The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the Respondent's employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed as a behavioral interventionist with the Palm Beach County School District during the 2000-2001 school year. A behavioral interventionist is a non- instructional employee who works primarily with students receiving services through Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Programs. In addition to monitoring performance and behavior of ESE students, Respondent supervised regular education students who were serving in-house suspensions, performed bus and cafeteria duty, and helped maintain discipline throughout the campus. Respondent also served as an assistant football coach. Respondent received specialized training in order to perform his duties as a behavioral interventionist. He received child development training and attended approximately 12-13 workshops dealing with physical restraint and conflict resolution issues. Respondent is not a member of a collective bargaining unit. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Student 1, a male, was 17-years old and a junior at Forest Hill. Student 1 is 5'10" tall and weighs approximately 260 pounds. Respondent is 6'3" tall and weighs approximately 250 pounds. Respondent is a former professional football player who routinely lifts weights. On December 11, 2000, between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Student 1 was in the area of the outdoor basketball court watching a basketball game. Student 1 had permission to be on the campus of Forest Hill, but he should not have been in the area of the outdoor basketball court. Respondent was in the weight room at Forrest Hill that afternoon demonstrating weight lifting techniques to a group of his football players. After he completed his weight lifting workout, Respondent went to the outdoor basketball court to play basketball. Respondent began playing basketball with a group of students, including students who did not play football. Student 1 could have played if he had wanted to do so. Student 1 was not playing when the acts at issue in this proceeding occurred. Shortly after the game began, Student 1 was standing off the basketball court observing the game when the basketball ball was thrown out of bounds near him. Respondent walked up to Student 1 and said, "why don't you get the ball fat boy?" In response, Student 1 used profane language and was disrespectful towards Respondent. Respondent reacted by tapping Student 1 on the cheek with his open hand. Student 1 asked Respondent why he hit him, but received no response. As Student 1 attempted to walk away, Respondent tapped him again on the back of the head and the two exchanged words. Respondent was not justified in making physical contact with Student 1. Student 1 again addressed Respondent using profane language. Respondent reacted by taking Student 1 to the ground using a technique that he had been trained to use to restrain students. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent placed Student 1 in a chokehold when he took him to the ground. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent did not use a chokehold on Student 1. There was also a conflict in the evidence as to whether Student 1 had become aggressive and whether Respondent was merely trying to restrain Student 1. The evidence is clear that Respondent physically restrained Student 1 because Student 1 had been disrespectful towards him, not because Student 1 had become combative. Respondent was not justified in physically restraining Student 1. Student 1 was on the ground when Respondent released him from the restraining hold. As Student 1 was attempting to rise, Respondent hit him with his forearm, which forced Student 1 back to the ground. Witnesses at the basketball court told Student 1 to stay down, but he attempted to rise and saw Respondent in a three-point position typically assumed by football linemen. Almost immediately, Respondent came at Student 1 again and forearmed him back to the ground. Student 1 fell back to the ground, biting his tongue as he went down. He then got up and began cursing. After an interval of a few minutes, Student 1 asked Respondent why he had hit him and began to spit in the general direction of Respondent. Respondent, believing that Student 1 was spitting at him, grabbed him in the area of the neck and forced him against the fence surrounding the basketball court. Respondent told Student 1, "Don't play with me boy, I'm not a kid." Respondent was not justified in that use of force against Student 1. The incident lasted over a period of several minutes. Student 2 was present during the entire incident and Student 3 was present during the latter part of the incident (when Respondent grabbed Student 1 by the neck and forced him against the fence). Both witnesses corroborated Student 1's version of the events. No other student witnesses testified at the final hearing. Student 1 complained that afternoon to a coach named Coleman about what had occurred and he also told his mother later that evening when he got home. Student 1 complained to his mother that his neck hurt and she took him to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with a sprained neck. On December 12, 2000, Student 1 and his mother returned to the school and complained to Assistant Principal Mark Sagovac, about what happened the afternoon before. Mr. Sagovac thereafter spoke with Respondent, who did not deny the incident had occurred. Respondent admitted to Mr. Sagovac that he called Student 1 a "fat boy" and asked him to get the ball, which had rolled out of bounds. Respondent further told Mr. Sagovac that he pushed Student 1 to the ground with his forearm and forced Student 1 up against the fence because he felt Student 1 was threatening him. After speaking with Respondent, Mr. Sagovac interviewed Student 1 again and spoke to other witnesses. Some time thereafter a meeting was held between Student 1, his mother, Respondent, Mr. Sagovac, and Assistant Principal Green, who is also an assistant principal assigned to Forest Hill. The incident was discussed again and at one point, Respondent apologized to Student 1 and his mother. After the meeting concluded, Mr. Sagovac issued to Respondent a verbal reprimand with written notation for the actions he took on December 11, 2000. Prior to serving the Respondent with the verbal reprimand with written notation, Sagovac did not consult with his principal or anyone in the Petitioner 's Personnel Office or Office of Professional Standards to determine if he was complying with policy or if he was following accepted personnel practice concerning the contemplated discipline. Mr. Sagovac was not complying with school policy when he issued the verbal reprimand with written notation. Mr. Sagovac did not have the authority to discipline Respondent. Shortly after the conclusion of the meeting attended by Student 1, his mother, Respondent, and Mr. Sagovac, a complaint was made to the school district's police department concerning the December 11, 2000, incident. Based upon the complaint, a criminal investigation into Respondent's actions was initiated. There was no evidence as to the status of any criminal charges presented at the final hearing. Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards received information concerning the criminal investigation, which caused it to open its own administrative investigation. After the Office of Professional Standards received the police report and the attached documents, the case was assigned to an investigator. During the Petitioner's investigation, Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay and assigned to duty at his home. This assignment became effective February 1, 2001. After Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards completed its investigation, it prepared a report of the incident and, consistent with its rules, submitted the case for review to a case management committee. Case management review is a process whereby approximately a dozen high level employees working for the district meet at the direction of the Superintendent to review pending personnel cases which may result in the suspension of employment without pay or the termination of employment. Respondent's case management committee determined that probable cause existed to sustain the allegation Respondent used inappropriate physical force on the student in question. Once probable cause was found, it further determined that the level of the force used warranted a recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated. Based upon the case management committee's recommendation to terminate Respondent for having engaged in inappropriate physical force on a student, Superintendent of Schools Arthur C. Johnson notified Respondent by letter dated May 8, 2001, that he would recommend to the School Board at its meeting to be held May 16, 2001, that Respondent's employment be terminated and that he be suspended without pay pending the completion of the proceedings to terminate his employment. On May 16, 2001, the School Board voted to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. It is the policy of the Petitioner that no employee is to use physical force with a student unless the employee is breaking up a fight, acting in self-defense, or protecting the student from hurting him or herself.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2002.
The Issue Whether the respondent should be reassigned to the Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Aron Brumm, Assistant Principal at Cutler Ridge, handles about 95% of the disciplinary cases at Cutler Ridge. He was personally involved in investigating the incidents involving Charlotte and in the efforts to correct Charlotte's behavior. The following is an outline of Charlotte's disciplinary record at Cutler Ridge: DATE REASON FOR REFERRAL 9/17/84 Charlotte was disruptive in class, rude, and constantly tardy. 9/25/84 Charlotte was found in possession of pens stolen from the school store. She admitted that she had taken them. 10/4/84 Charlotte was rude, insulting, and disrespectful in class. Class disrupted. 10/31/84 Charlotte threatened another student. 11/1/84 Charlotte talked back to her teacher in class and was rude. She was putting on make-up during the class. 12/6/84 Charlotte constantly tardy to class and disruptive when she gets to class. 12/6/84 Charlotte was disruptive on the school bus. 12/19/84 Charlotte was disruptive in reading class. 1/18/85 Charlotte was found in possession of "Request for Student" blank forms that are used by school to get a student out of class. Charlotte forged the later signature of Mrs. King to get out of class and was found out near the band room; the forms were found in her purse. 1/22/85 Charlotte completely disrupted indoor suspension, which she was attending due to the prior incident. She was defiant and disrespectful. 1/23/85 Charlotte disrupted indoor suspension once again, despite warning given to her the day before. 1/25/85 A pre-opportunity school conference was held, at which time it is discovered that Charlotte had forged Mrs. Steele's name on Charlotte's progress reports. Every effort was made by school personnel to help Charlotte correct her disruptive behavior. From the time of the first incident, contact was made with Charlotte's guardian. By October 4, 1984, Charlotte had been referred to the school counselor. She was placed in an academic study group which met once a week for four weeks. She had special counseling sessions with some of her teachers. She received reprimands, indoor suspensions, and outdoor suspensions. All efforts were ineffective. Although Charlotte had some good days and would show improvement for a short period of time after certain counseling sessions, she ultimately would revert to her former behavior. Charlotte was not removed from the classes where she was having the most difficulty. However, none of the evidence indicates that a change in teachers would have brought about a change in Charlotte's behavior. Charlotte's disruptive behavior was not confined to one class or one teacher. Three different teachers had to refer Charlotte to the assistant principal for disciplinary action because of her intolerable behavior in the classroom. Further, Charlotte's disruptive behavior was not limited to the classroom. She was disruptive on the school bus, she threatened a fellow student, she stole pens from the school store, she forged her guardian's name on her progress reports, and she used a forged pass to get out of class. She was disruptive in indoor suspension. This is clearly not a case of a personality conflict between a student and teacher which can be resolved by transferring the student out of the teacher's class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving the assignment of respondent to the opportunity school program at Youth Opportunity School South. DONE and ENTERED this 21th day of August, 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 21st day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Board Administrative Building Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Jr., Esq. Assistant School Board Attorney McCrary & Valentine, P.A. 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida Mitchell A. Horwich, Esq. Education Advocacy Project Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147-4796 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esq. Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 The Respondent, Steven T. George, began teaching in the Bay County school system in the fall of 1977. He was employed as a physical education teacher and as a coach. The Respondent has had an exemplary record as an instructional employee of the Bay County School Board until he encountered personal problems during the 1988-89 school year. During the 1988-89 school year, he was employed as a physical education teacher and assistant football coach at Mosley High School. During that school year, his supervisor, Assistant Principal Sarah Cooper, observed his performance deteriorate unexpectedly and in a way which was out of character from his previous level of performance and demeanor. She found occasions when he was not properly supervising his class and when he had not done lesson plans, as required by the school administration. Ms. Cooper had to assist the Respondent in developing a semester examination, however, he ultimately used an examination given to him by another teacher. Thereafter, he administered the examination but did not complete the grading of it and failed to complete his grade book, which responsibility was ultimately performed by Ms. Cooper. Additionally, during the 1988-89 school year, the Respondent was observed to become increasingly isolated from other members of the faculty. His behavior became characterized by unpredictability, excessive arrogance, argumentativeness, anger and verbal aggression, which was entirely different from the personality traits which he had exhibited and which his co-workers and supervisors had observed since he had been with the school system. Indeed, female teachers in the physical education department were reluctant to be alone in the workroom with him because of the advent of these objectionable personality traits. The Respondent, during this period of time, was undergoing a divorce, or the aftermath of one, which involved a very emotional custody dispute with his former wife concerning custody of their daughter. During the 1988-89 school year, he was observed to repeatedly burden his co-workers and school administrators with the details of his personal problems and to exhibit uncharacteristic and rather severe emotional outbursts of both anger and grief. After being counseled by his supervisors concerning what they believed to be rather bizarre behavior, when measured against his prior performance and demeanor in other school years, the Respondent ultimately voluntarily admitted himself to Charter Woods, a psychiatric treatment and evaluation facility. The Respondent spent approximately 5-1/2 months in that facility, underwent treatment in response to his supervisor's advice to "get some help", and returned to Mosley High School to complete the 1988-89 school year. For the remainder of that school year, the Respondent satisfactorily assumed and carried out all of his responsibilities and performed his work as a teacher in good fashion. His temperament and demeanor had returned to that of the friendly and caring teacher and co-worker which he had formerly been before his personal problems developed. His supervisor, Ms. Cooper, gave him a satisfactory annual evaluation at the conclusion of the 1988-89 school year. The Respondent's emotional difficulties and related performance difficulties as a teacher reappeared in the 1989-90 school year. During the pre-planning phase of his teaching and coaching duties for the 1989-90 school year, in August of 1989, the Respondent was observed to be very disruptive, argumentative, and, indeed, hostile to a visiting speaker at a seminar for instructional personnel. He was observed to repeatedly interrupt the speaker with arrogant, argumentative questions and comments, during the course of which behavior he was observed to be pacing back and forth at the rear of the room where the seminar was conducted while all other attendees at the seminar were seated and listening to the speaker. This arrogant, argumentative behavior was so apparent and so inappropriate for the seminar-type setting in which it occurred that his supervisor felt it necessary to apologize to the speaker at the lunch break on that day. Additionally, during this pre-planning phase of the school year, which is before the children arrive for the school year, the Respondent was observed to have difficulties in his dealings and relationships with other coaches arising out of his increasingly arrogant, argumentative attitude and behavior. Because of this and, inferentially, because his supervisors were aware of his emotional difficulties with which they had had experience the previous school year, the decision was made to relieve him as assistant football coach at Mosley High School. A meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Tucker, the Principal, and Mr. Cochran, the head coach, to explain that action to the Respondent and to explain to him that he would still continue as a physical education instructor. In the course of that meeting, the Respondent became very emotional, hostile, and argumentative. He exhibited frequent angry outbursts to the extent that he would not allow Mr. Tucker or Mr. Cochran to adequately explain the basis of the personnel action directed at him. The Respondent ultimately, angrily departed from the meeting before it was completed. On that same day, he left Mosley High School without administrative permission and went to Cherry Street Elementary School on some mission related to his daughter, who was a student at that school. She had been the subject of a bitter custody dispute between the Respondent and his former wife. He is accused of interfering with the operation of Cherry Street Elementary School on that occasion, although the record does not reflect what his conduct was at Cherry Street Elementary School that day. The 1989-90 school year then commenced at Mosley High School with the arrival of the students. The Respondent assumed his regular duties as a physical education instructor. He was observed, early in that school year, on a number of occasions, to fail to control behavior of students in his gym class and to fail to be in his gym class at appropriate times which amounted to inadequate supervision of his students on those occasions. His planning for his classes was observed to become sporadic, with repeated occasions when he failed to have lesson plans prepared. Also, in the fall of the 1989-90 school year, he was observed to forget his keys to the physical education area on a number of occasions. He would, on repeated occasions, forget, from one period in a school day to the next, what he was to teach that following period. He would have to be reminded by his colleagues. He would also forget to call his students in adequate time at the end of the physical education period for them to dress for their next classes. He had to be reminded by his colleagues to do this. He would also repeatedly forget when he had extra duty, such as "door duty" and locker room assignments. His general level of cooperativeness with his colleagues declined markedly. His behavior became harsh and rude to his colleagues and to students. He was observed to be very harsh and rude to a new student coming into his physical education class and spoke loudly, in an abrasive manner to the student in front of the class, embarrassing that student. These problems occurred repetitively and in rapid succession during the first month of the school year in September of 1989. Because of the nature of the problems, the past history of the Respondent's emotional instability whereby he had lost his ability to be a caring, productive, well-performing teacher (which had been his unblemished record of behavior and performance for all the years he taught prior to the 1988-89 school year), Mr. Tucker, the Principal, felt that he had to act quickly to prevent an even worse situation occurring in the 1989-90 school year when he observed that the Respondent's emotional instability of the year before was recurring. Consequently, Mr. Tucker requested that the superintendent, Mr. Simonson, meet with the Respondent in an effort to resolve his difficulties in the matter of his perceived emotional instability and resulting declining performance. Accordingly, a meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Simonson, and Mr. Tucker on September 30th. At the meeting, the Respondent was confronted with the fact of his displayed emotional instability and related declining teaching performance, at which point he became very belligerent and hostile. He was, alternatively, on the verge of tears and shouting in anger. Because of the above-stated reasons for the meeting and because of the emotional instability which was so apparently displayed by the Respondent during the meeting, Mr. Simonson gave the Respondent three days of sick leave to allow him to remain at home and get some professional attention to try to regain his emotional stability before returning to the classroom. The Respondent's problems persisted, however. Although the precise date is uncertain, at approximately this time, the Respondent announced that he was going to seek election as Superintendent of the Bay County school system in opposition to Mr. Simonson. The Respondent testified himself that he elected to run for this office while he was still a teacher at Mosley High School in part, at least, to save his job because he believed that the Bay County school administration and particularly, Mr. Simonson, would be reluctant to discharge him while he was a political candidate in opposition to Mr. Simonson because of the bad impression that might make on the electorate. Shortly after he made this announcement, again on an undetermined date in the fall of 1989, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the "Baker Act", Section 394.467, Florida Statutes. Apparently, the Respondent's family members had him committed although the precise reasons are not of record. The Respondent expressed the belief at hearing that his family members had him committed because of his announcement to run for Superintendent, although that is not established to be the case. The Respondent, at the time he was committed, believed that he did not suffer from a mental condition justifying his commitment pursuant to the Baker Act. The Respondent has since come to understand that he suffered from a manic-depressive condition, also known as a "bi-polar disorder". As a result of this eventuality, Mr. Simonson determined that the Respondent should not be teaching in the school system during such a period of emotional instability. In order to be fair to the Respondent, he did not want to actually suspend him from his duties. Accordingly, Mr. Simonson elected to place the Respondent in the status known as "overused sick leave", which means that the Respondent, although he had used up all of his annual and sick leave, could still be carried on the personnel records as an employee in terms of retaining his retirement and insurance benefits, although he was not paid for the time he was absent from his duties as a result of this decision and as a result of his emotional condition. Accordingly, the Respondent was, in this fashion, removed from his instructional duties and from his job site in the fall of 1989, after his involuntary commitment, pursuant to the Baker Act. Thereafter, in the fall of 1989, the Respondent obtained treatment at the "Life Management Center" in Bay County under the care of Dr. Nellis. Dr. Nellis diagnosed the Respondent as suffering from manic-depression and prescribed Lithium to treat his manic condition. The Respondent responded well to treatment, such that Dr. Nellis, late in the fall of 1989, opined that he was fit to return to work as a teacher. The Respondent apparently accepted the fact of his illness, continued taking his medication after being released by Dr. Nellis, and was returned to his duties with the Bay County school system at Rosenwald Middle School in late January or early February of 1990. Once again, he returned to his "old self", in terms of his adequate performance as a teacher, his emotional stability, good relationships with colleagues and students, and his prior demeanor as a genuinely caring teacher. His performance for the remainder of 1990 through the end of classes in June was good. He worked for the remainder of that school year as a physical education instructor, which is the field in which he is certified as a teacher. The Respondent had also been seen by Dr. Zumarraga beginning in November of 1989, who also found him to be manic-depressive, and who informed Mr. Simonson, by letter presented to Mr. Simonson by the Respondent, that the Respondent was taking medication for his illness and had exhibited acceptable behavior. As a result of those assurances by the Respondent's psychiatrist, Mr. Simonson had allowed the Respondent to return to work at Rosenwald Middle School in approximately early February of 1990. Apparently, sometime in late spring or early summer of 1990, the Respondent had doubts that he was still suffering from his condition and consulted another physician for an additional opinion. Apparently, he quit taking his medication sometime during the summer of 1990 as a result of that consultation. In late August of 1990, the Respondent returned to Rosenwald Middle School as a physical education instructor. Ms. Love, who had been Assistant Principal at the school, had moved up to the position of Principal. In the spring of 1990, the Respondent had been quiet and cooperative, had gotten along well with colleagues and students, and had performed his duties well, after undergoing treatment and being placed on a program of medication for his manic- depressive disorder. In the fall, however, he was immediately observed by Ms. Love and others of his colleagues and supervisors to have reverted to the arrogant, abrasive and extremely assertive attitudes and behavior, which he had exhibited in the fall of 1989, prior to securing treatment. Before these attitudes and behavior had manifested themselves, however, and immediately upon the start of the 1990-91 school year, given his long and worthwhile experience in the physical education field in the county system, Ms. Love asked the Respondent if he would work on a plan for a "middle school olympics" athletic event. The Respondent agreed to do this and immediately began setting about the formulation of a plan whereby all of the middle schools in the county would participate in the olympics athletic event on a given day at Tommy Oliver Stadium. He arrived at a plan to accomplish this and drafted it in memorandum form. Instead of sharing it with Ms. Love, however, he transmitted it directly to the Superintendent, Mr. Simonson. This was a departure from appropriate procedures for the planning of such events because the Respondent did not transmit his plan to Ms. Love for her initial approval before its being communicated to supervisory personnel at the county district level. The Respondent became somewhat obsessed with the idea of planning and conducting the olympics event, devoting an inordinate amount of time and energy to it. In early September, the Respondent brought a student to the office for disciplinary reasons asserting that he had caught the student stealing or "going through the lockers". Upon questioning of the Respondent by Ms. Love, it was learned that he did not find the child in the locker room or dressing room actually invading lockers, but found him in the locker room area where he was not supposed to be. He accused the child of stealing or attempting to steal when he had not actually observed him do this. The Respondent was criticized in this action for not having actually observed the child stealing and yet accusing him of it and for having brought prior behavior of the child up in his disciplining of the child, which Ms. Love felt to be inappropriate. In fact, the Respondent had some justification for suspecting this particular child of wrongful conduct or illegal activity because of past disciplinary violations committed by the child of a similar nature. At approximately the same period of time, in early September, the Respondent was observed to have grabbed a child by the arm in the act of admonishing the child for some alleged miscreant behavior and stating that "I am going to break your little arm". Ms. Love counseled the Respondent about these two instances and gave him an "improvement notice" on September 7, 1990 concerning them. An improvement notice is a disciplinary memorandum or report to a teacher such as the Respondent by which the Principal admonishes a teacher for inappropriate behavior and directs steps for improvement of the situation which led to that criticized behavior. On September 14, 1990, Ms. Love had another formal conference with the Respondent, since she had seen his arrogant, abrasive, overly-assertive behavior with colleagues and students continuing. She discussed with him his inappropriate behavior towards students and faculty and the matter of the Respondent's disciplinary referral of a student to the guidance counselor. He had referred a student to the guidance counselor for discipline and had been overbearing and abusive to the guidance counselor in his communication with her concerning the disciplinary referral. Ms. Love counseled him about the basic procedures involved in referring students for discipline, which specifically do not involve the guidance counselor. Rather, disciplinary referrals should appropriately go to the administration of the school, as delineated in the teacher's handbook, which the Respondent had previously been provided. Additionally, Ms. Love felt that the Respondent had exhibited a pattern of not turning in required documents in a timely manner; therefore, she gave him an improvement notice for these matters dated September 28, 1990. In fact, however, it was not established by the Petitioner that the Respondent had been untimely in turning in any required documents, reports, and the like, other than one report which had been due on a Friday, when he was absent due to illness and which he promptly turned in on the following Monday. During the fall of 1990, the Respondent was observed to frequently share details of his custody dispute and problems concerning his child and problems with his wife or former wife through notes, letters and conversations with other members of the staff in an inappropriate manner. He appeared to be emotionally preoccupied with these personal problems while on duty. On the third day of school in the fall of 1990, Mr. Simonson located his office temporarily at Rosenwald Middle School. He had done the same thing at other schools in the county that were having disruptions caused by on-going construction during the fall. Rosenwald Middle School at this time was undergoing construction work, including work on its air-conditioning system, such that many of the students and teachers did not have the benefit of air- conditioning. Mr. Simonson, therefore, elected to spend a day or so at Rosenwald Middle School on a sort of "Bob Graham Work Day". Ms. Love announced that fact over the public address system during the morning announcements on that day. The Respondent came to Ms. Love's office a short time later carrying the school's daily bulletin in his hand. He seemed hostile and agitated, leaned over her desk and shook the bulletin in her face, stating to her that he wanted her to sign on the bulletin her name and the statement she had made about the reason the Superintendent was at the school on that day. He further stated to her, in effect, that he was "fixing to be fired" and that he wanted Ms. Love to admit and put in writing on the face of the morning school bulletin the real reason, as he felt it, why the Superintendent was at the school that day. Ms. Love refused to do this and considered this behavior to be bizarre and threatening, given that the Respondent obviously felt that the Superintendent had been on campus that day to "spy on him". During late September of 1990, the school embarked, at the behest of Ms. Love and other administrators and teachers, on a "school spirit week" contest. The contest involved decorating the doors of the classrooms by the students, using as themes for the decorations certain words which denoted various aspects of "school spirit". The doors were to be decorated during "trust class time". "Trust classes" are classes which meet for approximately fifteen minutes or so at the outset of the school day, somewhat analogous to what is commonly known as "homeroom classes". The students were allowed to decorate the doors during their trust class time. Ms. Love accused the Respondent of keeping students overtime in their trust class, which required them to miss part of their next class and be tardy to that class in order to decorate his room door. In fact, she gave him an "improvement notice" in the nature of a reprimand for this on September 28, 1990. It was not proven, however, that the Respondent had actually kept students late at his behest for this purpose. In fact, his testimony is that he required no students to stay in his trust class working on door decorations after the time for the trust class to be over and instructed them to obtain permission from their other teachers should they elect to stay overtime to decorate the doors. The Hearing Officer having weighed the testimony, candor and credibility of the witnesses on this issue, including the ability of the witnesses to have knowledge of the facts concerning the time and methods employed to accomplish the door decoration effort, this violation of school procedures was not proven. The door decoration contest was judged on September 28, 1990 and the Respondent's class did not win. The Respondent became very agitated and angry at this result to the point of requesting and obtaining a meeting with Ms. Love concerning it. His temper and emotions were out of control on this occasion. He behaved in a loud, abrasive, and angry manner, even to the point of alternately crying, shaking, and shouting. He accused Ms. Love of penalizing his children by denigrating their efforts in the door decoration contest in order to hurt him, claiming that her actions really were a personal vendetta against him in the course of which the children were victimized. In the midst of his emotional outburst concerning this matter, he refused to listen to any explanation which Ms. Love attempted to give him but repeatedly interrupted her efforts to explain how the contest was judged and its rules. He even attempted to call a newspaper concerning the incident. He was inordinately obsessed with the conduct of the contest and with the result. As this incident with Ms. Love was progressing, Corporal Lassiter, the school Resource Officer, observed and heard part of it. In his view, having observed the behavior of the Respondent on this occasion and being aware of the Respondent's past history, Mr. Lassiter considered the possibility of initiating an involuntary Baker Act hospitalization at that moment, because of the Respondent's behavior. During the course of this confrontation with Ms. Love, Mr. Lassiter or others persuaded the Respondent to step across the hall to a different office to calm down. After he went into the other office with Mr. Lassiter and another administrator, Mr. Barnes, the Respondent's behavior continued to be somewhat bizarre. His demeanor toward Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes alternated from being very angry and upset with them to calling them, and acting toward them, as though they were good friends. At one point, he told Mr. Lassiter that when he got elected Superintendent, all would hear about this incident in the newspaper and the reasons for it all "would become very clear". He stated then that Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes would have good employment positions with him when he became Superintendent. Alternatively, before making these statements and also after making these statements, he became angry and hostile to both men, saying, in essence, that they were "all against me", becoming accusatory toward them and asserting, in essence, that Mr. Lassiter, Mr. Barnes, Ms. Love, and others in the administration were seeking to do him harm. Partly at the instance of Mr. Lassiter, the Respondent finally calmed down sufficiently to accede to Mr. Lassiter's recommendation that he call a substitute to take over his classes for the remainder of the day. A substitute was called and Mr. Lassiter then escorted the Respondent to his truck in order to see that he was removed safely from the campus without further incident with colleagues or students. As the Respondent was getting into his truck, preparing to leave the campus, he told Mr. Lassiter to "tell Ms. Love that she can kiss my ass". Teachers are required to be at Rosenwald Middle School by 7:30 a.m. The first bell rings at 7:37 a.m., and the "trust class" begins at 7:45 a.m. On approximately six occasions during September of 1990, Ms. Love had to sit in on the Respondent's trust class because he was late arriving at his class. She gave him an improvement notice concerning this deficiency on September 28, 1990. Additionally, on two separate occasions, Mr. Lassiter handled the Respondent's trust classes when he was late. The next school day after the incident concerning the door decoration contest on September 28, 1990 was October 1, 1990, a Monday. The Respondent was approximately 20 minutes late to school that day. Ms. Love, being concerned about the ramifications of the behavior she had witnessed in the Respondent the preceding Friday, met with the Respondent when he arrived at school for purposes of determining his state of mind and to talk to him about his tardiness. She found him still agitated, although not as much as he had been on Friday, the 28th. He continued to accept no responsibility for those actions and for his tardiness. He denied even being late, and as a result, Ms. Love assigned the school Resource Officer, Corporal Lassiter, to accompany the Respondent whenever he had students with him for the remainder of the day. It should be pointed out, however, that on most of the occasions when the Respondent was tardy to his first class during September of 1990, it was because he did not have a key to fit his office and would have to look for another co-worker to let him in. He was given a key at the outset of the school year which did not fit. Consequently, he disposed of it, ordering another key, the provision of which to him was delayed for unknown reasons. Later that same day, the Respondent brought between 20 and 30 students to the office for being tardy to class. The procedure for handling tardies at Rosenwald Middle School is that if a child is tardy, a teacher counsels with the child at first. The parents are contacted, the child is assigned to "team detention", and a student misconduct form is forwarded to the appropriate administrator upon tardies becoming repetitive. It is unusual to bring a student to the Principal's office for tardiness. The Respondent explained when they arrived at the Principal's office that all of the students were late to class and that Ms. Love should do something about it. This was a departure from normal procedures in dealing with tardy students. It should also be pointed out, however, that the school administration had recently issued a memorandum admonishing teachers that they should deal more severely with tardy students. When this entire group of students proved to be tardy on the day in question, the Respondent volunteered, with the agreement of the other physical education teachers/coaches, to escort the students to the Principal's office for disciplinary reasons concerning their tardiness. The other teachers involved agreed. On that same occasion, on October 1, 1990, when the Respondent had the group of students waiting outside the Principal's office, he apparently had some sort of confrontation with a student named Malackai. Apparently, the student was arguing with him and denying being tardy, which was the reason he was brought to the office. The Respondent offered to wrestle the student after school and "tear him limb from limb". This action caused Mr. Lassiter to step between the Respondent and the student and to send the student to Ms. Love's office to prevent any further such confrontation. Although the student was large for his age, these actions by the Respondent intimidated the student. On that same day, the Respondent was giving a lesson in softball on the softball field. He was being observed by Mr. Lassiter at the time at the behest of Ms. Love, who was concerned about his emotional stability. During this lesson, the Respondent, for unknown reasons, began rather randomly talking about accidents, lions, the dangers of eating red meat, and some sort of discussion of suicide. When he observed a student not paying attention to him, he hit the student on the head with a clipboard. He then continued his rambling discussion. A few minutes later, the same child asked when they would be allowed to play softball; and the Respondent hit him with the clipboard again. The student got tears in his eyes and was intimidated by the Respondent's conduct. When Mr. Lassiter observed that the Respondent might be about to commit the same act for a third time, he stepped between the student and the Respondent in order to prevent this from happening again. Physical education teachers are required to supervise students by direct observation in their locker room where they dress out for physical education classes and then dress in their regular clothes again at the end of classes. This is necessary in order to prevent fights and horseplay in the locker room, which can be dangerous. On October 1, 1990, during the Respondent's period to supervise the boys' locker room, he attempted to telephone Mr. Tucker, the Principal at Mosley High School. While he was on the telephone, he left the locker room class unsupervised and was unable to observe and supervise the locker room from the location of the telephone in the coach's office. On October 2, 1990, the Respondent again left his physical education class unsupervised while he was talking on the telephone for some 15-20 minutes. During the month that the Respondent had worked with Mr. Kent in the physical education department, Mr. Kent felt that although the Respondent generally had handled his duties well, he had spent an excessive amount of time on the telephone, rather than being in his assigned area. October 2, 1990 was the Respondent's last day of employment with the Petitioner. He was suspended with pay and shortly thereafter, the School Board met and accepted the Superintendent's recommendation to suspend the Respondent without pay based upon the conduct described in the above Findings of Fact occurring in August and September of 1990. The Board took the positions that this conduct amounted to gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office. In the Amended Administrative Complaint, on which this matter proceeded to hearing, which was filed on July 30, 1991, the factual allegations of the Complaint assert that the suspension action was taken based upon "alleged gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office"; however, the Amended Complaint actually charges that the factual allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint violate Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, concerning misconduct in office allegedly so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system and charges incapacity (as a subset of incompetency) alleging violations of Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, after the suspension occurred, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the Baker Act on the day following an apparent arrest for DUI, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and having a concealed firearm. The Respondent was convicted of none of these charges but, rather, pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of reckless driving and to a misdemeanor weapons charge. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. In fact, the weapon which the Respondent had in his car was believed by him to be legally possessed since it was merely the 22 pistol with which he used blanks for training his bird dogs. The pistol happened to be on the floorboard of his car when he was arrested by the officer. The Respondent spent a short period of time at Bay Medical Center, pursuant to involuntary Baker Act commitment on this occasion. Also, in 1990, at an undetermined time in the fall, he voluntarily admitted himself to the Rivendell Psychiatric Center for approximately 2-1/2 weeks in order to receive additional evaluation because he was unsure whether he was actually manic-depressive or not. Thereafter, while still suspended from his employment, in May of 1991, the Respondent apparently had an argument with his parents at their home in Bonifay and then left their home to return to his own home in the vicinity of Panama City in Bay County, Florida. Rumors apparently were communicated to law enforcement officials to the effect that the Respondent had threatened to kill his parents and had left their home with a high-powered rifle and was journeying to Panama City to his own home. Apparently, as a result of such reports, after the Respondent was at his own home, to his surprise, law enforcement vehicles and numerous law enforcement personnel, especially the Bay County Sheriff Department Swat Team, arrived in his yard, and, by megaphone, demanded his surrender. A television news crew was present at the scene and filmed the incident, which may have received billing as an "armed confrontation" between the swat team and the Respondent. In fact, this is untrue. When the Respondent observed the law enforcement officers arriving on his premises in a number of vehicles, he telephoned his attorney to inform him of the situation and then went to the door in response to the directive that he come outside. When he went to the door to ascertain why the law enforcement officers were at his residence, he was armed with a fork and a hamburger. He was charged with no crime in connection with this incident, although, apparently, he was involuntarily committed under the Baker Act once again for a brief period of time. The incident was disseminated to the public on the electronic media. However, no armed confrontation was proven to have occurred, nor was there any proof that the Respondent ever threatened to kill his parents. Although Mr. Simonson testified that there would be a great public outcry if he reinstated the Respondent because of this incident and the other incidents, there was no showing by the Petitioner that the incidents occurring at Rosenwald Middle School leading to the Respondent's suspension nor the incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase were ever communicated to the public generally or to parents of students of the Bay County school system or the students themselves. It was not shown by the Petitioner that the Superintendent or other officials of the Petitioner received any complaints from parents or members of the general public concerning the Respondent, his behavior, or his teaching performance. The incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase and the swat team confrontation, delineated in the above Findings of Fact, did not occur while the Respondent was on school premises nor while he was engaged in his duties as a teacher or coach. With regard to either incident, he was not shown to have committed any crime or conduct which can constitute misconduct in office. Both incidents occurred in the Respondent's private life, away from his employment and away from the School Board premises. The only conduct shown to have been disseminated in the public media involved the Respondent being taken into custody at his home by the Sheriff's swat team because the television news crew was there filming the incident. He was charged with no crime on that occasion and was shown to have committed no form of reprehensible conduct. He was merely involuntarily committed shortly thereafter, pursuant to the Baker Act. None of that can constitute misconduct in office, much less misconduct in office which in any way abrogates his effectiveness as a teacher in the school system involved. The Respondent has been taking Lithium and Prozac for his manic- depressive condition since 1989. He is presently under the treatment of Dr. David Smith, a licensed psychologist; and Dr. Ben Pimentel, a licensed psychiatrist, at a facility known as the "Life Management Center", as an outpatient. Both of these professionals opined that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, the symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission, as they are at the present time. Indeed, in the past, since he first began taking medication for his condition in 1989 after being diagnosed as manic-depressive, at those times when the Respondent was taking his medication, his behavior and his teaching performance was up to the good and satisfactory standard which he had consistently exhibited from 1977 through the 1987-88 school year. It is only on those occasions when he has ceased taking his medication, in the apparent belief that his problem was not a chronic one, that he has exhibited the emotional instability, such as that displayed at Rosenwald Middle School in August and September of 1990, which is the subject of this proceeding. Indeed, both Drs. Smith and Pimentel, the only experts testifying in this proceeding, who testified for the Respondent, established that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, his symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission and he will be competent to teach in terms of both his emotional stability and his ability to perform his duties as a teacher. Although Dr. Smith acknowledged that the rudeness exhibited by the Respondent on the occasions at issue in this case and his behavior involving striking a student and offering to wrestle a student might be behavior unrelated to the bi-polar disorder, the totality of the evidence supports the finding that, in the Respondent's case, given the many years of his teaching experience when he was a calm, caring, competently-performing instructional employee with behavior not characterized by such outbursts and aggressiveness, such conduct is, indeed, directly related to the present, active nature of his disorder on those occasions. On those occasions, he was not taking his medication. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent needs to continue his medication. If he does continue his medication, he will be competent to continue teaching or to once again teach because his symptoms will remain in remission. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent may need the motivation of a court order or employment directive or condition to insure that he continues his medication because if he obtains a medical opinion that he is no longer sick, he may not take the medication and stop the treatment. Additionally, Dr. Pimentel finds that the Respondent will require monthly counselling sessions and monitoring of his medication level to make sure it remains at a therapeutic level. Under those conditions, however, he would be capable of resuming his teaching duties. The Respondent, in his testimony, expressed the wish to obtain another medical opinion to make sure, in his view, that he is still manic- depressive, although he accepts the diagnosis that he is manic-depressive and is willing to continue his medication and to submit to monthly monitoring of his medication and monthly treatment by his presently-treating professionals.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Steven T. George, be suspended for a period of two years, but that the suspension be abated and the Respondent immediately reinstated to his duties as an instructional employee of the Bay County school district, with all of the rights of a tenured teacher, under the following circumstances which should remain in effect for a probationary period of two (2) years: His psychiatrist shall file monthly with the School Board a detailed report of his attendance at counselling sessions and the result of his monthly blood tests to ascertain if his medication remains at therapeutic levels. He is required to maintain the therapeutic levels of Lithium and Prozac or such medication as his physician and psychiatrist deem medically appropriate. If he fails to attend counselling sessions or to maintain therapeutic blood levels of his appropriate medication for any two (2) consecutive months, then this should be determined to be, at law, willful neglect of duty, subjecting him to dismissal as a teacher with the Bay County school district subject to the Respondent's right to contest such an employment action, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, in this forum. There should be no award of back pay in light of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. There should be no award of attorney's fees in light of the above Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law , and the opinion in Werthman v. School Board of Seminole County, Florida, 17 FLWD 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA, opinion filed May 15, 1992; Case Number 91-1831). The cases cited by the Respondent seem to accord the Respondent a hearing opportunity on the issue, with award of fees being discretionary. The Werthman decision appears contra in termination proceedings, however. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-23. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the record evidence. Accepted. Accepted, except that it was not proven that he had "gone through Ms. Love's mailbox". Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 28-29. Accepted. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 33-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37-39. Accepted. 40. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 41-47. Accepted. 48. Rejected, as not, in its entirety, being in accordance with the preponderant, competent evidence of record. 49-56. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 57-61. Accepted. 62. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted. 14. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant evidence. 15-22. Accepted. 23. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 24-30. Accepted. 31-36. Accepted. 37. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 38-41. Accepted. 42-48. Accepted. 49-51. Accepted. 52. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 53-54. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 61-63. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 64-72. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. (Second No. 74). Accepted. 75-78. Accepted. 79. Rejected in the sense that it was proven by the Petitioner that at the time he was suspended, the Respondent was incompetent to teach due to incapacity related to his emotional instability. 80-85. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Simonson, Superintendent P.O. Drawer 820 Panama City, FL 32402 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Franklin R. Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, SALE, ET AL. 304 Magnolia Avenue P.O. Drawer 1579 Panama City, FL 32401 David Brooks Kundin, Esq. DOBSON & KUNDIN, P.A. 210 South Monroe Street P.O. Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact Julie Annette Smith was a student at Centennial Junior High School during the 1984-1985 school year. She was administratively reassigned to the Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South, an alternative placement in the school system's opportunity school program, by letter dated November 29, 1984. On September 6, 1984, Smith was disruptive, defiant and profane in the school cafeteria. She refused to go to the principal's office and Mr. Burke was called to remove her to his office. Smith was counseled and warned regarding her misbehavior and defiance. On September 28, 1984, Smith was involved in a fight in the art classroom. On November 7, 1984, Smith was involved in a fight wherein she attacked another student. Smith continued to verbally threaten the other student after the altercation was broken up by Mr. Burke. Smith has been involved in numerous other incidents of verbal and physical abuse of school personnel and students. Her behavior repeatedly interfered with the ability of other students to receive an education.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order assigning Julie Annette Smith to the alternative School program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Evangelene Smith Bryant Parent of Julie Annette Smith 10990 S.W. 223rd Street Miami, Florida 33170 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Twin Oaks Building/Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Ms. Maeva Hipps, Clerk of the School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue By letter dated December 17, 1984, Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, advised the mother of Respondent, Torrey Sherwin Davis, that Respondent was being administratively assigned to an educational alternative program at Jann-Mann Opportunity School- North effective upon receipt of the letter because of Respondent's "disruption of the educational process in the regular school program and failure to adjust to the regular school program." Thereafter, Respondent's mother timely requested a hearing to contest this assignment.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Torrey Sherwin Davis (Torrey), was a sixth grader at Rainbow Park Elementary School in Dade County, Florida, during school year 1984-85. The school is under the jurisdiction of Petitioner, School Board of Dade County. While attending Rainbow Park, Torrey exhibited disruptive behavior on a number of occasions. The dates of such behavior and a detailed description of the same are set forth in detail in Petitioner's exhibit 1 received in evidence. They include pushing, hitting and biting other students both in and out of the classroom, yelling and disrupting classes during periods of instruction, being rude and disrespectful to teachers, and "feeling" female students. Torrey has been repeatedly counseled by teaching personnel regarding his conduct, and at least two or three teacher-parent conferences were held by school officials with Torrey's father. This counseling failed to produce a change in his behavior. Respondent's conduct become so disruptive by December, 1984, that Torrey was unable to function properly in a normal school environment. After a careful assessment of his academic progress and behavior by school officials, Petitioner reassigned Torrey on December 17, 1984, to Jann-Mann Opportunity School- North effective immediately. He has remained there since that time. Although Respondent's mother contended that Torrey was "picked on" by his teacher, periodic monitoring of Torrey's classes by the school's assistant principal dispelled the validity of this claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining that Respondent be placed in an educational alternative program. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Mary Davis 1500 N.W. 154th Street Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Mark A. Valentine, Esq. Suite 800, 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue The issued posed herein is whether or not the Respondent School Board of Dade County's reassignment of Petitioner/student, Valerie Patrice McDonald, from Miami Springs Junior High School to the Jan Mann Opportunity School North, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Valerie Patrice McDonald, Petitioner, is a student enrolled in the Dade County Public School System. Petitioner was enrolled in Miami springs Junior High School in August of 1978. Petitioner's guidance records indicates no serious behavioral problems and that her attendance at school is excellent. Her academic progress has been a steady B and C average since enrolling in the public school system. Petitioner was referred to the guidance office of Miami Springs Junior High School on numerous occasions during the 1978-1979 school year for various disciplinary problems. For example, on September 25, 1978, Petitioner was referred by her mathematics teacher for playing and not working in class. For this referral, she was counseled. Again, on October 25, 1978, she was referred by the social studies teacher for "being involved in a classroom disturbance with another student wherein pencils were broken, books were thrown out the window and the students began kicking each other. A parent conference was requested." On November 3, 1978, Petitioner was referred by the physical education teacher for "striking another student in the locker room for no apparent reason. Petitioner counseled and warned by principal." Again, on November 16, 1978, Petitioner was counseled for being loud and for refusing to remain quiet when requested. Petitioner was placed outside the classroom door by her English teacher. This pattern of disruptive behavior continued through March of 1979 when Petitioner was involved in a fire incident in the girl's physical education locker room. Based on this incident and the culmination of the prior behavioral problems, an administrative placement was requested by the school board for Petitioner to be assigned to the Opportunity School, which request was approved on April 3, 1979. Since that time, Petitioner has been attending the Jan Mann Opportunity School. Charles W. Bales, principal of Miami Springs Junior High School, testified that the assignment of Petitioner to the Opportunity School is beneficial inasmuch as it permits the student to utilize the benefits of smaller class settings, better individualized instruction; smaller class enrollments; better counselor to pupil ratio and basic educational program which enables a "disruptive" student to succeed in an individualized instructional setting. (TR 18-20) Testimony also reveals that the Opportunity School has a full-time visiting teacher who serves as the contact person for resolving any individual problems such as attendance or other behavioral problems for students at the Opportunity School. Ms. Helen Wilson, Petitioner's mother, requested that Principal Bales reassign Petitioner from three of her teachers due to matters which Ms. Wilson considered to be personal in nature. Principal Bales explained that there were approximately 1500 students at the school and that it was impossible for him to reassign students when personal differences of opinions exist between their teachers. Additionally, Principal Bales testified that students reassigned to the Opportunity School may request a transfer back to the regular school program following the close of the grading periods. Inasmuch as Petitioner has been attending the Jan Mann Opportunity School since March, 1979, it appears that she will be eligible for a reassignment to the regular school program provided that her grades, attendance, and behavioral pattern is such that she can function normally in the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner's petition filed herein be dismissed. Additionally, it is requested that the Respondent give full consideration to Petitioner's request that she be reassigned to the regular school program when such a request is properly filed with the school board. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Helen Wilson 3311 North West 52 Street Miami, Florida 33142 Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Dade County School Board Lindsey Hopkins Building Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Jose Valentine Bernardez was a seventh-grade student at Kinloch Park Junior High School during the 1984- 85 school year until his reassignment to the alternative school on May 30, 1985. At the time of hearing, the 1985-86 school had just begun and Jose's parents did not send him to the alternative school pending the outcome of this proceeding. However, Jose has not been withdrawn from the public schools of Dade County. While at Kinloch Park, Jose was involved in numerous incidents that resulted in disciplinary referrals. On September 25, 1984, Jose pushed another student and on September 26, 1984, Jose took a student's notebook and got into a fight. On February 6, 1985, Jose didn't have appropriate materials in class. Early in the day on February 13, 1985, Jose was referred for discipline for refusing to remain in his seat, provoking other students, throwing paper airplanes and destroying art materials. Later that same day, Jose took an earring off a teacher's desk and put it in the trash can. When the teacher asked the class about the earring, Jose did not tell where the earring was. He later admitted his involvement to a counselor, but did not know why he did it. Jose was suspended from school for his misbehavior on February 13, 1985. Jose was placed on indoor suspension on February 27, 1985, for slapping another student on the head, being constantly out of his seat and not doing his work. Jose had a day added to his indoor suspension on March 6, 1985, because he misbehaved in indoor suspension by talking, disrupting and refusing to be quiet. On March 7, 1985, Jose was disruptive and disturbing other students. On March 13, 1985, Jose was defiant, disruptive, imitating another student and making statements about that student's mother. On March 18, 1985, Jose was again suspended for a fight in class, disruptive behavior on a daily basis, constant disruptive behavior and carving on the desk with an exacto blade. On April 4, 1985, an indoor suspension was imposed because Jose was talking in class after warning and disrupting the class. Jose repeatedly disrupted class on April 24, 1985, and did not bring materials to school. On May 8, 1985, Jose was late for class for the fourth time, threw chalk and sat in the wrong seat. He was again suspended. Finally after the suspension was served, Jose returned to school, and on May 15, 1985, Jose was poking other students with a safety pin. When confronted, Jose ran from the teacher. He was again suspended and was referred to the alternative school program. Throughout the course of Jose's attendance at Kinloch Park, the school officials counseled with Jose and his parents on numerous occasions. Jose also received counseling at the school. Jose's mother asked the school for help on at least three occasions. She recognized Jose's behavioral problems and indicated that they began after the death of Jose's brother. She asked the school for assistance in getting psychological counseling for Jose. In response to that request, she was given a list of four local public and private agencies when she could seek help for Jose on her own. Mrs. Bernardez also asked the school to evaluate Jose to determine if he had psychological problems or emotional problems that resulted in his misbehavior. The school's only response was to place Jose's name on a waiting list for evaluation. While Jose's name remained on this waiting list, his behavioral problems continued. The school's response was to suspend Jose and refer him to alternative school. Additionally, during this time, Mrs. Bernardez did take Jose to all four of the agencies named by the school. At each she was told that they did not do evaluations of the type needed for Jose and instead offered to provide counseling for Jose at the parent's expense. Jose's parents attempted to get professional help regarding Jose's behavioral problems, but were unable to do so successfully before Jose was removed from the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order, and therein: Return Jose Valentine Bernardez to the regular school program. Require that an evaluation as required by Rule 6A- 6.331(1) and other applicable rules, including but not limited to Rule 6A-6.3016, Florida Administrative Code, be performed immediately. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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: Jackie Gabe, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mr. & Mrs. Jose Bernardez 4630 N. W. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33126 Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated School Board Policies, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times to this matter, Respondent was employed as a science teacher in the Pinellas County School District and currently holds a professional service contract. She was hired as a teacher in September 1995, and worked at Lakewood High School for one school year. During the bulk of her career with the school district--August 1996 through December 2012--she worked at Largo Middle School teaching science. At the semester break, she was transferred to Countryside High School to finish out the 2012-2013 school year. She was assigned to teach anatomy and biology at Largo High School for the 2013-2014 school year and then transferred to Bay Point Middle School beginning with the 2014-2015 school year until she was placed on paid administrative leave on April 25, 2016. From at least 2011 forward, administrators, parents, and colleagues at three different schools, voiced repeated concerns regarding Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher, including her failure to appropriately plan and deliver instruction; the lack of rigorous academic assignments; poorly organized lessons; failure to align learning targets and goals with activities and tasks; failure to differentiate instruction; failure to explain content; and failure to engage students. Complaints persisted regarding her failure or refusal to regularly grade student work and enter the grades into the student information system known as FOCUS; administer assessments; and otherwise properly manage the students in her classroom. Specific examples of her performance deficiencies, as well as repeated efforts to remediate her deficiencies through mentoring opportunities and professional development, were described in great detail at the two-day hearing and are summarized herein. Performance Issues While Teaching at Largo Middle School During the latter part of her time at Largo Middle School, administrators met with Snow to address performance concerns that existed regarding her instructional delivery, grading policies, and classroom management. Specifically, she met with administrators on October 25 and 31, 2011, to revise a “success plan,” and to discuss concerns from parents that grades were not being entered in a timely manner, mid-term progress reports not being sent home, failure to allow make-up assignments, and the issue of not enough grades being entered each marking period. They discussed developing a positive relationship with students and discontinuing the use of sarcasm during class, use of the Gradual Release Model for instructional delivery, the development of rubrics for grading student projects, and developing clear criteria for how grades would be earned. These concerns and expectations were memorialized in a disciplinary memorandum dated November 7, 2011, known as a “conference summary.” Another meeting was scheduled at Largo Middle School on April 6, 2012, to discuss “on-going issues that occurred last year and continue to occur in the 2011-2012 school year.” This meeting resulted in a letter of reprimand dated April 10, 2012, for insubordination because Respondent ignored directives to send home progress reports for students with a D or F grade; to enter student grades bi-weekly; and to allow students to make up assignments. The letter stated, in part: [D]ue to your act of insubordination in disregarding an administrative directive you are receiving this letter of reprimand. Also, by this letter of reprimand I am directing you to enter grades into the computer weekly or bi-weekly, send out progress reports at least three weeks before the end of a six week grading period and make every reasonable effort to support all students to achieve educational success. Failure to follow this directive will result in further disciplinary action. The Same Performance Standards Continue at Largo High School Following the disciplinary conferences noted above, Respondent spent a few more months at Largo Middle School, then served one semester at Countryside High School with no noted issues. Some of the same issues that plagued her at Largo Middle School, however, continued at her new school--Largo High School. For example, just four weeks into the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was told by her supervising assistant principal, John Marina, that he was “getting feedback from parents that they don’t know what’s going on in [her] class.” He explained that parents need to see the grades so they can appropriately address their children at home. Another assistant principle notified her by e-mail that her seventh-period class had no grades entered, and two of her other classes only had two grades entered. The assistant principle reminded her of the expectation “that grades are posted weekly in FOCUS to assist students with tracking their progress, as well as parents being able to track what their students are doing.” A few days later, a parent’s complaint to the principal came to Marina’s attention. The parent advocated for her daughter’s “rights to be educated by a teacher that knows how to TEACH. . . . She is a junior, and the last two years are the most important. She deserves no less than a teacher that can provide her with the knowledge she seeks.” At the hearing, Marina recalled the meeting between the parent and Respondent. He testified that the student aspired to attend medical school and was frustrated that there was no rigor in Respondent’s anatomy class. He described the relationship between the student and Snow as “contentious” after the student said, “Hey, when are you going to teach, Mrs. Snow.” Ultimately, the parent obtained a doctor’s note authorizing the student to be removed from Respondent’s class. Even her colleagues complained to administrators. One teacher stated that Respondent “is either a really good actress, or she is inept completely.” The teacher described Respondent struggling to attach a copy of an exam to an e-mail so the teacher could print it for Snow. She said that Respondent had originally planned to have the anatomy students simply answer questions at the back of the book, but was urged by her colleague to create an exam. This caused Respondent to skip her assigned cafeteria duties to perform the task. Her colleague complained to the school administrators, stating, “I have observed that she has extremely poor planning and forethought and I believe she exists on campus for the purpose of seeking out possible excuses for her inability to perform her job duties. The more I interact with her, the more appalled that I am.” Marina developed a detailed success plan and both he and the principal met with Respondent to discuss their expectations regarding improved classroom management, use of formative assessments to differentiate instruction for students at various levels, use of standards-based benchmarks to drive instruction and measure student understanding of the curriculum, and entering grades into FOCUS. Basically, the success plan addressed the same deficiencies that were identified at Largo Middle School. Snow was offered support from experienced educators and took advantage of coaching provided by an instructional staff developer to help her with classroom management processes. According to Marina, Snow never accepted that her performance required improvement. Rather, “there was always an excuse,” and she routinely maintained that she was “an exceptional science teacher.” On April 30, 2014, Marina completed an annual appraisal of Respondent’s performance. The appraisal instrument for the 2013-2014 school year was described by Louis Cerreta (“Cerreta”), the district’s Director of Professional Development, as a “hybrid model,” because it consisted of behavior indicators from the Charlotte Danielson evaluation system and the Dr. Robert Marzano evaluation system, as well as a few indicators recommended by an appraisal advisory committee consisting of principals, assistant principals, union representatives, district administrators, and classroom teachers. The appraisal system was approved by the Pinellas County School Board, submitted to and approved by FLDOE for use as the instructional appraisal instrument, and Marina was appropriately trained to conduct the appraisal. The evaluation instrument consists of three components: the administrative review or “instructional practice” component; the deliberate practice, also called the “professional development” piece; and the student achievement component. Marina completed the Summative Evaluation (consisting of the first two components, but excluding student achievement data) on April 30, 2014, which resulted in a scaled score of 1 out of 4 available points on the administrative review and zero points for professional development. The student achievement score was based on the scores of students taking the biology EOC (student achievement) and resulted in Respondent receiving a score of 3 on a 4-point scale. Snow’s final evaluation resulted in a score of 1.685 or “needs improvement” under the statutory rating system. The administrative review incorporated and summarized observations made by Marina during visits to Snow’s classroom from January through April 2014. During these visits, Marina completed a “science implementation rubric” for each of the seven observations. He explained that each of the indicators on the rubric correlated to an indicator on the evaluation instrument, and he would either mark the indicator as “evident” or “not evident” depending on what he observed in the classroom. The Administrative Review reflected many of the same concerns addressed in Respondent’s success plans at Largo High School, as well as from her former school, Largo Middle School. For example, she received “unsatisfactory” ratings on each of the five indicators under “ability to assess instructional needs.” Marina commented: “This has been an ongoing issue this entire year. I mediated several parent meetings over the concern of accurate and up to date grades.” Under the section entitled “Plans and Delivers Instruction,” she received less than effective ratings on seven of the nine indicators. Here, Marina commented that her “lesson plans are more of a to-do list,” and while she had opportunities to “go into higher order thinking and increase the rigor of her classes,” she failed to do so. He also noted that she failed to abide by the directive to send tests and quizzes to the administration for review. Under the category entitled “Maintains a Student Centered Learning Environment,” Respondent scored less than effective on ten of the 11 indicators. Marina noted: “rules and procedures tend to fall into chaos on a daily basis, as administrators are frequently called to your room. Many times it is loud and there is a back and forth between teacher and student(s).” Marina testified that he gave Respondent a zero on the professional development section of the evaluation because she submitted the same form that she had submitted when she worked at Largo Middle School indicating that she taught comprehensive science to seventh graders when in fact her professional development goals should have accurately reflected the courses she taught at Largo High School. Marina stated: “not only was it the wrong [professional development form], but it was [delivered] in March” when they are due at the beginning of the school year. Professional Performance Deficiencies Continue at Bay Point Middle School Respondent was involuntarily transferred out of Largo High School at the conclusion of the 2013-2014 school year and resumed teaching middle school for the start of the 2014-2015 school year. The principal at Bay Point Middle School (“Bay Point”), Dr. Jason Shedrick (“Shedrick”), learned during the summer of 2014 that Respondent would be his new sixth-grade science teacher. He immediately reached out several times on the telephone to introduce himself. She proved to be unreceptive to his overtures and combative at every turn. When she did not return his calls, he contacted her former school, Largo High School, to gain some insights into her background and discovered she was on a success plan. He sent Respondent an e-mail to schedule a formal meeting to discuss his expectations, as well as the climate at Bay Point so that she could become successful at her new school. At an impromptu meeting, she told him she was not happy with her schedule because she only wanted to teach biology and advanced classes. He reminded her that middle schools do not have biology classes. She insisted she was a high school teacher and that any further meetings would have to include her union representative. They met again on August 15, 2014, and developed a sixteen-paragraph detailed success plan that addressed classroom management, instructional planning and delivery, grading and tracking student progress, notification to parents through contact logs and progress reports, and attendance and professional development. Shedrick testified that there was no ambiguity as to what he expected from Respondent. He said they spent three full hours working on the success plan because they hammered out each and every issue: We went through every single item on this plan. Ms. Snow went through every item on this plan. Her Union representative went through every item on this plan. We changed it several times to accommodate Ms. Snow for Professional Development, her doctors’ appointments before school, after school, whatever it entailed. Everything was laid out so there would be no misunderstanding about the plan. For the next two years, until she was placed on paid administrative leave on April 25, 2016, Respondent proved to be both unwilling and incapable of following directions and performing the most basic duties of a classroom teacher and fulfilling the expectations of her success plan. 2014-2015 Bay Point Lesson Plans Appropriately completing lesson plans and submitting them timely was a recurring problem for Respondent at Bay Point as it had been for her while assigned to previous schools. She had been provided the Bay Point template for lesson plans in her “first day packet” and the expectation for their submission had been reviewed as part of their marathon meeting on August 15, 2014, in connection with the success plan. Nevertheless, Respondent returned her first submission on handwritten notebook paper claiming that she was unable to save an attachment on her computer. Shortly thereafter, Respondent met with Dr. Elizabeth Tisdale (now “Chiles”), the sixth-grade assistant principal responsible for supervising Snow during the 2014-2015 school year. Chiles scheduled the meeting to review school-wide rules and processes with Respondent because she had missed a couple of days during pre-school when administrators typically review these expectations. Her lesson plans were late, so Chiles specifically reviewed this expectation again. Respondent’s excuse for not submitting them varied but included: no internet at home, computer malfunction, wrong lesson plan template, and an uncertainty as to required content. Throughout Respondent’s two-year tenure at Bay Point, Shedrick had to regularly remind her to correct her lesson plans and to submit them timely. Parent Contact and Progress Reports Respondent was expected to contact parents anytime a student was in jeopardy of receiving a grade less than a C. This was another expectation in her success plan, as was the expectation that parents receive a progress report in such cases. She fell short on this expectation and, in fact, expressed early on that she had no intention of calling parents, as required. Specifically, Chiles met with her on September 2, 2014, to discuss, among other matters, a parent’s concern that her straight-A student was receiving an F in Snow’s class. Chiles reminded Respondent that parents need to be contacted if their child has an F. Respondent outright refused, stating that “she would not call every parent.” On September 15, 2014, Shedrick asked Respondent to produce the progress reports that she had sent home for students receiving a D or F in her class. In response, Snow sent him copies of the computer gradebook that she had sent home to parents requesting that they sign and return. Shedrick was incensed that she had no concept of confidentiality and would send each parent a printout describing the grades of every other student in the class. Moreover, the gradebook printouts were not the progress reports he had requested. He explained: I didn’t receive the progress reports the way that I wanted. . . . I want to know what students were doing, what the assignment was, what the point value was, when it was due, when it was turned in. I wanted to see it before it went home because, then again, I have to answer to these parents at this time why was there not enough grades in the computer, why did my kid have an F, why did my kid have a D. So what I received from Ms. Snow wasn’t what I asked for. Several months later on February 12, 2015, Shedrick notified Respondent by e-mail that he wanted to see the progress reports for all students with a D or F in her class by February 18, 2015. On that date, Chiles spoke with Snow and followed up with a an e-mail requesting that she submit the progress reports no later than 4:00 p.m., that afternoon. At 4:19 p.m., Snow sent Shedrick an e-mail telling him that the progress reports would not be completed by 4:00 p.m. The excuses given included her usual claim that there was a computer problem, this time the internet was slow, but also that students were absent and, therefore, were still taking the test. Failure to Provide Weekly Academic Assessments and Assignments Respondent was expected to grade at least two academic- based assignments each week and record the grades in FOCUS so parents and students could monitor their progress. She blatantly refused to do so and claimed that she was not contractually required. According to Snow, she was only required to record one grade weekly. During a conversation in early September, Chiles reiterated that the expectation was two graded assignments, not one, but even if only one assignment were required, Snow missed the mark because it was the third week of school and she only had two grades recorded. By September 15, 2014, several weeks into the first grading period, Snow had recorded only four grades and one was for a review of the student code of conduct, not an academic- based grade. The walk-through feedback forms completed by Chiles noted this deficiency. On January 13, 2015, Chiles noted “currently zero (0) grades posted-starting new quarter (should have at least 2-4)”; on January 20, 2015, she noted again that zero grades had been posted and on February 23, 2015, she noted that four grades were posted and there should have been 18. Shedrick testified that it was “unacceptable” that by March 23, 2015, eight weeks into a nine-week grading period, after which students were supposed to receive their report cards, Snow had posted only four grades. Respondent also was expected, and repeatedly directed, to give the students a test which would enable her to measure the students’ progress and tailor her instruction accordingly. She gave her first and only test in February 2015, and that was only after several people in administration coaxed, prodded, and essentially wrote the assessment for her. Lack of Classroom Structure, Organization, and Management Several people noted that Respondent’s students were not engaged during class and that she needed help with classroom management. For example, during walk-throughs on September 8 and 15, 2014, Chiles told her she needed more engaging lessons and to circulate the classroom rather than sitting at her desk. Again, on January 13, 2015, Chiles noted lack of engagement, students not paying attention, “no flow of the lesson-transition nonexistent, unorganized structure,” and students not understanding the lesson. On January 20, 2015, Chiles and Michele Stewart (“Stewart”), an instructional staff developer, observed her classroom together and again noted lack of engagement, rigor, and understanding by the students. Chiles had a meeting with Snow on January 21, 2015, to review these issues. Snow did not respond to her suggestions for improvement, except to say that her planning period should not be interrupted and that the students do not understand the class “because of their levels.” Excessive referrals, sending students out of class into the hallway without assistance, and not addressing student needs were regular issues for Snow. In one instance, she assigned a student to the back of the room in a time-out chair and did not excuse him to use the restroom. The student wet himself causing him to be embarrassed and ridiculed by his peers. Snow told Chiles that she saw the boy’s hand slightly raised, but thought he was playing with the blinds. Shedrick testified that the boy’s parent called and came to the school to take the student home and that he “had to explain [to the parent] why the student sat in the back of the classroom and the teacher would not let him go to the bathroom.” Another time, Respondent left campus in the middle of the day without telling anyone. Her class of 22 students was left alone, unsupervised. Shedrick said he arrived in her room, and she was not there. Another teacher had to cover her class. He said he called her on the phone and was informed that she was sick or had a doctor’s appointment. As a result of this incident, coupled with the other recurring performance deficiencies, the superintendent suspended Snow for three days. Support, Training, and Professional Development at Bay Point Snow had multiple opportunities to correct her performance and improve her deficiencies through a variety of training opportunities and support provided to her. On most occasions, she refused to attend or otherwise participate. Many examples were given by the witnesses testifying on behalf of the school district. At the very beginning of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was expected to attend District Wide Training (“DWT”) for middle school science teachers. The DWT is the “big kick- off” for the upcoming school year, and the sessions consist of practices and initiatives that the science department expects to be implemented in the schools. Despite being specifically told that she needed to attend the middle school sessions to learn about revisions to the middle school curriculum, she instead chose to attend the high school science sessions. When asked why she did not attend these (which would have been relevant to her assignment as a middle school teacher), she told the principal that in her mind she was a high school science teacher. As is the case with all teachers new to the school, Respondent had a mentor assigned. Lara McElveen (“McElveen”) was the lead mentor at Bay Point and testified that she was a resource and was always available to help teachers navigate issues ranging from curriculum questions to technology. She held regular monthly meetings to discuss what was working for the teachers and what was not. While most teachers came to her when they needed help with the type of problems Snow experienced (lesson planning, progress reports, assignments, test preparation, FOCUS, etc.), Snow only sought her help occasionally and only for minor issues such as printing or copying assignments. McElveen testified that she tried to set up meetings to help with more substantive matters, but Snow complained that she had “too many meetings and that it was outside her contractual hours.” Four specific trainings were identified in the Success Plan negotiated between the principal, Respondent, and her union representative during their three-hour meeting on August 15, 2014. Specifically, she agreed to attend the following training sessions: Just in Time Unpacking & 5E Collaborative Planning on September 2, 2014; Content Enhancement Part 1 Unit Organizer on September 23, 2014; Data Driven Instruction & Analysis Gap Check In in January 2015; and Just in Time Boot Camp on February 3, 2015. Shedrick went out of his way to remove any barrier to her attendance. He made sure she was paid to attend the trainings by giving her a “TDE” (Temporary Duty Elsewhere). He personally coordinated the timing of the trainings with other appointments on her calendar, including her doctor’s appointments, and also sought out convenient locations for the different trainings so that she did not have to travel far. He set the first training scheduled for September 2, 2014, at a school located only five minutes away. She did not attend this training. Given the efforts that he went through to personally set up the trainings and personally reach out to the people conducting them, Shedrick testified that he was beyond disappointed and annoyed that she did not bother to attend. As a result, he wrote her a reprimand dated September 5, 2014, and directed her to follow the expectations in the success plan-- including attendance at the other trainings--in order to avoid future discipline. Despite her agreement as part of the success plan and the directive in the reprimand, she did not attend any of the four trainings. She never offered the principal an explanation for not attending, but simply told him that she did not attend. In early October 2014, administrators visiting Respondent’s classroom noted that she was two-to-three weeks behind in the pacing calendar establishing the dates by which certain subjects should be covered in her classroom. Shedrick worked with the middle school science specialist, Tom Doughty, to provide Snow assistance and get her back on pace. They assigned Stewart the task of working with Respondent. Stewart observed her class on October 8, 2014; met with her briefly to discuss a remediation plan; and scheduled another meeting the following week to follow through. At the scheduled meeting, Stewart brought the additional materials Snow had requested, but was unable to work personally with her because there was a collaborative planning session scheduled with all teachers. Stewart attended this training with Respondent. Afterward, she asked Snow to meet with her individually as planned, but Snow told her no, she was not contractually required to meet. Over the next couple of weeks, Stewart was at the school for five more days conducting trainings and available to assist the science teachers. Respondent appeared for one group-training on November 12, 2014, but no more. On one of the days (October 20, 2014), all of the science teachers came to meet with Stewart, except Snow. On another day (November 20, 2014), administrators asked Snow to meet with Stewart, but she never showed up and on the other two days, she called in sick. In addition to Snow falling behind in pacing, Doughty and others observed during classroom visits that Snow had “instructional pedagogy issues.” Shedrick again asked Doughty and his team to come in and provide direct support to Snow. Doughty observed her classroom on four occasions between January 13 and January 16, 2015, to see “what instructional strategies were used or lack thereof, what could have been used and were not employed or were not employed correctly.” The plan was to work in tandem with Stewart to provide professional development geared toward the specific areas where Snow struggled. Following the observations, he met with Snow, Shedrick, and Chiles to “debrief,” but Snow was openly resistant to his observations and suggestions. He said he tried to point out areas where her classroom management and practices needed to be refined, but she “cut me off at various points to argue with my observations.” For example, he suggested that a classic and fun activity for kids to learn the concept of balanced and unbalanced forces was a simple game of tug-of-war where they can experience what happens with forces on either side of a rope. Snow’s method for teaching this concept was to refer the kids to a picture of a satellite in their textbooks. Doughty told her that pointing the kids to a picture in a textbook “is not helping a student put an abstract concept to a concrete example.” In response, Snow “defensively interrupted [him] saying that she would never do that with her students and would stick with the picture of a satellite in a book.” He concluded that overall “Snow was very defensive and seemed not willing to accept feedback in order to improve her practice.” Snow was told repeatedly that assessments are necessary to measure a student’s understanding of the content taught. Also, Shedrick wanted to see any test she planned to give the kids. Despite these directives, Snow had not tested her students nor had she tried to create a test. Finally, on January 20, 2015, Snow sent Shedrick two documents for his approval which she presumably believed to be appropriate for testing her students. Noting that they appeared to be three-year-old worksheets, Shedrick forwarded the proposed assessments to Doughty for his review. Doughty first questioned why Snow would be testing certain subjects in late January--homeostasis and cells--when the pacing calendar called for the topic to be covered in the first week of October. He also noted that the sheet was straight out of the textbook. He observed that the second document was apparently pulled by Snow from a bank of questions designed several years earlier and was not appropriate to be given as a test to students. He also reminded Shedrick that Snow would benefit from attending a session at an upcoming DWT focused on proper classroom assessment design. As already noted, she did not attend the trainings which could have helped her do her job and, in particular, a training specifically designed to help her create a test. Next, Shedrick notified Snow that she was not to give the test she had proposed. In desperation, he asked Doughty and his science team to again work with Snow on creating a test. He testified that he had to ask for their help because Snow had not tested her students all year: I had to because we’re in December, January and the students haven’t been assessed. So how do you know what deficiencies they have? How do you know what standards to remediate? How do you know what they’re lacking? How do you know where to fill in the gaps? How do you know what to do as a teacher if you haven’t given a five-question quiz? How do you know what to do? When Shedrick informed Snow that the county science department would be setting up individualized training at Bay Point because she missed the professional development planned for all teachers (a DWT), she responded that “she did not have time for training because [she] was so busy.” He asked if it would be possible to set them up in the morning before school, during her planning period or after school, and she repeated that she was too busy and would never attend a training during her planning period. Finally, Snow agreed to attend a side-by•side training with Stewart so that Stewart could teach Snow, a veteran teacher with upwards of 23 years’ experience, how to write a test. Stewart and the district’s test bank did the bulk of the work, and eventually a test was created. Snow’s students were administered their first and only test on February 10, 2015. 2014-2015 Annual Evaluation at Bay Point On April 17, 2015, Chiles completed an annual appraisal of Snow’s performance. The appraisal instrument for this year was the “hybrid model” incorporating indicators from the Charlotte Danielson evaluation system and the Dr. Robert Marzano evaluation. Chiles completed a two-day training on the evaluation system. She passed a test on its use prior to evaluating teachers. The instructional practice portion of the evaluation, completed by Chiles, comprised 40 percent of the total score. Snow scored 1.364 points achieving an “unsatisfactory” rating. Snow did not score “effective” on any of the indicators. Chiles noted in the formal observation that: Ms. Snow demonstrates deficiencies in the area of delivery of instruction . . . she also struggles with time management in delivering instruction which causes students to be unclear on instruction and assignments. Many students are unable to articulate the learning goal or relate the learning goal to the lesson. Furthermore, many parts of the Gradual Release Model are not applied or observed. With regard to the assessment of instructional needs, Chiles noted that “little progress has been made.” “Tracking and monitoring data has not been exhibited, as well as using multiple assessments to assess the instructional needs of all students.” The student achievement portion of the evaluation counted for 50 percent of the overall score. Snow achieved 3.0 points for this portion. The remaining ten percent was based on professional development and Snow was given three out of ten available points. Respondent received only three points because she submitted a plan that did not match her duties. Again, she submitted an old form from the previous year when she worked at a high school. The form stated she was a biology teacher at Largo High School rather than a sixth-grade science teacher at Bay Point. Three points on a ten-point score was converted to a 1.2 on a four-point scale. Overall, Snow’s evaluation reflected a “needs improvement” rating with a final score of 2.166. 2015-2016 School Year at Bay Point Despite Snow’s poor performance, lack of cooperation and outright defiance the preceding year, Shedrick was optimistic that the 2015-2016 school year would be different. He testified that he was excited that Snow may have “turned a corner.” He testified that he was hopeful because over the summer Snow had shown some initiative and “went to a training without me asking her to.” Moreover, she actually approached him and shared the information, which was rare. He then scheduled a meeting with Snow to scale down her success plan and work on what was necessary to make her a successful science teacher. Shedrick’s optimism was misplaced and quickly faded. Snow was contentious and not receptive to the scaled-down success plan which contained many of the same expectations as the earlier one, i.e., two grades per week in FOCUS; at least one approved assessment each grading period; follow pacing guides; provide progress reports to students with D’s and F’s; contact parents; submit lesson plans; and attend classroom management training. She immediately objected to the expectation that she attend classroom management training stating that she already went to a training in July: “I’ve already been to that training and I am not going to any more training.” He tried to explain to her that the trainings are not all the same at which point it occurred to him that the only reason she attended training in the summer was probably to get a “trade day,” which amounted to a paid day off during the school year. He said, “I hope she didn’t go to that training just for the trade day. I hope she went to that training for students. Conclusion, trade day, because she would not go anymore [to additional trainings].” Not only did her performance and attitude fail to improve, it went downhill quickly from that point forward. Throughout the first semester of 2015, Shedrick and other administrators conducted numerous visits to Snow’s classroom and repeatedly notified her that she was behind the curriculum; her instruction was very low-level textbook work; she had not given the students a single assessment or even a quiz; she was not entering academic grades into FOCUS; she was not engaging the students or managing her classroom; and she had no plan to remediate the students who were falling behind. Shedrick testified that by December 2015, he was “at wits end.” He tried to schedule a conference with her prior to her formal observation but she would not meet with him. He tried repeatedly to re-schedule a meeting. Snow responded with a variety of excuses and objections and once marched into his office at the scheduled time simply stating, “I’m not meeting for your pre-conference,” and walked out. She did not complete the required pre•observation form, so Shedrick asked someone from the professional development department to go into the iObservation database and prepare the form for her. She never completed the form and never appeared for a pre-conference before the formal evaluation. Shedrick experienced the same difficulty with Snow in scheduling a formal observation. She objected that he did not give her enough notice; she did not have enough time; she had to test ESE and ESOL students; and other teachers do not have a formal observation mid-year. At one point he went to her classroom to discuss the observation (because she did not respond to his e-mails) and discovered that the kids were working on crossword puzzles. He said that if she was going to ignore his e-mails, “at least let me walk into [her] class and see [her] students highly engaged in some specification [sic] of some science labs, some dissection, and some hands-on lab learning for science. Imagine my dismay to walk in and see students working on crossword puzzles.” He conducted the formal observation on December 16, 2015, and for 55 minutes of the class period, the students worked on defining terms. He said this was typical of Snow’s lessons. “Bell work was defining terms. Classwork was defining terms . . . students would sit there and actually copy word for word verbatim or she would have them in the science consumer workbooks underline or she would regurgitate to them as to what to write next to whatever they underlined right next to it.” On the formal observation, Shedrick notes under “Establishing Classroom Routines”: [A]s I walked into the classroom you were moving around students from seat to seat and one student asked what are we doing and you replied “just wait.” You instructed the class to sharpen their pencil one by one and seven students ran to the pencil sharpener. Now students are sitting and waiting for you to begin the lesson. Two students are passing out books. Four minutes are gone and students are still waiting. Two students in the front row are passing out sheets of paper, now you have several students up doing various things at this time. Female students in the back are talking about the movies from the weekend. Ten minutes has gone before you address the class. You are trying to inform students of the Scale you created. Under the category entitled “Identifying Critical Content,” he wrote: Teacher reading terms that she asked students to define (define three terms) and students ask you to repeat and what page? No collaboration for this assignment . . . students are just defining terms out of the book and writing on paper . . . . At the beginning of the second semester, Shedrick’s frustration with Snow was palpable. He requested help from OPS, as well as the area superintendent, Robert Path, asking: How much longer must we continue with Snow? Anytime I request a meeting, she does not respond and doesn’t attend. This is defiant and disrespectful to start. How will I continue to run my campus as teachers hear she doesn’t attend my requested meetings, why should they. All this with no action which allows her to continue her behavior. On January 15, 2016, Shedrick sent Snow a letter telling her that she was on very thin ice but he was going to try once again to remediate her numerous deficiencies. After summarizing all of his efforts to meet with her to conduct a formal observation, as well as her responses, he stated: I have grave concerns over whether the very marginal instructional improvement that you made last year is sustained. You have never assessed your students so I have no information on that score, refused to show me the work that your students are performing so I do not have that information to review, refused to meet with me to finish a formal observation and have called in sick for several days avoiding this discussion. For that reason, I asked Mr. Doughty, the Middle School Science Specialist to observe your classroom, on Thursday, January 14th and this morning. I am very concerned about numerous things including the lack of science instruction taking place in your classroom, your classroom management and your conduct and attitude every time that I try to discuss these issues with you. Your continued refusal to do what I ask has seriously impeded the education of our students and they deserve better. I remain willing to work with you and sincerely hope that you choose to work with me toward preparing our students to meet the goals set for 6th grade science. I plan to meet with you to discuss all of these issues. Doughty again observed Snow’s class on January 14 and 15, 2016, and used his observations as a basis to develop yet another remediation plan. He observed that the activities were “low rigor-no connection made to learning target”; the pace of the lesson was not appropriate; there was “minimal student engagement” with students “off task” and “compliant” [sic, the context supports “non-compliant”]; and classroom management and discipline was not evident. Doughty helped design yet another remediation plan that was presented to Snow on January 20, 2016. He said: [W]e wanted to provide as much support and help to try to help her be the best teacher we could make her to be. So one of the things I suggested to Dr. Shedrick was, for example, Letter G [of the remediation plan] was stop using movies as a time filler, having appropriate topics and rigorous assignments that tied to it. Aware that much of what he had observed in the past was “textbook, textbook, textbook, writing in the textbook and . . . not a lot of hands-on engaging things,” he suggested Letter H of the plan, “performing labs that tied into the unit to bring on hands-on activities to give students ownership into their learning.” Doughty and Stewart spent several sessions with Snow during January and February 2016. On February 19, 2016, following an observation of her class, Doughty wrote to Snow commenting that the students were generally confused because the learning goal or the content she intended to teach, did not align to the task: The strategies used weren’t implemented correctly and did not achieve the desired effect. . . . Through my last two visits I have not seen effective implementation of the professional development Michele has provided on an individual basis. It is apparent we will need to revisit the topics from the previous 2 PO [personal observation] sessions. . . . At this point, Doughty felt his team’s efforts could be better utilized elsewhere, rather than continuing to work with Snow who was not cooperating. He contacted a number of people to tell them that “we’re not getting anywhere.” In an e-mail dated February 23, 2016, Doughty noted that “overall it is not going well” and “Michelle is very frustrated that her efforts are not yielding any results.” Insubordination, Incompetence, Performance Deficiencies, Willful Neglect of Duty Respondent is either incapable of performing the duties of a classroom teacher or simply unwilling to do so. Based upon the record, it is both. At times it seems that she is not willing to try because she does not have the skills necessary to perform her duties and, at other times, she is outright defiant claiming that she is not required to do what is asked of her. For two years at Bay Point, she has been directed to enter at least two academic standards-based grades per week in FOCUS and administer an assessment to the students. The assignments that she gave to students in no way could be construed as academic- based. The workbooks produced at hearing from students T.J. and M.T. contain pages with a few definitions, questions and answers copied out of the textbook, and “reflections” consisting of one to two sentences of what the student learned. One assignment is a “foldable” that the student cut out and pasted in the book, with definitions of cell parts written under the flap. In another assignment, the student cut out pictures of body parts and pasted them in the book partially labelling them. With all of the emphasis placed by the educators and administrators on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) and rigorous science instruction, Shedrick was appalled that Snow was teaching and assigning her students what he described as “baby work.” From the record and Snow’s testimony, there is little explanation as to when or how she graded these assignments. The students testified that they did not know the purpose of the assignments or how they were graded. Their parents did not know how she arrived at the grades and, when asked, she was not able to explain the grades to them. In addition to the low-level nature of the assignments in FOCUS, Shedrick objected to Snow giving a grade for a parent’s signature, bell work, notebook checks, reflections, and review of the code of student conduct. These were not academic grades, in his opinion. Parents also complained that they never knew where their child stood in the class because of the irregularity of Snow’s grading. Shedrick testified that parent complaints came in “fast and furious” because of Snow’s habit of “dumping” grades at the end of the marking period. John Frank (“Frank”), the OPS administrator, conducted an audit trail in FOCUS which enabled him to determine the dates that grades were entered and found that grades due earlier in the grading period were added a day or two before the end of the marking period, often drastically affecting a student’s grade with no warning or opportunity for the student to improve. For example, on March 14, 2016, FOCUS indicated Snow had entered six grades. Three days later she had entered four more grades for assignments that should have been added weeks prior. It is nearly inconceivable that entering two grades weekly could have been so difficult, especially for an experienced science teacher. For Snow, however, it was a constant uphill climb. When she met with Shedrick and, at times, with Valencia Walker, and later Frank, each told her “just put in two grades a week.” She said she did not have to. At the hearing, she claimed that she was “confused” when she was told the school district wanted two grades. She “preferred” to enter only one grade and reasoned that her assignments were so “intense” that one grade for her was really the equivalent of two grades for another teacher. Her lessons and assignments could in no way be deemed “intense.” At one point, she said she tried to put in two grades, but did not have time. Later, she said “my goal was to put in two grades a week. The reason why I wasn’t able to put in two grades a week at the end was because of the testing schedule and the pacing guide.” This explanation is almost nonsensical. As evident from her belief that her assignments were “intense,” Snow appears to have no insight into the lack of academic rigor in her classroom. At the hearing, she tried to explain the complexity involved for students to answer two questions in their textbooks on cells. She defended her extensive use of the textbook and instructional strategy of having the students read aloud from it on the basis that she had a lot of “special learners” who needed to learn to read. The record does not support her contention that her students needed “special” treatment due to learning disabilities or other special needs. Snow blames many of her deficiencies on the students’ misbehavior in her class. Testimony confirms that at times the class was loud and the students sometimes disrespectful. This is not uncommon when teaching middle school students. A parent called by Snow to testify characterized her observation as a class “out of control.” Snow, however, fails to recognize that her inability to deliver meaningful instruction caused, or at least substantially contributed to, the student behavioral issues. If the students were more engaged and assigned to more meaningful tasks, classroom decorum would have improved. Doughty summarized the correlation well when he testified, “The more low- rigor, the more textbook work . . . the more misbehavior I see happening. The more I see classrooms that engage students in fun, interactive . . . cool science, engaging science, the less misbehavior I see.” Snow attributes the misbehavior to the students, not her teaching methods or poor classroom management skills. She claimed that she was assigned “more than three fourths of the 6th grade SE/ESOL and 504 population . . . in addition, I have the majority of the lower level 6th graders.” Shedrick and the sixth-grade assistant principle, Jason Helbling, testified that the population of students in Snow’s class was no different than any other sixth-grade class. In fact, Helbling pulled the grades of the students Snow complained were nonperforming and found they received A’s, B’s, and C’s in their other classes. Snow’s testimony on this point is not credited. Helbling testified that he was called to Snow’s room much more frequently than any other teacher’s classroom in the school; in his words, as much as ten times more frequently. She had no interventions set up to redirect the students, but would instead call administrators to have those misbehaving or rowdy removed from class. She complained to Helbling that the students were terrible and not teachable. He counseled her to call home to the parent and “try to do other things than throw the student out of class and having them miss content.” Snow claimed she contacted parents but when Helbling called them himself, he learned that there had been no follow-up by Snow in the form of telephone calls. Helbling found that the students characterized by Snow as “rough,” “terrible,” and “not teachable” did not have the same problems in other teachers’ classes. He visited other classrooms to observe these students’ interaction with the teachers. The difference was that the other teachers had classroom management strategies and reached out to the students. Inexplicably, Snow did not even know the names of her students, something Helbling found inexcusable after several months of school. He testified, “If [by end of January] we don’t even know the names of our students, we have a problem, and a lot of that is linked to classroom management. How can you manage a classroom if you don’t know who your students are?” During a classroom visit on January 29, 2016, Helbling walked into a classroom in disarray. A chair was sitting on top of a desk; most of the students were talking; bell work took 21 minutes with no student actually working on bell work (“bell work” are brief assignments given at the start of class to warm up the students, settle them down, and prepare them for the day’s substantive lessons); five kids were lined up at the pencil sharpener; and Snow “sat at her desk the entire time that the observation took place.” Annual Evaluation at Bay Point for 2015-2016 School Year When the time came for the annual evaluation for the 2015-2016 school year, the district had fully integrated the Marzano appraisal system for use in all schools, which as noted above, is designed to grow a teacher’s practice. The comprehensive instrument is comprised of three components: the instructional practice, the deliberate practice, and the student growth score. The Instructional Practice portion counts for 56.67 percent of the evaluation and consists of four domains. Domain 1 is “Classroom Strategies and Behaviors” consisting of 41 instructional categories that happen in the classroom. Administrators conducted seven informal and two formal observations (mid-point and final) for completion of Domain 1. Domain 2 is “Planning and Preparing.” Domain 3 is “Reflecting on Teaching” and Domain 4 is “Collegiality and Professionalism.” Administrators also conducted nine walk-throughs which contributed to Domains 2-4. In each of the four domains, a teacher is rated based on a scale with the lowest being “not using” and the highest being “innovating.” The scores are tallied in the iObservation database. Snow received a score of 1 which is an “unsatisfactory” rating for the instructional practice portion. Her weaknesses in classroom management, instructional delivery and planning, and failure to cooperate were noted in many instances by her evaluator. The Deliberate Practice portion of the instrument counts for ten percent of the overall score. The rubric dictates that a teacher may receive a score of 1, 3, or 10. Teachers receive points, either 1, 3, or 10, depending on whether they submitted a professional development plan and then whether they implemented it. Snow received three out of ten points because she submitted a deliberate practice plan, but did not attend the required professional development. On a four-point scale, this translated into a score of 1.2. The Student Growth score is worth 33.3 percent of the overall score. Snow received a score of 3.0 on this section resulting in a final score on her evaluation of 1.69 or “needs improvement.” Cerreta testified that Snow is the only teacher in the district, out of more than seven thousand teachers, ever to have received three consecutive ratings of “needs improvement.” Cerreta confirmed that each of the evaluators for the 2013-2014 through 2015-2016 school years received training and were certified by the district to conduct an evaluation using the respective evaluation instruments. The administrators properly administered each of the evaluation instruments and Snow never challenged, through a grievance, the process followed by the administrators in conducting the evaluation. Cerreta’s office is responsible for submitting the appraisal systems to FLDOE for approval each year and confirmed that each of the respective systems described for the three-year period were submitted and approved by FLDOE. It bears noting and a brief discussion as to the integrity and character of Principal Shedrick and the other administrators who patiently worked with Respondent throughout her tenure with the Pinellas County School District and, especially, at Bay Point. It is rare to see a principal and district administrators who not only give a teacher the benefit of the doubt when it comes to her shortcomings, but go well above the call of duty to counsel; offer guidance at many levels; and utilize so many already overworked district personnel in an attempt to make one teacher not only a better educator, but successful in every way relating to her classroom and her students. Shedrick, his fellow administrators, and other teachers at Bay Point spent an inordinate amount of time working with one teacher, Snow, who not only rebuffed their efforts to make her successful, but seemed to resent their attempts to make her a more effective teacher. Only after constant failures by Snow in the classroom, and her apparent inability or lack of desire to improve or learn from all the advice and instruction given, did Shedrick reach his breaking point and move forward with the steps leading to Snow’s proposed termination. Less dedicated individuals would have pulled the plug far sooner, and Shedrick, along with all the administrators involved, should be commended for their patience and desire to make an experienced science teacher, a valuable commodity in the district, successful to the point where she could better further her students’ education in such a vital academic subject in today’s world. Based upon the extensive evidence and testimony, all these efforts were unappreciated and, ultimately, made in vain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Laurie A. Dart, Esquire Office of General Counsel Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Dr. Michael A. Grego, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2007), by using her position as a member of the Duval County School Board to influence placement of her children in magnet schools without following proper procedures, and if so, what is an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent has served as a member of the Duval County School Board (School Board). She was elected to the School Board in 2002 and represents District IV. Respondent is subject to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, the Code of Ethics for public officers and employees, for her acts and omissions during her tenure as a member of the School Board. Respondent and her husband, DeAndre Jackson, have four children, all of whom attend or attended public schools in Duval County. Mr. Jackson is a teacher at Jean Ribault Senior High School, which is the high school from which Respondent graduated. The Duval County School District (School District) offers a number of school-choice options. Of the 123,400 students in the School District, about 30,000 students participate in school-choice options, attending schools other than their neighborhood or zoned school. Magnet schools constitute one of the school-choice options in the School District. Magnet schools are schools that offer a specialized program or theme for students to participate in based on the student’s interests, skills, or talents. Parents of students may apply if they wish their child to attend a magnet school that is outside that student’s neighborhood or zoned school. School Board Policy 5.46 is entitled Magnet Schools and Programs (Policy). Pursuant to this Policy, parents wishing their children to enter a magnet program may apply in January or February for the upcoming school year. After the application deadline, the applications are processed and a computer lottery generates assignments based on student preference and space availability. The lottery typically occurs in early April, and students who are not selected are placed on waiting lists. Participants in the lottery have weighted entry points, which include the following “preferences” identified in the Policy as follows: (a) whether the student lives in the magnet school’s attendance area; (b) whether the student participated in the magnet program at a prior grade level; (c) whether the student has a sibling who attends the magnet school; and (d) whether the student’s address is in an attendance area of a Title I school. Dr. Sally Hague is the Director of School Choice and Pupil Assignment Operations for the School District. Her duties include oversight of most of the school-choice options in the School District. According to Dr. Hague, there are preferences outside of the Policy which are also recognized. Children of active- duty military personnel receive a priority imposed by statute. Dr. Hague also recognizes a preference for students who have toured the school with parents during the application period. Additionally, children of School Board employees who are members of collective bargaining units may be given a preference. Specifically, employees who are teachers and members of Duval Teachers United have the option under the collective bargaining agreement for their children to attend school at their work site or the nearest appropriate school, subject to consideration given to space and racial balance. When a parent chooses to exercise this contractual right to place his or her child at or near the school where the parent works, that parent would contact Dr. Hague.1/ The collective bargaining agreement does not set out a deadline regarding making such a request. Dr. Hague receives calls from many parents of students in the School District, including calls from parents who are teachers and parents who are School Board members. Respondent had the occasion to call Dr. Hague at times regarding her children. Shortly after Respondent was elected to the School Board in 2002, Respondent called Dr. Hague regarding her children’s school placements. Respondent again called Dr. Hague in 2005, requesting a transfer for one of her children from one school to another. In both instances, Dr. Hague considered Respondent to be calling as a mother, not as a School Board member. During the 2006-2007 school year, two of Respondent’s children, Ky. J. and Ka. J., attended John E. Ford K-8 Montessori School, a magnet school.2/ Late in the 2006-2007 school year, Respondent was informed by Ka.’s teacher that Ka. should skip a grade. Respondent believed that Ka. was not overly mature and wished to transfer him to a different magnet school. Additionally, Respondent was concerned that Ka.’s FCAT scores were “flat academically” compared to prior years. As a result of her concerns, Respondent began considering options for the next school year. One of the options Respondent was considering was transferring her children to another magnet school, Henry F. Kite. In late May 2007, Respondent again contacted Dr. Hague regarding a change in the placement of Ky. and Ka. Respondent’s telephone contact to Dr. Hague occurred after the application period for magnet schools placement in the 2007-2008 school year had passed. She did not contact Dr. Hague earlier in the school year because she was not aware of the relevant issues regarding Ka. (i.e., his teacher’s recommendation that he skip a grade and his FCAT scores). At the time she made the phone call to Dr. Hague, Respondent had a general understanding that there had been at least one individual on the Superintendent’s staff (the Superintendent prior to Dr. Wise) who had been permitted to have her child transferred to a different magnet program without going through the application process. The only other School Board member who testified, Nancy Bonner, was also aware of one such instance, as was Mr. Sundstrom, the Chief-of-Staff to the former Superintendent. The testimony regarding the content of this telephone conversation varies to some extent. Respondent has no recollection of making any reference to being a School Board member during her conversation with Dr. Hague. Dr. Hague’s recollection of any reference Respondent made to her position as a School Board member during this phone call is less than clear. When asked whether Respondent referred to herself as a School Board member during this conversation, Dr. Hague testified, “. . . she did refer to herself as a board member at one point. . . .Well, I mean, she did say, you know, as a board member, you know, if there was any way to place her children at Kite.” Dr. Hague acknowledged that Respondent was “search[ing] for other ways that we might be able to move the students to Henry F. Kite.” Moreover, the evidence is clear that Dr. Hague knew from the first conversation with Respondent in 2002 regarding her children that Respondent was a School Board member. Dr. Hague also testified that in each instance, Respondent called her as a mother and that Dr. Hague was not asked by Respondent to violate any rule or policy: Well, she [Respondent] has children in the school system and she was calling in reference to her children and their school assignment, not unlike any one of 300, 400 calls I would take during the course of a month from parents who call to inquire about placement with their children, or movement on a waiting list, or any number of things that the parents call me about regarding school assignments. When asked whether she felt intimidated by the phone call, Dr. Hague replied that she did not feel any intimidation during the phone call. When asked if she felt pressured, she replied, “Maybe pressure’s not the right word, some persistence, I think on her part to see if there were any options from moving the students to Kite.” Dr. Hague continues to perceive her working relationship with Respondent as a good one. There is no evidence to suggest that Respondent demanded that her children be placed at Kite. Respondent said nothing to indicate that she might take some sort of adverse action against Dr. Hague if Dr. Hague did not approve a transfer, and in fact, did not take any adverse action toward Dr. Hague. After informing Respondent that the application period had passed, Dr. Hague referred Respondent to then- Superintendent, Joseph Wise. After speaking with Dr. Hague, Respondent contacted Superintendent Wise via telephone and left a voicemail regarding the placement of her children in magnet schools for the 2007- 2008 school year. Respondent “loosely” recalled what she said in the voicemail, and stated that she told Superintendent Wise that Dr. Hague told her to contact him. Superintendent Wise delegated the task of communicating with Respondent regarding this matter to his then- Chief-of-Staff, David Sundstrom.3/ Mr. Sundstrom contacted Dr. Hague who explained the application process for magnet schools to him. Respondent was next contacted on June 5, 2007, via e-mail by Mr.Sundstrom regarding her children’s placement in magnet schools for the 2007-2008 school year. In the e-mail, Mr. Sundstrom advised her that the lottery period had passed, that she had not yet filled out any application to move her children to another magnet school, and that there was a waiting list at Kite for the grades she requested. Respondent replied in approximately an hour and copied Dr. Wise. While she alleged in the e-mail that she was aware of waivers provided to members of Dr. Wise’s staff, she stated that she would submit late applications to place her children on the waiting list. Respondent and Mr. Sundstrom exchanged additional e- mails on June 5, 2007. For some time prior to the June 5, 2007, e-mails, the relationship between Respondent and then- Superintendent Wise, and his Chief of Staff, had deteriorated. According to Mr. Sundstrom, Respondent’s working relationship with Superintendent Wise deteriorated within months of his arrival in Duval County and was “really an unhealthy arrangement or relationship” in the months preceding the June 2007 e-mails. Mr. Sundstrom very openly did not and does not like or respect Respondent. Similarly, Respondent distrusted Mr. Sundstrom and believed that he was trying to undermine her work as a board member. The e-mails exchanged between Respondent and Mr. Sundstrom in June 2007 reflect the high level of tension between the two which came about prior to the issue raised herein. After becoming aware of the e-mails concerning Respondent filling out applications late for her children, Dr. Hague asked a member of her staff to prepare applications for Respondent to sign to request placement of her children on the waiting list for Henry F. Kite. This was solely at Dr. Hague’s direction as a courtesy to Respondent, and was not requested by Respondent. On July 16, 2008, Respondent signed and submitted applications for placement of her children in magnet schools for the 2007-2008 school year. Her son, Ka., was placed on the waiting list. Only five students were on the waiting list for Henry F. Kite, substantially fewer than waiting lists for more highly competitive schools. Ka. was moved into an open spot at Kite when the waiting list was exhausted. The weight of the evidence does not establish the allegation that Respondent asserted a “School Board member privilege” in her communications with Dr. Hague or Superintendent Wise.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED: That the Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent, Brenda Priestly-Jackson, did not violate Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Barbara J. Staros Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 2009.
