The Issue As stated in the prehearing stipulation, the issue is whether the school board should accept or reject the recommendation by the superintendent of schools to reduce Andrea Childs from continuing contract status to annual contract status for the 1989-90 school year.
Findings Of Fact Andrea Childs was employed by the School Board of Okeechobee County as a teacher in December, 1980. Ms. Childs is certified as a teacher in Social Science. She taught 9th grade Social Science at the Okeechobee Junior High School for the school years 1980-81, 81-82, 82-83, and 83-84. She transferred to Okeechobee High School after the school board moved the 9th grade from the Junior High School to the High School. She has taught continuously at the High School since her transfer. Prior Evaluations Ms. Childs' performance as a teacher was first evaluated on January 16, 1981. While her performance was found to be satisfactory, she had been on staff for such a brief period of time it was difficult to make a meaningful evaluation. She was next evaluated on March 16, 1981, and found satisfactory for all twenty characteristics contained on the school's evaluation form. On December 14, 1981, she was evaluated for the first semester of the 81-82 school years, and again rated satisfactory on all characteristics. Her evaluation at the end of the 1981-82 school year and the first semester of the 1982-83 school year found her satisfactory on all characteristics. Ms. Childs was recommended for continuing contract in April, 1983, at the close of 1982-83 school year, when her evaluation was satisfactory on all characteristics. She obtained a continuing contract on May 19, 1983. When her teaching at the Okeechobee High School was evaluated on February 20, 1984, she was rated satisfactory on all twenty characteristics. Ms. Childs was next evaluated at the end of the second semester of the 1984-85 school year by her new principal, Phoebe Raulerson. The evaluation forms used by the district then changed. The behaviors to be assessed were grouped into six categories, each having subdivisions denominated as indicators. Ms. Raulerson evaluated Ms. Childs' performance as meeting each of the 31 indicators. The new evaluation forms also included a separate assessment of additional factors called employability behaviors, and Ms. Childs was found acceptable on each of those behaviors. On April 1, 1986, Ms. Raulerson again evaluated Ms. Childs, and found that Ms. Childs' teaching performance met all 31 indicators, and that Ms. Childs' performance was acceptable on each of the employability behaviors during the 1985-86 school year. On April 13, 1987, Ms. Raulerson found that Ms. Childs' performance met all 31 indicators and found her service acceptable on all employability behaviors. On March 11, 1988, Ms. Raulerson evaluated Ms. Childs, finding that her performance met all 31 indicators and acceptable on all employability behaviors. At no time from her first employment with the school board in December, 1980 through her annual evaluation on March 11, 1988, was there any finding that Ms. Childs had failed to perform satisfactorily on any characteristic, indicator or employability behavior evaluated by the School Board of Okeechobee County. In February, 1988, as will be discussed in greater detail below, Ms. Raulerson observed Ms. Childs' teaching, determined that her performance was inadequate, and recommended to the superintendent of schools that Ms. Childs be reduced from continuing contract status to annual contract status. When confronted at hearing with the uniformly positive evaluation Ms. Childs had received, including those from Ms. Raulerson herself for each of the school years from 1984-85 through 1987-88, Ms. Raulerson deprecated her own evaluations with the suggestion that Ms. Childs had been in poor health since the birth of her first child in approximately August, 1985, 1/ and explained that the positive evaluations should not be taken at face value. Ms. Raulerson contended that Ms. Childs' performance was evaluated leniently because of her health difficulties. There is no such indication on the evaluation. Ms. Raulerson is obviously a competent principal who does not confuse efforts with results. The evaluations were accurate as written, and there were no deficiencies in Ms. Childs' performance during any prior school year. The Oblique Warning During the teachers' work period before students returned to school in August 1988, Ms. Childs had an informal discussion with Ms. Raulerson, during which Ms. Raulerson told Ms. Childs "this has got to be a good year". Apparently Ms. Raulerson meant to tell Ms. Childs that her performance as a teacher needed to show improvement that year. If that was her intention, her choice of words was so oblique that the message was not conveyed. An ordinary listener would not have understood the comment as a criticism of past teaching performance. The comment was so general that it would not draw the attention of a teacher to any area of deficiency which a teacher could then attempt to correct. There was no criticism of Ms. Childs' performance on her last evaluation which could have served as a focus for any need for improvement. Ms. Raulerson is an experienced administrator, able to draw the attention of teachers, students or others at the school to inadequate performance or misconduct in a direct manner. In the Okeechobee High School, students are grouped for classes by broad ranges of ability. There are classes for slow learners, known as basic classes, as well as for regular students. In 1988-89 school year, Ms. Childs taught two basic classes, and other regular social studies classes. The classes which Ms. Childs taught during the sixth and seventh periods were basic classes. Ms. Childs had some difficulty with the behavior of two students in basic classes, and discussed the problem with an Assistant Principal, Barbara James, on September 15, 1988. One of the problems was tardiness by some of her students. Ms. James' written suggestions to Ms. Childs for dealing with the problem included: In the beginning, you might try some extra, positive reinforcement for the on-time rule until you get going, if tardies are a problem. Always be on time yourself. This advice was a common sense suggestion to a class management problem. It was not any sort of admonition to Ms. Childs that she herself was not arriving to teach her classes on time and that she should make a better effort to be punctual. Tardiness Unknown to Ms. Childs, Ms. James, the Assistant Principal, had mentioned to the Principal, Ms. Raulerson, that Ms. Childs was sometimes arriving late for her classes. Ms. Raulerson told Ms. James to keep track of the times Ms. Childs was late for a class. Ms. James noted 11 instances between September 19, 1988, and February 27, 1989, of apparent tardiness by Ms. Childs. Ms. Childs was not in her classroom at the beginning of first period on 5 of those occasions (all in September of 1988), but there was good reason for this. That class was made up of 11 Junior and Senior students during the first semester, and 9 Juniors and Senior students during the second semester. Ms. Childs taught in a small portable building, separated from the main building. It had no clock, nor a working intercom system with the main building. Ms. Childs left her first period class to go to the school office to listen to the daily school announcements which she could not hear in her classroom. This was important, because those announcement often contained relevant information about subjects such as class meeting and scholarships, and students were charged with notice of the information. This information was not always available from other sources. Ms. Childs ultimately avoided this problem by taking her students to the cafeteria at the opening of first period so they could hear the announcements. No one at the office had ever indicated that she should not be there. The School's Faculty Handbook does tell teachers to remain in their classroom during class periods. Ms. Childs had frequently asked to have the intercom line between her classroom and the main building fixed. There was no adequate explanation for why the intercom had not been fixed. Ms. Childs' actions were common sense accommodations to the problem which confronted her and her students. Other instances when Ms. Childs was seen out of her classroom when first period began occurred during the second semester, in February, 1989. At this time she was team teaching with another teacher, Ms. Audrey. That teacher was in the classroom, and Ms. Childs was using the time to prepare lessons for her sessions of that class on the Holocaust. Those students were not left unattended. Ms. Childs' lateness in arriving for class during the first semester is much less than it seems on its face. The charges with respect to lateness are mere makeweight arguments. The Teaching Evaluation The contract between the school board and the teachers union for Okeechobee County prescribes a procedure for teacher evaluation which is consistent with the Okeechobee County Teacher Assessment System adopted by the school board on June 28, 1988. According to the school board policy and the union contract, teachers are provided with copies of the forms and procedures that will be used in the evaluation process. The teaching performance of continuing contract teachers is assessed by the principal at least once annually. The assessment for Ms. Childs was made on February 27, 1989. She had received the evaluation forms at the beginning of the year, as did all other teachers. The assessment of a teacher is based on observations conducted and other information gathered during the year by the principal, supervisor or assistant principals. The evaluation of teaching is accomplished using the summative evaluation from the Florida Performance Measurement System, i.e., an evaluation used for personnel decisions about a teacher, rather than an evaluation done to assist the teacher in developing good teaching technique, which is know as a formative evaluation. Ms. Raulerson had been trained in the use of the Florida Performance Measurement System summative evaluations. Before February 27, 1989, Ms. Childs received no oral or written notice that she was not performing her duties as a teacher in a satisfactory manner, and had no conference with any school administrator about unsatisfactory performance. Of necessity, she had been given no recommendations about ways in which to remedy any specific areas of unsatisfactory performance. On February 27, 1989, Ms. Raulerson observed Ms. Childs' first period class. This single class period provides the sole basis for Ms. Raulerson's evaluation of Ms. Childs' teaching for the entire year. By its very nature, that sample of teaching is entirely too small to permit Ms. Raulerson validly to generalize a conclusion that Ms. Childs' teaching is inadequate. 2/ After observing Ms. Childs during the first period, Ms. Raulerson had a consultant who is a professor of education at Florida Atlantic University, Dr. Mary Gray, who was at the school that day, observe Ms. Childs during the class period which begins at about 10:50 a.m. Ms. Raulerson had a brief discussion with Dr. Gray following her observation. By the fifth period on February 27, Ms. Raulerson presented Ms. Childs with her evaluation report. Ms. Raulerson informed Ms. Childs that Ms. Raulerson would recommend to the superintendent of schools that Ms. Childs be reduced from continuing contract status to annual contract status for the 1989-90. The whole evaluation process was remarkably swift. Ms. Raulerson was obviously displeased by what she saw during Ms. Childs' first period class, but the summary fashion in which she completed the evaluation is more indicative of pique than of reasoned professional analysis and judgment. Ms. Raulerson became angry, and allowed that anger to guide her actions. During the first period on September 27, 1989, Ms. Childs taught American History. She showed the class a video that she had searched out prepared by the National Geographic Society. The video dealt with the conservation of tigers and other animals in India. It was a story of Jim Corbet, who formerly had been a big game hunter, but who later become a conservationist. At first blush this video seems to have little to do with an American History class, but upon analysis, this is not the case. Ms. Childs was teaching students about the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, and his personal transformation from a game hunter to conservationist, including his significant role in the establishment of a national parks system in the United States. Drawing the analogy between a contemporary big game hunter who had become a conservationist with the conversion of Teddy Roosevelt was one reasonable way to relate current experience to history and assist the students in comparing and contrasting concepts using different people as examples. Since the student text devoted three of seven and one half pages on Teddy Roosevelt to conservation, Ms. Childs' use of the film is defensible. No doubt, different educators might have different views as to how to approach the subject. To conclude from this single event, however, that Ms. Childs was deficient in the categories of content coverage and utilization of instructional material cannot be sustained. Ms. Childs also used the same video in other classes she taught on February 27, 1989, including World History and four World Geography classes. The video was appropriate for those classes also. It is not unusual for a teacher to show the same video to all of her classes. It makes sense to concentrate the use of audiovisual materials across several classes to minimize the logistical problems inherent in having the equipment delivered on a number of days at different class periods. The use of the video in several classes cannot have been very important in Ms. Childs' evaluation, however, because the only class period which Ms. Raulerson observed was the first period. It is difficult to understand how Ms. Raulerson could criticize the use of the video in other classes which she had not observed. More importantly, the Florida Performance Measurement System is designed to evaluate traditional teaching performance. The materials which make up the performance system point out that the summative evaluation of teaching cannot be performed during a class period if a test is given to students of 20 minutes duration or longer. Similarly here, the attempt to perform a summative evaluation during a class period where the teacher was screening a video renders the teaching evaluation invalid. An administrator trained in the use of the system should have know this. In any case, the expert testimony offered by Dr. Heald on the inappropriateness of using the Florida Performance Measurement System during a class period in which the video was shown is persuasive; the evaluation made is invalid. Ms. Raulerson also criticized Ms. Childs in the evaluation because two students in the class watching the video were "off task". One student removed a compact from her purse and put power on her face while watching the video. She had put powder on her face in other classes without being criticized. The action distracted no one. One could easily put on makeup while still paying attention to the film. It is inappropriate to generalize from this event that Ms. Childs generally fails to "stop misconduct" in her classes. Another student had obtained Ms. Child's permission before class to wrap a box with construction paper which the student was going to use in a peer teaching class. The student was a good student who could easily watch the film while devoting some time to covering the box. Ms. Childs' decision to grant the student permission to cover the box while watching the film is an insufficient basis to determine that Ms. Childs generally fails to stop misconduct in her classes. No misconduct was involved. These same instances also were the basis for determining that Ms. Childs does not orient students to classwork and maintain academic focus. As with the criterion dealing with misconduct, these instances do not support the generalization Ms. Raulerson made from them. Spelling On the area of presentation of subject matter, Ms. Raulerson found Ms. Child deficient for the indicator "treats concept- definition/attributes/examples/non-examples", with the comment "many words incorrectly spelled". This is the result of trivial misspellings contained in forms Ms. Childs completed during the year. One form was a referral slip written by Ms. Childs when a student misbehaved and was being sent to the office; it contained the word "surprize". The other was a note sent in lieu of a referral slip resulting from a fight where the word "cussed" appeared as "cused" and "none" is written "non". Since the notes obviously were written in haste in an effort to correct discipline problems, the misspellings are of no consequence. The spelling Ms. Childs used is, however, one recognized spelling of the word "surprise". In another situation, she wrote in a note on a student progress report that the student was failing "royaly". This was also a handwritten note that was passed from teacher to teacher for comments about the student's performance. Given its nature, the misspelling in this internal memo is of little significance. The Gray Notes Shortly after Ms. Raulerson's first period evaluation, Ms. Childs was evaluated by Professor Mary Gray from Florida International University. Ms. Childs had not been told beforehand that Dr. Gray would be observing her teaching that day. Had she know this, she would have rearranged her lessons so that she would have been providing a more standard lecture format for her class in order to benefit from the observation. Dr. Gray made notes of her observation of Ms. Childs. These five pages of notes written on legal pad sheets were introduced at the hearing as corroboration of the testimony of Ms. Raulerson, who had spoken with Dr. Gray before the summative evaluation was completed and given to Ms. Childs during fifth period on February 27, 1989. While the notes may be technically admissible as corroboration, Ms. Gray did not testify at the final hearing, and review of those notes is unenlightening. Lesson Plans and Punctuality Ms. Raulerson rated Ms. Childs unsatisfactory for dependability and "following policies and procedures" because lesson plans had not been completed before the lesson was presented on February 27, and because of her lateness for classes. Ms. Childs had been specifically instructed by her department chairman that her lesson plans for the week could be completed during her free period on Monday. As a result, she did not have a lesson plan already written out during the first period on Monday, February 27. It is true that the Faculty Handbook distributed to teachers for the 1988-89 school year states, under the heading "Plan Book and Grade Books," the following: Friday afternoon each teacher must hand in a copy of his/her plans for the next week to the Department Chairman. The faculty handbook is a tool created by the school administration, it was not shown to be a rule of the school board, although the board has a similar "policy." Exhibit 15. Having first established the general requirement that lesson plans should be submitted on the Friday before the week of instruction, the school administration also could modify that requirement. The general practice at the school did modify it. Ms. Childs' compliance with her department chairman's instruction and the general practice of the school should not be held against her. Finding that Ms. Childs' punctuality was unacceptable because she was not in class on time has been discussed above. It would be one thing if Ms. Childs had been late in arriving at school, but that was not the case. Her absence from classes early in the year occurred because she was learning announcements which both she and her students were required to know. Her conduct was a reasonable means of dealing with a difficult situation created when the school administration failed to make the speaker in her portable classroom operational. It is also significant that there were no instances of misbehavior by her students while she was spending the first few minutes of her class period in learning the announcements. The class was made up of older students with good records, so that leaving them unattended was not fraught with the peril presented by leaving younger or less responsible students without supervision for a few minutes early in the first class period. Procedural Errors After receiving the evaluation report prepared by Ms. Raulerson, the superintendent of schools recommended to the school board that Ms. Childs be reduced to annual contract for unsatisfactory performance. This would have the effect of terminating her continuing contract status. He sent Ms. Childs' notice of his recommendation on March 6, 1989. The matter was considered by the school board at its meeting on March 14, 1989, despite the requirement in the contract with the teacher's union that: Any teacher terminated from his/her contract shall have an opportunity to be heard before public hearing after at least ten (10) days written notice of the charges against him/her and of the time and place of hearing. Exhibit 13 at page 67 lines 2-5. The recommendation of reduction to annual contract was placed on the consent agenda, which means that the matter was considered favorably but without discussion at the board meeting. As a result of the board's action, Ms. Childs filed an appeal with the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District challenging her reduction to annual contract. By agreement of the parties, the court relinquished jurisdiction to the school board to conduct a full Section 120.57(1) hearing on Ms. Childs' contract status, which lead to this hearing. The Board's Assessment Policies The Okeechobee County Teacher Assessment System During the summer of 1988, the School Board of Okeechobee County adopted a systematic procedure for the evaluation of teacher performance know as the Okeechobee County Teacher Assessment System. That program had been developed by a committee established by the school board; among the members of the committee were the principal of the Okeechobee High School, Ms. Phoebe Raulerson, and the Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Danny Mullins. Under the heading of "Philosophy", the procedure adopted by the school board states: Teachers who experience performance problems should be advised of specific problems and provided assistance. Also, teachers who demonstrate superior performance should be recognized for their talent and diligence. In the substantive portion describing the procedure for assessment of teaching, the school board policy states: In the event that an employee is not performing his duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination and describe such unsatisfactory performance. The evaluator shall thereafter confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and assistance in helping to correct such deficiencies with a reasonable, prescribed period of time. Exhibit 14 at I., General Procedure. The Union Contract The School Board of Okeechobee County had a collective bargaining agreement with the Okeechobee Federation of Teachers which was in effect during the 1988-89 school year. The contract contains provisions governing personnel rights, which give every teacher the right to due process and grievance procedures. The contract also has a provision regarding teacher evaluation, which provides: . . . in the event an employee is not performing his duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination and describe such unsatisfactory performance. The evaluator shall thereafter confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance in helping to correct such deficiencies within a reasonable, prescribed period of time. Exhibit 13 at 43. The provisions on teacher assessment in the County's Teacher Assessment System and the union contract are essentially identical. The question arises whether the employee is entitled to a written description of unsatisfactory performance and the opportunity to correct performance deficiencies within a reasonable, prescribed period of time before the conduct may be embodied in an evaluation having adverse consequences on the teacher's employment status, or whether the adverse evaluation can itself be the written statement of unsatisfactory performance and result in reduction from continuing contract to annual contract status before the teacher has been offered assistance from the school board in correcting deficiencies. Viewed together, both the County Teacher Assessment System, and the Teacher Evaluation portions of the union contract indicate that a teacher will receive written notice of unsatisfactory performance and assistance in correcting deficiencies before adverse employment action is taken by the school board. It would be unreasonable to interpret the provisions of the Assessment System and the union contract quoted above to allow the school board to terminate an employee by following the procedure the board and its administration used here. The action the board has attempted to take with respect to Ms. Childs is less severe than termination, but it is adverse employment action. It was not preceded by delivery of any written statement of unsatisfactory performance to Ms. Childs. No administrator made any recommendations to Ms. Childs about how to improve her performance or established a period of time in which to correct deficiencies before her continuing contract status was threatened with termination. Ms. Raulerson's brief conversation with Ms. Childs at the opening of the year does not suffice, because it was not a written statement of unsatisfactory performance, and was not sufficiently specific to advise Ms. Childs of any failings. The written suggestions given to Ms. Childs by the Assistant Principal, Ms. James, were not criticisms of Ms. Childs putting her on notice that the administration found her performance inadequate. As discussed above, the general admonition in the second paragraph of Exhibit 1, "Always be on time yourself", was not an effort by the administration to put Ms. Childs on notice that her practice of going to the office to learn announcements which could not be heard in her classroom, in order to pass them on to her students, was unacceptable. The proposed reduction in contract status is inconsistent both with the Okeechobee County Teacher Assessment System and the provision of the union contract on teacher evaluation. Summary The basic problem in this case arose from Ms. Raulerson's dissatisfaction with the instruction she observed in Ms. Child's first period class on February 27, 1989. Ms. Raulerson attempted to apply the Okeechobee Teacher Assessment System in her observation, even though that system, and the state system on which it is based, is structured so that it cannot validly be applied when the lesson observed is an audiovisual presentation. Educators may differ over whether the National Geographic film shown in the American History class was appropriate, but Ms. Childs' explanation is cogent, and supported by the expert testimony of Dr. Heald. The use of the film was not improper. Ms. Raulerson completed the teaching evaluation of Ms. Childs based on the single, unrepresentative and invalid observation, and a brief discussion with Dr. Gray, who had observed the third period class. This resulted in a disciplinary recommendation which was unduly severe, and inconsistent with the procedures set out in the Okeechobee County Teacher Assessment System and the Board's contract with the Okeechobee Federation of Teachers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the School Board of Okeechobee County instructing the superintendent to prepare a contract for Andrea Childs for the 1989-90 school year in the usual form for continuing contract teachers. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of November, 1989. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 3rd day of November, 1989.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the Department of Children and Families should revoke Respondent’s license to operate a child care facility.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating providers that are licensed or registered to provide child care in the state of Florida. See § 402.305(1), Fla. Stat. Ms. Wright is the owner and operator of Little Learners. On January 9, 2017, Ms. Wright completed, signed, and submitted an application to the Department for Little Learners to operate as a child care facility in the state of Florida. Section E of the application is entitled “On-Site Director Information.” Section E instructs the applicant to identify the director of the child care facility. Section E further states that, “An On-site Director holds a Director Credential and is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the facility and is required to be on-site the majority of operating hours.” On her application, Ms. Wright wrote in the name of Shavol Spaulding as the director for Little Learners. Just above the applicant signature line, the application states: Falsification of application information is grounds for denial or revocation of the license to operate a child care facility. Your signature on this application indicates your understanding and compliance with this law. Based on the information contained in the application, the Department determined that Little Learners met all the requirements necessary to receive a license to operate a child care facility. Therefore, in January 2017, the Department issued a license to Little Learners. However, in or about May 2017, the Department received information that Ms. Spaulding never worked for Little Learners as its on-site director. Consequently, in June 2017, the Department initiated this action to revoke the license it issued to Little Learners in January 2017. The Department alleges that Ms. Wright misrepresented on the application that Little Learners had hired Ms. Spaulding to serve as its director. At the final hearing, the Department presented Christina Bryant, its Childcare Regulations Supervisor. In her role, Ms. Bryant reviews child care license applications. Ms. Bryant testified that in order for a child care facility to receive a license from the Department, the facility must employ a credentialed, on-site director.4 A director with the appropriate credentials assures the Department that someone who is trained in the required child care standards is overseeing the facility. Requiring the director to remain “on-site the majority of operating hours” ensures that the facility will provide the safest environment for the children who attend. The Department will not issue a license to a facility that does not identify a director or indicates that the director position is pending. Ms. Bryant relayed that around May 2017, the Department received a report from the Early Learning Coalition that Ms. Spaulding was not the director of Little Learners. Subsequently, on May 15, 2017, the Department obtained a letter signed by Ms. Spaulding confirming this fact. As a result, Ms. Bryant initiated an investigation to determine whether the Department appropriately issued a child care license to Little Learners. In the course of her investigation, Ms. Bryant contacted Ms. Wright. Ms. Wright expressed to Ms. Bryant that Ms. Spaulding was the director of her facility. However, Ms. Wright was not able to provide any documentation to Ms. Bryant verifying Ms. Spaulding’s employment as Little Learners’ director, such as personnel records, time sheets, or sign-in sheets. Consequently, Ms. Bryant concluded that Ms. Spaulding was not, in fact, the director of Little Learners. Ms. Bryant later learned that Ms. Spaulding was actually employed as the director of another child care facility. Ms. Bryant asserted that a credentialed child care director is required to be present at a single facility during a majority of the operating hours. Consequently, a director is not permitted to serve in such a capacity at more than one facility. Ms. Bryant conveyed that, rather than immediately initiating an action to revoke Petitioner’s license, the Department elected to allow Ms. Wright additional time to hire a director. Therefore, on May 19, 2017, the Department issued Little Learners a six-month, provisional license.5/ During this time period, Little Learners was allowed to operate without a designated director. Whitney Ricks, a Family Services Counselor, also testified for the Department. As part of her responsibilities, Ms. Ricks inspected the Little Learners facility in January and April 2017. Ms. Ricks reported that she met with Ms. Wright during both inspections. However, she never observed nor saw Ms. Spaulding at the facility. Ms. Ricks commented that Ms. Wright specifically represented to her that Ms. Spaulding did work at Little Learners, but was not present at the time of either inspection. Ms. Spaulding testified at the final hearing. Ms. Spaulding declared that she has never served as the director for Little Learners. Ms. Spaulding explained that, in October 2016, she applied for a director position with Ms. Wright. However, she never heard back regarding the job after her interview. Consequently, she never worked for Little Learners in any capacity. Ms. Spaulding confirmed that she wrote a statement in May 2017 informing the Department that she was not the director of Little Learners. Ms. Spaulding also stated that she currently works as the director of another child care facility, and did so on January 9, 2017, as well. Ms. Spaulding represented that she holds the required credentials to work as a child care director. She repeated Ms. Bryant’s testimony that a child care facility is required to employ a credentialed, on-site director in order to obtain a license to operate in the state of Florida. Ms. Spaulding also acknowledged that a child care director may only be employed by one facility at a time. Ms. Wright testified on behalf of Little Learners. Ms. Wright purchased the Little Learners center in October 2015. She was new to the child care business and has had to learn how to operate her facility as she gained experience. Ms. Wright insisted that, contrary to Ms. Spaulding’s testimony, she did hire her as Little Learners’ director. Ms. Wright further declared that she believed that Ms. Spaulding was serving as Little Learners’ director on January 9, 2017, when she applied for a child care license. Ms. Wright claimed that she did not find out that Ms. Spaulding was not working for Little Learners until three days after she submitted her application. It was then that the Early Learning Coalition notified her that Ms. Spaulding was employed as the director of another facility. Ms. Wright stated that she asked Ms. Spaulding to serve as Little Learners’ director within weeks after she opened Little Learners in October 2015.6/ Ms. Wright expressed that Ms. Spaulding started working for Little Learners shortly thereafter, and she saw Ms. Spaulding at her facility every day. Ms. Wright also asserted that Ms. Spaulding never told her that she was working for another child care facility. Ms. Wright further testified that she paid Ms. Spaulding $300 in cash every week since October 2015 for her director services. However, Ms. Wright did not retain (or produce for the Department) any employee documents, bank statements, pay stubs, tax forms, or other written records supporting her claim that Ms. Spaulding worked for Little Learners at any time between 2015-2017. Ms. Wright relayed that, after the Department contacted her, she confronted Ms. Spaulding about her work status. Ms. Wright attested that Ms. Spaulding apologized to her and told her that she had been caught working as the director of another child care business. Ms. Wright claimed that Ms. Spaulding offered to repay the money Ms. Wright had given her. Ms. Wright turned down Ms. Spaulding’s proposal because she did not believe that Ms. Spaulding could pay her back. Ms. Wright revealed that currently Little Learners has no director, no children to care for, and is essentially no longer operating. Ms. Wright explained that she attempted to hire another person as Little Learners’ director during the time she held the provisional license, but the person she sought out did not accept the job. In its Administrative Complaint, the Department alleges that Ms. Wright misrepresented the qualifications or credentials of Little Learner’s child care personnel (i.e., that Little Learners employed a director named Shavol Spaulding). The Department categorized Ms. Wright’s action as a Class I violation of section 402.319(1)(f)3. The Department seeks to revoke the license it issued to Little Learners in January 2017, as well as fine Little Learners in the amount of $500. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the clear and convincing evidence in the record establishes that Ms. Wright misrepresented the fact that Little Learners had a credentialed, on-site director on the date she submitted her application to the Department. Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that Little Learners’ application for a child care license should be revoked under section 402.319.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order revoking Respondent’s license to operate a child care facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 7th day of December, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a ninth grade student at North Dade Junior High School. She was born August 22, 1968. Respondent's behavior during the 1983-84 school year has been unsatisfactory and she is no longer responsive to the supervision of school officials. She was counseled or suspended on three occasions for excessive talking in class. She rejected an assignment to a special assistance classroom (C.S.I.) and refused to serve one suspension. She has cut classes and left school without permission on several occasions. A school-parent conference held December 7, 1983, produced no improvement in Respondent's disruptive behavior.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order assigning Rose Marie Farrell to its opportunity school. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Mary Farrell 2970 Northwest 153 Terrace Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend and terminate Respondent from his employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the School Board of Broward County, Florida, the agency head for the Broward County Public Schools, a public school district serving Broward County, Florida. Petitioner is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools within the Broward County school district, pursuant to article IX, section 4(n) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher at Arthur Ashe Middle School ("AAMS"), a middle school within the Broward County school district. Respondent has been a teacher for a total of 12 years, having taught at AAMS for ten of those years. He has been employed by Petitioner since 2003. Respondent started the 2011-2012 school year as a sixth grade language arts teacher.2/ In late January or early February 2012, Respondent was asked, and agreed, to assume a new teaching assignment as a seventh grade language arts teacher, specifically to prepare seventh grade students to take the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.3/ Respondent has received uniformly satisfactory performance evaluations throughout his teaching career with Petitioner and enjoys a reputation as an excellent teacher. He has not previously been disciplined. Background The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on or about February 16, 2012, while Respondent was teaching a seventh grade language arts class to which he recently had been assigned. Petitioner alleges that on that day, Respondent pushed one student, choked another student, and used profanity toward the students in the class. The Broward District Schools Police Department conducted an investigation of these alleged actions and presented the case to the Professional Standards Committee ("PSC") for a determination of probable cause. The PSC found probable cause that Respondent engaged in the alleged conduct, and recommended to the Superintendent for Broward County Public Schools that Respondent be suspended without pay pending final disposition of the matter and that he ultimately be terminated from his employment as a teacher. The Superintendent confirmed this recommendation, and on or about February 5, 2013, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay and took proposed action to terminate him from his employment as a teacher with Broward County Public Schools. Incident Giving Rise to Charges Respondent taught the seventh grade language arts class during the first instructional period of the day. On the day of the incident, Respondent timely arrived at the class but thereafter was summoned to the office by the head guidance counselor to deliver a report. Two substitute teachers, Christopher Hugley and Joyce Utley-Smith, were in the classroom at that time. Respondent was the designated lead teacher that day and the substitute teachers were assigned to assist him. Respondent estimated that he was absent from the classroom for approximately five minutes. Upon his return, he found, in his words, "chaos." Notwithstanding the presence of the two substitute teachers——who apparently took no effective action to control the class——the students were throwing candy and textbooks, talking loudly, using profanity, and walking around the room rather than staying seated in their desks.4/ Respondent began setting up a laptop computer and projector and passing out instructional packets to the students in preparation to conduct his lesson. Three female students in the class asked Respondent for permission to go to the restroom but he refused, consistent with his class policy of not allowing students to go to the restroom during class time except in an emergency.5/ The girls then asked Hugley if they could go to the restroom. Notwithstanding that Respondent did not allow them to go, Hugley gave them permission because, in his view, Respondent was "not prepared" and because he believed the students would have ample time to use the restroom and return to class before instruction started. AAMS has a policy that requires all students who leave class to be escorted by a security monitor. Nonetheless, Hugley did not summon a security monitor to escort the girls to the restroom, and instead allowed them to go unaccompanied. Respondent questioned Hugley as to why he had allowed the girls to go to the restroom after he had refused to allow them to go. As the girls were returning to the classroom, Respondent heard them in the hallway and went to the door. He saw them at the door of a neighboring classroom, causing a commotion with students in that class. The girls then tried to reenter Respondent's classroom but he stood in the door and refused to allow them to reenter because they left the class without his permission. One student, T.W., attempted to force her way back into the classroom by repeatedly trying to duck under Respondent's arm or maneuver around him, but he blocked her way each time. Respondent then attempted to close the door, but T.W. grabbed the door handle and tried to push Respondent aside. Respondent braced himself against the door frame and, in doing so, touched T.W.'s shoulder to prevent her from reentering the classroom. The persuasive evidence establishes that T.W. made the initial contact with Respondent; that Respondent did not push, shove, or punch T.W. or any of the other girls; and that neither T.W. nor any of the other girls fell into each other or onto the floor. Respondent closed the door, shutting the girls outside the classroom. Some students, angry at Respondent for not allowing the girls to reenter the classroom, directed profanity at him. Respondent admits that he responded by directing profanity back at them. At hearing, Respondent expressed sincere remorse and disappointment with himself for having behaved in this manner. The evidence establishes that Respondent had not previously used profanity in dealing with students and that this was an isolated incident. One student, T.L., was seated at the back of the classroom, with earphones in his ears, listening to an electronic device. The persuasive evidence establishes that T.L. said to Respondent "I wish you'd say that to me" or something to that effect. Respondent perceived this statement as a challenge to his authority and approached T.L. At that point, T.L. stood up from his desk and his chest bumped Respondent. Respondent put his hands on T.L.'s chest to push him away. In course of this altercation, Respondent and T.L. moved such that T.L.'s back became positioned against a cabinet. Respondent credibly testified that as the altercation ensued, T.L. repeatedly put his hands into his pockets, apparently attempting to retrieve items. Respondent was concerned that T.L. was attempting to retrieve a weapon, so he kept his hands on T.L.'s chest and remained close to him. At some point, Respondent felt T.L. relax, so he, too, relaxed and released T.L. The entire incident took place in a matter of a few seconds. At that moment, Assistant Principal Maddox entered the classroom and removed T.L. from the room. The persuasive evidence establishes that T.L. made the initial physical contact with Respondent; that Respondent pushed T.L. and put his hands on T.L.'s chest as a means of defending himself; and that Respondent did not choke T.L. The persuasive evidence further establishes that Respondent was an effective teacher before this incident and remains so after the incident. This incident has not impaired Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the school system. Findings of Ultimate Fact Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent and terminate his employment on the basis of "just cause." Sections 1012.33(1)(a) and (6) provide in pertinent part that instructional staff may be terminated during the term of their employment contract only for "just cause." See § 1012.33(1)(a),(6), Fla. Stat. (2011).6/ "Just cause" is defined to include misconduct in office. § 1012.33(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Petitioner has charged Respondent with committing misconduct in office. Misconduct in office is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(3)7/ as: violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-5.056(3) (emphasis added). In order to find Respondent guilty of misconduct under rule 6A- 5.056, not only must Respondent be determined to have violated rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, but the violations also must be so serious as to impair Respondent's effectiveness in the school system. See McMillan v. Nassau Cnty. Sch. Bd., 629 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(where evidence did not establish impaired effectiveness, there was no basis for determining that teacher engaged in misconduct warranting termination from employment). Rule 6B-1.001,8/ the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, provides: The educator values the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, and the nurture of a democratic citizenship. Essential to the achievement of these standards are the freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal opportunity for all. The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. Rule 6B-1.006,9/ the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, provides in pertinent part: The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual educator's certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law. Obligation to the student requires that the individual: Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/ or physical health and/or safety. * * * (e) Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. * * * (5) Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual: * * * (d) Shall not engage in harassment . . . which unreasonably interferes . . . with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment . . . . Although there was conflicting testimony as to whether Respondent pushed T.W., the persuasive evidence establishes that T.W. made the initial physical contact with Respondent while attempting to reenter the room contrary to his direction; that in bracing himself against the door frame to prevent the girls from reentering the room, Respondent touched T.W.'s shoulder; and that Respondent closed the door, shutting the girls out of the room. The evidence does not establish that Respondent pushed or punched T.W. or any of the other girls, or that they fell into each other or onto the floor. There also was conflicting evidence as to whether Respondent choked T.L. The persuasive evidence establishes that T.L. made the initial contact with Respondent, which Respondent interpreted as a sign of aggression, and that Respondent pushed against T.L.'s chest in order to defend himself. The evidence does not establish that Respondent choked T.L. Under these circumstances, Respondent's conduct constituted justifiable self-defense10/ because he was fearful that T.L. may have been searching for a weapon in his pockets. There is no dispute that Respondent used profanity in addressing the students in the classroom. In doing so, Respondent violated rule 6B-1.001 by failing to exercise his best professional judgment in dealing with the students on that particular occasion. Additionally, Respondent violated rule 6B- 1.006 by exposing the students to conditions that were harmful to learning. His conduct exposed the students to unnecessary disparagement; was harassing and interfered with the educational process on that particular day; and was hostile, abusive, and offensive. Even though the students directed profane language toward Respondent, he was not justified, as a professional educator, to respond in kind. However, the evidence did not establish that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system was impaired by this incident. Respondent previously had received only positive evaluations during his tenure with Petitioner, and the evidence clearly established that he enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, a reputation as an excellent teacher, even after the incident. Respondent had never before used profanity in dealing with students, and this was a one-time event. Respondent was remorseful and disappointed with himself for having engaged in such conduct. In sum, the persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system has not been impaired by this matter. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner did not sustain its burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent's conduct amounted to a violation of rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006 which is so serious as to impair his effectiveness in the school system. Accordingly, Respondent did not engage in misconduct as defined in rule 6A-5.056. Accordingly, there is no just cause, as required by subsections 1012.33(1)(a) and (6), to suspend Respondent without pay for the period commencing on February 5, 2013,11/ to present, and to terminate his employment as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County Public Schools, enter a final order: (1) finding that just cause does not exist to terminate or suspend Respondent's employment; (2) imposing a punishment consisting of suspension from employment for a total of 15 work days for violation of rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006 that does not amount to misconduct in office; and (3) awarding Respondent back-pay for the period commencing on the date of his suspension to the date of entry of the final order, less the amount of salary for the 15-work day suspension period. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 8th day of July, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Respondent Wieland has been employed with the Broward County school system for approximately twenty-three years. In the school year 1973/74, he held the position of Director of Exceptional Child Education. His immediate superior was the Program Director of Educational Services, Mr. Larry I. Walden, a member of the superintendent's staff. Dr. James R. Fisher served as Director of Psychological Services on Dr. Wieland's Exceptional Child Education staff. During the 1973/74 school year, several rather drastic changes were occurring with regard to the administration of the exceptional child education program. This was the year of decentralization in Broward County, where concepts of authority, decision-making, accountability and responsibility were filtering down to the building or school levels through the various principals. Also, the Florida Educational Financial Program began in that year. This program related to state funding for students based upon a particular weight factor assigned for students in different programs. The cost factors for programs for exceptional students is considerably higher than for basic programs. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, the actual responsibility for placement of children and implementation of programs resided with the principals of the individual schools. The role of the Exceptional Child Education staff was then reduced to one of consultation, advice and administration. Prior to decentralization, psychological testing was conducted under the direction or supervision of the Exceptional Student Education Department at the Diagnostic Center. With decentralization, testing psychologists became a part of the staff of the area offices and were answerable to their respective area superintendents. With this change, they were repeatedly instructed that their functions were consultative and that they were simply to test students upon receipt of a request from a school's principal. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, school psychologists, as well as the then Director of Psychological Services, were constantly concerned with the pressures being placed upon them by the school principals and area superintendents to rapidly test and certify students for eligibility in the various exceptional education programs. A count of such eligible students was to be made in October and February of each school year. The results of such counts had a tremendous effect upon the school principal's budget. Many school psychologists felt that students were being placed in programs without sufficient diagnosis or data. This, along with inadequate personnel, was a constant topic of discussion both among school psychologists and at meetings on the staff level. Mr. Walden, respondent's immediate superior, was informed by Dr. Fisher of files containing insufficient data and other procedural irregularities. Mr. Walden also attended some of the staff meetings at which various problems were discussed. No specific problems at Horizon Elementary School were discussed between Fisher and respondent Wieland during the 1973/74 school year. In fact, Dr. Fisher was unaware of any discrepancies or procedural irregularities at Horizon during that year. Conditions did not improve during the 1974/75 school year, according to various school psychologists and the exceptional education staff. They still felt pressure to rapidly identify eligible students for exceptional education programs in order to generate funding and they still felt there was inadequate staffing for psychological services. During this year, Mr. Joel Kieter assumed respondent's position of Director of the Exceptional Education Program and respondent became Coordinator of Special Services, formerly called Psychological Services. Thus, Mr. Kieter was respondent's immediate superior. During this year, Mr. Kieter's office had no direct role in the certification of students for the various exceptional education programs. The 1974 "District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" specifically provided that: "In the process of decentralization the exceptional student personnel at the district level have been relieved of direct responsibility for administration and instruction. The respon- sibilities of such personnel are now consultative and advisory in nature. The primary responsibility for administration and instruction is at the building level." However, Mr. Kieter's staff did attempt to give guidance to school psychologists and administrative personnel regarding the criteria for placement and the required procedures to be followed. Among the duties of respondent Wieland during the 1974/75 school year was direct responsibility for the Diagnostic Center, which was a repository for some 35,000 to 40,000 student files. School psychologists were instructed to obtain a case number from the Diagnostic Center for all new student files and to send a copy of the completed file to the Center. At one time, they were told that they could retain the folders as long as they thought the case was active. Student files were also to be kept at the student's school and in the area superintendents' offices. Inasmuch as the school psychologists were accountable to the area superintendents, the Center and its staff had no authority and could do little more than request them to promptly forward the files to the Center. At times, staff at the Diagnostic Center would return files for parental consent forms. Numerous staff meetings were held by Director Kieter during the 1974/75 school year. During these meetings, the school psychologists complained of their heavy caseload, the lack of secretarial help and other staff, pressures placed upon them by principals and area superintendents to place children in programs, inappropriate testing and lost or misplaced files. These were general discussions and specific incidents were not related. Dr. James Fisher, who was the team leader for psychologists in the North-Central area, had general discussions with both Dr. Wieland, Director Kieter, and even Mr. Walden concerning the pressure he felt with regard to the rapid testing of children and the inadequacy of data in the files of children who had already been placed. Dr. Fisher expressed to them his fear that emphasis was being placed upon the filling of classes, rather than upon the individual students. During the school year 1975/76, respondent again occupied the position of Coordinator of Special Services and Joel Kieter was again the Director of the Exceptional Education Program. The building principal of the referring school or the school enrolling the student was directly responsible for placement in the appropriate exceptional student program. ("1975 District Procedures for providing special Education for Exceptional Students," p. 199, H(2)(c) and p. 3). The exceptional student education staff was responsible for the determination of eligibility of individual students (p. 3 of the 1975 District Procedures). This determination was to be based upon the report of the testing psychologist. In the first portion of the 1975/76 school year, Director Kieter signed the eligibility determination forms (also referred to as the B-1 form). This responsibility was delegated by Mr. Kieter to respondent Wieland in mid- December, 1975. Prior to this delegation, Mr. Kieter occasionally signatured some B-1 forms without having seen the psychological report. This was done because of a backlog in clerical assistance and processing, and to expedite the procedure. Mr. Kieter was assured by the school psychologists that if the B-1 form had been sent to him for execution, proper testing had been completed, the report was in the process of being written and the data was available. Simultaneous with the time that the authority to sign B-1 forms was delegated to Dr. Wieland, Mr. Kieter issued a memorandum to all school psychologists stating that B-1 forms without the completed psychological report attached thereto would no longer be entertained. In the Fall of 1975, Mr. Fisher communicated with Director Kieter concerning the absence of certain psychological data in the files of some ten to twelve students at Horizon Elementary School. Mr. Kieter instructed Mr. Fisher to make up any deficiencies in those folders. Mr. Kieter also discussed the folders with the principal of Horizon, Mr. Wallsworth. Other than this incidence, Director Kieter was not informed of any specific irregularities or abuses in the exceptional education program at Horizon during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. John Georgacopoulos worked in the Diagnostic Center as a psychometrist from 1969 to 1971, and at Horizon Elementary School as a guidance counselor in the school years 1974/75 and 1975/76. As a guidance counselor, he attended "staffings" or meetings with school psychologists pertaining to the placement of students in the various programs. He was also involved with the testing of students at Horizon. In the school year 1974/75 -- his first year at Horizon -- Mr. Georgacopoulos perceived that there were problems in the running of Horizon's exceptional student program. These problems included the misclassification of students, the placing of students into programs without certification and without proper testing, the nonexistence of programs for which children were certified and mimeographed certifications with the students' name placed thereon at a later time. Mr. Georgacopoulos informed Horizon's principal, Mr. Wallsworth, of these irregularities on numerous occasions during the 1974/75 school year. He also states that he discussed these problems with Mr. Fisher, Director Kieter and respondent Wieland. Both Dr. Wieland and Mr. Kieter denied being informed by Mr. Georgacopoulos of any irregularities at Horizon during the 1974/75 school year. According to Mr. Georgacopoulos, problems at Horizon continued in the 1975/76 school year. These included the misplacement of children, improper or inadequate testing of students, nonexistence of programs, inadequate data in student files and the lifting of signatures onto psychological reports. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos obtained from Mr. Wallsworth's office a computer printout of students funded for the various exceptional education programs at Horizon. He then checked the files of these students both at the Diagnostic Center and at Horizon and found that many did not have case numbers assigned to them, that many contained inadequate or no data and that, for some students, files did not exist at all either at the school or the Center. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos went to respondent's office and talked to respondent about the alleged irregularities existing at Horizon. It is difficult to discern from Georgacopoulos' testimony what specifics were related to respondent. It appears that Wieland was informed that children were certified as gifted when no gifted program existed at Horizon, that children were being placed in the wrong programs, that children were being placed without appropriate or adequate testing and that the information in the student files was inadequate. At the time of this discussion, respondent had a difficult time following Georgacopoulos' conversation. He appeared to respondent to ramble and to be upset and confused. Respondent felt that Georgacopoulos simply disagreed with the psychologists' reports as well as the contents of the gifted program. As a result of this conversation, respondent told Georgacopoulos that some information might be in the files at the Diagnostic Center and offered him the opportunity to check these files with the assistance of his staff. Georgacopoulos told respondent that he had discussed these irregularities with Principal Wallsworth. On May 27, 1976, Robert Lieberman, a school psychologist at Horizon, went to respondent's office and told him of irregularities that existed at Horizon. These included the lack of programs for gifted and emotionally disturbed students, the misplacement of certified children, inappropriate "staffing" of children, inappropriate and/or inadequate testing before placement and the pressures placed upon school psychologists to test and place numerous students within a short amount of time. Lieberman was concerned that he would lose his job at Horizon and Respondent told him to try to finish out the school year without sacrificing his professionalism. Dr. Wieland also offered to help him get an interview for a job at the county level. Sometime between May 27th and June 9, 1976, Ms. Queen Sampson, a school psychologist from the area office, talked to respondent and confirmed the statements made by Georgacopoulos and Lieberman. On June 9, 1976, respondent again discussed the irregularities at Horizon with Mr. Georgacopoulos. During this conference, Mr. Georgacopoulos specifically placed the blame upon Principal Wallsworth and he was more emphatic and specific in his allegations concerning the irregularities. He also mentioned the falsification of psychological reports via the "lifting" of signatures, and stated that this had come to his attention in May of 1976. Respondent was aware at this June 9, 1976, meeting that Mr. Georgacopoulos was leaving the Broward County school system. Mr. Georgacopoulos testified that he had discussed specific irregularities at Horizon with Director Joel Kieter during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. Kieter denied that there had been any such discussions and testified that he had never even met Mr. Georgacopoulos prior to June 9, 1976. About an hour after talking to Mr. Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, respondent Wieland went to the office of William T. McFatter, Assistant to the Superintendent. He related that Georgacopoulos had made serious allegations against Mr. Wallsworth and asked for McFatter's advice. Mr. McFatter remembers that respondent mentioned the possibility of double funding and the qualification of students for the gifted program at Horizon. McFatter advised respondent to go straight to superintendent Mauer with the allegations. McFatter and respondent then went to the superintendent's office and a brief ten to fifteen minute meeting ensued. This was the last day of the school year for students and the superintendent was quite busy at this time. The possibility of double funding was an explosive issue to the Superintendent and this is the only irregularity he recalls having been mentioned by respondent on June 9, 1976. The superintendent immediately called a Mr. Cox, who deals with pupil accounting, and related to him his concern with double funding of students in the exceptional education program. Mr. McFatter, Mr. Mauer and respondent then went to the office of Mr. Cox and respondent Wieland was assigned the task of determining the existence or nonexistence of double funding. None was found and respondent so reported to Mr. Mauer. Subsequently, respondent and two other persons were assigned the task of auditing the records of the exceptional student program at Horizon. The auditors were unable to verify either the existence or nonexistence of certain records, forms and psychological reports for many students. It was clear that many files were incomplete and there was no evidence that either the gifted or emotionally disturbed programs existed at Horizon. Respondent Wieland explained the delay between the first March 1976, meeting with Mr. Georgacopoulos and his June 9, 1976, report to Mr. McFatter and the Superintendent as follows. Respondent (as well as others) classified Georgacopoulos as a "child advocate," and respondent felt at the March meeting that Georgacopoulos was merely expressing his disagreement with psychological reports and the contents of certain existing programs. During the March meeting, his allegations were general in nature and his discussion of irregularities appeared to ramble and be confusing. Respondent was more concerned with the demeanor of Georgacopoulos than with what he was saying. When Mr. Lieberman related similar and more specific irregularities, which were thereafter confirmed by Queen Sampson, respondent felt that disclosure of Lieberman's and Sampson's statements would be detrimental to their future employment with the school system. Upon confirming that Georgacopoulos was leaving the school system, respondent felt that the charges could be attributed to Georgacopoulos without injury to Lieberman and Sampson. He therefore had another conference with Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, and decided to seek advice from the Assistant to the Superintendent, Mr. McFatter. Various other events have transpired since June 9, 1976, concerning Horizon Elementary School exceptional education program irregularities. These include a letter from Mr. Georgacopoulos to the Superintendent, which letter appears to have instigated an investigation by the Security Office or the Internal Affairs Division. Such later events are not deemed relevant to the present charges against respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent be immediately reinstated to his former position and that any back salary be paid to him for the reason that the charges against him were not sustained by the evidence. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: School Board of Broward County 1327 S.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida John B. Di Chiara DiGiulian, Spellacy, Bernstein, Lyons and Sanders Suite 1500, One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Robert M. Curtis Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore P.O. Drawer 4078 1750 East Sunrise Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Duval County School Board should be terminated for the reasons specified in the Notice of Termination of Employment Contract and Immediate Suspension without Pay dated March 27, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Duval County School Board (School Board) is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Duval County, Florida. Ms. Beverly L. Howard has been employed by the Duval County School Board as a classroom teacher for over 32 years. She went to Paxton Senior High School and then to Florida A & M University, graduating with a bachelor of science degree in elementary education. The School Board seeks to terminate Ms. Howard’s employment. Her substantial interests are affected by this intended action. Ms. Howard has a history of past misconduct and disciplinary action. While teaching at Hyde Grove Elementary School in 1992, Ms. Howard received three memoranda from Principal Theresa Stahlman concerning her interactions with parents and students and her teaching performance. Among other comments, Ms. Stahlman noted that Ms. Howard needed significant improvement to “show sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment.” Ms. Stahlman testified that Ms. Howard exhibited a “very loud punitive behavior management style” and that she wanted to help Ms. Howard improve. A note at the end of one memorandum indicates that Ms. Howard had said that she did not need cadre assistance and that she would request assistance if she needed it. A note on another memorandum indicates that Ms. Howard refused to sign it. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that the things Ms. Stahlman wrote in the three memoranda were lies. Ms. Howard said that Ms. Stahlman was a racist and was prejudiced. Ms. Stahlman gave Ms. Howard an unsatisfactory evaluation. The next year, Ms. Howard got an option to go to another school. On March 8, 1995, a conference was held between Ms. Howard, a parent of one of her students, and Principal Debbie Sapp. The student had alleged that Ms. Howard had pushed her down. Principle Sapp noted in a memorandum that Ms. Howard “vehemently denied this, in an extremely rude and unprofessional manner” and said that she would never put her hands on a student. Principal Sapp advised Ms. Howard that being argumentative and defensive with parents was unacceptable and only made bad situations worse. On March 10, 1995, Principal Sapp was making morning classroom checks when she overheard Ms. Howard repeatedly yell at a student, “Get out of my classroom.” Ms. Howard’s final comment was “Get out before I throw you out.” Principal Sapp then entered the classroom and saw a student standing at her desk, about to leave. Ms. Howard said that the student had been misbehaving all morning. Principal Sapp told the students that she did not expect teachers to yell at them or threaten them and admonished them to behave. In a memorandum to Ms. Howard, Principal Sapp wrote that Ms. Howard needed to work on controlling her temper, noted that Ms. Howard’s classroom was frequently in disarray, and stated that yelling at students and threatening them was inappropriate behavior that only made things worse. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that when Ms. Sapp came down the hall and heard a teacher yelling, Ms. Sapp never came face-to-face with her, and that it could have been the voice of another teacher which Ms. Sapp heard. On May 27, 2003, the Office of Professional Standards investigated a complaint from a student’s parent that Ms. Howard had grabbed the student by the arm, choked him, and caused him to vomit. The student said that Ms. Howard dug her fingernails into his arm when he got up to retrieve a paper that another boy had taken from his desk. He said that her nails were hurting him, so he began hitting Ms. Howard. He then said that she put her hand around his throat and made him choke. He said he felt sick and threw up. Ms. Howard denied the accusation. She stated that the student was in a fight with a female student in her class and that she separated them. She said she asked the female student to sit down and attempted to gain control of the male student. Ms. Howard showed the investigator a scratch on her thumb that she said was made by the student. She stated that after she assisted the student to his desk he began gagging and attempting to vomit. She said that only saliva came up and she asked him to go to the bathroom to clean himself up. The investigation was closed as “unable to prove or disprove.” The Office of Professional Standards investigated allegations of unprofessional conduct against Ms. Howard on April 28, 2004. The mother of student T.J. had left a message with Ms. Howard to call her to talk about scratches on T.J.’s arm. Ms. Howard called the mother at her workplace, University of Florida Jacksonville Physicians. The mother asked Ms. Howard if she knew where the scratches came from, and Ms. Howard said they came from an incident in the library. The mother could then hear Ms. Howard asking T.J. and another girl in her class about what had happened. The other girl said that T.J. had done things to cause the incident. Ms. Howard immediately relayed to the mother that the incident had been T.J.’s fault. The mother became upset, realizing that Ms. Howard had not been present and yet was completely accepting the other girl’s version of what had happened. The mother then told Ms. Howard that this was not right and that she would go to see the principal. Ms. Howard told the mother that she could talk to whomever she wanted to, and then put the phone down as if intending to disconnect the call, but the mother could still hear what was going on in the classroom. Ms. Howard said, “Class, isn’t T.J. a nasty little girl?” The class responded, “Yes, ma’am.” The mother heard Ms. Howard say, “Class, don’t I send home paperwork?” The children responded, “Yes, ma’am.” The mother could hear T.J. trying to ask Ms. Howard a question, and Ms. Howard saying, “Go sit your behind down.” At this point the mother became angry that Ms. Howard was verbally abusing her child in front of the other children. She asked her “lead” at her workplace to continue to monitor the call. She immediately left, and drove directly to the school to talk to the principal, Ms. Blackshear. The investigator received statements from the mother’s lead and several co-workers which contained additional statements Ms. Howard made to the students. Ms. Howard said: [T.J.] get out of my face, you can go home and tell your mama all of those lies. Yeah, she is probably going to want to have a conference with Ms. Blackshear. Go ahead and get out of my face with your nasty disrespectful face. Ms. [T.J.] sit down, I have already told your mama that you will be retained in the second grade. You want to be all that, well I can be more. The investigator determined that the phone number shown on the workplace caller ID feature was the number of Ms. Howard’s cell phone. When interviewed by the Office of Professional Standards, Ms. Howard denied making the above comments regarding T.J. She stated that T.J. had been a problem all year and that the student’s mother “got an attitude” with her. Ms. Howard did admit she placed a “shelter kid,” who was a juvenile inmate, outside of her classroom without supervision “for a few minutes.” She stated that everyone in the school knew it was a bad class, but she was being blamed. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that the lead and co-workers of T.J.’s mother were lying when they made statements about her interactions with the students in her classroom. She said she put the phone in her purse, and the purse in her desk drawer, and that no one could have heard any conversations in the classroom. Student T.J. was then reassigned from Ms. Howard’s class. At hearing, T.J. testified that when she was in Ms. Howard’s third-grade class, she “got her card flipped to pink” on a daily basis (this color indicating the worst conduct). She admitted that she deserved this sometimes, but not all the time. She testified that she remembered that Ms. Howard used to pinch her arm when she was “in trouble.” T.J. remembered that Ms. Howard called her names, saying she was nasty, disrespectful, and in need of home training, in front of the other students. She testified that she had problems in Ms. Howard’s class because she needed to go to the bathroom frequently and Ms. Howard would only let her go once a day. She would sometimes wet her pants. She then would have to wait until she was allowed to go to the office to call her mother to get clean clothing. On May 17, 2004, the Duval County School Board administered discipline to Ms. Howard for her interactions with her class as reported by T.J.’s mother and her co-workers. She was issued a written reprimand, suspended for five days without pay, and required to attend an anger management session. Ms. Howard was informed that she had been given the opportunity of constructive discipline instead of a reduction of pay or dismissal to afford her progressive discipline, and that any further improper conduct on Ms. Howard’s part would subject her to more severe disciplinary action. The written reprimand set forth Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) in its entirety, with its requirement that she “make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.” Ms. Howard signed a Receipt and Acknowledgement that she received a copy of the reprimand. On September 6, 2012, shortly after the start of the 2012-2013 school year, Louis Sheffield Elementary School held an open-house night. Ms. Lindsey Connor, assistant principle at the school, credibly testified to Ms. Howard’s response to a parent’s assertion that Ms. Howard had refused to allow her son, T.S., to go to the bathroom and that he had wet his pants in her class. Ms. Howard said to the mother of T.S., “What seems to be the problem?” in a harsh tone. After some discussion, Ms. Howard said something to the effect of: “Your son is a liar. He lies. He doesn’t need to be in my classroom anymore.” Ms. Howard denied that she ever told the mother of T.S. that her child was a liar. She stated that that would have been unprofessional. Ms. Howard testified that Ms. Connor’s statement that this had happened was a lie and that Ms. Connor was always taking the parents’ side. Ms. Howard testified that she never prevented a child from going to the bathroom and that T.S. just wet himself. Ms. Conner received numerous complaints about Ms. Howard from parents of Ms. Howard’s kindergarten students. Ms. Connor received six requests from parents to remove their children from Ms. Howard’s class. Ms. Connor testified that this was an unusually high number of requests and that she was concerned. J.F. was a student in Ms. Howard’s kindergarten class who exhibited behavioral problems. She would do acrobatic flips in the classroom and would tie her shoelaces to the chairs. She appeared to be hyper-active and would fall out of her chair when she was at her seat. J.F. would go all around Ms. Howard’s classroom and did not listen to Ms. Howard. She would back-talk Ms. Howard and showed her no respect. J.F. was frightened of Ms. Howard and often cried. Ms. Howard testified that she wanted to get specialized treatment or placement for J.F. but that the parents would not agree. In response to a complaint from the parents of J.F., Ms. Connor asked Ms. Howard to prepare a chart on which stickers could be placed to document J.F.’s progress in school. Ms. Connor asked Ms. Howard to bring the chart to a meeting to discuss how to help J.F. advance. Ms. Howard did not bring anything to the meeting and said nothing about how she might be able to help J.F. The mother of W.B. testified that her son was in Ms. Howard’s kindergarten class and that he loved Ms. Howard as a teacher. On one occasion in Ms. Howard’s classroom, W.B.’s mother observed Ms. Howard pull J.F. by the arm over to her when J.F. had gotten into trouble. The mother stated that J.F. appeared scared and she would not have liked Ms. Howard to do that to her child. In response to a call from the parent of C.B., a student in Ms. Howard’s class, Ms. Connor suspected that Ms. Howard may have hit one or more of her kindergarten students with a book. In a discussion with the Professional Standards office, Ms. Connor was told that she should investigate, advise the teacher, and contact the Department of Children and Families. Ms. Conner conducted interviews with students assigned to Ms. Howard’s class in the presence of a witness and took notes as to what the students told her. She testified that she brought the students into her office individually, that they didn’t know beforehand what she was going to talk to them about, and that they had no opportunity to collaborate or coordinate their statements. After conducting interviews with the children, Ms. Connor advised Ms. Howard of an allegation that Ms. Howard struck J.F. on multiple occasions with a book. Ms. Howard responded that she would not provide a written statement because she had never hit a student. Ms. Connor notified the Department of Children and Families. The report and testimony of the child protective investigator indicated that J.F was open, happy, and smiling during the “non-threatening” portions of the interview, but the investigator testified that when asked about Ms. Howard’s class, J.F. became nervous, chewed on the ends of her clothes, began to fidget, and asked if Ms. Howard was going to know what J.F. was saying. The investigator interviewed several students in the class. The report indicated that J.F. was free of suspicious marks or bruises. When the investigator interviewed Ms. Howard, she denied ever hitting J.F. with a book or slamming her down in her seat when J.F. was misbehaving. Ms. Howard indicated that she was close to retirement and would not hit a child. Student J.F. testified at hearing that she did not like Ms. Howard as her kindergarten teacher because Ms. Howard “did not want to be nice to me.” She testified that Ms. Howard “hurt me.” She testified that Ms. Howard “hit me on the leg with a book.” She testified that Ms. Howard hit her with the book because Ms. Howard had told her to get down on the carpet. She held up five fingers when asked how many times Ms. Howard had hit her. During cross-examination, she testified that she had been hit five times in succession on a single occasion. On redirect, she testified that she had been hit on five separate days. Student K.D., aged six, testified that J.F. did bad things in Ms. Howard’s class. He testified that J.F. put her head in her shirt. He testified that the class would sit on the carpet every day for a little while. He testified that sometimes J.F. would stay on the carpet when she was supposed to go to her seat. He said that J.F. got spanked on her back by Ms. Howard with a book. He testified that Ms. Howard hit her on more than one day, and when asked how many days, said “sixteen.” He did not know how he knew it was 16 days. He later testified that Ms. Howard hit her “sixteen times every day.” The father of student J.C.M. testified that he transferred J.C.M. from a Montessori school to Louis Sheffield Elementary because his wife was going to have another baby and that school was closer to their home, which would mean a shorter drive for her. The first day that J.C.M. went to Ms. Howard’s class was February 11, 2013. The parents immediately began receiving “agenda notes” from Ms. Howard saying that J.C.M. was not behaving well. The father testified that J.C.M. did not want to go back to Ms. Howard’s class the next few days and would cry when they dropped him off. The father testified that since J.C.M. had never been a discipline problem and had done well at his prior school, he sent a note in after the second day to schedule a conference with Ms. Howard. The father testified that on the second or third day, J.C.M. came home complaining that his arm hurt, but when questioned as to what had happened, J.C.M. gave different stories. First he said a lady had grabbed his arm in the classroom. When asked “What lady?” J.C.M. said that it was a friend, another student. Later, he said that the injury had happened on the playground. Still later, he said that the injury was caused by his grandfather. The father was confused by these different answers. When the parents received no response to the request to meet with Ms. Howard, the parents went to the school and met with Ms. Connor, who advised them that Ms. Howard was no longer in the classroom, but she did not tell them why. Since J.C.M. now had a new teacher, his parents did not ask that he be moved to another class. Student J.C.M., aged six, testified that he had been moved into Louis Sheffield Elementary in the middle of the school year and only had Ms. Howard as his teacher for a few days. J.C.M. testified that on one of those days, “I was in the door and then I -- I didn’t kicked it. I didn’t kicked it, I touched it with my feet.” He testified that Ms. Howard grabbed him and put him by her desk or table and that his “arm hurted for a little bit –- a little bit long.” He testified that he saw Ms. Howard hit J.F. on the head with a book because she was not writing when she was supposed to be writing. He testified that on a later day Ms. Howard also hit him on the head with a book when he was on the rug, but he forgot if he was supposed to be on the rug or not. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that she never put her hands on any of the students. She did not know why the children would say that she had, except that they had been coerced to say it. She testified that she had been under a doctor’s care and that she had had back surgery and that her medical condition affected her ability to lift or throw items. She testified she could not bend over or lift heavy objects because it probably would have torn her sutures. She testified that she had been under a doctor’s care since January 30 and that it took her until February 14, the day she was reassigned, to recover. She testified that not only was it not in her character to hit a child, she was physically incapable of doing so at the time. The testimony of Ms. Connor that the kindergarten children had no opportunity to coordinate their statements and that they did not even know in advance why she wanted to talk to them is credited. Ms. Connor’s notes as to what each child told her supplement and corroborate the testimony of the children later at hearing. Although the direct testimony as to Ms. Howard’s actions all came from these young children, they were capable of observing and recollecting what happened in their kindergarten class and capable of relating those facts at hearing. Their responses to questions at hearing showed that the children had a moral sense of the obligation to tell the truth. There was no objection from Respondent as to the children’s competency, and they were competent to testify. These young children’s accounts of events were sufficiently credible and corroborative to prove that Respondent struck J.F. with a book on multiple occasions. There was credible testimony that J.F. was struck on her legs with a book when she would not get down on the carpet as she was supposed to, was struck on her back with a book when she would not get up off of the carpet as she was supposed to, and was struck on the head with a book when she would not write as she was supposed to. These physical contacts took place in front of other students. While the exact number of times she was struck was not clear, the testimony that it was deliberately done and was constantly repeated is credited. Ms. Sonita Young is the chief human resource officer of Duval County Schools. She reviewed Ms. Howard’s personnel file in making her recommendation to the Superintendent that Ms. Howard be suspended without pay pending termination. Ms. Howard’s employment record, including both performance issues and disciplinary issues, was considered in determining the appropriate recommendation to be made to the Superintendent and ultimately to the Board. A Notice of Termination of Employment Contract and Immediate Suspension without Pay from her position as a kindergarten teacher at Louis Sheffield Elementary was presented to Ms. Howard on March 27, 2013. The Notice alleged that Respondent had violated certain provisions of the Code of Ethics, contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.080, and a Principle of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, contained in rule 6A-10.081. Ms. Howard challenged the grounds for her termination and sought a hearing before an administrative law judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The rules cited above were adopted by the State Board of Education and relate to the public schools or the public school system. Rule 6A-10.081 was renumbered, but is substantively identical to the rule cited to Ms. Howard earlier in her May 17, 2004, Written Reprimand. Ms. Howard was well aware of her responsibility to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to students’ mental or physical health or safety, because she had previously been disciplined for failing to do so. Ms. Howard’s actions in striking J.F. with a book failed to protect her students from conditions harmful to their mental and physical health and safety in violation of rule 6A- 10.081. Ms. Howard’s constantly repeated actions in striking J.F. constitute persistent violation of the rule and are cause to terminate her employment as a teacher. Ms. Howard’s deliberate actions in striking J.F. constitute willful refusal to obey the rule and are cause to terminate her employment as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Duval County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Beverly L. Howard. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 October, 2013.
The Issue Whether Rita M. Green (Respondent), committed the violations alleged, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Brevard County Public School District (school district). As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was an employee of Petitioner and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. Respondent was assigned to teach an exceptional student education class at University Park Elementary School (UPES). Respondent's class at UPES consisted of a group of pre-K handicapped students with varying exceptionalities. Respondent allowed two students from a nearby sixth grade class to "help out" during a portion of the school day. Additionally, a full- time teacher's aide was assigned to Respondent's class who also assisted Respondent with the students. It is undisputed that Respondent's students were challenging due to their various limitations and exceptionalities. One of the students in Respondent's class was a young, non-verbal autistic child who typically spent only a half day at the school. The child, who was three or four years old, brought food for the lunch period but would primarily eat the finger foods packed by the mother that did not require a utensil. The child's mother packed a special spoon with a certain design and color that the child used for foods like applesauce. Autistic children require consistency and a strict adherence to routine. Deviations from their comfort zone and routine can lead to tantrums or other undesirable reactionary behaviors. The autistic child in Respondent's class was typical in this regard. The student did not adjust well to change and would exhibit adverse responses to the unexpected. Respondent knew the child well enough to understand the need for, and the importance of, consistency and adherence to routine. With regard to the student's individual education plan (IEP), the student was to begin working on feeding skills using a hand-over-hand teaching method. Eventually it was expected that the student would develop the skill to self-feed those foods requiring a utensil. Force feeding was not prescribed by the IEP or expected by the student. In fact, whether or not the student actually consumed food was not required by the IEP. On February 18, 2009, Respondent's aide began to set up the lunch foods for the students in the class. This was one of the aide's assigned duties and was a routine of the class day. With regard to the autistic student previously described, the aide set out the finger foods packed in the lunchbox as well as jars of other foods requiring a utensil. Unfortunately, the student's mother had forgotten to pack the special utensil that the student was accustomed to using/seeing. The student began to eat the finger foods and did not display any agitation or poor conduct. When Respondent approached the student with a disposable "spork" that she intended to use for the food in jars, the child began to tantrum. It was evident the autistic student did not react well to the spork. Respondent observed the adverse reaction but persisted in her efforts to feed the student. She wrongly presumed that if the student would taste the food, the familiarity of the food would overcome the adverse reaction to the spork. The more Respondent tried to get the student to eat, the more the student resisted and fought. At one point Respondent enlisted the assistance of one of the helper sixth grade students (both of whom were in the classroom at the time). Respondent directed the student to hold the autistic child so that she could put the spork/food into the student's mouth. Despite continuous opposition from the child, Respondent held the student's face with one hand and used her other hand to shove food toward the student's mouth. This behavior was confirmed by both of the sixth graders as well as the aide who was also present. As a result of the incident described above, the autistic student was left with bruises that depicted a handprint on one side of the face. This bruising remained visible the next day and was photographed by authorities. Respondent maintained that the student had caused the injuries by resisting and pulling away from her. It is common for autistic children to injure themselves during tantrum events. Nevertheless, had Respondent not held the face so tightly, the bruising would not have occurred. The simple solution to avoid the injury would have been for Respondent to release the student when the adverse reaction to the spork began. In fact, the proper response to any stimulus that causes an adverse reaction with an autistic child is to remove the offending trigger. Autistic children will continue to respond adversely so long as the offensive trigger remains. In this case, Respondent merely wore the student out. The thrashing and resistance continued until the student could fight no more. When the student was scheduled to go home (at the usual pick up time), Respondent advised the mother that the student was asleep. She returned later to pick up the child but noticed the student's demeanor and behavior were different. Further, the bruising on the student's face was evident. The mother accepted Respondent's explanation for the discoloration. Troubled by what she had observed Respondent do, the aide reported the incident to school administrators. Administrators spoke with the two sixth-grade students who had been in the class at the time of the incident who corroborated the aide's representation of what had occurred. The witnesses confirmed Respondent restrained the child with her legs, held the student's face tightly with one hand, and attempted to shove food with the spork. As is required by law, the school administrators reported the incident to authorities who initiated an investigation into abuse allegations. Respondent did not then, and did not at hearing, accept responsibility for causing the bruising on the student's face. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that as a direct result of Respondent's behavior the autistic student suffered bruising. No other person grabbed the student's face and held it with the force necessary to leave bruises. Respondent failed to understand that such behavior is unacceptable. Respondent failed to acknowledge that the proper response to the student's adverse reaction would have been to let the student go. Respondent was not required to feed the autistic student. Respondent was not required to hold the student so tightly that bruises were left. Respondent was not preventing the student from self-injurious behavior. The student in question was not the first autistic child assigned to Respondent's class. Prior to the incident complained, of Respondent had many times dealt with students who were similarly handicapped or limited. Prior to the incident complained of, Respondent had enjoyed a good reputation for dealing with a challenging student population. Respondent offered no credible explanation for why her behavior on the date in question deviated from acceptable teaching standards. Teachers in Florida are not allowed to physically harm students. Subsequent to the investigation of the incident Respondent was suspended from her teaching duties. On May 5, 2009, Richard A. DiPatri, acting as superintendent for the school district, notified Respondent that he intended to recommend termination of her employment as a teacher at the May 12, 2009, meeting of the Brevard County School Board. The notice further explained the basis for the termination and stated, in pertinent part: The reason for my decision is that an investigation has shown that on or about February 18, 2009, you physically abused a 3 year old special needs student assigned to your Pre-K handicapped class at University Park Elementary School. Specifically, you attempted to force feed the student by shoving a spoon down his throat while holding him by the head and neck. In doing so you used such force that the student was gasping for air and spitting up the food and suffered bruises on his face, neck and back. Respondent timely challenged the proposed termination and the matter was appropriately forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment with the school district. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2010 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph R. Lowicky, Esquire Glickman, Witters and Marrell, P.A. The Centurion, Suite 1101 1601 Forum Place West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Matthew E. Haynes, Esquire Jeffrey Sirmons, Esquire Johnson and Haynes, P.A. The Barrister’s Building 1615 Forum Place, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas Johnson, Esquire Johnson, Haynes & Miller, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 305 Brandon, Florida 33511 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard A. DiPatri, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6601
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding Florida Educator’s Certificate 958493, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Autism Spectrum Disorders, valid through June 30, 2014. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Bay County School District as an ESE teacher at Margaret K. Lewis Center (MKL Center). This is a second career for Respondent. She left a business and technology career to pursue a career in education, specifically working with students with special needs. Respondent obtained her Master’s degree and a special designation to work with special needs students. Respondent was motivated to pursue teaching special education students because she had an aunt with Down’s syndrome who had limited educational opportunities. Respondent taught at Oscar Patterson Elementary for the 2006-2007 school year, and then transferred to MKL Center beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. After Respondent received her state educational certification in autism spectrum disorders, she requested to be assigned to teach an ESE class beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. That year, she was voted as “Teacher of the Year” by her peers. The class to which Respondent was assigned was a challenging class. It was not unusual for students in this classroom to bite, kick, hit, pinch, and trip staff. During the 2010-2011 school year, the number of students was reduced from eight to four, and the number of paraprofessionals was increased from two to three. During the 2011-2012 school year, there were four students in her classroom: C.B., J.B., K.M., and D.C. One paraprofessional, Patricia Lewis, was assigned specifically to D.C. The other two paraprofessionals, Jennifer Shea Saulmon and Nancy Davis, worked with all of the children, and when able to, Patricia Lewis did as well. Ms. Davis, Ms. Saulmon, and Ms. Lewis have seven, fourteen and twenty-seven years of experience, respectively. C.B. had a severe mental disability with a limited ability to comprehend verbal communications and a limited ability to communicate. C.B.’s communication involved single words, sounds, and gestures. He could discern the speaker’s mood, but might not fully understand the content of what was said. For example, C.B. might not understand that someone was saying hello, but would understand that the speaker was friendly towards him. C.B. also had problematic behaviors including biting, pinching, scratching, and hitting. C.B. had an awkward gait and wore ankle orthotics (AFO’s), a type of plastic brace, over his shoe and lower leg to provide stability from the foot to the leg, and to assist in improving his ability to walk. C.B. was ten years old. J.B. was approximately 11 years old in January 2012, and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He also had a limited ability to communicate using single words, sounds and utterances, and gestures. J.B. also used an iPad to communicate. Over time, someone working with J.B. would develop a greater ability to understand and communicate with him. J.B.’s difficult behaviors included spitting, hitting, kicking, and pinching. K.M. was 11 in January 2012. K.M. was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, and had previously suffered a stroke which limited her use of one arm. She also had significant intellectual limitations. However, K.M.’s ability to communicate was greater than the other members of the class, and she could understand verbal communications. In addition, K.M. was more independent than her classmates, and was a risk for elopement from both the classroom and the campus. As stated by one of the paraprofessionals, K.M. “was a runner.” By all accounts, K.M.’s behaviors were consistently disruptive, and managing her in a classroom took a significant effort. D.C. was also 11 in January 2012. D.C. was diagnosed as autistic and engaged in repeated self-injurious behaviors. When upset, D.C. would repeatedly strike himself in the head and face, and he often wore a football helmet as a protective measure. D.C. was very strong, and attempts to prevent him from hurting himself could often result in staff members being hurt. There was testimony at hearing that his behavior plan addressed how many he times he was allowed to hit himself or how long he was allowed to hit himself without intervention. However, the behavior plan for D.C. was not in evidence. A portion of the classroom was designed specifically for D.C., with padded walls and a padded floor, in light of D.C.’s tendency to hit his head against hard surfaces as well. He had some beads that he played with that sometimes calmed him. At some point during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to show signs that the stresses of her very challenging classroom were having an effect on her. After the Christmas break, her stress seemed to have intensified. Respondent was having trouble sleeping, suffered from high blood pressure and pain from injuries sustained in the classroom, and was experiencing some depression. Respondent began to “self- medicate” with alcohol at night. There was no credible evidence that Respondent ever drank during the day or was under the influence of alcohol during work hours. At the end of the school day on January 30, 2012, Ms. Lewis approached assistant principal Elizabeth Swedlund to voice some concerns about Respondent’s behavior in the classroom. Ms. Lewis related some events that had occurred in the classroom that day, as well as some general concerns regarding treatment of the students in the classroom. She voiced the following concerns: that Respondent took away D.C.’s beads and would allow him to hit himself for a period of time longer than allowed by his treatment plan; that she made statements to K.M. such as “I could kill you” or “go play in the street”; and that she hit C.B. with a closed hand and kicked him while working in “circle time.” On January 31, 2012, Ms. Swedlund notified her principal, Britt Smith, of the conversation with Ms. Lewis. She decided to speak with the other paraprofessionals in the classroom and after doing so, to report the information to the abuse registry. Principal Smith notified Sharon Michalik, the District’s Executive Director of Human Resources, of the issue with respect to Respondent. As a result, Mike Jones, Chief of Safety, initiated an investigation. Mike Jones visited the campus the following day. All three paraprofessionals were interviewed and asked to provide written statements. He took Respondent for a drug and urine test, which came back negative. On Friday, February 3, 2012, Respondent was notified to meet with Ms. Michalik and other administrators to review the allegations. After this meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay, and the School District planned to proceed with a recommendation for termination. However, instead the parties entered an agreement executed on March 30, 2012, through which Respondent would take a medical leave of absence and would only be allowed to return to a position with the School District if she was found fit for duty. If she returned, she would be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. On March 30, 2012, the Department of Children and Families issued a letter to Respondent stating that it found no indicators of physical injury and no indicators of bizarre punishment. On April 27, 2012, Respondent was evaluated by psychologist David J. Smith who opined that at that time, she was not fit for duty. She was re-evaluated on July 26, 2012, and cleared to return to work. At that time, she was assigned to a different school. One of the issues raised by Ms. Lewis was that Respondent permitted D.C. to hit himself more frequently than allowed by his behavior plan. The Administrative Complaint specifically charges that she allowed D.C. to hit himself repeatedly for up to ten minutes, while his behavior plan indicated that he should be allowed to hit himself up to three times. The behavior plan was not entered into evidence. The evidence was unclear as to what the plan actually required, and it was equally unclear exactly what Respondent was doing. For example, there was testimony that she would attempt to redirect him once he started hitting himself, but did not physically intervene for ten minutes. There was other testimony that there was never a time when he was allowed to simply hit himself with no one doing anything. Without being able to examine the behavior plan, and without being able to specify the exact incident or incidents at issue, it is not possible to determine whether Respondent was varying from the requirements of the behavior plan, or if any variation was significant. Ms. Davis reported to Ms. Swedlund that on or about Friday, January 27, 2012, J.B. was in time-out because of bad behaviors. While he was in time-out, he was sitting behind a rolling partition, and Respondent was holding the partition in place so that J.B. would have to remain in place. J.B. spat at Respondent, which is something he did often. Ms. Davis reported that while holding the partition Respondent spat back at him, an action that shocked Ms. Davis. Respondent denies ever spitting on J.B. She testified via deposition that J.B. was spitting while in time-out, and she was holding the barrier while talking to him. She responded to his behavior by saying “you do not spit.” Respondent testified that it was possible that some spittle may have fallen on J.B., but that she never intentionally spit on him. The only person who testified regarding the spitting was Ms. Davis. While she was a very credible witness, there was no testimony regarding how close she was to Ms. Henson or to J.B., or that J.B. reacted in any way. Neither of the other paraprofessionals in the room testified that they saw or heard about the incident, and it is implausible to think that such behavior would go without comment. It is conceivable that in saying, “you do not spit,” that spittle would result. Given the high burden of proof for this proceeding, the allegation has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. As previously stated, K.M. presented a classroom management problem. She had a tendency to run around the classroom, take her clothes off, or run out of the classroom and sometimes out of the building. She also would tear up items in the classroom and could be very disruptive. Ms. Lewis felt that Respondent had a hard time getting past her dislike of the child. She had heard her say things like, “I could just kill you right now,” and “go ahead and go into the street.” While Ms. Lewis believed K.M. could understand such statements, she did not react to them, except perhaps to run faster. Ms. Lewis did not believe that Ms. Henson was serious when she made the statements, but more likely made them when frustrated by K.M.’s behavior. Respondent did not recall ever making such statements. Neither Ms. Lewis nor the Administrative Complaint identified exactly when Respondent was to have made these statements, although Ms. Lewis specified that they were statements made at different times. While Ms. Lewis testified that she believed Respondent did not like K.M., it is just as likely that she did not dislike the child, but was extremely frustrated by her behavior. All of the paraprofessionals testified that Respondent truly loved the children she worked with, but that she was frustrated and overwhelmed in the very challenging classroom in which she taught. While the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent made the statements, even Ms. Lewis testified that she did not believe Respondent was serious when she made them. Regardless, the statements were not appropriate statements to make to a child, especially a child with limited intellectual abilities that might not be able to discern whether Respondent was serious. They are, by their nature, disparaging statements. Finally, the incident which caused Ms. Lewis to approach Ms. Swedlund about Respondent involved Respondent’s reactions to C.B. C.B. liked to work on the computer. He would play computer games, such as Dora the Explorer, and was rewarded with computer time for good behavior and finishing all of his assigned work. On Friday, January 27, 2012, C.B. had a rough day, and had been hitting, pinching, and kicking staff. Respondent had spoken with his mother about his behaviors to see if there had been any changes at home that might have contributed to his aggressive behavior. Respondent had told C.B.’s mother that they would have to try some different methods to get C.B. to comply, and that his playing on the computer all day would have to stop. The paraprofessionals testified that on Monday, January 30, 2012, Respondent seemed agitated all day. One said she seemed to carry the frustrations of Friday into Monday. That morning Jennifer Shea Saulmon went to the cafeteria to pick up C.B., who had walked from the parent pickup area without incident, and seemed to be in a good mood. When they reached the classroom, C.B. went straight to the computers. Respondent immediately told him that he could not have computer time. Ms. Saulmon was upset by this, because C.B. had not misbehaved that morning. She questioned Ms. Henson’s decision, and Respondent responded that he could not play on the computer all the time. He then completed his morning work without any disruption, and then walked over to the computers. Ms. Saulmon told him he could not play on the computer at that time. At about 9:15 a.m., the class began “circle time.” During this time, the students sit on the outside of a u-shaped table while Respondent sits on the inside of the “u.” C.B. did not like circle time. On this particular day, he was sitting at the end of the u-shaped table, to Respondent’s left. He began, as he often did, to hit and bite. According to Ms. Saulmon, this behavior usually subsides after about five minutes. This day, however, it did not. C.B. continued to pinch and hit Respondent. In response, Respondent put her arm up with a closed hand (so that the child could not pull and bend back a finger) in a blocking motion, as the teachers and paraprofessionals had been taught to do in order to protect themselves. She said out loud, “I’m blocking, I’m blocking.” However, rather than simply holding her arm up to block against any blows, she would swing her arm toward him to stop the blow, and in doing so, made contact with his arm. Although to Ms. Davis it looked like Respondent was hitting him, she never thought Respondent was trying to hurt C.B. Each time Respondent blocked C.B., he pinched her again, and she blocked him again, which made him angrier. He then started kicking her, and Ms. Davis and Ms. Saulmon believed she kicked him back. However, neither paraprofessional could say that Respondent actually made contact with C.B. They were pretty certain that C.B. was kicking Respondent, and they could see movement toward him by Respondent, and C.B. responded angrily by squealing as he usually did when frustrated or angry. It is just as likely that Respondent was using her leg or foot to try to block C.B.’s kicks, as she stated in her deposition, and that C.B. was angry because she was blocking him. Nonetheless, Respondent’s clear agitation in the classroom that day led to Ms. Lewis’ conversation with Ms. Swedlund about Respondent’s behavior. While all of the paraprofessionals stated concerns about Ms. Henson’s ability to handle that particular class, all were very supportive of her continuing to teach in the special education area. All three seemed to think that the environment of that particular class, which by any measure would be extremely challenging, is one that overwhelmed Respondent, and that she had been in that setting too long. When Respondent returned to work at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, she was transferred to Beach Elementary School. The principal at the new school is Glenda Nouskhajian. Ms. Nouskhajian considers Respondent to be one of her lead teachers in the ESE department, and has no performance- related concerns about her. The only issue Respondent has had since coming to Beach Elementary was a minor paper-work issue related to transferring schools within the district. Respondent is not working in a stand-alone classroom like she was before. She is what Ms. Nouskhajian referred to as a “push-in,” meaning that she goes into other teachers’ classrooms and works with students in small groups in an inclusion setting. She works with the lowest quartile of students, and helps with all of these students’ interventions. Ms. Nouskhajian testified that the students with whom Respondent works are making “great strides,” and Respondent is an educator she would “absolutely” seek to retain. Ms. Nouskhajian knew that there was an issue at Respondent’s prior school, but did not investigate the details. She stated that Respondent had been placed at Beach Elementary by Sharon Michalik, and “I knew that if she was a danger to students, Sharon Michalik would not have placed her at my school . . . . That she went through the counseling and everything she had to do so when she came to my school it was a total fresh start.” Since coming to Beach Elementary, Respondent’s evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was overall effective, with all categories rated as effective or highly effective. In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made inappropriate remarks to student K.M. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent spat on J.B., or that she hit or kicked C.B. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that she varied significantly from D.C.’s behavioral plan or acted in a way that allowed him to hurt himself. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was frustrated and overwhelmed in the autistic classroom and, despite having asked for the assignment, had been teaching in that environment for too long to be effective, given the violent tendencies of the children in that setting. There is clear and convincing evidence that she took a leave of absence in lieu of termination and could only return to the classroom after an evaluation found her fit for duty. A change of setting was needed and has served to re-invigorate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent has violated rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission in its discretion may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder PA 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
