The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2012), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 739881, covering the areas of Physical Education and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2015. He has held a certification in Florida since 2005. Respondent is African- American. At all times relevant to the charges in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been employed as an In- School Suspension (ISS) Teacher at the CARE Program in the Calhoun County School District (District). The CARE acronym is shorthand for character, achievement, respect, and education. The CARE Program is a second-chance school for students who have been suspended for more than ten days, have been suspended for drug offenses, or who are currently in a juvenile facility. The first time a student is assigned to the CARE Program, it is for a 90-day term. If the student does well, he or she returns to their regular school. The second referral is for a period of 180 days; the third for a year. The CARE Program generally has approximately 30-40 students at a time. In November 2012, the program had approximately 31-32 students. The CARE Program is located at a facility that used to house a vocational complex, next to the adult school. Also housed in this complex is the In-School Suspension (ISS) class, where students serve in-school suspensions of less than ten days. Students are referred to the ISS class for behavior such as tardiness and being disruptive in the classroom. The number of students in the ISS classroom varies, because it depends on how many students have been referred. There is a limit to how many students can be in the ISS class, because each school has a cap on the number of students it can refer at any given time. Testimony varied as to how many students were present at the time of the incident giving rise to this case. The most reasonable and credible testimony indicates that on November 14, 2012, there were approximately 15-20 students in the ISS class. There was adequate room in the ISS classroom for the number of students in the class. Some time prior to the incident giving rise to this case, part of the complex where the CARE Program and the ISS class were housed underwent construction. As a result, several staff members working in the complex had tires punctured because of construction debris in the area. The District would reimburse employees for repairs to tires that were punctured if the employee submitted the documentation related to the repair. Respondent had requested two new tires, as opposed to repair of his tires. Although the record is not clear when Respondent made his request, there was some delay in any action being taken to address it. Wilson McClellan was the superintendent of the District from 2000 to 2004, and then again from 2008 to 2012, after which he retired. Mr. McClellan, who is Caucasian, was an educator in Calhoun County for approximately 25 years. He had worked with Respondent in a summer recreation program at some point before Respondent was hired by the District. Mr. McClellan had told Respondent that if there was an opening in Calhoun County, he would give Respondent a call and let him know. On November 13, 2012, Mr. McClellan was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent. The next day, he visited the CARE Program and spoke with several of the staff there, presumably to touch base with people with whom he had worked. He came to the CARE Program around midday, and class was in session. While he was there, Mr. McClellan went to speak with Respondent about Respondent’s pending request for reimbursement for his tires. While repairs had been authorized, no other staff member had requested new tires. Mr. McClellan told Respondent that he would need to submit documentation for the reimbursement for action by the School Board, as opposed to the superintendent, because Mr. McClellan did not feel comfortable authorizing the expenditure when no one else had requested reimbursement for new tires instead of repair of existing ones. Mr. McClellan knocked on the door to the ISS classroom and he and Respondent went into the small office adjacent to it. When he told Respondent about the need to submit the reimbursement matter to the Board, Respondent became angry and walked back into his classroom. Respondent told McClellan, in the presence of his students, that if he had a different last name and a different color, then the results would have been different. McClellan denied Respondent’s claim and left the classroom. Mr. Thomas’s classroom had an inside door, going into a hallway, and an outside door that led to a covered pavilion area with picnic tables. Also adjacent to the area with the picnic tables is Barbara Hathaway’s office. Ms. Hathaway served as the Dean of Students for the CARE Program, a position that functions much like a principal does in a traditional school. When Mr. McClellan left the classroom, he went to the area with the picnic tables. Ms. Hathaway saw him there and came out to speak with him. While Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan were speaking, Respondent came out of his classroom and asked Ms. Hathaway to get someone to cover his class because he was “pretty hot” and needed to walk. According to Ms. Hathaway, Respondent was agitated and upset. She did not understand him to mean he was overheated based on temperature, but rather that he was upset or angry, and her testimony is credited. Without waiting for coverage for his class, Respondent walked away from the classroom and the area where Mr. McClellan and Ms. Hathaway were standing and up the sidewalk. Ms. Hathaway left to ask another staff member to cover the classroom and was going to walk back outside when she heard Mr. Thomas speaking loudly. She could not hear what Mr. Thomas said, but his tone was agitated. She noticed that the ISS classroom door to the outside was open, and the students could hear the heated conversation between their instructor and the superintendent, so she opened the inside door and told a student to shut the outside door. Ms. Hathaway thought from the students’ reactions that they were enjoying the interchange between Mr. McClellan and Mr. Thomas. She used her phone to call for a resource officer because she felt the situation was agitated and that someone should be present to intervene. After Ms. Hathaway walked inside to arrange for coverage for the classroom, Mr. Thomas had walked back down the sidewalk to Mr. McClellan. He repeated to Mr. McClellan that in this county, if he had a different last name and a different color, it would probably be a different result. Mr. McClellan became impatient and said, “shut up Ed, I am just not wanting to hear any more about that.” Mr. Thomas walked closer to him, glared and said, “if you ever say shut up again to me, I will be the last black man you ever say that to.”1/ Mr. Thomas is a large, imposing figure, and according to Mr. McClellan, he spoke in a loud, angry voice and “bowed up” in a threatening gesture; however, he was never close enough to the superintendent to actually strike him. While Ms. Hathaway could not hear the actual language being used, both Ms. Barbee, who came to cover the ISS classroom, and the students in the classroom were able to hear the colorful exchange. Ms. Barbee testified that she did not remember the actual conversation, but that there was “some cussing and hollering.” Her statement written the day of the incident indicates that Mr. Thomas used the term “f**k.” Likewise, P.G., one of the students in the classroom, testified that Mr. Thomas told Mr. McClellan, “don’t tell me to shut the f**k up,” and for him to “shut the f**k up.” P.G. believed the students in the room were shocked at the interchange.2/ After this exchange, Respondent once again walked away from Mr. McClellan and up the sidewalk away from his class. On both occasions, Respondent was five to six classroom lengths away from his classroom, and unable to monitor in any way the actions of his students. Ms. Hathaway, as noted above, was not present for this heated exchange and did not hear what was said. When she returned outside, Mr. Thomas was standing on the sidewalk up the hill from the classroom. She spoke to Mr. McClellan, who told her about the conversation with Mr. Thomas. What he told her involved the reimbursement issue and not any complaint about overcrowding. About that time Warren Tanner, the school resource officer, came around the corner. When he arrived, he saw Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan sitting on a bench under the pavilion, and Mr. Thomas was standing at the end of the driveway at the end of the building. Mr. Tanner asked what had happened, and Mr. McClellan told him that Mr. Thomas had threatened him. Mr. Thomas walked back down the hill to where the others were standing, and Mr. McClellan told him to go home for the rest of the day. Mr. Thomas went into his classroom briefly, then came out and asked Mr. McClellan if he was sending him home for the rest of the day, and was told, “yes.” Mr. Thomas got in his truck to leave, then got out and asked Mr. Tanner if this was going to be a complaint, and Mr. Tanner told him, not at this time. Mr. McClellan returned to his office and called David House, the school board attorney. He related the events of the morning and told Mr. House that, in light of past behavior by Mr. Thomas and the current incident, he was considering terminating Mr. Thomas. Later that afternoon, Vicki Davis, assistant superintendent for the District, called Mr. Tanner and asked him to collect statements from those who witnessed or heard the morning’s events. Mr. Tanner got statements from Mr. McClellan, Ms. Hathaway, Ms. Barbee, and several students in Mr. Thomas’s class.3/ On Thursday, November 15, 2012, Mr. McClellan wrote to Mr. Thomas advising him that he was suspended with pay, effective immediately. Respondent had been the subject of discipline previously, and there had been concerns expressed about his behavior during his employment in Calhoun County. For example, in January 2008, he received a formal reprimand for allegedly confronting a fellow teacher in front of students in a loud, belligerent, and profane manner.4/ On June 3, 2008, Respondent received a second reprimand for allegedly leaving a magazine with an unclothed woman on the cover in the Health Building bathroom where it could be viewed by students. On January 13, 2011, Neva Miller, the principal of Blountstown Middle School, wrote a lengthy letter to Superintendent McClellan detailing several alleged incidents involving Mr. Thomas that caused her to “express concerns that I have as to the effectiveness and concerning anger control abilities of Edward Thomas.” A two-page document titled “Ed Thomas Issues Calendar Year 2011” was placed in his personnel file, recounting a series of concerns regarding alleged deficiencies in his performance. On February 23, 2012, Ms. Hathaway, as Dean of the CARE Program, documented an alleged incident involving a ninth-grade student.5/ On December 11, 2012, Mr. McClellan’s successor, Superintendent Ralph Yoder, issued a Notice of Charges for Dismissal to the Calhoun County School Board, recommending Respondent be suspended without pay and dismissed from employment by the District. The Notice of Charges stated, “Mr. Thomas has a history of engaging in insubordinate, hostile and confrontational behavior toward faculty members and administrators, which began in 2007 and culminated in an incident that occurred on November 14, 2012, involving the former Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Tommy McClellan. Mr. Thomas has been repeatedly instructed by persons in authority to correct his behavior, but he has failed to do so.” The Notice goes on to describe 13 separate incidents and references several others. Only the incident involving Mr. McClellan on November 14, 2012, is alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and Petitioner presented no evidence to prove what happened with respect to the other incidents. No findings are made concerning the validity of the other allegations in the Notice of Charges. It is considered solely to show that the District took action with respect to Respondent’s employment. Likewise, it is unclear what, if any, proceedings were conducted with respect to the Notice of Charges before the school board. Respondent acknowledged that his employment was terminated as of December 11, 2012, the day the Notice was issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), as well as Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondent’s teaching certificate for one year; that he submit to an evaluation for anger management by the Recovery Network on terms to be set by the Education Practices Commission; and that upon re-employment as an educator, Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years, with terms and conditions to be set by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, an elementary school teacher, should be disciplined under sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ for inappropriately disciplining a student in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 5.2/; and, if so, the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 1197418, covering Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Reading, and Exceptional Student Education. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2022. The Respondent began the 2016/2017 school year teaching second grade at Shingle Creek in Orlando, which is in the Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) school district. It was her fourth year of teaching there. Her teacher evaluations were satisfactory. She did not use corporal punishment, and did not yell or scream at her students. She had no disciplinary history. (She had one non-disciplinary directive for blurting out an expletive in pain when she fell in class and hurt her knee.) Shortly after the start of the 2016/2017 school year, the Respondent realized she had a student, B.K., who took things that did not belong to her. B.K. was bright and popular among the children in class, but she could not be relied on to tell the truth. From the beginning of the school year, the Respondent had to take steps to discipline B.K.’s misbehavior and try to correct it. Soon after the start of the school year, B.K. put a laptop computer in her back pack, instead of returning it to the charging cart in the classroom as all the other children did when they finished using it. At the end of the day, B.K. told the Respondent that another student put the laptop in her back pack. The other student denied it, and the Respondent was obliged to refer the matter to the school administration. An assistant principal investigated and interviewed B.K., who admitted to taking it. The Respondent also found her own personal books in B.K.’s back pack. B.K. falsely accused a classmate of putting them there. On another occasion, another teacher caught B.K. with the Respondent’s “Hello Kitty” flash drive. B.K. told the teacher that a friend had given it to her, which was false, and the teacher wrote a referral to administration. As a result of these incidents, the Respondent had a conference with B.K.’s parents. B.K.’s father reported that he had found books at home that did not belong to his daughter. B.K. admitted that she had taken them from the classroom. The Respondent was obliged to make a classroom referral. The Respondent continued to learn of other similar incidents. Once B.K. took two bags of candy the Respondent used to reward good behavior and achievement by her students. Another teacher saw B.K. distributing the candy to classroom friends outside the classroom and reported it to the Respondent, who realized it was her candy that had gone missing. After the candy incident, the Respondent again met with B.K.’s parents and decided to impose consequences in addition to the classroom referral to discipline B.K. for the theft of the candy—namely, she decided to withhold the prize she planned to give students on Thursday, October 13, for good behavior during the preceding month. (Friday, October 14, was a day off school.) She told B.K.’s parents about the consequences she planned to impose. As October 13 approached, B.K. continued to misbehave by taking things that did not belong to her, including a Post-It note dispenser and a bag of erasers. The Respondent reported to the school guidance counselor and assistant principal that B.K.’s misbehavior seemed to be escalating. During the last class period of the day on October 13, while the class was working on a science project, the Respondent called each student up to her desk individually to reward good behavior with points, prizes, candy, and to identify misbehavior to be corrected. Under the “class dojo” behavior system the Respondent was using, class participation was rewarded with points and corresponding “karate” belts. Good behavior was rewarded with candy. When it was B.K.’s turn, the Respondent explained that she was getting points and a belt for class participation but was not getting candy because of her taking things that did not belong to her, and not telling the truth. The Respondent told B.K. that she would have a “clean slate” going forward and would get points and both prizes and candy if she earned them with good behavior in the next month. Not long after the Respondent’s talk with B.K., another student said out loud that B.K. had candy that did not belong to her. The Respondent asked B.K. if she had candy, and B.K. denied it. The Respondent then asked her students to check to see if they had the candy they had just been given. One student, who sat next to B.K. and had put her candy in her desk, said hers was missing. The Respondent then asked B.K., who still denied taking the candy, to show her what was in her desk. B.K. just froze and did not comply. The Respondent repeated herself. B.K. again refused and began to get emotional. Because the desk was a “jumbled mess” of tissues, papers, food, a milk carton, pencils and other things, and because bending down low was difficult for the Respondent, the Respondent tipped the desk over enough for some of items in it to begin falling out on the floor. The missing candy was among the first several items that fell out on the floor. At this point, B.K. claimed that the student whose candy was missing had given it to her, which the other student denied. The Respondent then told B.K. that the Respondent was going to have to write B.K.’s parents a note about the incident. She also told B.K. to pick her things up off the floor and put them back in her desk. During these proceedings, B.K. became emotional and started crying. At one point, she kicked at her desk or chair. The Respondent had her sit up near the chalkboard until she calmed down. The Respondent sat down at her desk facing B.K. and told her she was very disappointed with her because of the talk they just had. Although most of the students had resumed working on their science projects, one child asked out loud if B.K. had stolen the candy. The Respondent did not directly answer the question. Instead, she said something like, “I’m not sure what you just saw and heard, but one thing we don’t do in this class is, we don’t steal, right? What don’t we do?” Some of the students who were listening repeated, “we don’t steal.” When things settled back down, the Respondent wrote a note to B.K.’s parents notifying them about the candy incident and telling them that B.K.’s behavior that day had been “in the red” (i.e., bad). B.K. went back to sitting at her desk, and the rest of the class period was uneventful. In fact, the school principal came to the Respondent’s classroom before the class period ended to deliver notices for the students to take home to their parents. Although she was not in the classroom long, she noticed nothing unusual. At home after school on October 13, B.K.’s mother asked her about the Respondent’s note. B.K. denied stealing candy. She told her parents that the Respondent gave all the other children in the class candy except her and accused her of taking a piece of candy, which she denied. B.K. then told them that the Respondent then kicked her chair, dumped her desk on the floor, made her clean it up and put her desk back in order, and made the other students line up and take turns hitting her hand hard in punishment. Her parents decided to talk to the Shingle Creek principal about it on the next school day, which was Monday. When B.K. and her parents arrived at school on Monday morning, they encountered and talked to several of B.K.’s classmates outside the school. At least two of the classmates were approached by B.K., who brought them to her parents. The evidence was unclear as to how many other classmates were involved, or how the conversations went. The language skills of the students in general were those of second-graders, and several of the children were speakers of English as a second language. B.K.’s parents speak English with a strong Haitian accent. For example, the words “hit” and “hate” sound very similar, and it is not easy to understand their spoken English. It is unclear exactly what was said, but B.K.’s parents came away from the conversations convinced that B.K. was telling the truth about what happened in class on October 13. It is also possible that the children’s memories and recollections were influenced by these conversations. B.K.’s parents then went to speak to the school’s principal. B.K. did not go to class but stayed with her parents in the principal’s office. After talking to the family, the principal telephoned OCPS’s senior manager of employee relations, who advised her to gather witness statements. The principal and several assistants began taking statements, starting with B.K. and her parents. After them, the Respondent was called to the principal’s office. Following the instructions given to all teachers by the teacher union, the Respondent declined to give a written statement without a lawyer or union representative present. She did have a conversation with her principal. The principal asked her to explain the situation with B.K. on Thursday. The Respondent told her about the candy incident, including tipping the desk to find the candy; about being very disappointed with B.K.; and about writing a note to B.K.’s parents. The Respondent recalls the principal asking if anything else happened, and she answered, no. The principal recalled the conversation a bit differently. She thought the Respondent admitted to dumping B.K.’s desk over, raising her voice, and being angry with B.K. She also remembered asking the Respondent if any of the other students hit B.K. and the Respondent answering that she did not see anyone hit her. The principal then began interviewing the Respondent’s students one by one. The interviews continued the rest of the morning and into lunch recess. Some statements were taken the next day. It is unclear to what extent the student witnesses discussed their statements among themselves during the day. The interviews were not video or audio-recorded. The interviewers thought they were asking proper, open-ended questions that did not suggest answers, but studies have shown that interviews usually are not as proper or open-ended as interviewers think they are, especially when the interviewers do not have extensive training. The training of the principal and her assistants in interview techniques was limited. Proper interview techniques help ensure that witness memories and statements are authentic, accurate, and reliable. They are especially important for child witnesses. The statements were not verbatim, or close to verbatim. Two of the statements were written with difficulty by the second- graders themselves and were not very articulate. The rest were written by the adult interviewers and signed by the second- graders so the process would go faster. These statements were written in a summary or conclusory fashion, without much detail, and were similar to one another, suggesting that they were recording the answers to questions of particular interest to the adult interviewers. The statement forms themselves had spaces designated for the “Date of Infraction” and “Location of Infraction,” and had signature blocks that said: “I swear/affirm the above and/or attached statements are true and correct. I understand that providing false information is punishable under the Student Code of Conduct.” It is doubtful that the second- graders would have understood what that meant. Fourteen (all but one) of the statements said that the Respondent told the students to hit or slap B.K.’s hand or hands. Some added that B.K. was crying; some added that the Respondent told them to hit hard, or harder. One statement said they did it because B.K. took candy, one said it was because B.K. was a thief, and one said it was because B.K. steals too much. Some of the statements were surprising because of the capabilities of the child supposedly giving it: one of the students was non-verbal and would not have been comfortable speaking to a stranger; another was autistic and unable to sequence information such as the days of the week; and another had behavioral and emotional issues that made him incapable of giving a statement. Some of the second-graders added remarkable features in their statements that were not mentioned by anyone else, or by just a few: one said the Respondent threw B.K. down to the ground; three, including one attributed to the child with behavioral and emotional issues, said that the Respondent threatened to call the police; one said that the Respondent told B.K. to put her desk by the wall; and one said the Respondent told the class to avoid B.K. During the morning on October 17, several of the Respondent’s students told her that B.K.’s parents had talked to them before school about the Respondent making them hit or slap their child on the hand, and told her that B.K. no longer was in the Respondent’s class. After the second-graders’ statements were gathered, the school principal presented them to the OCPS senior manager of employee relations, who scheduled a pre-determination meeting on October 21. His investigative report stated: 16 student statements were obtained; 15 confirmed being directed by the teacher to hit B.K. on the hand; 3 confirmed the teacher telling the students to repeat “don’t steal”; 8 confirmed the teacher yelling; 5 confirmed the teacher telling them to hit B.K. hard; 3 confirmed the teacher calling B.K. a thief; and 3 confirmed the teacher saying she was going to call the police. The investigative report also stated that the Respondent: admitted getting angry and raising her voice; admitted pouring out the contents of the student’s desk; admitted saying and having the students repeat, “what is it we don’t do in class? We don’t steal”; stated she did not recall directing the students to hit B.K.; did not know if B.K. was hit “on October 17,” but did know that B.K. lies; and did not report the incident to the school administration on October 17. Based on the investigative report, OCPS terminated the Respondent’s employment. The Respondent filed a grievance which was arbitrated under the terms of the teacher union contract. When the matter was referred to the Petitioner, another investigation was conducted. On February 17, 2017, the second- graders were interviewed again by the Petitioner’s investigator. The investigator asked the questions and wrote the answers. The second-graders were asked to confirm that the answers were written down correctly and signed their statements. Like the principal and her assistants, the Petitioner’s investigator believed she asked non-suggestive, open-ended questions. Like the principal and her assistants, the Petitioner’s investigator did not have extensive training in the proper techniques for manner of interviewing children. Like the interviews conducted by the principal and her assistants, the Petitioner’s investigator did not video or audio-record her interviews. Each student interviewed by the Petitioner’s investigator stated that the Respondent told the students to “slap” B.K.’s on the hand as hard as they could and that slapping B.K. made the student feel “sad.” One said that B.K. cried. One said the Respondent made the class stand in a circle and take turns slapping B.K. on the hand. Unlike the school principal and her assistants, the Petitioner’s investigator had the students describe how hard they were supposed to hit B.K. on a scale of 1 to 5. This question elicited several responses that they were told to hit “hard,” one that they were told to hit “as hard as we could,” and one that gave a rating of 5. In the statements gathered by the Petitioner’s investigator, several of the students mentioned that the Respondent told them to pretend B.K. was a ghost, and several said the Respondent told them not to tell anyone about what happened. Oddly, neither of these remarkable details was mentioned in any of the statements taken by the principal and her assistants. The Respondent’s grievance was arbitrated in May 2017. After a three-day hearing, the termination was upheld, despite testimony from another teacher that she overheard B.K. admit to stealing candy and to lying to get the Respondent in trouble because she was tired of getting caught stealing by the Respondent. Several of the students who gave statements testified at both the arbitration hearing and the hearing in this case. Several were deposed before testifying. The Petitioner in her Proposed Recommended Order suggested that credibility issues arising from the prior events should be ignored because they were cured by the live testimony. That is not true. Issues remain as to whether the students’ live testimony was influenced by what preceded. In addition, their testimony at the hearing was confusing and inconsistent in many respects. Two of the students testified that the students formed a circle around B.K., while three said they formed a line. One said the line was in the shape of a C or J. One specified that they hit B.K.’s hand while she was either in a corner or by a desk where the sink was located. One said B.K. was standing in front of another student’s desk. Two said B.K. was standing in the middle of the classroom. One said B.K.’s hand was held out palm down. Another said it was palm up. One said the Respondent held B.K.’s hand out. The evidence, taken as a whole, is not clear and convincing that the Respondent had her students hit or slap B.K. as punishment for taking the candy. While several children made statements that included some version of this alleged incident, they all started with B.K., who was overheard saying she was lying, and the other children’s statements are fraught with questions that make them unreliable and insufficient to prove those facts clearly and convincingly. Meanwhile, the Respondent’s version of what happened, while self-serving, is more persuasive. Her refusal to give a written statement, and her manner of answering questions, may have raised suspicions on the part of the school principal, and may have contributed to a number of misunderstandings by the principal and B.K.’s parents, but they do not prove that the Respondent was lying. The Respondent’s conduct that was proven by the evidence did not rise to the level of a disciplinable failure to make reasonable effort to protect B.K. from conditions harmful to learning and/or to her mental and/or physical health and/or safety, and did not intentionally expose B.K. to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. What the Respondent actually did was within the realm of making reasonable efforts to correct B.K.’s problem behaviors and to teach her and her classmates how to behave properly and acceptably, while at the same time trying to keep order in the classroom and continue delivering academic instruction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding the Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 1st day of May, 2018.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether there is just cause to terminate the employment of the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a certified teacher, employed by the Petitioner under a professional services contract and working at the Lehigh Acres Middle School. On or about February 6, 2002, the Respondent received two written reprimands from Gerald B. Demming, the school principal, related to the Respondent's behavior towards students. The first written reprimand related to incidents occurring on January 17 and 22, 2002, during which the Respondent verbally disparaged students, calling them "sorry" and "no good" and advising them that they would be unsuccessful "in life." The second written reprimand related to an incident on February 5, 2002, during which the Respondent apparently mocked a student in the classroom. In meeting with the Respondent, Principal Demming clearly expressed his concern regarding the Respondent's behavior towards students, and advised that such actions were unacceptable and were viewed as violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct. The Respondent signed and received copies of the written reprimands. The written reprimands were not the first time such concerns had been addressed with the Respondent. During the 2000-2001 school year, Mary Ann Moats, then employed as the Lehigh Acres Middle School principal, had verbally expressed concerns of a similar nature, specifically the use of derogatory language directed towards students (such as "stupid," "no good," and "ignorant"). Students became so unhappy with the Respondent's behavior that, on one day, an entire classroom of students walked out of the Respondent's class and walked to Principal Moats' office to express their dismay with his treatment of them. She attempted to resolve the dispute and urged the Respondent to modify his behavior. During Ms. Moats' employment as principal, the Respondent's behavior toward students continued to be of concern. Complaints were received from students, parents, and from other faculty members. She met more than once with the Respondent to discuss matters raised by the complaints. A written memo dated December 5, 2000, specifically related to allegations of verbal abuse directed towards students was provided to and signed by the Respondent. Further, such concerns were identified in paragraphs 5-7 of the Respondent's 2000-2001 performance evaluation dated April 9, 2001, where he received "Below Expectations/Unsatisfactory" marks in several areas including: Human Development and Learning: Uses an understanding of learning and human development to provide a positive learning environment which increases student achievement and supports the intellectual, personal and social development of all students. Learning Environment for Student Achievement: Creates and maintains a positive learning environment which fosters active engagement in learning, social interaction, cooperative learning and self motivation and manages student behavior; and Communication for Student Achievement and Parental Satisfaction: Uses effective communication techniques with students, parents (i.e., one-to-one telephone calls, conferences, newsletters, etc.), and all other stakeholders. Despite the clearly expressed concerns related to the Respondent's behavior towards students, the behaviors generally continued during the 2001-2002 school year, and culminated on February 13, 2002, in two specific events that resulted in the Petitioner's decision to terminate the Respondent's employment. During the 2001-2002 school year, the Respondent was assigned to teach a seventh grade class during the first period. K.R. was a student in the Respondent's first period class, and generally was an "A" or "B" student. On February 13, 2002, K.R. returned to the Respondent's first period class after more than a week of absence related to a family vacation. Prior to going on vacation, K.R. had obtained one week of advance class assignments in order to maintain her school work while on vacation, but the vacation apparently extended beyond what was originally planned. During the time for which K.R. had not obtained class assignments, the Respondent directed the students to prepare speeches related to Black History Month. The speech assignment was written on the chalkboard, as was the Respondent's usual practice, but had not been assigned at the time K.R. left for vacation. After class started, K.R. began to repeatedly question the Respondent about the assignment and went so far as to interrupt other students as they presented their speeches. The Respondent told K.R. to "shut up," called her "ignorant," and directed K.R. to go to a table at the rear of the classroom, remarking to the other students in the class that they did not want to be like K.R. Thereafter K.R. sat in the back of the classroom and cried. When class ended, the Respondent required K.R. to remain in his classroom while he called her mother and reported the behavior to her. K.R. spoke briefly to her mother during the call, but otherwise remained in the classroom, during which time other students began to enter for the second period class. When K.R. arrived at her second period class, she was still upset and her teacher sent her to the office to speak to a school official, at which time, concern related to the Respondent's behavior was apparently heightened. During the 2001-2002 school year, the Respondent also taught a seventh grade class during the sixth period. M.C. and J.A. were students in the Respondent's sixth period class. At the beginning of the period, M.C. was standing near the Respondent's computer located close to his desk. Attempting to quiet the class, he instructed the students to take their seats and settle. Standing behind M.C., he placed his hands on her shoulders and gently pushed her towards her chair, leaning down to tell her that when he told the class to sit down he intended for her to be seated as well. M.C. testified that when the Respondent told her to take her seat, the Respondent kissed the back of her neck. The Respondent denies kissing the student. The evidence related to the alleged kiss is not persuasive. The Respondent asserts that at the time of the alleged kiss, he was advising M.C. that she was part of the class and his instruction to the class to settle was applicable to her. M.C.'s testimony related to the Respondent's statement corroborates the Respondent's recollection and indicates that she understood that he was including her in his instruction to the class to settle. Of the students who were in the classroom at the time and who testified at the hearing, only one student testified that she saw the alleged kiss. Although she testified that she saw the kiss occur, her recollection of what the Respondent said to M.C. at the time of the alleged kiss is completely different from the statement claimed by the Respondent and corroborated by M.C.'s recollection. Other students in the classroom who testified did not recall seeing the Respondent kiss M.C. Although there is no evidence suggesting that such a kiss would have been typical of the Respondent's interaction with a student, no student recalled any type of noise or verbalization from the other students at the time of the alleged kiss. There was some evidence presented indicating that M.C.'s hairstyle on that day would have made it difficult to kiss her neck without having moved her hair, and suggesting that in leaning down to speak to M.C., the Respondent spoke closely enough to cause her hair to brush her neck. M.C.'s recollection of what hairstyle she wore on that day was uncertain. In any event, M.C. believed she was kissed and was unhappy about it. She eventually requested and received a bathroom pass from the Respondent, but after leaving the classroom, she went directly to the school administration office and reported the incident. After speaking to M.C., school personnel called the Respondent on the classroom telephone and asked him to send another student, J.A., to the office for early dismissal. After arriving at the office, J.A. was asked whether she had witnessed the incident. At that time, she was apparently advised not to discuss the matter with anyone else. While in the office, M.C. asked J.A. to return to the Respondent's classroom and to retrieve M.C.'s belongings. J.A. was permitted by assistant principal to return to the Respondent's classroom and to retrieve M.C.'s possessions. A teacher who had been in the office, Kevin Richter, escorted J.A. through the school on her way back to the Respondent's classroom. Mr. Richter then returned to his classroom. After arriving back at the Respondent's classroom, J.A. entered and began to collect M.C.'s belongings. The Respondent asked J.A. to tell him what she was doing. Believing she had been instructed not to discuss what she was doing, she did not respond to him, but finished collecting the items after which she walked out of the classroom and into the hallway. The Respondent followed J.A. into the hallway, and began yelling at her for being "disrespectful." J.A. began yelling back, telling the Respondent she was doing what she was asked to do. Apparently the confrontation between the Respondent and J.A. continued for a period of time and at sufficient volume as to attract the attention of a student affairs specialist in the office across the hallway as well as Mr. Richter, who by that time was two hallways removed from the scene. Mr. Richter, hearing the commotion and assuming that some students were preparing to fight, ran to the commotion and realized that the yelling was coming from the Respondent and a student. At that point, Mr. Richter went to the school office and summoned Principal Demming. After the yelling had subsided, the principal contacted the school district's personnel office and requested an investigation of the day's events. The investigation ensued and eventually resulted in the Petitioner's decision to terminate the Respondent's employment. The Respondent asserts that he was not sufficiently placed on notice of the behavioral issues to suggest that termination of employment is warranted. The evidence establishes that the Respondent received notice sufficient to comply with the School Board's NEAT process (Notice of deficiencies, Expectations, Assistance, and Time to improve). The Respondent asserts that the students were disrespectful and presented disciplinary problems. The Respondent had a classroom telephone and other means of communicating with school officials if a disciplinary situation became unmanageable. There is no credible evidence that any of the students addressed in this Recommended Order presented disciplinary problems that could not be managed through the normal policies and practices of the school, including referrals to school officials.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Roger J. Phillips. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _____ WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman, P.A. 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Dr. John W. Sanders, Superintendent Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact On November 11, 1989, Respondent forwarded a request for hearing by Petitioner to contest his suspension without pay and dismissal by the school board. Due to insufficient information being furnished, no case was opened. Subsequent administrative oversight resulted in no action being taken on this request by the Division of Administrative Hearings. By letter dated June 5, 1989, Petitioner, by and through his attorney, requested the status of the hearing requested by the school board in November 1987. In response thereto, Respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss that constituted the basis for the telephone conference call. At this conference call hearing, Petitioner conceded that all facts recited in the Motion to Dismiss are accurate and, that on May 14, 1987, Petitioner and the Florida Department of Education entered into a Stipulation for Settlement wherein Petitioner's teaching certificate was suspended for one year retroactive to April 25, 1986. Petitioner was suspended without pay by Respondent on May 14, 1986, based upon his arrest for the offense which resulted in the suspension of his teaching certificate by the Department of Education. Petitioner was subsequently terminated by Respondent on May 26, 1987, retroactive to May 14, 1986, the date he was suspended without pay. On the effective date of Petitioner's termination by Respondent, May 14, 1986, he did not hold an active teaching certificate from the State Department of Education and was not qualified to work as a teacher in any Florida public school.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Franklin B. Etheridge's request for hearing to challenge his dismissal by the School Board of Polk County be denied, and Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be granted. Entered this 18th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K.N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. John A. Stewart Superintendent Polk County Schools Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33830 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 C. A. Boswell, Esquire School Board of Polk County Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33830 John F. Laurent, Esquire Post Office Box 1018 Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, misconduct in office and/or absence without leave. POST-HEARING PROCEDURE A transcript of the formal hearing was provided the undersigned on March 21, 1985, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by both parties. A subsequently-filed revision of Respondent's initial proposal was accepted without objection and considered. When a party's proposed findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence admitted, they were adopted and are reflected in the Recommended Order, but to the extent proposed findings of fact were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been rejected or, where possible, modified to conform to the evidence. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted or are inconsistent with the findings herein, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has thereby been made either directly or indirectly except where the proposed finding of fact was cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary. Based upon observation of the witnesses and their candor and demeanor while testifying, all exhibits admitted in evidence, and the proposals and arguments of counsel, the following relevant facts are found:
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner on November 15, 1982, at West Little River Elementary School. She suffered a non-school related accident and was absent approximately 121 days during the 1982-1983 school year. Observations of her teaching by her then-principal, John Johnson II, were unfavorable, but due to the prolonged absences, those observations did not result in any formal evaluations/recommendations. Respondent's requested leave for this period was granted and approved by Petitioner upon the basis of her severe electrical shock and back injury. Some of this period was classified as leave without pay. Petitioner also paid Respondent's insurance premiums for this period. Having thus condoned this absenteeism, Petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of it. (See allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Notice of Charges.) Principal Nicholas Rinaldi of Bay Harbor Elementary School hired Respondent as the teacher for its new "home-based" gifted program beginning there for the 1983-1984 school year. Although Principal Johnson would not have recommended Respondent for employment in the second year, he was not consulted by Principal Rinaldi. Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that she was limited to a $1,000.00 budget for purchasing materials for the program she was to develop. Principal Rinaldi understood that Respondent knew she was both to stay within this budget which is the standard limit at all home-based gifted programs and that she was required to get prior approval of her purchases from him. Apparently, Respondent grasped, the concept of a $1,000.00 "cap" but did not initially understand that she was to obtain prior written permission. After two orders were cancelled, she still had overspent by $60.00. She was then told specifically not to make any further purchases without the principal's permission. Thereafter, another order placed by Respondent was received at the school but Petitioner did not establish that Respondent placed the order after the cancellation of two prior orders and after Rinaldi's specific instruction not to order any more goods whatsoever. (See allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was clearly informed that she needed prior authorization for phone calls. She did not get prior permission for five long distance phone calls made personally or by students at her direction. The total cost of these calls is 8.56, which is very minimal. All calls were related to classwork with the exception of one call for $.44 and one call for $.25, which were admittedly of a personal nature. Respondent reimbursed the $.72 after the fact when notified of investigation into the phone bill. (See allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges.) Twenty-five students are required for a home-based gifted program. Bay Harbor was one of three North area schools piloting a home-based program in the 1983-1984 school year. In prior school years, gifted children from Bay Harbor attended a center program physically located elsewhere. A center program places a team of teachers of subjects from various schools in one physical location. Eligible students from various schools come to the center for two days a week for the gifted program and they receive their basic skills education at their respective home schools in the remaining three days per week. In a home-based program, a school which has enough gifted students elects to keep those students physically at the home school. They usually go into that program for two hours a day, every day. Some subject or subjects are used to deliver the gifted program. Those subjects are then graded by the home- based gifted teacher, who in this case was Respondent. When he hired her, Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that mathematics would be part of the new "home-based" gifted program, but math was essentially unstructured in the beginning. Thereafter, Principal Rinaldi instructed Respondent to utilize the standard Dade County "total math program, (TMP). When the TMP program was selected by Principal Rinaldi in approximately, December 1983, his motivation was that he understood TMP provided a structure for math that allows students to enter at the level that they are individually and moves each at a pace commensurate with his individual ability. Unfortunately, because a home-based program does not select its students on their specific giftedness in content area, some students in Bay- Harbor's 1983-1984 pilot program were lower than others in math. Some were even below their grade level. Those above the grade level were becoming bored with the program and those below the grade level were in a constant state of frustration struggling to keep up. A failure on Respondent's part to communicate surfaced, and misunderstandings arose between Respondent and parents and students as to the nature of projects, when projects were due and the reasonableness of homework. Problems concerning teacher absences also arose. The more academic and less "time-out-of-school" atmosphere of a home-based versus a center-based program also caused problems between the Respondent teacher and students/parents and between the Respondent and her principal. Upsets among the students and their parents resulted in many students being permanently removed from the gifted program. Over a period of time, the decrease in enrollment threatened to destroy the Bay Harbor gifted program, the survival of which required 25 students. On January 4, 1984, Principal Rinaldi observed Respondent's class for an hour for teacher evaluation purposes. This resulted in a basically good evaluation with some areas targeted for improvement (instructional planning and maintenance of student records [P-7]). The crux of this targeting was the principal's perception that Respondent did not record sufficient grades and her student files were not arranged alphabetically with papers arranged chronologically within each file. This standard of record-keeping is personal to Mr. Rinaldi and not uniform among other Dade County principals. At the standard post-observation conference, the two argued over the evaluation and the exactitude required by the principal, and Respondent refused to sign the evaluation to acknowledge that she had seen and received a copy of the document. As will be related infra, this refusal to sign or initial merely for acknowledgment of receipt of documents became a constant and continuing refusal on Respondent's part whenever the issue came up. Six days later she refused again; on January 17, 1984, Respondent responded in four written pages defending her methods. As events unfolded chronologically thereafter what started basically as a personality clash of the principal's "irresistible force" authoritarianism and the teacher's "immovable object" obstructionism mushroomed to affect students, parents, teachers, and administrators. In early January, Respondent complained concerning the inclusion of math in the gifted program to a higher outside administrator Dr. Agerwald. Mr. Rinaldi objected to this contact. On January 11, 1984, Mrs. Vickers, Petitioner's Director of Exceptional Students Program, arrived to observe Respondent's classes. She prepared a "School Visitation Report." The report is basically positive but does comment that the gifted classes are too big and current IEPs (records) were not and should have been available in the classroom. On February 2, 1984, Vickers issued a commendation to Hay Harbor on quality of cumulative records for exceptional children. Mr. Rinaldi passed this commendation (R-19) on to Respondent with the note, "Mrs. Burton, please continue this fine record 2/6/84." On 1/23/84, he also commended her on quick responses to the Miami Module records-keeping requests (R-20). Petitioner's advisor to gifted teachers, Richard Huffman, was assigned to assist Respondent at the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year. He testified that in his opinion she was a fit teacher, but he was removed as her advisor at the end of January or early February. February 24, 1984, Assistant Principal Vince Vignola observed Respondent in the classroom for a full hour and rated her overall acceptable except that she needed more grades in math and had, lost a student "contract" which had never been signed. Principal Rinaldi called in Gary Rito, Petitioner's Director of Academic Excellence for help resolving the gifted class problems. On March 2, 1984, Mr. Rito met with Respondent, Principal Rinaldi, and Mrs. Laurence, mother of a gifted student. Respondent and Laurence, who teaches elsewhere in Dade County, exchanged sharp words. It was agreed to meet again on March 8, 1984. At that time, James Miley, Petitioner's Supervisor of Gifted Programs, was present. Respondent was given written notice of the meeting one day in advance. Respondent elected to continue in this meeting at the conclusion of the school day. At this time most of her concerns, as expressed to all others present, were with the number of subjects she was required to cover and with the content of the mathematics curriculum in particular. Mr. Rito explained that "gifted" symbolizes a "technique" not a "subject," that Respondent was to use this technique for teaching subjects of math, science (which Respondent should be teaching anyway), and social studies, and for teaching a health and safety unit which was taught for only one or two grade units. Respondent strenuously objected to the use of the TMP math program. Rinaldi and Miley concurred that it was reasonable to include math in the gifted program. Math was, in fact, successfully used in the other two home-based programs beginning in Bay Harbor's Division that year, but the programs utilized may not have been the TMP. Nonetheless, the following adjustments were agreed upon among all those present at the March 8, 1984 meeting: Principal Rinaldi agreed to relieve the academic excellence program of the TMP math program and increased their enrichment activities; Ms. Thomas, Say Harbor's 6th Grade math teacher, was assigned by Principal Rinaldi to help Respondent in math. It was later Ms. Thomas' assessment that Respondent did not understand the TMP concept; and Respondent was directed and agreed to develop four units of study in botany (2 intermediate and 2 primary) to cover the rest of the school year (9 weeks). These plans were to cover instructional objectives, classroom activities, student evaluation methods and homework assignments on a time line. A preliminary plan was to be shown by Respondent to Mr. Miley on March 20. This assignment was primarily the result of a request by Ms. Laurence and other parents requesting to see a sets of plans for purposes of deciding whether to leave their children in the Respondent's class or return those who had already been withdrawn. Rinaldi, Rito, and Miley felt the plans required by the directive would ease the primary problems of implementing the program and of parent-teacher communications and misunderstandings which had been growing, and also felt they were reasonable and necessary. Everyone was aware that withdrawal of Mrs. Laurence's child could reduce program enrollment below the 25 student minimum required. However, no one clearly expressed the belief that this directive was a prescription to improve Respondent's teaching performance, which had been found basically sound up to this point. 1/ The direction itself was for a reasonable and necessary purpose (preserving and improving the gifted program). However, despite Mr. Miley's opinion that the plans as initially directed were reasonable and necessary and despite Respondent's failure to object to the direction at this point, the initial scope of the direction was actually unreasonable under the circumstances. Mr. Miley postponed his scheduled meeting with Respondent from March 20 to March 23, 1984. On that date, Respondent had nothing to show him with regard to the required botany units she had been asked to prepare. Mr. Miley met with Respondent anyway and reduced the required units from 4 to 2 and extended the time for preparation until April 12, 1984. He also gave her a document entitled "Standards of Excellence" for use in the units she was to prepare and agreed to let Respondent continue with her present evaluation system. This adjustment, made in consultation with Respondent also rendered the scope of the direction to prepare the units reasonable. 2/ On April 12, 1984, Mr. Miley asked for the required botany units and received nothing from Respondent. He returned to the school on April 13, and Respondent produced a series of goals and objectives essentially copied from the "Standards of Excellence" wherein she had identified part of a program for the primary students but none for the intermediate students. There were no classroom activities listed, no homework mentioned, and no time lines provided. Despite the extension of time, Respondent did not fulfill the required directive even in its reduced and consequently reasonable form. 3/ The units were not further amplified by Respondent before she left on April 20 and Mrs. Laurence's child was permanently removed from the gifted program. (See allegations of Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Notice of Charges). On March 12, 1984, Respondent called Principal Rinaldi a liar three times in the presence of two other school employees. 4/ (See allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent later informed Principal Rinaldi that she perceived the March 8 meeting as disciplinary in nature. He had not considered it so. He accordingly removed a request for her signature from a summary he had prepared of the March 8 meeting and scheduled a "conference-for-the-record" for March 16, 1984. Conferences-for-the record are disciplinary conferences. The March 16, 1984 meeting was postponed at the request of the Respondent's union representative. A second request for postponement for emergency reasons peculiar to the schedule of that particular union representative (Ms. Perez), was not granted and the conference-for-the-record went forward on March 20, 1984, with Respondent accompanied by her union steward, James Collings. At this conference, Rinaldi discussed the same matters that had been discussed at the March 8, 1984 meeting, the incident which had occurred March 12 when Respondent called him a "liar" three times, Respondent's unsatisfactory attendance record that year, and the fact that her absences were having an adverse effect on the program. Respondent was specifically instructed by her union advisers not to speak at this conference. Certainly she did not deny the March 12 "liar" incident. When she did not respond to Principal Rinaldi's accusations and inquiries, he became agitated. Respondent had received prior approval for a half-day in-service conference (8:30 a.m. to noon on March 21, 1984) with Mrs. Vickers, Director of Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education Program. When she did not report back to teach at Bay Harbor that afternoon, Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi made inquiries and Respondent's continued presence with Mrs. Vickers was confirmed, but not approved. This constitutes a 1/2 day's absence without leave. No substitute was procured since Respondent had been expected to teach her afternoon class. (See allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Notice of Charges.) On March 28, 1984, during a regularly scheduled parent meeting, the parents present expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the gifted program, particularly math. Principal Rinaldi publicly attributed the problems in the gifted program to Respondent and Respondent retaliated by publicly stating that she did not believe TMP math should ever have been included in the gifted program and that she had no control over the inclusion of the math. The majority of witnesses actually present at this meeting found its entire tone and nature informative prior to Principal Rinaldi's comment. Even then, Respondent's comments may have been less than tactful but were hardly untruthful, unprofessional, irresponsible, or incendiary. (See allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to the March 29, 1984 faculty meeting. Based on the contemporaneous memoranda and letter, Respondent's estimate of 3-4 minutes tardiness is accepted over Dr. Rinaldi's later estimate of 20 minutes. The causes related contemporaneously by Respondent are entirely reasonable. (See allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Notice of Charges.) At Principal Rinaldi's April 16, 1984 classroom observation of Respondent, he rated her teaching performance as unacceptable in 3 categories: preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility (P-18). Rinaldi testified that his negative ratings in preparation and planning were due to what were minor concerns on the January evaluation. However, as observed above in Fact Paragraph 6, the January evaluation actually concentrated on the principal's particularly harsh requirement that Respondent's student files must be arranged alphabetically with papers neatly arranged chronologically within each file. Since his perception of the adequacy of records is so intensely personal to Mr. Rinaldi and in light of interim commendations to Respondent for record-keeping, his April analysis of inadequate records of assessment renders the final evaluation "score" highly suspect. 5/ (See allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to work and failed to timely sign in on March 26, 27, 28, and April 20, 1984. (See allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was absent on April 17, 18, and 19. She requested leave for April 17-18 late but it was approved and authorized in advance by Principal Rinaldi for participation in religious holidays. However, these were absences without pay and pushed Respondent over the number of personal leave days to which she was annually entitled. Respondent was absent without authorization on April 19; this was an absence without pay. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 20, 1984, Respondent protested, but finally agreed to meet with Principal Rinaldi in his office for a post-observation conference. Post- observation conferences are not normally considered disciplinary in nature. By this time, he had added Respondent's late notification of the 4/17-4/18 absence and her 4/19 absence to the prescription sheet as deficiencies. Respondent declined an oral dialogue with Rinaldi wherein she was invited to respond to the rating criticisms and prescriptions and offer alternatives and also refused to initial his notation that she insisted on responding in writing. Midway in this meeting, Respondent announced she was going to leave. Again, she would not sign to acknowledge receipt of the observation and prescriptions. Rinaldi instructed her that she was obligated to discuss the rating and if she left, he would consider it insubordination. Respondent left his office and the school and did not return to work as a teacher at Bay Harbor again. A formal reprimand issued partly as a result of this incident. (See allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 23 and April 24 Respondent was absent without pay. April 23 was unauthorized leave. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) With regard to the frequent' short absences, which total led 18 as of April 22, Respondent rarely if ever complied with the "Teachers' Handbook" guidelines for advance notification. Respondent originally felt that it did not matter what type of leave (personal or sick) was listed because she had no leave left anyway. Although many of these absences were for legitimate illnesses or injury of herself or a relative, there was either an on-going absence of lesson plans or a failure on Respondent's part to inform the principal that she had created plans since he last commented on there being none. Consequently, he often could not or did not secure substitutes. This resulted in wasted class time and interfered with classroom continuity. Some of Respondent's unauthorized absences were simply gifted programs she chose to attend without notifying the principal in advance. Respondent was also absent during the 1983-1984 school year for two lengthy periods, which, with all other absences, totalled 62 1/2 days. Medical narratives, admitted without objection, corroborate Respondent's testimony that the two lengthy absences were the result respectively of unanticipated allergic complications of a CAT scan (from January 30 to February 10, 1984,) and of surgery to correct acute sinusitis and recovery time from late April until release. One doctor released her from this last treatment On May 29, 1984; the other released her on June 8, 1984. During the period of time she was absent immediately following the April 20 "walkout" incident until approximately June 8, Respondent failed to adequately inform Petitioner of her proposed date of return. Certified letters sent to her post-office box were returned because Respondent did not pick them up and Petitioner could not send these to her by regular mail or by hand- delivery via a "visiting teacher" because Respondent had never informed Petitioner of her street address. The failure of Respondent to stay in touch, her failure to indicate when she could return to work, and her failure to indicate that her absence would be lengthy resulted in an inability of Petitioner to immediately hire a permanent substitute teacher. Therefore, the gifted classes had to "make-do" with a series of short term substitutes (4 or 5) until Mr. Rinaldi finally hired Mrs. Judith Dryanoff. This process created a lack of continuity in the classroom and more student withdrawals from the gifted program. The problem with multiple substitutes was compounded by Respondent's failure on April 24 and thereafter to have available substitute lesson plans. 6/ Because of Respondent's failure to leave any form of lesson plans or grade book, substitute Judith Dryanoff had to make up her own lesson plans for science and enlist the help of Janice Thomas for math plans. (See allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Notice of Charges.) On May 24, Principal Rinaldi signed Respondent's Annual Evaluation, not recommending her for employment in the next school year (P-22). When released by her doctors, Respondent was assigned by Administration to the North Area Office for June 11-15 and was expected by her principal to be at Bay Harbor simultaneously. She obviously could not do both. She was at the North Area Office for part of June 12 and at Bay Harbor for part of June 14. She was in neither location on June 11, 13, and 15. These days constitute absences without leave. (See allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On June 12, 1984, James Monroes, a supervisor in Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, ordered Respondent to begin the 180 hour course, Beginning Teacher Program, to start at 10:00 a.m., June 14, 1984, at Bay Harbor Elementary School. 7/ At 7:20 a.m. that morning Respondent confronted Principal Rinaldi in his office and called him "malicious, devious, incompetent," and "a sorry excuse for a principal." She accused him of personally taking her personal items from her room and of attempting to get her fired. 8/ Although she initially refused to come back for the program, she returned at 10:00 a.m. and repeated essentially the same harangue in the presence of Mrs. Thomas, the peer teacher selected to oversee Respondent's Beginning Teacher Program. Mrs. Thomas was called in by Mr. Rinaldi who had anticipated that a scene would ensue. Thereafter, out of Mr. Rinaldi's presence, Respondent invited Mrs. Thomas to sign a petition "to get rid of Mr. Rinaldi". (See allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Charges.) Dr. Huffman testified that Respondent also frequently yelled at Mr. Rinaldi in Dr. Huffman's presence prior to Dr. Huffman's February reassignment, and Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi testified that she had heard Respondent call Mr. Rinaldi a "bastard" or refer to him as a"bastard," but the date of this incident(s) was not proven. On August 29, 1984, Dr. Richard Artmeier, supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, directed Respondent to be psychiatrically evaluated the next day to determine if there were any mitigating circumstances for her June 14, 1984 behavior. Respondent is obligated to submit to such evaluation by terms of her employment. After vacillation, Respondent refused to sign the written directive indicating its receipt and adamantly refused to see a psychiatrist. Finally, Dr. Artmeier directed her instead to report to the North Area Office the next day. Respondent did, however, actually go the next day as originally directed for psychiatric evaluation to Dr. Gail Wainger. Dr. Wainger was on Petitioner's "approved" list. In so doing, Respondent could not immediately comply with the directive to report to the North Area Office. Respondent reported to the North Area Office later the same day after her psychiatric evaluation. Petitioner accepted Dr. Wainger's psychiatric evaluation of Respondent, paid for it, and it was admitted at hearing upon Petitioner's motion (P-38). Since Respondent could not be in two places at once, she fulfilled the alternative directives reasonably by fulfilling them sequentially even if she did initially refuse. (See allegations of Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Notice of Charges). The psychiatrist's evaluation is admissible under Section 231.291, Florida Statutes and has been considered. Upon that evidence, together with all other credible evidence adduced at formal hearing, Respondent was accountable for her actions. Respondent has never qualified for and has never been characterized as a teacher under continuing contract.
Recommendation It is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from employment with the Dade County School Board and denying any claims for back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1985.
