The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here Respondent was, and continues to be, an employee of the Hernando County School Board (HCSB) as a member of the instructional staff. Respondent is employed under a "professional service contract." The origin of these proceedings occurred on December 5, 1996, when Respondent was arrested for allegedly engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with a male, minor student. Apart from the allegations raised in this case, Respondent has been a satisfactory and effective employee of HCSB. Respondent began working for HCSB in 1989 at Powell Middle School as a science teacher with regular classroom duties. He eventually became the technology resource coordinator at Powell Middle School. As such, he no longer had regular classroom duties. Throughout his teaching career, Respondent frequently tutored and mentored students who needed help. Even without regular classroom duties Respondent continued to help students. Such help continues today. In fact, Respondent is known and respected by peers and parents for the mentoring and tutoring he gives to students and the success he has had with troubled students. Beginning in January 1995, Respondent served as director of an after-school program at Powell Middle School. HCSB and the local YMCA sponsored and funded the after-school program until sometime in the Spring of 1996 when the program was discontinued. Respondent was in large part responsible for the successful creation, organization, and operation of the after-school program. The after-school program began immediately after each school day and continued until 5:00 p.m. The program was staffed by Powell Middle School staff and other adults who taught different classes. Some of the after-school activities, like swimming lessons, took place on the premises of the YMCA. The after-school program participants enrolled in the off-campus activities rode a school bus from the school to the various activities in remote locations. Respondent directed the after-school program initially from his classroom in the science building of Powell Middle School and, subsequently, from a room used as a computer lab, adjacent to his former classroom. A number of school administrators and teachers were constantly walking in and out of the areas where Respondent worked each day because supplies for the after-school program were stored in the computer lab storage rooms. After school, teachers frequently visited Respondent's work station unannounced. Janitors and work details were on the school premises until 11:00 p.m. Bathrooms and a refrigerator for staff were located near Respondent's work station. Respondent's classroom in the science building had large windows along the outside wall. There were windows between the computer room and Respondent's classroom. There were windows between the computer room and another classroom in the same building. The only area which had any possibility of privacy was a walk-in storage closet in the computer room. The doors to the science classrooms, the computer room, and closet were never locked. During the summers, Respondent spent his time working at Camp Sangamon, a camp in Vermont for boys of all ages. He began working at the camp in 1980 as a regular counselor. Later he served as head of the activity trip program. Respondent worked as the camp's assistant director for about eight years. In the Summer of 1995, Respondent lived in a cabin with older boys who were counselors-in-training (CITs). However, he spent almost all of his time in the administrative office taking care of paperwork, planning activities, and supervising programs. He never went to his cabin in the middle of the day unless he was specifically looking for a CIT. Respondent's cabin was on a main trail through the camp in close proximity to other cabins and a basketball court. People were constantly walking by the cabin, especially in the middle of the day during a free activity period. The cabin did not have a lock on its door. It had large windows with no screens, which were usually propped open with a stick. The panels that formed the walls of the cabin were separated by approximately one inch. The spaces between the panels left the interior of the cabin visible during the day. As assistant director, Respondent could arrange for Florida boys to attend the camp at a reduced rate. Over the years, he made these arrangements for several boys. Respondent met C.B., a seventh grade student at Powell Middle School, in 1995. C.B. was a very troubled young man. He regularly skipped school, lied, and ran away from home. His home life included physical and mental abuse. His relationship with his parents was poor. His grades were very poor and he was on a track for dropping out of school. In 1995, C.B. was not one of Respondent's regular students. He was a participant in the after-school program. Initially, C.B.'s stepmother called Respondent to check on C.B.'s attendance in the after-school program. The stepmother and Respondent discussed C.B.'s problems, including his attempts to run away from home. During subsequent conversations, Respondent offered C.B. a scholarship to attend Camp Sangamon for three weeks in the summer of 1995. C.B.'s family was pleased that he would have an opportunity to go to camp. They accepted Respondent's offer and made final arrangements for C.B. to attend camp for three weeks at a reduced rate. When C.B. arrived at camp in 1995, he announced that he was going to stay at camp all summer. Despite his initial positive attitude, C.B. had trouble adjusting to camp life. He had problems interacting with other campers. He sometimes would curl up into a fetal position and cry uncontrollably. Respondent often helped C.B. get through these episodes. With help from his counselors and encouragement from Respondent, C.B. stayed at camp for eight weeks. Gradually, Respondent learned of C.B.’s troubled home life and felt sympathy for him and wanted to help. During the summer of 1995, Respondent assisted C.B. with the completion of a science project. C.B. had to complete the project in order to be promoted to the eighth grade. Respondent's cabin was always open with CITs coming and going. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the cabin at any time. C.B.'s testimony that, at Respondent's request, he masturbated Respondent's penis in the cabin during a free activity period just before lunch is not credited since C.B.’s multitude of statements regarding multiple alleged incidents of sexual activity between Respondent and himself were highly inconsistent and consisted of changeable details which showed the implausibility, if not impossibility, of such activity occurring. In fact, all of C.B.’s allegations suffer from this infirmity. After returning from summer camp, C.B. went boating with Respondent and several other people. The group enjoyed snorkeling and water skiing. However, C.B. and Respondent were never alone on a boat. C.B. was in the eighth grade at Powell Middle School in the Fall of 1995. Even though he was not in one of Respondent's classes, C.B. often received passes from his teachers to visit Respondent's classroom during the regular school day. C.B. participated in the after-school program activities both on- and off-campus. There was some indication that C.B. was not permitted to go home after school unless someone was present at the home. Respondent regularly drove C.B. home following the close of the after-school program. Respondent worked one-on-one with C.B. to improve his grades. Respondent also worked one-on-one with other students during the same time period. He set up a program for C.B. that required C.B. to obtain the signatures of his teachers on an attendance and work form. Two to three times a week, Respondent visited C.B.'s home to tutor C.B. C.B. also was tutored by Jen O’Connor during the after-school program. C.B.'s grades improved markedly and he made the honor roll during the first grading period of his 8th grade year. Respondent encouraged C.B. to set high school graduation as a goal which would cause C.B. to be the first in his family to remain in school and graduate. C.B. testified that during the after-school hours of the 1995-96 school year, he twice complied with Respondent's request to masturbate Respondent's penis on school grounds, either in the science classroom or the adjoining computer/storage room. This testimony is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and again lacks credibility. On October 20, 1995, Respondent took C.B. to Disney World as a reward for his academic success during the first grading period. The Disney trip was an incentive for good progress which had been agreed to earlier that year by C.B.’s parents. Respondent and C.B. traveled in Respondent's pickup truck and shared the expenses of the trip. C.B. left with enough money to buy a one-day pass to one of the three Disney parks. Respondent and C.B. arrived at the Disney World parking lot before the amusement park opened. They parked in front of the ticket booth around 9:00 or 9:30 a.m. Other cars were also arriving. Parking attendants and people waiting to enter the entertainment area were in close proximity to Respondent's vehicle at all times. Disney was running a special promotion for Florida residents. For a small increase in the price, a Florida resident could purchase a pass to all three Disney parks for a year. Respondent wished to go to all three parks but could not do so unless C.B. was able to take advantage of the Disney promotion. Respondent and C.B. paid their entrance fee for all three parks with Respondent providing the difference in price. They entered one of the theme parks as soon as it opened for business. The evidence did not show that there was anything inappropriate about the ticket upgrade or Respondent making up the difference in price. The purchase of the pass was in no way harmful to C.B. With so many people around, there was no privacy or expectation of such in Respondent's truck. C.B.'s testimony that he masturbated Respondent's penis in the Disney World parking lot is not credited. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent arranged for C.B. to attend a counseling session with a guidance counselor at Powell Middle School. Respondent made the appointment because he suspected that C.B. was the victim of abuse at home. On February 5, 1996, C.B. and his father had an argument. The father lost his temper and punched C.B. in the face and ear. C.B. did not go to school the next day. The school resource officer noticed bruises on C.B.'s face the following week at school. He reported his observations to an investigator from the Department of Children and Family Services. C.B.'s father admitted to the investigator that he hit C.B. in the face. The authorities took no legal action against C.B.'s father. At the end of his eighth grade year, C.B. was promoted to ninth grade and would be attending Springstead West High School. At the time, both C.B. and his parents expressed great appreciation over the help Respondent had given to C.B. That summer C.B., with the permission of his parents, again attended camp at a reduced rate. He went to Vermont early so that he could earn money working at camp before it opened. During his stay at the camp, Respondent "fronted" C.B. the money to buy a portable CD player, CDs, and some articles of clothing with the understanding that C.B. would repay Respondent later from the funds C.B. had in his camp account. In fact, C.B. did repay Respondent for these items. Additionally, Respondent permitted C.B. to use his credit card to order and purchase items from a catalog over the telephone. Again C.B. paid Respondent back. There was no evidence that these purchases were improper or harmed C.B. Mrs. Peady O'Connor, one of Respondent's friends, also went to camp in the summer of 1996 to work in the kitchen. C.B. stayed at camp all summer, returning home with Respondent and Mrs. O'Connor on August 16, 1996. There was no evidence the scholarships to camp Respondent provided during any of the summers at question here were improper. If anything, the scholarships benefited C.B. and the other boys who received them. Immediately upon his return to Florida, Respondent began having trouble with his truck. He took it to the shop on Saturday, August 17, 1996. He spent the rest of the day with a friend, Jackie Agard. Respondent did not go boating that weekend. School started on August 19, 1996, for the 1996-97 school year. Respondent returned to work at Powell Middle School as the technology resource coordinator. C.B. attended ninth grade at Springstead West High School. C.B. would occasionally contact Respondent for help. On Tuesday, August 20, 1996, Respondent leased a new sport utility vehicle. It did not have a pre-installed trailer hitch necessary for towing Respondent’s boat. The next Saturday, August 24, 1996, Respondent spent the day with friends from out-of-town. He did not go boating that weekend. On August 29, 1996, Respondent purchased a trailer hitch. He intended to install the hitch personally. That same day, Respondent and Chuck Wall, a scuba diving instructor, met with C.B. and his parents. The purpose of the visit was to sign C.B. up for scuba diving lessons. Respondent agreed to pay for the lessons as he had for those of other young people. Again, no evidence demonstrated that such lessons or the payment for scuba lessons were inappropriate or in any way harmful to C.B. On Saturday, August 31, 1996, Respondent took some of his friends to dinner and a movie in his new vehicle. He did not go boating that weekend. Respondent's boat was parked at the home of his parents all summer while Respondent was in Vermont. It was still there when Respondent installed the trailer hitch on his new vehicle on Labor Day, September 2, 1996. On September 3, 1996, Respondent took C.B. to his first scuba diving lesson. After the lesson, Respondent, C.B., and Mr. Wall took Respondent's boat to a marina at Crystal River. After launching Respondent's boat, Chuck Wall had difficulty getting the boat to run because it had not been used for such a long time. Respondent left his boat at the marina for the rest of the fall boating season. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that C.B. and Respondent never went boating alone. There was no inappropriate sexual conduct between C.B. and Respondent on Respondent's boat. On Saturday, September 7, 1996, Respondent took a group of students to Disney World. The trip was a reward for the students' involvement with a video yearbook project sponsored by Respondent. C.B. did not participate in the activity. The next Saturday, C.B.'s scuba diving lesson was cancelled. C.B. did not go boating with Respondent or have a scuba lesson that weekend because he was on restrictions at home. Respondent was invited to and attended C.B.’s stepmother’s birthday party on September 17, 1996. On or about September 18, 1996, C.B.'s parents became aware that C.B. was responsible for long distance phone calls to a girl that C.B. met at camp. The calls totaled about $300.00. Initially, C.B. had hidden the bill from his parents. C.B.’s stepmother discovered the bill. After a confrontation with his parents over the telephone bill, C.B. ran away from home. For the next few days, C.B. was living with friends. There was no evidence that Respondent knew where C.B. was staying or that once he discovered his whereabouts that Respondent withheld that information from anyone. Respondent was eventually asked to help locate C.B. On September 21, 1996, Respondent went to C.B.'s home. C.B.’s father asked Respondent what he thought should happen with C.B. regarding living at home. Respondent suggested that C.B.'s parents let C.B. live with the O'Connor family for a short period of time. He also suggested that C.B. receive counseling and agreed to arrange for the therapy. Mr. and Mrs. O'Connor and their son and daughter were close friends of Respondent. They are good, decent people. The son, Sean O'Connor, was away at college. The daughter, Jennifer or Jen, still lived at home. C.B.'s parents agreed to let C.B. live with the O’Connors on a trial basis provided that C.B. remain on restrictions within the O'Connor home for a period of time and pay back the telephone charges he had incurred. The O'Connors did not live within the Springstead West High School District. C.B. did not want to talk to his parents. Therefore, Respondent and the O'Connors worked together to provide C.B. with transportation to and from school. Further the parents did not provide C.B. any money for lunch while he was at the O’Connors. Again it was up to both Respondent and the O’Connors to provide C.B. with lunch money. C.B.’s parents were aware of the need for transportation and lunch money but did not offer to provide or provide any of these needs while C.B. was at the O’Connors. In fact, C.B.’s parents did not attempt to visit C.B., communicate with C.B., or be otherwise interested in C.B.'s well-being during his month long stay at the O’Connors. Respondent also purchased C.B. a beeper to facilitate communication between C.B. and Mrs. O'Connor. All of these provisions were reasonable for C.B. There was no evidence which showed these items were improper gifts on the part of Respondent or could reasonably be anticipated to cause harm to C.B. On the contrary, these "gifts" were beneficial, if not necessary, to C.B. After moving in with the O'Connors, C.B. was allowed to attend a football game. He did not meet Mrs. O'Connor after the game as he had been instructed. The police found C.B. and turned him over to C.B.'s stepmother. As soon as he got to the gate of his parent's property, C.B. got out of his stepmother's car and ran away again. The police eventually found C.B. at the home of his stepbrother's girlfriend on October 2, 1996. C.B.'s parents told the police to release C.B. to Respondent's custody. Respondent took C.B. back to live with the O'Connors. October 7, 1996, was an early release day at school. Respondent, C.B., and another student left from school to look for a lost anchor. Later that evening, Respondent dropped off C.B. at the O'Connors' residence then proceeded to take the other student home. October 8, 1996, was a hurricane day for the school district. Mrs. O'Connor was at home all day. Respondent and C.B. were never alone in the O'Connors' home. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever performed anal intercourse upon C.B. at the O'Connors' home or at Powell Middle School in the storage closet of the computer room. During the time that C.B. lived with the O'Connors, Respondent arranged for C.B. to attend two counseling sessions with a school psychologist. On October 23, 1996, there was an ESE staffing meeting at Springstead West High School regarding C.B. The meeting was related to C.B.'s special education program. At some point prior to the meeting, the assistant principal was asked to investigate the fact that C.B. was living at the O'Connors and attending a school outside the zone in which the O'Connors lived. Normally, the principal would not be at a staffing meeting. He did not participate in any decision regarding C.B.'s education. Both Respondent and Mrs. O'Connor were invited to attend the meeting by C.B.'s stepmother. All three people attended the meeting along with appropriate education staff. The meeting grew heated over the issue of out-of- district attendance with Respondent becoming exacerbated with the principal and calling him a "liar" and addressing the principal forcefully while getting up out of his chair. The principal became verbally forceful with Respondent. Eventually, both calmed down. Forcefully stating a position is not coercion and the evidence did not show that either Respondent’s or the principal's behavior was either coercive or oppressive, especially since the principal later was instructed by the Superintendent to apologize to Respondent for his behavior during the meeting. During the meeting, C.B.'s stepmother decided it was time for C.B. to return home. She was prepared to take C.B. home that night after the meeting. She asked Respondent to leave her son alone. However, apparently her words were spoken out of exasperation since C.B., who was at the school, left with Respondent and Mrs. O’Connor at the conclusion of the meeting with C.B.'s mother's consent. C.B. had an appointment with a therapist that evening. C.B.'s father would pick C.B. up at the O'Connors the following day. On Thursday, October 24, 1996, C.B.'s father went to the O'Connors to pick up C.B. and move him back home. When the father arrived at the O'Connors' home, C.B. attempted to have a heart-to-heart talk with his father. C.B. wanted to know why his father always sided with his stepmother against him. He also told his father that he did not want to return home. His father told C.B. that he was coming home and that he could either come home the easy way or the hard way. When the father insisted that C.B. return home, C.B. went down the hall and ran out into the backyard of the O'Connors' home. C.B.'s father went out the front door and around the corner of the O'Connors' house. C.B.'s father caught up with C.B., grabbed him from behind, pulled him to the ground, straddled him and, while holding C.B. on the ground with a knee in C.B.'s pelvic area, repeatedly punched C.B. in the face with a closed fist and an overhead strike. C.B.'s father picked his son up by the collar and drug him over to a metal fence. C.B. was trying to push his father’s hands away. His father grabbed C.B. by the neck and slammed his head into the metal fence approximately three times. He struck C.B. about three more times in the face with a closed fist. At that point, a witness to the struggle grabbed C.B.'s father from behind in a half nelson and pulled him off of C.B. Once the father had released his grip and stepped back, the witness let go of C.B.'s father. During the first part of the struggle, C.B.'s father was calling his son a "fucking asshole" and "dirty little bastard." C.B. was yelling that he wanted to kill himself, wanted to get this over with, and hated himself. The father's response was that he could help his son end his life, that he had a gun back at the house, and "you know, we can get this on right now, let's kill you, let's get it over with." Almost immediately after being pulled off, C.B.'s father attacked his son again, grabbed him by the collar and struck him several more times in the face with a closed fist and slammed his head into the ground several times. The witness grabbed C.B.'s father again and tried to pull him off. C.B.'s father did not want to disengage and resisted the witnesses' efforts. The witnesses forced C.B.'s arms off his son and held him. At some point during the struggle, Mrs. O'Connor had come into the backyard. C.B. grabbed Mrs. O'Connor around the ankles and would not let go. C.B. was crying saying he wanted to die and "stop it, stop it, please." Mrs. O'Connor was yelling at C.B.'s father to stop. C.B.'s father still had C.B. by the belt loop and the neck. He had one knee in C.B.'s back. He was grinding C.B.'s head into the ground. The witnesses was forcing C.B.'s father's arms off C.B. Mrs. O'Connor told her daughter, Jen, to call the police. At that point, C.B.'s father let go of C.B. and ceased his attack. All of the blows which the father hit his son with were full force punches. C.B. was bloodied and bruised by his father. Photographs taken show extensive bruising on C.B.'s face. Incredibly both C.B. and his stepmother deny the physical effects of the struggle that night. C.B.'s father was arrested and taken to jail. The next day, C.B.'s stepmother filed a police report alleging that Respondent had sexually abused C.B. After his father was arrested, C.B. spent one night with his stepbrother. His stepmother told him not to attend school the next day. She wanted C.B. to go with her to talk to the authorities and to get C.B.'s father out of jail. Despite these instructions, C.B. rode to school with Jen O'Connor. When C.B.'s stepmother discovered that he was at school, she went to pick him up. When she arrived at school, C.B. refused to go home with or meet with her alone. Because he would not meet with his stepmother alone, he met with her in the presence of the school resource officer. Because C.B. refused to go home, C.B. was taken to a youth shelter in Pasco County, known as the Run-Away Prevention (RAP) house. C.B. ran away from the shelter that night at about 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. C.B. turned to the only adults he knew who could safely contact for help. C.B. called the O'Connors from a pay phone at a mini market in Pasco County. Respondent was at the O'Connors at the time. Both Respondent and Mrs. O'Connor went to pick up C.B. Respondent drove because Mrs. O'Connor did not drive. They picked C.B. up at the mini market in Pasco County. Both discussed with C.B. where he could go. Because of the incident with C.B.'s father, C.B. could not return to the O'Connors' house. Respondent suggested that he return home. However, C.B. rejected that suggestion, saying he would immediately run away again. Additionally, Respondent and Mrs. O'Connor very reasonably believed it would not be physically safe for C.B. to return home. All decided that C.B. would go to the home of another teacher. When they arrived at the teacher's home, some discussion occurred about C.B.'s predicament. There was some discussion about emancipation, but the discussion was purely theoretical. C.B. was given the number for the Domestic Violence Hotline so that he could call and report his father and perhaps obtain some protective services from the state. Neither the teacher nor her roommate, who was also a teacher, reported C.B. to the police or advised his parents of his whereabouts. They did not so report because they reasonably feared for his safety. This was the last time that Respondent had any material contact with C.B. The next day C.B. left the teacher's house and stayed with a friend that he generally stayed with when he ran away. The friend was known to his parents and the friend' house was within a mile of C.B.'s home. Interestingly, C.B. continued to sporadically attend school while on runaway status until he was prevented from riding the bus to school by a bus driver. During the time C.B. was on runaway status, no one asked Respondent if he knew where C.B. was or if he could guess where he might be. Moreover, under these facts, Respondent did not have the duty to report any such information about C.B. On October 29, 1996, and November 6, 1996, a deputy sheriff interviewed C.B. about the allegations raised by his stepmother. On both occasions, C.B. denied that Respondent had ever engaged in or attempted to engage in inappropriate conduct with him. On November 8, 1996, a sheriff's detective, Detective Baxley, and a worker from the Department of Children and Family Services each questioned C.B. C.B. again denied ever having any sexual contact with Respondent. In November 1996, C.B. returned to live with his parents. On November 13, 1996, the day that C.B.'s father made his first court appearance, with some direction on what needed to be said to the state attorney from Detective Baxley, C.B. told the state attorney, in the presence of both parents, that he did not want to press charges against his father and that the "fight" was his fault. The charges were subsequently dropped. On November 18, 1996, Detective Baxley and Detective Cameron interrogated C.B. Towards the end of the interview, C.B. accused Respondent of having inappropriate sexual contact with him on two occasions. C.B. alleged that he had masturbated Respondent's penis in Respondent's cabin at camp in the summer of 1996.1 C.B. also alleged that he had masturbated Respondent's penis on Respondent's boat in Crystal River sometime in the early Fall of 1996, within weeks of the beginning of school. The detectives had C.B. call Respondent. They taped the conversation without Respondent's knowledge. C.B. told Respondent that the police had given him a polygraph when in fact they had used a computer voice stress analyzer. Respondent told C.B. he had nothing to worry about as long as he told the truth. The police interrogated C.B. again on November 27, 1996. During this interview, C.B. accused Respondent of inappropriate sexual conduct involving masturbation of Respondent's penis in Respondent's science classroom or the computer room at Powell Middle School during after-school hours of the 1995-96 school year. Respondent was arrested on or about December 5, 1996. In January of 1997, C.B. alleged for the first time that he masturbated Respondent's penis in the parking lot at Disney World on October 20, 1995. On March 27, 1997, C.B. accused Respondent of having anal sex with him at the O'Connor residence during a "hurricane day" in October of 1996. On April 16, 1997, C.B. accused Respondent of having anal sex with him in the walk-in closet of the computer/storage room at Powell Middle School on two occasions in September or October of 1996. None of these various accusations were credible. Finally, there was no credible evidence that Respondent interfered with the relationship between C.B. and his parents in a manner which could reasonably be foreseen to harm C.B. Moreover, there is nothing in the statutes or rules of DOE which, absent harm, purports to make interference with a parent's custody or ignoring a parent's wishes a violation of those rules subject to discipline. Respondent met A.P., a sixth grade student at Powell Middle School, in 1995 as a participant in the after-school program. A.P. was a very out-going person, who demanded attention. He was also known for lying, especially when seeking attention. At times, Respondent, as director of the after-school program, had to discipline A.P. A.P. did not find Respondent to be strong, mean, violent, or scary. He never heard Respondent swear, tell dirty jokes, talk dirty, or threaten anyone. During his sixth grade year, A.P. would routinely visit Respondent's classroom during the school day even though Respondent was not one of his teachers. A.P. often visited Respondent during the after-school program. Respondent frequently gave A.P. a ride home after the after-school program. Respondent offered A.P. a scholarship to attend Camp Sangamon in the Summer of 1995. With the consent of his parents, A.P. attended camp at a reduced rate for three weeks that summer. In the Fall of 1995, A.P. was in the seventh grade. He was in a science class taught by Respondent. He continued to attend the after-school program. Respondent worked on computers during the times that A.P. and other students visited in the computer room. There is no persuasive evidence that pornographic pictures of nude males on the Internet ever appeared on the computer monitors while Respondent was operating a computer in A.P.'s presence. In January of 1996, A.P. continued to visit Respondent in Respondent's classroom or in the computer room after school. Respondent did not at any time ask A.P. to touch Respondent in a sexually inappropriate manner. Respondent never masturbated A.P.'s penis on school property. Respondent developed a plan for A.P. to work and earn money so that he could attend camp during the Summer of 1996. A.P. did not follow through with the plan. Consequently, he did not attend camp for the second time. In the Fall of 1996, A.P. entered the eighth grade at Powell Middle School. A.P. continued to visit Respondent in the computer room after school up until the police arrested Respondent. Just before Respondent's arrest, Detective Baxley interviewed several of Respondent's students. One of those students was A.P. Of his own accord, Detective Baxley went to A.P.'s home to interview him. During the interview, A.P. told the detective that Respondent had shown him pornographic pictures from the Internet in the school's computer room. A.P. also claimed that, on one occasion, A.P. declined Respondent's request for A.P. to touch Respondent's penis. On another occasion, Respondent allegedly masturbated A.P.'s penis. According to A.P., the latter two incidents took place in the computer room. At one point, A.P. also admitted to a teacher and a guidance counselor that he had lied about these incidents. Again the greater weight of the evidence shows that Respondent did not engage in any sexual activities with A.P. or engage in any improper behavior or relationship with A.P. Respondent never harmed A.P. in any way. J.K. was another student attending the after-school program at Powell Middle School. He went to school with both C.B. and A.P. He also attended Camp Sagamon during the summer for at least one summer. While at camp, J.K. testified that one time Respondent, while sitting on the porch of his cabin, asked him about what he thought about two men being together. However, J.K. does not remember what the specific words were. J.K. did not particularly respond and left. Nothing was said about anybody having sex. The statement did not have a sexual connotation. Clearly, no violation of the statutes and rules is supported by such a vague, out-of-context statement. J.K. also recalled one incident when Respondent accidentally bumped into J.K. while he was in the storage room. The incident occurred when J.K. came out from behind the door to the storage room while Respondent was entering. The back of Respondent's hand brushed J.K.'s groin area. Respondent was startled by the encounter, jumped back and said excuse me to J.K. Again, nothing in this incident even remotely supports a violation of statute or rules. Finally, J.K. testified about Respondent teasing him about not skinny-dipping while at summer camp. The episode occurred while J.K. and Respondent were on Respondent's boat with a group of other people. None of the others overheard the conversation or were in a position to overhear the conversation. There is nothing in the episode which suggests that the teasing was overbearing or disparaging. Again, no violation of the rules or statutes was shown.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Education enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of any violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. Jurisdiction is reserved over the issue of attorney fees should the parties not be able to agree on such. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's educator's certificate should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint filed on November 7, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Richard T. Vaughn, Jr., is licensed as a teacher having been issued Florida Educator's Certificate 678116 by the Department of Education. The certificate covers the area of sociology and was valid through June 30, 1995. When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at the Marion Regional Juvenile Detention Center (MRJDC) and The Phoenix Center in the Marion County School District. Based on conduct which occurred during school year 1993-94, on May 19, 1994, respondent was suspended from his teaching position by the Marion County School Board (Board). After an administrative hearing was held in December 1994, a final order was entered by the Board on March 31, 1995, terminating respondent for misconduct in office, incompetency, and willful neglect of duty. After learning of the Board's action, and conducting a further inquiry, petitioner, Frank T. Brogan, as Commissioner of Education, issued an administrative complaint on November 7, 1995, alleging that respondent's conduct also constituted a sufficient ground to discipline his teacher's certificate. The charges stem from incidents which allegedly occurred while respondent taught at MRJDC from September 1993 until April 7, 1994, and at The Phoenix Center from April 8, 1994, until May 17, 1994. In his request for a hearing, respondent has denied all material allegations. During most of school year 1993-94, respondent taught at MRJDC, which is a detention facility for students who are awaiting trial on criminal charges. As might be expected, the students at MRJDC "are very difficult to work with." At hearing, respondent's supervisor established that respondent had "difficulty" with his work, he was "uncooperative" with other faculty and staff, and he had "problems" with his peers. His behavior was generally described by all witnesses as being "bizarre" and "irresponsible." On some occasions, he would become angry with his students and "storm" out of his classroom leaving the students unsupervised. While respondent was teaching at MRJDC, it was necessary for the principal of the school's education center to meet with respondent because he would not speak to any of his colleagues. Respondent took the position that speaking with his peers was not in his job description, and thus it was unnecessary for him to do so. Although admonished by the principal to communicate with his peers, respondent continued to be abrupt and uncommunicative. During his tenure at MRJDC, respondent exhibited irrational and explosive behavior while teaching his classes. For example, he frequently engaged in screaming tirades against students who failed to meet his disciplinary expectations. In addition, it was not unusual for respondent to be confrontational with his students, and if threatened by one, he would challenge the student to carry out the threat, or to meet him outside the classroom to resolve the matter. Respondent's pattern of explosive behavior at MRJDC culminated on April 7, 1994, when the MRJDC superintendent was called to respondent's classroom to resolve an "emergency" situation. As it turned out, a student had thrown some pencil lead, hitting respondent in his glasses. Respondent began yelling at the student and challenging him to come outside the classroom and "take him on" to settle the score. When the superintendent arrived, she asked respondent to leave campus for the remainder of the day. However, respondent became abrupt and confrontational with the superintendent, initially refused to leave, and continued yelling at the student for another five minutes. Because of respondent's pattern of irrational and explosive behavior throughout the school year, and his loss of effectiveness as a teacher at MRJDC with both his colleagues and his students, a decision was made to transfer respondent to The Phoenix Center, an alternative education school, in order to give him one final opportunity. Effective April 8, 1994, respondent was reassigned to The Phoenix Center as an exceptional student education teacher. His class consisted of no more than four or five students. Despite the small number of students, respondent continually called the dean of students to resolve disciplinary problems which arose in his classroom. It can be reasonably inferred that respondent lacked the necessary demeanor and temperament to effectively manage and control his classroom. On May 3, 1994, respondent was described as being "incoherent" and "in a rage" while engaged in an altercation with a student who had threatened him. While the student was being led from the classroom to the principal's office by the dean of students, respondent became "agitated" and followed the student down the hallway continuing to challenge him to carry out his threat. Although ordered by the dean to return to the classroom, respondent initially refused to do so. Respondent's explanation for his conduct was that he was trying to prove a point with the student. For at least the second time that school year, respondent was instructed by the principal not to challenge students who had made threats. By engaging in the conduct described in the previous finding of fact, and that described in findings of fact 6 and 7, respondent intentionally exposed his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. On May 6, 1994, while coaching a school softball team, respondent became outraged over a call by the umpire and left the campus without permission. During his absence, the students were unsupervised. On May 17, 1994, respondent was returning to campus in his automobile when he approached a group of students in the roadway. One female student ignored her teacher's request to move and intentionally remained in the middle of the road. As he approached the student, respondent gunned his engine and drove straight for the student but hit his brakes stopping just short of her. Respondent later explained that he was merely trying to prove the point that if a student remained in the road with a car approaching, she would "be in trouble." By engaging in this conduct, respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect a student's physical safety. By virtue of his personal conduct over the school year at both MRJDC and The Phoenix Center, respondent's effectiveness as a classroom teacher has been seriously reduced.
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 respondent guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code, revoking his certificate for one year, allowing him to reapply for an educator's certificate only upon certification by a mental health professional that he is competent and capable of performing his duties as an educator, and upon reemployment, placing him on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 224-B Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carl J. Zahner, II, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard T. Vaughn, Jr. 1731 26th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has just cause to discipline Respondent for restraining a student with disabilities, in violation of Petitioner’s policy 5.181(4)(a), (4)(b)(iv), and (6)(d)(iii)(A), and, if so, whether Petitioner may depart from progressive discipline and impose a one-day suspension, as provided by the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Petitioner and The Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association (CBA).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified ESE teacher and has taught ESE classes for 12 years. Since 2012, Respondent has taught at Royal Palm School, which is an ESE center operated by Petitioner for students ranging in age from 3 to 22 years. During the 2014-15 school year, as well as summer school of 2015, Respondent taught a K-1 class of mostly five- and six-year-olds in an intellectual disabilities class. At the start of the 2014-15 school year, Respondent's classroom consisted of 12 ESE students, although Respondent's class, by the end of the school year, consisted of 11 students and, in summer school, 9 students. At the start of the school year, the principal assigned two aides to Respondent's classroom. The students' disabilities were varied. Student 10 suffers from Down Syndrome, has deficits in vision and hearing, and was the most cognitively challenged of the students in the class. Student 10 used a "chew toy" for oral stimulation, wore diapers, and required full assistance when eating. He was unaware of danger and required adult supervision at all times, including a curb-to-curb escort on arriving and leaving school. Student 10's delays in cognition, communication, and social/emotional development limited his interactions with adults and peers. Based on his May 2015 IEP, by the end of the school year, Student 10 still could not attend for more than five seconds in response to an adult voice, required hand-over-hand assistance to mark paper, demonstrated no hand dominance, repeatedly grabbed nearby items and placed them into his mouth for oral stimulation, could not maintain eye contact, and (if permitted) wandered about the classroom climbing onto chairs and tables or spinning in continuous circles. He was unable to walk more than 300 feet on uneven surfaces independently without losing his balance and engaged in various behaviors, likely to self-stimulate or to modulate stimulation, including rocking side to side while standing or rocking his chair back and forth while sitting. Student 10 had rocked his chair the prior school year until his teacher placed the chair against a wall, so he could not rock it. Student 11 was aggressive and would slap, kick, bite, spit, and throw things at adults and peers. Another student was blind and defenseless. Student 11 had bitten this student once and had tried to bite him on another occasion, so adults had to ensure that Student 11 could not get at the defenseless student, who had been attacked on two other occasions by other students. Another student suffers from Dandy Walker Syndrome, which involves swelling of the cerebellum due to the collection of intracranial fluids. She is deaf, tends to aspirate her food, suffers seizures, has limited mobility, and is highly aggressive. Another of the students has a serious liver disorder, so that the consumption of certain foods could be deadly. Although her mother sent food to school every day, the student tried to take other students' food and eat it. She also must be kept from bending over, which may necessitate emergency hospitalization. Another student is developmentally disabled, deaf, and blind. These five students required one-on-one adult supervision as much of the time as adult staff was available to provide it. In addition to Student 10, four other students were diagnosed with Down Syndrome. One of these students was limited to baby food and tried to escape from the classroom every time he approached the door. He also threw things at other students. One of the other students with Down Syndrome is much less mobile, but constantly pushed over chairs. Much time of the adults in Respondent's classroom was spent in toileting. Ten of the students were still in diapers. These students required considerable assistance in the bathroom to avoid accidents that would leave the area soiled with feces. One aide estimated that nine of these students averaged four diaper changes daily; the tenth--the student with the liver condition--required six or seven diaper changes daily. She estimated that an aide would spend an average of three minutes changing a wet diaper and six minutes changing a soiled diaper, which, she testified, occurred with a high frequency. The aide added that considerably more time was involved if the child's clothing also required changing, but she did not estimate the frequency of this occurrence. Ignoring clothing changes, toileting activities thus consumed at least three hours daily of aide time. Aides were also required to devote one hour daily to hall duty and substantial blocks of time to serving breakfast and assisting with children leaving or entering buses or other transportation. In sum, due to these responsibilities, half of an aide was not available for supervision in the classroom during instruction or transitions. The principal's assignment of two aides to Respondent's classroom was based on Petitioner's policy of one aide per every six ESE students. Although the staffing of Respondent's classroom conformed to Petitioner's staffing policy, at the start of the 2014-15 school year, Petitioner and her two aides were overwhelmed by the needs of their 12 students, prompting Respondent to seek help from her administrators. The principal agreed to provide Respondent relief if the District office approved the creation of another classroom at Royal Palm School. However, the enrollment at the school failed to meet the threshold for the addition of another class. In the alternative, the principal directed other persons, including an occupational therapist, physical therapist, varying-exceptionalities teacher, deaf-and-hard-of-hearing teacher, speech-language pathologist, and behavior resources teacher, to meet and find a solution for Respondent. The group appointed by the principal met four times in November 2014 to devise a plan to help Respondent with her entire class. The first meeting took place on November 7, 2014, with 13 attendees, including Respondent. Although the principal did not attend the first two meetings, the perspective of the administration was presented by the behavior resources teacher, who led off the meeting by acknowledging that the principal had asked them to identify ways to help Respondent better meet the "safety and needs" of her students using existing staff. Respondent spoke next, stressing the need for "additional staff" and distributing a handout describing her students in general terms. The behavior resources teacher suggested splitting the class in two by allowing aides and "support staff" to use an adjacent, underused room to teach half the class while Respondent taught the other half. Respondent stated that she needed another aide. In addressing a suggestion that an aide might volunteer to help out in Respondent's classroom, one of the existing aides mentioned that the other aides knew of the problems, such as children removing their clothes and one child playing with his stool, so any aide would have to be assigned. Someone asked if the classroom was set up for "good teaching," and Respondent replied, "yes, but we have serious danger issues." The existing aide noted staffing deficiencies, but the behavior resources teacher answered, "Do the best with the people we have now." The meeting concluded with several persons offering to supervise some of Respondent's students during parts of the day, but a unique aide to one child worrying that she and the nurse would be exposed to potential liability if they were expected to serve the needs of any students besides the single student to whom they were assigned. A few days later, a group of 10 persons reconvened. The minutes of this meeting conclude that all staff was willing to try to help Respondent, there was a "great need for additional help to assist with toileting and general assignments throughout the day," and Respondent continued to insist on additional staff. One week after the first meeting, 14 persons met for a third meeting. This group included Respondent, the principal, and the assistant principal. Attendees addressed the changes that had already been made, including greater use of the adjacent room effectively to reduce the ratio of students to adults in Respondent's classroom. The principal agreed to hire a third aide. The group discussed that students were overturning furniture and changes were needed to avoid injury to someone. Someone had suggested bigger tables--presumably, too heavy for the students to overturn--and the appropriate person was trying to locate some. The final meeting took place on November 24, 2014, with 13 attendees, including Respondent, the principal, and the assistant principal. A discussion of Student 11 mentioned the proper use of a Rifton chair, which is equipped with a lap belt. The behavior resources teacher emphasized that the chair must be used properly, and the assistant principal added that it may not be used for restraint. The third aide had been assigned to the classroom, and Respondent reported that she had helped a lot. About three weeks later, during the final week of school before winter break, Respondent reported to the behavior resources teacher that the behaviors in her classroom had improved and transitions were proceeding smoothly. Respondent did not elaborate at the hearing on the effect of the behavioral improvements that followed the assignment of a third aide to her classroom toward the end of the first semester of the 2014-15 school year. Clearly, adult time was consumed partly by dealing with maladaptive behaviors, but many of the time-consuming features of the class, as described above, were not behavioral, at least in the sense of their amenability to dramatic change: for example, the demanding toileting needs of all but two of the students; Student 10's cognitive challenges, unawareness of danger, need for oral stimulation, need for hand-over-hand assistance to mark a paper, and spinning, rocking, and tendencies to climb atop the furniture; and the extraordinary needs of the students with Dandy Walker Syndrome, the liver disorder, and development disability with blindness and deafness. The CBA authorizes discipline of employees for "just cause." CBA, Art. II, § M, ¶ 6. Petitioner is required to impose progressive discipline, which, in ascending order, is a verbal reprimand with a written notation, written reprimand, suspension without pay, and dismissal. CBA, Art. II, § M, ¶ 7. Petitioner is limited to progressive discipline "[e]xcept in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District" or "the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such [sic] clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules." Id. Petitioner has failed to prove just cause for disciplining Respondent in connection with Student 11. Petitioner failed to prove the material allegations involving Student 11 other than that, when he became overstimulated and unruly, Respondent directed him to sit on a bean bag chair in the back of the room so that he could recompose himself before returning to his seat. This directive was entirely reasonable, especially given Student 11's above-noted proclivity toward biting and spitting upon his neighbors and staff, including one particularly vulnerable child. The evidence fails to establish that any adult folded up Student 11 "like a taco" in the bean bag chair or directed Student 11 to fold himself up in the chair. It is possible the sides of the chair could have been pulled up to interfere with the occupant's sight line of something that had been distracting him or someone he had been assaulting, but no evidence suggests that pulled-up sides substantially blocked Student 11's view of the room or that the sides would remain pulled up for very long. When giving a statement to Petitioner, Respondent's casual description of her use of the bean bag only underscores that its use was innocuous; this statement did not constitute, as Petitioner contends, a concession of child abuse in an unguarded moment during an intensive interrogation. On this record, the evidence fails to prove that Respondent's use of the bean bag chair was in any way inappropriate, and Student 11 is not further addressed in this recommended order. On the other hand, Petitioner has proved just cause for disciplining Respondent in connection with Student 10. Petitioner proved that, in violation of Petitioner's policy governing the restraint of ESE students, on several occasions, Respondent attached a bungee cord to the legs of Student 10's chair, stretching the cord around the legs of the table at which Student 10 sat. The cord did not touch Student 10, unless he could reach it with his feet, nor did the cord force the chest or stomach of the child to press against the edge of the table. But tethering the chair to the table prevented Student 10 from pushing his chair back from the table to get out of the chair without assistance from an adult. It is not entirely clear when Respondent first used the bungee cord to restrain Student 10. She applied the bungee cord for not more than one hour at a time when one of the aides was at lunch or unavailable in the classroom due to toileting or other duties that removed her from direct contact with the students, and Student 10 was rocking in his chair, at risk of tipping over. This practice clearly took place after the addition of the third aide to the classroom. At no time did Student 10 acknowledge the presence of the bungee cord or indicate any embarrassment at its use. Respondent's use of the bungee cord was not a means to punish Student 10. Respondent's use of the bungee cord was not for her personal convenience, such as to permit Respondent to escape her instructional and supervisory duties during the school day. Respondent's use of the bungee cord was to protect Student 10 from tipping over his chair and harming himself while allowing Respondent and the aides to monitor more closely other vulnerable students. Respondent worked hard to obtain help in her classroom, and administrators responded with a third aide. It seems that the additional adult may have helped with the more behavioral problems. But the more intractable issues presented by the students still had to be managed, and Respondent continued to advocate for the needs of her students. At one point during the school year, Student 10's mother gave to Respondent a prescription for occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech therapy. Respondent delivered this prescription to the school's occupational therapist, who said they would evaluate Student 10, but not until the end of the school year, despite the fact that the child obviously suffered from significant deficits that are properly addressed by occupational therapy. The record provides no support for a departure from progressive discipline. If every violation of the policy restricting the restraint of ESE students justified a departure from progressive discipline, the policy and perhaps the CBA should so provide, but they do not, so it is necessary to analyze the circumstances of Respondent's violation from the perspective of the language of the CBA's departure clause. In general, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's use of the bungee cord clearly constituted a real and immediate danger to the District. Not a natural person, the District is most obviously jeopardized by legal liability. There is no evidence of the reaction of the mother of Student 10 upon being told of the use of the bungee cord with her son. There is no evidence of any legal action that has been commenced or is likely to be commenced by Student 10's mother, any advocate for disabled students, or any federal or state agency responsible for monitoring compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Investigations by the Department of Children and Families and Petitioner's police were closed without any action. Nor has Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's acts and omissions constitute clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable rules. The reference to "reasonable" rules is puzzling, as though some rules are not reasonable, but, if it must be said, Petitioner's policy restricting the restraint of ESE students is reasonable. Also, Respondent's violation was purposeful. Admitting that she never told any administrator about her use of the bungee cord, Respondent testified that she did not know that her use of the cord violated Petitioner's policy against restraints when applied to ESE students. If Respondent meant that she was unaware of Petitioner's policy addressing the restraint of ESE students, this testimony is discredited. Even the aides understood that there was a general prohibition against restraining ESE students. Also, during one of the four meetings in November 2014, one or two participants alluded to the policy. Lastly, generous portions of the policy are incorporated in the CBA. If Respondent meant that she was unaware that her use of the bungee cord violated Petitioner's policy, this testimony also is discredited. The purpose of the bungee cord was to restrain Student 11, and the policy broadly restricts the restraint of ESE students. Petitioner thus proved that Respondent's violation was purposeful because she knew of the policy restricting the restraint of ESE students, knew that the bungee cord restrained Student 10's freedom of movement, and knew that her use of the bungee cord violated the policy. The CBA requires, though, that the violation also be flagrant. Flagrant means " conspicuously offensive <flagrant errors>; especially: so obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality <flagrant violations of human rights>." http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/flagrant. The bungee cord itself was inconspicuous, as it extended a few inches about the floor under a chair and a table amid a classroom of tables and chairs. No administrator who happened by Respondent's classroom for the several months that the bungee cord was in intermittent use ever noticed it. Other students appeared not to notice the use of the bungee cord, as Student 10 suffered no embarrassment from the use of the bungee cord in this manner. Respondent's use of the bungee cord was not conspicuously offensive. All three aides witnessed Respondent's use of the bungee cord for several months, but said nothing and did not seem to think that the use of the bungee cord presented much, if any, of an issue. The third aide, who had worked only part of the school year, mentioned the bungee cord to the assistant principal, but primarily as support for her complaint that Respondent's summer-school class of nine students could not be served by only two aides. A conspicuously offensive act would have generated more dramatic responses from the aides. Respondent's motivation in using the bungee cord also undermines a finding of flagrancy. As noted above, the class presented serious demands on the four adults. Especially when one or two aides were unavailable due to other duties, the bungee cord kept Student 10 from harming himself and allowed Respondent and the available aide or aides to better serve the other children, as in preventing one from striking a particularly vulnerable child, preventing one from eloping, and preventing one from bending over or eating others' food, or providing a few extra minutes of direct support to a developmentally disabled child who could neither see nor hear what was going on around him. Respondent's use of the bungee cord did not expose Student 10 to an unreasonable risk of personal harm. An adult could quickly remove him from the tethered chair, probably more quickly than she could remove a child strapped into a Rifton chair. In no way did this restraint pose as much risk as that posed by one or more adults’ grasping and holding a child, say, pinned to the ground. Student 10 could not self-evacuate with or without the bungee cord. Whatever theoretical risk of harm was posed by the few seconds that it would take for an adult to push the tethered chair back to allow Student 10 to get out of his chair was more than offset by the gain in safety from stopping the climbing atop furniture and tipping the chair back. When administrators at Royal Palm School learned of Respondent's use of the bungee cord during summer school in 2015, they immediately removed Respondent from her teaching assignment under her summer-school contract, without pay, for the remaining 12 days of summer school. The following year, she was assigned alternative duties that did not involve student contact, but was paid at her regular rate.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding just cause for disciplining Respondent for a violation of Petitioner’s policy 5.181(k)(ii) in connection with the restraint of Student 10, issuing a verbal reprimand with a written notation instead of the proposed one-day's suspension, and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 16th day of August, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Law Office of Thomas L. Johnson, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 309 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Laura E. Pincus, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County Office of General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-323 Post Office Box 19239 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Dr. Robert Avossa, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lawrence Brennan, holds Florida teaching certificate number 250648, issued by the State Department of Education. The Respondent is certified in the area of English and his certificate is valid through June 30, 1988. The Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System in which he has taught since September 8, 1969. The Respondent has taught at Paxon Junior High School since 1984-84, and has taught compensatory education in Paxon Junior High School during school years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Compensatory education is a special program for children with low test scores. Many of the students also have disciplinary problems. The Respondent received satisfactory evaluations for the last three full years of his employment, to include his years at Paxon. The Respondent was removed from the classroom and Paxon Junior High School following the altercation with a student on February 27, 1986, which gave rise to these charges. The Respondent is currently assigned to one of the media centers of the Department of Education in Duval County. The Respondent was informed in writing of the various requirements and responsibilities of teachers in the Duval County School System. Bresha Woods was a student of the Respondent's in November 1985. Ms. Woods had received six to eight referrals to the Principal's office through November 1985 for disrupting class and for not performing assigned duties. Subsequent to the incident described here, Woods was suspended and transferred to the Darnell Cookman Alternative School in March of the 1985-86 school year. On November 7, 1985, the Respondent told Woods to take her things and to go to the Principal's office for not doing her work and disrupting class. Woods delayed, slowly gathering her books, purse and other belongings. The Respondent approached Woods from the rear as she was at her desk, grasped her by the shoulders, pulled her to her feet alongside the desk, turned her toward the door of the classroom and told her to go to the school office. Woods' statement that she was "marked up" is not credible and the fact that she visited a physician on March 29, 1987, is not relevant because of the passage of time. No report of the physician's findings was offered. Woods' report to Atkinson that Respondent had choked her was contrary to Woods' sworn testimony. Atkinson accepted Woods' version of events as opposed to the explanation of Respondent. See T 179, 180. In January 1986, Delilah Elliott, a new student at Paxon, was late for class and cut across a grassy area between the wings of the classroom building which was closed to walking students. Between classes the Respondent was performing monitoring duties outside the classroom as do many of the teachers and staff and observed Ms. Elliott crossing the prohibited area. The Respondent called for Elliott to stop. Although Elliott heard the Respondent call for her to stop, she ignored him, attempting to go to her next class. The Respondent approached her, grabbed her by the shoulders to restrain her, and pushed her toward the sidewalk. She attempted to walk around him and continue on to her class. Elliott refused to tell the Respondent her name. The Respondent herded Elliott to the Principal's office, sometimes pushing her in the back when she stopped walking. Ms. Atkinson, the Assistant Principal in charge of disciplining girls, having seen the incident, followed the Respondent to the office. Atkinson told the Respondent not to be so physical with the children. The Respondent advised Atkinson that he knew what the rules were. Atkinson advised the Respondent that she would take care of the problem, and that he should return to class. Atkinson took no action against Elliott because, according to Atkinson, walking on the grass was not a referral offense. As the Respondent exited the office, Atkinson heard the Respondent say to Elliott, "You little tramp." The Respondent was frequently in physical contact with students in his class. Craig Monasco and Frank Lane were students in the Respondent's class. The Respondent grabbed their buttocks on several occasions when they were leaning over getting books. This practice, called "scooping" by the students, was a form of horse play engaged in by the students. The students were embarrassed by this. On other occasions, the Respondent pulled students out of their seats in the process of disciplining them within the classroom. Leopolean Spikes was a 13 year old black student in the Respondent's 7th grade comp. ed. English class. Spikes had a history of disruptive behavior in class and had been sent to the Principal's office several times during the school year. On February 26, 1986, Spikes was disruptive in class and the Respondent escorted him to the Principal's office. On this occasion, Spikes had refused to accept the referral, and Spikes said he was going to have his father come out and talk with the Respondent. The Respondent added Spikes' additional comments to the referral regarding Spikes' behavior and escorted Spikes to the Principal's office. Upon re-entering the class, the Respondent stated to the class that had Spikes hit him, the Respondent would have knocked him through the wall. The Principal gave Spikes an in-school suspension for his conduct of February 26, 1986. However, based upon the general school policy, a child with the number of referrals that Spikes had had would have been subject to general suspension. On February 27, 1986, Spikes reported to the Respondent's first period comp. ed. class. Spikes exhibited additional disruptive behavior during the class period of approximately 50 minutes in length. During this time, the Respondent warned Spikes on several occasions that he was going to refer him again if his behavior did not change. Shortly before the class was over, Spikes' continued disruptive conduct caused the Respondent to write a referral of Spikes to the Principal. The Respondent told Spikes to go to the Principal's office. Spikes delayed in getting his personal effects together to go to the Principal's office, and the Respondent went over to Spikes and told him to hurry up and leave the class. Spikes told the Respondent that he would not go to the Principal's office. At this point, a conflict exists in testimony regarding what occurred next. The one non-involved adult observer, Ms. Morkin, the co-teacher, stated that she observed six "acts" to the incident: (1) Spikes stood around reading the referral and not doing anything; (2) Respondent guided Spikes to the door by the shoulder; (3) Spikes ran around her desk to his own desk by the windows and wall; (4) Books were thrown in the direction of her desk from the vicinity of Spikes' desk; and (5) A struggle ensued between Spikes and Respondent, which came to an end with the Respondent kneeling next to Spikes and restraining Spikes on the floor. The various student witnesses had more dramatic versions of the incident, but one can trace the activity by its location. Their versions began with: (1) Spikes refused to go and told Respondent that he was not going to the office at or around Spikes' desk; (2) Spikes or Respondent threw books; (3) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the desk; (4) Spikes threatened Respondent with a desk; (5) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the wall and Spikes' head hit against the wall; and (6) The fight ended with Respondent pinning Spikes to the floor. The following findings are based upon a most credible evidence and testimony presented: The Respondent was standing in the aisle alongside Spikes' desk and between Spikes' desk and the front of the room where Ms. Morkin's desk was located. Spikes, when confronted by the Respondent and told to hurry, told Respondent he refused to go, and threw his books at Respondent, who was standing between Spikes and Morkin. Spikes adopted a combative stance and the Respondent grabbed Spikes' arms, fearing that Spikes was going to strike him. Spikes began to struggle and both Spikes and the Respondent fell to the floor. Respondent let go of Spikes and regained his feet and Spikes pulled himself to his feet using the back of a school desk which he raised in front of him and advanced toward the Respondent saying, "I'm going to hit you with this desk. See T-70. The Respondent pushed the desk out of the way, grabbed the writing portion of the desk, then grabbed Spikes and a second struggle ensued, during which Spikes hit the Respondent, who grabbed Spikes in a bear hug. Spikes and the Respondent were by the windowed wall of the classroom, and the Respondent attempted to pin Spikes against the windowed wall to stop his struggling and prevent Spikes from hitting him. In doing so, Spikes' head was banged against the window once. Spikes continued to hit the Respondent all this time. The Respondent and Spikes again fell to the floor where Spikes ceased fighting after Respondent pinned him down. After the struggle ceased, Ms. Morkin left to seek assistance as the Respondent requested. After he was at the office, a knot came up on Spikes' head. Spikes parents were called and they took Spikes to the emergency room where he underwent a complete examination, to include X-rays of his head. This examination revealed no abnormal findings except tenderness and swelling in the left occipital area of the head. Subsequent medical problems which Spikes has suffered were related to an injury to the right occipital area. No evidence of such an injury was revealed in the examination or reported by Spikes. See Petitioner's Exhibit The Respondent is approximately 6' tall and weighs approximately 200 pounds. Spikes is approximately 4'6" tall and weighs 72 pounds. Mr. Randolph and Ms. Atkinson, the persons in charge of disciplining children at the school, gave their opinions concerning the appropriateness of the Respondent's actions. In their opinion, the Respondent's actions were inappropriate. The record reflects that both Atkinson and Randolph had failed to apply the requisite disciplinary standards to students by taking action to remove them from the school system permanently, based upon continued disciplinary problems. Atkinson, who observed the Elliott incident, described the Respondent as "striking the student" and was of the opinion that a person who touches another person with their hand is striking the person. Mr. Larry Paulk, Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Affairs for the Duval County Schools, interviewed the Respondent after the altercation. To Paulk, the Respondent appeared hostile and was sarcastic in his dealings and approach to students. Paulk offered his opinion that the Respondent's conduct regarding discipline and leadership was inappropriate. The Respondent has attended psychiatric counseling for the past year to deal with his hostility and to improve his effectiveness as a teacher. There is no evidence of the Respondent receiving progressive discipline for prior acts involving physical contact with students, although he received several written reprimands for inappropriate conduct towards students to include physical conduct, language, and attitude. Mr. Randolph, the principal in charge of boys, advised that the school's solution for the removal of an unwilling child from class was to call the Principal. The Principal would come to the room and ask the student to come out of the classroom and, if the student refused, the Principal would then call a uniformed policeman who would arrest the child for trespassing. In Randolph's experience they had never had to take the final step of calling for a uniformed policeman.
The Issue Whether the respondent should be reassigned to the Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Emil Perez attended Kinloch Park Junior High School during the 1983-84 school year. He was then assigned to opportunity school at Lee and enrolled there at the beginning of the 1984-85 school year. Because petitioner failed to file the deposition of its witness, there was no competent evidence presented concerning the reason or reasons why Emilo was assigned to the opportunity school. Emilo began to have serious attendance problems after being assigned to J.R.E. Lee. Both the school social workers and the school psychologist who testified at the hearing agreed that Emilo did not go to school at J.R.E. Lee because he was afraid to go to school there. The fear manifested itself through physical symptoms such as diarrhea and vomiting. Mr. Hayes, the school psychologist, defined Emilo's emotional problem as "school phobia", which is similar to separation anxiety disorder. However, although Emilo's fear of school was exaggerated, it was not totally baseless. The students at Lee are more aggressive than the students enrolled in the regular school program, and Emilo was threatened and harassed by the other students when he went to school. Emilo did not have attendance problems while enrolled at Kinloch. Because of Emilo's emotional problems, he would benefit from mental health counseling and assignment to a regular school program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered disapproving the assignment of respondent to the opportunity school program at J.R.E. Lee and assigning the respondent to the regular school program. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Diane A. Grubbs, 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 17th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniella S. Levine, Esq. Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northeide Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, FL 33147-4796 Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 401 Miami, FL 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Jr., Esq. Assistant School Board Attorney McCrary & Valentine, P.A. Suite 800, 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33137 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Board Administration Building Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Karega Y. Paisley, who is eleven years old, was a student in the school system of petitioner, School Board of Dade County. Until his recent transfer, he attended Kendale Elementary School (KES) located at 10693 Southwest 93rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. At issue in this proceeding is Karega's reassignment from the regular school program at KES to J.R.E. Lee School, an alternative school program. The basis for the transfer is that Karega has allegedly exhibited "disruptive behavior" and a "failure to adjust to the regular school" program. Notice of such transfer was given by petitioner to Karega's parents by letter dated September 4, 1987. The transfer prompted the request for the hearing in this cause. Pending the outcome of this proceeding, Karega has been attending J.R.E. Lee School. Karega has been a student at KES since at least the fourth grade. In school year 1986-87, Karega, then a fifth grader, attended, among other classes, those taught by teachers Arias and Holden. Arias taught Spanish (second language) while Holden taught fifth grade English. At hearings Arias established that Karega was late for her Spanish class at least two or three times per week. Although repeatedly reminded by Arias to do so, he would frequently fail to bring his Spanish materials to class each day. When this occurred, Arias would have to send Karega out of class to retrieve his materials. Despite these orders, he would often return to class without them. This caused a disruption of the class and a loss of ten to fifteen minutes of instruction time whenever Arias had to deal with this problem. On occasion, Arias would order Karega to do something in class, and he would refuse saying words to the effect "I don't want to do that." He would then ask her "What are you going to do now, Mrs. Arias?" Karega also had occasional temper tantrums, and would make obscene gestures with his finger at the teacher. This behavior took place in the presence of other students. Efforts by Arias to counsel Karega and to change his behavior were unsuccessful. Because of several serious disruptive incidents with Karega during school year 1986-87, Arias prepared four disciplinary record reports or student case management referral forms which described the disruptive activity. These have been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibits 1, 2, 7 and 15 and reflect that Karega was referred to the assistant principal for disciplinary action on February 19, March 11, and May 15 and 17, 1987, respectively. The reports were prompted by Karega's disruptive conduct in class and the allegations therein were later admitted to by the student in meetings with the assistant principal. Holden did not testify at final hearing. She too prepared a number of disciplinary record reports as a result of disruptive activity by Karega in her classroom. The reports have been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibits 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16. Although her comments on the reports are hearsay, they corroborate admissions by Karega to the assistant principal and principal, and are therefore considered supplemental and corroborative evidence. These reports reflect disruptive activity by Karega throughout school year 1986- 87 that not only interfered with Karega's learning process but with the learning process of other students as well. On May 5, 1987, Karega was suspended from school for three days for "defiance of school authority." On June 1, 1987, while being escorted to the principal's office by Holden for certain disruptive conduct, Karega tripped Holden causing her to fall down and sustain a broken hip. For this action, Karega received a ten day suspension from school for "defiance of school personnel's authority and battery." Respondent's grades, while not failing, were described as being "poor." The Board's witnesses characterized Karega as being "above average," and possibly a "gifted" child, and this was corroborated by Stanford Achievement Tests administered to Karega. However, since Karega's grades were not introduced into evidenced a finding cannot be made that his academic progress has been "unsatisfactory." No other KES student had ever been sent to an alternative education program since the school considers this to be a last resort to all other measures. For this reason, school personnel attempted to change Karega's behavior by counseling, taking less drastic disciplinary action, and by seeking the help and cooperation of his parents. These efforts proved unsuccessful, and eventually a child study team consisting of the school psychologist, counselor, assistant principal, principal and a classroom teacher unanimously recommended that Karega be sent to J.R.E. Lee School, a school dealing with disruptive students. That school offers a more structured environment, individualized educational plans, favorable teacher-pupil ratio (3:1 at the time of hearing) and full-time on-campus counselors and a psychologist. In view of Karega's persistent disruptive behavior, this placement was appropriate. Respondent's father did not testify or present any evidence. He contended through arguments and suggested by interrogation of witnesses, that the disciplinary reports were fabricated and that his son was transferred solely because of racist policies of KES. However, the evidence shows the charges are totally unfounded, and without merit. The father also suggested that his complaints about the school system have been ignored, and that his son did not admit the allegations described in the disciplinary reports to the principal and assistant principal. Again, these charges were unsubstantiated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reassigning Karega Y. Paisley to Lee School. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Respondent left Cuba with her parents in 1981. She resumed school in Spain and thereafter immigrated to the United States. She has had difficulty in adjusting here, especially to the language change. She is currently a 7th grade student at West Miami Junior High School. She is failing most of her subjects and has an absentee rate (unexcused) of nearly 50 percent. She has been involved in fights at school on two occasions during the current academic year. School officials have met with her parents, and have counseled Respondent in an effort to assist her. These efforts have been unsuccessful. Recently, her parents have taken her to the "Family and Adolescent Development Center" where she is apparently receiving therapeutic services. A late-filed exhibit on her current, diagnosis (Respondent's Exhibit 1) was to be furnished by Respondent's therapist. However, this document was not filed. Therefore, the results of the therapeutic referral were not established.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order assigning Respondent to its Educational Alternative Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 19th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mr. Reinaldo Sanchez 6797 South West 21st Street Miami, Florida 33155 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Anthony George Fields, was a student enrolled in the public school system in Dade County, Florida. Since the 1979-1980 school year the Respondent has been enrolled at various times at either Centennial Junior High School or Cutler Ridge Junior High School in Dade County. During that period of time Respondent has been placed on either indoor, outdoor or bus suspension 14 times, totaling 57 days. The causes of Respondent's suspensions have been disruptive and defiant behavior, fighting in the classroom, possession of a knife, profanity, kicking another student, punching holes in the seat of a bus and theft of a purse. Respondent has been seen by his grade-level counselor a total of five times as a result of referrals during the 1981-1982 school year in an attempt to deal with his inappropriate behavior. In addition, the student's class schedule has been revised, and his counselor has had conferences on several occasions with Respondent's mother. As a result of the student's disruptive behavior, as outlined above, he was administratively reassigned from Centennial Junior High School to the Youth Opportunity School- South, an alternative school placement, as of November 21, 1981. Through February 11, 1982, Respondent had been absent from class without an excuse for 45 days.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I.B. ("student"), daughter of Petitioners, was a seventh grade student attending Henry H. Filer Junior High Community School prior to placement (which is here being challenged) in the educational alternative program located at Jan Mann Opportunity School. (Testimony of Eliot M. Berman) Between September 4, and December 30, 1979, the student engaged in frequent behavior at Filer Junior High which disrupted the classroom environment. Specific instances of reported disruptive behavior occurred on or about September 5, 27, October 5, 9, 10, 11, November 29, December 3, 10, and 30, 1979. Usually her behavior involved physical or verbal hostility toward her teachers and other students. Each incident was followed by conferences with the student's parents, vice principal, or guidance counselor. Between September 5, 1979, and December 30, 1979, 9 parental and 8 counselor conferences were held in an effort to modify the student's disruptive behavior pattern. The student is an aggressive child who becomes easily frustrated in a regular classroom environment, frequently rebels against authority, exhibits hostility toward and argues with her peers and engages in disruptive behavior in order to get attention. Several of her teachers have concluded that she is unwilling, or unable to adapt to a regular classroom environment. (Testimony of Eliot Berman, Respondent's Exhibits 1-2) Due to her disruptive behavior in the school environment, the student was twice placed for several days in the Filer Junior High School's Center for Special Instruction (SCSI)-on October 9, 1979, for disruptive behavior during exchange of classes and inflammatory comments to the instructor, and on November 30, 1979, for slapping a female student in Physical Education class. A child is placed in SCSI, in lieu of suspension from school, in order to receive special teacher instruction and supervision. The teacher-student ratio is increased to one teacher for each fifteen students, and a concentrated effort is made to modify a child's unsatisfactory behavior patterns and clarify his or her values. In this case, the student's placement in SCSI does not appear to have modified her disruptive behavior in the normal classroom setting. Her behavior not only detracts from her own learning experience, but interferes with the educational process of other children. (Testimony of Eliot Berman, Respondent's Exhibits 1-2) The student was frequently absent from her classrooms between August 27, 1979, and January 23, 1980. She missed Social Studies class-19 times, Mathematics and Language Arts classes-7 times each, and Life Science class-11 times. Such absences, in combination with her behavior problems, have seriously impaired her academic progress. (Testimony of Eliot Berman, Respondent's Exhibits 1-2) The student, in conjunction with her SCSI placement, has made a conscious effort to improve her behavior, but her disruptive classroom behavior has continued. (Respondent's Exhibits 1-2) The student's mother and brother believe that placement in the Jan Mann Opportunity School educational alternative program will not benefit the student and that she should, instead, be placed in a regular junior high school close to her home where her behavior can be more closely monitored by family members. The student does not share in her family's desire that she be placed in a regular school closer to her home. (Testimony of Mrs. A.B., E.B., and I.B.) Placement of the student in the Jan Mann Opportunity School educational alternative program will provide the student with an opportunity for intensive counseling, a better student- teacher ratio, and an opportunity to improve her self-esteem and basic educational skills which cannot be provided in the regular classroom setting. (Eliot M. Berman)
Recommendation While at Filer Junior High School, I.B. has been a disruptive, unsuccessful, and disinterested student and meets the criteria for placement in an educational alternative program. Accordingly, the School Board should uphold the placement of this student in the Jan Mann Opportunity School educational alternative program and deny the appeal of such placement by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact In the 1984-1985 regular school year. Eduardo Hernandez was in the 7th grade at Nautilus Junior High School. On December 4, 1984 Eduardo disrupted science teacher Ralph William Schmidt's science class by speaking loudly in Spanish and called the teacher a pejorative name in Spanish before the entire class. He was assigned classroom detention by Mr. Schmidt which he did not serve. On December 6, 1985 Mr. Schmidt tried to send him to the principal, Mr. Walker, with a note of detention but Eduardo ran out of the room. On that date, Eduardo wrote some obscene notes to Mr. Walker containing curse words in Spanish and passed the notes in class. On February 6, 1985 Eduardo wrote with blue magic marker on a science lab table. Thereafter, the same markings (fancy signature marks and cartoons) were discovered in bathroom stalls, on desks, and other parts of the school and Eduardo and another boy were discovered in the vicinity with blue magic markers in their possession. Dr. Paul Smith, assistant principal of Nautilus Jr. High School confirmed that Eduardo was referred for discipline as a result of this incident. In this year, Eduardo's science grades were mostly failures with many absences. He frequently disrupted the concentration of other students in the class. Some days he was cooperative and other days he was not. In most cases he was disruptive and discourteous to the teacher and students. In response to many referrals by Mr. Schmidt, Dr. Paul Smith, spoke to Eduardo on a number of occasions. Very frequently Dr. Smith was required to speak with him about tardiness and cutting classes. In the first nine weeks grading period alone Eduardo was absent without proper excuse two times from one class, two times from another class and three times from another. On December 11, 1984 Dr. Smith counselled with Eduardo due to a disruptive behavior referral from another teacher, Mr. Lawless. On January 18, 1985, Dr. Smith personally received Eduardo when he was brought to school by the police as a truant. On another occasion, Dr. Smith caught Eduardo "skipping" or truant after lunch period. On March 19, 1985 Dr. Smith counselled with Eduardo on a referral for disruptive behavior in the classroom of another teacher, Mr. Burger. On April 1, 1985, Eduardo was brought to the office for refusing to work in class and he thereafter left the office without permission from Dr. Smith. Throughout the 1984-1985 school year, Eduardo's unexcused absences increased and his grades decreased. Eventually he was absent 20 days out of 45 in a grading period. His highest grade was a "D" and the others were failing or - unsatisfactory, designated as "F3F." In Dr. Smith's opinion, Eduardo cannot successfully complete a regular school program and although the Opportunity School may not be the only acceptable program, it was selected as the best solution under present circumstances. Jorge A. Hernandez opposed the alternative school assignment on the basis of danger from other students behavior to his son. He did not challenge the existence of his son's prior disruptive behavior but submitted that a telecommunication program would be a better alternative if Eduardo cannot be returned to a regular school program. He offered that Eduardo's behavior will change since Eduardo is now living with his father and certain family stresses contributing to his disruptive behavior have been resolved.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order continuing the alternative placement of Eduardo Harnandez at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North until such time as an annual or other evaluation indicates other appropriate assignment. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 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 27th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools, Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Twin Oaks Building Suite 100, 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mr. Jorge Hernandez 461 Southwest 10th Street, Apt 2 Miami Beach, Florida 33130 Mrs. Maeva Hipps School-Board Clerk 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Room 401 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mrs. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Room 401 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
