Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Barbara Carroll, has been employed by the Holmes County District School Board as lunchroom manager at Prosperity Elementary School for more than six years. On June 15, 1981, the superintendent of the Holmes County School District formally recommended to the school board that the Petitioner be re-employed for the 1981-82 school year in the same position. On July 20, 1981, the school board rejected the superintendent's nomination on the basis of advice from the then principal of Prosperity Elementary School that the Petitioner was frequently tardy or absent, left work early, spent time away from her work area, was insubordinate and openly defiant to the school principal, and because of threats made by the Petitioner's husband when the principal reprimanded her near the end of the 1981 school year. By letter dated July 29, 1981, the Petitioner was notified of the school board's rejection of the superintendent's nomination and the rationale. Prior to his nomination, the superintendent visited the school where the Petitioner managed the lunchroom, and ate there in the lunchroom. He recommended her because his review of the school records and personnel file, together with his knowledge of the Petitioner and her reputation, for four years, convinced him that she is qualified to perform the duties required of the position. He was aware of the complaints that had been made about the Petitioner, but after he investigated, he still judged her to be the best person for the job. The Petitioner's character is good and she has done a fine job in the position over the years. The Petitioner's qualifications to manage the lunchroom were further supported by the present school principal, and two former principals while the Petitioner worked there. These witnesses corroborated the testimony of the superintendent. The Petitioner was a good manager, and she operated the lunchroom in a satisfactory manner throughout the time she was employed. She was never defiant or disobedient, and she was always punctual. The Petitioner testified in her own behalf and explained that she never intended to be insubordinate or defiant of the principal's authority. She did question his policies relating to lunchroom reports and attendance records, and although she disagreed with the principal, she always followed his instructions. The Petitioner notified the principal when she was going to be absent except on one occasion when a family member died. Even then she arranged for a substitute to operate the lunchroom. Another time the Petitioner left school early to drive a teacher to the hospital, without advising the principal, but this situation arose suddenly and happened after lunch time. The operation of the lunchroom was never interrupted. When the complaining principal came to Prosperity School, he found the Petitioner to be doing a good job managing the lunchroom. Throughout the years he remained principal the Petitioner never performed her job improperly. The lunchroom was always in operation, and the Petitioner had the lunchroom covered when she was not there. With remarkable candor, the principal described the Petitioner as a good employee, and added that perhaps she could work better with another principal. This person is not now principal of Prosperity School, There was a personality conflict between the Petitioner and the principal, especially during the 1980-81 school year. The principal had a right to expect that employees under his supervision comply with his instructions and implement his policies without complaints or grumbling, and particularly without insubordination. However, there was not sufficient evidence presented on behalf of the school board to support a finding that the actions of the Petitioner amounted to defiance of the principal's authority, or insubordination, or were more than fair comment by the Petitioner. The weight of the credible evidence supports a finding that the school board's rejection of the superintendent's nomination of the Petitioner as lunchroom manager at Prosperity School was without just cause.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Barbara Carroll, be reinstated as lunchroom manager at Prosperity Elementary School in Holmes County, Florida, effective the beginning of the midterm of school year 1981-82. An it is further RECOMMENDED that the Holmes County District School Board compensate the Petitioner, Barbara Carroll, for the period from the beginning of the 1981-82 school year to the date of her reinstatement. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 11th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 11th day of January, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bonnie K. Roberts, Esquire Post Office Box 667 Bonifay, Florida 32425
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent John H. Hopkins, Jr., has been employed with the Pinellas County school system since 1961. He has taught in elementary, junior high, middle and high schools. In addition to sick leave, a teacher employed with the Pinellas County school system is entitled to the following days of leave without loss of pay: two days per year for emergency or extenuating circumstances and two days per year for personal leave. These days are charged to the sick leave allowance of the teacher. In the 1976-77 school year, respondent was a science teacher at Disston Middle School. When a teacher has unused days which can be charged to sick leave, it is the established practice at Disston for the teacher to notify the assistant principal in advance when he intends to be absent and to complete the paperwork when he returns to duty. If a teacher does not have days accrued which can be charged to sick leave, he must take leave without pay. Leaves of absence without pay must be approved in advance by the county personnel office. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on January 17, 1977, a Monday, respondent telephoned Robert Twitty, the assistant principal at Disston and told him he would not be at school for the rest of the week. Mr. Twitty asked for the reason, and respondent informed him that he was going to Washington, D.C. for President Carter's inauguration. Twitty told respondent to call Mr. Tom Zachary, Disston's principal, and notify him of respondent's plans. Respondent did attempt to call Mr. Zachary at his home, but Zachary was out. When Zachary got home, he returned respondent's call, but was unable to reach him. On January 17, 1977, respondent, had one and one-half days remaining which could be charged to sick leave. Respondent did not return to school that week. On January 21, 1977, a Friday, the Pinellas County schools were closed due to cold weather. This decision to close the schools was not made by the Superintendent until approximately 9:30 p.m. on January 20, 1977. On Sunday evening, January 23, 1977, respondent again called Mr. Twitty at home and advised him that he would not be returning to duty at Disston on Monday because he was going to the county office to resolve some problems. Respondent telephoned Mr. John Hudson, the assistant superintendent for personnel, on Monday, January 24, 1977, but Hudson was not in. On Tuesday, January 25th, respondent had a doctor's appointment which took about two hours. He did not report to work on this day or for the rest of the school week. On Wednesday, January 26th, respondent spoke with Hudson on the telephone. While Hudson could not recall the substance of this conversation, It was respondent's recollection that Hudson told respondent to report back to Disston on Monday, January 31st. Dr. Douglas McBriarty, petitioner's director of instructional personnel, telephoned respondent on January 27, 1977, and told respondent that he had spoken to Superintendent Sakkis and, by his direction, respondent was to report to work the following morning. Respondent did not report to Disston on January 28th. At the hearing, respondent had no recollection of having talked to Dr. McBriarty on January 27, 1977. On the morning of January 31, 1977, respondent reported to work at Disston. He was called into Principal Zachary's office and was told that Dr. McBriarty would be coming out to the school later to discuss respondent's absence from school. Respondent then went up to his classroom. Assistant principal Twitty came into respondent's classroom and told him that Zachary wanted to see his lesson plans. Feeling that he was being harassed by Zachary, respondent told Twitty that he was leaving school and going to Clearwater to the county offices. As respondent was walking out to his car, Mr. Zachary came out to the parking lot and told respondent not to leave because Dr. McBriarty was coming. Respondent left the school and did not return. By letter dated February 2, 1977, to respondent from Superintendent Sakkis, respondent was notified that he was suspended from his duties at Disston without pay beginning Monday, January 24, 1977, and that it would be recommended to the School Board that he be dismissed. This action was based upon charges that respondent had been guilty of being absent without leave, misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty. These charges were supplemented and amended by pleadings dated May 25, 1977, and June 27, 1977. Respondent had previously been suspended by the School Board without pay from March 4 through March 19, 1976. This action was based upon misconduct in office in that respondent had been absent without proper authority. (Exhibit No. 2) Prior to being transferred to Disston Middle School in January of 1975,. respondent taught biology and general science courses for five years at Dixie Hollins High School. Kenneth Watson, then principal of Dixie Hollins, had numerous problems with and complaints about respondent. These involved the grading and disciplining of students in his classes, the quality of his teaching, refusal to admit to his class a student who had been given an admission slip by the dean, the school's receipt of telephone calls and messages for respondent unrelated to his teaching assignments and respondent's relationship with his students. Although respondent was the first black teacher at Dixie Hollins, Principal Watson did not conceive respondent's problems to be of a racial nature. He felt that respondent's difficulty was the manner in which he handled students and presented materials to them. Dr. McBriarty observed respondent's classes at Dixie Hollins on three or four occasions and found that respondent was not able to communicate with students and that there was not a satisfactory teaching relationship between respondent and his students. Feeling that respondent was no longer effective at Dixie Hollins and in order to allow him an opportunity to improve his performance, it was determined by respondent's superiors that he should be transferred to Disston Middle School in January of 1975. This was to be a temporary transfer until a position was available in another high school. Prior to his transfer to Disston, respondent ordered from Westinghouse Learning Corporation a biology course instructor's kit for a 30-day on-approval examination. The invoice was addressed to respondent at Dixie Hollins High School, and the total amount due if the materials were not returned within 30 days was $177.25. The merchandise was ordered by respondent without a prior purchase order and was not returned within the 30-day period. When the bill from Westinghouse came to the attention of the school, which was after respondent had been transferred to Disston, inquiries were made. No one seemed to know where the kit was. The materials were finally returned to Westinghouse some months later and the charge was cancelled from the School Board's account. There was no evidence that respondent ever personally requested the school or the county to pay for this material. Although respondent was dissatisfied with being assigned to teach in a middle school in lieu of a high school, his first semester's performance at Disston Middle School was without serious criticism and his principal's appraisal ranged from good to excellent. His problems began when he was reassigned to Disston for the 1975/76 school year, and intensified during the 1976/77 school year. On the "instructional appraisal and improvement form for 1975/76, Principal Tom Zachary rated respondent as unsatisfactory in the areas of classroom management, preparation and organization, and attitude and growth. Zachary urged respondent to take part in middle school certification. Respondent was again assigned to Disston for the 1976/77 school year, although he had requested a transfer to a high school. Due to the poor evaluation for the previous year, in August of 1976, Principal Zachary prepared and discussed with respondent a list of objectives and directives to help improve respondent's instructional abilities and his evaluation for 1976/77. (Exhibits 12 and 13) During the first semester of the 1976/77 school year, several of respondent's superiors visited his classroom. Principal Zachary observed respondent's classes on several consecutive days in November of 1976. During his first days' observation, the students were assigned to copy materials from the blackboard. When he visited the class the following day, no reference was made by respondent to the blackboard material. Zachary found the students to be inattentive to respondent with respondent providing no signs of direction, no continuity and no teaching techniques. In Zachary's opinion, no learning was taking place and respondent's classes were completely disorganized. Area assistant superintendent Lee Benjamin observed three of respondent's classes on December 14, 1976. While he found the second period class, a class of higher ability, to be satisfactory, the first and third period classes were observed to be chaotic with no real learning or discipline occurring. Mr. Benjamin felt that the students did not understand what the assignment was due to the unclear nature of respondent's instructions. It was Benjamin's opinion that respondent had great difficulty with teaching and discipline and therefore was not effective. In early January of 1977, science supervisor William Beggs visited three of respondent's classes. While he found the second period class to have some degree of order and direction, the first and third period classes were observed to be highly disorganized. The students did not appear to understand what they were supposed to accomplish and respondent was not adhering to his lesson plans. Upon a review of respondent's lesson plans, Beggs did not feel that respondent was covering the subject matters expected of a seventh grade life science course. In late November of 1976, respondent was involved with the TORC (teacher renewal) program. Dr. Shelby Ridel, a resource teacher for petitioner, observed respondent's classes to be utterly chaotic, with no pattern or continuity in the tasks to be performed. The students were confused by the assignments given them, and respondent would not answer their questions. He often sent students out to the hall for disciplinary reasons. While respondent appeared cooperative with and receptive to the changes suggested by Dr. Ridel, she saw no real improvement in his classes over the several weeks she worked with respondent. She felt that respondent's greatest problem was classroom management. Assistant Principal Twitty, who was responsible for the discipline of Disston students, experienced more than usual discipline problems with respondent's classes. Respondent was told on numerous occasions not to put students out in the hall for disciplinary reasons. Nevertheless, he continued to do so. Such action not only violated school policy; it also was disruptive to teachers in nearby classrooms. Along with several other teachers, respondent was assigned to an interdisciplinary team to work with students and their parents. As a part of his responsibilities, he was to prepare the science section of a newsletter. He often failed to attend the team meetings and, on at least one occasion, he failed to prepare his section of the newsletter. Prior to his departure from Disston in January of 1977, respondent had checked out a tape recorder and several books from the school library. He had also borrowed from Dr. Ridel a seventh grade science curriculum guide. The tape recorder was returned by respondent in April of 1977, and the other items were not returned until June or July, 1977. Respondent's explanation for this delay was that no one had requested the return of these materials and that he did not want to go back to Disston after his suspension. Respondent admitted that his classes gave the appearance of being chaotic and disorganized. It was his explanation that he utilized an individual, systems approach to teach his students and that his superiors did not understand or approve of this teaching technique. He further explained the adverse reaction by his superiors to his classroom techniques by emphasizing the lack of teaching materials and equipment made available to him at Disston, his inexperience in teaching sixth and seventh grade students and his desire to return to high school teaching.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is recommended that respondent's teaching contract be cancelled and that he be dismissed as an employee of the Pinellas County school system. Respectfully submitted and entered this 26th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: B. Edwin Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518 George M. Osborne, Esquire Rutland Central Bank Building 55 Fifth Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Suite 990, Lincoln Center 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609
The Issue Should discipline be imposed on Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 766501, based upon the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Case No. 023-0064-R, before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 766501, covering the area of Elementary Education, which is (was) valid through June 30, 2003. Additional Facts Respondent was an employee of the Duval County School District (the District) in the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years. She was assigned to Pine Estates Elementary School No. 250 (Pine Estates). Her principal was James Young. The basis for her employment was as an annual contract teacher, in which the principal would determine at the end of each school year whether to retain the Respondent as a member of the faculty. As a beginning teacher, Respondent was required to undergo a professional orientation program referred to as a Professional Education Competence Program, also referred to as the Teacher Induction Program (TIP). The manual describing the TIP details referred to the length of the program and Respondent's obligation to complete the program where it stated: All program participants must complete the Induction Program within one year from date of hire. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. The manual was provided to participants in the TIP. The start date for Respondent associated with her commencement of the TIP was August 9, 2000. The TIP required certain documentation for program completion. Among the requirements for documentation was the need for Respondent to "create a portfolio in which evidence of demonstration of mastery of the competencies are included as required for program completion." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. Reference to competencies concerns 16 measurements of the teacher's abilities. They are in turn: Write and speak in a logical and understandable style, using appropriate grammar and sentence structure, and demonstrate a command of standard English, enunciation, clarity of oral directions, and pace and precision in speaking. Read, comprehend, and interpret professional and other written material. Compute, think logically, and solve problems. Recognize signs of students' difficulty with the reading and computation process and apply appropriate measures to improve students' reading and computation performance. Recognize patterns of physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development in students, including exceptional students in the regular classroom. Recognize and demonstrate awareness of the educational needs of students who have limited proficiency in English and employ appropriate teaching strategies. Use and integrate appropriate technology in teaching and learning processes and in managing, evaluating, and improving instruction. Use assessment and other diagnostic strategies to assist the continuous development and acquisition of knowledge and understanding of the learner. Use teaching and learning strategies that include consideration of each student's learning styles, needs and background. Demonstrate the ability to maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students' families to increase achievement. Recognize signs of tendency towards violence and severe emotional distress in students and apply techniques of crisis intervention. Recognize signs of alcohol and drug abuse in students and know how to appropriately work with such students and seek assistance designed to prevent future abuse. Recognize the physical and behavioral indicators of child abuse and neglect and know rights and responsibilities regarding reporting. Demonstrate the ability to maintain a positive environment in the classroom while achieving order and discipline. Demonstrate the ability to grade student performance effectively. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the value of, and strategies for, promoting parental involvement in education. The 16 competencies were broken down into subcategories (indicators) for each competency. In preparing the necessary portfolio to demonstrate competencies for the TIP, these directions were given to Respondent and other beginning teachers: minimum of two (2) indicators must be marked for each competency. All documentation must be developed by the participant during participation in the TIP. Initial and date the demonstration of each completed indicator by principals/designee. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. Under Special Notes by way of additional instructions to Respondent and other teachers participating in the TIP, it was stated: Principals may require more than the minimum indicators. Verify selected indicators reflect the intent and language of the competency. Exhibits alone do not indicate mastery of competencies. [Emphasis supplied]. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. Upon the expiration of the period for completing the TIP, in association with the portfolio as part of the overall Professional Development Plan for Respondent and other beginning teachers, a form would be executed explaining the success or lack of success by Respondent and her contemporaries in caring out the expectations within the TIP. In particular this related to the portfolio where the form set out: TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAM: OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF COMPLETION ALL COMPETENCIES LISTED COMPETENCIES LISTED ABOVE HAVE BEEN BELOW HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY SATISFACTORILY DEMONSTRATED. DEMONSTRATED _____________________ Number(s) ______________________ _____________________ Principal/s Signature Principal's Signature ______________________ _____________________ Date Date I have reviewed all Portfolio Documents, Competency Exhibits and completed Professional Development Plan regarding _______________________, a TIP participant in the Duval County School District, and am providing this form as verification that he/she ______HAS _______ HAS NOT successfully demonstrated all requirements for completion of the Florida TIP including pre/post-planning activities. _____________________________________________________________ Principal/Date School Name/Number Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. The Professional Development Plan as part of the TIP is also referred to as an Action Plan. On September 15, 2000, Principal Young, gave Respondent a memorandum referring to her obligation under the TIP, to include involvement with the preparation of the portfolio. In pertinent part the memorandum stated: New hires are entered into the program (TIP) as a category 1 participant until the receipt of the required documentation (professional certificate, portfolio, etc.) Unless otherwise notified your responsible to complete the entire program. TIP participants have 180 days from the date of hire to complete the TIP program. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. According to Monica McAleer, who was the Coordinator of Professional Development for the District during Respondent's employment, the TIP is a support program for beginning teachers which provides workshops, a cadre from the District, and mentors within the respective schools to assist the new teacher in demonstrating the necessary competence to obtain a Professional Teaching Certificate. As Ms. McAleer explained, in the event that a participant did not conclude the TIP within the normal time line, the principal in the school could request that the teacher be carried over in his or her employment and additional time be provided for the participant to finish the program. The other component to demonstrating professional competence to move from the status of a Temporary Certificate to that of a Professional Teaching Certificate, would be observations by evaluators of performance by the beginning teacher in the classroom setting. As Ms. McAleer established, the preparation of the portfolio is the responsibility of the participant. It must be the participant's work, not that of someone else. For example, in a newsletter addressed to parents of his or her student, created by the teacher preparing the portfolio, could be included as part of the portfolio to respond to competency one. This newsletter should not be that of another teacher, directed to parents of students not taught by the teacher who submitted the portfolio. As Ms. McAleer explained, the inclusion within the portfolio of material not developed by the teacher preparing the portfolio, would be contrary to the District policy requiring the preparation of the portfolio as part of the TIP. After assignment to her school, an initial orientation for Respondent and other teachers was provided by a member of the cadre from the District in one of several sessions within the system. The cadre member responsible for Respondent's orientation was Karen Lynette Patterson. The cadre works with the beginning teachers providing needed resources. The cadre conducts workshops on topics such as classroom management, instructional organization, instruction delivery, and so forth. The cadre observes the teacher in the classroom setting. The cadre would talk with the teacher about things necessary to include within the portfolio. As Ms. McAleer described, the principal prepares a Professional Development Plan for the new teacher and arranges for an in-school mentor to assist the beginning teacher. The professional development facilitator or mentor within the school works with the new teachers and meets frequently with the new teacher. Mr. Young served in that capacity for Respondent. The principal determines whether the TIP is completed timely and reviews the documents in the portfolio to determine their adequacy. In this instance Mr. Young was both the mentor and principal for Respondent. Ordinarily, once the period for completing the TIP has expired, the principal executes the forms that have been described, indicating whether the new teacher has or has not met all requirements for completing the TIP, again according to Ms. McAleer. Ms. Patterson in her position as a cadre member from the District worked at the school level to promote the TIP. She worked immediately with professional development facilitators, the mentors assigned to the new teachers. Her job also involved direct observation of the new teachers. Ms. Patterson's first meeting with the Respondent occurred at the August 2000 orientation provided to Respondent and other new teachers participating in the TIP. Ms. Patterson emphasized the expectation within the TIP manual calling for the participants to develop their own documentation in relations to their portfolios. During the August 20000 orientation Respondent was told that the documents provided in the portfolio must be developed by Respondent. On September 6, 2000, Ms. Patterson returned to Pine Estates and met with the new teachers again on the subject of the TIP. This was followed by a November 6, 2000, meeting with Respondent to discuss the opportunities for appeal, if Respondent felt that circumstances within the TIP were not in her favor. At that time the requirements for materials to be placed in the portfolio were also discussed. Respondent did not complete the TIP within the school year 2000-2001, and Ms. McAleer at the instigation of Mr. Young, was requested to give an extension for Respondent to complete the TIP. The reason for the request was that Respondent had gone on Family Medical Leave at the end of that school year, which affected her completion of the program. After Respondent returned from her Family Medical Leave in August 2001, Ms. Patterson had a further opportunity to explain the requirements for the portfolio to Respondent. Respondent had been given 45 extra days to conclude the portfolio upon return from the leave. Respondent requested Ms. Patterson to get a copy of Respondent's previous incomplete portfolio and Ms. Patterson accommodated her in that respect. Again Ms. Patterson made certain that Respondent understood that the work to be placed in the portfolio that was being submitted in the future had to be developed by Respondent alone. In August 2001, Ms. Patterson spoke with Mr. Young to discuss his interest in determining what was necessary for Respondent to complete the TIP. During workshops Ms. Patterson described the opportunity for beginning teachers to obtain copies of the portfolios of prior teachers who had completed the TIP, to use as examples when the present participant developed his or her portfolio. Ms. Patterson worked with Respondent by going through the things that could be put in Respondent's portfolio, with the approval of the principal. However, as Ms. Patterson explained the decision on the sufficiency of the portfolio resides with the principal, not the cadre member. Ms. Patterson told Respondent, according to the nature of the requirements for the competency, what things might be used for her portfolio that were taken from the classroom experience. At the time Ms. Patterson was going over the requirements for the portfolio, Respondent had already chosen certain exhibits to be placed in the portfolio. In the prior school year, on September 15, 2000, when Mr. Young met Respondent and other beginning teachers he provided them material concerning the TIP. The TIP manual was part of that material. He also showed them examples of what he considered to be an acceptable portfolio. Mr. Young served as Respondent's mentor in relation to the TIP given the circumstances at his school and the lack of qualified teachers to serve in that capacity. As the mentor for Respondent, Mr. Young met with her and discussed the Professional Development Plan. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5. That plan was ongoing at the end of November 2000, when it was executed by Respondent and Mr. Young as mentor and principal. More specifically, as mentor Mr. Young provided guidance to Respondent concerning the TIP. Although Respondent did not complete the TIP within the 2000-2001 school year, Mr. Young brought her back as an annual contract teacher for the 2001-2002 school year, having arranged to extend the time for her compliance with the TIP. Her continuation as an annual contract teacher in the school 2001-2002 was contingent upon completing the TIP within the additional 45 days which commenced with that school year. Mr. Young explained that contingency to the Respondent. This meant that the deadline for completing the TIP was mid October 2001. Lillie Granger was staffing supervisor at Pine Estates. When the 45 days were up, Ms. Granger reminded Mr. Young of the expiration of that deadline and the need to bring in a replacement teacher for Respondent. At that time Mr. Young decided against terminating Respondent's annual contract as a teacher at the school. Over the period in the fall 2001, Mr. Young spoke several times with the Respondent about completing, among other items the portfolio. Mr. Young met six times with Respondent in the fall of 2001, concerning the TIP. One written note provided to the Respondent by Mr. Young on October 22, 2001 stated: "I need to see your portfolio and plans from 8/7 thru 10/26." In a response that is shown on that same memorandum, Respondent refers to the plans but makes no mention of the portfolio. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 7. On November 13, 2001, Mr. Young prepared and provided to Respondent a notice of unsatisfactory evaluation for the school year 2001-2002. In this notification mention is made of the failure to complete the TIP and turn in the portfolio which is part of that program. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 8. Mr. Young signed the notice and his signature was witnessed. The document indicates that Respondent was not comfortable with signing the document when it was provided to her on the aforementioned date. Notwithstanding the reluctance to sign the document, according to Mr. Young she appeared to read its contents and Mr. Young addressed each item within the document during the meeting. Respondent's portfolio was not turned in until April 2002. Before that time Mr. Young had executed the form in relation to the TIP which is described as the Official Statement of Completion, in which as of December 4, 2001, it was noted that Respondent had not successfully demonstrated all requirements for completion of the TIP. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 9. In assisting Respondent with the preparation of her portfolio, Mr. Young provided Respondent completed portfolios from other teachers to use as a guide. It was Respondent's desire to use a completed portfolio as a guide. She took one completed portfolio and brought it back. She then chose a second one. The latter portfolio which Respondent chose to use was prepared by Ursyln Austin, a teacher who had finished the TIP. Respondent took Ms. Austin's portfolio, but never returned it to the office at Pine Estates where it had been obtained. By way of explanation, Respondent indicated that the portfolio went missing from some boxes when furniture and boxes were moved from one classroom she used to another. The black binder introduced at hearing and its overall contents, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11, constitute the portfolio provided by Respondent to comply with the TIP. In Mr. Young's presence Respondent verified that every page within the binder was her portfolio. At that time Mr. Young told Respondent that he would get back with her concerning the submission. He had not reviewed the document. He suspected that some of the material within the portfolio was not prepared by Respondent. In view of his suspicion, the District office had been contacted before the conversation between Mr. Young and Respondent concerning the portfolio. The document had been found on his desk after his absence from his office and he had been told that the Respondent left it there. But until the moment of their conversation there was no confirmation by Respondent that the document was hers. The material in the portfolio which Mr. Young discovered, that he suspected as being prepared by another teacher was pertaining to Ms. Austin's work on her portfolio, with which Mr. Young was familiar. In particular Mr. Young noted within the Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11 under competency one, the apple or peach design relates to material that Mr. Young had seen, that Ms. Austin prepared. That item refers to the "5th grade." At the time Respondent was not a fifth grade teacher. Within the binder pertaining to competency three, were scores for approximately 20 students, and at that time Respondent had a very small class, inferred to be less than 20 students. Handwriting on that page had the appearance of Ms. Austin's handwriting. The spelling program referred to in the worksheet was a program used by fifth grade teachers. Under competency seven, it references the fifth grade; as with the earlier reference this was a grade that Respondent did not teach. The procedure noted in the page under competency seven for getting the attention of the class was one used by Ms. Austin and her class, as Mr. Young recalls. Further support for Mr. Young's suspicion came from the student work behind competency eight, because he believed that it would not be within the ability for the grade level taught by the Respondent as of the September 2000 date reflected on the school work. Under competency ten reference was made to math problems for a department where a teacher taught but a single subject, and was the wrong subject in relation to Respondent's assignment at the time. Having reviewed Respondent's portfolio, Mr. Young provided Respondent with a written assessment of the various competencies within the portfolio. That critique was dated April 22, 2002. Through it Mr. Young points out those portions of the portfolio that were perceived to come from another classroom teacher. In this communication he does not name the teacher, Ms. Austin. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered In summary, the critique indicates that only three of the 16 competencies had been satisfied and the remaining parts of the portfolio did not meet requirements. Two days before that time Mr. Young had prepared another Official Statement of Completion on the Respondent's participation in the TIP, in which he indicates that Respondent had not completed the TIP. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 2. A meeting was convened between Mr. Young and Respondent, together with Leroy Starling, an investigator for the District, and John Williams, the District Director for Professional Standards. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11 was discussed in the meeting. Questions were asked about the pink pages within the document and little markings on contents of the exhibit. Respondent said, "I don't know what those indications, those markings on the pink paper mean." She then inquired if the other participants in the meeting were going to go through the "entire book." Mr. Young replied in the affirmative, at which point, Respondent said "Well I am leaving you to do what you gotta do and I will do what I gotta do. You will hear from my people." She then left the meeting. Within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11, those materials contained in the black binder, is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 3. The included exhibit, less than the whole, is constituted of those items which Ursyln Vanessa Austin identified as being found within the portfolio she submitted to comply with the TIP, later used by Respondent. Her understanding was that material contained in her portfolio must be in association with what she did in her classroom to demonstrate compliance with the competencies incumbent on her as a beginning teacher. For example, a copy of a parent newsletter in her portfolio had to be her newsletter used for the benefit of parents whose students were in her class. In sequence, the items Ms. Austin established as coming from her portfolio were: the lead page that identifies the heading competency one, was used by Ms. Austin as part of her portfolio; the markings on the pink page which is competency one, constituted of the letters A-G, were placed by Ms. Austin to designate using those subcategories under competency number one lettered as A and G; the pink color of the paper was recognized by Ms. Austin as her choice of paper color; and the font for the print on the page was her choice. Continuing, under competency two acknowledged by Respondent as hers, Ms. Austin identified that item as having been prepared and submitted with her portfolio. The letters B and D in the lower right-hand corner of competency two were placed by Ms. Austin in relation to subcategories which she had chosen. Likewise, Ms. Austin identified the pink page competency three as hers. Ms. Austin established that the pink page competency three with the letters A and D placed by her for her choice of subcategories, was in association with material provided with her portfolio. Similarly with competency four placed on pink paper, Ms. Austin had prepared the pink sheet competency four with the letters G and H (subcategories) and submitted that page with her portfolio. The same description holds true concerning competency five with the letters D and F for subcategories found on the pink page competency five as prepared by Ms. Austin with the initials. For the remaining competencies six through sixteen on pink paper, some with initials, some with not, Ms. Austin identified those materials as being associated with her portfolio. Other material within the Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 3, which upon Ms. Austin's identification became Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 3, followed the lead sheet for competency one. The welcome to the families for the 2000-2001 school year, was prepared by Ms. Austin and submitted with her portfolio. The logo on that document was used by Ms. Austin and the letter involved her "5th grade class." Behind competency three Ms. Austin identified the spelling for third period as submitted with her portfolio, as a form of a chart related to competency three. The document referred to as Rubric Endangered/Threatened Animals of our region was an item submitted with Ms. Austin's portfolio. Related to competency seven, the document Pine Estates Elementary grade five 2000- 2001 classroom procedures was submitted by Ms. Austin with her portfolio. She recalls the hand signals portrayed on the page as being the basis of communicating with her class. Behind competency eight, a story referred to as "Amazing Grace," dated September 18, 2000, was a paper done by Ms. Austin's student, with a post-it note at the bottom being written by the Respondent commenting on the paper. The paper and post-it note were submitted by Ms. Austin with her portfolio. Behind competency ten is a newsletter which Ms. Austin sent out on December 14, 2000. It bears an extension number for the telephone which corresponds to the room number which Ms. Austin had at the time. The topics in the newsletter are familiar to Ms. Austin as being material that was being discussed at the time. The letter was provided with Ms. Austin's portfolio. Behind competency 12, the letter entitled "Dear DARE Student" and the pamphlet "Pressure to Smoke" were submitted with Ms. Austin's portfolio. At that time students were involved with a DARE program of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office having to do with prevention of drug abuse. These materials were used in her class. Those items that have been mentioned in this paragraph were acknowledged by Respondent as being submitted with her portfolio. Before Respondent placed Ms. Austin's portfolio material in Respondent's portfolio, Ms. Austin had a conversation with Respondent about Ms. Austin's portfolio. Respondent told Ms. Austin that she was looking at Ms. Austin's portfolio as a basis for doing Respondent's portfolio. This conversation took place after Ms. Austin had submitted her portfolio to Mr. Young to gain his approval. Ms. Austin never gave Respondent permission to take items from her portfolio and put them in Respondent's portfolio.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of those provisions within Counts 2 through 7, to the Administrative Complaint, dismissing Count 1, thereby addressing the prospect that Respondent may later apply for a teaching certificate, her prior certificate having ended June 30, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S _________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 22nd day of November, 2005.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for alleged violation of various provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B
Findings Of Fact Respondent Clayton McWilliams holds Florida teaching certificate number 653517, covering the area of substitute teaching, which is valid through June 30, 1994. He is 27 years of 1989, from Valdosta State College in Valdosta, Georgia. After a few brief months employment in retail sales in Tallahassee, Florida, Respondent returned to Madison, Florida, where he was born and lived prior to attending college. Respondent returned to Madison in August of 1989, after being contacted by the high school coach there regarding the possible employment of Respondent as an assistant coach at the high school from which Respondent graduated. He was employed in the 1989 County School Board. Subsequently, he was employed by the Board during the 1990 high school. Respondent served as an assistant coach during this period. While serving as a substitute teacher during the 1989 Respondent was responsible for a ninth grade science class. Female students M.B., R.B., J.D., and R.C., were in a group surrounding Respondent's desk, talking with Respondent. All the students in the group were curious about Respondent and asked him such questions as what are you going to coach, are you married, do you have a girl friend, and why did you come back to Madison? Respondent knew many of the students on a first name basis and, in the course of bantering with the group, responded at one point to the students' questions about his private life by asking the students about their social lives, if they kissed their boy friends with their mouths open, and if they used their tongues. There was general laughter from the students, although R.B. didn't think the question was "any of [Respondent's] business." This was the only question or comment that Respondent ever made that bothered R.B. R.B. regarded Respondent's conduct in the ensuing two years as "flirting" and "didn't ever think anything bad about it." The next year when R.B. was in the tenth grade (1990 photograph. Respondent later told R.B. that he stared at the photograph every night. When R.B. was in the eleventh grade and not a student in a class taught by Respondent, Respondent jokingly asked R.B. in the presence of D.C., her boyfriend at the time and an athlete with whom Respondent enjoyed a rapport, why she wanted to date such a "big, old dummy." There were other times that Respondent would see R.B., tell her that she looked nice, wink at her and blow her kisses. During the 1990 M.B., by asking her if she kissed with her mouth open, and would she teach Respondent how to do this. Respondent also told M.B. that she looked beautiful. M.B. was not a student in a class taught by Respondent. During the 1991-1992 school year, M.B. was a high school junior and a varsity cheerleader. Respondent continued to speak to M.B., although she was not his student, when he saw her on the school campus or at sporting events. He continued to ask M.B. about kissing with her mouth open, whether she would teach Respondent how to do this, and when could she teach him. M.B. declined to specify any time or place to meet with Respondent. M.B. did not disclose Respondent's behavior to anyone at this time. On one occasion, M.B. and other eleventh grade students, including her boyfriend, were in the high school library, ordering their class rings. Respondent became involved in conversation with the students and asked M.B. again about teaching him to kiss open would lose his job for M.B. Although he heard these comments, M.B.'s boyfriend considered Respondent to be joking. In the fall of the 1991 Wakulla County for a game which would determine whether the team could compete in the district championship playoff. Upon boarding the bus after the game for the trip home, Respondent was asked by M.B. if he was going to sit with her on the bus. He replied that he would if she saved him a seat. Respondent stored the athletic equipment which he was carrying, returned to the forward section of the bus and assumed the vacant seat beside M.B. Since the team had lost the game, most passengers on the bus were despondent. In the course of the trip, M.B. and Respondent leaned their heads against the back of the seat in front of them and Respondent talked about college and how being from a small high school had been difficult when he had attended the University of Florida before transferring to Valdosta State. Respondent had his hands between his knees as he talked and at one point placed it on M.B.'s knee or patted her knee. She, feeling discomfited by the gesture, brushed his hand away. This was the only time that Respondent touched a student where such touching was interpreted by a student to have sexual significance. Respondent testified that he patted M.B. because she acted as though "something had been bothering her" and characterized the pat as something he would give "football players or baseball players at school." Eventually, M.B. became sleepy and rested her head against the bus window. Respondent in a normal tone of voice offered to let her place her head on his shoulder, but M.B. declined. During the 1991 photographs. On the back of his photograph, Respondent wrote: M., I remember when I first saw you, you struck me as beautiful. I really think you are. You are truly special to me. Please know that I love you. Stay sweet and pretty. Love, Clayton. P.S., Please teach me sometime. Mary Rice, a teacher at the high school, began teaching there at approximately the same time as Respondent. Rice, like Respondent, was single. Rice, like Respondent, enjoyed informal relationships with some students, such as the cheerleaders for whom she served as staff sponsor. The cheerleaders, similar to many students who called Respondent by his first name, referred to Rice as "Mary". She became engaged in October of 1991 to Scott Alley, another teacher who occasionally substituted at the school. Rice and Respondent had a normal collegial relationship. Prior to Christmas of 1991, Rice and Respondent were in the school office discussing what they were getting their significant others for Christmas. Respondent told Rice that he would tell her what he was getting his girl friend for Christmas if Rice would have sex with him. Later in the day, Respondent got down on his knees in the hallway outside of Rice's classroom in the presence of students and asked Rice to "go with me before you get married". While Respondent meant that he wanted to have sex with Rice, he did not explicitly state such in the hallway. Later, Respondent sent Rice a note containing four blanks for letters. According to Rice, the note stated that Respondent would tell Rice what he was getting for his girlfriend for Christmas if Rice would " ". Rice assumed the four blanks to represent a sexually suggestive word. Rice stored the note in her desk drawer. She determined not to tell anyone about the note. In February of 1992, her fiancee, Scott Alley, discovered the note in the desk while he was substituting for Rice. He showed the note to Debra Wetherington, a school secretary, and later asked Rice about the note. Rice was startled that Alley had found the note and became upset. Later, in a telephone conversation initiated by Respondent, he discussed the note with Alley. Respondent apologized to Alley for any misunderstanding about the note, stating that he had written it merely to get a laugh from Rice. Respondent told Alley that he, Respondent, just flirted with everyone and that was "how I broke the ice with everyone." After Respondent's apology, the two men agreed to remain friends. Subsequently, the note was destroyed by Alley. Debra Wetherington, the secretary at the high school, frequently interacts with the teaching staff. Initially, Respondent and Wetherington enjoyed a good working relationship no different than those she shared with other teachers. She had known Respondent all of his life. Over a period of time, Respondent began to flirt with Wetherington, asking her about open mouth kissing. At these times, Wetherington ignored his remarks or laughed them off as a joke. When his behavior persisted, she told him that his conduct bothered her and that he should stop. She never told her husband or any one else about Respondent's attentions, hoping to resolve the matter without confrontation and embarrassment. On or about February 25, 1992, Respondent came into the school office and physically put his arms around Wetherington in a "bear" hug and, according to Wetherington, tried to put his tongue in her ear. Also present in the room were the school resource officer and another office worker. No eyewitness corroboration of Wetherington's allegation that Respondent attempted to put his tongue in her ear was offered at the final hearing and she had not reported this detail in an earlier affidavit regarding the incident. Respondent denies he attempted to put his tongue in her ear. Respondent's testimony is more credible on this point and it is not established that he attempted to put his tongue in Whetherington's ear. Wetherington later complained about Respondent's conduct to Lou Miller, the school principal. Miller called Respondent into her office, discussed the incident with him, and directed him to have no such contact with Wetherington in the future. Respondent apologized for his conduct, both to Miller and Wetherington. While Respondent and Wetherington had no further contact, Wetherington later asked another teacher, Tony Stukes, if Respondent was angry with her since she had not seen or heard from him lately. On or about March 24, 1992, Respondent saw M.B. in the hallway outside the door of his classroom while classes were changing. Respondent spoke to M.B. and told her that he had a dream about her. M.B. went to see Mary Rice, the cheerleading sponsor, who had earlier asked M.B. if she was having any problems with a teacher. Rice had taken this action following the discovery of Respondent's note in Rice's desk by Rice's fiancee. M.B. had confided in Rice about Respondent's previous flirtatious behavior toward her. Rice told her to write down future incidents. After relating to Rice the comment of Respondent about having a dream, M.B. was asked by Rice to go back to Respondent and find out more about the dream. M.B. went into Respondent's class where the students were working on a geography project. An overhead projector displayed the continent of South America on a board. Some students were tracing the projection on the board, preparatory to cutting the shape out of the board. Other groups were cutting out other continents. The lights in the room were turned on. Respondent was sitting at his desk, cutting out the Asian continent. M.B. went to a chair by Respondent's desk and sat down. M.B. was on her lunch break and was not a student in the class. However, in the context of the situation, her entry into the classroom was not that unusual. Respondent had on previous occasions entered an art class where M.B. was a student and had spoken with her or, on some of these occasions, had also spoken with the teacher in the class. After seating herself by his desk, M.B. asked Respondent to tell her about his dream. Respondent replied that he couldn't, but M.B. persisted. Finally, Respondent wrote on a piece of paper, "I had a dream about you and me." M.B. then wrote on the paper, "Well, what happened?" The rest of the written exchange is as follows: Respondent: "Well, all I remember is you were teaching me." M.B.: "Teaching you what?" Respondent: "Guess." M.B. "I don't know. Why don't you tell me what I was supposedly teaching you." Respondent: "How to kiss with my mouth open. I liked it, too. I woke up sweating and holding my pillow to my mouth." M.B. then took possession of the piece of paper on which she and Respondent had been writing, left the class and went back to see Mary Rice. M.B. discussed the matter with Rice. After this discussion, M.B.'s feelings about Respondent solidified and she determined that she detested Respondent. At Rice's suggestion, she then went to see Principal Miller. Miller and School Superintendent Eugene Stokes confronted Respondent with the note. Respondent stated he meant no harm by his conduct, recognized that he had a problem and needed help for his aberrant behavior. After a discussion of options, including suspension or resignation, Respondent thought about the matter overnight and submitted his resignation to Stokes on March 27, 1992. Respondent was told that the matter must be reported to the Professional Practices Commission. Respondent was, however, under the impression that his resignation would conclude the necessity for any further proceedings of a disciplinary nature. Until the time of his resignation, Respondent had received good evaluations. His contract was renewed annually. However, as expressed at final hearing by Miller and Stokes, they would not rehire Respondent in view of his past behaviors which now, in their opinion, would reduce his effectiveness as a teacher at Madison High School. Subsequently, Respondent was informed on May 28, 1992, that an investigation regarding alleged misconduct been instituted by the Professional Practices Commission. In August of 1992, Respondent sought and was appointed to a teaching position in Hawthorne, Florida, at the combined junior/senior high school in that city for the 1992 completion of course work for issuance of a five year teaching certificate from the State of Florida which he received in October of 1992. Dr. Lamar Simmons, the supervising principal at the school in Hawthorne, Florida, where Respondent is presently employed is acquainted with Miller. Simmons contacted Miller at the Madison High School, prior to employing Respondent. Miller informed Simmons that Respondent had been a satisfactory employee. Miller did not disclose Respondent's alleged misconduct to Simmons because she assumed Respondent was receiving professional help for his problem and that the issuance of Respondent's five year certificate indicated that further disciplinary proceedings by the Professional Practices Commission had been abandoned. Respondent later disclosed the instant disciplinary proceeding to Simmons. To date of the final hearing, Respondent continues to teach at the school in Hawthorne without apparent incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the third, fourth, and fifth count of the Administrative Complaint, and placing Respondent's teaching certificate on probation for a period not to exceed three years upon reasonable terms and conditions to be established by Petitioner, including the following requirements: That Respondent present himself for psychological evaluation by a qualified professional selected by Petitioner. That Respondent complete such course of psychotherapy as may be prescribed as a result of that evaluation. That Respondent assume the cost of such evaluation and subsequent therapy, if any. That Respondent enroll and complete a minimum of six hours of continuing education courses in the area of professional conduct for educators. That in the event that Respondent fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of probation, Respondent's teaching certificate shall be subjected to a period of suspension not to exceed two years, and that compliance with these conditions of probation serve as the prerequisite for any reinstatement of Respondent's teaching certificate in the event that suspension for noncompliance with these conditions occurs. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1993. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following constitutes my specific rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Petitioner's proposed findings 1.-12. Accepted. Rejected as to D.C.'s feelings, hearsay. Accepted. (Note: this is the second finding numbered 13.) Rejected as to "two or three times", accepted as to touching on the knee one time, on the basis of resolution of credibility on this point. (Note: this is the second finding numbered 14.) Accepted. Accepted in substance, not verbatim. 16.-18. Accepted. Rejected as to tickling reference since no sexual significance was ascribed by M.B. to this action, she did not supply a point in time when this occurred and inclusion would imply a significance not proven at the final hearing. Rejected, unnecessary. 21.-23. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer findings on this point. 24.-42. Accepted, but not verbatim. 43. Accepted as to bear hug, remainder rejected on basis of creditibility. 44.-57. Accepted, but not verbatim. Respondent's proposed findings 1.-20. Accepted, but not verbatim. 21. Rejected, unnecessary. 22.-23. Accepted, but not verbatim. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Thomas E. Stone, Esquire Post Office Box 292 Madison, Florida 32340 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practice Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sidney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause for Palm Beach County School Board to suspend Deborah Stark for 10 days without pay based upon the allegations made in its Administrative Complaint filed on November 8, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the Palm Beach County Public School System. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Stark was hired by the School Board in 2005. She is employed pursuant to a professional services contract with Petitioner. At all relevant times to this case, Stark was a teacher at Diamond View. She taught second grade. One of Stark's teaching responsibilities was to provide student information to the School Based Team ("SBT") such as conference/staffing notes,1 to assist the SBT in determining how best to support students who were having challenges or difficulties with reading. During Stark's last several school years with the School Board, Stark engaged in a pattern of misconduct. On June 1, 2015, Stark received, by hand delivery, her first written reprimand. She was disciplined for falsifying three memos by inappropriately using the School Board's letterhead and creating misleading and false documents under co-workers' names without permission. One problem area Respondent had was that she failed to keep her classroom organized and neat. Because of the disorganized book area and unkempt cluttered classroom, Respondent's classroom failed to be an environment conducive to learning and impacted the students' morale negatively. On September 30, 2015, Principal Seal, by memorandum, addressed two of Stark's work deficiencies. Seal pointed out to Stark that her classroom management did not correspond with the School Wide Positive Behavior Support Plan and that Stark's 2014-2015 Reading Running Records ("RRR")2 were not accurately and properly administered. Seal instructed Stark to sign up for a classroom management course through eLearning within a week and notify Seal of the enrollment. Seal even specifically suggested a two- day course that started on October 6, 2015, at the Pew Center. Seal also outlined Stark's RRR inaccuracies and deficiencies in the September memo, which included Stark's failure to provide an accurate report on September 25th for a student during a scheduled SBT meeting, improper use of school materials as a benchmark, and writing in the teacher materials with student's information inappropriately. As a result of Stark's RRR shortcomings, Seal directed Stark to sign up for the next RRR training available on either October 13, 14, 23, or 24, 2015, through eLearning and instructed Stark to verify the RRR training enrollment. The memo ended with the following: "Failure to comply with these directives will be considered insubordination and may result [in] disciplinary action to include up to suspension or termination of employment." On November 10, 2015, Seal specifically directed Stark to clean up her classroom and update her students' progress on the class bulletin board. Stark was provided a deadline of on or before November 24, 2015, to correct the performance deficiencies. Stark did not do so. In December 2015, Stark still had student work posted from August and her classroom was not up to date. On December 18, 2015, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held. In that meeting, Stark informed Seal that she went to training, but admitted that she did not provide the required documentation of attendance. Stark's performance with RRR had not improved. By February 2016, Respondent had failed to comply with Seal's directives of November 10, 2015. Stark's classroom was unacceptable and had not been cleaned up, updated, organized as directed. The closet was cluttered from the floor to the ceiling with boxes, papers, and books. Additionally, Stark's student work bulletin board still was not changed and up to date. On February 12, 2016, Seal met with Stark to address the issues and gave Stark a verbal reprimand with written notation. The verbal reprimand with written notation memo stated that Respondent was insubordinate for fail[ing] to comply with "directives given to her in the memorandums dated September 30, 2015, and November 10, 2015." On May 24, 2016, a pre-determination meeting was held with Stark and she acknowledged that she had fallen behind in the RRR and math/reading assessments but planned to catch up by the end of the year. On June 2, 2016, Seal held another disciplinary conference with Stark. Seal provided Stark a written reprimand by memo detailing that Stark exhibited: poor judgement, lack of follow up, inappropriate supervision of students, excessive absence without pay, failure to properly and accurately administer and record Reading Running Records as well as Math and Reading assessments, during the school year 2015/2016 with fidelity and insubordination. Seal also instructed Stark in the memo: Effective immediately, you are directed to provide the appropriate level of supervision to your students, follow your academic schedule, meet deadlines with respect to inputting reading and math date into EDW, accurately complete Running Reading Records, cease from taking unpaid time and follow all School Board Policies and State Statutes. Finally, pursuant to the CTA contract, I am directing you to provide a doctor's note for any absences going forward. This requirement will be in effect until December 22, 2016. Respondent failed to follow the leave directive of the written reprimand of June 2, 2016. Stark's duty day started at 7:50 a.m. On October 14, 2016, Stark notified Diamond View at 8:26 a.m. that she would not report to work because she had a ride to an appointment. On November 29, 2016, Stark notified the school at 7:40 a.m. by stating, "I have a meeting boo," as she took the full day off. On December 16, 2016, she notified the school at 6:24 a.m. that her husband requested a shopping day and family activities for the day. On February 10, 2017, Stark notified the school at 7:38 a.m., "I am going to a friend's house today to help them." On March 2, 2017, she notified the school at 7:14 a.m. that "I am finalizing a college class today." On March 7, 2017, Stark notified the school at 6:18 a.m. that Nationals verses Boston were at the new park and she would not be in to work. On April 5, 2017, Stark notified the school at 7:34 a.m. that she had a meeting and missed half the school day. Stark's absences of September 21, September 23, October 14, November 29, and December 16, 2016, were unauthorized leave and her leave of March 2, March 7, April 5, and February 10, 2017, were days without pay. Stark's excessive absenteeism disrupted the learning environment for her students and caused Respondent to miss out on valuable School Board resources she needed to perform her job duties and correct her work performance deficiencies. By missing work, Stark was neither able to obtain the needed available professional development nor obtain support from the Literacy Staff Developer. Stark's ineptness continued throughout the 2016-2017 school year. Stark failed to provide requested student information needed to assist in creating report cards for several former students, which adversely impacted the school and the students because, among other things, the school was not able to provide the students' new teachers with accurate data for placement. Stark was offered coaching services to improve her work performance through Peer Assistance Review ("PAR"). Stark failed to show up and meet with the trainers assigned to provide her support on January 20, February 1, and March 7, 2017. Stark failed to submit the required SBT documentation for five students timely. Stark's duties included meeting with the parents of each student to communicate the students' academic concerns. Stark did not meet with the parents. Instead, Stark submitted five untimely falsified student records indicating parent meetings that did not take place. She also forged translator Torres-Vega signature like she was present at the meetings, when Torres-Vega had not participated. On or about April 24, 2017, an investigation report was completed detailing Stark's misconduct for the 2016-2017 school year. The investigative summary concluded Stark failed to comply with numerous directives given by the principal and vice principal. Stark failed to complete and submit SBT documentation for five students who could have benefited from additional supportive services. Respondent falsified student records indicating she contacted and conferenced with the parents for each student. She also falsified that a translator had participated in the parent conferences. At the same time, Stark sent last minute notification emails to the principal as to why she would not be reporting to work, failed to notify Seal in a timely manner when she would not be reporting to work, and did not prepare substitute lesson plans. Stark's unexcused absences totaled approximately 40 hours without pay within a five month period and did not adhere to the 24 hour advanced notice requirement of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Respondent's absences from work also caused her to miss valuable School Board training and support. Ultimate Findings of Fact Stark failed to fulfill the responsibilities of a teacher by not preparing and submitting the documents to the SBT so that the students could qualify for the support and services after multiple follow-ups and reminders by her supervisors. Stark's actions of falsifying the five students' records with Torres-Vega's signature and indicating that she met with the parents when she did not was ethical misconduct, failure to exercise best professional judgment, failure to provide for accurate or timely record keeping, and falsifying records. Stark misused her time and attendance when she had exhausted her paid time, but continued to use leave without pay when her work was not up to date and after she had been reprimanded and warned regarding absences by Seal. Stark's explanation of her absences failed to fall in the category for extenuating circumstances and her absences disrupted the learning environment. Stark was insubordinate and also failed to follow procedures, policies, and directives of the Diamond View principal and vice principal. Stark never cleaned up her classroom and failed to protect the learning environment. She also did not update her RRRs as instructed by Seal. On February 1, 2017, Vice Principal Diaz had also instructed Stark to always follow and adhere to an academic schedule with the students in order to provide structured learning. Instead, Stark continued to constantly allow the students to walk around the classroom, draw and eat snacks, without an academic schedule. By letter dated September 19, 2017, Respondent was notified that the School Board was recommending she receive a 10 day suspension without pay because of her misconduct. On or about October 4, 2017, the School Board took action by voting to suspend Respondent for 10 days without pay. Petitioner ultimately filed charges against Stark by Administrative Complaint dated November 8, 2018, that alleged Stark violated the following School Board policies: Failure to Fulfil the Responsibilities of a Teacher pursuant to School Board Policy 1.013(4), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff; School Board Policy 2.34, Records and Reports; Collective Bargaining Agreement with CTA, Article II, Section U, Lesson Plans Failure to Protect the Learning Environment pursuant to School Board Policy 0.01(2)(3), Commitment to the Student, Principle I-(formally 0.01(2)(c); 6A- 10.081(2)(a)(1), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession Misuse of Time/Attendance pursuant to School Board Policies 3.80(2)(c), Leave of Absence; Collective Bargaining Agreement with CTA, Article V, Leaves, Section B Ethical Misconduct pursuant to School Board Policy 3.02(4)(b), (4)(d), (4)(f), (4)(h), and (4)(j), Code of Ethics; School Board Policy 3.02(5)(c)(iii), Code of Ethics; 6A-10.081(1)(c) and (2)(c)(1), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida Failure to Exercise Best Professional Judgment pursuant to School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), Code of Ethics; 6A-10-081(1)(b), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida Insubordination: Failure to Follow Policy, Rules, Directive, or Statute pursuant to School Board Policy 3.10(6), Conditions of Employment with the District; School Board Policy 1.013(1), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff. Respondent contested the reasons for suspension.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order: Finding Deborah Stark in violation of all six violations in the Administrative Complaint; and Upholding Deborah Stark's 10-day suspension without pay for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 25th day of July, 2018.
The Issue Whether Sharon V. Eaddy (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Miami-Dade County School Board (the School Board) on August 29, 2014, and whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a paraprofessional.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Campbell Drive Center is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, the School Board employed Respondent as a paraprofessional pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. The School Board assigned Respondent to a Pre-K special education classroom at Campbell Drive Center taught by Pascale Vilaire. Respondent has worked at Campbell Drive Center as a paraprofessional for 13 years. During the 2013-2014 school year, 14 special needs students were assigned to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. Those students were between three and five years of age. L.H., a four-year-old boy who was described as being high functioning on the autism spectrum, was one of Ms. Vilaire’s students. L.H. had frequent temper tantrums during the 2013-2014 school year. Prior to the conduct at issue in this matter, Respondent had had no difficulty managing L.H.’s behavior. There was a conflict in the evidence as to the date the conduct at issue occurred. The undersigned finds that the conduct occurred April 9, 2014, based on the Incident Information admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 4, on the testimony of Yamile Aponte, and on the testimony of Grisel Gutierrez.1/ Ms. Aponte had a daughter in Ms. Vilaire’s class and often served as a parent-volunteer. Ms. Aponte was at Campbell Drive Center’s cafeteria on the morning of April 9, 2014. Present in the cafeteria were Ms. Vilaire, Respondent, some of Ms. Vilaire’s class (including L.H.) and students from other classes. When Ms. Aponte entered the cafeteria, L.H. was crying and hanging on to a trash bin. Ms. Vilaire was attending to another student. Respondent was trying to deal with L.H. to prevent him from tipping over the trash bin. Respondent led L.H. by the wrist back to a table where they sat together. Ms. Aponte approached them and offered L.H. a milk product referred to as a Pediasure. Because L.H. was allergic to milk, Respondent told Ms. Aponte that L.H. could not have the product. When Ms. Vilaire lined up her class to leave the cafeteria, L.H. threw a tantrum because he was still hungry. Ms. Aponte testified that Respondent grabbed L.H. by the wrist and pulled him up. Ms. Vilaire observed the entire interaction between L.H. and Respondent in the cafeteria. Ms. Vilaire did not witness anything she thought was inappropriate or caused her concern. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent became physically aggressive toward L.H. in the cafeteria by dragging him across the floor or otherwise grabbing him inappropriately. Paragraph nine of the Notice of Specific Charges contains the allegation that while in the cafeteria, “Respondent forcefully grabbed L.H. and dragged him across the floor.” Petitioner did not prove those alleged facts. After the class finished in the cafeteria, the students lined up to go back to the classroom. Ms. Vilaire was at the front of the line, and Respondent was ten to fifteen feet behind at the end of the line with L.H. Ms. Aponte was part of the group going from the cafeteria to the classroom. During the walk back to the classroom, Ms. Vilaire did not see or hear anything between Respondent and L.H. she thought was inappropriate. She did not hear anything that diverted her attention to Respondent and L.H. At the time of the conduct at issue, Barbara Jackson, an experienced teacher, taught first grade at Campbell Drive Center. While Ms. Vilaire’s class was walking from the cafeteria to the classroom, Ms. Jackson had a brief conversation with Respondent about getting food for her class from McDonald’s. Ms. Jackson did not hear or see anything inappropriate between Respondent and L.H. After stopping to talk with Ms. Jackson, Respondent resumed walking to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. L.H. continued to cry and attempted to pull away from Respondent. L.H. wanted to be the leader of the line, a position that is rotated among the class members. Ms. Vilaire led the other class members into the classroom while Ms. Aponte, Respondent, and L.H. were still outside. While still outside, they saw Grisel Gutierrez, a teacher at Campbell Drive Center. L.H. began to throw himself on the ground on top of his backpack. Ms. Aponte and Ms. Gutierrez saw Respondent grab L.H. forcefully by the arm and hit him on his shoulder with a slapping sound.2/ After Respondent returned L.H. to the classroom, L.H. tried to push over a bookcase containing books and toys. To prevent L.H. from pushing over the bookcase, Respondent grabbed L.H. by his hands and held them behind his back. Ms. Vilaire witnessed the interaction between Respondent and L.H. in the classroom and thought Respondent acted appropriately. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent acted inappropriately towards L.H. while in the classroom. Ms. Aponte reported what she had seen to the school principal the day of the incident. Respondent learned that Ms. Aponte had complained against her the day of the incident. After school the day of the incident, Respondent angrily confronted Ms. Aponte and asked her why she had lied. Rounett Green, a security guard at Campbell Drive Center, stepped in to end the confrontation between Respondent and Ms. Aponte. There was no evidence that Respondent attempted to threaten Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not use inappropriate language towards Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not make physical contact with Ms. Aponte. L.H.’s mother heard about the alleged interactions between Respondent and L.H. When L.H. returned home after school, the mother examined L.H. and found no bruises or other unusual marks on L.H.’s body. At its regularly scheduled meeting on June 18, 2014, the School Board suspended Respondent’s employment and instituted these proceedings to terminate her employment.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: It is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate the employment of Sharon V. Eaddy. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2014)1/; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission (Commission).
Findings Of Fact During all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the areas of elementary education and social science, and she held Florida Educator's Certificate 842941, which expired June 30, 2016. Respondent first entered the teaching profession in 1999. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Hillsborough County School District (HCSD). During the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, Respondent taught social science at Madison Middle School. During the years in question, HCSD had a written system for evaluating the classroom performance of its teachers. The evaluation system was reviewed and approved by the Florida Department of Education. The evaluation system consists of multiple components which, when combined, result in a final teacher evaluation performance rating. In its broadest sense, the system used by HCSD to evaluate teacher performance relies on input from a teacher’s supervising principal, input from a teacher’s peers and/or mentors, and a value-added measure (VAM) score, which is based on student achievement. According to the Teacher Evaluation Handbook for the HCSD, the principal’s evaluation accounts for 35 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score, the peer/mentor’s evaluation accounts for 25 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score, and the VAM score accounts for 40 percent of a teacher’s overall evaluation score. Observation and Written Evaluation Throughout the course of a school year, an evaluating principal and peer/mentors (collectively referred to as evaluators) conduct a number of formal and informal classroom “observations” of the teacher being evaluated. Findings from formal and informal observations are characterized, based on a framework of four “domains,” as highly effective, effective, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory. The observations are memorialized and feedback is regularly provided to the teacher during the school year. At the conclusion of the observation cycle, the evaluators, based on the formal and informal observations, prepare a written “evaluation” which summarizes and quantifies (assigns a numerical value) the teacher’s performance for the entire school year. The framework for rating observations and scoring evaluations consists of four domains, each of which has five to six components. According to the teacher evaluation instrument, the domains and their components are as follows: Domain 1: Planning and Preparation. The components in Domain 1 outline how a teacher organizes the content and plans the instructional delivery. (1A) Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy (1B) Demonstrating Knowledge of Students (1C) Setting Instructional Outcomes (1D) Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources and Technology (1E) Designing Coherent Instruction (1F) Designing Student Assessments Domain 2: The Classroom Environment. The components in Domain 2 address the learning environment. This includes the interactions in the classroom, the classroom culture, the teacher’s use of physical space, and established routines and procedures. (2A) Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport (2B) Establishing a Culture for Learning (2C) Managing Classroom Procedures (2D) Managing Student Behavior (2E) Organizing Physical Space Domain 3: Instruction. The components of Domain 3 embody the core of teaching –the engagement of students in activities that promote and foster learning. (3A) Communicating with Students (3B) Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques (3C) Engaging Students in Learning (3D) Using Assessment in Instruction (3E) Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities. The components of Domain 4 represent the wide range of a teacher’s responsibilities outside the classroom. These include reflecting on teaching, maintaining accurate records, communicating with stakeholders, contributing to the school and district, growing and developing professionally, and showing professionalism. (4A) Reflecting on Teaching (4B) Maintaining Accurate Records (4C) Communicating With Stakeholders (4D) Participating in a Professional Community (4E) Growing and Developing Professionally (4F) Showing Professionalism The weight assigned to each domain (within either the principal or peer/mentor category) is 20 percent, with the exception of Domain 3, which is weighted at 40 percent. Domain components 4B through 4F are only reviewed by the teacher’s principal. Domain 1 addresses “planning and preparation,” and “[t]he components of Domain 1 outline how a teacher organizes the content and plans the instructional delivery.” Domain 2 addresses “classroom environment,” and “[t]he components of Domain 2 address the learning environment [which] . . . includes the interactions in the classroom, the classroom culture, the teacher’s use of physical space, and established routines and procedures.” Domain 3, which again is weighted twice as much as the other domains, addresses “instruction,” and “[t]he components of Domain 3 embody the core of teaching–the engagement of students in activities that promote and foster learning . . . [and the] components include: communicating clearly and accurately, using questioning and discussion techniques, engaging students in learning, providing feedback to students, and demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness.” Domain 4 addresses “professional responsibility,” and “[t]he components of Domain 4 represent the wide range of a teacher’s responsibilities outside the classroom . . . include[ing] reflecting on teaching, maintaining accurate records, communicating with stakeholders, contributing to the school and district, growing and developing professionally, and showing professionalism.” For purposes of scoring a teacher’s evaluation, a zero point value is assigned whenever a domain component is given a rating of “requires action,” a single point is given whenever a domain component is rated as “progressing,” two points are given whenever a teacher is rated as “accomplished,” and three points are given for an “exemplary” rating. Value Added Measure According to the Teacher Evaluation Handbook for Hillsborough County, VAM is: statistical model that uses a variety of variables to estimate the expected one year learning growth of each student. The growth expectation estimate is then compared to actual growth, as measured by relevant course and content assessments. In order to measure a teacher’s impact on student achievement, the model controls for variables that are outside of the teacher’s control, such as past years’ learning growth trajectory, and special needs. In doing so, the teacher’s impact on student growth can be isolated and calculated. The VAM score is 40 percent of the teacher’s overall annual evaluation. 2012-2013 Observations and Evaluation Respondent, during the 2012-2013 school year, had one formal and two informal observations conducted by peer/mentors, and one formal and two informal observations conducted by her principal. Respondent, at the end of the 2012-2013 school year, was evaluated by both her peer/mentor and her principal. Katherine Hodges is one of the peer/mentors who observed and evaluated Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Ms. Hodges was a teacher in the HCSD from 2005-2015 where she taught eighth grade U.S. history, humanities, and served as a middle school social studies peer/mentor evaluator. Twanya Hall-Clark is another individual who conducted observations of Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Ms. Hall-Clark has been employed by HCSD as an educator for more than 20 years and has served as a school administrator since 2000. Ms. Hall-Clark has been trained in the use and implementation of the HCSD teacher evaluation system and has conducted hundreds of teacher observations and evaluations. Jeffery Colf also served as a peer/mentor and observed Respondent during the 2012-2013 school year. Joseph Brown served as the school principal where Respondent worked during the 2012-2013 school year, and was responsible for observing and evaluating Respondent’s performance. Dr. Brown became an educator in 1986 and a principal in 1998. Dr. Brown was trained in the use and implementation of the HCSD teacher evaluation system and has observed and evaluated hundreds of teachers during his tenure as an administrator. In determining a teacher’s evaluation rating, evaluators consider observation ratings and information provided by the teacher who is being evaluated. After considering these factors, Respondent’s peer/mentor evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was “requires action” for component 2C; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2B, 2D, and 3A through 3E; and “accomplished” for components 1D, 2E, and 4A. Respondent’s principal evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was a rating of “progressing” for every component except 4A, for which she received a rating of “accomplished.” When quantified, Respondent’s 2012-2013 peer/mentor evaluation score was 8.80 and her principal evaluation score was 12.00, which resulted in a combined total evaluation written score of 20.80. The HCSD mean (average) for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 36.86. For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent’s written evaluation score gave her a percentile rank of 1.70 percent. In other words, 98.30 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2012-2013 school year had a higher written evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s 2012-2013 VAM score was 18.7201. The HCSD mean for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 24.14. For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent’s VAM score gave her a percentile rank of 2.30 percent when compared to her peers. Stated succinctly, 97.70 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2012-2013 school year had a higher VAM score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2012-2013 school year was 39.3. The HCSD mean for all teachers evaluated during the 2012-2013 school year was 61. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2012-2013 school year resulted in her achieving a percentile rank of 0.89 percent, meaning that 99.11 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD during the 2012-2013 school year scored higher than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score of 39.3 resulted in Respondent receiving an overall evaluation rating of “unsatisfactory” for the 2012-2013 school year. For the 2012- 2013 school year, Respondent would have needed an overall evaluation score of 40 in order to secure the next highest evaluation designation of “needs improvement.” By letter dated September 18, 2013, Respondent was notified of the deficiencies in her performance and advised that she would be placed on a teacher assistance plan for the 2013- 2014 school year. Teacher Assistance Plan Respondent, as a consequence of receiving an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year, was placed on a mandatory teacher assistance plan during the 2013- 2014 school year. The stated goal of the plan is “[t]o assist teachers who earned a previous overall Unsatisfactory evaluation so that their performance reaches a satisfactory level for the current school year.” Teachers who are placed on a teacher assistance plan are assigned a support team which is composed of experienced educators. Teacher assistance plans have “areas of focus” which correspond to the four domains covered by the annual evaluation. The teacher assistance plan developed for Respondent focused on the domains of “planning and preparation (Domain 1)” and “instruction (Domain 3).” Respondent first met with her support team on October 15, 2013, where “assistance strategies” were developed for Domains 1 and 3. The specific strategies set goals of “designing coherent instruction (component 1-e)” and “improving feedback practices (component 3-d).” During the support team meeting on October 15, 2013, Respondent explained that her unsatisfactory rating for the 2012- 2013 school year was largely attributable to the fact that she “floated” between classrooms, and that she expected improvement in her performance for the 2013-2014 school year because she had her own classroom. Support team members provided Respondent with “a packet of resources” and arranged for Respondent to observe a high-performing teacher in an instructional setting. On December 18, 2013, Respondent met with members of her support team to discuss and review Respondent’s progress towards achieving the goals established in her teacher assistance plan. A summary report from the meeting provides as follows: The meeting began with a review of the Oct. 2013 action plan meeting and an update of the action steps. Ms. Patti also presented her summary notes of the observations and action she has taken since October. Those notes are included in her folder. Ms. Patti said that she observed Mr. Kline in his science class. She liked how each student had an assigned role while in group work. Ms. Patti also showed a teacher[-]made quiz she designed based off information from the LDC lesson. For the quiz she prompted students to use text marking and identify the key concepts not just the action (such as describe or discuss). Ms. Patti is using a website titled floridacivics.org for lesson plan ideas and resources. Ms. Patti also wants to observe another teacher. Dr. Brown will ask Mr. Sullins if he is willing to have Ms. Patti observe during the third nine weeks. Suggestions were made to either have another teacher observe or have a lesson video-taped for Ms. Patti to watch herself. She did not want to pursue either option at this time. Dr. Brown will follow up to set a date for the February Action Plan review. On March 27, 2014, Respondent again met with her support team. A written summary of the meeting notes that Respondent did not meet the goal of observing another teacher’s class as discussed during the meeting on December 18, 2013. 2013-2014 Observations and Evaluation Respondent, during the 2013-2014 school year, had two formal and three informal observations conducted by peer/mentors, two formal and three informal observations conducted by her principal, and one formal observation by her supervisor. Respondent, at the end of the 2013-2014 school year, was evaluated by both her peer/mentor and her principal. As previously noted, when determining a teacher’s evaluation rating, evaluators consider observation ratings and information provided by the teacher who is being evaluated. After considering these factors, Respondent’s peer/mentor evaluation for the 2013-2014 school year was “requires action” for component 3E; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2D, 3A through 3E, 4A; and “accomplished” for components 1D and 2E. Respondent’s principal evaluation for the 2013-2014 school year was “requires action” for components 4F; “progressing” for components 1A through 1C, 1E through 2B, 2D, 3A through 3E, and 4B through 4E; and “accomplished” for components 1D, 2C, 2E, and 4A. When quantified, Respondent’s 2013-2014 peer/mentor evaluation score was 8.35 and her principal evaluation score was 11.90, which resulted in a combined total evaluation written score of 20.25. The HCSD mean (average) for teachers during the 2013-2014 school year was 36.86. For the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent’s written evaluation score gave her a percentile rank of 1.47 percent. In other words, 98.53 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2013-2014 school year had a higher written evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s 2013-2014 VAM score was 17.4192. The HCSD mean for teachers during the 2012-2013 school year was 24.04. For the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent’s VAM score gave her a percentile rank of 0.85 percent when compared to her peers. Stated succinctly, 99.15 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD for the 2013-2014 school year had a higher VAM score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2013-2014 school year was 37.66. The HCSD mean for all teachers evaluated during the 2013-2014 school year was 60.94. Respondent’s total evaluation score for the 2013-2014 school year resulted in her achieving a percentile rank of 0.24 percent, meaning that 99.76 percent of the teachers evaluated by HCSD during the 2013-2014 school year scored higher than Respondent. Stated differently, in Hillsborough County public schools for the 2013-2014 school year, there were only 28 teachers of 12,068 who had a worse evaluation score than Respondent. Respondent’s total evaluation score of 37.66 resulted in Respondent receiving an overall evaluation rating of “unsatisfactory” for the 2013-2014 school year. For the 2013- 2014 school year, Respondent would have needed an overall evaluation score of 42 in order to secure the next highest evaluation designation of “needs improvement.” Despite being on a teacher assistance plan, Respondent’s performance, relative to her peers, actually declined during the 2013-2014 school year when compared to the previous school year. By letter dated July 10, 2014, Respondent was advised that because she received unsatisfactory evaluations for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, HCSD was notifying the Department of Education of her poor performance and that she was being reassigned pending confirmation of her VAM scores for the year. By order dated April 6, 2016, the School Board of Hillsborough County terminated Respondent’s employment. Domain 3 and VAM As noted previously, Domain 3 embodies “the core of teaching.” The peer/mentor and principal comments for Domain 3 components for the 2012-2013 school year provide as follows with respect to Respondent’s performance: (3A) The teacher’s attempt to explain the purpose/relevancy of the lesson’s instructional outcomes has only limited success, and/or directions and procedures must be clarified after initial student confusion. The teacher’s explanation of the content may contain minor errors; some portions are clear; other portions are difficult to follow. The teacher’s explanation consists of a monologue, with no invitation to the students for intellectual engagement. The teacher’s spoken language is correct; however, vocabulary is limited or not fully appropriate to the students’ ages or backgrounds. (3B) The teacher’s questions lead students through a single path of inquiry, with answers seemingly determined in advance. Alternatively the teacher attempts to frame some questions designed to promote student thinking and understanding, but only a few students are involved. The teacher attempts to engage all students in the discussion and to encourage them to respond to one another, with uneven results. (3C) The learning tasks or prompts are partially aligned with the instructional outcomes but require only minimal thinking by students, allowing most students to be passive or merely compliant. Learning activities are not sufficiently challenging and lack the rigor to promote intellectual engagement. The pacing of the lesson may not provide students the time needed to be intellectually engaged. (3D) Assessment is occasionally used in instruction, through some monitoring of progress of learning by teacher and/or students. Feedback to students is uneven, and students are aware of only some of the assessment criteria used to evaluate their work. (3E) The teacher attempts to modify the lesson when needed and to respond to student questions with moderate success; however, alternate instructional strategies are limited and minimally successful. The teacher accepts responsibility for student performance. In response to student progress data, the teacher re-teaches, as appropriate. Because Respondent received an overall unsatisfactory performance rating for the 2012-2013 school year, she was evaluated by her principal mid-way through the 2013-2014 school year, and again by both her principal and peer/mentor evaluator at the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Respondent, for each of the evaluations performed during the 2013-2014 school year, received identical marks for the Domain 3 components, with the same deficiencies noted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(c). It is further recommended that, pursuant to section 1012.796(7)(g), Respondent be prohibited from applying for a new certificate for a period of at least five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 28th day of June, 2017.
The Issue Whether there are sufficient grounds for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against Respondent?s educator?s certificate, and if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education, is charged with the duty to investigate and take disciplinary action against individuals who hold a Florida educator's certificate and are alleged to have violated section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and the Department?s rules establishing standards of teacher conduct. Respondent holds an educator?s certificate, No. 726067, covering the areas of biology and general science, issued by the Florida Department of Education. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Callahan Middle School in Nassau County, Florida. Respondent was first employed by the Nassau County School Board in 1995. He taught special education courses for his first two years, and “at-risk” classes for the following two years. Since then he has taught middle school science. In addition to his normal teaching duties, Respondent has coached the middle school football team and the boys and girls track teams for 11 years. Respondent is a capable and competent teacher, and has a good reputation. Respondent has not previously been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding. On October 7, 2010, at the end of the school day, Respondent went to the Fred?s discount department store located at 22 South 8th Street, Fernandina Beach, Florida. The purpose of the visit was to purchase reading glasses to replace a pair that was broken that day at the school. Respondent testified that he entered Fred?s and went immediately to the glasses display. Since the glasses were inexpensive -- $4.95 a pair -- he decided to buy 2 pairs. After selecting the glasses, Respondent noticed a display of candy. As a reward for students scoring 90 or above on an assignment, Respondent places them in the “smarty party” and allows them to take a piece of candy from a supply he keeps. He was low on candy, and decided to buy some to replenish his stock. He picked up three large bags of candy, and given that he was running out of space in his hands, placed the glasses in his left pants pocket. On his way to the checkout line, Respondent noticed that Fred?s had a sale on dog food. He picked up a bag of dog food, slung it on his shoulder, and proceeded to the checkout line. When he reached the checkout line, Respondent testified that he forgot about the glasses in his pocket, and proceeded to pay for the candy and dog food with a credit card. The candy was placed in a plastic “T-sack.” He exited the store with his plastic bag and dog food, whereupon an alarm sounded. Not thinking the alarm was a result of his action, Respondent continued towards his car. As he was about halfway to his car, the cashier came to the door and said “Hey honey, that might be you. That sometimes happens with dog food.” Respondent testified that he turned to walk back in and at that time noticed Mr. Esckelson, who was returning from assisting a customer in the parking lot, walking about four steps in front of Respondent. As he was about halfway back to the store, Respondent testified that he remembered the glasses in his pocket, and that he had forgotten to pay for them. He knew that Fred?s had a reputation for implementing an aggressive, “hard-core” policy against shoplifters, and in a split-second and ill-conceived decision, decided to toss the glasses into a nearby display of mums. In his haste, he thought that he had grabbed both pairs of glasses from his pocket and tossed them into the flowers. However, he managed to grab only one pair, while the second pair remained in his pocket without his knowledge. Respondent testified that his action was observed by Mr. Esckelson, despite his being a few steps in front of Respondent, who then said “OK, get in here.” Mr. Esckelson asked what Respondent threw, and he replied that he threw glasses. Respondent was asked to stand by the register, and Mr. Esckelson advised the cashier to call the police. Respondent testified that he spoke with Mr. Esckelson, and asked, “is there any way to make this right?” He told Mr. Esckelson that he had taken the glasses out of the store by accident, and wanted to pay for them. Respondent?s intent in making that statement was to offer payment, and was not an attempt to bribe Mr. Esckelson. The offer was, in any event, declined. Although Respondent had his Nassau County School District employee badge attached to his belt on the right side of his pants, Respondent testified that there was no discussion regarding his employment as a teacher. When the police arrived, Respondent was taken into custody almost immediately. The two officers at the scene arrived in separate cars. Officer Kopinski, who was first on the scene, had separate conversations with Respondent and Mr. Esckelson. Officer Kozak arrived sometime after and took control of the situation since Fred?s was in his zone. Officer Kopinski, who testified at the hearing, had little independent recollection of the events, his testimony being based almost exclusively on Office Kozak?s arrest report to which he referred frequently during the hearing to refresh his recollection. The arrest report was not entered in evidence by either party. Officer Kopinski could not recall whether Mr. Esckelson provided him with the pair of glasses at the time of his placing Respondent in custody. Respondent testified that when he was being placed in handcuffs, the officer, having noticed his school district identification badge, asked if Respondent was a school district employee. Respondent replied that he was a school teacher, and that the arrest would be a bad situation for him. Respondent testified that as he was being escorted from the store to the police car, Mr. Esckelson was searching in the display of flowers for the glasses he had thrown. Respondent told Mr. Esckelson where he had thrown the glasses, at which time he was able to locate and retrieve them. Prior to his being placed in the police car for transport, Respondent was searched. At that time, Officer Kopinski discovered the second pair of glasses in Respondent?s pants pocket, and returned them to Mr. Esckelson. Officer Kopinski testified, based on the police report, that Respondent also had $12.20 and several credit cards in his possession. Although Officer Kopinski had no independent recollection of the money and cards, and the police report is not in evidence, Respondent did not dispute that he had that amount in his possession. Mr. Esckelson?s testimony differed in several respects from that of Respondent. Mr. Esckelson testified that at the time of the incident, he was in the parking lot returning a train of shopping carts to the store. As Respondent was exiting the store, Mr. Esckelson was approximately 15 feet from the door heading in. When the alarm went off, Mr. Esckelson testified that Respondent was pushing the door open with his left hand, and as soon as he opened the door, he removed an object from his right pants pocket, later found to be a pair of glasses, and tossed it into the display of mums. Mr. Esckelson asked Respondent to return to the store, and immediately retrieved the glasses from the display. He asked Respondent to stand by register 2, which was subject to video surveillance, and signaled the clerk to call the police. Although Mr. Esckelson indicated that he said nothing to Respondent, he testified that Respondent asked if there was “anything we can do to take care of this now?” and later stated that “you can?t arrest me, I?m a teacher.” Mr. Esckelson testified that he advised the police officers of Respondent?s statements. Officer Kopinski could not corroborate either of those statements. Mr. Esckelson could not recall whether Respondent was carrying a large bag of dog food. He recalled asking the clerk what Respondent had purchased, but could not remember what the clerk told him. However, there are no sensor tags on dog food that would have caused the alarm to trigger. Mr. Esckelson confirmed that Fred?s has a policy of discouraging shoplifting, and will always prosecute when shoplifters are caught. Over the years that he worked for Fred?s, Mr. Esckelson?s involvement with shoplifters, though not routine, was still relatively frequent. Despite the differences in their descriptions of the events, differences which for the most part were as to peripheral matters, both Respondent and Mr. Esckelson appeared to be forthright and credible. As to the material elements of the event, their testimony was generally consistent. However, Mr. Esckelson had no involvement in Respondent?s matter from the time of the incident until he received a subpoena on August 11, 2011. As was the case with Officer Kopinski, who had almost no independent recollection of the incident, it stands to reason that Mr. Esckelson?s memory of the incident would blur over time, particularly since he was involved with recurring incidents of a similar nature in the intervening period. Respondent on the other hand would be expected to retain a more vivid memory of the incident given its singular affect on him. The differences in Respondent?s and Mr. Esckelson?s testimony do little to affect the outcome of this case. For example, whether Mr. Esckelson was returning carts to the store or returning to the store from assisting a customer, whether the glasses were found before or after the police arrived, and whether the glasses were removed from Respondent?s left or right pocket have little to do with the salient facts of the case. Those and other similarly insignificant differences in the testimony were more likely due to the passage of time than to an attempt to obfuscate the facts of the incident. However, the testimony of Respondent is found to be a more accurate statement of the facts of the incident. At the time of the incident, there were customers and employees in Fred?s. Respondent was acquainted with several of the store clerks from previous times at which he shopped at Fred?s. There was no evidence offered to indicate that Respondent knew any one clerk from another other than from a purely employee/customer standpoint, nor was there any evidence offered that any customer or employee who witnessed the events knew Respondent, or was aware that he was a school teacher. Within a short period after his arrest, Respondent called John Ruis, the Superintendant of Schools for Nassau County, to advise him of the situation. His first calls were over the weekend, at which time he left messages. By the time Respondent spoke with Mr. Ruis, Mr. Ruis had been notified of the arrest, having received a computer notification. Respondent asked to meet with Mr. Ruis to provide his side of the story. When they met, Respondent appeared to be humiliated, humbled, and embarrassed. Respondent advised Mr. Ruis of all pertinent facts of the incident, including the fact that he tossed the glasses into the flower display. He asserted that his failure to pay for the glasses was inadvertent. Mr. Ruis informed the principal of Callahan Middle School and the school district?s personnel director of the situation involving Respondent. Mr. Ruis did not know if any other employee of the Nassau County School District knew of the incident. It is not the practice of Mr. Ruis, as Superintendant, to remove a teacher from the classroom in an alleged disciplinary matter unless the teacher presents a threat of harm to the students. When there is no perceived harm to students, the district allows the legal system to take its course. Mr. Ruis determined that Respondent presented no threat to any student, and he was therefore not removed. Respondent has taught continuously since the incident with no subsequent indication of any problem. As the judicial resolution of the incident, Respondent entered into a deferred prosecution agreement, the precise terms of which were not disclosed. The Petit Theft charge was subsequently nolle prossed, and the record of Respondent?s arrest has since been expunged. The conduct alleged was not known to anyone outside of the arresting officers, the Superintendant, the principal of Callahan Middle School, and the personnel director. Although there were customers and employees of Fred?s in the store at the time of Respondent?s arrest, there was no evidence that any of them knew Respondent, or knew that he was a Nassau County School District employee. There was no evidence that any student, parent, or other teacher had any knowledge of Respondent?s arrest. There was no media coverage of the incident, and no complaints filed with the school district regarding Respondent. Respondent?s conduct was not, in any sense of the term, “notorious.” Respondent denied any intent to steal the glasses. The testimony as to how the glasses came to be in his pocket upon buying the candy and dog food is plausible. Other than his split-second decision to toss the glasses into the flower display -- a decision that Respondent stated was based upon his knowledge of Fred?s aggressive stance on shoplifting -- there is no direct evidence of intent to steal the glasses. While there is evidence from which one could infer consciousness of guilt from the circumstances of this case, Respondent?s act of tossing the glasses when he realized he had exited the store without paying, under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence of Respondent?s intent to shoplift the glasses.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 18th day of November, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder, P.A. 40 Grand Flora Way Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Anthony D. Demma, Esquire Meyer, Brooks, Demma and Blohm, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles M. Beal, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
