The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated School Board Policies, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times to this matter, Respondent was employed as a science teacher in the Pinellas County School District and currently holds a professional service contract. She was hired as a teacher in September 1995, and worked at Lakewood High School for one school year. During the bulk of her career with the school district--August 1996 through December 2012--she worked at Largo Middle School teaching science. At the semester break, she was transferred to Countryside High School to finish out the 2012-2013 school year. She was assigned to teach anatomy and biology at Largo High School for the 2013-2014 school year and then transferred to Bay Point Middle School beginning with the 2014-2015 school year until she was placed on paid administrative leave on April 25, 2016. From at least 2011 forward, administrators, parents, and colleagues at three different schools, voiced repeated concerns regarding Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher, including her failure to appropriately plan and deliver instruction; the lack of rigorous academic assignments; poorly organized lessons; failure to align learning targets and goals with activities and tasks; failure to differentiate instruction; failure to explain content; and failure to engage students. Complaints persisted regarding her failure or refusal to regularly grade student work and enter the grades into the student information system known as FOCUS; administer assessments; and otherwise properly manage the students in her classroom. Specific examples of her performance deficiencies, as well as repeated efforts to remediate her deficiencies through mentoring opportunities and professional development, were described in great detail at the two-day hearing and are summarized herein. Performance Issues While Teaching at Largo Middle School During the latter part of her time at Largo Middle School, administrators met with Snow to address performance concerns that existed regarding her instructional delivery, grading policies, and classroom management. Specifically, she met with administrators on October 25 and 31, 2011, to revise a “success plan,” and to discuss concerns from parents that grades were not being entered in a timely manner, mid-term progress reports not being sent home, failure to allow make-up assignments, and the issue of not enough grades being entered each marking period. They discussed developing a positive relationship with students and discontinuing the use of sarcasm during class, use of the Gradual Release Model for instructional delivery, the development of rubrics for grading student projects, and developing clear criteria for how grades would be earned. These concerns and expectations were memorialized in a disciplinary memorandum dated November 7, 2011, known as a “conference summary.” Another meeting was scheduled at Largo Middle School on April 6, 2012, to discuss “on-going issues that occurred last year and continue to occur in the 2011-2012 school year.” This meeting resulted in a letter of reprimand dated April 10, 2012, for insubordination because Respondent ignored directives to send home progress reports for students with a D or F grade; to enter student grades bi-weekly; and to allow students to make up assignments. The letter stated, in part: [D]ue to your act of insubordination in disregarding an administrative directive you are receiving this letter of reprimand. Also, by this letter of reprimand I am directing you to enter grades into the computer weekly or bi-weekly, send out progress reports at least three weeks before the end of a six week grading period and make every reasonable effort to support all students to achieve educational success. Failure to follow this directive will result in further disciplinary action. The Same Performance Standards Continue at Largo High School Following the disciplinary conferences noted above, Respondent spent a few more months at Largo Middle School, then served one semester at Countryside High School with no noted issues. Some of the same issues that plagued her at Largo Middle School, however, continued at her new school--Largo High School. For example, just four weeks into the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was told by her supervising assistant principal, John Marina, that he was “getting feedback from parents that they don’t know what’s going on in [her] class.” He explained that parents need to see the grades so they can appropriately address their children at home. Another assistant principle notified her by e-mail that her seventh-period class had no grades entered, and two of her other classes only had two grades entered. The assistant principle reminded her of the expectation “that grades are posted weekly in FOCUS to assist students with tracking their progress, as well as parents being able to track what their students are doing.” A few days later, a parent’s complaint to the principal came to Marina’s attention. The parent advocated for her daughter’s “rights to be educated by a teacher that knows how to TEACH. . . . She is a junior, and the last two years are the most important. She deserves no less than a teacher that can provide her with the knowledge she seeks.” At the hearing, Marina recalled the meeting between the parent and Respondent. He testified that the student aspired to attend medical school and was frustrated that there was no rigor in Respondent’s anatomy class. He described the relationship between the student and Snow as “contentious” after the student said, “Hey, when are you going to teach, Mrs. Snow.” Ultimately, the parent obtained a doctor’s note authorizing the student to be removed from Respondent’s class. Even her colleagues complained to administrators. One teacher stated that Respondent “is either a really good actress, or she is inept completely.” The teacher described Respondent struggling to attach a copy of an exam to an e-mail so the teacher could print it for Snow. She said that Respondent had originally planned to have the anatomy students simply answer questions at the back of the book, but was urged by her colleague to create an exam. This caused Respondent to skip her assigned cafeteria duties to perform the task. Her colleague complained to the school administrators, stating, “I have observed that she has extremely poor planning and forethought and I believe she exists on campus for the purpose of seeking out possible excuses for her inability to perform her job duties. The more I interact with her, the more appalled that I am.” Marina developed a detailed success plan and both he and the principal met with Respondent to discuss their expectations regarding improved classroom management, use of formative assessments to differentiate instruction for students at various levels, use of standards-based benchmarks to drive instruction and measure student understanding of the curriculum, and entering grades into FOCUS. Basically, the success plan addressed the same deficiencies that were identified at Largo Middle School. Snow was offered support from experienced educators and took advantage of coaching provided by an instructional staff developer to help her with classroom management processes. According to Marina, Snow never accepted that her performance required improvement. Rather, “there was always an excuse,” and she routinely maintained that she was “an exceptional science teacher.” On April 30, 2014, Marina completed an annual appraisal of Respondent’s performance. The appraisal instrument for the 2013-2014 school year was described by Louis Cerreta (“Cerreta”), the district’s Director of Professional Development, as a “hybrid model,” because it consisted of behavior indicators from the Charlotte Danielson evaluation system and the Dr. Robert Marzano evaluation system, as well as a few indicators recommended by an appraisal advisory committee consisting of principals, assistant principals, union representatives, district administrators, and classroom teachers. The appraisal system was approved by the Pinellas County School Board, submitted to and approved by FLDOE for use as the instructional appraisal instrument, and Marina was appropriately trained to conduct the appraisal. The evaluation instrument consists of three components: the administrative review or “instructional practice” component; the deliberate practice, also called the “professional development” piece; and the student achievement component. Marina completed the Summative Evaluation (consisting of the first two components, but excluding student achievement data) on April 30, 2014, which resulted in a scaled score of 1 out of 4 available points on the administrative review and zero points for professional development. The student achievement score was based on the scores of students taking the biology EOC (student achievement) and resulted in Respondent receiving a score of 3 on a 4-point scale. Snow’s final evaluation resulted in a score of 1.685 or “needs improvement” under the statutory rating system. The administrative review incorporated and summarized observations made by Marina during visits to Snow’s classroom from January through April 2014. During these visits, Marina completed a “science implementation rubric” for each of the seven observations. He explained that each of the indicators on the rubric correlated to an indicator on the evaluation instrument, and he would either mark the indicator as “evident” or “not evident” depending on what he observed in the classroom. The Administrative Review reflected many of the same concerns addressed in Respondent’s success plans at Largo High School, as well as from her former school, Largo Middle School. For example, she received “unsatisfactory” ratings on each of the five indicators under “ability to assess instructional needs.” Marina commented: “This has been an ongoing issue this entire year. I mediated several parent meetings over the concern of accurate and up to date grades.” Under the section entitled “Plans and Delivers Instruction,” she received less than effective ratings on seven of the nine indicators. Here, Marina commented that her “lesson plans are more of a to-do list,” and while she had opportunities to “go into higher order thinking and increase the rigor of her classes,” she failed to do so. He also noted that she failed to abide by the directive to send tests and quizzes to the administration for review. Under the category entitled “Maintains a Student Centered Learning Environment,” Respondent scored less than effective on ten of the 11 indicators. Marina noted: “rules and procedures tend to fall into chaos on a daily basis, as administrators are frequently called to your room. Many times it is loud and there is a back and forth between teacher and student(s).” Marina testified that he gave Respondent a zero on the professional development section of the evaluation because she submitted the same form that she had submitted when she worked at Largo Middle School indicating that she taught comprehensive science to seventh graders when in fact her professional development goals should have accurately reflected the courses she taught at Largo High School. Marina stated: “not only was it the wrong [professional development form], but it was [delivered] in March” when they are due at the beginning of the school year. Professional Performance Deficiencies Continue at Bay Point Middle School Respondent was involuntarily transferred out of Largo High School at the conclusion of the 2013-2014 school year and resumed teaching middle school for the start of the 2014-2015 school year. The principal at Bay Point Middle School (“Bay Point”), Dr. Jason Shedrick (“Shedrick”), learned during the summer of 2014 that Respondent would be his new sixth-grade science teacher. He immediately reached out several times on the telephone to introduce himself. She proved to be unreceptive to his overtures and combative at every turn. When she did not return his calls, he contacted her former school, Largo High School, to gain some insights into her background and discovered she was on a success plan. He sent Respondent an e-mail to schedule a formal meeting to discuss his expectations, as well as the climate at Bay Point so that she could become successful at her new school. At an impromptu meeting, she told him she was not happy with her schedule because she only wanted to teach biology and advanced classes. He reminded her that middle schools do not have biology classes. She insisted she was a high school teacher and that any further meetings would have to include her union representative. They met again on August 15, 2014, and developed a sixteen-paragraph detailed success plan that addressed classroom management, instructional planning and delivery, grading and tracking student progress, notification to parents through contact logs and progress reports, and attendance and professional development. Shedrick testified that there was no ambiguity as to what he expected from Respondent. He said they spent three full hours working on the success plan because they hammered out each and every issue: We went through every single item on this plan. Ms. Snow went through every item on this plan. Her Union representative went through every item on this plan. We changed it several times to accommodate Ms. Snow for Professional Development, her doctors’ appointments before school, after school, whatever it entailed. Everything was laid out so there would be no misunderstanding about the plan. For the next two years, until she was placed on paid administrative leave on April 25, 2016, Respondent proved to be both unwilling and incapable of following directions and performing the most basic duties of a classroom teacher and fulfilling the expectations of her success plan. 2014-2015 Bay Point Lesson Plans Appropriately completing lesson plans and submitting them timely was a recurring problem for Respondent at Bay Point as it had been for her while assigned to previous schools. She had been provided the Bay Point template for lesson plans in her “first day packet” and the expectation for their submission had been reviewed as part of their marathon meeting on August 15, 2014, in connection with the success plan. Nevertheless, Respondent returned her first submission on handwritten notebook paper claiming that she was unable to save an attachment on her computer. Shortly thereafter, Respondent met with Dr. Elizabeth Tisdale (now “Chiles”), the sixth-grade assistant principal responsible for supervising Snow during the 2014-2015 school year. Chiles scheduled the meeting to review school-wide rules and processes with Respondent because she had missed a couple of days during pre-school when administrators typically review these expectations. Her lesson plans were late, so Chiles specifically reviewed this expectation again. Respondent’s excuse for not submitting them varied but included: no internet at home, computer malfunction, wrong lesson plan template, and an uncertainty as to required content. Throughout Respondent’s two-year tenure at Bay Point, Shedrick had to regularly remind her to correct her lesson plans and to submit them timely. Parent Contact and Progress Reports Respondent was expected to contact parents anytime a student was in jeopardy of receiving a grade less than a C. This was another expectation in her success plan, as was the expectation that parents receive a progress report in such cases. She fell short on this expectation and, in fact, expressed early on that she had no intention of calling parents, as required. Specifically, Chiles met with her on September 2, 2014, to discuss, among other matters, a parent’s concern that her straight-A student was receiving an F in Snow’s class. Chiles reminded Respondent that parents need to be contacted if their child has an F. Respondent outright refused, stating that “she would not call every parent.” On September 15, 2014, Shedrick asked Respondent to produce the progress reports that she had sent home for students receiving a D or F in her class. In response, Snow sent him copies of the computer gradebook that she had sent home to parents requesting that they sign and return. Shedrick was incensed that she had no concept of confidentiality and would send each parent a printout describing the grades of every other student in the class. Moreover, the gradebook printouts were not the progress reports he had requested. He explained: I didn’t receive the progress reports the way that I wanted. . . . I want to know what students were doing, what the assignment was, what the point value was, when it was due, when it was turned in. I wanted to see it before it went home because, then again, I have to answer to these parents at this time why was there not enough grades in the computer, why did my kid have an F, why did my kid have a D. So what I received from Ms. Snow wasn’t what I asked for. Several months later on February 12, 2015, Shedrick notified Respondent by e-mail that he wanted to see the progress reports for all students with a D or F in her class by February 18, 2015. On that date, Chiles spoke with Snow and followed up with a an e-mail requesting that she submit the progress reports no later than 4:00 p.m., that afternoon. At 4:19 p.m., Snow sent Shedrick an e-mail telling him that the progress reports would not be completed by 4:00 p.m. The excuses given included her usual claim that there was a computer problem, this time the internet was slow, but also that students were absent and, therefore, were still taking the test. Failure to Provide Weekly Academic Assessments and Assignments Respondent was expected to grade at least two academic- based assignments each week and record the grades in FOCUS so parents and students could monitor their progress. She blatantly refused to do so and claimed that she was not contractually required. According to Snow, she was only required to record one grade weekly. During a conversation in early September, Chiles reiterated that the expectation was two graded assignments, not one, but even if only one assignment were required, Snow missed the mark because it was the third week of school and she only had two grades recorded. By September 15, 2014, several weeks into the first grading period, Snow had recorded only four grades and one was for a review of the student code of conduct, not an academic- based grade. The walk-through feedback forms completed by Chiles noted this deficiency. On January 13, 2015, Chiles noted “currently zero (0) grades posted-starting new quarter (should have at least 2-4)”; on January 20, 2015, she noted again that zero grades had been posted and on February 23, 2015, she noted that four grades were posted and there should have been 18. Shedrick testified that it was “unacceptable” that by March 23, 2015, eight weeks into a nine-week grading period, after which students were supposed to receive their report cards, Snow had posted only four grades. Respondent also was expected, and repeatedly directed, to give the students a test which would enable her to measure the students’ progress and tailor her instruction accordingly. She gave her first and only test in February 2015, and that was only after several people in administration coaxed, prodded, and essentially wrote the assessment for her. Lack of Classroom Structure, Organization, and Management Several people noted that Respondent’s students were not engaged during class and that she needed help with classroom management. For example, during walk-throughs on September 8 and 15, 2014, Chiles told her she needed more engaging lessons and to circulate the classroom rather than sitting at her desk. Again, on January 13, 2015, Chiles noted lack of engagement, students not paying attention, “no flow of the lesson-transition nonexistent, unorganized structure,” and students not understanding the lesson. On January 20, 2015, Chiles and Michele Stewart (“Stewart”), an instructional staff developer, observed her classroom together and again noted lack of engagement, rigor, and understanding by the students. Chiles had a meeting with Snow on January 21, 2015, to review these issues. Snow did not respond to her suggestions for improvement, except to say that her planning period should not be interrupted and that the students do not understand the class “because of their levels.” Excessive referrals, sending students out of class into the hallway without assistance, and not addressing student needs were regular issues for Snow. In one instance, she assigned a student to the back of the room in a time-out chair and did not excuse him to use the restroom. The student wet himself causing him to be embarrassed and ridiculed by his peers. Snow told Chiles that she saw the boy’s hand slightly raised, but thought he was playing with the blinds. Shedrick testified that the boy’s parent called and came to the school to take the student home and that he “had to explain [to the parent] why the student sat in the back of the classroom and the teacher would not let him go to the bathroom.” Another time, Respondent left campus in the middle of the day without telling anyone. Her class of 22 students was left alone, unsupervised. Shedrick said he arrived in her room, and she was not there. Another teacher had to cover her class. He said he called her on the phone and was informed that she was sick or had a doctor’s appointment. As a result of this incident, coupled with the other recurring performance deficiencies, the superintendent suspended Snow for three days. Support, Training, and Professional Development at Bay Point Snow had multiple opportunities to correct her performance and improve her deficiencies through a variety of training opportunities and support provided to her. On most occasions, she refused to attend or otherwise participate. Many examples were given by the witnesses testifying on behalf of the school district. At the very beginning of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was expected to attend District Wide Training (“DWT”) for middle school science teachers. The DWT is the “big kick- off” for the upcoming school year, and the sessions consist of practices and initiatives that the science department expects to be implemented in the schools. Despite being specifically told that she needed to attend the middle school sessions to learn about revisions to the middle school curriculum, she instead chose to attend the high school science sessions. When asked why she did not attend these (which would have been relevant to her assignment as a middle school teacher), she told the principal that in her mind she was a high school science teacher. As is the case with all teachers new to the school, Respondent had a mentor assigned. Lara McElveen (“McElveen”) was the lead mentor at Bay Point and testified that she was a resource and was always available to help teachers navigate issues ranging from curriculum questions to technology. She held regular monthly meetings to discuss what was working for the teachers and what was not. While most teachers came to her when they needed help with the type of problems Snow experienced (lesson planning, progress reports, assignments, test preparation, FOCUS, etc.), Snow only sought her help occasionally and only for minor issues such as printing or copying assignments. McElveen testified that she tried to set up meetings to help with more substantive matters, but Snow complained that she had “too many meetings and that it was outside her contractual hours.” Four specific trainings were identified in the Success Plan negotiated between the principal, Respondent, and her union representative during their three-hour meeting on August 15, 2014. Specifically, she agreed to attend the following training sessions: Just in Time Unpacking & 5E Collaborative Planning on September 2, 2014; Content Enhancement Part 1 Unit Organizer on September 23, 2014; Data Driven Instruction & Analysis Gap Check In in January 2015; and Just in Time Boot Camp on February 3, 2015. Shedrick went out of his way to remove any barrier to her attendance. He made sure she was paid to attend the trainings by giving her a “TDE” (Temporary Duty Elsewhere). He personally coordinated the timing of the trainings with other appointments on her calendar, including her doctor’s appointments, and also sought out convenient locations for the different trainings so that she did not have to travel far. He set the first training scheduled for September 2, 2014, at a school located only five minutes away. She did not attend this training. Given the efforts that he went through to personally set up the trainings and personally reach out to the people conducting them, Shedrick testified that he was beyond disappointed and annoyed that she did not bother to attend. As a result, he wrote her a reprimand dated September 5, 2014, and directed her to follow the expectations in the success plan-- including attendance at the other trainings--in order to avoid future discipline. Despite her agreement as part of the success plan and the directive in the reprimand, she did not attend any of the four trainings. She never offered the principal an explanation for not attending, but simply told him that she did not attend. In early October 2014, administrators visiting Respondent’s classroom noted that she was two-to-three weeks behind in the pacing calendar establishing the dates by which certain subjects should be covered in her classroom. Shedrick worked with the middle school science specialist, Tom Doughty, to provide Snow assistance and get her back on pace. They assigned Stewart the task of working with Respondent. Stewart observed her class on October 8, 2014; met with her briefly to discuss a remediation plan; and scheduled another meeting the following week to follow through. At the scheduled meeting, Stewart brought the additional materials Snow had requested, but was unable to work personally with her because there was a collaborative planning session scheduled with all teachers. Stewart attended this training with Respondent. Afterward, she asked Snow to meet with her individually as planned, but Snow told her no, she was not contractually required to meet. Over the next couple of weeks, Stewart was at the school for five more days conducting trainings and available to assist the science teachers. Respondent appeared for one group-training on November 12, 2014, but no more. On one of the days (October 20, 2014), all of the science teachers came to meet with Stewart, except Snow. On another day (November 20, 2014), administrators asked Snow to meet with Stewart, but she never showed up and on the other two days, she called in sick. In addition to Snow falling behind in pacing, Doughty and others observed during classroom visits that Snow had “instructional pedagogy issues.” Shedrick again asked Doughty and his team to come in and provide direct support to Snow. Doughty observed her classroom on four occasions between January 13 and January 16, 2015, to see “what instructional strategies were used or lack thereof, what could have been used and were not employed or were not employed correctly.” The plan was to work in tandem with Stewart to provide professional development geared toward the specific areas where Snow struggled. Following the observations, he met with Snow, Shedrick, and Chiles to “debrief,” but Snow was openly resistant to his observations and suggestions. He said he tried to point out areas where her classroom management and practices needed to be refined, but she “cut me off at various points to argue with my observations.” For example, he suggested that a classic and fun activity for kids to learn the concept of balanced and unbalanced forces was a simple game of tug-of-war where they can experience what happens with forces on either side of a rope. Snow’s method for teaching this concept was to refer the kids to a picture of a satellite in their textbooks. Doughty told her that pointing the kids to a picture in a textbook “is not helping a student put an abstract concept to a concrete example.” In response, Snow “defensively interrupted [him] saying that she would never do that with her students and would stick with the picture of a satellite in a book.” He concluded that overall “Snow was very defensive and seemed not willing to accept feedback in order to improve her practice.” Snow was told repeatedly that assessments are necessary to measure a student’s understanding of the content taught. Also, Shedrick wanted to see any test she planned to give the kids. Despite these directives, Snow had not tested her students nor had she tried to create a test. Finally, on January 20, 2015, Snow sent Shedrick two documents for his approval which she presumably believed to be appropriate for testing her students. Noting that they appeared to be three-year-old worksheets, Shedrick forwarded the proposed assessments to Doughty for his review. Doughty first questioned why Snow would be testing certain subjects in late January--homeostasis and cells--when the pacing calendar called for the topic to be covered in the first week of October. He also noted that the sheet was straight out of the textbook. He observed that the second document was apparently pulled by Snow from a bank of questions designed several years earlier and was not appropriate to be given as a test to students. He also reminded Shedrick that Snow would benefit from attending a session at an upcoming DWT focused on proper classroom assessment design. As already noted, she did not attend the trainings which could have helped her do her job and, in particular, a training specifically designed to help her create a test. Next, Shedrick notified Snow that she was not to give the test she had proposed. In desperation, he asked Doughty and his science team to again work with Snow on creating a test. He testified that he had to ask for their help because Snow had not tested her students all year: I had to because we’re in December, January and the students haven’t been assessed. So how do you know what deficiencies they have? How do you know what standards to remediate? How do you know what they’re lacking? How do you know where to fill in the gaps? How do you know what to do as a teacher if you haven’t given a five-question quiz? How do you know what to do? When Shedrick informed Snow that the county science department would be setting up individualized training at Bay Point because she missed the professional development planned for all teachers (a DWT), she responded that “she did not have time for training because [she] was so busy.” He asked if it would be possible to set them up in the morning before school, during her planning period or after school, and she repeated that she was too busy and would never attend a training during her planning period. Finally, Snow agreed to attend a side-by•side training with Stewart so that Stewart could teach Snow, a veteran teacher with upwards of 23 years’ experience, how to write a test. Stewart and the district’s test bank did the bulk of the work, and eventually a test was created. Snow’s students were administered their first and only test on February 10, 2015. 2014-2015 Annual Evaluation at Bay Point On April 17, 2015, Chiles completed an annual appraisal of Snow’s performance. The appraisal instrument for this year was the “hybrid model” incorporating indicators from the Charlotte Danielson evaluation system and the Dr. Robert Marzano evaluation. Chiles completed a two-day training on the evaluation system. She passed a test on its use prior to evaluating teachers. The instructional practice portion of the evaluation, completed by Chiles, comprised 40 percent of the total score. Snow scored 1.364 points achieving an “unsatisfactory” rating. Snow did not score “effective” on any of the indicators. Chiles noted in the formal observation that: Ms. Snow demonstrates deficiencies in the area of delivery of instruction . . . she also struggles with time management in delivering instruction which causes students to be unclear on instruction and assignments. Many students are unable to articulate the learning goal or relate the learning goal to the lesson. Furthermore, many parts of the Gradual Release Model are not applied or observed. With regard to the assessment of instructional needs, Chiles noted that “little progress has been made.” “Tracking and monitoring data has not been exhibited, as well as using multiple assessments to assess the instructional needs of all students.” The student achievement portion of the evaluation counted for 50 percent of the overall score. Snow achieved 3.0 points for this portion. The remaining ten percent was based on professional development and Snow was given three out of ten available points. Respondent received only three points because she submitted a plan that did not match her duties. Again, she submitted an old form from the previous year when she worked at a high school. The form stated she was a biology teacher at Largo High School rather than a sixth-grade science teacher at Bay Point. Three points on a ten-point score was converted to a 1.2 on a four-point scale. Overall, Snow’s evaluation reflected a “needs improvement” rating with a final score of 2.166. 2015-2016 School Year at Bay Point Despite Snow’s poor performance, lack of cooperation and outright defiance the preceding year, Shedrick was optimistic that the 2015-2016 school year would be different. He testified that he was excited that Snow may have “turned a corner.” He testified that he was hopeful because over the summer Snow had shown some initiative and “went to a training without me asking her to.” Moreover, she actually approached him and shared the information, which was rare. He then scheduled a meeting with Snow to scale down her success plan and work on what was necessary to make her a successful science teacher. Shedrick’s optimism was misplaced and quickly faded. Snow was contentious and not receptive to the scaled-down success plan which contained many of the same expectations as the earlier one, i.e., two grades per week in FOCUS; at least one approved assessment each grading period; follow pacing guides; provide progress reports to students with D’s and F’s; contact parents; submit lesson plans; and attend classroom management training. She immediately objected to the expectation that she attend classroom management training stating that she already went to a training in July: “I’ve already been to that training and I am not going to any more training.” He tried to explain to her that the trainings are not all the same at which point it occurred to him that the only reason she attended training in the summer was probably to get a “trade day,” which amounted to a paid day off during the school year. He said, “I hope she didn’t go to that training just for the trade day. I hope she went to that training for students. Conclusion, trade day, because she would not go anymore [to additional trainings].” Not only did her performance and attitude fail to improve, it went downhill quickly from that point forward. Throughout the first semester of 2015, Shedrick and other administrators conducted numerous visits to Snow’s classroom and repeatedly notified her that she was behind the curriculum; her instruction was very low-level textbook work; she had not given the students a single assessment or even a quiz; she was not entering academic grades into FOCUS; she was not engaging the students or managing her classroom; and she had no plan to remediate the students who were falling behind. Shedrick testified that by December 2015, he was “at wits end.” He tried to schedule a conference with her prior to her formal observation but she would not meet with him. He tried repeatedly to re-schedule a meeting. Snow responded with a variety of excuses and objections and once marched into his office at the scheduled time simply stating, “I’m not meeting for your pre-conference,” and walked out. She did not complete the required pre•observation form, so Shedrick asked someone from the professional development department to go into the iObservation database and prepare the form for her. She never completed the form and never appeared for a pre-conference before the formal evaluation. Shedrick experienced the same difficulty with Snow in scheduling a formal observation. She objected that he did not give her enough notice; she did not have enough time; she had to test ESE and ESOL students; and other teachers do not have a formal observation mid-year. At one point he went to her classroom to discuss the observation (because she did not respond to his e-mails) and discovered that the kids were working on crossword puzzles. He said that if she was going to ignore his e-mails, “at least let me walk into [her] class and see [her] students highly engaged in some specification [sic] of some science labs, some dissection, and some hands-on lab learning for science. Imagine my dismay to walk in and see students working on crossword puzzles.” He conducted the formal observation on December 16, 2015, and for 55 minutes of the class period, the students worked on defining terms. He said this was typical of Snow’s lessons. “Bell work was defining terms. Classwork was defining terms . . . students would sit there and actually copy word for word verbatim or she would have them in the science consumer workbooks underline or she would regurgitate to them as to what to write next to whatever they underlined right next to it.” On the formal observation, Shedrick notes under “Establishing Classroom Routines”: [A]s I walked into the classroom you were moving around students from seat to seat and one student asked what are we doing and you replied “just wait.” You instructed the class to sharpen their pencil one by one and seven students ran to the pencil sharpener. Now students are sitting and waiting for you to begin the lesson. Two students are passing out books. Four minutes are gone and students are still waiting. Two students in the front row are passing out sheets of paper, now you have several students up doing various things at this time. Female students in the back are talking about the movies from the weekend. Ten minutes has gone before you address the class. You are trying to inform students of the Scale you created. Under the category entitled “Identifying Critical Content,” he wrote: Teacher reading terms that she asked students to define (define three terms) and students ask you to repeat and what page? No collaboration for this assignment . . . students are just defining terms out of the book and writing on paper . . . . At the beginning of the second semester, Shedrick’s frustration with Snow was palpable. He requested help from OPS, as well as the area superintendent, Robert Path, asking: How much longer must we continue with Snow? Anytime I request a meeting, she does not respond and doesn’t attend. This is defiant and disrespectful to start. How will I continue to run my campus as teachers hear she doesn’t attend my requested meetings, why should they. All this with no action which allows her to continue her behavior. On January 15, 2016, Shedrick sent Snow a letter telling her that she was on very thin ice but he was going to try once again to remediate her numerous deficiencies. After summarizing all of his efforts to meet with her to conduct a formal observation, as well as her responses, he stated: I have grave concerns over whether the very marginal instructional improvement that you made last year is sustained. You have never assessed your students so I have no information on that score, refused to show me the work that your students are performing so I do not have that information to review, refused to meet with me to finish a formal observation and have called in sick for several days avoiding this discussion. For that reason, I asked Mr. Doughty, the Middle School Science Specialist to observe your classroom, on Thursday, January 14th and this morning. I am very concerned about numerous things including the lack of science instruction taking place in your classroom, your classroom management and your conduct and attitude every time that I try to discuss these issues with you. Your continued refusal to do what I ask has seriously impeded the education of our students and they deserve better. I remain willing to work with you and sincerely hope that you choose to work with me toward preparing our students to meet the goals set for 6th grade science. I plan to meet with you to discuss all of these issues. Doughty again observed Snow’s class on January 14 and 15, 2016, and used his observations as a basis to develop yet another remediation plan. He observed that the activities were “low rigor-no connection made to learning target”; the pace of the lesson was not appropriate; there was “minimal student engagement” with students “off task” and “compliant” [sic, the context supports “non-compliant”]; and classroom management and discipline was not evident. Doughty helped design yet another remediation plan that was presented to Snow on January 20, 2016. He said: [W]e wanted to provide as much support and help to try to help her be the best teacher we could make her to be. So one of the things I suggested to Dr. Shedrick was, for example, Letter G [of the remediation plan] was stop using movies as a time filler, having appropriate topics and rigorous assignments that tied to it. Aware that much of what he had observed in the past was “textbook, textbook, textbook, writing in the textbook and . . . not a lot of hands-on engaging things,” he suggested Letter H of the plan, “performing labs that tied into the unit to bring on hands-on activities to give students ownership into their learning.” Doughty and Stewart spent several sessions with Snow during January and February 2016. On February 19, 2016, following an observation of her class, Doughty wrote to Snow commenting that the students were generally confused because the learning goal or the content she intended to teach, did not align to the task: The strategies used weren’t implemented correctly and did not achieve the desired effect. . . . Through my last two visits I have not seen effective implementation of the professional development Michele has provided on an individual basis. It is apparent we will need to revisit the topics from the previous 2 PO [personal observation] sessions. . . . At this point, Doughty felt his team’s efforts could be better utilized elsewhere, rather than continuing to work with Snow who was not cooperating. He contacted a number of people to tell them that “we’re not getting anywhere.” In an e-mail dated February 23, 2016, Doughty noted that “overall it is not going well” and “Michelle is very frustrated that her efforts are not yielding any results.” Insubordination, Incompetence, Performance Deficiencies, Willful Neglect of Duty Respondent is either incapable of performing the duties of a classroom teacher or simply unwilling to do so. Based upon the record, it is both. At times it seems that she is not willing to try because she does not have the skills necessary to perform her duties and, at other times, she is outright defiant claiming that she is not required to do what is asked of her. For two years at Bay Point, she has been directed to enter at least two academic standards-based grades per week in FOCUS and administer an assessment to the students. The assignments that she gave to students in no way could be construed as academic- based. The workbooks produced at hearing from students T.J. and M.T. contain pages with a few definitions, questions and answers copied out of the textbook, and “reflections” consisting of one to two sentences of what the student learned. One assignment is a “foldable” that the student cut out and pasted in the book, with definitions of cell parts written under the flap. In another assignment, the student cut out pictures of body parts and pasted them in the book partially labelling them. With all of the emphasis placed by the educators and administrators on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) and rigorous science instruction, Shedrick was appalled that Snow was teaching and assigning her students what he described as “baby work.” From the record and Snow’s testimony, there is little explanation as to when or how she graded these assignments. The students testified that they did not know the purpose of the assignments or how they were graded. Their parents did not know how she arrived at the grades and, when asked, she was not able to explain the grades to them. In addition to the low-level nature of the assignments in FOCUS, Shedrick objected to Snow giving a grade for a parent’s signature, bell work, notebook checks, reflections, and review of the code of student conduct. These were not academic grades, in his opinion. Parents also complained that they never knew where their child stood in the class because of the irregularity of Snow’s grading. Shedrick testified that parent complaints came in “fast and furious” because of Snow’s habit of “dumping” grades at the end of the marking period. John Frank (“Frank”), the OPS administrator, conducted an audit trail in FOCUS which enabled him to determine the dates that grades were entered and found that grades due earlier in the grading period were added a day or two before the end of the marking period, often drastically affecting a student’s grade with no warning or opportunity for the student to improve. For example, on March 14, 2016, FOCUS indicated Snow had entered six grades. Three days later she had entered four more grades for assignments that should have been added weeks prior. It is nearly inconceivable that entering two grades weekly could have been so difficult, especially for an experienced science teacher. For Snow, however, it was a constant uphill climb. When she met with Shedrick and, at times, with Valencia Walker, and later Frank, each told her “just put in two grades a week.” She said she did not have to. At the hearing, she claimed that she was “confused” when she was told the school district wanted two grades. She “preferred” to enter only one grade and reasoned that her assignments were so “intense” that one grade for her was really the equivalent of two grades for another teacher. Her lessons and assignments could in no way be deemed “intense.” At one point, she said she tried to put in two grades, but did not have time. Later, she said “my goal was to put in two grades a week. The reason why I wasn’t able to put in two grades a week at the end was because of the testing schedule and the pacing guide.” This explanation is almost nonsensical. As evident from her belief that her assignments were “intense,” Snow appears to have no insight into the lack of academic rigor in her classroom. At the hearing, she tried to explain the complexity involved for students to answer two questions in their textbooks on cells. She defended her extensive use of the textbook and instructional strategy of having the students read aloud from it on the basis that she had a lot of “special learners” who needed to learn to read. The record does not support her contention that her students needed “special” treatment due to learning disabilities or other special needs. Snow blames many of her deficiencies on the students’ misbehavior in her class. Testimony confirms that at times the class was loud and the students sometimes disrespectful. This is not uncommon when teaching middle school students. A parent called by Snow to testify characterized her observation as a class “out of control.” Snow, however, fails to recognize that her inability to deliver meaningful instruction caused, or at least substantially contributed to, the student behavioral issues. If the students were more engaged and assigned to more meaningful tasks, classroom decorum would have improved. Doughty summarized the correlation well when he testified, “The more low- rigor, the more textbook work . . . the more misbehavior I see happening. The more I see classrooms that engage students in fun, interactive . . . cool science, engaging science, the less misbehavior I see.” Snow attributes the misbehavior to the students, not her teaching methods or poor classroom management skills. She claimed that she was assigned “more than three fourths of the 6th grade SE/ESOL and 504 population . . . in addition, I have the majority of the lower level 6th graders.” Shedrick and the sixth-grade assistant principle, Jason Helbling, testified that the population of students in Snow’s class was no different than any other sixth-grade class. In fact, Helbling pulled the grades of the students Snow complained were nonperforming and found they received A’s, B’s, and C’s in their other classes. Snow’s testimony on this point is not credited. Helbling testified that he was called to Snow’s room much more frequently than any other teacher’s classroom in the school; in his words, as much as ten times more frequently. She had no interventions set up to redirect the students, but would instead call administrators to have those misbehaving or rowdy removed from class. She complained to Helbling that the students were terrible and not teachable. He counseled her to call home to the parent and “try to do other things than throw the student out of class and having them miss content.” Snow claimed she contacted parents but when Helbling called them himself, he learned that there had been no follow-up by Snow in the form of telephone calls. Helbling found that the students characterized by Snow as “rough,” “terrible,” and “not teachable” did not have the same problems in other teachers’ classes. He visited other classrooms to observe these students’ interaction with the teachers. The difference was that the other teachers had classroom management strategies and reached out to the students. Inexplicably, Snow did not even know the names of her students, something Helbling found inexcusable after several months of school. He testified, “If [by end of January] we don’t even know the names of our students, we have a problem, and a lot of that is linked to classroom management. How can you manage a classroom if you don’t know who your students are?” During a classroom visit on January 29, 2016, Helbling walked into a classroom in disarray. A chair was sitting on top of a desk; most of the students were talking; bell work took 21 minutes with no student actually working on bell work (“bell work” are brief assignments given at the start of class to warm up the students, settle them down, and prepare them for the day’s substantive lessons); five kids were lined up at the pencil sharpener; and Snow “sat at her desk the entire time that the observation took place.” Annual Evaluation at Bay Point for 2015-2016 School Year When the time came for the annual evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year, the district had fully integrated the Marzano appraisal system for use in all schools, which as noted above, is designed to grow a teacher’s practice. The comprehensive instrument is comprised of three components: the instructional practice, the deliberate practice, and the student growth score. The Instructional Practice portion counts for 56.67 percent of the evaluation and consists of four domains. Domain 1 is “Classroom Strategies and Behaviors” consisting of 41 instructional categories that happen in the classroom. Administrators conducted seven informal and two formal observations (mid-point and final) for completion of Domain 1. Domain 2 is “Planning and Preparing.” Domain 3 is “Reflecting on Teaching” and Domain 4 is “Collegiality and Professionalism.” Administrators also conducted nine walk-throughs which contributed to Domains 2-4. In each of the four domains, a teacher is rated based on a scale with the lowest being “not using” and the highest being “innovating.” The scores are tallied in the iObservation database. Snow received a score of 1 which is an “unsatisfactory” rating for the instructional practice portion. Her weaknesses in classroom management, instructional delivery and planning, and failure to cooperate were noted in many instances by her evaluator. The Deliberate Practice portion of the instrument counts for ten percent of the overall score. The rubric dictates that a teacher may receive a score of 1, 3, or 10. Teachers receive points, either 1, 3, or 10, depending on whether they submitted a professional development plan and then whether they implemented it. Snow received three out of ten points because she submitted a deliberate practice plan, but did not attend the required professional development. On a four-point scale, this translated into a score of 1.2. The Student Growth score is worth 33.3 percent of the overall score. Snow received a score of 3.0 on this section resulting in a final score on her evaluation of 1.69 or “needs improvement.” Cerreta testified that Snow is the only teacher in the district, out of more than seven thousand teachers, ever to have received three consecutive ratings of “needs improvement.” Cerreta confirmed that each of the evaluators for the 2013-2014 through 2015-2016 school years received training and were certified by the district to conduct an evaluation using the respective evaluation instruments. The administrators properly administered each of the evaluation instruments and Snow never challenged, through a grievance, the process followed by the administrators in conducting the evaluation. Cerreta’s office is responsible for submitting the appraisal systems to FLDOE for approval each year and confirmed that each of the respective systems described for the three-year period were submitted and approved by FLDOE. It bears noting and a brief discussion as to the integrity and character of Principal Shedrick and the other administrators who patiently worked with Respondent throughout her tenure with the Pinellas County School District and, especially, at Bay Point. It is rare to see a principal and district administrators who not only give a teacher the benefit of the doubt when it comes to her shortcomings, but go well above the call of duty to counsel; offer guidance at many levels; and utilize so many already overworked district personnel in an attempt to make one teacher not only a better educator, but successful in every way relating to her classroom and her students. Shedrick, his fellow administrators, and other teachers at Bay Point spent an inordinate amount of time working with one teacher, Snow, who not only rebuffed their efforts to make her successful, but seemed to resent their attempts to make her a more effective teacher. Only after constant failures by Snow in the classroom, and her apparent inability or lack of desire to improve or learn from all the advice and instruction given, did Shedrick reach his breaking point and move forward with the steps leading to Snow’s proposed termination. Less dedicated individuals would have pulled the plug far sooner, and Shedrick, along with all the administrators involved, should be commended for their patience and desire to make an experienced science teacher, a valuable commodity in the district, successful to the point where she could better further her students’ education in such a vital academic subject in today’s world. Based upon the extensive evidence and testimony, all these efforts were unappreciated and, ultimately, made in vain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie A. Dart, Esquire Office of General Counsel Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Dr. Michael A. Grego, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the School Board since August 15, 1995. As a member of the School Board's instructional staff, Respondent's employment is subject to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2008),1 which provides that her employment will not be terminated except for just cause. The School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District. Exceptional Student Education Exceptional Student Education covers a range of students who have individual needs that must be addressed by a specific plan for education, called an Individual Education Plan. The drafting and maintenance of IEPs is governed by federal and state law. The government may complete audits of district ESE records from time to time, although audits are not completed every year. However, the School District self-reports ESE compliance issues to the government. IEPs are valid for one year and must be rewritten annually, although not necessarily coinciding with the beginning of each school year. Generally, a draft form of the IEP is prepared and taken to an IEP meeting to be reviewed by individuals who are involved with the student's education ("IEP team"), including ESE teachers, regular education teachers, guidance counselors, and parents. Although everyone who is directly involved with the student's education is invited to the IEP meeting, it is not necessary that each individual attend for the IEP to be valid. For instance, if parents or service providers do not attend, the IEP is not invalid. All members of the IEP team attending the IEP meeting are required to sign a signature page indicating their attendance. The parents of the students are legally entitled to two notices of the IEP meeting, the first being at least ten days prior to the meeting. The notice can be written or verbal, but should be documented in the ESE file. Parents may waive their right to ten days' notice of the hearing. One person is assigned as the school's Local Education Agency (LEA). An LEA must be present at all IEP meetings which are required to ensure that ESE guidelines are followed. Students are required to be evaluated by service providers, such as speech-language pathologists, psychologists, social workers, and occupational therapists and to be re-evaluated every three years. The re-evaluation must be completed within three years from the calendar date of the earliest testing completed in the previous evaluation or re-evaluation. Each service provider is expected to review the file and to complete a re-evaluation. However, a re-evaluation is not required if the student's IEP team determines that such re-evaluation is not needed. Furthermore, re-evaluations are not required to draft an IEP. Prior to any testing, evaluation or re-evaluation of a student, the consent of the parent must be obtained. The consent forms are valid for one year after the parent's signature is obtained. Each student receiving ESE services should have a file which includes documentation, such as his/her IEP. Students who have more than one exceptionality (such as speech-language) will often have more than one file housed in the ESE office. Also, students who have been receiving ESE services for a long period of time often require more than one file folder to contain all of the documents. The School District obtains funds from the government based upon the ESE status of the students in the district. Students who receive ESE services are given more funding than students in regular classes. The funding is allocated on a per-student basis, and ESE students receive different levels of funding depending on the classification of their disabilities. In order to qualify for the funds, IEP and other relevant documents must be in compliance with certain guidelines referred to as FTE or "full time equivalent." There are two FTE periods during each school year wherein the ESE files must be compliant in order to obtain funds; the first one is in October and the second one is February. Respondent's Employment at Haile Middle School Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a teacher for 13 years. For the past several years, and at all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE teacher at Haile. In 2005-2006, after the preceding ESE department chair was transferred to another school, Janet Kerley, principal at Haile, asked Respondent if she would serve as the ESE department chair. Respondent accepted the job and had served continuously as ESE department chair until early February 2008. While serving as ESE chair, Respondent continued to work as an ESE teacher, and her position was designated as such by the School Board. As ESE department chair at Haile, Respondent received a stipend.2 In 2005-2006, when Respondent first became the ESE department chair, her work day was divided evenly between teaching her scheduled ESE classes and ESE department chair duties. Training for ESE Chair Position No special training was provided for Respondent to serve as ESE department chair. The School District assigned an ESE specialist to each secondary school, including Haile. The ESE specialist's role was to provide support to the ESE department chair. However, ESE specialists had no supervisory responsibilities for the ESE department chair. In the 2006-2007 school year, Emma Mileham, the ESE specialist assigned to Haile that year, gave Respondent a checklist titled, "ESE Department Chair Responsibilities." She also distributed "monthly mind joggers," titled, "ESE Teacher Activities." The checklist of the department chair's responsibilities included reviewing ESE files. During the 2007-2008 school year, Amy Lloyd, the ESE specialist assigned to Haile, interacted with Respondent once a week as part of the school's Child Study Team. However, Lloyd did not provide any list of job responsibilities to Respondent. Kerley evaluated Respondent's work performance in the past and found her work to be satisfactory. Prior to the allegations that gave rise to this action, Kerley never perceived deficiencies in Respondent's ability to maintain the ESE files. During Respondent's 13-year tenure as a teacher in the School District, she has consistently received satisfactory evaluations and has never been the subject of a disciplinary matter. Changes Impacting ESE Department in 2007-2008 Jerry Hernandez was appointed as the assistant principal at Haile for the 2007-2008 school year. Kerley designated Hernandez as the school's ESE administrator. As ESE administrator, Hernandez was responsible for ensuring compliance with FTE requirements, implementation of IEPs, and monitoring the ESE department chair. In the 2007-2008 school year, two changes were implemented which impacted the ESE Department at Haile and those working in that area. First, as part of an overall change implemented by the School District, ESE teachers at Haile were required to use a new computer system for creating ESE documents (i.e., IEPs, notices, consent forms, etc.). Second, there were significant changes in job responsibilities of the ESE department chair at Haile implemented at the school level. Computer System Changes Prior to the 2007-2008 school year, Haile was using a software program called Dynamo to assist in the maintenance of ESE files. Dynamo was primarily based upon the use of "hard copies" of relevant documents and was limited to each user's computer. At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Haile switched from the Dynamo software to a web-based program called the A3 system ("A3"). The main difference between Dynamo and A3 was that A3, as a web-based program, allowed individuals to view relevant documents from any computer by logging into the system. After Haile switched from Dynamo to A3, the teachers and service providers were encouraged to input all previous IEPs drafted in Dynamo into the A3 system. In fact, after the School District switched to the A3 system, there was a "push" by administrators to have all IEPs inputted into A3. To accomplish this, Respondent typed IEPs drafted in Dynamo and those received from other states into the A3 system verbatim, so that teachers and other individuals would have access to the information from their computers. Also, other Haile employees, including ESE teachers Athena Jantzen and Alice Moreland, and speech-language pathologist, Marie Bryant-Jones, input Dynamo IEPs into the A3 system. At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, the speech- language pathologist then assigned to Haile, Bryant-Jones, input goals for each student who received speech services into the A3 system. The next speech-language pathologist was free to revise the goals as she saw fit. The fact that Respondent and ESE teachers were inputting IEPs originally drafted in Dynamo into the A3 system was common knowledge at Haile. The School District provided training in the A3 system for ESE teachers at or near the end of the 2006-2007 school year. Additionally, on March 20, 2007, a district-sponsored one-on-one training was offered to the staff of Haile. Respondent attended that session and the training staff spent that day reviewing and/or explaining the A3 system. The training staff also worked with and helped Respondent input the current IEPs in the A3 system in order "to speed up the process." To start a new IEP in A3, the user is required to click on "Copy IEP" on the computer page. Clicking "Copy IEP" makes an identical copy of the last IEP in the system, including goals and objectives for other information about the student. The dates for the previous IEP remains the same until the user manually changes the date. This copy is a "draft" which becomes the new IEP when the modified or updated information is input into the A3 system. ESE Department Chair Changes in Responsibilities in October 2007 Prior to October 2007, ESE teachers at Haile were responsible for the ESE files of the students they taught, and each ESE teacher drafted the IEPs for their students. In October 2007, Hernandez told Respondent that as the department chair, she was now to assume responsibility for all of the ESE files at Haile. Hernandez explained to Respondent that this change was being made because the ESE teachers had complained to him that they could not, or no longer wanted to, take care of the ESE files and to teach their classes. When Hernandez told Respondent that she was now responsible for maintaining all of the ESE files, Respondent informed Hernandez that she was not happy about that added responsibility. In response, Hernandez told Respondent not to worry about the files, indicating that they (the files) would "take care of themselves." Hernandez than told Respondent that she should concentrate on giving as much support to the teachers as possible. In October 2007, when Hernandez assigned Respondent the responsibility for maintenance of all ESE files, there were approximately 170 ESE files that needed to be maintained in compliance with FTE guidelines. Except for the foregoing, Hernandez never specifically informed Respondent of what her new duties were as ESE department chair. In October 2007, after being given the responsibility for all ESE files, Respondent drafted IEPs into the A3 system for students she did not have in class by getting feedback from the students' teachers and reviewing the students' progress reports. One ESE teacher at Haile, Athena Jantzen, continued to draft some of her own students' IEPs, as Respondent was overloaded with work. Service providers, such as speech-language pathologists and psychologists, were still expected to draft and enter their own goals into the A3 system. If a student received only speech services, the speech-language pathologist was responsible for drafting the student's IEP and maintaining the file. After being assigned the responsibility for all the ESE files, Respondent asked the ESE clerk to print copies of various active IEPs from A3. Respondent requested the copies so that a copy of the student's IEP could be included in each file related to that student. The IEPs and related documents were printed from the A3 system, not photocopied, and reflected a print date of October 17, 2007, on the top of each page. The executed signature pages of the IEP which could not be printed from A3, were not photocopied by the ESE clerk and were not included in each file. After being assigned the responsibility for all the ESE files, Respondent continued to teach her assigned ESE class and perform cafeteria duty on a daily basis. Respondent was also pulled almost weekly from her department chair responsibilities to cover additional classes. Responsibilities Related to ESE Compliance Issues As chairperson for the ESE Department, Respondent was charged with the maintenance and oversight of IEPs. At Haile, the guidance counselor is designated as the school's LEA. At Haile, the registrar was designated by the school administration to set up IEP and revision meetings. The ESE clerk, who worked at Haile one day a week, was assigned to mail out the notices of meetings to the parents. When students enrolled at Haile from another school, the registrar or guidance counselor would inform Respondent if the child required ESE services. Error Reports Respondent received an "error report" from the school's registrar almost weekly. The error report identified potential compliance issues with the ESE files, but did not represent a completely accurate accounting of the files. For example, it would not identify compliance issues, such as a missing signature page for an otherwise valid IEP. Respondent used the error report to ensure that IEPs were timely updated and reviews for re-evaluations were timely initiated. Hernandez, as ESE administrator, received an "error report" about three times a year. Error reports were available to service providers who requested them. These error reports were obtained and used by some service providers to determine when the re-evaluations for which they were responsible were due. Systems to Notify Service Providers of Re-Evaluation Dates While ESE department chair, Respondent used the following three different systems to notify and/or remind service providers when students needed to be re-evaluated: (1) the "white board" system; (2) the "file drawer" system; and (3) the "binder" system. At some point prior to the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent used the "white board" system. Under that system, Respondent listed the names of students whose re-evaluation date was approaching and the due date of the re-evaluation on a "white board" that was located in the ESE office. Respondent updated the "white board" monthly. In the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent used the "file drawer" and "binder" systems to notify service providers of upcoming re-evaluation dates. The "file drawer" system consisted of placing all files that needed to be reviewed and/or files of students who were ready for testing in a file drawer designated and labeled for that specific category. In the case of a file review, Respondent would initiate the file review and then put the ESE file in a drawer labeled, "File Review." The service providers would simply go to the drawer and pull out student files to complete their review. Once the file review was completed and the student was ready for testing, the ESE file would be placed in the re-evaluation and/or evaluation drawer. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent informed all of the service providers assigned to Haile of the "file drawer" system. Among the service providers Respondent informed about the "file drawer" system were Krista Cournoyer, a school psychologist, and Julia Caldwell, a speech- language pathologist. Respondent specifically explained the use of the file drawers to them, because this was their first year working at Haile. The "file drawer" system is a typical system used by schools in the School District, but schools are not required to use that system. Instead, schools have the option of developing and using any system they choose. Early in the 2007-2008 school year and at all times relevant to this proceeding, the "binder" system was initiated at Haile.3 Under that system, the names of students who required testing and re-evaluations were placed in a binder (notebook) in the ESE office. Respondent and Karen Ciemniecki, the ESE evaluator assigned to Haile, updated the information in the binder. The various service providers could utilize the information in the binder to determine which students they needed to test and/or re-evaluate. Service providers were free to use either the "file drawer" or "binder" system to determine when they were to review a file and re-evaluate a student. In addition to utilizing those systems, the service providers could also obtain an error report which would provide information concerning re-evaluations which were due the following month. Both the "file drawer" and the "binder" systems provided the service providers the means to determine when a review and re-evaluation was due, without the direct assistance of Respondent. During the 2007-2008 school year, several service providers, including Ciemniecki and Caldwell, used the "file drawer" and/or "binder" systems to determine when student file reviews, testing and re-evaluations were to be done. In addition to using the established systems, both Ciemniecki and Caldwell obtained error reports from either Respondent or Haile's registrar. Cournoyer, like the other service providers, was aware of the "file drawer" and "binder" systems and knew how to use them. Nonetheless, Cournoyer believed that the systems were inadequate and did not ensure that she would consistently know when the re-evaluations for which she was responsible were due. Although the systems in place were not perfect, if utilized, they provided a reasonable means to determine when reviews and re-evaluations were due. Moreover, the error reports, if obtained and used, provided an additional source by which service providers could determine about a month in advance when re-evaluations were due. There were times when there were files in the designated file drawer that Cournoyer needed to review. In those instances, Respondent removed those files from the drawer and handed them to Cournoyer, indicating that they needed to be reviewed. Events Leading to Investigation In January 2008, Cournoyer believed that it appeared that she was not completing re-evaluations in a timely manner. Cournoyer also believed that the reason for any delays in completing the re-evaluations was that she did not get all the requisite forms for those re-evaluations until they were overdue. On or about January 31, 2008, Cournoyer was conducting a file review for Student E.A. While reviewing the file, she noticed that an IEP meeting was conducted for this student on January 8, 2008. Upon reviewing the file, Cournoyer had two concerns. First, she had not been invited to that IEP meeting. Second, the documentation in the file indicated that the meeting occurred three weeks before Cournoyer was notified of the need to conduct a file review for this particular student. While reviewing the file of E.A., Cournoyer noticed that the student was receiving services from Caldwell, the speech-language pathologist. She then gave the file to Caldwell who, upon review of the file, noticed that the speech goals were already written on the student's active IEP. Caldwell was concerned that she had not written those goals, as it had been her intent to dismiss the student from speech-language services, and that she had not been invited to the IEP meeting. Caldwell discussed her concerns about the speech goals for E.A. with Respondent, who instructed her to set up a meeting to revise the IEP. Cournoyer shared her concerns about "overdue" re-evaluations in an email to Respondent, but disagreed that there was a system in place that addressed her concerns. Dissatisfied with Respondent's response to her email, Cournoyer then sent an email to members of Haile's Child Study Team, including Lloyd, the ESE specialist. After receiving a response from Lloyd, Cournoyer sent an email about her concerns to the Haile administrators, including Hernandez, and ESE staff on or about February 1, 2008. After receiving Cournoyer's email, Hernandez requested that she provide additional information about her allegations and concerns. In response to that request, Cournoyer provided Hernandez with a list of students and dates of re-evaluations that were overdue. On Sunday, February 3, 2008, Hernandez and Cournoyer met at Haile and reviewed the ESE files. During that review, they found some files that were missing signature pages and that one IEP appeared to have an altered date on a consent form. After conducting a preliminary investigation, Hernandez reported his findings to Principal Kerley who, in turn, contacted the School District's Office of Professional Standards ("OPS"). OPS then initiated an investigation of Respondent and the maintenance and formulation of the ESE files at Haile. Respondent was placed on administrative leave on February 5, 2008, before the February 2008 FTE cut-off date. During that leave, Respondent was prohibited from communicating with School District employees or entering the premises of Haile. Prior to being placed on administrative leave, Respondent was not informed of the allegations against her. The matter was assigned to Debra Horne, a specialist with OPS. After reviewing an email about the case from Hernandez, Horne decided to allow the ESE department to review the ESE files at Haile.4 On February 6, 2008, the ESE team, consisting of all the secondary ESE specialists and the ESE coordinator, Joe Roberts, conducted a preliminary review of the ESE files at Haile for compliance issues. That same day, Roberts memorialized the review team's preliminary findings in an email to the ESE director, Ron Russell. According to the email, the ESE team conducted a two-hour review of the ESE files and found about ten files with problems (i.e., missing signature pages, what appeared to be an altered consent form, and IEPs which appeared to be copied from previous year's IEPs). The email memorializing the findings noted that the ESE office was not organized and that "many folders and confidential information were spread out in varying locations of the office, not in a secured fashion." The email also noted that the team looked for "numerous folders [files] and could not locate them in the filing system."5 On February 29, 2009, Horne met with Roberts and Lloyd to review the ESE files and the ESE team's preliminary findings. Based on the review of the files, the OPS determined that 15 ESE files were non-compliant for FTE (funding) purposes and that another five ESE files had compliance issues that did not affect funding. On March 13, 2008, Horne interviewed Respondent about the findings of the ESE review team. The purpose of the interview, which lasted most of the day, was to allow Dozier the opportunity to offer an explanation of the alleged compliance issues concerning specific ESE files.6 Prior to the March 13, 2008, interview, school officials did not notify Respondent of the allegations or allow her to respond to those changes. After completing the investigation and interviewing Respondent, Horne published her findings in an investigative report. The findings in the OPS investigative report and which are the bases of the charges against Respondent in this case involve the non-compliant ESE files referenced above. Specifically, the investigative report found and determined that: (1) 15 ESE files were non-compliant for FTE or funding purposes; and (2) five ESE files had compliance issues that did not affect funding. As a result of the 15 non-compliant ESE files, the affected students were returned to basic funding, causing a decrease in the overall funds available to the School District. Nevertheless, those identified students were provided with services in accordance with their IEPs. Non-Compliant ESE Files Resulting in Loss of Funds Student A.C. The investigative report found that there was no signature page in the ESE file of A.C. for the April 10, 2007, IEP. Without a properly-executed signature page, the IEP is invalid. Respondent testified credibly that she did not know if she conducted the IEP meeting when the April 10, 2007, IEP was developed, but believed that A.C. may have had more than one file. This belief was based on the fact that A.C.'s primary disability was "language impairment," and A.C. received speech services. Typically, such students had two ESE files, one of which was kept by the speech-language pathologist. The April 10, 2007, IEP meeting was conducted during the previous school year and before Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Respondent further testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page before the FTE window closed. Student J.B. The investigative report found that the ESE file of J.B. did not contain a signature page for the November 6, 2006, IEP. Without a properly executed signature page, the IEP is invalid. The November 6, 2006, IEP meeting was conducted during the previous school year and before Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Moreover, there is no evidence that Respondent conducted or was present at this IEP meeting. Respondent testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page for the November 6, 2006, IEP before the FTE window closed. The investigative report found that a second IEP for J.B. indicated that it was drafted on January 25, 2008, but the registrar was informed it was drafted on October 23, 2007. However, there is nothing in the record to establish that the registrar made such a statement. Student Z.L. The investigative report found that the ESE file of Z.L. did not contain a signature page for the March 19, 2007, IEP. The IEP for Z.L. dated March 19, 2007, was drafted while Z.L. was attending Freedom Elementary School ("Freedom"), and, thus, was drafted by employees of Freedom. This IEP was valid through March 18, 2008. Freedom is a school in the School District, and the IEP developed at that school was apparently put in the A3 system. The March 19, 2007, IEP was printed on October 19, 2007, and was a copy of the IEP from Freedom dated March 19, 2007. Because the IEP printed in October 2007 was a copy of a valid IEP, no signature page was required. No determination was made as to whether the original March 19, 2007, IEP, with the fully executed signature page, was ever sent by Freedom to Haile. The signature page could not be printed from the A3 system. Therefore, unless the original or a photocopy of the fully executed signature page of the March 19, 2007, IEP had been sent to Haile, the school would not have the signature page. Student A.L. The investigative report found that there was no temporary IEP written for A.L. after the student transferred to the School District in September 4, 2007, from an out-of-state school. In September 2007, when A.L. enrolled at Haile, the student had a valid IEP from the out-of-state school district. The out-of-state IEP was for the period March 7, 2007, through March 6, 2008, if the student had remained in that state. Once the student was enrolled, the School District had six months from the student's enrollment date to develop a temporary IEP. Accordingly, a temporary IEP should have been developed on or before March 4, 2008. A temporary IEP was not developed for A.L. prior to or by March 4, 2008, or as of March 13, 2008, when Respondent was interviewed by Ms. Horne. Although the temporary IEP had not been developed prior to Respondent's being placed on leave, steps were being taken to develop the IEP prior to Respondent's being placed on leave. For example, Ciemniecki administered achievement tests to A.L. in late September 2007. Also, Cournoyer was reviewing the student's file and also testing the student. Respondent was placed on leave February 5, 2008, about one month before the temporary IEP was required to be developed. Thus, no conclusion can be reached as to whether Respondent would have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the temporary IEP was developed by March 4, 2008. On the other hand, it is equally apparent that after being placed on leave, Respondent was prevented from and could not take any steps to ensure that a temporary IEP was developed for A.L. Therefore, it can not be concluded that Respondent is responsible for the failure to timely develop a temporary IEP. The credible testimony of Respondent was that she intended to take steps to ensure that an IEP was drafted within six months of A.L.'s enrolling in the School District. An issue was raised regarding what appeared to be inconsistent dates on the Informed Notice and Consent for Evaluation/Re-evaluation ("Informed Notice and Consent") form. That form included spaces in which the following was to be provided: (1) the referral date; (2) the parent's signature, either giving or denying consent for the evaluation; and (3) the date of the signature. The referral date printed or typed on the form is February 26, 2006. The parent's signature, giving consent for the evaluation, was dated September 24, 2007. The concern expressed was that the date of the referral, February 26, 2006, was more than a year and a half prior to A.L. enrolling in the School District. This discrepancy was explained by the credible testimony of Respondent. According to that testimony, the above-referenced consent form was from the Dynamo computer system and had been used to make copies of blank forms to be used. However, the "referral date," February 26, 2006, had been printed or typed on the original form, and that date had been inadvertently left on the form prior to copies of the form being made. Student S.H. The investigative report concluded that S.H.'s IEP dated April 26, 2007, was invalid because it was created at Haile four or five months prior to the student's enrolling in the School District on September 5, 2007.7 The ESE file of S.H. contained a valid IEP dated April 26, 2007, that was drafted while the student was living out-of-state and enrolled in an out-of-state school. That IEP would have been valid through April 25, 2008, had the student remained in the out-of-state school district. In addition to the out-of-state IEP, the ESE file of S.H. also contained another IEP dated April 26, 2007, which indicated that, as of that date, the student was attending Haile. There was also a fully executed signature page for this April 26, 2007, IEP, which had been signed by the parent, Respondent, and six other individuals. In addition to the parent and Respondent, six others signed the signature page of that IEP. Contrary to the allegations, the IEP for S.H. created at Haile was not created on April 26, 2007, four months before the student enrolled in the School District. Respondent testified credibly that she input the data from the out-of-state IEP into the A3 system. However, while inputting information in A3 for the student's new IEP, she neglected to change the IEP plan date from April 26, 2007, to the new IEP plan date. The testimony of Respondent is supported by a careful review of contents of the IEP. For example, the IEP clearly indicates that the student is now enrolled at Haile as a "transfer [student] from out of state."8 The signature page of the Haile IEP also mistakenly shows that the IEP was developed on April 26, 2007. However, the upper right corner of that signature page indicates that the signature page form for S.H.'s Haile IEP was printed from the A3 system at 7:18 a.m., on October 29, 2007, almost two months after S.H. enrolled in the School District. As noted above, only blank signature page forms can be printed from A3. Therefore, the signatures had to be placed on the signature page some time after the form was printed. Respondent's failure to change the plan date of the student's out-of-state IEP to the plan date of the new IEP created at Haile, was due to human error. Student S.R. The investigative report found that S.R.'s ESE file did not contain an IEP, a notice of IEP meeting, or signature page. S.R.'s ESE file contained a valid IEP dated February 8, 2007, drafted while the student was at Gene Witt Elementary ("Witt"), a school in the School District. The IEP was drafted by employees at Witt and was valid through February 7, 2008. The file also contained an IEP with a plan date of February 7, 2008 (the same as the Witt IEP), indicating that the student was attending Haile at the time of the IEP. Respondent testified credibly that she typed the data contained in the Witt IEP, which was in the Dynamo System, into the A3 system so that the data would be available to other teachers. Respondent testified credibly that she had no intent to make it appear that S.R. was attending Haile in February 2007. Respondent further testified credibly that when an individual inputs data into the A3 system, the school that the individual is assigned to automatically "pop[s] up" in A3 as the student's school. The document included in the investigative report that is the basis for discipline against Respondent is a copy of S.R.'s IEP that was created at Witt dated February 8, 2007. That IEP was printed from A3 on October 19, 2007. Because the IEP is a copy of a valid IEP, no signature page was required. Likewise, no notice of the IEP meeting was required. No evidence was presented to establish that the notice and fully executed signature page of the subject IEP were ever received by Haile. Student E.M. The investigative report found that the ESE file of E.M. did not contain a signature page for the April 11, 2007, IEP, and, thus, the IEP was invalid. E.M.'s April 11, 2007, IEP notes that the student's primary exceptionality is "language impaired." During the March 2008 interview, Respondent informed the OPS investigator that she believed E.M., as a language-impaired student, had two ESE files, one of which was maintained by the speech-language pathologist.9 Respondent testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page or schedule another IEP meeting before the FTE window closed. The April 11, 2007, IEP was drafted during the previous school year and prior to Respondent becoming responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Student M.D. The investigative report found that the ESE file of M.D. did not contain a valid IEP. According to the report, Respondent gave a plan date of November 2, 2007, to the registrar, but failed to create an IEP on that date. On November 2, 2007, a parent conference was called and conducted by Ms. Moreland, a teacher at Haile. Respondent did not attend the parent conference, but about mid-meeting, Moreland went to Respondent's office. Moreland then told Respondent that the team originally intended to remove M.D. from mainstream classes, but during the parent conference decided against it. The November 2, 2007, date may have been incorrectly given to the registrar as the IEP plan date.10 However, the meeting conducted on that date was a parent conference, and unlike IEP plan dates, are not reported to the registrar. It is alleged that the report of the conference and IEP revision sheets were incomplete. However, as a result of the team's decision that M.D. services remain the same (he would remain in mainstream classes), there was no need for the partially completed revision form to be included in M.D.'s ESE file. Thus, Moreland should have discarded that form. M.D.'s ESE file included a valid IEP dated February 8, 2007. This IEP was valid through February 7, 2008. The short-term objectives from M.D.'s 2007 and 2008 IEPs were identical. The latter IEP was dated March 6, 2008, after Respondent was on administrative leave and Jantzen was interim department chair. Student E.R. The investigation found that E.R.'s sixth-grade IEP appeared to be copied "exactly" from the student's fifth-grade IEP. The concern was that the information copied from the fifth-grade IEP to the sixth-grade IEP did not accurately reflect an appropriate measurable annual goal in the area of math. The annual measurable goal on E.R.'s fifth-grade IEP and copied on the student's sixth-grade IEP was that the student "will satisfy fifth grade math requirements." However, during the investigation, it was established that the student was performing above the fifth-grade level in math at Haile. Thus, that previous math goal should have been changed.11 The fifth-grade IEP was developed on December 7, 2006, when E.R. was enrolled at Freedom Elementary School ("Freedom") and remained effective through December 6, 2007. E.R. was enrolled as a sixth-grader at Haile in the 2007-2008 school year. Therefore, the fifth-grade IEP was effective the first few months of E.R.'s sixth-grade year at Haile. Pursuant to the administration's instructions, after E.R. enrolled at Haile, Respondent input the information from the December 2006 IEP into A3.12 Although E.R. was in the sixth grade, the IEP was effective until December 6, 2007. The December 7, 2006, IEP, upon which the OPS refers, was printed on October 19, 2007, and is a copy of the IEP developed at Freedom, except that E.R.'s school and grade had been changed. The student's school was changed from "Freedom" to "Haile" and the current grade was changed from fifth to sixth.13 Respondent testified credibly that she did not know who changed the grade and school on E.R.'s December 2006 IEP. Moreover, no evidence was presented as to who made those changes. However, undoubtedly, on October 19, 2007, E.R. was enrolled at Haile and was in the sixth grade. Respondent testified credibly that in inputting E.R.'s December 7, 2006, IEP, developed at Freedom, into the A3 system, she did not intend to make it appear that E.R.'s December 7, 2006, IEP was developed at Haile. Student C.D. The investigative report found that Respondent gave the registrar an IEP plan date on January 30, 2008, but A3 indicated the meeting was held the following day. Having the IEP meeting on the following day would not necessarily be a violation.14 However, C.D.'s ESE file did not contain a notice of a January 30 or 31, 2008, IEP meeting, an IEP, or a signature page for either of those dates. If a meeting were held on either of those days, a notice of the meeting and a signature page should be in the file. C.D.'s ESE file contained a valid IEP dated February 5, 2007, that was valid through February 4, 2008. Respondent testified that she intended to draft another IEP and hold a meeting before the deadline, which would have brought the file into compliance with the FTE requirements. Notwithstanding Respondent's testimony, there was no indication that an IEP plan meeting had been scheduled on or before February 4, 2008, and that notices of such meeting had been sent to parents and other appropriate individuals. Unless an IEP plan meeting had been scheduled and properly noticed, regardless of Respondent's intent, an IEP could not have been developed on or before the February 5, 2007, IEP expired. Student J.D. The investigative report found that the goals from J.D.'s 2008 IEP are identical to the student's 2007 IEP, which was effective from January 26, 2007, through January 25, 2008, unless and until a new IEP was developed. A new IEP ("2008 IEP") was developed for J.D. on January 14, 2008, and was effective from that date until January 13, 2009. During her March 2008 interview with OPS, Respondent informed Horne that she was taught that the goals of a student who was not meeting with success could be carried over to the next year. Other district employees confirmed that it was common practice to carry over goals from one year to the next. J.D.'s 2007 IEP indicates that Jantzen was the contact person for the IEP and that Respondent was not invited to the IEP meeting. J.D.'s 2008 IEP indicates that Respondent was not invited to the IEP meeting. Jantzen signed the signature page of this IEP as the ESE teacher, and Nosal, Moreland, Edmonson, and J.D.'s parent also signed the page. Jantzen, the current ESE department chair at Haile, testified credibly that a student's goals could be carried over to the next year, if deemed appropriate. According to Jantzen, it would be proper to include a note on the IEP regarding the reason(s) why the goals were carried over. However, there is no indication that Jantzen did so in J.D.'s file. Student M.M. The investigative report found that M.M.'s IEP dated April 4, 2007, did not include an LEA signature. Respondent informed OPS that it was probably an oversight that the LEA failed to sign the signature page. Respondent testified credibly that she would not have held a meeting if an LEA was not present, and it was likely that she anticipated an LEA coming or that the LEA was in attendance, but failed to sign the sheet. Typically, in the School District, the ESE department chair is the designated LEA at his/her respective school. However, at Haile, the school's guidance counselor, not the ESE department chair, is the designated LEA. If and when the guidance counselor at Haile is unavailable to serve as LEA, other individuals at the school, including Respondent, as the ESE department chair, were authorized to act as LEA. The failure to obtain the signature of an LEA at the April 4, 2007, IEP meeting was an oversight. Respondent was at that meeting and signed the signature page as the ESE teacher/evaluator. In the absence of the guidance counselor or another person designated as LEA, Respondent could have signed as LEA in addition to signing as ESE teacher/evaluator. Respondent was not aware that the LEA had not signed the form until she (Respondent) was interviewed by OPS. If Respondent had become aware of the problem prior to being placed on administrative leave, she could have taken one of two steps to correct the situation before the FTE window closed. To correct the omission of the LEA signature, Respondent could have scheduled another IEP meeting if no LEA was present. According to Hernandez, corrective action could have been taken by having the LEA sign off after the meeting, if that person had attended the meeting, but forgot to sign.15 Due to her oversight, Respondent took no corrective action to obtain the signature of an LEA on M.M.'s IEP dated April 4, 2007. As a result of this oversight, the IEP was not compliant for the October 2007 or the February 2008 cut-off date. Student B.R.H. The investigative report found that B.R.H.'s IEP dated March 6, 2007, did not include an LEA signature. The effective period of that IEP was March 6, 2007, through March 5, 2008. Respondent signed the signature page of the March 6, 2007, IEP as the ESE teacher/evaluator. In addition to signing the signature page as the ESE teacher/evaluator, Respondent, as ESE department chair, also could have signed as LEA if the primary LEA representative was not at the meeting. The corrective action discussed in paragraph 148 could also have been taken if the LEA representative attended the meeting, but left without signing the signature page. Respondent was not aware of the omission of the LEA signature until it was called to her attention during the March 13, 2008, OPS interview. Had Respondent been aware of that omission prior to that time, she could have taken appropriate corrective action. Because Respondent was unaware of the situation prior to that time, no corrective action was taken prior to the October 2007 FTE cut-off date. Student J.G. The investigative report determined that the ESE file of J.G. could not be found. Despite that determination, it was not established when this student enrolled at Haile and/or if that student's ESE file was ever delivered to Haile. Moreover, at this proceeding no testimony or evidence was presented as to whether the ESE file was found after Respondent was placed on administrative leave. As ESE department chair, Respondent was responsible for maintaining the ESE files. However, in this instance, it is unknown when, and if, J.G. enrolled in Haile and/or if the student's file was ever delivered to the school. Assuming, though not finding it, that J.G's ESE file was at Haile, no evidence was presented that Respondent intentionally or otherwise concealed the file.16 The credible testimony of Respondent was that she did not conceal J.G.'s ESE file. Student B.M. The investigative report found that B.M.'s ESE file could not be found. It was not established that B.M. was a student at Haile, whether the student enrolled at Haile, or if B.M.'s ESE file was ever delivered to Haile. Also, no evidence was presented at the hearing as to whether the file was found since Respondent was placed on administrative leave. During the March 13, 2008, OPS interview, Respondent informed Horne that she did not know B.M. Also, Respondent testified credibly that she did not know B.M. and never saw B.M.'s ESE file. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent intentionally concealed the ESE file of B.M. or that the file was ever at Haile. Alleged Deficiencies Not Resulting in Loss of Funds Student E.A. The investigative report found that Respondent falsified an Informed Notice and Consent form for E.A. This finding was based on a comparison of two Informed Notice and Consent forms for E.A. Informed Notice and Consent forms: (1) advise parents that their child has been recommended for an evaluation, re-evaluation and/or file review; (2) indicate the types of assessments that may be used; (3) provide parents the option to either give or deny consent for the evaluation; and (4) provide a signature and date line for parents to complete. Informed Notice and Consent forms also provide spaces for information, such as the student's name, address, school, grade, and teacher's name ("identifying information"). On both of the Informed Notice and Consent forms for E.A., the identifying information had been written in the appropriate spaces, and the parent had signed and indicated that consent was given for the proposed evaluation. The two Informed Notice and Consent forms were different in several ways as set forth below. On the first Informed Notice and Consent form, someone had written in the student's grade as "6." The middle portion of the form, which describes the student's proposal for evaluation, was not completed. Finally, the parent's signature was on the form, but the "date" line next to his/her signature was not completed. On the second Informed Notice and Consent form: in the space for the student's grade, the number "8" was written over what appeared to be a "6," indicating that the student was in eighth grade, not sixth grade; (2) the middle portion relating to the proposal for evaluation had been completed; and (3) the date, April 23, 2007, previously not on the form, was written next to the parent's signature. The finding in the investigative report assumes that the first Informed Notice and Consent form (which was incomplete) was prepared and signed by the parent when E.A. was in the sixth grade, and the form was copied and modified when the student was in eighth grade. Those alleged modifications included changing the student's grade and inserting a date next to the parent's signature. Respondent testified that she may have changed the grade from "6" to "8" on the second form and did not know if she had added the date next to the parent's signature. While Respondent is not sure how the foregoing occurred or who did it, she explained that, with respect to the grade, it was possible that she wrote the "8" over the "6," because the grade had been initially entered incorrectly.17 According to the OPS report, during the March interview, Respondent advised the investigator that the file she (Respondent) was given to review was E.A.'s speech file and not the student's ESE file. Respondent told Horne during that interview that she was "almost certain that there was another consent form." At hearing, Respondent testified credibly that she believed that there was another consent form elsewhere.18 Based on the record, no determination can be made as to when the date next to the parent's signature was written on the Informed Notice and Consent form or who wrote that date.19 Based on the record, no determination can be made as to who or when E.A.'s grade level was changed from "6" to "8" or whether that change was made to correct an error.20 Student L.H. The investigative report found that the Informed Notice and Consent form for L.H. was falsified by Respondent. On the student's Informed Notice of Consent form, the date next to the parent's signature was January 25, 2008. The date of the parents' signature on that form appeared to have been changed to January 25, 2007. The investigative report found that the "8" in the year 2008 appeared to have been written over what seemed to have been a "7" in the year 2007. No evidence was presented to establish who wrote an "8" on the form, indicating that the form was signed by the parents on January 25, 2008. No evidence was presented as to when the parents actually signed the Informed Notice and Consent form. The credible testimony of Respondent was that she did not change the date on the consent form and did not know who had done so. Student B.H. It is alleged that the ESE file of B.H. did not contain a notice of an IEP meeting and should have since the student's current IEP was to expire on February 6, 2008. No evidence was presented to establish that Respondent directed or instructed the ESE assistant or registrar to send out notices of an IEP meeting for B.H. or that the notices were sent out. Respondent testified that she intended to make the file compliant by sending a notice to the parents before the deadline. Despite Respondent's intentions, unless a notice had been sent out prior to February 5, 2008, and unless she took extraordinary measures, the IEP plan meeting could not be convened and no IEP was developed for B.H. on or before February 6, 2008, when the student's IEP expired.21 Student A.T. The investigative report determined that the IEP for A.T. dated October 4, 2007, did not include a signature page. According to the investigative report, during the March 2008, interview with Respondent, the investigator "reviewed the concern for A.T." (no signature page for the October 2007 IEP). The investigator then advised Respondent that the School District could have lost funding, but the problem was caught in time, and an IEP meeting was held to obtain the signatures. Finally, the investigator told Respondent, "Please explain." Respondent answered by telling the investigator that she could not remember. The investigative report makes no mention of Horne providing any file of A.T.'s to Respondent during the above- described discussion. After the allegation related to the missing signature page was made and Respondent was placed on leave, a signature page for A.T.'s October 4, 2007, IEP, which included Respondent's signature, was found.22 Apparently, before the signature page for the October 4, 2007, IEP referenced in paragraph 189 was located and after Respondent was placed on leave, school officials completed two signature pages for that IEP. These signature pages were backdated to correct the "missing signature page" issue. Ultimate Findings The School Board lost funding due to 15 ESE files being non-compliant with applicable statutes and regulations. However, those non-compliant issues were the result of human errors, mistakes, omissions and oversights of those responsible for the files, including, but not limited to, Respondent. The record is void of any evidence that the ESE files' non-compliance issues were the result of Respondent’s committing intentional acts to falsify the ESE records and/or to misrepresent the facts relative to the ESE students. Finally, there is no evidence that the errors, mistakes, and omissions attributed to Respondent resulted from her intentionally or deliberately neglecting her duties and/or refusing to adhere to the directives of supervisors and/or applicable laws, regulations, and School Board policies.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order: Finding Respondent, Annette D. Dozier, not guilty of the charges alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Reinstating Respondent with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 23rd day of December, 2009.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Eric Delucia (Respondent or Mr. Delucia) violated sections 1012.795(1)(c), (g), or (j), Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state agent responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Delucia held Florida Educator's Certificate 915677, covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages, Business Education, and Marketing, which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all times relevant to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Delucia was employed as a language arts teacher in the Broward County School District. Mr. Delucia stored the documents listed in Petitioner's Exhibit P-2 on his computer, as stipulated by the parties. Mr. Delucia was employed at Cooper City High School during the 2011/2012 school year. Ms. Doll was the principal. Principal Doll testified that Mr. Delucia was in the initial stages of a cycle of assistance during that year. He received a memo outlining expectations and concerns, and was observed by several people. Principal Doll indicated she believed that he had deficiencies in instructional planning, classroom management, lesson plan presentation, and lesson plan delivery. However, Principal Doll confirmed that Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score was a 2.954 for the period January 2012 through May 2012 at Cooper City High School, which was within the "effective" range. Principal Doll stated that there were concerns about his performance based on observations that were done earlier that warranted an outside observer, but those observations were not used for the evaluation. He was never placed on a Professional Development Plan while at Cooper City High School. Respondent requested a hardship transfer and was moved to Ramblewood for the following school year. On January 1, 2013, Mr. Delucia was admitted to the hospital following a series of strokes. Respondent received "effective" scores in both the Student Growth and Instructional Practice components, as well as his overall Final Evaluation for the 2012/2013 school year at Ramblewood. Respondent was subsequently on medical leave of absence during the 2013/2014 school year. On July 1, 2014, Ms. Smith became the principal at Ramblewood. On August 11, 2014, Mr. Delucia returned to Ramblewood from medical leave. On August 14, 2014, Principal Smith was inspecting all of the classrooms at Ramblewood to ensure that they were prepared for the first day of school. She felt that Mr. Delucia's classroom was not ready for students, because it needed a little bit of "warmth." On August 28, 2014, Principal Smith conducted a formal evaluation in Mr. Delucia's classroom. She concluded that the lesson had no clear focus and that it was not on the appropriate grade level for the students he was teaching. In early September, there was a complaint that Mr. Delucia was putting up students' grades on a board in his room. However, Mr. Delucia testified that he posted the grades only by student number, not by name. There was no competent evidence to the contrary. On October 30, 2014, in introducing the genre of mythology to his students, Mr. Delucia made the comment that "[t]he gods viewed humans as pets or sexual toys." While not an appropriate comment for middle school students, there was no suggestion that Mr. Delucia elaborated or pursued this statement further, and this incident did not constitute ineffective teaching. There was no evidence that it caused students embarrassment or harmed students' mental health. There was testimony that on October 30, 2014, Mr. Delucia also spent class time explaining that the fact that a Star Wars' character had no father would have been taboo in 1976 and discussing that the episodes of that movie series were released out of the chronological order of the story. While the discussion may have gotten a bit off track, it was not clearly shown that discussion of fiction was unrelated to the concept of mythology, might not have enhanced students' understanding of the topic, or was ineffective teaching. While it was clearly shown that Mr. Delucia made the statement, "These kids have the memories of gnats," it was clear that this was said when no students were present and in defense of his actions in discussing fantasy and fables. On December 2, 2014, Respondent said to a student in an angry and loud voice, "Don't you even piss me off." This warning, given in response to the student's statement that the student did not understand something, was inappropriate in language and tone, harmful to learning, and harmful to the student's mental health. Mr. Delucia's statement that he was not visibly angry or speaking in a loud voice on this occasion is not credited. On December 8, 2014, Mr. Delucia met with Ms. Poindexter, his new peer reviewer. At one point in their conversation, he talked about his former principal, Ms. Doll, referring to her battle with cancer. He stated, "She will kick the bucket soon because she has cancer and no one will care when she is gone." He stated, "She's the devil." Mr. Delucia also referred to his current principal, Ms. Smith, as "the devil." He stated, "My motivation is to destroy her with everything I have" and that he "wished the ground would open up and swallow her." Mr. Delucia also referred to the administrative staff as "assholes" and used multiple profanities, stating, "They do not know who they are messing with, but they will find out soon." Student A.F. testified that he heard Mr. Delucia tell Student C.D. that he should jump off of a bridge with a bungee cord wrapped around his neck; tell Student C.D. that if he was a speed bump, he (Mr. Delucia) would run over him; and tell Student C.D. to kill himself a couple of times. However, Student A.F. provided no detail or context for these alleged statements, some of which seemed to involve an incident involving an entirely different student who he testified was not even in his class. He was not a credible witness. On January 8, 2015, Ms. Sheffield observed Mr. Delucia using a four-page packet to teach punctuation to his seventh- grade language arts class. Ms. Sheffield told Mr. Delucia that this was not really part of the seventh-grade curriculum. Mr. Delucia made a statement to the effect of "these students don't know anything, not even the basics, so we have to start somewhere." There was no allegation that this comment was made in front of the students. From the period August 21, 2014, through December 3, 2014, Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score was 1.916, and he was placed on a 90-day Professional Development Plan. Numerous observations by Dr. Jones and Principal Smith followed through the remainder of the school year. Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score improved slightly, but was still less than effective. On January 12, 2015, Ms. Sheffield noticed that one of the vocabulary words written on Mr. Delucia's board for his students was "retard." Ms. Sheffield said she assumed that Mr. Delucia meant the slang term sometimes used as a noun to refer to persons with mental disabilities. Such use of the term, as a shortened form of the word "retarded," would be offensive and disparaging. Ms. Sheffield said that they talked about the fact that it is not appropriate to use the word "retard" as a noun as a reference to the disabled. She testified that he did not respond. At hearing, Mr. Delucia admitted using "retard" as a vocabulary word, but testified that he included the word as a verb, meaning to slow down or delay. Ms. Sheffield testified she did not hear him speak the term, or say anything about it, and there was no other testimony regarding this event. Mr. Delucia admitted that he often said, "If your writing looks like garbage and smells like garbage, then it is garbage." Ms. Sheffield stated that she told Mr. Delucia he might try to find another way to encourage students to write neatly in their journals that was a more positive comment or allowed students to take pride in their writing. On January 26, 2015, Ms. Sheffield testified that when a student returned late from lunch, Mr. Delucia and the student began arguing. Ms. Sheffield credibly testified that Mr. Delucia screamed at the student, "This isn't going to end up good for you. Just shut up." On February 4, 2015, Student A.W. had come in late to Mr. Delucia's class and was acting out in the back of the classroom. When asked why, her response was that other people also did it. Mr. Delucia responded, "If other people jump off of a bridge, would you jump off a bridge, too?" Student A.W., after a moment of silence, retorted, "Yeah, if you give me a bungee cord." Mr. Delucia replied, "If there is a bungee cord, you should wrap it around your neck before you jump." The class started laughing. Student A.W. replied, "You just told me to kill myself, I am telling the office." Mr. Delucia then asked Student A.W. to leave the classroom. While Student A.W. had a disrespectful attitude, Respondent's caustic comments to her were intentionally made in a spirit of mocking humor to subject Student A.W. to embarrassment in front of the class. A class grade graph prepared during the third quarter of the 2014/2015 school year documented that 68 percent of his students were failing at that time. No similar graph for any other quarter of that year, or for other years, was submitted in evidence. On April 7, 2015, the students in Mr. Delucia's class were supposed to be studying Latin and Greek roots of words, but one student did not have a packet and asked Mr. Delucia for one. After Mr. Delucia handed him the packet, the student said, "There is a footprint on this." Mr. Delucia responded, "Get working on studying or else I will call your father." The student replied, "Please don't." Mr. Delucia then said, "Why, because you don't want to get a footprint on your face?" Ms. Sheffield testified that during her observations, she never saw Mr. Delucia standing up interacting with his students. She said she never saw him deliver a lesson to students. For the 2014/2015 school year, Mr. Delucia's score for the instructional practice component on his evaluation was 2.002, a "needs improvement" rating, while his score for both the deliberate practice/growth plans and student data components was recorded as exactly 3.0. The final evaluation for Mr. Delucia in 2014/2015, computed by combining these unequally weighted scores, was 2.511, an "effective" rating.1/ Mr. Delucia was transferred to Piper High School for the 2015/2016 school year. The administration there did not place Mr. Delucia on a Professional Development Plan. Mr. Delucia has not been subjected to disciplinary action during his time at Piper High School, and he has exhibited positive rapport with his students and colleagues. Mr. Delucia's weighted overall evaluation score for the 2015/2016 school year at Piper High School was 2.831, "effective." Mr. Delucia's demeanor at hearing was defiant. His testimony was sometimes evasive and defensive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Eric Delucia in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), (3)(e), and (5)(e); imposing a fine of $3,000.00; placing him on probation under conditions specified by the Commission for a period of two years; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 20th day of November, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent inappropriately touched a female student in violation of Sections 231.28(1)(c), (f), or (i), Florida Statutes, or Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) or (e), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Florida educator's certificate, number 700508. His certificate is valid through June 30, 2003, and covers the areas of varying exceptionalities, elementary education, English, specific learning disabilities, visually impaired, and primary education. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent was employed as an exceptional student education (ESE) teacher by the Sumter County School District. Respondent was assigned to teach at the South Sumter Middle School. Respondent had taught at South Sumter Middle School since the 1994-95 school year. During the first year at the school, Respondent was the ESE math, science, and social studies teacher. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent was the ESE team leader. During the 1995-96 school year, R. J. was an eighth- grade student at South Sumter Middle School. She was classified as emotionally handicapped (EH) and was assigned to an EH classroom. R. J. was not as disruptive as her EH classmates, so her teacher allowed her, after finishing her work, to leave the classroom and visit Respondent's classroom, in which the students were better behaved. R. J.'s teacher allowed R. J. to attend Respondent's class 1-2 hours weekly. While there, R. J. mostly tutored the other students. One day, in Mid-May 1996, while visiting Respondent's classroom, R. J. was watching a film with the rest of the class. She was seated in the back of the room with Respondent, who was doing some administrative work during the screening of the film. The room was half-lighted. At one point during the film, some servants were dressing a wealthy child. When they attached garters, one boy in the class shouted, "She's wearing a girdle." Respondent responded by saying that the garment was not a girdle, but a device to hold up socks. Sitting next to Respondent, R. J. asked him to explain further what a garter is. Respondent poked her knee to show her where the garter attached. Respondent did not move his chair closer to R. J.'s chair, nor did he run his hand up or down R. J.'s leg. Later the same day, the ESE department sponsored the weekly Coke Day. Respondent had started Coke Day because ESE students never went on field trips. Taking place late in the day on Fridays, Coke Day presented the opportunity for students who had behaved well during the preceding week to buy sodas donated by teachers, with the proceeds going to field trips. In addition to paying for ESE field trips and providing an incentive for good behavior, Coke Day also gave the ESE students a chance to socialize and receive praise for good work and good behavior. Toward the end of the time allocated to Coke Day, Respondent saw that someone needed to pick up discarded soda cans and other debris from the field where Coke Day took place. As Respondent was doing so, while the field was filled with students, R. J. approached Respondent closely and complained that another student had been flirting with her. Respondent told the other student to stop flirting with R. J. During this incident, Respondent was holding in one hand a plastic litter bag, into which he was placing empty soda cans. As he warned the other student to stop flirting with R. J., Respondent pushed her lightly on her hip with his hand holding the bag, as though to move her out of the way as he passed her. The bag may have also brushed against Respondent in the vicinity of her buttock thigh. Petitioner subpoenaed R. J. to testify in this case, but she refused to honor the subpoena. Petitioner therefore presented R. J.'s testimony in the form of a videotaped deposition taken on October 11, 1996, in the criminal case, which did not result in a conviction. In her deposition, R. J. testified that Respondent rubbed the tips of his fingers up one time and down one time along the front of her thigh when demonstrating the location of a garter. She also testified that Respondent lightly squeezed her buttock for two or three seconds on the field during Coke Day. Fifteen years of age at the time of the deposition, R. J. testified haltingly. Although not appearing overly nervous about testifying, R. J. required repeated prompting when asked to describe in detail the touches and, even then, her testimony was vague. At times, R. J.'s attempts to describe in detail what she claimed Respondent had done had an invented quality, as R. J.'s replication of Respondent's movements seemed to lack any real conviction or certainty. R. J. claims that she has been the victim of sexual abuse several times, naming as perpetrators her step-father and uncle, and she says that hugs from her father make her uncomfortable. R. J. also admitted that a friend had had sexual intercourse with her, while she was asleep after an evening of drinking. R. J. describes a troubled family life, testifying that her mother and step-father accuse her of being promiscuous. An eyewitness to the Coke Day incident, D. P., gave conflicting statements at the time of the investigation. At some point after the day of the incidents, D. P. became R. J.'s boyfriend. At the hearing, D. P. testified contradictorily about whether he saw any inappropriate touching. There is little doubt that he saw nothing. An agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement testified at the hearing. The agent is a coordinator of crimes against children. Shortly after the incidents, the agent visited the school. After speaking to a school administrator and possibly reading R. J.'s statement, but before talking to her, the agent interviewed Respondent. Not taping the interview, the agent misinformed Respondent that he had talked to R. J., and other students had joined in her claims of inappropriate contact. When Respondent denied any inappropriate contact, the agent, during this initial interview, accused Respondent of lying. The agent testified that Respondent admitted that he had pulled R. J.'s chair closer prior to demonstrating the location of a garter. This is something that he has later denied. However, the matter is inconsequential, even for the limited purpose of trying to assess Respondent's credibility. As for the Coke Day incident, the agent testified that Respondent said he might have touched, but did not grab, R. J.'s buttock. Absent additional detail, this admission does not establish an inappropriate touching or a lack of credibility The most significant part of the agent's testimony is his claim that Respondent admitted that he needed sexual counseling and asked what kind of deal he could get if he "told the truth." Respondent denied making these statements. Several possibilities exist concerning the agent's testimony describing these two statements. The agent may have misunderstood Respondent or may be misreporting what Respondent said. Respondent may have made these quoted statements. However, several facts are quite clear. First, nothing else in the record provides significant support for these statements, at least to the extent that they would also constitute implicit admissions of inappropriate touching. Second, the agent described Respondent as cooperative. Given the contrasting personalities of the agent, who is intense and focused, and Respondent, who is quiet-spoken to the point of passivity, it is quite possible that Respondent made statements substantially the same as reported by the agent in response to a coercive atmosphere perhaps inadvertently created by the agent. Although it is not possible to resolve the dispute in the testimony concerning the two statements that the agent claimed that Respondent made, it is clear that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence that Respondent touched R. J. in an inappropriate manner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED THAT the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 15th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 J. Wiley Horton Booth & Horton, P.A. Post Office Drawer 840 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Herdman Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board (Petitioner or School Board) has just cause to discipline Wendy Portillo's employment based on the conduct alleged in the “Statement of Charges and Petition for One Year Suspension Without Pay and Return to Annual Contract” and the appropriate penalties, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in St. Lucie County, Florida. Petitioner has entered into individual contracts and collective bargaining agreements with the teachers it employs and has adopted rules and policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract and assigned to teach kindergarten at Morningside. On May 21, 2008, Respondent was teaching kindergarten in her classroom at Morningside. The door to Respondent’s classroom is across a hall from the door of the school office. Typically, kindergarten students are five or six years old. Student 1, a male, was one of 17 students in Respondent’s class on May 21, 2008. Student 1 was assigned to Respondent’s class in January 2008. Shortly after his placement in her class, Respondent asked Mr. Graff to help her with Student 1 because of Student 1’s behavior. Mr. Graff works in Morningside’s fourth grade alpha class. The alpha program is designed to identify and assist at-risk third grade students who are having difficulties at home or at school. Mr. Graff has the assistance of a full- time counselor and a full-time paraprofessional. Mr. Graff agreed to help with Student 1 as needed. Student 1 came to Mr. Graff’s classroom on approximately 12 occasions between January and May 21, 2008. In mid-February 2008, Respondent requested a Child Study Team for Student 1, which is the first step in determining whether a student meets the eligibility requirements for services from Petitioner’s Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. This development is part of an on-going process.3 The Child Study Team, of which Respondent was a member, developed strategies designed to redirect Student 1’s behavior. One of the strategies was a reward system utilizing tokens. On May 21, 2008, Respondent’s kindergarten class began at 8:20 a.m. At 9:00 a.m. Respondent’s kindergarten class, including Student 1, went to a performance by the fifth grade that ended at approximately 9:45 a.m. The students returned to Respondent’s classroom at approximately 10:00 a.m. At approximately 10:30 a.m., while she was teaching her class, Respondent observed that Student 1 was off-task and was being disruptive to the other students by flipping crayons at his classmates and crawling under a table. Student 1 pushed up on the table, where other students were trying to work. Respondent attempted to redirect Student 1, but she could not do so. Respondent summoned Officer Black (the school resource officer) to come to her room. Officer Black assisted in getting Student 1 out from under a table and took him to the office. After Officer Black had escorted Student 1 to the school office, Ms. Gascoigne (the assistant principal) counseled Student 1 as to appropriate versus inappropriate behavior. Student 1 told Ms. Gascoigne that he realized what he had done was wrong and that he wanted to say to Respondent that he was sorry. After keeping Student 1 in the office for approximately 15 minutes, Ms. Gascoigne sent Student 1 back to Respondent’s classroom. There was a dispute in the record as to whether Respondent sent a written referral to the office when Officer Black escorted Student 1 to the office at approximately 10:30 a.m. The office did receive a written referral from Respondent on May 21, 2008, pertaining to Student 1’s misbehavior. The inference was that pursuant to School Board Policy 5.33, which pertains to removal of students from a classroom as opposed to a disciplinary referral of a student for misbehaving in class, the office personnel should have detained Student 1 for a longer period of time than 15 minutes if Respondent had sent a written referral with him. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that School Board Policy 5.33 is inapplicable due to Student 1’s level of disruption. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence established that Ms. Gasciogne did not receive the written referral until the afternoon of May 21, 2008, after the occurrence of the events at issue in this proceeding. When she had Officer Black take Student 1 to the office at approximately 10:30 a.m. on May 21, 2008, Respondent did not ask Ms. Gascoigne or anyone else in the office to detain Student 1 for a particular length of time. When Student 1 returned to her classroom, Respondent was in a meeting area where the students were gathered for group instruction. Respondent asked Student 1 why he had returned to the classroom. Student 1 responded to the effect that Ms. Gascoigne had sent him back. Referring to herself and to the other students in her class, Respondent responded to the effect that, “I don’t know if we are ready to have you back at this time.” After making that statement, Respondent directed Student 1 to join her in front of his classmates. Respondent asked Student 1 why he had done the things he had done earlier that morning. Student 1 shrugged his shoulders. Respondent told Student 1 that shrugging his shoulders was not an answer and that he should use his words. Three or four students began saying things about how Student 1 had behaved. Respondent asked Student 1 to listen to his classmates and asked him how what they were saying made him feel. Referring to herself and to the other students, Respondent stated that she did not think we are ready for you to come back at this time. Respondent then announced that she was going to poll the class as to whether Student 1 could rejoin them. Respondent explained to the class that a poll was like taking a vote. Respondent asked each of Student 1’s classmates to verbally vote yes or no whether Student 1 should remain in the classroom and gave each student the opportunity to explain his or her vote. Respondent tallied the votes on the chalk board. The final vote was 14 for removing Student 1 and two for allowing him to remain.4 Respondent thereafter sent Student 1 back to the office. Respondent made the ultimate decision to exclude Student 1 from her classroom, but in making that decision she considered the votes that had been cast by Student 1’s classmates. The reward system utilizing tokens was in place for Student 1 on May 21, 2008. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent utilized the reward system or any other strategy, including the use of Mr. Graff’s class, that had been developed for Student 1 before sending him to the office on the first occasion or before removing him from her class after the classmates had cast their votes and made statements about his behavior. When Student 1’s mother came to pick Student 1 up from school on the evening of May 21, 2008, she told Respondent that she had embarrassed her son and that he was disabled and autistic. Respondent apologized to Student 1’s mother. Student 1 was with his mother when she made the quoted statement to Respondent and when Respondent apologized. When asked by his mother how he felt, Student 1 said he felt sad. Except for her conduct on the May 21, 2008, incident described above, Respondent has had a positive 12-year career as a teacher at Morningside. Respondent testified that at no time did she intend to harm, embarrass, or do anything negative to the student. Respondent further testified that she did not, at the time think she was hurting anyone. She believed that she could show all of her students that there are consequences to actions and to show that actions may affect others. Respondent testified, credibly, that early childhood education is her “passion” (as she termed it at Transcript, Volume III, page 275, beginning on line 11). Petitioner’s investigative report reflects (beginning on page 13 of Petitioner’s Exhibit B) the following: There is no evidence that Ms. Portillo’s conduct was malicious or intended to cause harm or embarrassment to Student 1. However, there is a question as to whether Ms. Portillo exercised the best professional judgment during the incident under investigation. . . . Immediately following the incident of May 21, 2008, Petitioner prohibited Respondent from returning to Morningside. Petitioner assigned Respondent to the School Board office with pay while Petitioner investigated the matter. On November 14, 2008, Mr. Lannon made his recommendation to the School Board. The recommendation was that Petitioner suspend Respondent for a period of one year dating from the School Board’s final order and that her contract be changed from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract. At its meeting of November 14, 2008, the School Board suspended without pay Respondent’s employment for a period of one year and voted to change her contract from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract should she return to employment with the School Board.5 The greater weight of the credible evidence overwhelmingly established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, described above is properly characterized as misconduct as that term is generally understood. As will be discussed below, Petitioner established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, violated the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, thereby violating the provisions of subsection (xxix) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b), as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent’s misconduct on May 21, 2008, violated subsection (xxxi) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b) as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition by exposing Student 1 and the other students in her class to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner established that Respondent utilized an inappropriate method of discipline in removing Student 1 from her class after the class vote, thereby violating subsection (xxxvii) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b), as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent was abusive or discourteous in violation of subsection (ix) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b) as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Mr. Lannon, Ms. Ranew, Ms. Gascoigne, and Ms. Cully are experienced educators with supervisory responsibilities. Each opined that Respondent had violated the Code of Conduct for the Education Profession and explained the reasons for those opinions. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to exercise the best professional judgment on May 21, 2008, as alleged in paragraph 19a of the Petition. The alleged violation set forth in paragraph 19b will be discussed below. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent’s misconduct was unethical and, consequently, failed to establish the violation alleged in paragraph 19c of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect Student 1 from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety as alleged in paragraph 19d of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect Student 1 from harassment as alleged in paragraph 19(e) of the Petition. Petitioner has charged Respondent with “misconduct in office.” There is a difference between the generally used term “misconduct” and the term “misconduct in office.” The State Board has defined the term “misconduct in office” by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3), as follows: (3) Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual’s effectiveness in the school system. While there can be no meaningful debate as to whether Respondent's conduct should be characterized as “misconduct,” there was a dispute as to whether Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system had been impaired, thereby establishing that Respondent was guilty of “misconduct in office” as alleged in the Petition. This incident received extensive coverage by the local, national, and international press. Locally, Petitioner received a high volume of written communications and telephone calls in response to Respondent’s conduct. Some communications supported Respondent’s conduct while others condoned Respondent’s conduct. The communications condoning Respondent’s conduct far outweighed the responses supporting her conduct.6 Petitioner received requests from parents that Respondent not be allowed to teach their students should she return to class. In addition to the negative publicity and negative communications generated by her conduct, Respondent’s principal has lost confidence in her. Ms. McCully testified as follows in response to questions from Petitioner’s counsel (Transcript, Volume III, beginning at page 371, line 17): Q. After the May 21, 2008, incident involving Ms. Portillo, would you recommend that she be hired as a teacher in your school? A. No, I would not. Q. Why is that? A. Personally, I feel that I would not have that rapport, trust, with her and be able to work with her after this. Dr. Lannon testified as follows in response to questions from Petitioner’s counsel (Transcript, Volume I, beginning at page 106, line1): Q. In your opinion, has Ms. Portillo’s actions on May 21, 2008, resulted in a loss of her effectiveness. A. I believe so. Q. How do you reconcile that with your recommendation that she can go back to work after a one-year suspension without pay? A. I came to that with great pain. I believe that the actions that Ms. Portillo undertook actually rose to the issue of termination. But also, in a sense of fairness, Ms. Portillo is a twelve-year employee who has contributed to the lives and the well-being of children in St. Lucie County. My sense on this was that while there is a price to pay – and I believe that the action of not protecting children is literally the most serious thing we can do in a negative way – that her past career would warrant a second chance, but not in the environment in which she had willfully created these series of steps leading to the involvement of a particular child in what I believe to be an embarrassing and disparaging way and the involvement of the class in a way that we may never know. Q. Did you consider terminating Ms. Portillo? A. I did. Q. And is it my understanding that you’re saying the fact that she had twelve positive years mitigated that decision. A. Yes. That’s exactly correct. Q. And that led you to the recommendation that’s at issue? A. That’s exactly right. On cross-examination, Mr. Lannon testified in response to questions by Respondent’s counsel (Transcript, Volume II, beginning on page 149, line 25): Q: And you’re of the opinion as you sit here today, Mr. Lannon, under no circumstances . . . that you would allow [Respondent] to teach elementary school children in St. Lucie County. I would not put her in pre-K through fifth grade. That’s the definition. So that would be correct. In his testimony at the formal hearing and in his letter of November 3, 2008, Mr. Lannon described the mitigating circumstances he considered in contemplating his recommendation to the School Board. The following, taken from Mr. Lannon’s letter, succinctly states those considerations: I have also considered mitigating circumstances. You have had a long (12 years) and positive career in St. Lucie County Public Schools. Your annual evaluations, conducted by five Principals over 12 years are positive. Behavior of young students, in groups such as classrooms, is often difficult and professionally demanding. The official investigation states “there is NO evidence that Ms. Portillo’s conduct was malicious or intended to cause harm or embarrassment . . . “ [Emphasis in the original.] Except for the conduct at issue in this proceeding, Respondent has been an excellent, dedicated teacher during her 12-year tenure at Morningside. She has spent a considerable amount of her personal time working on an extra-curricular activity named Odyssey of the Mind. Many of the employees at Morningside and parents of former students are supportive of Respondent. As to those employees and parents, Respondent’s reputation remains intact despite the negative publicity regarding the conduct at issue.7 The greater weight of the credible evidence clearly established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, has impaired her effectiveness in the system. Petitioner established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, constitutes “misconduct in office” within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009 and, consequently, constitutes grounds for the suspension of her employment pursuant to Section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides, in relevant part, that the employment of a teacher with a professional services contract can be terminated or suspended for just cause, which is defined to include “misconduct in office” as defined by State Board rules. Section 1012.33(4)(b), Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part, as follows: (b) Any . . . member of the instructional staff . . . may be returned to annual contract status for another 3 years in the discretion of the district school board, at the end of the school year, when a recommendation to that effect is submitted in writing to the district school board on or before April 1 of any school year, giving good and sufficient reasons therefore . . .. In explaining the rationale for his recommendations, Mr. Lannon testified as follows in response to questions from counsel for Respondent as to his recommended disposition of this matter (beginning at Transcript, Volume II, page 133, line 15): Q. What would happen in the one year that would allow her, from the year that you’re recommending that she be suspended to the year that she, if your recommendation is accepted, that she would come back to work for the School Board, what would happen in that year that would change the alleged loss of respect and confidence in her colleagues first? A. It might not. Q. Your same answer would be as it relates to students? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the parents. A. That’s correct. I have no knowledge of how they would feel. Q. So in essence, you’re allowing, you’re recommending that a person that you’re not sure would be respectful [sic] or confident [sic] by teachers, students, parents, and members of the community, you’re recommending that that person still work for the St. Lucie County School Board. A. I’m allowing that the 12 years prior to May 21, 2008, mitigated my thinking that said this person is deserving of another chance at some point in time. Q. And this chance that you’re talking about is not a chance of great risk or harm if I follow your logical conclusion; is that correct. A. If you look at it more fully, you’ll see that I would not allow her to teach at that grade level in an elementary school again. And there is a difference in the ability of students to be able to discern the words of adults as they age. And I’m going to bank on the fact that the quality that Ms. Portillo had previously shown, absent her actions on that day, which I believe to be premeditated and well thought out, even though they were quick, would not occur again. There can be little doubt that Respondent has been traumatized by the negative reactions to her misconduct.8 Respondent and her family have suffered economically as a result of her suspension. Respondent apologized to Student 1’s mother and testified that she is remorseful.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension of Respondent’s employment for a period of one year from November 18, 2008, and provide for the change of her contract status from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract, contingent upon the availability of a position for which Respondent is qualified and certified. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2009.
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2013.
Findings Of Fact On October 29, 1984, Bruce E. Beneby, Respondent, was on the instructional staff at Dixie Hollings Senior High School as band instructor. Dennis Hale, a detective in the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department, went to Dixie Hollings Senior High School around 5:00 p.m., October 29, 1984, to pick up his son after band practice and to ask Respondent why he had thrown Hale's son's textbook in the garbage. Upon his arrival at the school in the vicinity of the bandroom, Hale observed Beneby running around the building with his shirt off. One of the milling students told Hale that Beneby was about to fight a student. When Hale arrived at the scene he observed Beneby holding a pair of scissors in a threatening manner toward the student, Ellis Tedrick. Tedrick had a six-foot length of drain pipe. Neither struck the other. Hale told both to stop but was not obeyed until he produced his sheriff's badge. Earlier, after band practice, Tedrick asked Beneby why he had thrown some of the girls off the Re Belle squad. He and Beneby got into an argument and Beneby picked up a band stand with which he threatened Tedrick. Other witnesses testified regarding Beneby's aggressiveness on other occasions. Testimony respecting Beneby having a gun in his briefcase to protect himself from the parents of students in his class is disregarded. No charge of this nature was made against Respondent as reason for his dismissal. No evidence was presented by any witness that observed Respondent destroy or throw away school property such as textbooks.
Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Alternative Learning Center Respondent In 1974, at 22 years of age, Respondent earned his Bachelor of Science degree in social studies from Florida Memorial College, an historically black college in Miami. In his freshman year, he was named the Outstanding Freshman from Southwest Florida attending historically black colleges. At various times during his last three years of college, Respondent worked in inner-city ministries in St. Louis and New Orleans. For about five years following graduation, Florida Memorial College employed Respondent, first as Associate Director of Admissions and then as Director of Alumni-Church Relations, assistant basketball coach, head baseball coach, and head volleyball coach. After moving from Miami to Lee County, Respondent worked for a short time outside of education. At the start of the 1986- 87 school year, Respondent returned to education by accepting employment with the Lee County School District (District) as a social studies teacher at Cypress Lake High School, where he remained for two years. While at Cypress Lake High School, Respondent also served as head girls' basketball coach, head girls' track coach, assistant volleyball coach, and assistant baseball coach. While employed by the District, Respondent helped with the fathers' program at LAMP, which is an educational program operated by the District at the New Directions Center. The LAMP program provides high-school instruction for teenage mothers. Respondent also headed the District's first mentor program, which finds mentors, without regard to race, to encourage minority students to excel in an academic setting, such as in gifted and honors courses. In 1988, Respondent earned his Master of Science degree in educational leadership from Nova University. Then-Superintendent Engle named Respondent to serve as principal-on-assignment for the 1988-89 school year to recruit minority teachers for the District. Respondent was the second minority person assigned to an administrative position in the District. At the time, a federal court had entered a desegregation order against the District. In the ten years prior to Respondent's new assignment, the District had hired about a dozen minority teachers. In one summer, Respondent recruited 30 minority teachers. After completing his assignment in minority teacher recruitment, Respondent returned to Cape Coral High School as Dean of Students. He served in this position for the 1989-90 school year. Following the 1989-90 school year, Respondent was appointed the Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, in which capacity Respondent served for five years. When he assumed the job, he received a $5000 raise to about $40,000 annually. A coordinator is the lowest level of management in the District office. Coordinators are subordinate to assistant directors or, if none, directors. Directors are subordinate to assistant and associate superintendents, who are subordinate to the Superintendent. The Superintendent is appointed by the Lee County School Board. As Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, Respondent monitored the district's desegregation efforts. Due to the nature of his responsibilities, Respondent, even though only a coordinator, had direct access to the Superintendent and School Board attorney. Working closely with then-Superintendent Adams, who became Respondent's mentor, Respondent helped redraw school- attendance zones to desegregate schools. Respondent also handled racially based complaints from staff, including teachers, and generally tried to assure that poorer schools received the same resources as those enjoyed by wealthier schools. Respondent became the focus of considerable controversy while Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments. One day, his young daughter answered the phone at home and heard an unidentified caller threaten, "Your nigger father is a dead man." Shortly after the murder of Superintendent Adams, Petitioner, then serving as Interim Superintendent, informed Respondent that she was removing him from his coordinator position. She created a new position for Respondent as Director of Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received a raise from $48,000 to $55,000 annually and assumed his new duties in November 1994. Petitioner disclosed that she made the change based on concerns for Respondent's safety and complaints that she had received from the School Board and parents related to Respondent's rezoning decisions. Three months after Petitioner created Respondent's new position, she eliminated it and suggested that Respondent apply for other administrative positions with the District. Respondent and Petitioner discussed an opening at the New Directions Center. The New Directions Center occupies a three-year old facility owned and operated by the Lee County School Board. The New Directions Center comprises three separate programs: the LAMP program, the Academy, and the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The Academy, which includes the Employment Skills Program, provides alternative education by offering its students different types of teaching strategies than are typically available at conventional schools. Academy students are not behaviorally much different from students attending regular schools in the District. Prior to the 1995-96 school year, each program at the New Directions Center had an assistant principal, and a supervisory principal was in charge of the entire New Directions Center. When she mentioned the opening at the ALC, Petitioner informed Respondent that she intended to appoint a separate principal for each of the three programs starting the 1995-96 school year. In May 1995, Petitioner appointed Respondent to serve as the new ALC Principal, starting July 1. As ALC Principal, Respondent was also the head District administrator at the juvenile detention center, Price Halfway House, and Lee County boot camp. At the time of assuming his new responsibilities, Respondent had served nine years in the Lee County School system: two years in the classroom, one year in administration at a school, over five years in administration involving minority matters at the District office, and less than one year in Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received no training in preparation for his new assignment as a school principal. As of February 19, 1996, Respondent's District personnel file contained nothing negative, aside from some isolated suggestions recorded on classroom observation sheets. This was the file that Respondent and his attorney examined after giving the District three days' notice of their intent to examine and copy Respondent's personnel file. Discussed below is Petitioner's contention that two missing items should have been included in the file. Respondent's evaluation for his first year of teaching notes: "Excellent start as a beginning teacher in Lee County." This 1987 evaluation states: "Outstanding teacher. Should be considered for advancement to administration as soon as possible." The 1988 evaluation reports: "Excellent year-- Promoted to dean of students, Cape Coral H.S." The first administrative evaluation of Respondent is in 1989 and covers his work in minority-teacher recruitment. The 1989 evaluation states that Respondent is "an asset to our team." The 1990 evaluation, which addresses Respondent's year as Dean of Students, reports: "Charles has demonstrated his concern for young people and has spent many hours above and beyond the call of duty working with and for kids." For the first year in which Respondent was responsible for desegregation efforts, the 1991 evaluation notes that Respondent has only partially achieved a goal--namely, learning desegregation issues. However, the 1991 evaluation, which was prepared by Dr. Mary Nell Gunter, states: "Charles Daily [sic] demonstrates talent and skill in dealing with people. He is eager to do a good job and I appreciate his professional outlook." A memorandum from Dr. Gunter commends Respondent for his "positive attitude" and work in specific programs. The memorandum suggests, though, that Respondent needs to develop his skills in "facilitative leadership," which he demonstrates in "many instances," but perhaps insufficiently when dealing with "principals and school-based people." Respondent's evaluation for the 1991-92 school year is missing from Respondent Exhibit 13, which is his District personnel file. The missing evaluation apparently was completed with no remarkable comments. Respondent's evaluation for the 1992-93 school year is noteworthy because it was prepared by Petitioner, who was not yet Superintendent. This 1993 evaluation finds that Respondent has fully achieved all of his goals, one of which is: To establish effective communication to the public that would assist in dealing with the increasing cultural, demographic and social change effecting [sic] our students and community. Petitioner's narrative comments on the 1993 evaluation are: Charles Dailey is an extremely valued and important member of the Division of Administrative Operations. He has demonstrated outstanding leadership during the Desegregation process. He is a role model for every administrator in his work ethic, committment [sic], teamwork and educational values. Petitioner found that Respondent reached an effective level of performance (the only satisfactory rating offered on the evaluation form) in all categories. Categories include judgment issues, including making good decisions based on law and policy, and sensitivity issues, including tact, effective dealing with people over emotional issues, exhibiting a positive professional attitude, and perceiving the needs and concerns of other persons. Petitioner concluded the 1993 evaluation as follows: Charles must work under stress everyday in his office due to our desegregation process. He has handled this in an outstanding manner. The evaluation for the 1993-94 school year should have been performed by Dr. James Browder, who is now principal of Cypress Lake High School. Dr. Adams was murdered on February 7, 1994. Another administrator was responsible for Respondent's evaluation until April or May of 1994. Given the understandable disruption resulting from the sudden death of Dr. Adams and the administration reorganization that followed, Respondent's evaluation for the 1993-94 school year was never prepared. However, Dr. Browder testified that he had perceived no problems with Respondent of sufficient seriousness to document in an evaluation. The evaluation for the 1994-95 school year should have been performed by Assistant Superintendent Dr. Mary Santini. She assumed that position in January 1995 and may have felt unable to evaluate Respondent by the time the evaluations are due in May. Respondent has been recognized repeatedly in the educational community. The past three years, Respondent was a finalist for the Ida S. Baker award, which is given to the outstanding minority educator in Florida. Respondent was named in 1995 the administrator of the year for the southeastern United States by the Southeast Desegregation Assistance Center. During this period, Respondent has been serving as a consultant and expert witness in the Rockford (IL) School District desegregation case. The ALC In general, the ALC is the District's last-chance school for students whose disciplinary problems have resulted in their removal from their geographical schools. ALC students are the most difficult to manage in the District. Nearly all ALC students are enrolled in the ALC as an alternative to expulsion from the Lee County School System. A few students are assigned to the ALC through the juvenile justice system. Almost all of the ALC students have had serious problems with criminal activity, seriously disruptive behavior in school, and school attendance. At any given time, roughly 10-20 students attending the ALC have been convicted of felonies. On a cumulative basis for the 1995-96 school year, excluding exceptional student education (ESE) students, 80 students enrolled in the ALC sometime during the 1995-96 school year were guilty of felonies, 91 were guilty of the possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, 29 were guilty of armed burglary or grand theft, 36 were guilty of assault or battery against a teacher or administrator, 68 were guilty of fighting with other students, 38 were guilty of possession of weapons, and numerous others were guilty of other offenses ranging from "sexual misconduct" (7) to "peeing in a bottle" (1). (Some of these students were guilty of more than one offense, and some students entered the ALC more than once during the school year, so their offenses would be counted more than once in each category.) Prior to the 1995-96 school year, the Supervisory Principal of the New Directions Center was Jeananne Folaros. The ALC Assistant Principal was Richard Hagy. The LAMP Assistant Principal was Carolyn McCollum. And the Academy Assistant Principal was John Wortham. For the 1995-96 school year, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham retained their prior positions except they became principals, and Mr. Hagy and Ms. Folaros were reassigned. Respondent and the ALC When Respondent arrived at the ALC, student behavior and academics were both in need of improvement. Perhaps the most dramatic indicator of the situation was that in the prior school year Mr. Hagy had twice required hospital treatment for injuries he had received from being struck by ALC students. The school was the scene of frequent fights with students wandering in the halls and often in possession of drugs, making it hard for motivated students to work. In an effort to reduce the number of suspensions, the ALC had retained some extremely disruptive students, who sometimes threatened even the teachers. Frightened by these students, some teachers had resorted to a policy of appeasement, allowing difficult students to sleep or play cards in the classroom with academic activity going on around them, or sending these students to a separate timeout room, where they slept and played cards without the distraction of academic activity going on around them. When Respondent was first appointed as ALC Principal, he spoke with middle- and high-school principals and learned of their concerns that the ALC was a "revolving-door" program. They said that the ALC disrupted regular academic programs at their schools and inadequately served the needs of the students assigned to the ALC. District principals and ALC teachers and students reported that the ALC offered a poor educational program where students could easily avoid academic challenge. One of Respondent's first moves was to select Beth Smith as the assistant principal for the ALC. Respondent recognized that their strengths and weaknesses were complementary. She was a curriculum specialist, and he was an effective disciplinarian. After hiring Ms. Smith, Respondent formed a curriculum team consisting of her, a guidance counselor, a school psychologist, and a peer-counseling teacher to address curriculum changes. Respondent reimplemented the 45 good-day policy. This policy meant that the ALC would not return a student to his geographical school until he had 45 days of punctual attendance, good behavior, and successful academics. Respondent developed and enforced a dress code, prohibited sleeping and card games in class, and required teachers to stiffen their academic requirements. Respondent's disciplinary plan eliminated the separate timeout room, where misbehaving students had enjoyed freedom from academics. Respondent instead introduced a multi-step intervention system where the teacher first warned the misbehaving student in the classroom, then warned the student in the hallway, then placed the student in timeout in the classroom, and then sent him to Respondent, who would warn the student, assign cafeteria duty, or suspend him, depending on the seriousness of the offense. In all senses of the word, Respondent was a "hands-on" principal. Sondra Saldana, an ALC guidance counselor, best described Respondent's style when she testified that he meets students where they are. Undoubtedly, Respondent models good behavior in numerous ways. But he does not stop there. With passionate intensity, Respondent readily reveals his love and expectations for each student and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each student's behavior. Respondent is direct and frank, not oblique or diplomatic. He demands the respect of all of his students, and he earns the respect of nearly all of them because they see that he cares about them in a vital and effective way. Many of the ALC students probably would not have responded to Respondent's disciplinary innovations without clear evidence of Respondent's belief in their academic potential. More than anything else, Respondent wanted "to keep turning on lights for students," according to his favorite expression. Refusing to allow ALC students to think of themselves or be treated like academic or cultural outcasts, Respondent made the ALC more like a regular school, not so that he could have the experience of running a regular school, but so that the ALC students could have the experience of attending and succeeding at a regular school. In giving ALC students more positive opportunities than they had had in the past, Respondent introduced to the ALC student assemblies, a literary magazine, school plays, and other activities typical of regular schools. Respondent ordered the physical education teacher to make the ALC students play sports besides basketball, just like the physical education students were doing at the regular schools. (After hearing the concerns of the physical education teacher about placing bats in the hands of certain students, Respondent agreed to drop softball.) Respondent personally conducted entrance interviews, so he could explain the rules and purpose of the ALC to each new student and any parents or guardians accompanying him. Respondent made the exit process--merely an exercise in paperwork in prior years--an experience that would bring some closure to the ALC experience and prepare the student for a more successful reentry into his geographical school. There is no doubt that Respondent was markedly successful in improving the atmosphere at the ALC. Respondent's immediate supervisor, Herbert Wiseman, the District Director of Secondary Operations, twice during the fall of 1995 complimented Respondent on how well run the ALC was. The latter compliment took place on December 15, 1995, when Mr. Wiseman, with whom Respondent had a good relationship, told Respondent that he was running the ALC well. Mariner High School Principal Michael McNerney described in detail a visit he made to the ALC in November 1995. He was greeted quickly and professionally at the office, rather than allowed merely to walk into the school. Respondent took him to 8-10 classrooms where Respondent and students spoke freely. Respondent knew each of his students and which of them were from Mariner High School. He even knew when each student was due to return to his geographical high school. Jill Culligan, an ALC teacher who was disaffected with Respondent, noted the positive changes in writing on December 5, 1995: Under [Respondent's] system of discipline interventions and sensitivity to individual student needs, the students appear to be exhibiting the better behavior expected of them. Fights are no longer tolerated. More opportunities for assemblies are getting them ready for re-entry into the regular schools. But Respondent always balanced his academic innovations with disciplinary innovations, recognizing that behavior and academic achievement among ALC students are inextricably linked. Respondent personally led the effort to restore and maintain order at the ALC. It was a considerable, ongoing effort, made more difficult by the fact that the most troublesome students were no longer warehoused in the timeout room or banished from school by suspension. A key element of Respondent's relationship with the most difficult of these most difficult students is that he literally was not afraid to touch a student. Respondent was unafraid to place an arm around such students and hug them close to his body. The hug conveyed affection and physical constraint. While holding the child firmly, Respondent would then typically say that he had to calm down. In many instances, this approach was successful; in some instances--disproportionately represented in the next section--this approach was not. There were always clear limits to Respondent's disciplinary efforts. As noted below, he did not believe in striking students, and never did so except one time at the behest of a parent, who sought to avoid the more burdensome punishment of a suspension. Respondent scrupulously tried to get all significant information before taking any disciplinary action. Though a strong believer in discipline, Respondent was never inflexible. To the contrary, it appears he was always willing to fashion the most appropriate penalty under the circumstances--such as pushups or cafeteria duty--and was often willing to modify a penalty upon request of a parent or guardian or even the student himself. During Respondent's tenure, which ended with his suspension on January 11, 1996, there was a fight every three weeks among students. After his suspension, there was a fight everyday. During Respondent's tenure, the police were present at school every other week. After his suspension, the police were present every other day. Despite Respondent's success at the ALC, he encountered some resistance and engendered some resentment among staff. Clearly, disgruntled staff was the source of many of Respondent's problems, causing management problems at school and, more importantly, conveying misinformation to the District office. In general, at least two-thirds of the ALC staff supported Respondent even after he was suspended. Some staffmembers were neutral. Among staffmembers vocally opposed to Respondent, some were doubtlessly put off by Respondent's assertive personality. But there were other reasons for the vocal disaffection of some staffmembers, and some of these reasons have a material bearing on the credibility of these persons as witnesses and the weight accorded their testimony. In some cases, the source of staff disaffection may have been professional, such as when Respondent selected Ms. Smith over Jim Nassiff, an ALC teacher, for the position of assistant principal. Mr. Nassiff was unhappy with Respondent for choosing Ms. Smith over him. Most disaffected staffmembers had job-performance problems, which were exacerbated by the demands that Respondent placed upon them in terms of academics and discipline. Teachers in this category included Kenneth Vitale, Pamela Minton, Cheryl Gruenefeld, and Ms. Culligan. To varying degrees, teachers in this category manifested an unwillingness or inability to adapt to the changes implemented by Respondent. The sources of disaffection of Mr. Vitale and Ms. Culligan are described in connection with incidents involving them. However, two staffmembers were involved in a number of incidents. Lisa Krucher, a security guard, was notable for the extent of her dissatisfaction with Respondent and her inability to perform her job. She defied Respondent's efforts to ban smoking from the ALC building. She was unable to break up fights and lax in enforcing discipline. She eventually became the eyes and ears of Petitioner by daily reporting incidents to Mr. Wortham, who passed them on to Dr. Santini. Her job-related deficiencies were such that--despite her loyalty--Ms. Krucher was transferred to the Academy after Respondent's suspension. Ms. Smith offered a more balanced perspective on Respondent than did Ms. Krucher, and the source of Ms. Smith's disaffection with Respondent is more professional. Previously a guidance counselor in a middle school and dropout prevention program, Ms. Smith is an articulate exponent of the modern disciplinary theories of positive reinforcement and behavior modification. She deemphasizes more traditional, coercive methods of discipline, such as punishment for wrongs-- which of course awaits those ALC students who, having already failed to take their behavioral cues in the setting of the regular schools, continue misbehaving until they encounter the criminal justice system. Respondent does not advocate the more traditional, coercive disciplinary method of punishment for wrongs to the exclusion of more modern techniques of behavior modification. However, his more intense style of personal involvement with misbehaving students bore little resemblance to Ms. Smith's more restrained style. Ms. Smith was disturbed by her perception of how Respondent handled certain misbehaving ALC students. The record is less clear in revealing her methods of modifying the behavior of such students. In any event, her reactions to the misbehavior and Respondent's attempts to correct it were entirely sincere. She was frustrated to the point of tears at times, believing at times that students who continued to misbehave simply had not been exposed to sufficient positive reinforcement. The problem is that Ms. Smith lacked experience with the kinds of students who can be found at the ALC. She was still developing effective means of handling the most dangerous and disruptive of these students when Respondent was suspended. At that time, Ms. Smith still had nothing approaching Respondent's experience in dealing with young persons who, with little if any warning or provocation, explode into a violent frenzy, seriously injuring anyone in their immediate vicinity. Following Respondent's suspension, Petitioner appointed Ms. Smith as Acting ALC Principal. On February 20, 1996, Petitioner replaced Ms. Smith with Mr. Hagy as Acting ALC Principal. Respondent and Students Spring 1995 Visits to ALC: Paragraphs 33 and 35 At the urging of Petitioner, Respondent visited the ALC shortly after Petitioner named him the new principal. He visited the school three times in the spring of 1995 before assuming his duties there on July 1, 1995. On his first visit, Respondent met briefly with Mr. Hagy and discussed how the school operates. On this visit, Respondent saw students loitering in the halls and cursing loudly. Respondent saw the timeout room, where staff had hung plastic to cover the holes that students had punched in the walls. Respondent saw students were sleeping rather than studying. Respondent and Mr. Hagy came across a student who was walking out of the class during the school day very upset, using abusive language. Mr. Hagy asked him to stop, but he ignored Mr. Hagy and walked out. In another class, taught by James Nassiff, Respondent found the class watching an entertainment movie. Mr. Hagy escorted Respondent into several classrooms. These visits were brief. Respondent later made a second visit, without Mr. Hagy, to observe the classes in session. These visits were somewhat longer. In each classroom during the second visit, Respondent introduced himself as the new ALC principal. He warned the students that things would be changing. He promised that he would suspend any student who talked back to a teacher, swore, or fought. Respondent ordered the students not to call male teachers "man" and female teachers "woman"; teachers would be called "Mr." and "Mrs." Respondent told the students that he would not tolerate sleeping or card playing in class. In a lighter tone, Respondent added that the students should tell their friends and family that there was a new sheriff in town and the ALC was going to be about education. Respondent then flashed his badge. The badge is a small shiny badge that designates Respondent as an Honorary Deputy Sheriff for the term of Sheriff McDougal, who remains in office. Respondent understands that the badge confers on him no special power to arrest persons. He has never tried to arrest anyone using the badge, and he has never displayed the badge on the occasions that he has actually summoned law enforcement officers. In Ms. Gruenefeld's class, Respondent found students sleeping. He approached one student who had his head down on the desk and did not look up when Respondent entered the room. Respondent told him to look at Respondent when he was speaking, or Respondent would suspend the student. Ms. Gruenefeld tried to justify the student's behavior on the grounds that he was a good student and had been working very hard. She believed that the student, who was Hispanic, did not engage in eye contact for cultural reasons. Nothing in the record supports the assertion that Hispanics disfavor eye contact. Absent an undisclosed medical condition, the student should have been able to raise his head off the desk and make eye contact with the new principal, who had entered the classroom to introduce himself to the students. There is no indication that Respondent's first or second visits to the ALC destroyed any instructional momentum in the classrooms. Obviously, the students were off-task for the time that Respondent was in the classroom, in most cases due to Respondent's presence. However, the students did not remain off-task for long and soon returned to whatever they were doing before Respondent entered the classroom. At most, Respondent's comments about changes at the ALC might have caused some harmless confusion among those students who were about to be returned to their geographical schools. There is no evidence that students were intimidated by Respondent's announcement or his display of a badge. Some students laughed after Respondent's announcement. Some responded more seriously, wanting to know if he were really going to be the new principal. In general, the students listened thoughtfully to Respondent's statement. Respondent made a third visit to meet with the faculty at the request of an ALC guidance counselor, who had called Respondent and told him that the faculty wanted to meet him. In this meeting, Respondent repeated the ground rules that he had given the students a few days earlier. Respondent invited each teacher to prepare a wish list for the ALC and a list of any concerns that he or she may have. Ending a positive meeting, Respondent introduced the teachers to his favorite expression, "We need to turn lights on for kids." Following Respondent's visits, Ms. Folaros telephoned Respondent and asked him what had taken place. He explained that he wanted to meet the students at that time because summer school would start before he assumed the role of principal. Respondent added that he wanted the students whom he met to tell other students that he would not tolerate students sleeping and misbehaving, as they had been doing in the past. Other Incidents of Flashing the Badge: Paragraph 33 In September or October, 1995, M. P. enrolled at the ALC. M. P. is a 14 year-old ninth grader, who started the year at Lehigh High School. M. P. was sent to the ALC after he urinated in the middle of class into a glue bottle because his teacher had refused him permission to use the bathroom. M. P. was accompanied by his mother and sister on the day that he enrolled--a process that took about 20 minutes. During the entrance interview, Respondent informed M.P. of the rules of the school. They discussed the dress code, the prohibition of drugs on campus, and M. P.'s misbehavior at Lehigh High School. During the conversation, Respondent flashed his badge and warned M. P. not to do anything wrong. M. P. testified that he was scared at the sight of the badge. This testimony is discredited. It takes more than a badge to frighten M. P.. M. P.'s mother saw Respondent flash the badge, and she decided, based on this meeting, that Respondent would be a good role model for her son. Respondent flashed the badge on other occasions. One time, four middle-school girls assaulted another student in the cafeteria. They ignored Respondent when he tried to talk to them, so he flashed the badge and warned them that he could have them arrested. They took him more seriously and listened after that. Another time, Respondent displayed the badge to a boy who was misbehaving in Respondent's office. Again, Respondent warned that he could have the student arrested. Respondent displayed the badge several other times and warned misbehaving students that he could have them arrested. Some of the students took him seriously; others did not. The ability of Respondent to have students arrested did not depend on his possession of the badge, and ALC students understood that. Flashing the badge unlikely intimidated anyone. M. P.'s Other Incident: Paragraph 29 After the entrance interview, M. P.'s mother spoke privately with Respondent about M. P. She described him as emotionally troubled over her recent divorce. She warned that he was quick to anger and especially intolerant of females because he blamed the divorce on his mother. He also resented females because of a gender issue in the family and the teacher who had refused him permission to go to the bathroom at Lehigh High School was a female. While in April Pepin's class, M. P. walked out of the classroom without permission. Ms. Pepin sent him to Ms. Smith's office. Talking to Ms. Smith, M. P. denied that he had left the classroom without permission and gave Ms. Smith trouble. Ms. Smith determined that he had misbehaved in Ms. Pepin's class, decided to suspend M. P. for one day, and called M. P.'s mother. M. P.'s mother asked Ms. Smith to have Respondent reinforce the point with M. P. Ms. Smith preceded M. P. to Respondent's office and explained the situation to Respondent, stating that M. P.'s mother wanted Respondent to talk to her son and that Ms. Smith was having trouble dealing with him. Respondent summoned M.P. into the office, leaned over his desk toward M. P., and raised his voice in an authoritative manner. Respondent warned M. P. that he could not act up at Respondent's school and that, if Ms. Smith told him something, it was like Respondent telling him something. M. P. elected not to listen to Respondent either and tried to walk out of his office. When he turned to walk around the chair, Respondent stopped him by grabbing his arm. Respondent was worried that he might be going after Ms. Smith. Respondent was also intent on not allowing M. P. to disobey Ms. Smith and Respondent by coming and going as he pleased, especially after his mother had asked repeatedly for Respondent's help in dealing with her son. After grabbing M.P.'s arm, Respondent told him to go up against the wall for a search, and, when he did not do so, forced him up against the wall. When Respondent tried to pat down M. P. for weapons, M.P. lost his composure and began to fight with Respondent. M.P. brought his arms down hard on Respondent and struck him. Respondent wrestled M. P. down to the floor and shouted for someone to call the police. Arriving a few minutes later, the police officers had to bind M.P. by the ankles and drag him to the police car, where he tried to kick out the car window. M. P.'s mother then had M. P. admitted to Charter Glades Hospital, a psychiatric treatment facility. M. P. remained hospitalized for ten days and remained on homebound instruction for two months. Charter Glades treated M. P. for an anger disorder. M. P.'s mother blames Respondent for M. P.'s hospitalization. She is understandably worried about her son, but the evidence does not in any way suggest that Respondent initiated, and the greater weight of the evidence does not prove that Respondent exacerbated or unreasonably triggered, M. P.'s obvious behavior disorder, which had manifested itself before his assignment to the ALC. Ms. Smith felt that Respondent overreacted to the situation, but she was unaware of the details or extent of M.P.'s behavior disorder prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, Respondent was justified in reacting quickly to prevent M. P. from leaving the office and precluding the possibility that the student might strike Ms. Smith. Pushups: Paragraphs 20 and 21 Respondent sometimes gave the option of pushups to male students whose misbehavior otherwise warranted suspension. (For female and other male students, Respondent would sometimes offer cafeteria duty.) On at least two occasions, students chose to do the pushups. Respondent demanded 50 pushups and sometimes called out the count himself, starting fast and ending slow. If a student could not do 50 pushups, Respondent allowed him to do as many as he could; in no event would Respondent suspend him for failing to reach 50. On one occasion, three students were doing their pushups in Respondent's office when a faculty meeting was about to start. The teachers were supportive of the students, cheering them on. When finished, the students, taking the matter in good humor, thanked Respondent for not suspending them. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the students choosing to do pushups were humiliated, injured, or exposed to a risk of injury. Presumably, as alleged by Petitioner, their arms shook and, for the white boys, their faces reddened. These things happen with pushups. Spankings: Paragraphs 18 and 19 There were two student spankings during the fall of 1995. One of them took place in October 1995 and involved O. B., who is 13 years old. O. B. lied to Respondent about not being involved in a fight. Based on O. B.'s word, Respondent was about to suspend another boy. After discovering the truth, Respondent went down to O.B.'s classroom and found the class watching a movie. Respondent said, loud enough for the teacher, Mr. Vitale, and other students to hear, "Son, you've lied to me. You've lied to me." O. B. answered, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about." Respondent then grasped O. B. firmly by the back of the neck and walked him down to Respondent's office. In the office, Respondent suspended O. for five days, called O. B.'s father (his biological grandfather who had adopted O. B.), and told him that he needed to pick up his son. O. B.'s classmates already knew that O. B. had lied about the incident. O. B. was not embarrassed by the manner in which Respondent removed him from class, nor was he hurt by the grasp of Respondent. When O. B.'s father arrived, he said to Respondent that O. B. had just been suspended and had been out of school more than he had been in. The father asked Respondent if there were another alternative, like a spanking, and suggested that Respondent spank the child. Respondent said he did not like to spank students. The father asked if he could, in order to avoid another suspension. Respondent said that was acceptable to him, so the father took his belt and applied it to O. B.'s buttocks five or six times. O. B. cried a little, so Respondent suggested that the father take him home for the rest of the day, rather than return to the classroom after having cried. The father did that. Respondent, O. B., and O. B.'s father were the only persons present during the spanking. The blinds were drawn in Respondent's office during the spanking. The other spanking involved J. N., who is also 13 years old. One day, J. N. repeatedly misbehaved. His teacher, Mr. Nassiff, talked to him several times without effect. J. N. got angry at another student and was about to get into a fight. Another teacher told him to be quiet and he refused. School Resource Officer Fred Jackson and Ms. Krucher also intervened, but failed to calm J. N. J. N. demanded to talk to Respondent. After a brief discussion, Respondent said that he was going to have to suspend J. N. if he misbehaved again that day. Respondent allowed J. N. to return to his class. J. N. returned to class and immediately caused trouble by getting into an argument with another student. Mr. Nassiff sent him back to the office. Respondent called J. N.'s mother and said that he was being suspended. J. N.'s mother asked Respondent to spank her child instead. She explained that she could not afford to arrange for someone to care for J. N. while he was out of school. He had just finished a suspension two or three weeks earlier, and his mother lacked the funds to hire another babysitter. After expressing some reluctance, Respondent agreed to the spanking, but required J. N.'s mother to come to the office to serve as the witness. She did, and Respondent, behind closed blinds and a closed door, hit J. N. six times with a belt on the buttocks. The spanking did not hurt and J. N. did not cry out. Lee County School Board Policy 5.16 addresses corporal punishment as follows: Subject to the provisions of law, if a teacher or school administrator feels that corporal punishment is necessary, at least the following procedures shall be followed: Reasonable alternatives have been used and documented. Written permission has been obtained from the student's parent or guardian at the beginning of each school year, and a call to the parent or guardian for each specific incident involved prior to using corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment shall be approved by the principal or designee before it is used. The use of corporal punishment shall be administered only in the presence of the principal, another administrator, or a teacher. The principal, other administrator, or teacher shall, in the presence of the student, be informed of the reason for the punishment before it is administered. A principal, or designee who has administered corporal punishment shall, upon request, provide the student's parent or guardian with written explanation of the reason for the punishment and the name of the administrator or teacher who was present. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the O. B. spanking because O. B.'s father, not an employee of the District, spanked the child. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the J. N. spanking because--consistent with his disciplinary philosophy--Respondent never determined that corporal punishment was necessary. Such a determination is the precondition stated in the flush language of Policy 5.16 for the remaining conditions to apply. Respondent had determined to suspend J. N. Policy 5.16 governs spankings initiated by District employees, not by parents. Respondent merely acceded to the mother's requests that he substitute for suspension the lesser punishment of a mild spanking and that Respondent perform the spanking for her, in her presence--in effect as her agent and not an agent of the School Board. Violation of Dress Code: Paragraph 31 In September 1995, Respondent noticed an unidentified female student exiting a school bus on her way to class at the ALC. She was wearing a top that exposed her midriff, in violation of the ALC dress code. In the presence of District Transportation Coordinator Janet Harris, Respondent told the girl, "Get your ass into my office and call your mother. We don't allow those kinds of tops." Petitioner did not call the improperly clad student as a witness. There was no sexual content to Respondent's ill- chosen word, voiced in the presence of a female employee of the School Board who was a stranger to Respondent. Ms. Harris was not so startled by the comment as to report it at the time to anyone. She first mentioned it the next month to Mr. Wortham. Absent additional proof of the circumstances surrounding Respondent's isolated remark, including the student's reaction, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's momentary lapse disparaged and embarrassed the student. C. L. Incident: Paragraph 22 C. L. was a 200-pound female student at the ALC with a history of violent outbursts where she would leave school and not return home for a couple of days. C. L.'s mother asked Respondent, when he became principal, not to allow C. L. to continue to leave school whenever she wanted. Previously, if she were resolved to leave school, no one would try to stop her. One day at school in September or October 1995, C. L. was out of control, trying to leave the school. Gerald Gilmore, a security guard, was trying to stop her when Respondent approached. Respondent took one of C. L.'s arms, and she suddenly dropped on him. Respondent and Mr. Gilmore each took an arm and walked her to the office, talking to her the whole way in an attempt to calm her. Respondent summoned Officer Jackson to help calm C. L. In the office, Respondent and Mr. Gilmore placed C. L. in a chair. Each time she popped out of the chair, they returned her to the chair. Eventually, C. L. calmed down, and they let her return to class. D. C. Incident: Paragraph 26 One morning in October 1995, Respondent saw D.C. smoking marijuana off-campus before school. When D. C. entered the school, Respondent asked him to come down to the office. D. C. was belligerent. Respondent placed his right arm around the back of the D. C., who was about Respondent's height, and grabbed his right arm, while holding his left arm close to the boy's side. Respondent then walked D.C. down the hall, side-by-side, to the office. Respondent frequently used this hold on students who were noncompliant. It does not hurt the student, but gives Respondent control over the student's movements. In particular, Respondent can sense immediately if a student is going for a weapon. Respondent's use of this hold and his readiness to search students (which is also part of his effort to keep drugs off campus) are prompted by Respondent's justified concerns for the safety of students and staff. The ALC has no metal detector and weapons are a constant worry. In the fall of 1995, Respondent found one student at school carrying a .25 caliber pistol with 18 rounds of ammunition in it. Once in the office, D. C. voluntarily leaned against the wall in Respondent's office so Respondent could search him with an electronic beeper. Respondent did not find any marijuana, but found a tobacco cigarette with half of the tobacco removed from the cigarette. Students smoking marijuana often removed part of the tobacco from a tobacco cigarette and replaced it with marijuana to avoid detection. Respondent suspended D. C. from school and contacted D.C.'s probation officer. D. C. subsequently violated the conditions of his probation and is now missing. ESE Student and Housing Project: Paragraph 32 In November 1995, Respondent spoke to an unidentified female student who was repeatedly being suspended for disciplinary reasons. The student lived in a public housing project. Respondent warned the student that, if she continued to get suspended, stay home, and cause trouble around the project during school hours, she and her mother could be evicted from the project. The student calmed down and behaved appropriately after that. Respondent was a commissioner of public housing for the City of Fort Myers at the time. He understood the rules of the housing projects, which permit the eviction of tenants whose unsupervised school-age children cause trouble in a project during school hours. Slightly Built Child: Paragraph 25 Petitioner presented no significant evidence on this allegation. It probably refers to another incident, such as the S. P. incident discussed below. M. B. Incident: Paragraph 28 In November 1995, M. B. was involved in a fight in the classroom. Respondent gave him the option of a suspension or working in the cafeteria, where he would clean up trays and take out the trash. He chose cafeteria duty. Shortly after arriving in the cafeteria, M. B. so infuriated the cafeteria manager that he called Respondent and told him that M. B. was the most arrogant boy he had ever seen, and he did not want the student back in the cafeteria again. Respondent left his office to retrieve M. B. and found him walking toward the office. Respondent said, "Son, come here." M. B. approached Respondent, who asked him what was his problem. M. B. said that he refused to empty any "God damned" trash. Respondent placed his arm around M. B.'s back and escorted him to the office. M. B. wanted to go straight home, and Respondent would not allow him. Respondent asked him to lean against the wall so Respondent could check him for weapons and drugs. M. B. did so. Respondent then called M. B.'s grandmother and warned her that, if M. B. continued to fight, he could be expelled for two years. She asked him not to suspend him. Respondent agreed not to suspend him, and M.B. completed the school day without further incident. L. S. P. Incident: Paragraph 23 S. P. is a 12 year-old male. He is about five feet one inch tall and is slightly built. He fights constantly. S.P. was sent to the ALC last year for fighting and insubordination. He was transferred from the ALC to his geographical school last Christmas, but, by the time of the final hearing in the present case four months later, he was back at the ALC. On the day of his testimony, S. P. had a black eye from fighting. On his first day at the ALC, S. P. got into a fight. He had not even reached his classroom when he started fighting with another student while still in the office. Respondent saw the fight and put his arm around the child's back, grasped the student's right arm, and hugged the boy close to Respondent. Respondent tried to calm him, warning that he did not want to have to suspend S. P. before he was even enrolled. S. P. tried to escape Respondent's grasp, but Respondent would not release him until S. P. said that Respondent was choking him. Respondent released him then, even though he was not choking the student. When S. P. remained noncompliant, Respondent grasped him again in the same manner as before. Respondent warned S. P., as he hugged him close to Respondent, "Son, you can't continue to fight. You're going to force me to suspend you." However, S. P. swore at Respondent, who replied that S. P. was suspended for the day. After telling S. P. that he was suspended, Respondent walked S. P. to the bench outside Respondent's office and sat him down. S. P. was upset and, after Respondent walked away, began crying. M. T. R. Incident: Paragraph 27 J. B. is an 18 year-old female who attended the ALC in the fall of 1995. From the third day of her attendance at the ALC through the remainder of the fall term, she was sexually harassed and physically threatened by T. R., who is another student at the ALC. On three occasions, J. B. complained of the harassment and threats, including actual touching, to Ms. Krucher, who did nothing about J. B.'s complaints. The first two complaints were early in the fall term and the last complaint was in January 1996. The day after her last complaint to Ms. Krucher had resulted in no action, J. B. complained directly to Respondent. After interviewing J. B., Respondent sent her back to class and summoned T. R. from his class. Terry Smith, a security guard, escorted T. R. to the office. Respondent told T. R. that he should not talk to or look at J. B. If he saw her walking down the hall, he should go in a different direction. Above all, T. R. was not to touch her anymore. T. R. denied any knowledge of who J. B. was. Respondent sent for J. B., who came to Respondent's office and stood in the doorway. When T. R. was told this is who was complaining about him, he jumped up, screaming to J. B., "What the hell are you doing telling people I did this?" He then lunged toward a visibly frightened J. B. Ms. Krucher pushed J. B. safely out of the doorway and escorted her back to the classroom. Respondent got to T. R. before he got to J. B. and pinned him against the wall. T. R. struggled, hitting Respondent while he tried to control T. R.'s arms. Mr. Smith assisted Respondent, who had T. R.'s upper body, by grabbing T. R.'s legs, and the two men wrestled T. R. to the floor. Ms. Krucher returned, and Respondent told her to call the school resource officer, so T. R. could be removed from the campus. In the meantime, Respondent and Mr. Smith tried to calm T. R. by talking quietly to him. Before the school resource officer arrived, T. R. calmed down and pleaded with Respondent not to send him to jail. T. R.'s girlfriend was pregnant, and he had criminal sex abuse charges pending. Respondent agreed to suspend T. R. for the rest of the day and not have him arrested. Respondent and Teachers Culligan Incident: Paragraph 41 At a faculty meeting early in the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan addressed Respondent's decision to eliminate the timeout room. Ms. Culligan endorsed the previous policy where a teacher sent a student to the timeout room for a short period the first time, a longer period the second time, and the remainder of the day the third time on the same day. She said that she typically would not have to send a student back a second or third time. Respondent answered that that was not what the records showed. He implied that teachers had routinely sent students to the timeout room for long periods of time. He did not state that Ms. Culligan had resorted to the timeout room more than did the rest of the teachers, although she likely had. Respondent had considerable difficulty with Ms. Culligan. At the start of the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan sent more students to the office for minor offenses than did other teachers. By memorandum dated September 21, 1995, Respondent directed Ms. Culligan to follow the interventions that "have been explained to you countless times." The memorandum reviews the intervention plan in detail and concludes: Failure to follow this directive violates the rights of the student in the academic setting when it has been clearly stated in writing, that this school will follow that particular policy. This is the third occasion that I've had the opportunity to address this particular policy with you and am therefore directing you to follow this policy to the letter. If I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me. After receiving this memorandum and the assistance of Ms. Smith in improving her cultural sensitivity, Ms. Culligan reduced her office referrals to an acceptable level. But her claims of humiliation and embarrassment over Respondent's informative reply at the faculty meeting, as well as her testimony concerning other incidents, are largely the product of the early difficulties that Ms. Culligan experienced with Respondent's new, more demanding discipline plan. Nassiff Incident: Paragraph 41 During another faculty meeting, Respondent was discussing an assembly that was to take place in the next day or two. The assembly, which featured drug-detecting dogs from the Port Authority, would be attended by ALC students. This was to be the first assembly ever for ALC students. Respondent was discussing the logistical aspects of moving the students into and out of the assembly and explaining how the assembly was part of the academic rehabilitation of ALC students. Suddenly, Mr. Nassiff raised his hand and asked who would be responsible for watching his students. They were in physical education at the time of the assembly, and Mr. Nassiff thought that the physical-education teacher should continue to watch Mr. Nassiff's students during what was Mr. Nassiff's planning period. Respondent had told the teachers that they could leave school early that day to make up for their lost planning time. Upon hearing Mr. Nassiff's question, some teachers groaned audibly. Respondent replied by asking Mr. Nassiff, "You're an administrator-in-training. How would you respond to that question?" Mr. Nassiff answered Respondent's question by saying, "I'd give me my planning period." Respondent replied, "That's not an appropriate answer. If you want to be an administrator, you wouldn't ask a question like this. Let me see you after the meeting." After the meeting, Respondent explained to Mr. Nassiff the importance of teamwork. Mr. Nassiff conceded that he had said the wrong thing and knew it the moment he had said it. Respondent first gave Mr. Nassiff an opportunity to extricate himself gracefully from the awkward situation created by his question. When Mr. Nassiff persisted, Respondent answered him, directly but not in a hostile tone. Most teachers found nothing inappropriate in Respondent's handling of this situation. Mr. Nassiff and the few teachers who felt otherwise evidently preferred that Respondent handle privately an issue that Mr. Nassiff raised publicly. But Mr. Nassiff invited a public response, and Respondent's handling of the matter was entirely suitable. Announcement Incident: Paragraph 39 One day early in the 1995-96 school year, the students misbehaved badly. The next morning, during the morning announcements, Respondent stated that he expected students to act appropriately in an academic setting. He noted that too many students were coming down to his office and that they needed to do what teachers tell them to do. Respondent added words to the effect that teachers would continue to follow the intervention plan. The effect of such an announcement, nominally addressed to the teachers, was to notify the students that their teachers had no choice but to follow the intervention plan and, if the students objected to the plan, their problem was with Respondent, not with individual teachers. By this comment, Respondent was trying to take some of the pressure off the teachers for enforcing the new intervention plan, which, as noted above, imposed greater burdens on teachers than the previous policy with its excessive reliance on the timeout room and suspension. The meaning of Respondent's announcement does not lend itself to contrary interpretations. Two of the three witnesses who testified that the announcement demeaned the teachers testified about a number of incidents. The testimony of these witnesses--Ms. Culligan and Ms. Minton--must be doubted based in part on the fact that their claimed reaction to Respondent's announcement appears disingenuous. Holzborne Incidents: Paragraphs 36 and 37 Kathleen Holzborne is the lead communications teacher at the Academy. One school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent opening classroom doors in the Academy looking for someone. This was innocuous. Respondent was likely looking for someone or checking on nearby classrooms after a disturbance. Another school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent admitting drug dogs and their handlers into Academy classrooms while Mr. Wortham was elsewhere in the building. Respondent was doing this under the authority of Mr. Wiseman, who was also in the building. Another school day, Respondent and Ms. Holzborne were in the cafeteria while the Academy students were eating lunch. Respondent said she did not need to stay, adding, "Daughter, everything will be fine here." Respondent is from a family of ministers. He sometimes speaks of persons as sons and daughters, meaning they are sons and daughters of God. He used "daughter" in speaking to Ms. Holzborne in a personal, nonsexual manner not intended to intimidate or offend. Had she objected, he would have apologized and explained his innocent use of the word. However, Ms. Holzborne did not complain to Respondent or anyone else until, months later, she mentioned the comment during Petitioner's investigation. Testifying, Ms. Holzborne seemed much more upset over Respondent's alleged failure to return promptly a piece of a tripod, but Petitioner has not charged Respondent with this omission. Intimidation Incident(s): Paragraph 38 Respondent did not intimidate his teachers or staff. To the contrary, he was supportive of teachers and staff, although he demanded that they work hard and smart. At the time of Respondent's suspension, faculty morale was good. A small number of teachers were dissatisfied with Respondent, but not many. The greater part of the faculty got along with each other and Respondent. A reliable portrayal of Respondent's supportiveness comes from Lisa McKeever, an ALC teacher who displayed an unusual degree of independence for a witness in this controversial case. She testified to tell the truth, unaffected by any fear of retribution from Petitioner or Dr. Santini or from the community of supporters of Respondent. Answering a question about whether she supported the Charles Dailey Foundation, which was organized to help pay Respondent's legal fees, she testified that, if she had money to give away, she would first give it to her children and then to literary or musical organizations before she would give it to the Dailey Foundation or any political organization. On two occasions, students threatened Ms. McKeever while she was seven months pregnant. In one case, a boy pushed her up against a chalkboard. Respondent asked Ms. McKeever what she wanted him to do about it. Ms. McKeever did not want him suspended, so Respondent dealt with him, but did not suspend him. In another case, a girl approached her with a clenched fist, threatening Ms. McKeever by saying, "You stupid flat-assed white bitch. Get out of my fucking face." Ms. McKeever was frightened by this assault, and Respondent expelled the student, who that night was arrested after attacking family members with a knife. Respondent and Administrators, Law Enforcement Officers, Guardians, and School Board Policies A. Overenrollment: Paragraph 51 The overenrollment issue arose at the start of Respondent's tenure as ALC Principal. Dr. Santini arranged a meeting on June 20, 1995, among the three new principals at the New Directions Center. The purpose of the meeting was to divide responsibilities among the principals. Ominously, Dr. Santini testified that she had had lots of experience with Respondent not cooperating. It is not entirely clear what specific ALC enrollment policies were advocated by Dr. Santini and Respondent at the June 20 meeting, or even that either of them advocated a specific policy. Dr. Santini stated that the ALC was a short-term program. Respondent wanted the same flexibility that the ALC administrators had had in the past in deciding when to return students to their geographical schools. The ALC enrollment policy from the preceding school year had been the 45 good-day policy described above. In general, Dr. Santini wanted to limit enrollments due to safety considerations. Overcrowding at the ALC became a bigger problem once the new school year got underway due to the introduction of more students from regular schools, as a result of a new zero-tolerance policy in the regular schools, and increased referrals from the juvenile detention center. Respondent's argument for greater enrollment flexibility was based on behavioral and academic factors. Behaviorally, an ALC student might need more than 45 days before he is ready to return to his geographical school. Academically, an ALC student might have difficulty returning to his geographical school due to the differences in the calendars at the ALC and regular schools. The high schools are on a seven-period daily schedule, and the ALC is on an 18- day modular schedule where one class is taught for 18 days. A behaving, attending ALC student could only take two and one-half classes in 45 school days, so that, when returned to his geographical school, he would be behind his classmates in most of his classes. After the meeting, Dr. Santini spoke with Respondent privately and told him that his behavior during the meeting had bordered on the insubordinate. Respondent countered that Dr. Santini was discriminating against him on the basis of race. Respondent's continued implementation of the 45 good- day policy at the start of the 1995-96 school year did not violate any directive that Dr. Santini had given him. Their disagreement during the June 20 meeting was probably limited to a disagreement over general philosophy. Most likely, Dr. Santini had decided to see the effect on ALC enrollment levels of Respondent's implementation of the 45 good-day policy. On October 20, 1995, Dr. Santini conducted another meeting concerning ALC enrollments. This time she met with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman. She called the meeting after receiving a telephone call that a student had remained at the ALC since April 1995. She was also concerned with current ALC enrollment levels under Respondent's approach. During this meeting, Dr. Santini told Respondent that the ALC building was designed for a maximum of 270 students. She told him to cap enrollment at 250 students. Dr. Santini testified that she told Respondent that she approved of the 45 good-day policy. She also testified that Respondent was angry at the meeting. If Dr. Santini approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting, the only reason why Respondent would have angered at the meeting would have been a disagreement over the application of the policy; after all, Respondent wanted the 45 good-day policy. Perhaps, Dr. Santini believed that she was approving the 45 good-day policy, but in fact she was not, as evidenced by their closing comments and her October 25 memorandum, described below. At the end of the October 20 meeting, Dr. Santini promised written guidelines and asked Respondent if he wanted any input. Dr. Santini testified that Respondent said that the only thing that he disagreed with was, if a student must be returned to his geographical school at the end of 45 days, ready or not, that those schools would be prepared to help him in the transition. Mr. Wiseman promised to adopt or modify the PASS program to help with this transition. The significance of Respondent's comment, as recounted by Dr. Santini, is as additional proof that Dr. Santini had not approved the continuation of the 45 good-day policy and Respondent was resigned to following her new enrollment policy. The comment tends to prove the elimination of the 45 good-day policy because, if the ALC were permitted to retain students until they were ready to return to their geographical school, there would be little need for the geographical school to help with the transition. The comment proves the obedience of Respondent because he had disagreed was more than the issue of the preparedness of the geographical school to help the former ALC student. Respondent had tried and failed to win Dr. Santini's approval for the 45 good-day policy, so that the ALC students returning to their geographical schools would not need any special assistance from the geographical schools in the transition. But this comment proves that he was giving up on the 45 good-day policy. Dr. Santini sent a memorandum dated October 25, 1996, to Respondent with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and all principals in the District. The memorandum largely memorialized what Dr. Santini had said at the meeting five days earlier. Dr. Santini testified that the only change between the October 25 memorandum and what she had said at the October 20 meeting was that she had eliminated the 45 good-day policy. She explained that she did not want Respondent to be the sole person to decide what good days were. However, the omission of the 45 good-day provision from the memorandum is strong proof that Dr. Santini never approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting. There were less drastic means of eliminating Respondent's discretion in applying the 45 good-day policy, without eliminating the policy itself. Dr. Santini could have reserved such authority for these decisions to Mr. Wiseman, herself, the principal of the geographical school, or some combination of the above. The October 25 memorandum states in its entirety: The following plan is to be implemented immedi- ately as a result of our meeting on Friday, October 20, 1995. High school, middle school and ESE students will be returned to their home schools at the end of a quarter after approximately 45 days at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). In most cases, those students entering the ALC during the first three weeks of a quarter would be eligible for return at the end of that quarter. Those students entering after the first three weeks of a quarter would remain at the ALC until the end of the following quarter. In rare cases a student may be returned to a different high school when recommended by the home school principal and agreed to by the receiving principal. All high school principals have agreed to alter their PASS program to accommodate an orderly reentry of students into the high schools. The ALC will not exceed 250 students. When full capacity is reached the student who has made the most progress will be returned to his/her home school when a new student arrives at the ALC. The above procedures would not prohibit a principal from requesting an earlier return or an extended stay at the ALC. The ALC will continue to function in its capacity as a special center serving the high schools, middle schools and special schools with an ongoing influx and reflux of students. It is understood that the school principals and the ALC principal will main- tain open and direct communication in a spirit of cooperation to best help students. Ultimately, the length of a student's stay at the ALC is dependent upon the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals involved. There are two possible interpretations of the October 25 memorandum. Either it is a consistent expression of an inflexible enrollment cap with the final sentence as a general surplusage to other, more detailed provisions to the contrary. Or, if the last sentence is to be given real effect, the memorandum is contradictory and meaningless. Paragraph 1 of the October 25 memorandum states clearly that the duration of a student's enrollment at the ALC is 45 days. As mentioned above, there is no requirement that these be good days. The word "approximately" does not restore any discretion to the ALC principal or anyone else; rather, like Paragraph 2, the word "approximately" allows for some minor flexibility in shortening or lengthening the 45-day enrollment based on the end of the academic quarter. More importantly, Paragraph 5 of the October 25 memorandum unconditionally limits the enrollment of the ALC to 250 students and supplies a simple procedure for the release of students when the enrollment exceeds 250 students. The student making the most progress when enrollment exceeds 250 students is returned to his geographical school. The returned student is not necessarily prepared for the transfer; he is only the most prepared among the ALC students. Paragraph 6 grants some discretion to the principal of the geographical school, not the ALC, to shorten or extend the stay of a student at the ALC. But the provision gives no guidance as to when stays should be lengthened. Nothing in this provision conflicts with the preceding provisions of the October 25 memorandum. The last sentence of the flush language at the end of the October 25 memorandum seems to ignore the preceding, more- detailed provisions of the memorandum. The last sentence abruptly introduces some discretion to the ALC and geographical school principals as to the length of a student's stay at the ALC. Respondent could not afford to read his supervisor's memorandum as contradictory and meaningless. His reading of the memorandum was guided by what Dr. Santini had told him at the October 20 meeting, which was that the 45 good- day policy was no longer in effect. When enrollment reached 250 students, Respondent had to return the students who had made the most progress. As promised, Mr. Wiseman sent a memorandum dated November 1, 1995, to the eight high school principals stating: Please send to me immediately, above your signature, a statement that you will provide the opportunity for returning students from the ALC to make up their work, and not be denied the chance to pass their classes. Return your memo to me by Wednesday, November 8, 1995. The principals did so. Shortly after receiving the October 25 memorandum, in compliance with her directive, Respondent returned 75-80 students to their geographical schools. Included in this number was A.B., whom Respondent returned to Mariner High School. Respondent had serious reservations as to A. B.'s readiness to return to a less-structured school setting. Even the student shared these misgivings. When he learned he was to be returned to Mariner High School, A. B. told Respondent that he was worried that he was not ready to return to a regular school. He had been apprehended with drugs or drug paraphernalia twice previously and was undergoing counseling. Three weeks after he was returned to Mariner High School, A. B. was apprehended with marijuana. On December 13, 1995, a Board-appointed hearing officer conducted A. B.'s formal expulsion hearing. Witnesses at the hearing, including Respondent, were sworn to tell the truth and subject to cross examination. Petitioner was represented by counsel, and A.B. was represented by his father, who has been a law enforcement officer for 21 years and is currently employed with the Cape Coral Police Department. Petitioner charged that A. B. had been in possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia on November 28, 1995, and was a repeat offender. Petitioner sought to expel A. B. for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year and the following year-- evidently, the maximum penalty allowed by law. A. B. had attended the ALC on at least two occasions. His more recent ALC enrollment was from April 17, 1995, through November 6, 1995. In his opening statement at the expulsion hearing, A.B.'s father admitted that A. B. had been caught possessing marijuana and stated: But the point of the issue too is that he was sent back to Mariner. He was in the ALC. He was flourishing in ALC for the first time. Whatever Mr. Dailey sparked in him was the first time since he's ever been in school. He was bringing books home and everything else, which is not heard of from ALC. When he was alerted to come back to Mariner, he went to Mr. Dailey and told him he wasn't mentally or physically ready to go back. Because the other problem that if he's offered a joint, he can't say no. And Mr. Dailey agreed and that's when that fell apart less than four weeks later. The hearing officer asked A. B.'s father if he wanted A. B. to return to the ALC. The father responded by saying, "Yes, sir. I never wanted him to leave. . . . And the result of this too which I wish people would take into consideration, the night that this happened, because of this, my wife tried to commit suicide." A. B.'s father continued in his opening statement: In ALC Dailey sparked four point something and he was studying. He was getting high grades. His grade point average went up. He didn't want to leave. He did not have the problem. Four weeks--it wasn't even four weeks after he was back that this happened. .... I'm not totally blaming [Mariner High School]. A[.] is at fault with that too. And that's what we are addressing through the counseling. But to put him out in the street or expel him I don't think is the answer either. Especially since for the first time in his life he showed an interest in school. Petitioner's second witness in the expulsion hearing was an assistant principal at Mariner High School. He testified in response to a question directed toward the propriety of the handling of A. B. at Mariner High School: Our position there is that Mr. Dailey is a competent expert, that he handles the people and when he recommends for us to come--for someone to come back, we take that individual. . . . Answering the question whether he would have handled A.B. differently if he had known that he had not successfully completed the ALC program, the assistant principal testified: . . . You know, we have to accord him his rights like all the kids who complete the program at the Alternative Learning Center. Once he's paid his debt and satisfied them that he's capable, then they send him to us. I don't know of any students they send to us that they don't feel like has made the improvement that the school was set up to start with. Do you understand what I'm saying? So when they come to us, their staffing to exit over there is telling us that they feel like they had--now the kid has shown improvement and he's now corrected what it is and he's ready to return. Petitioner's last witness at the expulsion hearing, John Hennebery, who is the District Director of Student Services, testified that the ALC Principal determines when the student is to be returned to his geographical school. A. B.'s father called Respondent as his sole witness. In response to a question as to A. B.'s progress at the ALC, Respondent testified: . . . I noticed, number one, he tends to be completely honest and tells the truth. That's the experience I have had with him. He is begin- ning to come around in terms of when he feels someone is making up evidence or getting to that point, he would seek out--attempt to seek out in terms of trying to find some assistance rather than jumping in first. But that again is a kind of structured environment that we have at the Alternative Learning School. Q: In your professional opinion, do you believe that [A.] at this point in time still needs that structure of school? A: I most certainly do. Q: At the time when he was requested from the School Board to go back to Mariner, did [A.] approach you in reference to this? A: Yes, he did. Q: And in what aspect did he? A: The usual policy of the district was that on a first offense there was a 45 good day policy. That means that the student has the responsi- bility of spending 45 good days there, good days, which are defined as attendance, punctu- ality, academic and discipline. And on the second offense it's a ninety day offense. Q: Uh-huh. A: Then this year the rules are changed. In the middle of the semester. I was given a directive from the Assistant Superintendent, along with other Principals were informed of it; that the students were called by numbers. At the Alternative Learning School were addi- tional programs of juvenile justice, programs dealing with the number of felons that we were having come into school; that our numbers were getting too large and we had to--I had to send students back. [A.] was one of the students that had been there a period of time and that based on the period of--on the time that he had spent there, that we have to send him back to Mariner. [A.] had some concern about that and spoke with me in great detail about going back and being under those pressures. Now my conversation with [A.] was that because if he had done well at the Alternative Learning School, that my expectations with [A.] would be that he would go over there and do well and make good decisions at Mariner High School. So that in terms of that's the type of conversa- tion that we had and that's where it led. Now did [A.] complete his stay? No, he did not. And he is not one that I would have automatically sent back to Mariner because I was not yet convinced of his ability to deal with the pressures that he was going to have to face at Mariner High School. * * * Q: But your general concerns that the peer pressure is basically--or the pressures in the school itself that he couldn't handle was also [A.]'s concerns too when he came to speak to you about going back? A: Yes, those were [A.]'s concerns but those would be anyone's concerns as relates to going back to the regular school once you have been at the Alternative for a long period of time. You get the anxiety of going back and wanting to do well. So it's not out of the ordinary for students, I might say, to be excited. I have students right now that actually do something wrong so they won't have to go back. So [A.]'s concern or his emotions that he expressed were not unordinary. I felt at that time that because I was given a directive, that it was my responsibility as a Principal to assist him in moving in that direction and I had all the confi- dence in the world in the Mariner staff that they would assist him in moving in that direction. There is an issue that I must be very honest is that the decisions that [A.] makes is [sic] [A.]'s decisions and once in fact--and this is what we teach them at the Alternative School; that once in fact you see that kind of situation present, then you must not go to the situation. You must remove yourself from the situation. And, you know, I'm one that's trying to be very fair and equitable in this hearing and in telling you that this is a situation that, yes, he should have known not to go near that, should have backed off from it. Q: Did he? A: No, sir, he didn't. Was I ready to release him? No, I wasn't. I'd like to concur with Mr. McNerney. I'd like to see [A.] back at the Alternative Learning School for ninety days with the approval of the-- with some kind of documentation showing that he has completed his drug testing and after that, then backing up Mr. McNerney's decision in attendance at the school. And I'm being very honest. The preceding excerpts from the transcript represent all of Respondent's material testimony. Petitioner conducted limited cross examination, devoted to an exposition of the District's drug policy. A. B.'s father introduced into evidence a letter dated December 12, 1995, from Licensed Mental Health Counselor Beverly Barbato, Ph.D., stating that it is in A. B.'s best interest to return to the structure of the ALC. On December 18, 1995--working without a transcript in the interest of time--the hearing officer summarized the testimony of the witnesses, commending each of them for some aspect of their participation in the hearing. As to Respondent, the hearing officer stated: "Mr. Dailey should certainly be commended for his honesty and his ability to assess the situation in a very diplomatic manner." Acknowledging that Petitioner sought expulsion for the maximum time permitted by law, the hearing officer stated that he "sense[d] that both Mr. Hennebery and Mr. McNerney felt that reinstatement should occur in the 1996-1997 school year or upon [A.] completing a successful drug rehabilitation program pursuant to Florida Statutes." Never mentioning old or new enrollment policies at the ALC in his discussion, the hearing officer accepted the recommendations of Respondent, A. B.'s father, the treating health care professional, and A. B. that A. B. be placed on probation for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year at the ALC, subject to additional conditions. In no way did the hearing officer's recommendation rely on Respondent's brief testimony about the transfer of A. B. under the new ALC enrollment policy. The court reporter finished the transcript on December 26, 1995. In Exceptions filed January 8, 1996, Petitioner requested that A. B. be expelled at least for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year. The record does not indicate what action the School Board took on the hearing officer's recommendation. The expulsion transcript reveals that the Assistant Principal at Mariner High School construed the ALC enrollment policy to ensure that students would not be returned to their geographical schools until they were ready to return. The Director of Student Services shared this misinterpretation, at least to the extent of thinking that the transfer decision was made by the ALC principal. The expulsion transcript reveals that Respondent told the truth that B. had come to Respondent and said he was afraid he was not ready to return. Respondent told the truth that he too shared these concerns. And Respondent told the truth that the current policy was that he had no choice but to return unprepared students when ALC enrollments reached the cap. In one respect, Respondent's testimony may have reflected a misunderstanding of a portion of Dr. Santini's policy. He testified that the new policy meant that "the students were called by numbers." Numbers triggered the necessity to return some students. But the new policy did not require that students be returned on a first in, first out basis. Rather, the students to be returned were to be those most prepared to be returned. Respondent's testimony seems to indicate that he interpreted the new policy as providing that he return students on a first in, first out basis. He implied that he selected for transfer the students who had been enrolled the longest at the ALC. In his next sentence, Respondent mentioned "numbers" in connection with the enrollment at the ALC getting too high as trigger for the need to transfer some ALC students. This suggests that his reference to "numbers" was not to the determination of who to return to their geographical schools. But in his next sentence, Respondent implied that the decision to return A. B. was based strictly on how long he had been at the ALC. However, two sentences later, Respondent recounted how A. B. had done well at the ALC, implying that he had at least made some progress, although without any mention of his progress relative to the progress of the other ALC students. Close analysis of Respondent's testimony does not reveal the basis on which he selected the students to be transferred. However, even if Respondent returned A. B. on a first in, first out basis, this action, although not consistent with the better reading of the October 25 memorandum, would have been consistent with Paragraphs 1 and 2, which imply that the sole criterion of enrollment duration is the length of the student's enrollment. Although close scrutiny of the October 25 memorandum permits a reconciliation of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 5--though not also the last sentence of the flush language-- Respondent cannot be expected to perform such textual analysis to discern meaning from such careless wording. In any event, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing did not dwell on the inflexible enrollment cap ordered by Dr. Santini. He mentioned it briefly, then proceeded to describe, almost as briefly, his application of the policy in A.B.'s case. He cast his testimony in a light favorable to Petitioner by explaining that many ALC students are worried about their ability to survive in a regular school, A. B. had made some progress at the ALC, Respondent had encouraged A. B. to behave at Mariner High School, and A. B. must bear final responsibility for his poor choices. After receiving Dr. Santini's memorandum, Respondent was doing the best he could to implement the new enrollment policy. Probably unknown to Dr. Santini at the time, Respondent called Mr. Wiseman around Christmas vacation and asked if he should transfer 112 students then or wait until the end of the semester in January. Mr. Wiseman told Respondent to retain the students until the semester break. Dr. Santini never tried to clarify her confusing memorandum to Respondent or assist him in its implementation. In response to questioning during a School Board meeting from a School Board member concerning the conflict between Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the October 25 memorandum, Dr. Santini issued a memorandum of clarification dated January 5, 199[6.] The January 5 memorandum was issued to all middle- and high-school principals. The first four paragraphs are identical to the October 25 memorandum, except for the addition of a sentence to the fourth paragraph mentioning some new software to facilitate the transition of students back to their geographical schools. The new fifth paragraph states: The ALC will not exceed 250 students unless there are special circumstances with individual students that may warrant extended time. The principal of the geo-school will discuss these circumstances with the ALC principal. When extended time is recommended, the ALC principal will then compile a short report to the Secondary Operations Director that includes the following: the time already spent at ALC by that student, the original offense committed by that student, and any other justification that may warrant extended time (i.e., parent request). The Secondary Operations Director will consider all above factors and then give approval or disapproval on any requested extended time. Dr. Santini also revised the last sentence of the October 25 memorandum to reflect that the length of a student's assignment to the ALC is dependent on the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals and-- now--Director of Secondary Operations. The overenrollment issue did not end here. Dr. Santini conducted a meeting with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman on January 9, 1996, but this is addressed below in connection with another issue. However, one more fact has a bearing on the issue of overenrollment itself. Respondent never violated the ALC enrollment policy as Dr. Santini applied it to Respondent's immediate successors, Ms. Smith and Mr. Hagy. During the 77 days of Respondent's tenure, the average student enrollment was 265 students. During the 73 days of his successors' tenure, the average student enrollment was 253 students. After adjusting for actual attendance, there were 184 students present on average under Respondent's tenure and 189 students present on average under his successors' tenure. Improper Voluntary Enrollment and ESE Procedures: Paragraph 52 At the end of July 1995, Respondent called Mr. Hennebery and asked if he could voluntarily enroll two students. Mr. Hennebery explained that ALC administrators had made voluntary enrollments before deciding to discontinue the practice one or two school years ago. Since that time, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman had approved all voluntary enrollments. Mr. Hennebery was not Respondent's direct or indirect supervisor. Mr. Hennebery lacked the authority to accept voluntary enrollments, or to make policy on this issue. At no time did Respondent's direct supervisors, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman, instruct Respondent as to voluntary enrollments. The issue of voluntary enrollments is not, in any event, of major importance. Of the hundreds of students enrolled at the ALC during Respondent's tenure, not more than 18 of them were voluntarily enrolled. Most if not all of the students whom Respondent voluntarily enrolled were exceptional cases who were ineligible to return to their geographical schools or enter the Academy. During Respondent's tenure, six ESE students were transferred from the ALC without individual educational plans. Respondent relied on Mr. Vitale, who was the ESE department head, and Ms. Smith to handle ESE paperwork, as Respondent candidly admitted at the hearing that he was unknowledgeable about ESE procedures. Five of the six students left the ALC and entered Adult Education. These were obviously older students for whom an individual educational plan is of less importance than it would be for students with many more years in the educational system. Ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with ESE procedures at the ALC rests with Respondent. However, the circumstances suggest only an innocent mistake on Respondent's part, not incompetency, misconduct in office, or gross insubordination. Student Visits to Hi Tech Center Central: Paragraph 55 One day in late November 1995, Ms. Saldana had arranged for two students to visit the District's High Tech Center Central, which is a vocational school. When they returned, they told her that, at the end of the day, the counselor at High Tech Center Central had refused to talk to them because they were ALC students. Ms. Saldana called High Tech Center Central Director Ron Pentiuk, who confirmed that he would not allow ALC students to enroll directly from the ALC or even to visit his campus while still enrolled at the ALC. He said that this had been his agreement with Ms. Folaros. Ms. Saldana explained that, in the case of three to five students, they could not first return to their geographical schools because they were graduating early. If they could not enroll in High Tech Center Central directly from the ALC, they could not attend the vocational school. Mr. Pentiuk refused to consider the request, insisting the students still had to spend six to nine weeks at their geographical schools before they could enroll at the vocational school. He said someone in the District office told him not to accept any more ALC students. By letter to Respondent dated December 19, 1995, with copies to Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Wortham, and others, Mr. Pentiuk restated his position: "no ALC students will have direct access to High Tech Central programs. . . . [A]ll visitations shall come from the student[']s geo school and not ALC directly." The letter cites as authority for this policy a meeting that took place at the start of the 1994-95 school year between representatives of High Tech Center Central and the New Directions Center. The implicit reason for this policy is that Mr. Pentiuk wanted someplace to send a student if he failed to perform at High Tech Center Central. By memorandum dated January 10, 1996, to Mr. Pentiuk, Respondent memorialized a discussion at a principals' meeting earlier that day. The agreement appears to allow ALC students who are ready to be returned to their geographical schools, but have not yet been returned, to visit the High Tech Center Central. The record reveals only that Respondent tried to send ALC students to the High Tech Center Central for visits. When they were treated rudely by Center personnel, Respondent and Ms. Saldana discovered an unreasonable policy that emanated not from the District office, but from an understanding reached by Mr. Pentiuk and Respondent's predecessor. This agreement had little logic to commend it. It delayed and, in some cases, denied ALC students access to important vocational training. Mr. Pentiuk explained that he could not deal directly with ALC students because he needed to have a place to which to return them if they misbehaved. However, his concern does not address the aspect of the policy prohibiting even campus visits by ALC students. And his concern fails even to address the remainder of the policy, as the record does not explain why Mr. Pentiuk could not expel students back to the ALC as easily as to their geographical schools. In any event, Respondent and Ms. Saldana rectified the situation, achieving a much-improved policy than the one that preceded Respondent's involvement. Refusal to Reenroll J. M.: Paragraph 50 In September 1995, Respondent refused to reenroll J.M. when his grandmother brought him back to school after an unexcused absence. J. M.'s father had called Respondent and complained that his mother was interfering with J. M., her grandson. The boy was skipping school with the father's brother, who was also of school age. J.M. asked Respondent not to let the grandmother return the boy to school or supply a legal excuse for his absence. When J. M.'s grandmother brought the boy back to school one day, Respondent did as the father had directed him. Respondent told the grandmother, "Ma'am, you can't bring your child back. I got a call from your son, and he is the legal guardian. Call your son and get it straight with him. I shouldn't even be talking to you about J. M." E. Arrest of W. S.: Paragraph 49 On November 1, 1995, W. S. tried to leave the cafeteria without permission. She has a history of violent outbursts. Riley Ware, a teacher, tried to stop her. W. S. asked him who he thought he was with that crooked gold tooth. Mr. Ware responded by telling her to sit her "big-lipped" self down. (Respondent later reprimanded Mr. Ware for this comment.) W. S. swore at Mr. Ware, calling him, among other things, a "black bitch." Teacher Christine Peete then intervened. She said, "Young lady, you've been very inappropriate." Gently placing her arm on W. S.'s shoulder, Ms. Peete added, "Come with me until you cool off." W. S. angrily responded by slinging Ms. Peete's arm off of her shoulder. She shouted, "Get your hands off me, bitch. I'll dip on [beat up] all of you. Ms. Peete had to return to her class, so she asked Ms. Krucher to escort W. S. to the office. Ms. Peete found Respondent in the middle-school area and told him that he needed to deal with W. S. Respondent returned to his office to find W. S. leaving. He greeted her by saying, "Well, daughter, Ms. Peete tells me that you called her a bitch." S. said she called Mr. Ware a bitch, but she did not call "that bitch" (Ms. Peete) a bitch. Respondent told her she was suspended for five days, and W. S. replied, "I don't give a fuck about five days." Respondent raised the suspension to seven days, and W. S. lunged toward Respondent and Ms. Peete, who was standing next to him. W. S.'s initial lunge threw Respondent, herself, and a computer to the floor. Respondent wrestled his way to the top, and W. S. demanded that he get his "big belly" off her. She scratched him or snapped his suspenders, causing his chin to bleed. She grabbed his tie and choked him. She tried to bite and kick him. Respondent ordered a nearby staffperson to call the police. Officer Garrett Kusienski of the Fort Myers Police Department responded to the call and arrived at the school in a three or four minutes. When he arrived at the ALC office, Respondent and W. S. had just gotten off the floor, and Respondent and several male staffmembers were escorting her into the office. Respondent approached Officer Kusienski and asked him to arrest W. S. Officer Kusienski asked why, and Respondent directed him to handcuff and remove her. Officer Kusienski refused to do so until Respondent explained why. Officer Kusienski's police report, which is credited, states Respondent answered that, if Officer Kusienski were not going to do his job, "I needed to get off his campus." Officer Kusienski asked again what happened, and Respondent "stated that he would give all the details to Chief Hart when he was contacted, to get the hell off his campus if I wasn't going to arrest anyone." Officer Kusienski left the building, but returned a few minutes later, spoke with W. S. and possibly others, and took her into custody. The police report notes that another officer, who had arrived on the scene as backup, took statements from witnesses. At the hearing, Officer Kusienski testified that Respondent said, "If I'm not going to do my fucking job to get the fuck off this campus." Officer Kusienski did not explain at the hearing why he deleted one "fuck" entirely and replaced another with "hell" in his police report. It is unlikely that Officer Kusienski was graciously sparing Respondent any embarrassment in the report because he also noted that Respondent became "very disorderly toward me." The only other evidence that Respondent said "fuck" is Ms. Krucher, who testified that Respondent said it to Officer Kusienski once, not twice as Officer Kusienski testified. However, her testimony is contradicted by numerous other witnesses, who testified that she was not there and they did not hear Respondent say "fuck" to the officer or otherwise during the incident. Ms. Krucher's testimony has not generally been credited on grounds, among others, that she harbored considerable ill-will toward Respondent. The testimony of Officer Kusienski is countered by the testimony of Officer Jackson, also of the Fort Myers Police Department. Officer Jackson testified that Respondent did not use foul language toward Officer Kusienski. There is no preponderance of the evidence as to what Respondent said to Officer Kusienski. Respondent Late to Work: Paragraph 54 On November 16, 1995, the parent of a student at Cape Coral High School called Respondent and asked him to attend a meeting for the purpose of determining whether to transfer the parent's child to the ALC. The parent did not want the child transferred to the ALC and asked for Respondent's help at the meeting. Seeing a chance to help control the ALC enrollment, Respondent agreed to attend the meeting, which was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and try to help the student remain at his geographical school. Respondent's intent was to speak first and then drive back to the ALC, which was about 20-30 minutes away at that time of day. Respondent reasonably expected that he would arrive at the ALC between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. Respondent typically arrived at school at 7:30 a.m. and took cafeteria duty until school starts at 8:00 a.m. The evening of November 16, Respondent called Mr. Ware and told him to cover the cafeteria the following morning in case Respondent was late. Ms. Smith was on personal leave on November 17. However, Respondent and LAMP principal McCollum had an agreement that, if one of them was absent from the campus, the other would serve as acting administrator to be called upon by teachers or staff as needed. Their agreement--which was a necessity for Ms. McCollum because she lacked an assistant principal--did not require that either give the other advance notice of his absence. Unfortunately, Respondent did not get to speak first at the meeting, which ran longer than Respondent had expected because the student had been charged with drug possession, not merely disrespect to a teacher, as Respondent had been told. From the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Respondent called someone--probably Mr. Ware--and told him that he would be later than he had anticipated the prior night. Respondent returned to the ALC between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. When Respondent did not appear at school by 8:00 a.m., Ms. Krucher told Mr. Wortham that Respondent had left the ALC without an administrator. Mr. Wortham called Dr. Santini and told her. The same afternoon, Dr. Santini or her designee called Respondent and asked him where he had been that morning. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman met with Respondent on November 20 to discuss Respondent's tardiness on November 17. This meeting is described in the following section. By memorandum to Respondent dated November 28, 1995, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, but not to Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini concluded as to the incident: As per our conversation of November 20, 1995, I am reminding you that I consider the fact that you were not in school on November 17, 1995 until 8:45 A.M. with no assistant present, a serious offense. The students at ALC need constant monitoring and supervision and to have the school unstaffed by any administrator, even for forty minutes, could lead to a catastrophe. I do not expect this to happen again. By letter dated December 8, 1995, to Dr. Santini, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, Respondent acknowledged receipt of her November 28 "letter relating to your concerns of me not being present in my building without an assistant." The letter explains that, once at the Cape Coral High School meeting, Respondent learned that the student had not only threatened a teacher, but had also used drugs. The letter states that Respondent had previously covered for Mr. Wortham and Ms. McCollum. Respondent's letter concludes: This is not to say that I don't concur with you. I most certainly agree with you whole heartedly that not only in ALC but all schools, we must have an administrator on duty. An administrator was on duty, as I had informed you verbally. Mrs. McCollum and I had total agreement relating to coverage without any problems. Your letter gives the perception that I was purposely avoiding my responsibility and was irresponsible in fulfilling my duty as a principal. I would like the record to show that I was fulfilling my duty as an educator, as a principal and as a community leader. Through my efforts, I was able to at least save the life of a young man that we could have possibly lost to drugs. This is one I don't have to look over and he not look back. Thank you for your concern and I accept your letter of concern and would vow that I will continue to work with you and to make the ALC the best learning environment that I can. Dr. Santini's November 28 letter is not a letter of reprimand, nor did she intend for a copy of the letter to be included in Respondent's personnel file. Her intent is inferred from the absence of the letter from Respondent's personnel file in mid-February, the omission from the letter of any express notation of copies to Respondent's personnel file (as contrasted to the January 2 letter described below), and the failure of Dr. Santini to respond to Respondent's subsequent characterization of the letter in his letter of December 8. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated any policy of the District in effect on November 17. The record reveals no prohibition against having another administrator, such as Ms. McCollum, cover for Respondent for a short time, even in the absence of advance notice. November 20, 1995, Meeting: Paragraph 42 Three days after Respondent was late to work due to the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman visited Respondent to discuss the incident, as well as charges of heavy-handed dealing with students, yelling at teachers, and leaving campus early. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman dismissed as unfounded all charges except for Respondent's tardiness on November 17. Around this time, Ms. Krucher, who had been talking to Mr. Wortham daily, began contacting Dr. Santini and possibly Petitioner, whom Dr. Santini testified that she had suggested Ms. Krucher call. The purpose of these calls was to supply, on a confidential basis, unfavorable information about Respondent. If the information resembled her testimony, nearly all of it was unreliable. One incident illustrates the lengths to which unidentified persons would go to fabricate evidence unfavorable to Respondent. By two-page, handwritten letter dated February 17, 1996, from Ms. Pepin to Ms. Minton, Ms. Pepin objected to a statement attributed to Ms. Minton in the newspaper to the effect that she spoke for all of the ALC staff when she criticized Respondent. In her letter, which is entirely supportive of Respondent, Ms. Pepin admitted that, last June, she had not much liked Respondent entering her classroom and giving his "new sheriff in town" speech. But the letter continues to state that she now understands the effectiveness of Respondent's style. Someone--not in the office of Petitioner's counsel-- fraudulently altered Ms. Pepin's letter and sent it to Petitioner's counsel. By careful folding, whiting out, and photocopying, this person reduced the two-page letter to five and one-half lines and moved Ms. Pepin's signature beneath these lines, so as to make the letter look like a short note objecting to the "new sheriff" speech. This person then passed the counterfeit note as a gross distortion of Ms. Pepin's views-- literally out of context. It is highly unlikely that such fraud would be perpetrated by someone in the District office. The record does not reveal who had access to the letter after it was received by Ms. Minton. But the incident reveals indisputably the unreliability of at least some of the information that Dr. Santini and Petitioner received about Respondent. In any event, toward the end of the November 20 meeting, Respondent demanded that Dr. Santini tell him who had made the allegations against him. The request was not unreasonable given the inaccuracy of most of the charges. Dr. Santini refused to divulge the name or names of these persons. She explained reasonably that, if she were going to do something about the charges, she would tell him, but she was not going to do anything about them. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was rude in the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's November 28 memorandum makes no mention of any rudeness. Petitioner's counsel did not inquire of Mr. Wiseman as to Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's testimony was not detailed in its description of Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. On direct, she testified only that Respondent exhibited an "insubordinate attitude," and "we couldn't talk to him for his continuing to talk to us." Dr. Santini did not use the word "shout" or "yell" to describe Respondent's manner of speaking. On cross, Dr. Santini added only that Respondent was "insubordinate, rude, and unreceptive." Gate Incident: Paragraph 43 Immediately after school on December 12, 1995, a boy hit a girl near the front gate of the New Directions campus. Respondent, Mr. Ware, Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Smith, Ms. Krucher, Mr. Nassiff, Mr. Wortham, and other adults immediately went to the scene. At first, the two students refused to tell Respondent what had happened. A group of boys outside of the gate had seen the altercation. Respondent motioned them to enter the school grounds, but, before he could talk to them, Mr. Nassiff told Respondent that he had seen the altercation. Not needing to speak to the group of boys, Respondent motioned them to go back. However, two or three of them were already inside the gate. A security guard was in the process of locking the two front gates, so Respondent told Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to escort the two or three boys off campus through the back gate, which was closer to their homes. Unknown to Respondent, the remaining boys from the group had just told Mr. Wortham that they were going to beat up the next student whom they saw. Respondent, the two students involved in the altercation, and other staff, except for Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith, walked toward the ALC where Respondent could deal with the two students. Respondent saw Mr. Wortham signalling to Ms. Krucher, and Respondent asked her what he wanted. She replied that he wanted her to close the back gate. Respondent told her not to close the back gate because he had just sent Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith with some students to let them out the back gate. He reminded her that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss. At the time, Respondent was unaware that some Academy students were preparing Christmas decorations inside the back gate, which typically remained open before and after school for deliveries. Respondent was also unaware that Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith had not gone to the back gate because they had been able to get the students through one of the front gates before it had been locked. After Respondent returned to the ALC building, the group of students walked around the side the school to the back gate, where one or more of them beat up an Academy student so badly that he required hospitalization. As soon as Respondent learned of the incident in the back, Respondent called Mr. Wortham, who said he was angry and had some concerns. Respondent invited him to discuss them, but he declined, saying he would instead call Dr. Santini. Respondent suggested that he take his concerns directly to Petitioner in that event. Respondent then found out from Mr. Nassiff and Ms. Krucher what had happened. Respondent asked Mr. Nassiff to explain to Mr. Wortham that Respondent had not known that there were students in the back inside the gate and that Respondent had sent two teachers back there to escort students out of the campus. Shortly after that, Respondent went to the Academy building to speak to Mr. Wortham. Respondent explained what had happened from his perspective, and Mr. Wortham acknowledged that he had later found that out, but, by that time, he had already called Dr. Santini. Petitioner did not call Mr. Wortham to testify about the gate incident, even though Petitioner claims it was his order that Respondent countermanded. Under the circumstances reasonably known to him at the time, Respondent behaved responsibly throughout the gate incident. He did not know he lacked crucial information when he told Ms. Krucher not to go to the back gate. But he reasonably assumed that he had more information than did Mr. Wortham. He knew that he had already sent two men to the back. Even had he known that the boys wanted to beat someone up and that an Academy student was in the back, Respondent would reasonably have relied on Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to prevent the attack. When Respondent told Ms. Krucher that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss, he was merely emphasizing his direction that she not close the back gate. He was not stating the cause for the direction. The cause was that he had sent two men to the back gate. Respondent's comment about who was Ms. Krucher's boss was thus not an act of insubordination or lack of cooperation. I. Respondent's Police Interview About Gate Incident: Paragraph 48 Mr. Nassiff witnessed the police interview of Respondent concerning the gate incident. In the interview, Respondent did not state that he countermanded Mr. Wortham's order to Ms. Krucher to go lock the back gate. Respondent did not withhold material information from the police, who were investigating the beating of the Academy student, not Respondent. The direction that Respondent gave Ms. Krucher was entirely appropriate under the circumstances as reasonably understood by Respondent at the time that he told her not to close the back gate. There was no reason for Respondent to mention this minor point to the police. J. January 9, 1996, Meeting: Paragraph 44 Three days after the gate incident, Dr. Santini asked Respondent to come to her office that day. He said that he was helping students deliver Christmas food baskets to the needy and could not, so they set up a 7:00 a.m. appointment for the following Monday, December 18. When Respondent arrived at the meeting, expecting it to be between him and Dr. Santini, he found Mr. Wiseman and Mr. Wortham, who had prepared a written statement. Dr. Santini said she wanted to hear both sides of the gate incident. Respondent objected that the meeting was unfair because he had not had the chance to prepare a statement. Dr. Santini replied that she had not asked Mr. Wortham to prepare a statement, and Respondent said that at least he had known what the meeting was about. Mr. Wortham and Respondent each stated what happened. Mr. Wiseman asked Mr. Wortham if he had disclosed to Respondent the threat by the group of boys in the front, and Mr. Wortham admitted that he had not. Dr. Santini said that she would speak to Ms. Krucher to obtain a statement, but refused Respondent's request that she also speak to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was worried that he was being set up and informed Dr. Santini that he would be requesting a meeting with Petitioner to complain about the discriminatory treatment that he was receiving. Respondent contacted Petitioner's office to set up a meeting. Petitioner contacted Respondent during Christmas break, and, at her request, the two of them met for two hours on December 28 at a local restaurant. They discussed the ALC enrollment policy, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing, Respondent's claims of harassment by Dr. Santini, Dr. Santini's practice of invariably bringing Mr. Wiseman with her on visits with Respondent, Respondent's good relationship with Mr. Wiseman whenever he was separated from Dr. Santini, and the gate incident. Petitioner told Respondent that he needed to return to school after Christmas break and work more closely with his supervisors, as well as Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham. Petitioner promised to set up a meeting among her, Respondent, and Dr. Santini. This meeting was later scheduled for January 9, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. By letter to Respondent dated January 2, 1996, with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini stated that she had completed her investigation into the gate incident and had spoken with Respondent, Mr. Wortham, and Ms. Krucher following the meeting of December Dr. Santini concluded: the key issue is the fact that after Mr. Wortham asked your security guard, Lisa Krucher, to run to the back of the school and lock the gate because he felt the boys who were threatening to harm someone would come in through the back gate, you instructed Lisa Krucher not to lock the gate because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham. I consider this action on your part a poor judgment call and a lack of cooperation with other adminis- trators on campus. * * * I am directing you from this point on, to work together with Mr. Wortham for the benefit of the children in the school. The attitude that employees work for one principal and not another is an attitude that can cause disruption and, as we have seen with regard to this incident, harm to a student. Dr. Santini's letter misstates an important fact. Respondent did not redirect Ms. Krucher "because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham." He redirected her because he had sent two able staffpersons to the back gate, and there was no need to send a third person. Dr. Santini evidently discredited an important element of Respondent's version of the gate incident. She could not have determined that Respondent countermanded Ms. Wortham's order for the sole reason of showing Ms. Krucher who was her boss, unless Dr. Santini had eliminated the possibility that Respondent countermanded the order because he had already sent two men back there. Whether Respondent sent the two men to the back or not is a difficult fact question. Although Dr. Santini might reasonably have concluded that Respondent, Mr. Ware, and Mr. Smith were lying, her factual determination is deficient as long as she refused to talk to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was reasonably concerned with Dr. Santini's fairness when she talked to Mr. Wortham's corroborating witness, but refused even to talk to Respondent's corroborating witnesses. On January 5, 1996, which was the date that Dr. Santini issued her letter clarifying the October 25 memorandum on the ALC enrollment policy, Dr. Santini contacted Respondent's office to set up a meeting for January 8, which was the day prior to their meeting with Petitioner. She had by now seen the transcript of the expulsion hearing and wanted to discuss this matter with Respondent. Taking the advice of Dr. Cecil Carter, an administrator in the District, Respondent called Dr. Santini's office back and asked the purpose of the meeting. Dr. Santini relayed the information through someone in her office that they were going to discuss Respondent's "deposition." The only deposition with which Respondent was familiar was in connection with his testimony in the Rockford, Illinois desegregation case. Dr. Santini inadvertently used "deposition" to mean Respondent's testimony at the A. B. expulsion hearing. However, Respondent assumed that she was going to discuss some aspect of desegregation with him. Around 2:00 p.m. on January 8, Respondent told his secretary to call Dr. Santini's office and cancel the meeting. He told his secretary that he was ill and going home directly after school, but told her to tell Dr. Santini that she could call Respondent at home and they could at least talk on the phone. Dr. Santini did not call Respondent at home. Instead, she and Mr. Wiseman appeared, without prior notice, in Respondent's office between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. on January 9, 1996, which was the day of the meeting with Petitioner. Respondent said he was busy with school duties, and they waited until he could see them. In a few minutes, Respondent, Dr. Santini, and Mr. Wiseman met. Dr. Santini started the meeting by saying, "Charles, I'm going to talk to you about this deposition." She showed him the transcript of the A. B. expulsion hearing. She stated, "The way this looks, I'm going to have to write you up." Understandably worried that Dr. Santini had already made her decision to discipline him, Respondent asked for permission for his secretary to attend the meeting as a witness. Dr. Santini said no. Respondent then asked to tape the meeting. Dr. Santini agreed. As Respondent left to find a tape recorder, Mr. Wiseman said, "Mary, you're going to have to give him a chance to tell his side of the story." Unable to find a tape recorder, Respondent returned to the meeting. Dr. Santini pointed to a page of the transcript and, without discussing the testimony directly, declared that Respondent had testified that numbers were more important than students. Respondent tried to interrupt, but Dr. Santini would not allow him. Respondent stated, "You can't accuse me of things and expect me not to respond." Dr. Santini replied, "You are going to listen to me." Dr. Santini accused Respondent of talking to A. B.'s father. In fact, Respondent had told him to work with Mr. Hennebery's office. Suddenly, Respondent told her that the meeting was over until we meet Petitioner. Dr. Santini slammed a book and told Respondent that he had "disrespected me and Mr. Wiseman." Respondent answered, "My dear friend, how have I disrespected you?" Dr. Santini stated, "That's it." She turned and walked out the door. Mr. Wiseman was still seated when she left. He then jumped up, shook Respondent's hand, and said, "See you later, baby boy." Alone among the key participants in this case, Mr. Wiseman appears to have maintained his sense of humor. During this brief meeting, for example, Mr. Wiseman was the only person not to have raised his voice. Later on the day of January 9, the meeting with Petitioner took place with Respondent, Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Dr. Carter, Dr. Counsel, and an administrative assistant in attendance. Respondent began the meeting by reading a letter from him to Petitioner dated January 8, 1996. The letter reviews the condition of the ALC when he was appointed principal, the changes that he has made, and the problems posed by the ALC enrollment policy stated in the October 25 memorandum. The participants discussed the ALC enrollment policy. Respondent objected that it appeared that they had met with other principals and not him. Mr. Wiseman admitted that they had met and had excluded Respondent because he had threatened another principal. There is no evidence of such a threat. After the discussion about ALC enrollments ended, Petitioner said that she was out of time and everyone would have to return to finish their discussion. Petitioner told Respondent that she had sent Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman to see him, and she did not want him calling off meetings with her staffmembers, such as he had done that morning. Respondent understood that he should not do that. Respondent complained that he had thought that he was doing an outstanding job and could not understand what the problem was with his job performance. Dr. Santini disagreed with him about the job he was doing. Respondent stated that no one had ever sufficiently spelled out a problem so that he could address it. He asked who was complaining about what. He asked Dr. Santini directly if she had any complaints. Dr. Santini said she had one complaint, but would not disclose it to Respondent, even after being urged to do so by all of the other participants, except the administrative assistant. Dr. Santini said that the attorneys had told her that she did not have to disclose it. She then said to Petitioner, "Bobbie, the problem is he will listen to you, not me." Respondent and Dr. Santini began to argue about the meeting earlier in the day. In anger, Respondent said he would not follow Dr. Santini's directions, but go directly to Petitioner. He also admitted that he was afraid of Dr. Santini. Petitioner closed the meeting by promising to check with the attorneys and see if she could supply Respondent with a copy of the complaint to which Dr. Santini had referred. Two days later, on January 11, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent suspending him with pay due to "your conduct in a meeting with Mr. Herb Wiseman . . . and Dr. Mary Santini on January 9, 1996." The letter adds: "you should know that other allegations have been made against you that are currently being investigated by the District." V. Conclusion Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, or immorality. Petitioner never trained Respondent to serve as a school principal. Respondent's previous administrative roles provided valuable experience, but they had also permitted Respondent to become accustomed to serving in a close relationship with a Superintendent who was also a mentor, working outside the normal hierarchical channels of the District office, and alienating numbers of parents, teachers, and administrators in making tough rezoning and equity decisions. But Respondent's qualifications were obvious. As Petitioner wrote in one evaluation, Respondent was a "role model" for other administrators in, among other things, teamwork. Despite the gaps in his experience, Respondent employed vast stores of energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to make the ALC work for its students. He intelligently assessed the situation at the ALC and devised strategies for exploiting the available resources. Fully aware of his own limitations, for instance, he hired Ms. Smith for her knowledge of curriculum. In a short time, he had produced dramatic results at the ALC. Respondent complied with Dr. Santini's directives, although before adoption he argued with those of them with which he disagreed. The October 25 memorandum, as well as the October 20 meeting, set an enrollment cap. Respondent acceded to Dr. Santini's decision. He closed the October 20 meeting with a plea that geographical schools be prepared to finish the job that the ALC would not have time to finish. He transferred 75-80 students out by early November. He asked Mr. Wiseman around Christmas break if he should transfer another 112 students back to their geographical schools. And his average enrollment exceeded the enrollment of his successors by 13 students--while his average actual attendance was five students less than the average actual attendance of his successors. By mid-December, Dr. Santini, misinformed by unreliable information from Ms. Krucher and possibly other informants at the ALC, was concerned about whether Respondent would work out as the ALC Principal. This concern may have influenced her gate investigation and reaction to Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing. The situation rapidly deteriorated when Dr. Santini visited Respondent, unannounced, on the morning of the day that they had a meeting with Petitioner and began the meeting by saying that she would probably have to write up Respondent for his testimony. A supervisor should always be able to conduct a meeting with a subordinate. Respondent should not have abruptly terminated the meeting with Dr. Santini. Supervisors terminate meetings, not subordinates. However, this was an isolated action by Respondent, who had never before terminated a meeting with a supervisor. Respondent had understandably felt that Dr. Santini had treated him unfairly in the gate incident, heard her announce at the start of this meeting what looked like a decision, and decided to deal with all of this at the meeting with Petitioner later that day. Under the circumstances, Respondent's imprudent decision to end the meeting did not rise to gross insubordination. In the final analysis, as Petitioner testified, it is good practice to document problems with employees before terminating them. And, as Petitioner testified, her staff did not do so here. Clearly, Respondent and Dr. Santini have a serious communications problem, for which each bears some responsibility, even though, by the nature of things, a communications problem is typically a bigger problem for the subordinate employee than it is for his boss. But as Dr. Council and Dr. Gunter testified, there was no reason for this case to proceed this far. And the case would not have come this far if District staff had tried to help Respondent or even treated this case as a performance case--where, under the law, District staff would have had to identify Respondent's deficiencies and help him eliminate them.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County enter a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating Respondent, and awarding him back pay as provided by law. ENTERED on June 28, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 28, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance except as to date of initial employment. 2-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, to the extent of the implication that these behaviors were more than isolated or represented significant problems. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 6-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, as to the back of the neck. 10 (remainder)-12: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13 (through "end"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "classroom"): adopted or adopted in substance, except as to throwing C. L. into the chair. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "credited"): adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18 (first sentence): rejected as subordinate. 18 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that O. B. complied with Respondent, who did not apply force to move him. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The testimony of Ms. Culligan is not credible. 22 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 23: rejected as subordinate. 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not witness the entire incident. 26: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not step between J. B. and T. R., nor did she witness the rest of the incident. She prevaricated the portion of the incident that she missed while returning J. B. to her classroom, J. B. testified that Ms. Krucher returned her to her classroom. J. B. also testified that Ms. Krucher even tried to convince her than T. R. had not lunged at J. B. Ms. Krucher's credibility as a witness is very poor. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that T. R.'s testimony was stricken after several vacillations demonstrated that, as to this incident, he could not distinguish between the truth and fiction. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 29 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 30 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 31: Respondent's testimony that he feared M. P. was on drugs is not credited, at least to the extent of attempting to create a well-founded fear in Respondent's mind that the mental state of M. P. was so altered as to render him dangerous. However, Respondent intervened with M. P. to stop him from leaving and preclude the possibility that this student, who obviously is afflicted with a serious behavior disorder, might strike Ms. Smith. The remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. There is no need to resort to Ms. Keel's testimony about the "rat's ass" remark. 33 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: adopted or adopted in substance, except as to crediting Ms. Krucher's testimony and as to any harm to the student's mental health. 35 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except that the displaying of the badge never frightened or intimidated anyone and no student believed that Respondent had extraordinary arrest powers by virtue of the badge. When Respondent spoke to the class, they presumably were off-task, but he did not destroy any instructional momentum. 35 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Respondent did not badger the student or mistreat him in any way. 37: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 38: adopted or adopted in substance, although Respondent appropriately dealt with the student, who should have raised his head to meet the new principal. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent threatened the student with suspension if he did not make eye contact and listen to him. 40 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 40 (third sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40 (fourth sentence): rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 41: rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that on rare occasions Respondent opened doors to Academy classrooms. 43-45: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 46: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except to the extent of findings in the recommended order. 47-48 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except Respondent did not say, "her record." (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 49 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 50-51 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 51 (remainder)-52: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 53: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 54 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 54 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Respondent had not made a prior arrangement with Ms. McCollum, but Petitioner failed to prove that he was required to. 55: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 56 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 56 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 58: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent terminated the meeting. The behavior was inappropriate, but did not constitute either insubordination or, more to the point, gross insubordination. 59 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 59 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to no reason to arrest W. S. at the time. However, the altercation had ceased, and Respondent should have answered the reasonably inquiry of the officer. But his behavior did not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency, or immorality. 62: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner never accounted adequately for Officer Kusienski's omission of the word "fuck" from his police report or, less importantly, the discrepancy between Ms. Krucher and Officer Kusienski as to the number of times that Respondent uttered the expletive. Another problem for Petitioner was the contrary testimony of another officer of the Fort Myers Police Department. 63: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 64 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, at least as to the effect that the grandmother could not serve as the legal guardian of J. M. because she was not. 64 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and hearsay. 65-66: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 67 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 67 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent voluntarily admitted up to 18 students. 68: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 69 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to Respondent's role in the failure to obtain individual educational plans constituting misconduct in office, incompetency, or gross insubordination. 70-71: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance, although there is some uncertainty as to the dates of Respondent's early employment with the District. The findings in the recommended order are guided by the dates and job descriptions contained in the evaluations. 13A: rejected as irrelevant. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance, except that M. P. was not fearful. 16-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The incident did occur. 30A-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: adopted or adopted in substance, but Respondent's brief conversation with Ms. Krucher more closely resembled the version in the recommended order, rather than the more elaborate version in the proposed finding. 45-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Dr. Santini never reviewed several lines of the testimony. She focused only on one phrase. (remainder)-48 (through "Wiseman"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance, although it is unclear the extent to which they discussed the January 5 memorandum itself, as opposed to the ALC overenrollment issue generally. 49-55: adopted or adopted in substance. 56-57: rejected as subordinate, except to the extent described in the recommended order. 58-62: adopted or adopted in substance, although the fact that Respondent's enrollments were no higher than the enrollments of his successors suggests that Respondent's enrollments did not exceed the cap or the cap as applied. 63: rejected as subordinate. 64-68: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Bobbi D'Allessandro The School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament Kunkel, Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 882 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Blair & Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 The Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Lake County School Board Policy 2.71 as described in letters from the Lake County Superintendent of Schools dated January 2, 2007, and January 7, 2007, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Lake County is the corporate body politic responsible for the administration of schools within the Lake County School District. At all times material to this proceeding, Paul Ogles was employed as an English/speech teacher at the Curtright Center of Eustis High School in the Lake County School District. Mr. Ogles, a Caucasian male, has been employed as a teacher for the District for nine years. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Bernetta McNealy, an African-American woman, was employed as a teacher at the Curtright Center of Eustis High School. Ms. McNealy's classroom is adjacent to Mr. Ogles' classroom. During the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Tess Rogers was an assistant principal at Eustis High School and one of Mr. Ogles' supervisors. Mr. Michael Elchenko was Principal at Eustis High School during this time, and Ms. Rebecca Nelsen was the Director of Compensation and Employee Relations for Lake County School District. Mr. Ogles' first teaching position was as a teaching assistant with Project Outward Bound at Morris Brown College, a historically black college in Atlanta, where he prepared high school students for college. Mr. Ogles returned to teaching twenty years later after running his own textbook company. Mr. Ogles has received excellent evaluations during his employment by the Lake County School District. Once a teacher receives a rating or twelve (the highest rating possible) for two consecutive years, the educator may choose to participate in a PG-13 Appraisal of Professional Growth/Career Development instead of receiving the normal educator evaluation. Mr. Ogles qualified for this type of evaluation and successfully participated in the PG-13 appraisal process for several years. Mr. Ogles has sponsored or assisted with many school organizations such as the Beta Club; the Chess Club; the Key Club; the High Q Club; and the Speech and Debate Club. He used personal funds to support the students' activities, including paying $300.00 to rent a bus so students could attend a competition. Mr. Ogles was one of two Team Leaders on campus and in that capacity worked with the assistant principal to try to upgrade the quality of the school and to increase interaction between students and teachers. He also volunteered for bus duty before and after school. While performing bus duty, it was often Mr. Ogles' responsibility to enforce the school's dress code as students arrived on campus. Eustis High School has a policy of prohibiting students from wearing clothing with symbols or messages that may be considered disruptive to the learning environment. Students are not necessarily disciplined for wearing such clothing, but are requested to remove the offensive clothing, turn it inside out so as to hide the offensive message, put other clothing on over it or call home to have alternate clothing provided. The Confederate flag is one such symbol that is not allowed to be displayed on clothing worn to school. Dixie Outfitters is a line of clothing that sometimes bears the Confederate flag. Mr. Ogles was aware that the school policy forbade the wearing of the Confederate flag and he often was involved in enforcing the policy against students wearing the symbol. On or about May 19, 2006, Mr. Ogles was using his computer to search for project ideas for the following year while his students were taking a test. He was looking at a website called www.cagle.com, a political website from which he has gotten cartoons in the past. Several cartoons from this website are posted in his classroom, and there was no evidence presented to indicate that anyone had ever complained about their display. While viewing the website, he saw a cartoon that depicted a Confederate flag. However, instead of the traditional "stars and bars," the cartoon showed black arms crossed, with stars imprinted on them. The hands were extended beyond the flag, with the wrists shackled. The cartoon was originally published in approximately 2000, as a means of protesting the consideration by several southern states to display the Confederate flag at state buildings. When Mr. Ogles first saw the cartoon, he thought that it was "strong art" depicting the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism. In between classes, he showed the cartoon to Ms. McNealy. He asked her if she was familiar with students wearing Dixie Outfitters clothing. She indicated she was not. He stated that perhaps this cartoon could be placed on a new line of clothing for black students to wear in response to the "heritage" argument white students used to defend the wearing of the Confederate flag. The conversation was very short, as the bell was ringing for the next class to begin. Ms. McNealy did not respond to Mr. Ogles or give him any indication that she was offended or bothered in any way. There is also no evidence that she ever discussed her feelings about the cartoon with Mr. Ogles at any later time. Mr. Ogles testified, and his testimony is credited, that he believed that because the cartoon advocated a position against the display of the Confederate flag, that it would support what he believed to be Ms. McNealy's position on this issue. It is his view that African-Americans have as much ownership of the Confederate flag as anyone else, and should be able to use the image to express their views. While Ms. McNealy did not tell Mr. Ogles that she was offended by the cartoon, she did make her feelings known to Ms. Rogers, the assistant principal and Michael Rivers, a guidance counselor at the Curtwright Center, almost immediately. Ms. Rogers is Caucasian and Mr. Rivers is African-American. Both found the cartoon to be offensive. After speaking with Ms. Rogers and Mr. Rivers, Ms. McNealy left campus for the day. About an hour after he showed Ms. McNealy the cartoon, he was asked to come to the office and was informed by Ms. Rogers and Mr. Jones, another administrator, that Ms. McNealy was upset about the cartoon and had left campus. Mr. Ogles did not realize that Ms. McNealy would be offended by the cartoon and had he realized she would be offended, he would not have shown it to her. On May 22, 2006, Mr. Elchenko, the Principal of Eustis High School received a written complaint from Ms. McNealy about Mr. Ogles' showing her the cartoon.1/ Mr. Elchenko determined Mr. Ogles' conduct to be unprofessional and issued a Professional/Personal Action Report Relating to Work Experience (Appraisal II form) and Prescription/Assistance Form to Mr. Ogles. Both documents directed him to stop giving materials to co-workers that could be considered offensive. Mr. Ogles has complied with these directives. After Mr. Elchenko completed his investigation, Mr. Elchenko reported the allegations to the School Board's District office because he believed the allegations in Ms. McNealy's complaint rose to the level of racial harassment. Rebecca Nelsen conducted an investigation on behalf of the School District. Mr. Ogles was reassigned from his teaching position at Eustis High School to the County Copy Center by letter dated July 17, 2006, and remains in that placement today. Ms. Nelsen determined that Mr. Ogles' conduct created an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment on the basis of race, which is prohibited by School Board policy. Ms. Nelsen recommended to the Superintendent that Mr. Ogles' employment be terminated. A separate investigation was conducted for the School Board by a private entity called the Robert Lewis Group. The findings and recommendations of that investigation are not part of this record. By letter from the Superintendent dated January 2, 2007, Mr. Ogles was suspended without pay for the period from January 8, 2007 through January 12, 2007, and was directed to receive cultural sensitivity training for violating School Policy 2.71. There is no evidence submitted to indicate that the Superintendent's decision was approved or ratified by the Lake County School Board. Mr. Ogles served his period of suspension and successfully completed cultural diversity training. Before this incident, Mr. Ogles had never been accused of making any appropriate racial remarks and was not considered to be a racist individual. He had expressed the view that racism should hold no place in education. His principal did not question his competence as an educator.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the charges against Respondent, and rescinding all discipline previously imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007.
