987. SYNOPSIS OF STUDENT CASE MANAGEMENT REFERRAL FORMS DATE INCIDENT DISCIPLINE 10/29/86 disrupting class; parent arguing, talking, conference refusing to work 11/3/86 interrupt class parent refuse to obey conference instruction 11/26/86 tardy, disrupts request be class talking, walking removed changing seats from class- parent contact attempted 12/03/87 tardy, talking to parent contact classmates, showing 3 days out in class in-school suspension 01/13/87 tardy, unprepared 13 days disruptive - noisy, attention defiant parent contact attempted 01/114/87 tardy, refused to additional serve detention detention parent contact 01/15/87 refusal to dress out, 3 days left class area detention without permission 02/014/87 tardy, talks, walks parent contact around disrupting attempted class 02/05/87 refused to do parent contact assignment or test attempted 02/06/87 refused to work, parent contact shouting in class, attempted moving from one seat to another 02/10/87 disrupts class, parent contact running, shouting, unprepared, tardy 02/11/87 tardy, unprepared parent contact for class, failing grades 02/11/87 habitual misbehavior, parent contact lack of respect - refusal to cooperate 02/12/87 refusal to sit in seat; requested threats to other parent to student and teacher get counseling for student 02/25/87 highly disruptive requested during indoor outdoor suspension suspension 02/27/87 disruptive in requested indoor suspension opportunity school APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1453 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted in Findings of Fact paragraphs 1 and 2. Paragraph 2 is accepted in Finding of Fact paragraph 3. The only "D" Respondent received, however, was an exam grade. The grading period was "F." Paragraphs 3 and 4 are accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact paragraph 6. Paragraph 5 is accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact paragraph 9 and the Synopsis attached. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are accepted. See Finding of Fact paragraph 7. Paragraph 8 is accepted. See Finding of Fact paragraph 8. Paragraph 9 is rejected as unnecessary, argumentative. Paragraph 10 is accepted. See Finding of Fact paragraph 5 and the Synopsis. Paragraph 11 is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime Claudio Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 3313 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Board Administration Building 11450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mrs. Bertha Blanco 14535 West 114 Lane Hialeah, Florida 33012 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 11450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 195597 covering the area of industrial arts. During the school years of 1973-1974 to 1983-1984, Respondent had no persistent pattern involving professional incompetency or unprofessional conduct. The Respondent was employed as a teacher of industrial arts at Vero Beach Junior High School in the Indian River County School District during the 1983-1984, 1984-1985, and the first three weeks of the 1985-1986 school years, until his suspension effective September 16, 1985. During 1983-1984, he also apparently taught mathematics. At various times, the classes Respondent taught at Vero Beach Junior High School included some classes directed to regular students and others directed to exceptional students, including the educable mentally handicapped (EMH). EMH students have intelligence quotients (IQs) of less than 70. At all times, all of the industrial arts classes taught by Respondent were elective. THE 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Mr. Marion Bass was the Respondent's supervising principal at all times material to the administrative complaint. As the Respondent's supervising principal, Mr. Bass observed and evaluated the Respondent's teaching performance. Prior to evaluating the Respondent's teaching performance, Principal Bass received formal training in the evaluation of teachers and had 12 to 13 years of practical experience in conducting teacher evaluations. Principal Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance informally on two or three occasions during the 1983- 1984 school year and twice formally at the end of that school year. In his observations and evaluation of Respondent, Bass found the Respondent's performance to be unsatisfactory. Specifically, Bass observed that the Respondent did not satisfactorily control students in his classroom, his planning was not as complete as it should be, implementation of his lesson plans was not acceptable, and Respondent's "voice procedures" (i.e., diction and volume) were unsatisfactory. Bass opined that the Respondent did not have a specific structure to his industrial arts class. Even if students were knowledgeable of their assigned task on a given day, the students were not always on-task. Instead, they would be out of their seats, moving around the room and discussing topics unrelated to class work. In Bass' view, Respondent failed to provide proper supervision of the students, and as a result, the students did not appear to respect the Respondent's instructions. Bass observed that students ignored Respondent's instructions to sit down and be quiet. On other occasions, he observed that the Respondent ignored some students' off-task behavior while he was involved with others. However, none of Bass' observations in the 1983- 1984 school year were reduced to writing nor formally discussed with Respondent, and the formal year-end evaluation of Respondent of March 16, 1984, by Laurent Smith, Assistant Principal, rated Respondent as overall satisfactory and his contract was subsequently renewed for the 1984-1985 school year. On or about May 15, 1984, Bass inadvertently discovered that the Respondent was not knowledgeable of his mathematics students' progress in their skills continuum. This was particularly disturbing to Bass in that each student is required by the Indian River County School Board to accomplish at least 70 percent proficiency in state-mandated skills in order to be promoted to the next higher grade. Thereafter, Bass made an attempt to ascertain the level of skills accomplishment by the students in Respondent's classes. While doing so, Bass questioned Respondent about the matter. The Respondent indicated that certain students were in the Compensatory Education Program. Bass subsequently learned that those students were not compensatory education students but were Level Two students. It alarmed Bass to discover that the Respondent did not even know what level of students he had been teaching for seven months. THE 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR On September 17, 1984, Bass prepared a memorandum to Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel for the School Board. In that memorandum, Bass outlined his concerns regarding Respondent's teaching performance. The memorandum addressed seven general areas of deficiency: failure to control students' behavior; failure to provide meaningful structure and direction and failure to support an enthusiasm for learning; failure to demonstrate the ability to plan a course of study with overall goals and objectives providing direction and continuity in the subject matter; difficulty in implementing what lesson plans the Respondent did develop; addressing only a small percentage of the students in his class when presenting a lesson; difficulty with proper grammar and diction; and a demonstrated lack of understanding for the basic academic and social skill needs of his students. Following preparation of his September 17, 1984 memorandum, Bass continued to make observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance on October 15, 1984 and completed a Classroom Observation Instrument containing his notes of that observation which rated the Respondent's performance in the classroom as "extremely poor, one of great concern." The notations on the Classroom Observation Instrument itself indicate that the Respondent gave directions to a limited number of students, assisted only a small number of students, engaged in very little class communication, did not enunciate well, used poor diction, utilized "very poor" classroom management, and failed to keep the students on task. Following Bass' observation of the Respondent on October 15, 1984, he prepared a written memorandum of his concerns and his suggestions for improvement. He met with the Respondent and discussed both his concerns and suggestions for improvement. The Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. During this conference, Bass told the Respondent that he was there to help him in any way that he knew how to help. Bass expressed similar sentiments in other conferences with Respondent regarding Respondent's teaching performance and offered to allow Respondent to visit other schools and other teachers both in and out of the school district in an effort to help Respondent remediate his observed deficiencies. On September 13, 1984, Theresa Wagner, chairperson of the vocational department of Vero Beach Junior High School, sent all teachers within that department a memorandum establishing dates for computer usage. One of the components of the Respondent's industrial arts curriculum was demonstration of computer literacy. Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. On October 15, 1984, the first day of the Respondent's assigned time block for use of the computers, the Respondent advised Ms. Wagner that his class was not ready to use the computers and would probably not be ready the following week. However, until that date, Respondent had expressed no problem with the time block assigned to him and had requested no assistance in preparing for this new function of the curriculum. When Ms. Wagner reminded him that computer skills were a part of his required curriculum at that time, Respondent replied that he could not understand why he had to teach something he did not know anything about. Further, he stated that he could not learn it. Respondent apparently made two attempts to learn the computer and gave up. Respondent's failure to adapt himself to the new computer programming time blocks inconvenienced Ms. Wagner and others who were required to share the single computer during the finite time available in a school day/school year. At hearing, Respondent advanced the theory that because his major was in TIE (Trade Industrial Education), he ought not to be required to adapt to teaching manufacturing, woodworking, and computer literacy, which are outside of his expressed field of interest, but which apparently are very much contemplated within the general field of industrial arts. Additionally, he felt he certainly should not be required to adapt to teaching all these "new" areas at one time. However, it appears he had been teaching woodworking for some period of time anyway. Overall, Respondent made it clear he did not want to teach the curriculum assigned to him. As a part of her assigned responsibilities as department chairperson, Ms. Wagner was required to observe each of the teachers within the vocational department. On October 10, 1984, she observed the Respondent. Her memorandum to the Respondent dated October 10, 1984, outlined her observations as well as her suggestions for his improvement. Ms. Wagner had difficulty understanding the Respondent when he was teaching. She suggested that he talk louder and make a special effort to enunciate clearly. She observed that the Respondent failed to provide a handout for one girl in the class. The girl raised her hand and had it up for five minutes before the Respondent noticed the student and gave her the handout. Ms. Wagner observed a lot of non-essential, non-productive movement of students in the classroom. Finally, she noted among other things that the last lesson plans which the Respondent turned in were for the week of September 17, 1984, although he was on notice that he was supposed to turn in lesson plans weekly. Ms. Wagner observed little, if any, instruction being provided by the Respondent. The students failed to respond to the Respondent's directions and did not pay attention to him or obey his directions. In fact, the majority of the students ignored the Respondent during this observation by Ms. Wagner. Lesson plans were an on-going problem between Ms. Wagner and Respondent. Only when Ms. Wagner specifically asked the Respondent for lesson plans did she receive them. Those which she did receive from the Respondent were not satisfactory. In her opinion, any substitute teacher would have had a very difficult time teaching effectively based upon the plans which Respondent did submit to her. Although other departmental personnel sometimes missed turning in lesson plans timely, everyone except the Respondent eventually "caught up" with their lesson plans. Ms. Wagner later observed Respondent on several other occasions. Those observations of the Respondent's teaching performance were consistent with her observations on October 10, 1984. On September 14, 1984, Richard Thomas, Vero Beach Junior High School Dean and Assistant Principal, observed the Respondent's classroom performance. Mr. Thomas is trained for such evaluations. Using the teacher evaluation form containing 39 observable "behaviors," Thomas rated the Respondent as "needs improvement" in 14 of the 39 categories based upon his observations on September 14, 1984. Thomas categorized the Respondent's performance on that date as incompetent. On September 20, 1984, Thomas became aware that the Respondent was sending a large number of student referrals to the Guidance Department for the purpose of having the students seek reassignments from his classes to other classes. Respondent's action was creating problems for the Guidance Department, the students, and the Respondent himself because by that point in the school year, a change of classes under the circumstances was impossible. Thomas prepared a letter dated September 20, 1984 to Respondent requesting that he refrain from such conduct. In the letter, Thomas offered to discuss the matter with the Respondent. Respondent's reasons for his acceleration of referrals was never made entirely clear. However, one explanation offered by the Respondent at formal hearing was that when he had behavioral problems with students in his classes and was not permitted to lock them out of the class (see findings of fact 21, 32, and 33 infra.) and was not otherwise "backed up" by Principal Bass and Assistant Principal Thomas, Respondent felt justified, as a strict disciplinarian, in referring those students whom he viewed as troublemakers to the Guidance Department either to be dealt with by Thomas or for reassignment elsewhere. Under the circumstances, this explanation by Respondent of strict discipline is flawed and unreasonable and evidences lack of classroom control. At hearing, Respondent expressed his objection to having exceptional and special education students in his classes due to their low IQs, even though he admittedly had taken courses in this area. Although all school and School Board personnel assumed Respondent was certified for EMH students, Respondent was not specifically so-certified. He maintained that because of their low IQs, EMH students created special discipline problems, which fact was confirmed by Mr. LaPointe and Mr. Bass. However, Mr. LaPointe, a specialist in the field, also opined that an industrial arts certificate should qualify Respondent to teach industrial arts to EMH students. Respondent attributed much of his professional troubles to the inability of the exceptional education students to learn as opposed to his own inability to teach. At first, Respondent further suggested Bass and Thomas had also assigned students with disciplinary problems to both his regular and exceptional classes. However, he could not substantiate this premise in light of the elective nature of all industrial arts classes. Overall, Respondent only made it clear that he did not want to teach the students assigned to him. On October 17, 1984, as a follow-up to his September 14, 1984 visit, Thomas observed Respondent teaching and prepared a Classroom Observation Instrument. He concluded that the Respondent's "with-it-ness" was poor because Respondent was oblivious to a fight which was about to break out between students in the back of his classroom and because a student had to approach the Respondent and almost physically pull on the Respondent's arm to get his attention. Thomas observed that the Respondent was not in control of his class and that he failed to maintain the attention of all students. Thomas observed no improvement in Respondent's performance on his October 17, 1984 return, except that on that particular date, the Respondent did attempt to implement some organizational structure through the use of an overhead projection covering four items. On November 9, 1984, Thomas wrote the Respondent a letter in regard to the manufacture of weapons by students in the Respondent's manufacturing class. Prior to that date, Thomas had verbally cautioned the Respondent about the manufacture of weapons by students in his class. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports a finding of fact that "weapons" per se were in fact created in Respondent's class with his knowledge. It was, however, demonstrated that various lathe-produced wooden objects, possibly intended by Respondent for use as chair legs, were smuggled out of his class by students. Although Respondent denied certain items described as "swords" and "paddles" were weapons and even that some of the "chair legs" were made in his class, the fact that he admitted that a paddle and certain "chair legs" could have been smuggled out by students indicates an appalling nonchalance for his duties of supervision of young people. It was further demonstrated that a sign bearing the expression "I LOVE SEX" and that a paddle bearing the expression "DUCK BUT!" [sic] were manufactured in Respondent's class without his disapproval. On October 16, 1984, Jean Carter, the Director of Vocational Adult and Community Education for the Indian River County School District, observed the Respondent's second period class. Ms. Carter is a qualified observer with the Florida Performance Measurement System. During her observation on October 16, 1984, Ms. Carter noted that the Respondent did not begin his class promptly. Students talked in loud voices and milled around the room. The Respondent had difficulty communicating with his students. Most of his comments were inaudible. The Respondent turned his back on some students when he spoke to other students. Few students attempted to write the notes shown on the overhead projector as the Respondent ordered. Other students never faced the projector, and the Respondent seemed to be unaware that they were not taking notes. Ms. Carter observed several students off task. Four or five students were throwing paper and spitballs around the room. The word "important" was misspelled on the transparency. Respondent exhibited no enthusiasm for the subject matter, never praised the students, spoke positively, or smiled. He did not appear to enjoy teaching. In November 1984, a request was made to the Florida Department of Education to provide an assistance review of the Respondent's teaching performance. The purpose of the assistance review was to provide the Respondent with assistance in becoming a more proficient teacher. Following the assistance review, a very lengthy, detailed report was prepared by the reviewer and submitted to the Indian River County School District. On February 7, 1985, a conference was held involving Superintendent Burns; Principal Bass; Dr. Eddie Hudson, Personnel Coordinator; Mrs. Shirley Hanawait, Assistant Superintendent; Ms. Carolyn Sheppard, CEA President; Jean Carter, Director of Vocational Education; Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel; and the Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review the report prepared by the Department of Education assistance reviewer and to make arrangements to provide Respondent with additional help and assistance as needed. In that conference, Respondent's supervisors made arrangements to correct, repair, or adjust equipment in Respondent's classroom; to have another industrial arts teacher assist Respondent; to provide Respondent with relief time to observe other professional teachers in the same vocational area; to send the Respondent to two professional conferences; to provide Respondent with professional journals; to provide Respondent with assistance through the department head; and to provide assistance from Mr. Bass in the areas of grading, lesson plans, supervision, management, and organization. Mr. Bass, Superintendent Burns, and Dr. King emphasized to Respondent that he must begin to show improvement in his performance immediately. Respondent was advised that if no improvement were demonstrated immediately, Respondent could be removed from continuing contract status or dismissed altogether. The Respondent received a copy of the conference summary prepared by Dr. King as a reminder of the action Respondent was expected to take to improve his classroom performance. Ms. Carter participated in the conference held with the Respondent on February 7, 1985, to review the assistance review report and to provide the Respondent with help. Her purpose in attending the conference was to provide the Respondent with assistance in any way possible to improve his performance. Ms. Carter later made sure that all of the Respondent's equipment was in proper working order, that he had copies of the performance standards mandated for the courses he taught, that he received professional journals, and that he was authorized to attend two conferences relating to his subject matter area. Respondent did not, however, attend either conference. Subsequent to the February 7, 1985 conference, Bass conducted five classroom observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. On each occasion, Bass completed a Classroom Observation Instrument. On March 8, 1985, Bass observed the Respondent's class and found that no valid learning activity was going on in the classroom. On March 12, 1985 at 7:35 a.m., Bass observed the Respondent's industrial arts class for exceptional education students. There were seven or eight students in the class. Bass observed that the Respondent gave the students approximately 15 vocabulary words to look up while the Respondent straightened up the classroom. In Bass' opinion, such an assignment for exceptional education students was inappropriate due to their limited intelligence, attention span, and the purpose for which such students were enrolled in the course. Mr. Bass characterized Respondent's performance on that date as poor. Subsequently, on the same date, Bass observed the Respondent teaching manufacturing to a regular class of about 17 students. Although Bass characterized Respondent's performance in this class as better, he still gave it an overall score of poor because Respondent's presentation lacked continuity and his discourse was "disjointed." Bass continued to note that the Respondent had difficulty with grammar, enunciation, and projection of an enthusiasm for the subject matter. On March 18, 1985, Bass again observed Respondent's manufacturing class for exceptional students. Although Bass also termed this observation better than those he had made of Respondent in the past, he still considered it a below average observation. On the observation instrument itself, Bass noted that the Respondent was late to class, wasted time by marching the students to a film which was set up in a classroom in a separate building, provided no orientation or preview prior to showing the film, and conducted no discussion of the film after it had been shown. He further noted that the Respondent performed much of the project work himself, thereby limiting the hands-on experience that the students were in the class to receive. That same day, Bass observed the Respondent's manufacturing class for regular students, which viewed the same film as had been shown to the exceptional education students. The content of the film would have been acceptably pitched for both types of classes if Respondent had appropriately introduced the film and had led post-film discussions appropriate to each level, which he did not. Bass felt that once again a lot of time was wasted, there was scant review of the film's content, and there existed the same problems with diction and discourse by the Respondent. Bass concluded that the Respondent's teaching performance remained virtually unchanged from what it had been prior to the assistance review. Bass' March 27, 1985 Annual Teacher Evaluation for Respondent's 1984- 1985 school year resulted in a rating of "needs improvement" in 23 of the 39 "behaviors" evaluated on the form. Bass met with Respondent on March 28, 1985 to review the evaluation and discuss it with him. Before Bass could begin discussion of the evaluation, Respondent stated, "Let me make a long story short, Mr. Bass, I am not going to sign my evaluation even if we talk all week. You're 100 percent right on what you wrote, but I'm still not signing it." On more than six occasions, Thomas found the Respondent's students out of class when they were supposed to be in his room. On certain occasions Respondent locked them out. When the Respondent locked students out of his classroom, those students were free to roam the halls with the excuse that they had been locked out of their classroom. On one occasion, school staff members caught one of the Respondent's students committing a theft at a time when he was supposed to be in Respondent's class. Although the theft incident was not conclusively tied to a date Respondent locked students out of his classroom, Respondent was still responsible for indicating to the administration that the student was "cutting" and had not done so. On June 4, 1985, Bass learned that the Respondent was locking his students out of his classroom. Final examinations were being conducted at the time. The Respondent told Bass that he could not make the students stay in class without this procedure, which he had designed to catch students when a student still in the classroom tried to let those who had left the classroom back into the classroom from the outside. Respondent also told Bass he could not give an examination and control the students if the door were not locked. Respondent repeated this explanation from the stand at formal hearing as if his plan were designed to catch those who "cut" class, but Respondent also maintained it was a method of timing the number of minutes students remained out of class so that Respondent could tell their parents why he would not permit them ever to leave the room again, apparently even for reasons as mundane and urgent as using the bathroom. Such reasoning process is flawed and unreasonable, if not downright silly. The Respondent refused to sign the incident report resulting from this incident and further refused to discuss the incident report with Mr. Bass. As a vocational education teacher, Respondent was required to submit end of the year reports to Ms. Carter as a part of state and federal funding requirements. Ms. Carter had informed Respondent of the requirement that he prepare and submit the reports prior to leaving school. Respondent testified he submitted the required reports at the end of the 1984-1985 school year by placing them in the school office mail box of Ms. Wagner. Ms. Carter testified that she did not receive them. The problem with transmittal of the reports appears to be one that could have been resolved by Ms. Wagner or someone notifying the Respondent immediately by telephone that they had not been received. This was not done, although Ms. Carter and Dr. King followed up with written reproofs. Such an infraction under these circumstances will not support discipline of Respondent. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year, dated March 27, 1985 and referenced above, was not satisfactory, but Respondent's contract was subsequently renewed for the 1985-1986 year. THE 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On September 3, 1985, Howard LaPointe, then a staff associate in the Exceptional Education Program of the Indian River County School District, observed Respondent teaching exceptional students in his manufacturing class. Although school had begun on August 17, 1985, Respondent took his class on a tour of the other building on September 3, 1985. Mr. LaPointe observed numerous deficiencies during his observation and noted that the Respondent needed assistance in the areas of classroom management, instructional materials, orientation to class work, utilization of student notebooks, and competency based upon the curriculum guide. On September 13, 1985, the Respondent met in Principal Bass' office with Bass, LaPointe, Carolyn Sheppard (president of the teachers' union) and Dr. King to review LaPointe's observation conducted on September 3, 1985 and to discuss suggestions for Respondent's professional improvement. As Mr. LaPointe began to present his plan for providing assistance to the Respondent, Respondent became angry and upset. After a sharp exchange between LaPointe and Respondent, wherein LaPointe asked Respondent "What the hell do you expect the children to do?" or some similarly-phrased question, Respondent left the meeting and did not return. Bass and Dr. King walked down to the Respondent's office, a glass- enclosed room. They could see Respondent was in a highly emotional, agitated state. The Respondent had knocked his personal television set onto the floor. It was not demonstrated that Respondent damaged a projector or any other school property or that two obscenities uttered by Respondent were heard by anyone other than a fellow teacher, Mr. Humphrey, who had entered the enclosed room as a friend to calm down the Respondent. Had Bass and King not followed Respondent to his own office they would not have even observed his agitated state. Respondent was excused for the remainder of the school day after Mr. Humphrey calmed him down. Later that day, Superintendent Burns suspended the Respondent without pay. Respondent was subsequently terminated by the School Board for incompetence, misconduct, and gross insubordination. On December 12, 1985, Dr. King notified the Florida Department of Education that the Respondent had been dismissed from his position of employment. Dr. King recommended that the Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. Based upon Bass' observations and evaluations of the Respondent's teaching performance over a period of more than two years, Bass holds the professional opinion that the Respondent is an incompetent teacher. Bass would not recommend the Respondent for employment in Indian River County or any other school district. In Bass' professional opinion, students in the Respondent's regular classroom did not receive even a minimal educational experience and the exceptional students received only a minimal educational experience. No evidence whatsoever supporting the allegations of unprofessional conduct at Clemans Elementary School was offered and no such unprofessional conduct is found. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports the allegation that Respondent used profanity in the presence of students and no such conduct is found. Respondent's pre-1983-1984 school year evaluations are technically irrelevant to the charges at bar but were admitted to give Respondent every opportunity to "prove up" his allegations that his current problems arose from personal or personality conflicts with Bass and Thomas. Unfortunately for Respondent, these exhibits show some of his deficiencies are long-standing but were sporadic as opposed to forming a consistent pattern early on. Otherwise, these exhibits are too remote in time to have great weight. Respondent also defended, pursuant to Rule 6B-4.08(2), Florida Administrative Code, upon the premise that after a bombardment of evaluations and conferences he felt he was being harassed rather than given corrective assistance and that he was given too little time in which to make the adjustments required. Rule 613-4.08(2) requires Respondent's immediate supervisor to make all efforts possible to aid Respondent to correct the matter which caused his dismissal. Although this is a questionable defense when, as here, Petitioner and the School Board are not one and the same entity, some of Respondent's allegations have a mitigating effect. There is some merit to his allegations with regard to the timeframe and limited assistance provided but none as to the allegation of harassment. Respondent did unsuccessfully apply for transfer and volunteer to accept a custodial job at the same pay in order to avoid his problems with Bass and Thomas, but he could not demonstrate at formal hearing any reason other than his own attitude and teaching performance for Bass' and Thomas' poor evaluations and refusal to transfer him. Moreover, the consistency of the other observers' analyses belies any conspiracy or vendetta against Respondent on the part of Bass and Thomas. There is some evidence that Respondent made some minimal improvements in technique after assistance was provided by the professional reviewer, which assistance Mr. Bass characterized as the only significant remediation provided the Respondent. Upon his superiors' advice, Respondent also conferred with at least one other teacher in his field who came to his school. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent was authorized to attend two professional conferences and he did not, in fact, attend, but it is unclear from her testimony and the supporting documentary evidence whether federal grant monies were ever authorized for Respondent's attendance at either of these conferences. Mr. LaPointe's evidence that special assistance with regard to exceptional students was offered by him but rebuffed by Respondent is indicative of Respondent's poor attitude. There is evidence that equipment was repaired for Respondent and although not stated by any one witness in so many words, it may be inferred from the collective testimony of several witnesses that Respondent could have requested time off to observe other industrial arts classes and confer with other industrial arts teachers outside his own school but failed to do so. In light of Respondent's satisfactory rating in the 1983-1984 school year, the fact that significant efforts to assist Respondent did not commence until November 1984 (reviewer visit) and that internal assistance did not begin in earnest until the February 7, 1985 conference, I find Respondent had really only from February to March 1985 to avoid an initial unfavorable annual evaluation. From March 1985 to school's closing in June and part of August and September in the 1985-1986 school year was all the time permitted Respondent for remediation because he was dismissed in mid-September 1985. Even so, he showed some minimal improvement which has been considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be suspended for three years with provision for reinstatement as provided by statute. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4101 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed FOF: Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 3. Covered in FOF 5. 4-5 Covered in FOF 6. 6-8 Covered in FOF 7 but amplified to conform to the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 8. Covered in FOF 9. Accepted that there were such reports but rejected as set forth in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. 14-15. Covered in FOF 12 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. 18-19. Covered in FOF 27. 20. Covered in FOF 29. 21-23. Covered and amplified in FOF 30 to conform to the record, but eliminating the legal argument from proposal 23. 24. Covered in FOF 31. The commentary about the presence of a secretary and Respondent's mood are rejected as immaterial in light of no charges of insubordination. Further, mild anger in the presence of the Principal's secretary is hardly likely to impair Respondent's effectiveness. 25-26. Covered, modified and amplified as necessary in FOF 33 to convey the full scope of the material facts of record. That which is cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary has been rejected. 27. Covered in FOF 36; what is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. 28-29. Covered in FOF 39; what is rejected is cumulative. 30-31. Covered in FOF 13-14 and amplified to more accurately convey the evidence of record as a whole. Covered in FOF 16 but modified for clarity. Covered in FOF 18. Except for elimination of the cumulative, covered in FOF 17. Except as cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 19. 37-38. Covered and amplified in FOF 20 to more accurately reflect the evidence of record as a whole. 39-42. Except as cumulative, subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 22. 43-46, and 49 Rejected as not supported by the direct, credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole. 47-48. Accepted that reports were written but rejected on the basis of uncorroborated hearsay, unsupported by direct credible competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole as covered in FOF 41. 50. Covered and amplified to more accurately reflect the record evidence as a whole in FOF 32. See also FOF 33. 51-53. Except for the cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 28 and 42. Rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. All witnesses are entirely credible on this point and Respondent's testimony is not truly contrary to other testimony. The benefit of the doubt must be resolved in his favor in this penal procedure. 56-58. Rejected as stated as not supported by the credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole which is set out in FOF 37. 59. Covered in FOF 38. 60-61. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as covered in FOF 38. 62. Covered in FOF 38. 63-65. Rejected as irrelevant except as covered in FOF 42. Rejected as cumulative. See FOF 20, 21, 32 and 33. Accepted but covered as set forth in FOF 23 since the proposal does not constitute an ultimate, material fact. Rejected as legal argument except to the extent it is peripherally covered in FOF 42. Respondent's Proposed FOF: 1-3. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. 4. Rejected as stated in that it constitutes argument but the topic is covered in FOF 7, 21 and 42, as supported by the record as a whole. 5-8. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. This proposal is not a sentence and is therefore rejected. Accepted that Respondent had the feelings and made the statement but rejected as stated as misleading of the record as a whole. See FOF 37. Except as covered in FOF 4, rejected as irrelevant, although true. Accepted but this goes to Respondent's overall incompetency and is not an ultimate material fact and therefore not adopted. See FOF 21. Rejected as some of these were not admitted in evidence and those in evidence do not support the proposal, neither does the record evidence as a whole. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles L. Hendley, Esquire 1500 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) Whether Petitioner's allegations regarding Respondent schoolteacher's purported performance deficiencies are, in fact, true, thereby justifying Petitioner's placing Respondent on statutory performance probation; (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, then, Whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected the specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes; and (3) Whether Respondent's employment should be continued or terminated.
Findings Of Fact Material Historical Facts At all times material to this case, Respondent Samuel K. Young ("Young") was a teacher in the Palm Beach County School District ("District"). From 1993 until July 2003, when Respondent Palm Beach County School Board ("Board") suspended him without pay, Young taught English at the Alexander W. Dreyfoos, Jr. School of the Arts ("Dreyfoos"), a magnet high school for students interested in an arts-centered education. In August or early September of 2001, shortly after the beginning of the 2001-02 school year, one of the Assistant Principals at Dreyfoos, Tanya Daniel, began routinely to observe Young, on an "informal" basis, while he was teaching his classes. These unscheduled, informal observations were triggered by students' complaints, of which Ms. Daniel, as Young's immediate supervisor, had been the recipient or been made aware. As time passed, the informal observations became increasingly formal. On October 25, 2001, Ms. Daniel conducted a formal evaluation of Young, using the Summative Observation Instrument, which is a tool that was developed for the Florida Department of Education's Florida Performance Measurement System. Another Assistant Principal, Leo Barrett, also started formally observing Young's classes. By early December 2001, Ms. Daniel had come to the conclusion that Young was not performing his teaching responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. Specifically, Ms. Daniel believed that Young was deficient in the areas of classroom management; presentation and organization; planning; student assessment; obedience to policies and procedures; and maintenance of the learning environment. Two points are especially notable about Ms. Daniel's negative assessment of Young. First, she placed considerable reliance on student feedback. Indeed, Ms. Daniel invited and encouraged Young's students to report to her on how he was doing in the classroom. Second, she did not rely upon student performance as measured, in accordance with Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes, by state and/or local assessments. On January 8, 2002, as a result of Ms. Daniel's evaluation, the Principal of Dreyfoos, Ellen Van Arsdale, placed Young on school-level performance probation pursuant to the procedures spelled out in the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS) Evaluation Handbook (the "CTAS"). (Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the District and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association, effective July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2005 (the "Union Contract"), the District is required to conduct formal evaluations of teachers "in keeping with" the 1999 CTAS.) The CTAS provides that a teacher whose performance is found deficient must be afforded at least 30 calendar days to improve his performance to a satisfactory level. During that time, the teacher must be given "school-site assistance" to help him correct the identified performance deficiencies. Accordingly, a 30-day School-Site Assistance Plan was developed for Young and put into effect on January 8, 2002. The school-level performance probation that began in January 2002 constituted a new phase in the evaluation process. The purpose of the first phase, which lasted about three months (from September through December 2001), purportedly was to determine whether Young's performance was satisfactory or not. Thus, the first-phase evaluators should not have assumed at the outset that Young's performance was satisfactory or unsatisfactory. In contrast, during the second phase, the evaluators worked from the initial premise that Young's performance was, in fact, unsatisfactory, in the several areas noted by Ms. Daniel. The focus, therefore, was on whether Young was improving sufficiently to correct deficiencies that were assumed to exist. Throughout the school-level probationary period, a number of evaluators reviewed Young's performance. Ms. Van Arsdale conducted several evaluations, and Mr. Barrett performed at least one. Another was conducted by Dr. Lisa Troute, a Curriculum Specialist with the District. Others, too, were involved. None of the evaluators questioned the conclusion, which was based largely on Ms. Daniel's opinions, that Young's performance actually was deficient. Ms. Daniel did not observe Young's classroom performance during this second phase, evidently in consequence of Young's having voiced some concerns about her impartiality. Ms. Daniel remained an important participant in the process, however, and she continued actively to solicit students' opinions about Young's competence. On February 20, 2002, she interviewed at least three of Young's students, making handwritten notes (which are in evidence) to memorialize their respective assessments. Ms. Daniel asked one student to rate Young's performance on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being "poor" and 10 being "great"; the student gave Young a 3.5. There is no evidence that Ms. Daniel elicited the opinions of a random, representative sample of Young's students——or instead, for example, polled only the known malcontents. There is also no persuasive evidence that Ms. Daniel ever did anything but accept the students' mostly unfavorable opinions uncritically. What the evidence does establish is that Ms. Daniel put great weight on the students' opinions——so much so that the students she spoke with effectively became Young's evaluators themselves. The school-level probationary period was extended well beyond 30 days, and ended up lasting until the end of the 2001- 02 school year. By letter dated May 17, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale informed the Superintendent that Young's performance remained unsatisfactory after 91 days of school-site assistance. Specifically, it was Ms. Van Arsdale's opinion that Young's performance was deficient in the following six areas, each of which is a designated "indicator" of competence under the CTAS: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; Assessment; and Policies/Procedures/Ethics. Ms. Van Arsdale asked the Superintendent to place Young on statutory performance probation for 90 days, pursuant to Sections 231.29 and 231.36, Florida Statutes (2001). The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young during the school-level probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. In fact, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. Nevertheless, the Superintendent acceded to Ms. Van Arsdale's request. By letter dated May 20, 2002, the Superintendent notified Young that he would be placed on performance probation for 90 calendar days. The statutory performance probation——a distinct, third phase of the evaluation process——commenced in August 2002, at the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. On August 22, 2002, Young was given a Professional Development Plan, which called for the provision of assistance, as well as ongoing evaluations, through November 2002, when a final evaluation would be issued passing judgment on whether he had——or had not——corrected the alleged performance deficiencies. The statutory performance probation unfolded largely as had the school-level performance probation. Young was, again, observed and critiqued by a number of evaluators. Of the written evaluations in evidence, the most balanced is a report dated September 22, 2002, which Dr. Troute prepared concerning her observation of Young on September 10, 2002. Based on this contemporaneous report, the undersigned is persuaded that Dr. Trout then believed Young was a "satisfactory" teacher who could, with additional effort, be a "good" teacher. Others were less charitable, however, including Ms. Van Arsdale, who prepared Young's final evaluation based on her November 5, 2002, observation of his class. On the CTAS's evaluation form, Ms. Van Arsdale gave Young a rating of "concern" on five separate "indicators" of competence: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; and Assessment. This resulted in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young while he was on statutory performance probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. Indeed, once again, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. By letter dated November 6, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale notified the Superintendent that, in her opinion, Young had failed to correct performance deficiencies and therefore should be fired. The Superintendent agreed, and by letter dated November 14, 2002, informed Young that he would recommend to the Board that Young's employment be terminated. The Board later accepted the Superintendent's recommendation, and Young was suspended without pay, effective on or about July 16, 2003, pending his discharge. The CTAS A. Teachers who are evaluated under the CTAS are rated on 15 categories of qualities or abilities, which are referred to collectively as "indicators." Each indicator, such as, e.g., Management of Student Conduct, is best understood not as a single ability, but rather as a label for a skill-set, that is, a collection of qualities, abilities, or skills. The indicators are divided into two classes called "performance areas." The performance areas are: "A. Teaching and Learning" and "B. Professional Responsibilities." There are eight indicators under Teaching and Learning and seven under Professional Responsibilities. The CTAS uses a two-point rating scale. The only grades used for scoring a teacher on the 15 indicators are "acceptable" and "concern." The section of the CTAS's evaluation form where the grades are recorded is reproduced below, with the ratings from Ms. Van Arsdale's final evaluation of Young, dated November 6, 2002, added to show how the form is used in practice: A. TEACHING AND LEARNING ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 1. Management of Student Conduct X 2. Human Development and Learning X 3. Presentation of Subject Matter X 4. Communication X 5. Knowledge of Subject Matter X 6. Learning and Environment X 7. Planning X 8. Assessment X B. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 9. Technology X 10. Record Keeping X 11. Continuous Improvement X 12. Working Relationships with Coworkers X 13. Working Relationships with Parents X 14. Policies/Procedures/Ethics X 15. Duties as Assigned by the School Administration X The teacher's overall evaluation rating of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" depends entirely upon the combination of ratings awarded on the 15 indicators. The following combinations require an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory": NUMBER OF CONCERNS SECTION A SECTION B 3 0 2 1 1 3 0 4 As can be seen, the indicators under Section A carry greater relative weight in the overall evaluation than those under Section B. Because Young received five "concerns" on his final evaluation, the CTAS dictated that he be given an overall "unsatisfactory" rating. In rating the various indicators, evaluators are supposed to consider numerous "performance criteria." The CTAS defines the "performance criteria" as "examples of descriptors which define the indicators." To be more precise, the performance criteria are specific behaviors, acts, and practices that the teacher should be performing as an outward manifestation of the teacher's command or mastery of the respective skill-sets known as indicators. Various performance criteria are set out in the CTAS as "bullet points" under each of the indicators. The first bullet point under the first indicator (Management of Student Conduct), for example, is: "[The teacher] specifies and explains rules of conduct and provides for practice of rules when appropriate." For each of the indicators, the CTAS further provides a set of "data collection sources." The CTAS defines the term "data collection sources" as "examples of multiple data sources used to determine a rating of 'acceptable' or 'concern.'" In other words, the data collection sources are lists of "evidence" that can be examined to determine whether, and perhaps how well, the teacher is performing the prescribed performance criteria. For example, the data collection sources for the indicator Planning are: observation reports; lesson plans; conference notes; assessment data; instructional materials; and written reports. B. As we have seen already, the CTAS defines the terms "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory" in a completely objective fashion. It does so by specifying the rating combinations that will result in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." Thus, anyone who knows the number of "concerns" that a teacher has received in Sections A and B can apply the formula and assign the overall grade; this ministerial function requires neither discretion nor judgment. What does demand discretion and judgment is rating the teacher's command or mastery of the respective indicators as either "concern" or "acceptable." This rating function requires that qualitative determinations be made at two distinct levels. First, for every indicator (skill-set), the evaluator must decide how well the teacher is executing each of the several subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors). Then, based on how well the teacher is executing the subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors), the evaluator must render a judgment as to how well the teacher is doing with regard to the indicator (skill-set) that comprises those performance criteria. At both stages of the analysis, to arrive consistently at fair conclusions——that is, to obtain similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time——requires (a) that there be uniform standards to guide evaluators in making the requisite judgment calls and (b) that the same standards always be applied, to all teachers in all evaluations. Thus, it is important to know what standards, if any, the CTAS prescribes. To begin, some negative findings are in order. First, the indicators are not standards upon which to make a judgment. They are, rather, the qualities to be judged, using appropriate standards of decision. Second, the performance criteria are likewise not standards. They define or prescribe the relevant facts to which, jointly and severally, standards should be applied, so as to make a judgment regarding one indicator or another.1 To illustrate, the fact that a teacher is observed "reinforc[ing] appropriate social behavior" tells us nothing about how well he does this, much less about how well he has mastered Management of Student Conduct, which indicator comprises the referenced performance criterion. Rather, to make a qualitative judgment regarding the teacher's performance of this practice requires some test, some basis, for distinguishing between good and bad performances. Similarly, the ultimate fact that the teacher acceptably "reinforces appropriate social behavior" tells us relatively little, presumably, about whether the teacher's mastery of the indicator Management of Student Conduct is acceptable or not, for there are eleven other performance criteria to be considered also in respect of this particular indicator. To make a qualitative judgment regarding whether the teacher has demonstrated an acceptable command of the skill-set known as Management of Student Conduct requires some sort of standard, some yardstick for measuring the relative importance of the teacher's demonstrated expertise (or lack thereof)——as determined by the evaluator——in the execution of the various performance criteria. The only "standards" that the evidence in this case persuasively establishes are the terms "acceptable" and "concern." Superficially, these terms seem to possess some degree of objective content. On reflection, however, it should be seen that they do not, a point which will be examined in greater detail below. The undersigned, moreover, has searched the CTAS and the record in vain for an adequate definition of these terms. As far as the proof in this case goes, these terms are criteria without content, and as such can be used as cover for almost any decision an evaluator might want to make. C. It is desirable at this point to elaborate on why the terms "concern" and "acceptable," by themselves, are not standards that evaluators (or administrative law judges or courts) can consistently and fairly apply to teachers across- the-board. As a starting point, envisage a spectrum comprising every conceivable level or degree of teacher talent, ranging from, in the abstract, "worst imaginable" (or "perfectly awful") to "best imaginable" (or "perfectly excellent"). It makes no difference, for present purposes, how exactly "worst" and "best" might be defined. Rather, it is sufficient to say of the "worst" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be worse." Conversely, it need only be said of the "best" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be better." As should be obvious, these "worst" and "best" teachers are constructs that serve to define the terminal points at either end of the "talent-level spectrum" we are calling to mind. This talent-level spectrum can be depicted with a simple drawing, as follows: Worst ? ? Best It can now be observed that all teachers, everywhere, must fall somewhere on this talent-level spectrum, between the two poles as we have defined them. Of course, the precise point at which any given teacher should be placed on the spectrum, at any given time,2 is a matter about which reasonable people, in every instance, could disagree. But that is presently of no consequence. Turning next to the facts of this case, the question is posed: Where, on this spectrum of talent, should the mark separating "concern" from "acceptable" be placed? Given their ordinary meanings, the words themselves provide no guidance in this regard. Either of the following, for example, is consistent with the plain meaning of "concern" and "acceptable": Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable It does not matter how the mark-point in either example might be defined. What matters is the relationship between the mark and the respective poles. As the mark moves closer to the "worst" terminal, the "concern" band becomes narrower, leaving more teachers on the "acceptable" side. Conversely, moving the mark towards the "best" terminal narrows the "acceptable" band, consigning more teachers to the "concern" category. In the instant case, there is no persuasive evidence on which the undersigned can base a finding as to where the mark should be placed. As a result, the undersigned cannot make de novo findings regarding whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged. To do that, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Young. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence in this case as to where the several evaluators placed the mark when they assessed Young's performance.3 The undersigned therefore cannot find that the evaluators all used the same standards——cannot even infer that they did. Consequently, assuming it were proper to do so, the undersigned could not review whether the evaluators acted fairly and appropriately vis-à-vis Young or whether they reached a "correct" (i.e. legally sustainable) judgment regarding his teaching performance.4 Student Performance The 1999 CTAS that was used in evaluating Young had been developed in 1998 and approved by then-Commissioner Tom Gallagher in January 1999. By letter dated January 25, 1999, Commissioner Gallagher informed the District that its CTAS had received "Full Approval." The Commissioner further instructed the District: [I]t will not be necessary for you to resubmit the [CTAS] unless there are statutory changes which affect the requirements for district instructional performance appraisal systems or unless you substantively revise your system for other reasons. In the very next legislative session following this letter, the legislature substantially amended the statute governing the procedures and criteria for the assessment of instructional personnel, which at the time was Section 231.29, Florida Statutes (1999).5 See Ch. 99-398, § 57, Laws of Florida. These statutory changes, which will be examined more closely in the Conclusions of Law below, took effect on June 21, 1999. Id. at § 78. The thrust of the relevant amendment was to require that, in evaluating teacher performance, primary emphasis be placed on student performance, as measured by "state assessments" and "local assessments." These latter two terms were defined, at the time, in Section 229.57, Florida Statutes (2000). Section 229.57 was subsequently transferred to Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes (2003). The District never amended the CTAS to reflect the statutory changes. Not surprisingly, therefore, the CTAS puts little or no particular emphasis on student performance6 and makes no specific references (that the undersigned can locate) to state and local assessments within the statute's contemplation.7 Consequently, as was mentioned several times above, none of the assessment procedures used during Young's protracted evaluation was primarily based on student performance as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statues (2003). Equally if not more important, however, is the lack of persuasive (indeed any) evidence in the record regarding the performance of Young's students as measured by state and/or local assessments. Because of this, it is impossible for the undersigned to make de novo findings based primarily on student performance as to either (a) whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or (b) whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Young of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Young be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Young back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 17th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether cause exists to terminate the Respondent's employment by the Pinellas County School Board based on the allegations set forth in the Superintendent’s letter dated May 6, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Kay Kennedy (Respondent) has been employed as a teacher by the Pinellas County School Board (Board) since October 3, 1977, under a continuing contract of employment pursuant to Section 321.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes. Since 1990, the Respondent has taught at Safety Harbor Middle School. By all credible accounts, the Respondent has been an effective and capable teacher throughout her career. The Test Review The Pinellas County School District administers a Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) test to middle school students. The CTBS test measures the skill level of individual students within their grade levels and is used to compare the District’s students to similiar students in other Florida school districts and in other states. The compiled math and language arts scores of each District school are published in the local newspaper to permit local school-by-school comparison. Individual student scores are not released. Teachers are encouraged by school officials to prepare students for the examination. The District provides review materials in math and language arts to each middle school. Teachers in each school review the material with students in the days immediately prior to administration of the test. Reviews may take as much as a full week of class time to complete. Teachers in subject areas other than math and language arts also provide subject matter review to students although the District provides no review materials for those review sessions. The Respondent has provided a general social studies review during the seven-year period she was employed as a geography teacher at Safety Harbor Middle School. Other teachers in non- math and non-language subject areas offer their own reviews. During the review period, the Respondent initiated discussions with her classes about general social studies topics. Because the District provides no materials, the Respondent was left to determine the topics for her review. In the 1996-97 school year, the Respondent taught five geography classes. She used the first period time as a planning period and taught her classes beginning in the second period. Teachers who had first period classes administered the 1997 CTBS test. Because the Respondent did not have a first period class, she was not involved in the administration of the 1997 CTBS test. After the test was completed, some of the Respondent’s students believed that in her review, the Respondent had given them the answers to the social studies section of the CTBS test. The students relayed their belief to parents. One student’s father, a principal at another Pinellas County School, was already concerned with the Respondent and had complained to her superiors about her teaching. He immediately contacted the Safety Harbor Middle School principal. There is no evidence that the Respondent’s teaching fails to meet minimum standards. To the contrary, the Respondent’s teaching evaluations appear to be completely acceptable. Shortly thereafter, the Safety Harbor principal also heard from another parent, and from a teacher who overheard students discussing the matter. The Safety Harbor principal contacted district officials and initiated an inquiry into the matter. Based upon the allegations, representatives of the school and the District interviewed the children, and came to the conclusion that the Respondent had provided answers to specific questions contained in the social studies section of the CTBS test. The CTBS test is kept under secure and locked conditions. Teachers receive test materials immediately prior to administration of the test. The materials are bar-coded and individually scanned to assure that all materials distributed are returned. Although the evidence is unclear as to how many versions of the CTBS test exist, multiple versions of the exam exist. It is reasonable to assume that the District would annually rotate versions of the test to prevent students from sharing test content with students who will be tested the next year. The Respondent administered the CTBS test during the 1994-95 school year. There is no evidence that she made or kept a copy of the test. There is no evidence that she made or kept any personal notes as to what was on the test. There is no evidence that the Respondent had access to the 1997 CTBS test. There is no evidence that the 1997 exam was the same test administered by the Respondent in 1994. There is no evidence that the Respondent had knowledge regarding the questions contained in the social studies section of the CTBS test. There is no evidence that the Respondent knew which version of the exam would be administered in the 1997 school year. There is no evidence that there is any benefit whatsoever to a teacher who provides test answers to a student. The results of the CTBS tests are not used in teacher performance evaluations, in matters related to salary, or in any other employment issues. There is no evidence that the Respondent’s students, having supposedly been told the answers to the social studies section of the CTBS test, scored higher than other students in the school who took the same exam and answered the same questions. The Respondent’s students were re-tested using another version of the CTBS social studies test after the allegations of improper test preparation were raised. There is no evidence that the Respondent’s students scored higher the first time they were tested than they did when they were re- tested. At the hearing, students acknowledged discussing the matter. At the time the initial accusations were made, some students discussed using the allegations as grounds to have the Respondent’s employment terminated for apparently personal reasons. Again, there is no evidence that the Respondent had access to the 1997 CTBS test, knew which version of the CTBS test would be administered, or had any personal gain to realize from providing answers to students. Absent any supporting evidence, the testimony of the students in this case is insufficient to establish that the Respondent provided specific answers to the social studies portion of the 1997 CTBS exam to her students. Assistance During the Exam At the time of the 1997 CTBS exam, R. M. was a student at Safety Harbor Middle School. He had not been in the school for very long, was not proficient at speaking English, and had never before taken an exam like the CTBS test. The Respondent was present during the time R. M. was taking the math portion of the CTBS test to momentarily relieve the teacher responsible for administration of the test. The Respondent saw R. M. filling in boxes on his test answer sheet and believed him to be doing so in a random manner known as “Christmas-treeing” the test. A student who does not know test answers may choose to randomly fill in the answer sheet in hopes that at least some of the guesses will be correct. The Respondent approached R. M. and advised him to work the problems instead of guessing. She worked a problem similar to those on the test to demonstrate how to perform the task. At the hearing, R. M.’s testimony regarding the incident was inconsistent. It is insufficient to establish that the Respondent provided answers to the math questions actually appearing on the test. Although the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent provided test answers to R. M., the provision of test assistance to R. M. during the examination was inappropriate. Working a demonstration problem for a student taking a standardized examination is improper, and is unfair to students who do not receive such assistance. At the hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that she should not have assisted R. M. with the exam. Prior Reprimands The May 6, 1997, letter states that the Respondent has “received four reprimands for leaving your classroom unsupervised, lack of judgment, kicking a student and misrepresenting the truth.” The evidence establishes that in 1990, the Board prosecuted the Respondent for such allegations and attempted to impose an unpaid three-day suspension. After an administrative hearing was held, the charges were dismissed. The prior allegations provide no basis for any current disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County School Board enter a Final Order reprimanding Kay Kennedy for providing assistance to a student during an examination and dismissing all remaining allegations set forth in the Superintendent's letter of May 6, 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Wesley Bridges II, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P. A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
