The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint issued on October 19, 2009, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Schad holds Florida Educator’s Certificate (Certificate) No. 407935, covering the areas of Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Mathematics and Reading. Her Certificate is valid through June 30, 2013. Ms. Schad began teaching in 1978. She has taught in both the Lee County School District and Collier County School District. At all times material hereto, Ms. Schad was employed as a Reading and Math Specialist at Village Oaks Elementary School (Village Oaks) in the Collier County School District (School District). She began at Village Oaks for the 2003-2004 school year. Ms. Schad’s duties and responsibilities at Village Oaks included providing extra assistance to students who were not proficient in reading and math. Classroom teachers chose which students would receive the extra assistance from her. Typically, Ms. Schad met with the students she assisted in pull- out/break-out sessions in small groups of five students at a time and provided 30 minutes of assistance to each group of students. Some of the students to whom she provided the extra assistance spoke English as a second language (ESOL students). The principal at Village Oaks was Dorcas Howard. She has been employed with the School District for 50 years and has been a principal with the School District for over 21 years. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Collier County Education Association and the District School Board of Collier County (Collective Bargaining Agreement) controls the assessment of teachers. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires the evaluation of teachers in the School District based on an evaluation system known as the Collier Teacher Assessment System (CTAS). The CTAS consists of 12 educator accomplished practices (EAPs)—Assessment, Communication, Continuous Improvement, Critical Thinking, Diversity, Ethics, Human Development and Learning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Learning Environments, Planning, Role of the Teacher, and Technology—that are evaluated as Inadequate, Developing, and Professional/Accomplished. Also, the overall evaluation is Meets Expectation or Does Not Meet Expectation. If a professional service contract or continuing contract teacher fails to be rated at the Professional/Accomplished level in three or more EAPs or is rated at the Inadequate level in one EAP, the Collective Bargaining Agreement requires certain procedures and processes to be taken to assist the teacher. At all times material hereto, Ms. Schad was a professional service contract teacher. In order to perform an assessment pursuant to CTAS, one must be trained in CTAS. At all times material hereto, Ms. Howard was trained in CTAS. Ms. Schad’s 2004 Annual Performance Evaluation for the 2003-2004 school year was performed by Ms. Howard. Ms. Schad was rated overall as Meets Expectations, with two EAPs rated as Developing—Knowledge of Subject Matter and Technology. Ms. Schad was considered deficient in the two EAPs. Ms. Schad’s 2005 Annual Performance Evaluation for the 2004-2005 school year was performed by Ms. Howard. Ms. Schad was rated overall as Meets Expectations, with one EAP rated as Developing—Technology. Ms. Schad was considered deficient in the one EAP. Ms. Schad’s 2006 Annual Performance Evaluation for the 2005-2006 school year was performed by Ms. Howard. Ms. Schad was rated overall as Meets Expectations, with no EAPs rated as Inadequate or Developing. Ms. Schad was not considered deficient in any EAP. Ms. Schad’s 2007 Annual Performance Evaluation for the 2006-2007 school year was performed by Ms. Howard. Ms. Schad was rated overall as Meets Expectations, with no EAP rated as Inadequate or Developing. Again, Ms. Schad was not considered deficient in any EAP. On or about May 12, 2008, Ms. Schad received her 2008 Annual Performance Evaluation for the 2007-2008 school year from Ms. Howard. Ms. Schad’s overall rating was Does Not Meet Expectations (unsatisfactory), with four EAPs rated as Developing—Assessment, Communication, Learning Environments, and Planning. Ms. Schad was considered deficient in the four EAPs. As a professional service contract employee, pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, for the 2008-2009 school year, Ms. Schad was required to be assigned to Strand III, which is a probationary 90-calendar-day period to correct the deficiencies. On or about August 11, 2008, Ms. Schad was placed on a Strand III, 90-Day Improvement Plan to address the areas of deficiency. Pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a professional assistance team (PAT) at Village Oaks was organized to assist Ms. Schad to correct the deficiencies. The PAT consisted of Ms. Schad, Ms. Howard, and two teachers—one teacher chosen by Ms. Howard, as a mentor to Ms. Schad, and one teacher chosen by Ms. Schad, as a peer teacher. The PAT met on several occasions. The first meeting was on August 27, 2008. Essentially, the discussion consisted of what was expected of Ms. Schad and what would occur at the end of the probationary period—a recommendation would be submitted to the Superintendent of the School District in 90 days. The expectations were that Ms. Schad would: provide documentation of absence in order to be paid, which should include date, time, and service; attend all planning sessions for third grade to determine the standards, targets and strategies, and activities that were to be taught; give a copy of her plans for next week to the team leader and the principal by 3:00 p.m. each Friday; follow the schedule to pick-up and drop-off students and have materials on hand and ready to begin lessons; meet each third-grade teacher to discuss progress or lack of progress; and work with five students per session and document (weekly/quarterly) their assessment results. Another PAT meeting was held on September 3, 2008. Pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a Professional Assistance Plan (PAP) was developed and was reviewed at the meeting. The PAP contained major areas, with detailed strategies, which were Attendance, Planning, Assessment, Communication, and Role of Teacher; all were reviewed. Additionally, another area contained in the PAP was Observation, in which it was indicated that the Ms. Howard would complete at least four observations with written feedback; this too was reviewed. Implementation of the PAP occurred after the meeting. PAT meetings were subsequently held on September 24, October 15, and October 30, 2008. Other major areas of concern were discussed at the meetings, including Student Participation Progress; and Focus/Follow-Up. At each meeting, the focus of the discussions was on what Ms. Schad was not doing; what she was doing, but not doing correctly; what assistance could and would be provided. As a result of each meeting, assistance was being continuously provided to Ms. Schad by the PAT members to assist her in improving and correcting her deficiencies. At each meeting, Ms. Howard determined that Ms. Schad was not correcting deficiencies even though she (Ms. Schad) was being provided assistance to correct deficiencies. At the meeting held on September 24, 2008, the noted deficiencies included the areas of Planning and Student Participation Progress. At the meeting held on October 14, 2008, the noted deficiencies included the areas of Focus/Follow-Up, Planning, Student Participation Progress, and Assessment. At the meeting held on October 30, 2008, the noted deficiencies included the areas of Focus/Follow-Up, Planning, Student Participation Progress, and Assessment/Differentation. Furthermore, Ms. Howard was conducting observations of Ms. Schad during the Probationary period. The observations revealed continued deficiencies in spite of assistance being provided by the PAT. On or about November 7, 2008, about 64 days from the development and implementation of the PAP, Ms. Schad received a performance evaluation from Ms. Howard. Ms. Schad was rated overall as Does Not Meet Expectations (unsatisfactory), with four EAPs rated as Inadequate—Assessment, Communication, Planning, and Role of the Teacher—and three EAPs rated as Developing—Continuous Improvement, Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Learning Environments. The EAPs were areas of deficiency. The EAPs in which Ms. Howard found Ms. Schad to be deficient in the 2008 Annual Performance Evaluation that were not corrected within the Probationary period were Assessment, Communication, Learning Environments, and Planning—with Assessment, Communication, and Planning rated Inadequate; and Learning Environments rated Developing. Additional EAPs were found to be deficient at the end of the Probationary period, which were Continuous Improvement, Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Role of the Teacher—with Knowledge of Subject Matter and Continuous Improvement rated Developing; and Role of the Teacher rated Inadequate. The School District considered Ms. Schad as not competent to teach in the School District. On or about January 15, 2009, Ms. Schad was terminated from her teaching position with the School District. She has appealed her termination.3 The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Schad failed to meet the minimum standards required by the School District for teachers and was, therefore, not competent to teach according to the standards of the School District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Eric J. Smith, as Commissioner of Education, enter a final order: Finding that Deborah Jane Schad violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2008). Suspending Ms. Schad’s Certificate for six months and placing her on probation for two years under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 23rd day of July, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds, and at all relevant times, held a valid Florida Educator’s Certificate. Respondent is and, at all relevant times, was a fifth- grade teacher at Avon Park Elementary School in Highlands County. Respondent has been an elementary school teacher for 19 years. She taught fourth and fifth grade at Zolfo Springs Elementary School in Hardee County from 1986 through the end of the 2000-01 school year. She started teaching at Avon Park Elementary School at the beginning of the 2001-02 school year. Respondent is currently on a year-to-year contract. Her contract was renewed for the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years notwithstanding the allegations in this case, which occurred during the 2002-03 school year. Respondent has not had any disciplinary problems over the course of her career, and other than the allegations in this case, she has never been accused of any unethical or unprofessional conduct. Respondent has always received good annual performance evaluations. Respondent’s most recent performance evaluations - - for the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years –- state that she “meets or exceeds expectations” in all categories, including the category that assesses whether Respondent “act[s] in a professional and ethical manner and adhere[s] to the Code and Principles of Professional Conduct.” Consistent with the information in Respondent’s annual performance evaluations, the principal at Avon Park Elementary School, who is Respondent’s current supervisor, testified that Respondent “does a good job” as a teacher and that she values Respondent quite highly as a teacher; the former principal at Zolfo Springs Elementary School, who was Respondent’s supervisor for approximately five of the years that Respondent taught at that school, testified that Respondent’s reputation for complying with the code of ethics is “excellent” and that Respondent always “monitored and cherished” her professionalism; one of Respondent’s co-workers at Avon Park Elementary School testified that Respondent is “a very effective and professional teacher”; and the students who testified at the hearing characterized Respondent as a good teacher. Respondent has administered the FCAT to her students since the test’s inception in the 1990s, and as a result, she is very familiar with what teachers can and cannot do when administering the test. Respondent and other teachers at Avon Park Elementary School received training on the administration of the 2003 FCAT, and as part of the training, Respondent received a copy of the Test Administration Manual for the 2003 FCAT. The Test Administration Manual is published by the state Department of Education (Department) and is distributed to teachers by the testing coordinators at each school. The school-level testing coordinators report to a testing coordinator at the school district level, who is ultimately responsible for the administration of the FCAT to the district’s students. The Test Administration Manual summarizes the “dos and don’ts” of test administration for the FCAT. It also includes a copy of the statute and rule governing test security, which for the 2003 FCAT were Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.042. On the issue of test security, the Test Administration Manual explains that: it is not appropriate to talk with [students] about any test item or to help them answer any test item. For example, if students finish the test before the allotted time for the session has elapsed, or have not attempted to complete a question, it would be appropriate to encourage them to go back and check their work. It is not acceptable to provide the students with any information that would allow them to infer the correct answer, such as suggesting that they might want to check their work on a specific question. (Emphasis in original). The FCAT is required by state law to be administered annually to public school students in the third through tenth grades to measure the students’ proficiency in reading, writing, science, and math. The FCAT measures the students’ performance against state standards. The Norm Referenced Test (NRT), which is administered in conjunction with the FCAT, measures the students’ performance in math and reading against national standards. The FCAT is an important test, both to students and the schools. The student’s promotion to the next grade and/or class placement is affected to some degree by his or her performance on the FCAT. The school’s grade, which has an impact on the funding that the school district receives from the state, is also affected to some degree by the students’ performance on the FCAT. The math and reading portions of the 2003 FCAT were administered to fifth graders on Monday through Wednesday, March 3-5, 2003. The science portion of the FCAT and the NRT were administered the following week, on Monday through Wednesday, March 10-12, 2003. Throughout the 2002-03 school year, Respondent “taught the FCAT” and gave her class practice FCAT questions. She used the questions as teaching tools and to help prepare her students for the actual FCAT. Respondent would sometimes explain the wording of the practice questions to her students and, as needed, she would provide the students other assistance, both individually and as a class, while they were working on the practice questions. On Friday, February 28, 2003, Respondent administered two practice tests to her students in which she tried to simulate the environment in which the students would be taking the actual FCAT the following week. For example, the tests were timed and Respondent walked around the room as she proctored the tests. Respondent helped the students during the practice tests as she had done with the practice questions administered throughout the year. At one point, she stopped the test and reviewed a math problem on the board with the class because she observed a number of students having problems with a particular question. Respondent administered the math and reading portions of the actual FCAT to 18 students in her homeroom class on March 3-5, 2003. None of those students were exceptional education students who were entitled to special accommodations. Respondent did a 15 to 20 minute “mini-review” each morning that the students were taking the actual FCAT during which she went over terminology and concepts that the students might see on the test that day. Respondent started the administration of the actual FCAT by reading the directions verbatim from the “scripts” in the Test Administration Manual. Once the students began taking the test, she monitored them from her desk and she also walked around the room on a periodic basis. Respondent also went to students’ desks when they raised their hands. The Test Administration Manual contemplates that students might raise their hands and ask questions during the test; indeed, the “scripts” that the teacher is required to read verbatim state more than once, “Please raise your hand if you have any questions.” Respondent denied giving the students any assistance in answering the test questions on the actual FCAT. According to Respondent, when a student asked her about a particular test question, she told the student that “I can’t help you,” “go back and re-read the directions,” “do the best you can,” or other words to that effect. The Department’s testing coordinator, Victoria Ash, testified that responses such as those are acceptable. Respondent also made a general statement to the class during the test reminding the students to go back and check their work if they finished the test before the allotted time expired. Ms. Ash testified that a general reminder such as that is “absolutely acceptable.” Respondent’s testimony was corroborated by student J.M., who credibly testified that he recalled more than once hearing Respondent tell other students that she could not help them during the actual FCAT. Several students testified that Respondent helped them during the actual FCAT by explaining words that they did not understand, explaining how to solve math problems, and/or by suggesting that they check their work on particular problems. That testimony was not persuasive because it lacked specificity and precision, and other than A.P., B.B. (boy), and K.J., the students testified that they were not certain that the help they remembered receiving was on the actual FCAT rather than on the practice tests that they were given by Respondent. With respect to B.B. (boy), the undersigned did not find his testimony persuasive because he also testified that Respondent helped the entire class with a math problem during the actual test, which contradicted the statements given by the other students and which suggests that he was recalling events from the practice test during which Respondent gave such help to the entire class. With respect to A.P. and K.J., the undersigned did not find them to be particularly credible witnesses based upon their demeanors while testifying. There were other inconsistencies in the students’ accounts of Respondent’s administration of the FCAT that make their testimony generally unpersuasive. For example, B.B. (girl) testified that Respondent played classical music during the actual test, which was not corroborated by any other student in the class and was contradicted by Respondent’s credible testimony that she played music during the practice tests to relax the students but that she and the other fifth-grade teachers at Avon Park Elementary School made a conscious decision not to play music during the actual FCAT. As a result of the students’ apparent confusion regarding events occurring during practice tests rather than the actual FCAT, the inconsistencies in the students’ accounts of the events during the administration of the test, the general lack of specificity and precision in the students’ accounts of the events, and Respondent’s credible denial of any wrongdoing, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish the truth of the allegations against Respondent. In making the foregoing finding, due consideration was given to the investigation undertaken by the district-level testing coordinator, Rebecca Fleck, at the time of the allegations against Respondent, and the materials generated through that investigation. The reason for the investigation was a phone call that Ms. Fleck received on Wednesday, March 5, 2003, from a Department employee who told Ms. Fleck that the Department had received an anonymous complaint about Respondent’s administration of the FCAT. Ms. Fleck went to Avon Park Elementary School on Friday, March 7, 2003, to investigate the complaint. On that date, she met with the school’s assistant principal and interviewed several of the students in Respondent’s class. She also spoke briefly with Respondent to “get her side of the story,” which consistent with her testimony at the hearing, was an unequivocal denial of any wrongdoing. Ms. Fleck decided, based upon the student interviews, that Respondent should not administer the science portion of the FCAT or the NRT the following week. As a result, Respondent was assigned to work at the school district office on March 10-12, 2003, while her students were taking the tests on those dates. Ms. Fleck also decided to interview and get statements from all of the students in Respondent’s class, which she did on the following Monday and Tuesday, March 10 and 11, 2003. On those days, the students were called to the principal’s office in groups of two or three and they were asked to fill out a questionnaire developed by Ms. Fleck. Pam Burnaham, the principal of Avon Park Elementary School, and Ms. Fleck supervised the students while they filled out the questionnaires. The students were not told that Ms. Fleck was investigating alleged wrongdoing by Respondent; they were told that the purpose of the questionnaire was to find out about their “FCAT experience.” Ms. Fleck testified that she was confident that the students understood that the questionnaire related only to the actual FCAT and not any of the practice tests administered by Respondent; however, Ms. Burnaham testified that she did not place any emphasis on the distinction, and as noted above, the students’ testimony at the hearing indicates that they may have been confused on this issue. Ms. Fleck concluded based upon the students’ responses on the questionnaires that Respondent “coached” the students during the administration of the actual FCAT. As a result, she invalidated the tests of all 18 students in Respondent’s class. Ms. Fleck’s decision to invalidate the students’ tests was not unreasonable based upon what she was told by the students, which she believed to be true; however, the invalidation of the tests is not sufficient in and of itself to impose discipline on Respondent because, as discussed above, the truth of the students’ allegations was not clearly and convincingly proven at the hearing. Several of the students gave written statements to a Department investigator in late May 2003 regarding the help that they recalled being given by Respondent on the FCAT. No weight is given to those statements because no credible evidence was presented regarding the circumstances under which the statements were made, the statements were made several months after the events described in the statements, and as was the case with the questionnaires the students filled out for Ms. Fleck, the undersigned is not persuaded that the students understood at the time they were giving the statements that they were describing events that occurred during the actual FCAT rather than the practice tests that they were given by Respondent. There is no persuasive evidence that any of the students in Respondent’s class whose tests were invalidated suffered any adverse educational consequences. Even though the school administrators did not have the benefit of the students’ FCAT scores for purposes of placement and/or developing a remediation plan, they had other information on which they could make those decisions, including the students’ scores on the NRT, which was administered the week after the FCAT and was not invalidated. Other than being reassigned to the school district office during the administration of the NRT, Respondent did not suffer any adverse employment consequences from the school district as a result of the students’ allegations and/or the invalidation of the students’ tests. To the contrary, Respondent continued to get good performance reviews and her contract has been renewed twice since the administration of the 2003 FCAT. Respondent did not administer the 2004 FCAT because this case was still pending. She was given other duties at Avon Park Elementary School while her students were taking the 2004 FCAT.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 6th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issues here are as presented through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent. In particular, it is alleged that Respondent falsified applications related to her certification as a teacher in the State of Florida and her employment as a teacher in the Duval County, Florida School System. In particular it is alleged that Respondent falsely answered questions pertaining to her arrest or conviction for a misdemeanor offense in Jacksonville, Florida. For these acts, Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, in that she has obtained her teaching certificate by fraudulent means and been guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school system. Moreover, it is alleged that further fraud was committed related to Rule 6B- 1.06(5)(a)(g) and (h) Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to fraudulent statements or disclosures.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1981, Shirley Lambert made application to be certified as a teacher in the fields of health education and physical education. This certification request was made with a State of Florida, Department of Education Teacher Certification section. A copy of the application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. As part of the application, question V asks, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Lambert responded in the negative. Lambert also signed the application form below that portion of the application related to notarization which states "I understand that Florida Statutes provide revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate is obtained by fraudulent means. (Section 231.28 FS). I certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct." As a result of this application, Respondent was issued a teacher's certificate from the State of Florida, Department of Education in the field of physical education. The date of the issuance was June 25, 1982, for a period ending June 30, 1983. A copy of this certificate is found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. In fact, as was known to the Respondent at the time of making the application for certificate, she had been arrested and charged with petit theft for an offense that occurred on April 11, 1978, the taking of clothing less than $100 in value. The basis of the charge was Section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent pled guilty to this offense and was given a ten day jail sentence which was suspended and probation imposed for a period of six months. The particulars of this disposition may be found in Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 3, which contained records of court related to the offense. On August 10, 1982, Respondent made application for employment with the Duval County School Board, Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This application had a similar question related to prior criminal offenses. The application stated, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Again, the question was answered in the negative although Respondent was aware of the aforementioned criminal violation at the time she answered this questionnaire. The application was signed by Respondent and at the place of signature, Lambert was exposed to the language at the signature line which states "I certify that all information on this application is true and accurate and recognize that it is subject to verification and that my employment and/or continuance thereof is contingent upon its accuracy." Not being mindful of her prior criminal involvement the Duval County School System hired Respondent as a substitute teacher on September 13, 1982. Her criminal record was later disclosed to the administrators within that system and her employment was terminated effective October 12, 1982. Had the administration known of the prior criminal involvement, they would not have hired Lambert in view of the fact that they could be more selective and not choose a person with a prior criminal involvement, given the high number of applicants for jobs within their system. Dalton Epting, Director of Certified personnel of Duval County Public Schools, felt that a prior conviction of a misdemeanor offense of petit larceny would be in violation of standards required of teachers in Duval County. Likewise, the offense of petit larceny would be sufficient grounds to deny certification when requested of the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent testified that in the course of the final hearing and indicated in discussing both applications which are at issue that she read those applications too fast and made a mistake in answering the questions related to her prior criminal involvement. She felt in effect that she had not read the applications carefully. Moreover, in giving her explanation at final hearing, even though she recognized her prior criminal involvement in the way of arrest and the plea of guilty to petit theft, she stated that she did not feel the questions in the applications related to misdemeanors. She was of the opinion that the questions pertained to more serious crimes. Given the plain language of the questions in the application for certification with the State of Florida and the application for a position with the Duval County School Board and the precautionary statements related to accuracy and possible penalties for inaccuracy, Respondent's explanations are not plausible. Respondent's comments do not constitute a reasonable excuse for having falsified her applications for certification and employment.
