The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent has been licensed in the fields of elementary education and exceptional student education. Her Florida education certificate number is 840291. Her certificate expires on June 30, 2010. Respondent was employed by the Bradford County School District from 1994 to 1996, from 1998 to 2001, and finally from 2004 to 2007. She has worked as a substitute teacher, a parent specialist, and a teacher of varying exceptionalities. At the time of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the principal and teacher at Believer's School of Learning (Believer's School) in Bradford County School District. Believer's School was a charter school, for grades K-3, meant to give alternatives to traditional public school. Charter schools fulfill various purposes such as improving student learning and increasing learning opportunities. With respect to the Believer's School, a special emphasis was placed on low- performing students and reading. An "exceptional student" is defined by Section 1003.01(3)(a), Florida Statutes, as: ny student who has been determined eligible for a special program in accordance with rules of the State Board of Education. The term includes students who are gifted and students with disabilities who have an intellectual disability; autism spectrum disorder; a speech impairment; a language impairment; an orthopedic impairment; an other health impairment; traumatic brain injury; a visual impairment; an emotional or behavioral disability; or a specific learning disability, including, but not limited to, dyslexia, dyscalculia, or developmental aphasia; students who are deaf or hard of hearing or dual sensory impaired; students who are hospitalized or homebound; children with developmental delays ages birth through 5 years, or children, ages birth through 2 years, with established conditions that are identified in State Board of Education rules pursuant to s. 1003.21(1)(e). Respondent had Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students in her school. Believer’s School was required to follow federal and state guidelines with respect to ESE students. Those requirements include keeping complete, current and accurate records with respect to exceptional education students. These recordkeeping requirements are required by federal and state law and are necessary for the school system of Bradford County, of which Believer's School was a part, to remain eligible for federal and state funds allocated to pay costs associated with educating exceptional students. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 6.03028(3), Respondent was required to prepare an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each ESE student attending Believer's school. Rule 6A-6.03028(3) states: (3) IEP Requirements. An IEP or individual family support plan (IFSP) must be developed, reviewed, and revised for each eligible student or child with a disability served by a school district, or other state agency that provides special education and related services either directly, by contract, or through other arrangements, in accordance with this rule. Parents are partners with schools and school district personnel in developing, reviewing, and revising the IEP for their student. An IEP is necessary to evaluate the student's educational level, to establish short and long-term educational objectives, to develop alternative ways to accomplish those objectives, and to record the progress of the plan and establish a means for review of the student's educational progress. The proper preparation and maintenance of an IEP is a basic responsibility of the Respondent for exceptional education students at Believer's School. An improperly prepared IEP is potentially harmful to the learning of an ESE student because services and accommodations must be listed on the student's IEP before they can be provided. IEP’s are created by an IEP Team during a meeting involving the parties as set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(c) as follows: (c) IEP Team participants. The IEP Team, with a reasonable number of participants, shall include: The parents of the student; Not less than one (1) regular education teacher of a student with a disability... Not less than one (1) special education teacher of the student, or where appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the student; A representative of the school district who is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities, is knowledgeable about the general curriculum, and is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the school district. . . An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results who may be a member of the IEP Team as described in subparagraphs (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., of this rule;. . . Upon completion, the IEP is signed by the regular education teacher, the ESE teacher, the local education agency (LEA), and the parent or guardian of the student. The LEA is ultimately responsible for what goes into the IEP. If something is in the IEP it is because the LEA determined that it was feasible to carry out. The ESE teacher examines the psycho-educational reports and the specialized needs of the student. He or she often provides strategies to the regular education teacher to use with the ESE student. The regular education teacher is the most familiar with the curriculum being used for the student’s grade level. He or she provides insight as to how that curriculum can be adapted for the ESE student. Members of the IEP Team for an ESE student are supposed to be teachers and individuals associated with the student’s current grade level and involved in the student's education, in order to provide accurate curriculum and services for the student. The IEP Team is supposed to review the child’s test scores or have access to the child, know about the curriculum being used, and what types of accommodations an ESE student of the particular grade level would need. By signing the IEP, the individual team members are stating they met to discuss the ESE student, to develop goals and objectives and services for the student, and that they will follow up on making sure those goals and objectives are met. IEP's are updated on an annual basis. The annual IEP conference is mandatory, and failure to provide such a conference is a violation of federal, state, and School Board rules and policies. Failure to hold such a conference deprives the parents of the exceptional student any meaningful participation in determining the student's educational goals and may deprive the child of the assistance to which he or she is entitled. It also jeopardizes continued state and federal funding of the School Board's exceptional education program. Respondent was instructed, as were other teachers of exceptional students in the school district, that every IEP must be reviewed at least once a year through an annual IEP conference. Respondent was trained in how to prepare IEPs by the Bradford County School District on July 19, 20, and 21, 2005. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b) requires that the school notify parents of an ESE student that an IEP meeting is scheduled prior to the IEP Team Meeting taking place. This notification is more than a formality; it is meant to insure meaningful participation by parents or guardians in the IEP process. Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b) states as follows: (b) Parental participation in meetings. Each school district shall establish procedures that provide the opportunity for one or both of the student’s parents to participate in meetings and decisions concerning the IEP for the student. Parents of each student with a disability must be members of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of their student. Procedures to ensure participation in meetings shall include the following: Notifying parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend; and Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place. A written notice of the meeting must be provided to the parents and must indicate the purpose, time, and location of the meeting, and who, by title or position, will be attending. . . . * * * A meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the school district is unable to obtain the attendance of the parents. In this case, the district must have a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as: Detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls; Copies of correspondence sent to the parents and any responses received; and Detailed records of visits made to the parents’ home or place of employment and the results of those visits. To comply with Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b), it is Bradford County School District’s policy to send out a Parent Notification Form 10 days prior to an IEP team meeting. A few days after the first notification was sent, a second notification is sent to the parent. After the two written notifications are sent, a phone call is made to the parent of the ESE student. Student S.B. began school in the Bradford County School District when she was in pre-K. She was identified as a student with developmental disabilities. In 2005, she was living in Richmond, Virginia, and found to be eligible for exceptional education services as a student with a developmental disability. Upon return to Florida, S.B. was enrolled in Southside Elementary on March 17, 2005. In May 2005, an IEP team met, determined that S.B. was a student with specific learning disabilities, and developed an IEP outlining the services required for S.B. Without those services, S.B. would not receive a free appropriate public education as contemplated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or Florida law regarding the provision of exceptional education. IEPs for exceptional education students are required to be completed every year before the prior year’s IEP expires. S.B.’s next IEP was due on May 17, 2006. On February 13, 2006, S.B. enrolled in Respondent’s charter school, Believer's School of Learning, approximately three months before S.B.’s next IEP was due. There was apparently some delay in providing S.B.'s May 2005 IEP to Respondent, but the length of the delay is unclear. In order for a school district to receive the extra funding for its ESE students all the ESE students’ IEP’s must be current by "FTE week." FTE week is when the schools determine a final head count of all the students that are in attendance. The FTE week for Bradford County School District in 2006 was October 13, 2006. All the ESE students within the school district had to have their IEPs in by that date or the schools would not receive the extra funding associated with that student. If S.B.’s IEP was not turned in before October 13, 2006, Believer's School would have only received its normal funding only instead of the additional ESE funding. As of the last week of September 2006, Respondent had not completed the IEP for S.B. In late September, Respondent called Verdell Long, and asked for some assistance in preparing an IEP for a third grader. On September 28, 2006, Respondent met with Verdell Long, at Bradford County High School, during Ms. Long’s lunch break, for assistance with preparing an IEP for a third grader at her charter school. Verdell Long was a high school teacher at Bradford County High School who had worked with ESE students, with a focus on mental retardation from grades K-12. She had assisted Respondent with IEPs in the past. She understood that she was assisting with a “sample” IEP to be used as a model. However, it was Respondent’s intention to use the product created as an IEP for the student S.B. The day of the meeting Verdell Long’s computer was not working so she could not access the IEPs she had on file. She asked another high school teacher, Dr. Vivian Haynes to assist in the meeting. Dr. Haynes was an ESE teacher at Bradford County High School in September 2006. She was very experienced with preparing and writing IEPs, having just completed a doctoral dissertation which included copies of third and fifth grade IEPs. Dr. Haynes had not previously met Respondent. Dr. Haynes brought several blank “dummy” IEPs with her to the meeting in order to have examples to show Respondent. The IEP prepared at the meeting included the various components of an IEP, such as the measurable goals and objectives for a third grader, but did not include the demographic information on any student. The document prepared at the meeting did not have a student’s name or test scores on it anywhere. Respondent did not bring the student S.B. or her test scores with her to the meeting. However, neither Ms. Long nor Dr. Haynes expected to see individualized information because they did not understand that an IEP for an actual child was being prepared. Verdell Long signed the IEP as the ESE teacher, Dr. Vivian Haynes signed as the LEA, and Respondent signed as the regular education teacher. Neither Verdell Long nor Dr. Vivian Haynes was contracted with Believer's School by the Bradford County School District to provide services as an LEA representative or an ESE teacher. Both Verdell Long and Dr. Vivian Haynes believed the purpose of the meeting was to construct a model IEP in order to assist Respondent with properly preparing an IEP for an ESE student. Neither expected the document created at their meeting to be submitted as an actual IEP for S.B., or any other student, and neither considered the meeting to be an IEP team meeting. Neither Verdell Long nor Dr. Vivian Haynes was shown a Parent Notification Form indicating that their meeting was to be an IEP team meeting. Neither would have signed the IEP if they had seen such a form because they did not believe that an IEP team meeting was being conducted. After the meeting on September 28, 2006, Respondent took the IEP form prepared with the help of Ms. Long and Dr. Haynes, and inserted information specific to S.B. She then submitted the form as S.B.’s IEP and turned in to the Bradford County School District. Submitted with the IEP form was a document which purported to be the Notification of Meeting Form for the IEP team meeting. Only one notification is referenced. The form was dated September 15, 2006, and identified Dr. Vivian Haynes and Verdell Long as participants in the meeting, notwithstanding Respondent's acknowledgement that she did not meet Dr. Haynes until September 28, 2006, and did not know until that time that Dr. Haynes would be participating in the meeting. The form also indicated that the IEP meeting would take place at the Believer's School, as opposed to the Bradford County High School, where the meeting between Respondent, Ms. Long and Dr. Haynes took place. There is no other indication of other attempts of notification. The signature line reserved for a parent or legal guardian is signed by a Rudolph Williams and dated September 29, 2006, the day after the meeting took place. Respondent claims that Mr. Williams is S.B.'s stepfather. However, there is nothing in the Bradford County School District's records to indicate that Mr. Williams is a parent or legal guardian of S.B., and school district officials were not aware of anyone by that name living in the home. By her own admission, Respondent did not keep "official records" for any of her students, including ESE students. She was not particularly concerned with who signed the IEP, because she apparently considered it to be simply a matter of paperwork to be filed with the School District. In her view, the person responsible for ensuring that a child is receiving the appropriate education is her teacher, regardless of the directives in the IEP. She felt that some of the things identified as required simply could not be done at a school her size. She did not consider the role of the LEA and the ESE teacher on the IEP to be all that important. To her, the real responsibility for the child's education lay with the teacher who worked with her on a daily basis. S.B. was later withdrawn from Believer's School and now attends Starke Elementary School. Believer's School has since closed and is no longer operating as a charter school.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent to be guilty of the violations alleged in Counts Two through Seven and dismissing Count One of the Administrative Complaint; imposing a fine of $500; suspending her certificate for one year and placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2009, 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 22nd day of October, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the School Board since August 15, 1995. As a member of the School Board's instructional staff, Respondent's employment is subject to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2008),1 which provides that her employment will not be terminated except for just cause. The School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District. Exceptional Student Education Exceptional Student Education covers a range of students who have individual needs that must be addressed by a specific plan for education, called an Individual Education Plan. The drafting and maintenance of IEPs is governed by federal and state law. The government may complete audits of district ESE records from time to time, although audits are not completed every year. However, the School District self-reports ESE compliance issues to the government. IEPs are valid for one year and must be rewritten annually, although not necessarily coinciding with the beginning of each school year. Generally, a draft form of the IEP is prepared and taken to an IEP meeting to be reviewed by individuals who are involved with the student's education ("IEP team"), including ESE teachers, regular education teachers, guidance counselors, and parents. Although everyone who is directly involved with the student's education is invited to the IEP meeting, it is not necessary that each individual attend for the IEP to be valid. For instance, if parents or service providers do not attend, the IEP is not invalid. All members of the IEP team attending the IEP meeting are required to sign a signature page indicating their attendance. The parents of the students are legally entitled to two notices of the IEP meeting, the first being at least ten days prior to the meeting. The notice can be written or verbal, but should be documented in the ESE file. Parents may waive their right to ten days' notice of the hearing. One person is assigned as the school's Local Education Agency (LEA). An LEA must be present at all IEP meetings which are required to ensure that ESE guidelines are followed. Students are required to be evaluated by service providers, such as speech-language pathologists, psychologists, social workers, and occupational therapists and to be re-evaluated every three years. The re-evaluation must be completed within three years from the calendar date of the earliest testing completed in the previous evaluation or re-evaluation. Each service provider is expected to review the file and to complete a re-evaluation. However, a re-evaluation is not required if the student's IEP team determines that such re-evaluation is not needed. Furthermore, re-evaluations are not required to draft an IEP. Prior to any testing, evaluation or re-evaluation of a student, the consent of the parent must be obtained. The consent forms are valid for one year after the parent's signature is obtained. Each student receiving ESE services should have a file which includes documentation, such as his/her IEP. Students who have more than one exceptionality (such as speech-language) will often have more than one file housed in the ESE office. Also, students who have been receiving ESE services for a long period of time often require more than one file folder to contain all of the documents. The School District obtains funds from the government based upon the ESE status of the students in the district. Students who receive ESE services are given more funding than students in regular classes. The funding is allocated on a per-student basis, and ESE students receive different levels of funding depending on the classification of their disabilities. In order to qualify for the funds, IEP and other relevant documents must be in compliance with certain guidelines referred to as FTE or "full time equivalent." There are two FTE periods during each school year wherein the ESE files must be compliant in order to obtain funds; the first one is in October and the second one is February. Respondent's Employment at Haile Middle School Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a teacher for 13 years. For the past several years, and at all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE teacher at Haile. In 2005-2006, after the preceding ESE department chair was transferred to another school, Janet Kerley, principal at Haile, asked Respondent if she would serve as the ESE department chair. Respondent accepted the job and had served continuously as ESE department chair until early February 2008. While serving as ESE chair, Respondent continued to work as an ESE teacher, and her position was designated as such by the School Board. As ESE department chair at Haile, Respondent received a stipend.2 In 2005-2006, when Respondent first became the ESE department chair, her work day was divided evenly between teaching her scheduled ESE classes and ESE department chair duties. Training for ESE Chair Position No special training was provided for Respondent to serve as ESE department chair. The School District assigned an ESE specialist to each secondary school, including Haile. The ESE specialist's role was to provide support to the ESE department chair. However, ESE specialists had no supervisory responsibilities for the ESE department chair. In the 2006-2007 school year, Emma Mileham, the ESE specialist assigned to Haile that year, gave Respondent a checklist titled, "ESE Department Chair Responsibilities." She also distributed "monthly mind joggers," titled, "ESE Teacher Activities." The checklist of the department chair's responsibilities included reviewing ESE files. During the 2007-2008 school year, Amy Lloyd, the ESE specialist assigned to Haile, interacted with Respondent once a week as part of the school's Child Study Team. However, Lloyd did not provide any list of job responsibilities to Respondent. Kerley evaluated Respondent's work performance in the past and found her work to be satisfactory. Prior to the allegations that gave rise to this action, Kerley never perceived deficiencies in Respondent's ability to maintain the ESE files. During Respondent's 13-year tenure as a teacher in the School District, she has consistently received satisfactory evaluations and has never been the subject of a disciplinary matter. Changes Impacting ESE Department in 2007-2008 Jerry Hernandez was appointed as the assistant principal at Haile for the 2007-2008 school year. Kerley designated Hernandez as the school's ESE administrator. As ESE administrator, Hernandez was responsible for ensuring compliance with FTE requirements, implementation of IEPs, and monitoring the ESE department chair. In the 2007-2008 school year, two changes were implemented which impacted the ESE Department at Haile and those working in that area. First, as part of an overall change implemented by the School District, ESE teachers at Haile were required to use a new computer system for creating ESE documents (i.e., IEPs, notices, consent forms, etc.). Second, there were significant changes in job responsibilities of the ESE department chair at Haile implemented at the school level. Computer System Changes Prior to the 2007-2008 school year, Haile was using a software program called Dynamo to assist in the maintenance of ESE files. Dynamo was primarily based upon the use of "hard copies" of relevant documents and was limited to each user's computer. At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Haile switched from the Dynamo software to a web-based program called the A3 system ("A3"). The main difference between Dynamo and A3 was that A3, as a web-based program, allowed individuals to view relevant documents from any computer by logging into the system. After Haile switched from Dynamo to A3, the teachers and service providers were encouraged to input all previous IEPs drafted in Dynamo into the A3 system. In fact, after the School District switched to the A3 system, there was a "push" by administrators to have all IEPs inputted into A3. To accomplish this, Respondent typed IEPs drafted in Dynamo and those received from other states into the A3 system verbatim, so that teachers and other individuals would have access to the information from their computers. Also, other Haile employees, including ESE teachers Athena Jantzen and Alice Moreland, and speech-language pathologist, Marie Bryant-Jones, input Dynamo IEPs into the A3 system. At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, the speech- language pathologist then assigned to Haile, Bryant-Jones, input goals for each student who received speech services into the A3 system. The next speech-language pathologist was free to revise the goals as she saw fit. The fact that Respondent and ESE teachers were inputting IEPs originally drafted in Dynamo into the A3 system was common knowledge at Haile. The School District provided training in the A3 system for ESE teachers at or near the end of the 2006-2007 school year. Additionally, on March 20, 2007, a district-sponsored one-on-one training was offered to the staff of Haile. Respondent attended that session and the training staff spent that day reviewing and/or explaining the A3 system. The training staff also worked with and helped Respondent input the current IEPs in the A3 system in order "to speed up the process." To start a new IEP in A3, the user is required to click on "Copy IEP" on the computer page. Clicking "Copy IEP" makes an identical copy of the last IEP in the system, including goals and objectives for other information about the student. The dates for the previous IEP remains the same until the user manually changes the date. This copy is a "draft" which becomes the new IEP when the modified or updated information is input into the A3 system. ESE Department Chair Changes in Responsibilities in October 2007 Prior to October 2007, ESE teachers at Haile were responsible for the ESE files of the students they taught, and each ESE teacher drafted the IEPs for their students. In October 2007, Hernandez told Respondent that as the department chair, she was now to assume responsibility for all of the ESE files at Haile. Hernandez explained to Respondent that this change was being made because the ESE teachers had complained to him that they could not, or no longer wanted to, take care of the ESE files and to teach their classes. When Hernandez told Respondent that she was now responsible for maintaining all of the ESE files, Respondent informed Hernandez that she was not happy about that added responsibility. In response, Hernandez told Respondent not to worry about the files, indicating that they (the files) would "take care of themselves." Hernandez than told Respondent that she should concentrate on giving as much support to the teachers as possible. In October 2007, when Hernandez assigned Respondent the responsibility for maintenance of all ESE files, there were approximately 170 ESE files that needed to be maintained in compliance with FTE guidelines. Except for the foregoing, Hernandez never specifically informed Respondent of what her new duties were as ESE department chair. In October 2007, after being given the responsibility for all ESE files, Respondent drafted IEPs into the A3 system for students she did not have in class by getting feedback from the students' teachers and reviewing the students' progress reports. One ESE teacher at Haile, Athena Jantzen, continued to draft some of her own students' IEPs, as Respondent was overloaded with work. Service providers, such as speech-language pathologists and psychologists, were still expected to draft and enter their own goals into the A3 system. If a student received only speech services, the speech-language pathologist was responsible for drafting the student's IEP and maintaining the file. After being assigned the responsibility for all the ESE files, Respondent asked the ESE clerk to print copies of various active IEPs from A3. Respondent requested the copies so that a copy of the student's IEP could be included in each file related to that student. The IEPs and related documents were printed from the A3 system, not photocopied, and reflected a print date of October 17, 2007, on the top of each page. The executed signature pages of the IEP which could not be printed from A3, were not photocopied by the ESE clerk and were not included in each file. After being assigned the responsibility for all the ESE files, Respondent continued to teach her assigned ESE class and perform cafeteria duty on a daily basis. Respondent was also pulled almost weekly from her department chair responsibilities to cover additional classes. Responsibilities Related to ESE Compliance Issues As chairperson for the ESE Department, Respondent was charged with the maintenance and oversight of IEPs. At Haile, the guidance counselor is designated as the school's LEA. At Haile, the registrar was designated by the school administration to set up IEP and revision meetings. The ESE clerk, who worked at Haile one day a week, was assigned to mail out the notices of meetings to the parents. When students enrolled at Haile from another school, the registrar or guidance counselor would inform Respondent if the child required ESE services. Error Reports Respondent received an "error report" from the school's registrar almost weekly. The error report identified potential compliance issues with the ESE files, but did not represent a completely accurate accounting of the files. For example, it would not identify compliance issues, such as a missing signature page for an otherwise valid IEP. Respondent used the error report to ensure that IEPs were timely updated and reviews for re-evaluations were timely initiated. Hernandez, as ESE administrator, received an "error report" about three times a year. Error reports were available to service providers who requested them. These error reports were obtained and used by some service providers to determine when the re-evaluations for which they were responsible were due. Systems to Notify Service Providers of Re-Evaluation Dates While ESE department chair, Respondent used the following three different systems to notify and/or remind service providers when students needed to be re-evaluated: (1) the "white board" system; (2) the "file drawer" system; and (3) the "binder" system. At some point prior to the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent used the "white board" system. Under that system, Respondent listed the names of students whose re-evaluation date was approaching and the due date of the re-evaluation on a "white board" that was located in the ESE office. Respondent updated the "white board" monthly. In the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent used the "file drawer" and "binder" systems to notify service providers of upcoming re-evaluation dates. The "file drawer" system consisted of placing all files that needed to be reviewed and/or files of students who were ready for testing in a file drawer designated and labeled for that specific category. In the case of a file review, Respondent would initiate the file review and then put the ESE file in a drawer labeled, "File Review." The service providers would simply go to the drawer and pull out student files to complete their review. Once the file review was completed and the student was ready for testing, the ESE file would be placed in the re-evaluation and/or evaluation drawer. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent informed all of the service providers assigned to Haile of the "file drawer" system. Among the service providers Respondent informed about the "file drawer" system were Krista Cournoyer, a school psychologist, and Julia Caldwell, a speech- language pathologist. Respondent specifically explained the use of the file drawers to them, because this was their first year working at Haile. The "file drawer" system is a typical system used by schools in the School District, but schools are not required to use that system. Instead, schools have the option of developing and using any system they choose. Early in the 2007-2008 school year and at all times relevant to this proceeding, the "binder" system was initiated at Haile.3 Under that system, the names of students who required testing and re-evaluations were placed in a binder (notebook) in the ESE office. Respondent and Karen Ciemniecki, the ESE evaluator assigned to Haile, updated the information in the binder. The various service providers could utilize the information in the binder to determine which students they needed to test and/or re-evaluate. Service providers were free to use either the "file drawer" or "binder" system to determine when they were to review a file and re-evaluate a student. In addition to utilizing those systems, the service providers could also obtain an error report which would provide information concerning re-evaluations which were due the following month. Both the "file drawer" and the "binder" systems provided the service providers the means to determine when a review and re-evaluation was due, without the direct assistance of Respondent. During the 2007-2008 school year, several service providers, including Ciemniecki and Caldwell, used the "file drawer" and/or "binder" systems to determine when student file reviews, testing and re-evaluations were to be done. In addition to using the established systems, both Ciemniecki and Caldwell obtained error reports from either Respondent or Haile's registrar. Cournoyer, like the other service providers, was aware of the "file drawer" and "binder" systems and knew how to use them. Nonetheless, Cournoyer believed that the systems were inadequate and did not ensure that she would consistently know when the re-evaluations for which she was responsible were due. Although the systems in place were not perfect, if utilized, they provided a reasonable means to determine when reviews and re-evaluations were due. Moreover, the error reports, if obtained and used, provided an additional source by which service providers could determine about a month in advance when re-evaluations were due. There were times when there were files in the designated file drawer that Cournoyer needed to review. In those instances, Respondent removed those files from the drawer and handed them to Cournoyer, indicating that they needed to be reviewed. Events Leading to Investigation In January 2008, Cournoyer believed that it appeared that she was not completing re-evaluations in a timely manner. Cournoyer also believed that the reason for any delays in completing the re-evaluations was that she did not get all the requisite forms for those re-evaluations until they were overdue. On or about January 31, 2008, Cournoyer was conducting a file review for Student E.A. While reviewing the file, she noticed that an IEP meeting was conducted for this student on January 8, 2008. Upon reviewing the file, Cournoyer had two concerns. First, she had not been invited to that IEP meeting. Second, the documentation in the file indicated that the meeting occurred three weeks before Cournoyer was notified of the need to conduct a file review for this particular student. While reviewing the file of E.A., Cournoyer noticed that the student was receiving services from Caldwell, the speech-language pathologist. She then gave the file to Caldwell who, upon review of the file, noticed that the speech goals were already written on the student's active IEP. Caldwell was concerned that she had not written those goals, as it had been her intent to dismiss the student from speech-language services, and that she had not been invited to the IEP meeting. Caldwell discussed her concerns about the speech goals for E.A. with Respondent, who instructed her to set up a meeting to revise the IEP. Cournoyer shared her concerns about "overdue" re-evaluations in an email to Respondent, but disagreed that there was a system in place that addressed her concerns. Dissatisfied with Respondent's response to her email, Cournoyer then sent an email to members of Haile's Child Study Team, including Lloyd, the ESE specialist. After receiving a response from Lloyd, Cournoyer sent an email about her concerns to the Haile administrators, including Hernandez, and ESE staff on or about February 1, 2008. After receiving Cournoyer's email, Hernandez requested that she provide additional information about her allegations and concerns. In response to that request, Cournoyer provided Hernandez with a list of students and dates of re-evaluations that were overdue. On Sunday, February 3, 2008, Hernandez and Cournoyer met at Haile and reviewed the ESE files. During that review, they found some files that were missing signature pages and that one IEP appeared to have an altered date on a consent form. After conducting a preliminary investigation, Hernandez reported his findings to Principal Kerley who, in turn, contacted the School District's Office of Professional Standards ("OPS"). OPS then initiated an investigation of Respondent and the maintenance and formulation of the ESE files at Haile. Respondent was placed on administrative leave on February 5, 2008, before the February 2008 FTE cut-off date. During that leave, Respondent was prohibited from communicating with School District employees or entering the premises of Haile. Prior to being placed on administrative leave, Respondent was not informed of the allegations against her. The matter was assigned to Debra Horne, a specialist with OPS. After reviewing an email about the case from Hernandez, Horne decided to allow the ESE department to review the ESE files at Haile.4 On February 6, 2008, the ESE team, consisting of all the secondary ESE specialists and the ESE coordinator, Joe Roberts, conducted a preliminary review of the ESE files at Haile for compliance issues. That same day, Roberts memorialized the review team's preliminary findings in an email to the ESE director, Ron Russell. According to the email, the ESE team conducted a two-hour review of the ESE files and found about ten files with problems (i.e., missing signature pages, what appeared to be an altered consent form, and IEPs which appeared to be copied from previous year's IEPs). The email memorializing the findings noted that the ESE office was not organized and that "many folders and confidential information were spread out in varying locations of the office, not in a secured fashion." The email also noted that the team looked for "numerous folders [files] and could not locate them in the filing system."5 On February 29, 2009, Horne met with Roberts and Lloyd to review the ESE files and the ESE team's preliminary findings. Based on the review of the files, the OPS determined that 15 ESE files were non-compliant for FTE (funding) purposes and that another five ESE files had compliance issues that did not affect funding. On March 13, 2008, Horne interviewed Respondent about the findings of the ESE review team. The purpose of the interview, which lasted most of the day, was to allow Dozier the opportunity to offer an explanation of the alleged compliance issues concerning specific ESE files.6 Prior to the March 13, 2008, interview, school officials did not notify Respondent of the allegations or allow her to respond to those changes. After completing the investigation and interviewing Respondent, Horne published her findings in an investigative report. The findings in the OPS investigative report and which are the bases of the charges against Respondent in this case involve the non-compliant ESE files referenced above. Specifically, the investigative report found and determined that: (1) 15 ESE files were non-compliant for FTE or funding purposes; and (2) five ESE files had compliance issues that did not affect funding. As a result of the 15 non-compliant ESE files, the affected students were returned to basic funding, causing a decrease in the overall funds available to the School District. Nevertheless, those identified students were provided with services in accordance with their IEPs. Non-Compliant ESE Files Resulting in Loss of Funds Student A.C. The investigative report found that there was no signature page in the ESE file of A.C. for the April 10, 2007, IEP. Without a properly-executed signature page, the IEP is invalid. Respondent testified credibly that she did not know if she conducted the IEP meeting when the April 10, 2007, IEP was developed, but believed that A.C. may have had more than one file. This belief was based on the fact that A.C.'s primary disability was "language impairment," and A.C. received speech services. Typically, such students had two ESE files, one of which was kept by the speech-language pathologist. The April 10, 2007, IEP meeting was conducted during the previous school year and before Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Respondent further testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page before the FTE window closed. Student J.B. The investigative report found that the ESE file of J.B. did not contain a signature page for the November 6, 2006, IEP. Without a properly executed signature page, the IEP is invalid. The November 6, 2006, IEP meeting was conducted during the previous school year and before Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Moreover, there is no evidence that Respondent conducted or was present at this IEP meeting. Respondent testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page for the November 6, 2006, IEP before the FTE window closed. The investigative report found that a second IEP for J.B. indicated that it was drafted on January 25, 2008, but the registrar was informed it was drafted on October 23, 2007. However, there is nothing in the record to establish that the registrar made such a statement. Student Z.L. The investigative report found that the ESE file of Z.L. did not contain a signature page for the March 19, 2007, IEP. The IEP for Z.L. dated March 19, 2007, was drafted while Z.L. was attending Freedom Elementary School ("Freedom"), and, thus, was drafted by employees of Freedom. This IEP was valid through March 18, 2008. Freedom is a school in the School District, and the IEP developed at that school was apparently put in the A3 system. The March 19, 2007, IEP was printed on October 19, 2007, and was a copy of the IEP from Freedom dated March 19, 2007. Because the IEP printed in October 2007 was a copy of a valid IEP, no signature page was required. No determination was made as to whether the original March 19, 2007, IEP, with the fully executed signature page, was ever sent by Freedom to Haile. The signature page could not be printed from the A3 system. Therefore, unless the original or a photocopy of the fully executed signature page of the March 19, 2007, IEP had been sent to Haile, the school would not have the signature page. Student A.L. The investigative report found that there was no temporary IEP written for A.L. after the student transferred to the School District in September 4, 2007, from an out-of-state school. In September 2007, when A.L. enrolled at Haile, the student had a valid IEP from the out-of-state school district. The out-of-state IEP was for the period March 7, 2007, through March 6, 2008, if the student had remained in that state. Once the student was enrolled, the School District had six months from the student's enrollment date to develop a temporary IEP. Accordingly, a temporary IEP should have been developed on or before March 4, 2008. A temporary IEP was not developed for A.L. prior to or by March 4, 2008, or as of March 13, 2008, when Respondent was interviewed by Ms. Horne. Although the temporary IEP had not been developed prior to Respondent's being placed on leave, steps were being taken to develop the IEP prior to Respondent's being placed on leave. For example, Ciemniecki administered achievement tests to A.L. in late September 2007. Also, Cournoyer was reviewing the student's file and also testing the student. Respondent was placed on leave February 5, 2008, about one month before the temporary IEP was required to be developed. Thus, no conclusion can be reached as to whether Respondent would have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the temporary IEP was developed by March 4, 2008. On the other hand, it is equally apparent that after being placed on leave, Respondent was prevented from and could not take any steps to ensure that a temporary IEP was developed for A.L. Therefore, it can not be concluded that Respondent is responsible for the failure to timely develop a temporary IEP. The credible testimony of Respondent was that she intended to take steps to ensure that an IEP was drafted within six months of A.L.'s enrolling in the School District. An issue was raised regarding what appeared to be inconsistent dates on the Informed Notice and Consent for Evaluation/Re-evaluation ("Informed Notice and Consent") form. That form included spaces in which the following was to be provided: (1) the referral date; (2) the parent's signature, either giving or denying consent for the evaluation; and (3) the date of the signature. The referral date printed or typed on the form is February 26, 2006. The parent's signature, giving consent for the evaluation, was dated September 24, 2007. The concern expressed was that the date of the referral, February 26, 2006, was more than a year and a half prior to A.L. enrolling in the School District. This discrepancy was explained by the credible testimony of Respondent. According to that testimony, the above-referenced consent form was from the Dynamo computer system and had been used to make copies of blank forms to be used. However, the "referral date," February 26, 2006, had been printed or typed on the original form, and that date had been inadvertently left on the form prior to copies of the form being made. Student S.H. The investigative report concluded that S.H.'s IEP dated April 26, 2007, was invalid because it was created at Haile four or five months prior to the student's enrolling in the School District on September 5, 2007.7 The ESE file of S.H. contained a valid IEP dated April 26, 2007, that was drafted while the student was living out-of-state and enrolled in an out-of-state school. That IEP would have been valid through April 25, 2008, had the student remained in the out-of-state school district. In addition to the out-of-state IEP, the ESE file of S.H. also contained another IEP dated April 26, 2007, which indicated that, as of that date, the student was attending Haile. There was also a fully executed signature page for this April 26, 2007, IEP, which had been signed by the parent, Respondent, and six other individuals. In addition to the parent and Respondent, six others signed the signature page of that IEP. Contrary to the allegations, the IEP for S.H. created at Haile was not created on April 26, 2007, four months before the student enrolled in the School District. Respondent testified credibly that she input the data from the out-of-state IEP into the A3 system. However, while inputting information in A3 for the student's new IEP, she neglected to change the IEP plan date from April 26, 2007, to the new IEP plan date. The testimony of Respondent is supported by a careful review of contents of the IEP. For example, the IEP clearly indicates that the student is now enrolled at Haile as a "transfer [student] from out of state."8 The signature page of the Haile IEP also mistakenly shows that the IEP was developed on April 26, 2007. However, the upper right corner of that signature page indicates that the signature page form for S.H.'s Haile IEP was printed from the A3 system at 7:18 a.m., on October 29, 2007, almost two months after S.H. enrolled in the School District. As noted above, only blank signature page forms can be printed from A3. Therefore, the signatures had to be placed on the signature page some time after the form was printed. Respondent's failure to change the plan date of the student's out-of-state IEP to the plan date of the new IEP created at Haile, was due to human error. Student S.R. The investigative report found that S.R.'s ESE file did not contain an IEP, a notice of IEP meeting, or signature page. S.R.'s ESE file contained a valid IEP dated February 8, 2007, drafted while the student was at Gene Witt Elementary ("Witt"), a school in the School District. The IEP was drafted by employees at Witt and was valid through February 7, 2008. The file also contained an IEP with a plan date of February 7, 2008 (the same as the Witt IEP), indicating that the student was attending Haile at the time of the IEP. Respondent testified credibly that she typed the data contained in the Witt IEP, which was in the Dynamo System, into the A3 system so that the data would be available to other teachers. Respondent testified credibly that she had no intent to make it appear that S.R. was attending Haile in February 2007. Respondent further testified credibly that when an individual inputs data into the A3 system, the school that the individual is assigned to automatically "pop[s] up" in A3 as the student's school. The document included in the investigative report that is the basis for discipline against Respondent is a copy of S.R.'s IEP that was created at Witt dated February 8, 2007. That IEP was printed from A3 on October 19, 2007. Because the IEP is a copy of a valid IEP, no signature page was required. Likewise, no notice of the IEP meeting was required. No evidence was presented to establish that the notice and fully executed signature page of the subject IEP were ever received by Haile. Student E.M. The investigative report found that the ESE file of E.M. did not contain a signature page for the April 11, 2007, IEP, and, thus, the IEP was invalid. E.M.'s April 11, 2007, IEP notes that the student's primary exceptionality is "language impaired." During the March 2008 interview, Respondent informed the OPS investigator that she believed E.M., as a language-impaired student, had two ESE files, one of which was maintained by the speech-language pathologist.9 Respondent testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page or schedule another IEP meeting before the FTE window closed. The April 11, 2007, IEP was drafted during the previous school year and prior to Respondent becoming responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Student M.D. The investigative report found that the ESE file of M.D. did not contain a valid IEP. According to the report, Respondent gave a plan date of November 2, 2007, to the registrar, but failed to create an IEP on that date. On November 2, 2007, a parent conference was called and conducted by Ms. Moreland, a teacher at Haile. Respondent did not attend the parent conference, but about mid-meeting, Moreland went to Respondent's office. Moreland then told Respondent that the team originally intended to remove M.D. from mainstream classes, but during the parent conference decided against it. The November 2, 2007, date may have been incorrectly given to the registrar as the IEP plan date.10 However, the meeting conducted on that date was a parent conference, and unlike IEP plan dates, are not reported to the registrar. It is alleged that the report of the conference and IEP revision sheets were incomplete. However, as a result of the team's decision that M.D. services remain the same (he would remain in mainstream classes), there was no need for the partially completed revision form to be included in M.D.'s ESE file. Thus, Moreland should have discarded that form. M.D.'s ESE file included a valid IEP dated February 8, 2007. This IEP was valid through February 7, 2008. The short-term objectives from M.D.'s 2007 and 2008 IEPs were identical. The latter IEP was dated March 6, 2008, after Respondent was on administrative leave and Jantzen was interim department chair. Student E.R. The investigation found that E.R.'s sixth-grade IEP appeared to be copied "exactly" from the student's fifth-grade IEP. The concern was that the information copied from the fifth-grade IEP to the sixth-grade IEP did not accurately reflect an appropriate measurable annual goal in the area of math. The annual measurable goal on E.R.'s fifth-grade IEP and copied on the student's sixth-grade IEP was that the student "will satisfy fifth grade math requirements." However, during the investigation, it was established that the student was performing above the fifth-grade level in math at Haile. Thus, that previous math goal should have been changed.11 The fifth-grade IEP was developed on December 7, 2006, when E.R. was enrolled at Freedom Elementary School ("Freedom") and remained effective through December 6, 2007. E.R. was enrolled as a sixth-grader at Haile in the 2007-2008 school year. Therefore, the fifth-grade IEP was effective the first few months of E.R.'s sixth-grade year at Haile. Pursuant to the administration's instructions, after E.R. enrolled at Haile, Respondent input the information from the December 2006 IEP into A3.12 Although E.R. was in the sixth grade, the IEP was effective until December 6, 2007. The December 7, 2006, IEP, upon which the OPS refers, was printed on October 19, 2007, and is a copy of the IEP developed at Freedom, except that E.R.'s school and grade had been changed. The student's school was changed from "Freedom" to "Haile" and the current grade was changed from fifth to sixth.13 Respondent testified credibly that she did not know who changed the grade and school on E.R.'s December 2006 IEP. Moreover, no evidence was presented as to who made those changes. However, undoubtedly, on October 19, 2007, E.R. was enrolled at Haile and was in the sixth grade. Respondent testified credibly that in inputting E.R.'s December 7, 2006, IEP, developed at Freedom, into the A3 system, she did not intend to make it appear that E.R.'s December 7, 2006, IEP was developed at Haile. Student C.D. The investigative report found that Respondent gave the registrar an IEP plan date on January 30, 2008, but A3 indicated the meeting was held the following day. Having the IEP meeting on the following day would not necessarily be a violation.14 However, C.D.'s ESE file did not contain a notice of a January 30 or 31, 2008, IEP meeting, an IEP, or a signature page for either of those dates. If a meeting were held on either of those days, a notice of the meeting and a signature page should be in the file. C.D.'s ESE file contained a valid IEP dated February 5, 2007, that was valid through February 4, 2008. Respondent testified that she intended to draft another IEP and hold a meeting before the deadline, which would have brought the file into compliance with the FTE requirements. Notwithstanding Respondent's testimony, there was no indication that an IEP plan meeting had been scheduled on or before February 4, 2008, and that notices of such meeting had been sent to parents and other appropriate individuals. Unless an IEP plan meeting had been scheduled and properly noticed, regardless of Respondent's intent, an IEP could not have been developed on or before the February 5, 2007, IEP expired. Student J.D. The investigative report found that the goals from J.D.'s 2008 IEP are identical to the student's 2007 IEP, which was effective from January 26, 2007, through January 25, 2008, unless and until a new IEP was developed. A new IEP ("2008 IEP") was developed for J.D. on January 14, 2008, and was effective from that date until January 13, 2009. During her March 2008 interview with OPS, Respondent informed Horne that she was taught that the goals of a student who was not meeting with success could be carried over to the next year. Other district employees confirmed that it was common practice to carry over goals from one year to the next. J.D.'s 2007 IEP indicates that Jantzen was the contact person for the IEP and that Respondent was not invited to the IEP meeting. J.D.'s 2008 IEP indicates that Respondent was not invited to the IEP meeting. Jantzen signed the signature page of this IEP as the ESE teacher, and Nosal, Moreland, Edmonson, and J.D.'s parent also signed the page. Jantzen, the current ESE department chair at Haile, testified credibly that a student's goals could be carried over to the next year, if deemed appropriate. According to Jantzen, it would be proper to include a note on the IEP regarding the reason(s) why the goals were carried over. However, there is no indication that Jantzen did so in J.D.'s file. Student M.M. The investigative report found that M.M.'s IEP dated April 4, 2007, did not include an LEA signature. Respondent informed OPS that it was probably an oversight that the LEA failed to sign the signature page. Respondent testified credibly that she would not have held a meeting if an LEA was not present, and it was likely that she anticipated an LEA coming or that the LEA was in attendance, but failed to sign the sheet. Typically, in the School District, the ESE department chair is the designated LEA at his/her respective school. However, at Haile, the school's guidance counselor, not the ESE department chair, is the designated LEA. If and when the guidance counselor at Haile is unavailable to serve as LEA, other individuals at the school, including Respondent, as the ESE department chair, were authorized to act as LEA. The failure to obtain the signature of an LEA at the April 4, 2007, IEP meeting was an oversight. Respondent was at that meeting and signed the signature page as the ESE teacher/evaluator. In the absence of the guidance counselor or another person designated as LEA, Respondent could have signed as LEA in addition to signing as ESE teacher/evaluator. Respondent was not aware that the LEA had not signed the form until she (Respondent) was interviewed by OPS. If Respondent had become aware of the problem prior to being placed on administrative leave, she could have taken one of two steps to correct the situation before the FTE window closed. To correct the omission of the LEA signature, Respondent could have scheduled another IEP meeting if no LEA was present. According to Hernandez, corrective action could have been taken by having the LEA sign off after the meeting, if that person had attended the meeting, but forgot to sign.15 Due to her oversight, Respondent took no corrective action to obtain the signature of an LEA on M.M.'s IEP dated April 4, 2007. As a result of this oversight, the IEP was not compliant for the October 2007 or the February 2008 cut-off date. Student B.R.H. The investigative report found that B.R.H.'s IEP dated March 6, 2007, did not include an LEA signature. The effective period of that IEP was March 6, 2007, through March 5, 2008. Respondent signed the signature page of the March 6, 2007, IEP as the ESE teacher/evaluator. In addition to signing the signature page as the ESE teacher/evaluator, Respondent, as ESE department chair, also could have signed as LEA if the primary LEA representative was not at the meeting. The corrective action discussed in paragraph 148 could also have been taken if the LEA representative attended the meeting, but left without signing the signature page. Respondent was not aware of the omission of the LEA signature until it was called to her attention during the March 13, 2008, OPS interview. Had Respondent been aware of that omission prior to that time, she could have taken appropriate corrective action. Because Respondent was unaware of the situation prior to that time, no corrective action was taken prior to the October 2007 FTE cut-off date. Student J.G. The investigative report determined that the ESE file of J.G. could not be found. Despite that determination, it was not established when this student enrolled at Haile and/or if that student's ESE file was ever delivered to Haile. Moreover, at this proceeding no testimony or evidence was presented as to whether the ESE file was found after Respondent was placed on administrative leave. As ESE department chair, Respondent was responsible for maintaining the ESE files. However, in this instance, it is unknown when, and if, J.G. enrolled in Haile and/or if the student's file was ever delivered to the school. Assuming, though not finding it, that J.G's ESE file was at Haile, no evidence was presented that Respondent intentionally or otherwise concealed the file.16 The credible testimony of Respondent was that she did not conceal J.G.'s ESE file. Student B.M. The investigative report found that B.M.'s ESE file could not be found. It was not established that B.M. was a student at Haile, whether the student enrolled at Haile, or if B.M.'s ESE file was ever delivered to Haile. Also, no evidence was presented at the hearing as to whether the file was found since Respondent was placed on administrative leave. During the March 13, 2008, OPS interview, Respondent informed Horne that she did not know B.M. Also, Respondent testified credibly that she did not know B.M. and never saw B.M.'s ESE file. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent intentionally concealed the ESE file of B.M. or that the file was ever at Haile. Alleged Deficiencies Not Resulting in Loss of Funds Student E.A. The investigative report found that Respondent falsified an Informed Notice and Consent form for E.A. This finding was based on a comparison of two Informed Notice and Consent forms for E.A. Informed Notice and Consent forms: (1) advise parents that their child has been recommended for an evaluation, re-evaluation and/or file review; (2) indicate the types of assessments that may be used; (3) provide parents the option to either give or deny consent for the evaluation; and (4) provide a signature and date line for parents to complete. Informed Notice and Consent forms also provide spaces for information, such as the student's name, address, school, grade, and teacher's name ("identifying information"). On both of the Informed Notice and Consent forms for E.A., the identifying information had been written in the appropriate spaces, and the parent had signed and indicated that consent was given for the proposed evaluation. The two Informed Notice and Consent forms were different in several ways as set forth below. On the first Informed Notice and Consent form, someone had written in the student's grade as "6." The middle portion of the form, which describes the student's proposal for evaluation, was not completed. Finally, the parent's signature was on the form, but the "date" line next to his/her signature was not completed. On the second Informed Notice and Consent form: in the space for the student's grade, the number "8" was written over what appeared to be a "6," indicating that the student was in eighth grade, not sixth grade; (2) the middle portion relating to the proposal for evaluation had been completed; and (3) the date, April 23, 2007, previously not on the form, was written next to the parent's signature. The finding in the investigative report assumes that the first Informed Notice and Consent form (which was incomplete) was prepared and signed by the parent when E.A. was in the sixth grade, and the form was copied and modified when the student was in eighth grade. Those alleged modifications included changing the student's grade and inserting a date next to the parent's signature. Respondent testified that she may have changed the grade from "6" to "8" on the second form and did not know if she had added the date next to the parent's signature. While Respondent is not sure how the foregoing occurred or who did it, she explained that, with respect to the grade, it was possible that she wrote the "8" over the "6," because the grade had been initially entered incorrectly.17 According to the OPS report, during the March interview, Respondent advised the investigator that the file she (Respondent) was given to review was E.A.'s speech file and not the student's ESE file. Respondent told Horne during that interview that she was "almost certain that there was another consent form." At hearing, Respondent testified credibly that she believed that there was another consent form elsewhere.18 Based on the record, no determination can be made as to when the date next to the parent's signature was written on the Informed Notice and Consent form or who wrote that date.19 Based on the record, no determination can be made as to who or when E.A.'s grade level was changed from "6" to "8" or whether that change was made to correct an error.20 Student L.H. The investigative report found that the Informed Notice and Consent form for L.H. was falsified by Respondent. On the student's Informed Notice of Consent form, the date next to the parent's signature was January 25, 2008. The date of the parents' signature on that form appeared to have been changed to January 25, 2007. The investigative report found that the "8" in the year 2008 appeared to have been written over what seemed to have been a "7" in the year 2007. No evidence was presented to establish who wrote an "8" on the form, indicating that the form was signed by the parents on January 25, 2008. No evidence was presented as to when the parents actually signed the Informed Notice and Consent form. The credible testimony of Respondent was that she did not change the date on the consent form and did not know who had done so. Student B.H. It is alleged that the ESE file of B.H. did not contain a notice of an IEP meeting and should have since the student's current IEP was to expire on February 6, 2008. No evidence was presented to establish that Respondent directed or instructed the ESE assistant or registrar to send out notices of an IEP meeting for B.H. or that the notices were sent out. Respondent testified that she intended to make the file compliant by sending a notice to the parents before the deadline. Despite Respondent's intentions, unless a notice had been sent out prior to February 5, 2008, and unless she took extraordinary measures, the IEP plan meeting could not be convened and no IEP was developed for B.H. on or before February 6, 2008, when the student's IEP expired.21 Student A.T. The investigative report determined that the IEP for A.T. dated October 4, 2007, did not include a signature page. According to the investigative report, during the March 2008, interview with Respondent, the investigator "reviewed the concern for A.T." (no signature page for the October 2007 IEP). The investigator then advised Respondent that the School District could have lost funding, but the problem was caught in time, and an IEP meeting was held to obtain the signatures. Finally, the investigator told Respondent, "Please explain." Respondent answered by telling the investigator that she could not remember. The investigative report makes no mention of Horne providing any file of A.T.'s to Respondent during the above- described discussion. After the allegation related to the missing signature page was made and Respondent was placed on leave, a signature page for A.T.'s October 4, 2007, IEP, which included Respondent's signature, was found.22 Apparently, before the signature page for the October 4, 2007, IEP referenced in paragraph 189 was located and after Respondent was placed on leave, school officials completed two signature pages for that IEP. These signature pages were backdated to correct the "missing signature page" issue. Ultimate Findings The School Board lost funding due to 15 ESE files being non-compliant with applicable statutes and regulations. However, those non-compliant issues were the result of human errors, mistakes, omissions and oversights of those responsible for the files, including, but not limited to, Respondent. The record is void of any evidence that the ESE files' non-compliance issues were the result of Respondent’s committing intentional acts to falsify the ESE records and/or to misrepresent the facts relative to the ESE students. Finally, there is no evidence that the errors, mistakes, and omissions attributed to Respondent resulted from her intentionally or deliberately neglecting her duties and/or refusing to adhere to the directives of supervisors and/or applicable laws, regulations, and School Board policies.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order: Finding Respondent, Annette D. Dozier, not guilty of the charges alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Reinstating Respondent with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 23rd day of December, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates, as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2017). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2017). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 880641, covering the areas of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2022. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at GHS in the Alachua County School District. Respondent began his teaching career at GHS in 2002 teaching ESE classes. The incident that forms the basis for this proceeding occurred on May 12, 2016, during the 2015-2016 school year. Teachers employed by the Alachua County School Board are subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Alachua County School Board and the Alachua County Education Association, the local teachers’ union. Article IX, Section 21(a), of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which was in effect during the 2015-2016 school year, provides that: Subject to the approval of the principal or his designee, a teacher may leave the campus of his particular school if appropriate arrangements are made to insure that students are not left unsupervised. Approval is required for each circumstance or situation. The principal or his designee will not unreasonably deny such a request. A teacher will use this privilege only in unusual circumstances. At the beginning of each school year, before students report, a faculty pre-planning meeting is held at GHS to go over information provided by the school district. Supervision of students is among the topics of discussion, and teachers are advised that they are not to leave students unsupervised in their classrooms. The reason for the instruction is obvious -- GHS, being responsible for the safety of its students, should take all reasonable measures to ensure their safety on campus. In addition to the instruction provided at the pre- planning meeting, GHS sent periodic emails to teachers throughout the year reiterating that students were not to be left unsupervised in classrooms. On April 5, 2016, an email was sent directed to the general problem of unsupervised students “walking around A, B, and C hallways” during the lunch periods. The email noted that some teachers allowed students to come to their classrooms during the lunch period for mentoring, which was recognized as a laudable activity. One teacher responded the next day expressing appreciation for the reminder, noting that “[t]here are students all over upstairs in A & B wings. They also hang out in the stairwells, especially on the West end.” On April 7, 2016, Mr. Shelnutt sent an email to all teachers reiterating that it was “fantastic” that teachers allowed students in their classrooms during the lunch period, but that students were not to be “roaming around.” The email emphasized that “if you chose to allow students in your classroom during your lunch, you are assuming responsibility for supervising them.”2/ During the lunch shifts, school employees were routinely stationed in areas where general education students were allowed to eat lunch in order to provide adult supervision while their teachers took their 30-minute lunch break. As will be described herein, ESE students were subject to a different lunchtime regimen. During the 2015–16 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach a self-contained class of 4 to 7 students with intellectual disabilities. The “self-contained” setting means that students generally remained in the Gaines building on the GHS campus with other students with disabilities. Respondent’s students were intellectually disabled, but functioned at a higher level than their ESE peers in other classrooms, who had more severe disabilities. Respondent’s students identified more with general education students, and were much more likely to interact with general education students than with those in the other ESE classrooms.3/ The Gaines building was a “community of classrooms,” in that a teacher could request and receive assistance from teachers or paraprofessionals in the other two classrooms in the building. The ESE classrooms surround a small courtyard at the Gaines building. The courtyard has a table and seating, and students would most often sit there to eat their lunch. One of the three ESE teachers usually oversaw the courtyard, and the courtyard could be seen from the ESE classroom windows. There is also a basketball court and track behind the Gaines building, which were occasionally used by ESE students before and after school, and during lunch period. The school day at GHS has six periods. Respondent taught ESE students for five of the six daily periods. During the period when Respondent’s ESE students were at their P.E. class, Respondent was assigned to teach a general education history class. Mr. Shelnutt indicated that “[e]very teacher [at GHS] should have a 30-minute duty free lunch in addition to a planning period.” Mr. DeLucas testified that Respondent was in “a very unique situation. The other self-contained rooms had multiple paraprofessionals. He did not have multiple paraprofessionals.”4/ Consequently, Respondent was the only teacher in his classroom and was assigned students every period of the school day with no planning period. Because of the circumstances, if it became necessary for Respondent to leave the classroom, he would ask one of the teachers or paraprofessionals from the other ESE classrooms to watch his class. Unlike the situation that was the subject of the April 5, 2017 and April 7, 2017, emails referenced above, which appears to describe a general education student lunch period, ESE “self-contained” students were allowed to get their lunches and then return to their classrooms, to avoid the crowds and the lines. It was apparently not uncommon for special needs students to go to the cafeteria during the 20-minute break between the end of A-Lunch at around 11:55 a.m. and the beginning of B-Lunch at 12:15 p.m. when there is not a standard lunch shift. Respondent’s only break in the school day was during his students’ lunch period, from 12:15 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. Since ESE students typically had lunch in the Gaines building courtyard or their classrooms, even Respondent’s “duty free lunch” was not free of duties. On May 12, 2016, Respondent released his students -- which on that day were only B.S., B.H., and N.C. -- around 12:05 p.m. to get lunch from the cafeteria. Respondent’s students had been watching a movie, and wanted to finish the movie during the lunch period. Respondent agreed to let the students return to his classroom to finish watching the movie. Before the students returned to the classroom, Respondent received a telephone call from the baseball booster club president regarding an upcoming banquet. When the students returned to the classroom, Respondent continued the telephone call outside. When Respondent ended the telephone call, he realized that the lunch period was “counting down.” Respondent left the Gaines Building, with the students unattended in his classroom, and drove to a sandwich shop several blocks away. There was no explanation as to why Respondent did not ask one of the other ESE teachers or paraprofessionals to watch his classroom. During Respondent’s absence from the classroom, another of Respondent’s students, J.H., entered the classroom and saw male ESE student, B.S., emerging from a storage closet in Respondent’s classroom, and thereafter discovered female ESE student, B.H., in the closet crying. J.H. went to the office and told Ms. Conyers what he had seen. Ms. Conyers radioed for a dean or an administrator to report to Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Gantt and Mr. Bauer arrived at the classroom at about the same time. Ms. Gantt questioned B.H. as to what had happened, and Mr. Bauer went to the nearby basketball court where B.S. had been reported to have gone. B.H. and B.S. were taken to the Dean’s office for questioning. At some point after Ms. Gantt and Mr. Bauer arrived at Respondent’s classroom, and approximately 15 minutes after his departure from campus, Respondent returned from the sandwich shop. There was considerable evidence devoted to the events that occurred in Respondent’s classroom closet during his absence. All of the evidence was hearsay. However, what was established (and agreed upon) is this: On May 12, 2016, while Respondent was absent from his classroom, during which time students were left unsupervised in the classroom, an event occurred that was of sufficient severity that the police were called in, that the police conducted an investigation, and that the police ultimately completed a sworn complaint charging B.S. with lewd and lascivious molestation of B.H. Alachua County Public Schools charged Respondent with violating school board policies regarding student supervision, specifically a policy that required teachers to obtain the permission of the school principal before leaving school campus, and recommended his termination from employment. Respondent contested the recommendation of termination. On February 16, 2017, the Alachua County School Board, the Alachua County Education Association, and Respondent executed a settlement agreement, providing that: (1) the superintendent would rescind the recommendation for Respondent’s termination; (2) Respondent would take an unpaid leave of absence beginning March 1, 2017, until June 6, 2017; Respondent would agree to complete Safe Schools online training regarding classroom supervision and school safety; and upon completion of the Safe Schools training, Respondent would be returned to paid status as an employee of Alachua County Schools. Respondent fulfilled the terms of the settlement agreement and, with regard to the Safe Schools training, exceeded the required courses. For the 2017–2018 school year, Respondent has been assigned as a P.E. teacher at the Sidney Lanier Center, a K-12 public school in Alachua County. Sidney Lanier is a specialized school for ESE students. The principal of Sidney Lanier was aware of the events of May 12, 2016, when Respondent was assigned. It should be acknowledged that Respondent taught ESE classes at GHS for 14 years without incident. He had no prior discipline and received uniformly good evaluations. He was well regarded as a teacher and a coach, and was generally acknowledged to have had a positive impact on students’ lives. Respondent expressed genuine remorse about leaving students unattended in his classroom, and credibly testified that he would never again do so. The incident did not involve Respondent denigrating or disparaging students, or improperly or abusively making physical contact with students. Nonetheless, Respondent violated a clear and direct requirement that he not leave students unattended. Although he believed his students would not engage in the activity described, such action on the part of a high school student was certainly not unforeseeable. There was conflicting evidence as to whether B.H.’s mental health was actually affected by the incident. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that it had some negative effect. However, rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [a student]'s health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; Fla. EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, though without specific intent or malice, failed to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to their mental or physical health, or safety, pursuant to rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent’s educator’s certificate be suspended for a period of 30 days, that he be issued a letter of reprimand, and that he be placed on probation for a period of two years following his suspension, which penalty is within the range of penalties established in rule 6B-11.007(2). DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Russell Freeman, was employed by the School Board of Broward County, Florida, as coordinator of exceptional student education for the physically handicapped and was under a continuing contract status for that position for the 1975-1976 school year. He had been employed by the School Board of Broward County since 1969. The Respondent is the School Board of Broward County, Florida, a government agency charged with employing, regulating, supervising and managing the practices, operations and tenure of instructional and non-instructional personnel for the Broward County Public School System. During the 1975-1976 school year, the Respondent employed individual coordinators for exceptional education, each assigned to cover a single student exceptionality. The Petitioner was employed as such a coordinator, serving in the capacity of coordinator for physically handicapped students. There were four such coordinators, specializing in various student exceptionalities, one of whom was the Petitioner. During that school year, the School Board's Administrative Staff conducted a review of the exceptional student education program on a county-wide basis to determine what services were being rendered to exceptional students with a view toward determining the best method and practice to deliver appropriate educational services to the various categories of exceptional students considering problems posed by the dense population in the county and the high and growing population of exceptional students. At the time this review was conducted, the exceptional student population in the county school system was approximately 15,000. The Petitioner was responsible for coordination of the provision of exceptional education services to approximately 5,060 of these students, approximately 5,000 being in a speech handicap program and approximately 60 being in a physical motor handicap program. The Petitioner, as were the other three former coordinators, was responsible for the students in his particular category of exceptional education for the entire county. With the advent of United States Public Law, 94-142, the School Board Staff charged with conducting the exceptional student program for Broward County was required to approve, promulgate and implement individualized educational plans (IEPs) for each exceptional student in the county. This would have necessitated each of the four coordinators attempting to appropriately oversee the promulgation, drafting and implementation of an individualized educational plan for each of the 2,000 to 5,000 students under his supervision (in the Petitioner's case 5,060 students). The School Board and Administrative Staff became concerned that this task and service could not be provided students on an adequate basis from a centralized organization, wherein each coordinator had several thousand students for which he was mandated to implement such an I.E.P. Accordingly, the School Board retained the services of an expert consultant in the field of exceptional education, Dr. Sage, who ultimately prepared a report, the thrust of which was a recommendation that the School Board decentralize the provision of exceptional education services and assign a coordinator who was responsible for all types of exceptional student (rather than one category) for a smaller geographical area than the county as a whole. This report, and she consultant who prepared it, recommended, and Dr. Scalise, in his testimony for the Respondent, established that the provision of exceptional educational services, including the preparation and use of appropriate individualized educational plans could be better performed if one coordinator had less students and a smaller geographical area under his "jurisdiction." With a view toward this goal, the School Board began deliberation on a reorganization plan for the provision of exceptional educational services. Dr. Scalise at the time was one of the four former coordinators. He was asked to advise the School Board regarding this reorganization. It was felt by Dr. Scalise, others on the exceptional educational staff, and the Board, that because of the size of the population in Broward County and the population of exceptional students as well as the geographic size of the county that it was not possible for the former coordinators to each serve the entire county for a single exceptional educational category. The kind of service envisioned by Public Law 94-142 could not he provided unless coordinators were qualified to supervise all exceptionalities in a decentralized fashion, being responsible for a smaller geographical area and a smaller number of students. Dr. Scalise, in his advisory capacity to the School Board felt that a decentralized exceptional education supervisory operation would improve the quality of services rendered to exceptional students. Accordingly, with a view toward the recommendation in this report, as well as his own experience in operation of the mentally handicapped exceptional student program, Witness Scalise recommended that the county consider decentralizing the exceptional education program so that an exceptional student coordinator would be assigned to handle the entire scope of the exceptional student program and be appropriately qualified, for such, within each of four geographic areas of the county. After due deliberation, the School Board, on April 8, 1976, voted to implement a reorganization of the exceptional education office or department and, thus, accept Dr. Scalise's recommendation that the provision of exceptional student services be decentralized. Formerly, the Director of Exceptional Student Education for the entire county had to approve the eligibility of each student who entered or exited the exceptional student program and had to approve any significant change in the students individualized education plan required by Public Law 94-142. He, thus, had to supervise the eduational plans for each of approximately 15,000 students. When the decentralization plan was inaugurated the four new area coordinators who were ultimately hired were given the responsibility, because of their background, experience and qualifications in special education to approve the eligibility of each student within their own geographical area, rather than all plans having to be approved by one director for the entire county. Witness Scalise demonstrated that, based upon his experience as director of the entire program after the reorganization was implemented, that decentralized administration of exceptional education of four geographical areas of the county permitted more efficient monitoring and delivery of educational services to exceptional students than had the earlier system under the former four "at large" coordinators who had to visit each of many schools where students within their particular category of exceptionality were assigned. With the advent of the new organization, the "geographical" exceptional education coordinators work directly with the assistant county superintendent for their geographical areas in establishing programs, selecting teachers, determining curricula, the types of materials, supplies and other aids, and concomitant preparation of exceptional student program budgets for their particular geographical areas. The coordinator exceptional education for that area had to assist in the handling of due process proceedings, with obtaining transportation for exceptional students to various special programs. In short, the "new coordinator" has to handle the total scope of the delivery of exceptional education for that geographical area. Under the former system, only one person, the Director, was responsible for and handled the entire task of providing all needs of exceptional education, whereas under the new organization, four qualified people were hired to perform those varied tasks. With the approval by the School Board of the decentralized organization plan, the four new positions were duly advertised and four new coordinators were hired. All but one were certified in at least one area of exceptional education. Witness Scalise was hired as the director of the exceptional education program for the county and is certified in "varying exceptionalities," which is an overview certification issued by the State Department of Education certifying that the holder, Witness Scalise, has some qualification in all areas of exceptional student education. The philosophy or purpose behind the School Board's reorganization of this department was thus to better and more efficiently provide exceptional education services to a high population of exceptional students which has grown since the year in question to number approximately 20,000 students at the time of the hearing. The testimony of Dr. Stephenson corroborates that of Dr. Scalise and establishes that a new job description for these new coordinator positions was created with new qualifications. The School Board then openly advertised the new positions in accordance with its rules. The Petitioner applied for one of those new positions and was unsuccessful. Dr. Stephenson's testimony was uncontradicted in establishing that the Petitioner, Mr. Freeman, was not possessed of all of the qualifications necessary in order to be considered for the new position. The Petitioner's continuing contract, which is the subject of this proceeding, provides that he is to be placed in the position of "coordinator- 9560" at a salary of $21,450 per year with the beginning date being July 1, 1973 and the ending date 1984. The contract, however, provides that if the School Board adopts a lower salary schedule than the contract salary for the immediate prior year this may be done provided 15 days notice are provided the teacher (the Petitioner) at which point he may accept such salary or decide not to accept it and resign "without prejudice." The contract also has a provision at Item 9 providing that the contract will not operate to prevent the discontinuance of a position "as provided by law." The contract is, of course, for a specific coordinator position rather than as a "teacher" continuing contract. It does, however, have the escape clause of Item 9 allowing the discontinuance of a position without breach of the contract, provided it is legally performed.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Russell Freeman for reinstatement into his continuing contract position of "coordinator-9560" for the limited purpose of obtaining full concomitant entitlement to retirement benefits should be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 10th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald J. Vestal, Esquire 4001 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33021 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 James E. Maurer, Superintendent School Board of Broward County 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Samuel Parrondo (Respondent or Mr. Parrondo) violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2015), and implementing administrative rules,2/ as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state agent whose office is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. Mr. Parrondo holds Florida Educator Certificate 1083050, covering the areas of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and ESE, which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times relevant to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Parrondo was employed as an ESE teacher at Olsen in the Broward County School District. Ms. Knighton was the ESE specialist at Olsen. During her first year there, she walked in on Mr. Parrondo restraining a female student. Ms. Knighton found Mr. Parrondo lying on top of the student with his hand on her head, pushing her face into the floor mat, and his whole body weight on top of her. The student was screaming. Ms. Knighton told Mr. Parrondo to get off of the student. Mr. Parrondo informed her that the student did not go to "timeout" as she had been told to do. Ms. Knighton contacted her district program specialist to determine if Mr. Parrondo had received Professional Crisis Management (PCM) training, which teaches how to appropriately restrain students whose Individual Education Plans permit restraint. She learned that he had not. The mats were removed from Mr. Parrondo's classroom, and he was directed not to restrain students, because he had not been trained. Student J.M. was an 11-year-old ESE student who was described as able to understand instructions, but nonverbal, and with a low comprehension level. He was able to communicate with some sign language and a few words. He was sometimes aggressive in his interactions with the teachers; he would "come at them" and try to butt them with his head or grab them with his fingers. Student J.M. was described as tall and thin, and "really strong." Ms. Barbara Bond, a speech language pathologist, testified that sometime before the 2016 Spring Break, Student J.M. tapped her with his head. Mr. Parrondo responded by throwing Student J.M. to the ground and putting himself over Student J.M. "like when you're making a snow angel" with his arms outstretched and completely covering Student J.M.'s body. Ms. Bond testified that she supposed Mr. Parrondo was trying to protect her, but that he overreacted. She testified that Student J.M.'s action had not been a "head bang" and that she believed he could have just been trying to communicate with her. On March 11, 2016, Mr. Parrondo was attempting to get Student J.M. to come with him to conduct some periodic testing. Ms. Zuniga, Student J.M.'s aide, had taken Student J.M. to breakfast that morning, as she usually did, and had been with him all morning. She advised Mr. Parrondo that she thought that Student J.M. may have to go to the bathroom, although he had gone earlier, because of the way he was pacing back and forth. Student J.M. did not want to go to the testing. Mr. Parrondo said "Let's go" to him several times and said, "I'm not playing with you." However, Student J.M. would not cooperate and began to get aggressive toward Mr. Parrondo, moving his arms in "boxing" or "pawing" motions, perhaps trying to grab Mr. Parrondo, or ward him off. Student J.M. then put his head on Mr. Parrondo's chest. Ms. Sweeting, who was also present in the classroom during the incident, said that when she saw this, she thought perhaps Student J.M. was going to try to head butt Mr. Parrondo, because Student J.M. had done this before, but that Mr. Parrondo did not let him. Ms. Sweeting credibly testified as to what happened next. Mr. Parrondo became very upset with Student J.M. Mr. Parrondo was holding onto Student J.M.'s arms and told him to sit down, but Student J.M. would not do it. Mr. Parrondo then grabbed Student J.M. by the side of his neck and "slung" or pushed him down to the ground. Mr. Parrondo then sat on top of Student J.M. to subdue him until Student J.M. calmed down, which he did in a few minutes. When Student J.M. got up, Ms. Zuniga noticed a red mark on his neck that had not been there earlier. It is a reasonable inference that Student J.M. was scratched during the altercation. Between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., Mr. Parrondo took a picture of the mark on Student J.M.'s neck and texted it to Student J.M.'s mother, saying, "Mom, [Student J.M.] has what appears to be a scratch on his neck from a nail. It is not bothering him or anything. I just wanted to inform you." A few minutes later Mr. Parrondo called Student J.M.'s mother on the telephone to confirm that she received the e-mail. In response to her question, he assured her that Student J.M. was doing fine. When she said that her son did not have a scratch when he went to school, Mr. Parrondo replied that he had noticed that Student J.M.'s nails were long. He said nothing to her about the altercation. The text and call to Student J.M.'s mother were made in the course of Mr. Parrondo's professional dealings. Mr. Parrondo stated that the altercation came about because he had observed Ms. Zuniga and Student J.M. in "some sort of disagreement" and that Ms. Zuniga was acting as if she felt threatened by Student J.M., so he went to assist her. He testified that she was near her desk with her hands up and was pulling back from Student J.M. because he was swinging his arms erratically. Mr. Parrondo said that he intervened to avoid any possible injury to Ms. Zuniga or to other students. Mr. Parrondo testified that he moved behind Student J.M. and was holding his wrists trying to control him. He testified that Student J.M. squirmed to the floor and that Mr. Parrondo squatted down with him to continue holding him and was speaking into his ear. Mr. Parrondo testified that Student J.M. calmed down quickly and was soon ready to go to the restroom and then on to testing. Mr. Parrondo stated that he did not grab Student J.M. by the neck, did not take him to the ground, and did not lay on top of him. However, Ms. Zuniga testified that the incident began when Mr. Parrondo attempted to take Student J.M. for testing, and said nothing about Student J.M. acting aggressively toward her or any student in any way. Mr. Parrondo's account that he was attempting to prevent injury to Ms. Zuniga or other students is not credible. His testimony that he did not grab Student J.M. by the neck, take him to the ground, or sit on him is also rejected in favor of the testimony of Ms. Sweeting. Mr. Parrondo also stated that his purpose in texting the note and photograph and telephoning Student J.M.'s mother was to document the injury and gather information. He noted that child abuse is always a possibility that he must consider, although he doubted it in this case because he knew the family. This testimony was also not credible. Under all of the circumstances, it is clear that Respondent's communications were instead intended to forestall inquiries into the altercation and deflect any blame for the incident away from Mr. Parrondo. They were calculated to mislead or misdirect Student J.M.'s mother with respect to the cause of the injury. Mr. Parrondo had not received PCM training at the time of the March 11, 2016, altercation, although he had requested it several times. Mr. Parrondo had been given a radio, knew that he was not to restrain students, and was aware that school procedure required that he call for assistance. As Ms. Knighton testified, Olsen had a PCM-trained security specialist employed at the time of the March 11, 2016, altercation who could have been dispatched to assist Mr. Parrondo. No evidence was introduced at hearing as to any prior discipline relating to Mr. Parrondo's Florida Educator Certificate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent, Samuel Parrondo, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(a) and suspending his educator certificate for one year, followed by a two-year period of probation under conditions imposed by the Commission to ensure that he is properly trained and monitored and does not constitute a danger to students. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2019, 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 28th day of March, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated (1) section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2017),1/ (committing conduct seriously reducing her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board); Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. (failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to students’ mental and/or physical health and/or safety); or (3) Rule 6A-10.081 (2)(c)1. (failure to maintain honesty in all professional dealings), when she provided a “Graphic Organizer” to certain Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students during the 2017 Florida Standards Assessment test (FSAT); and if so, what is the appropriate disciplinary action.
Findings Of Fact Parties and People The Department is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. Ms. Quinn holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 1110154, which is valid through June 30, 2023, covering the areas of English for Speakers of Other Languages, ESE, and Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum and Reading. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 2). During the 2016-2017 school year, Ms. Quinn was employed as a Varying Exceptionalities (VE) Specialist at Pinellas Park Middle School (PPMS) in the Pinellas County School District (District). (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 3, as amended at the hearing).5/ At the time of the allegations in the Complaint, Respondent had approximately eleven years of experience as an educator with the District beginning in 2008 as a VE Teacher at District middle schools, up to December 2015, when she started her present position of VE Specialist at PPMS. (Jt. Stip. Fact, ¶ 3, as amended at the hearing). Kathleen Visconti is the accommodation specialist for the Bureau of K-12 Subset at the Department. Her duties include communicating with Florida school districts about disability accommodations, and reviewing and editing test administration manuals. Scott Eline is the Assessment Specialist for the District. He coordinates the administration of the FSAT in the District, as well as course exams. Dave Rosenberger has been the PPMS principal since 2014. Kim Vongsyprasom has been an assistant principal at PPMS since December 2014. As part of her duties, Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom supervises the ESE Department at the PPMS. Prior to becoming an assistant principal, she was the VE Specialist at PPMS (the same position currently held by Ms. Quinn) for twelve years. During the 2016-17 school year she was Ms. Quinn’s direct supervisor. Joanna Bernal has been an assistant principal at PPMS since July 2015. Assistant Principal Bernal served as the Testing Coordinator for PPMS for the 2016-2017 FSAT. At PPMS the assistant principals may have overlapping duties. As explained by Assistant Principal Bernal, each assistant principal had “big rocks” or areas of supervision. For example, Assistant Principal Bernal was the administrator in charge of assessment testing for all of PPMS, but she also had other duties such as supervision for all of eighth grade. Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom was in charge of transportation for all of PPMS, and another assistant principal was in charge of scheduling for all PPMS students. The ESE department was not a “big rock,” because one administrator was not responsible for all ESE students – it had multi-person oversight. Assistant Principal Bernal’s oversight of the eighth grade, for example, included responsibility for eighth grade ESE students, even though Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom was over the ESE Department. Ms. Quinn’s Duties and IEP Responsibilities Ms. Quinn serves as the Chair of the ESE Department, and is supervised by Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom. Ms. Quinn works with all the ESE teachers and staff to determine what accommodations are needed and appropriate for each ESE student. Ms. Quinn is responsible for overseeing compliance with accommodations requirements for students with disabilities at PPMS, including those who have Individual Education Plans (IEPs). As background, an IEP is a legal document required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law which requires schools to provide special education and related services to children with disabilities. § 20 U.S.C. § 1400. Failure to adhere to an ESE student’s IEP can result in the District’s liability for violations of state and federal laws. The IEP provides directions for accommodating an ESE student so that he or she can be as equal as possible to a non- ESE student in an educational setting. Accommodations can be provided both in the classroom and for assessment testing situations. Ms. Quinn is not a classroom teacher and does not have students assigned to her. Rather, she has a caseload of students with disabilities for which she manages their paperwork, including drafting IEPs. She, however, does not have final authority regarding what accommodations are listed in an IEP. Rather, each IEP is individualized and specifically created for each ESE student based on that student’s needs. This is done through an interactive process made up of a team (IEP team) of individuals that meet and review the ESE student’s performance, progress, attendance, behavioral issues, and other relevant data in order to fashion appropriate accommodations for classroom learning and testing. The IEP team determines the ESE student’s ability to function in the real world and the classroom. Each IEP team includes required participants including the parent, the student’s case manager, an ESE teacher, a general education teacher, and an interpreter for the evaluations. Sometimes a local education agent (LEA) is also involved to ensure all parties involved with that child get the appropriate information regarding that student’s IEP. The LEA serves as a liaison between the family and the District to make sure the school is adhering to the IEP in accordance with legal requirements. The IEP document containing the accommodations is drafted using a computer system known as “PEER.” Although there was a suggestion by counsel that PEER is an acronym for “Portal to Exceptional Education Resource,” there was no evidence at the hearing supporting this definition. Regardless, each IEP may contain standard accommodations and/or “unique accommodations.” Once the IEP team checks certain boxes on the IEP, PEER provides a drop-down menu populated with suggested standard accommodations. The IEP team can then select which accommodations are required for that ESE student. Anyone on the IEP team can recommend an accommodation, but the team must come to an agreement to finalize the accommodations listed on the IEP. Unique accommodations must be approved by the District and/or the Department. The IEP has one section for accommodations in the classroom, and a separate section for accommodations for assessment testing. The IEPs presented at the hearing were each slightly different for each student, but each IEP had a section marked “Assessment Accommodations” or “For Students Participating in Assessments with Accommodations.” This section has accommodations related to the following four categories: Presentation, Responding, Scheduling, and Setting. Most relevant to the allegations made by the Department against Ms. Quinn is the section titled “Responding.” All of the IEPs provided at the hearing, except for one, allowed the accommodation of “Organizers, outlines, checklists and other writing supports.” This accommodation was one of the standard accommodations listed in the drop-down menu in the PEER system.6/ FSAT Testing The FSAT is the state-wide student assessment program examination that is administered in Florida public schools. § 1008.22, Fla. Stat. The District is responsible for administering the FSAT in public schools in Pinellas County. Id. The FSAT is made up of multiple testing areas including an English Language Arts (ELA) component. The ELA portion of the FSAT is made up of a reading section and a separate writing section. Mr. Eline, as the District Assessment Coordinator, was responsible for administering the FSAT in the District. He described the FSAT as “the standards by which students are measured for adequate yearly progress to determine whether they’re performing at grade level proficiency above or, perhaps, below.” Assistant Principal Bernal was responsible for administering the FSAT at PPMS. Ms. Quinn was responsible for providing appropriate accommodations during the FSAT to ESE students at PPMS that required such accommodations. She did not proctor the exam. The test is graded on a range from one through five, with one being the lowest and five being the highest. All students taking the FSAT must score a three or higher to be considered proficient in that area. This includes the ESE students at PPMS that were required to take the exam. There is a strict protocol for administering the FSAT. For a student whose test is invalidated, the school would have no data as to the proficiency regarding that testing area for the next school year. All District schools must participate in the FSAT. The Department bases school accountability, in part, on FSAT scores. FSAT scores also factor into teacher evaluations, and potentially teacher pay. Teachers who can show significant growth of their students’ test scores may be entitled to a bonus. All teachers involved in proctoring of the FSAT must attend a training presentation. Assistant Principal Bernal was in charge of the training during the 2016-17 school year. There is a dispute as to whether Ms. Quinn attended this training. There is no credible evidence Ms. Quinn attended the training. Although the Department offered into evidence a sign- in sheet for those who attended a training session, Ms. Quinn’s name was not on it. The sign-in sheet only had Assistant Principal Bernal’s signature as having attended for PPMS. Likewise, there is no evidence Ms. Quinn had signed (or was required to sign) the security agreement form required by those who are involved in the chain of custody of the FSAT booklets, or for those who are proctoring of the exam. See FSA Manual, Appendix D, 289-295. Ms. Quinn is also not listed as one of the recipients in the email sent by Mr. Eline on December 6, 2016, to FSAT test coordinators. This email contains a slide presentation on “Spring 2017 Florida Standards Assessments Training Materials for Paper-Based Assessments - Grades 4-7 ELA Writing; Grade 3 ELA Reading.” The only testimony that Ms. Quinn had FSAT training was supposition from Assistant Principal Bernal who testified all PPMS teachers and FSAT proctors were required to take the training. Those who attended the training were provided a FSAT manual with their name written on it. After the training, Assistant Principal Bernal had the manuals for those who did not attend the training. She concluded that Ms. Quinn must have attended the training because after the training she did not have a manual with Ms. Quinn’s name on it. But Ms. Quinn was neither a teacher nor a proctor. The conclusion that if a teacher missed the training, then Assistant Principal Bernal would still have that teacher’s manual, assumes Ms. Bernal had a manual with Ms. Quinn’s name on it--a fact not established at the hearing. As such, the undersigned finds Ms. Quinn did not attend the FSAT training for the 2016-17 year. Accommodating the ESE Students at PPMS for the FSAT Because of the low rate in FSAT proficiency scores for ESE students at PPMS, Ms. Quinn began researching a possible solution or accommodation that would assist the ESE students during the FSAT testing period. She began looking into possible aids for the ESE students at the beginning of the 2016-17 school year. The unrefuted evidence establishes Ms. Quinn reviewed all aspects of the ESE student testing experience, including physical placement (grouping) during the test, anxiety levels of students, testing dates, and student deficits. She reviewed all of the listed accommodations in the PEER system for assessments. She reviewed various databases and federal sources for disability accommodations to find an accommodation for ESE students so that they might obtain scores more in line with their non-ESE peers. Based on her research, she began exploring the use of “organizers, outlines, checklists, and other writing supports” which was a listed accommodation on the IEPs of some of the ESE students for assessments. In October 2016, Ms. Quinn emailed District personnel including Debbie Thornton with questions regarding FSAT accommodations. In response she received the 2015 Accommodations for Florida’s Statewide Student Assessments (2015 Accommodations Manual). The manual was issued by the Department’s Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services. The entire manual focuses specifically on accommodating ESE students on statewide assessments. Contrary to Ms. Visconti’s testimony that the 2015 Accommodations Manual is outdated, it is still available on the Department’s website. See Fla. Dep’t of Ed., 2015 Accommodations for Florida’s Statewide Student Assessments, http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7567/urlt/ statewideassessmentaccommodations.pdf (last visited May 23, 2019). Moreover, there is no convincing evidence the District or Ms. Quinn knew the 2015 Accommodation Manual was outdated. In fact, there is no evidence anyone at the Department, the District level or PPMS (including Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom), advised Ms. Quinn that the Accommodations Manual was invalid.7/ The undersigned finds Ms. Quinn’s reliance on the 2015 Accommodations Manual was reasonable under the circumstances. The 2015 Accommodations Manual provides in relevant part: MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT ACCOMMODATIONS The IEP [ ] team makes decisions about accommodations for an individual student with a disability when they evaluate the impact of the student’s disability and need for accommodations in classroom instruction and assessment activities. The content and format of the statewide assessments are important considerations in the decision- making process. The following guidelines are recommended for making decisions about accommodations for statewide assessments: Accommodations should facilitate an accurate demonstration of what the student knows or can do. Accommodations should not provide the student with an unfair advantage or interfere with the validity of a test; accommodations must not change the underlying skills that are being measured by the test. Accommodations must be the same or nearly the same as those needed and used by the student in completing classroom instruction and assessment activities. Accommodations must be necessary for enabling the student to demonstrate knowledge, ability, skill or mastery. * * * Classroom accommodations are used by the student regularly for academic work and assessments. In accordance with testing guidelines, these same accommodations – if proven successful in the classroom and if allowable-may be used during the administration of statewide assessments. * * * Accommodations are documented on an IEP [ ] based on the needs of the student and should not be dictated by testing dates or deadlines. Accommodations should be determined necessary by the IEP [] team for regular use by the student in the classroom as well as on assessments. If a student uses accommodations for classroom instruction that are not permitted on the statewide tests; the parent must be notified. 2015 Accommodations Manual, 11. Ms. Quinn understood the above guidelines to mean that accommodations utilized in the classroom should be utilized, when allowed, in the assessment setting. Ms. Quinn, however, was unsure as to what would constitute an allowable FSAT accommodation. On October 4, 2016, Ms. Quinn contacted Mr. Eline at the District level, in preparation for the 2017 FSAT. She asked questions about different accommodations and how to provide them for the FSAT without giving the ESE students an unfair advantage. Eventually, the emails focused on the standard accommodation listed in the IEPs as “organizers, outlines, checklists and other writing supports.” There is no evidence that Mr. Eline told Ms. Quinn to address the issue with the administration at PPMS. Rather, initially, Ms. Quinn’s questions were forwarded to Debra Helton- Boza, who was in charge of ESE compliance for the District. Ms. Quinn did not receive an answer to her questions. Instead, Ms. Helton-Boza provided Ms. Quinn with excerpts from various sources including: the 2010 edition of “Accommodations, Assisting Students with Disabilities,” the 2014-2015 edition of the “FCAT/FCAT 2.0. NGSSS EOC Assessment Accommodations,” the 2015 Accommodations Manual, and online resources. Ms. Quinn still did not have a clear answer from the District regarding “allowable” accommodations for the FSAT, so she emailed Mr. Eline again on October 25, 2016. On the morning of November 30, 2016, Mr. Eline forwarded the questions to the Department. At 1:38 p.m. on November 30, 2016, Kathleen Visconti of the Department responded that the mathematics grids/guides were an acceptable accommodation for the FSAT, but that she needed more information about using “sample problems and tasks” and “organizers, outlines, checklists, and other writing supports” as testing accommodations. Mr. Eline forwarded Ms. Visconti’s response to Ms. Quinn. When Ms. Quinn asked Mr. Eline if she should contact Ms. Visconti, he told her that all communications with the Department should go through him. Ms. Quinn complied by emailing Mr. Eline more information about her questions. At no time did Ms. Quinn have direct contact with anyone at the Department. An email conversation between Mr. Eline and Ms. Quinn ensued on the afternoon of November 30, 2016, and lasted into the evening. During this exchange, Mr. Eline (who was not in charge of ESE students or accommodations for ESE students) opined he did not think an organizer would be allowable, but that he would ask the Department. (emphasis added by Petitioner) (the 4:14 p.m. email). In a separate email exchange, Mr. Eline and Ms. Visconti discussed Ms. Quinn’s questions regarding an organizer. (emphasis added by Petitioner). The parties dispute whether Ms. Quinn received this email. Although there is an email from Mr. Eline to Ms. Quinn at 5:10 p.m. on November 30, 2016 (5:10 p.m. email), it simply states “FYI.” It does not indicate there is an attachment, nor does it contain any of Ms. Visconti’s 4:14 p.m. email message. Based on Ms. Quinn’s demeanor and testimony, coupled with the appearance of the 5:10 p.m. email, the undersigned finds Ms. Quinn did not receive this message and did not know that Ms. Visconti said “no” to the use of an organizer as an accommodation for the FSAT. The email exchange between Ms. Visconti and Mr. Eline establishes the District had no definite answer to Ms. Quinn’s question as to whether an organizer was an “allowable” accommodation until 4:14.p.m. on November 30, 2019. Ms. Quinn continued her email conversation with Mr. Eline. These emails establish Ms. Quinn’s intent was to know how to abide by the IEPs assessment accommodations without “getting ourselves into trouble.” The email conversation between Mr. Eline and Ms. Quinn ended on December 1, 2016, at 8:51 a.m., when Ms. Quinn stated that she sent several pictures from PEER showing what the drop- down menus contained as accommodations, including one regarding organizers. Based on the emails she received, Ms. Quinn did not think Mr. Eline had given her a definitive answer to her question about using an organizer as an accommodation. During their email exchange, Mr. Eline also referred Ms. Quinn to the Spring 2017 FSA Paper-Based Test Administration Manual (2017 FSAT Manual). The 2017 FSAT Manual addresses the process for administering the FSAT to all students. The 2017 FSAT Manual says nothing about replacing the 2015 Accommodations Manual, nor does it allow someone in Ms. Quinn’s position to ask the Department questions directly about specific accommodations. Rather it instructs in relevant part: School personnel should communicate with their district offices about any questions or concerns prior to test administration; district personnel should contact FDOE if guidance or clarification is needed. 2017 FSA Manual, 1. Ms. Quinn complied with this instruction. The 2017 FSA Manual does not define what kind of organizer was an allowable accommodation during the testing process, but does address assessment accommodations in general. It states in relevant part: Students with Disabilities Students with disabilities participate in the statewide assessment program by taking one of the following: FSA without accommodations, FSA with accommodations, or Florida Standards Alternate Assessment. All determinations regarding participation in the statewide assessment program must be documented in the student’s IEP or Section 504 plan. * * * General Information about Accommodations Appendix A provides information concerning allowable accommodations for students with disabilities and for ELLs. The test administrator and the school assessment coordinator are responsible for ensuring that arrangements for accommodations have been made prior to the test administration dates. * * * If students with current IEPs, Section 504 plans, or . . . plans have allowable accommodations documented, test administrators may provide accommodations as described in Appendix A and may modify the script as necessary to reflect the allowable accommodations. Appendix A does not address the use of “Organizers, outlines, checklists and other writing supports.” Rather it repeats the guidelines in the 2015 Accommodation Manual, including: 3. Accommodations must be the same or nearly the same as those needed and used by the student in completing classroom instruction and assessment activities. 2017 FSA Manual, 62. On January 24, 2017, Ms. Quinn advised Mr. Eline that the 2017 FSA manual was not helpful in answering the question about using an organizer as an accommodation. She also told him that the Department had not yet answered her question about the organizer accommodation. She then asked Mr. Eline if an organizer would be considered a “unique accommodation.” Again, Mr. Eline did not say “yes” or “no.” Instead he stated it was his “inclination” that it was not allowable, but he would defer to Deb Thornton at the District. It is unclear whether Ms. Thornton ever responded to Ms. Quinn. Although Ms. Quinn was aware there was a process for requesting “unique accommodations,” she did not believe the use of an organizer was “unique” for numerous reasons. First, the use of organizers was one of the standard drop-down accommodations listed in PEER, not requiring special approval by the Department. Second, because numerous ESE students had this accommodation listed on their IEPs, any organizer would not be unique (i.e., an exclusive or individual accommodation aid). Ms. Quinn’s conclusion that the use of an organizer was not a “unique accommodation” was reasonable under the circumstances. Not having a concrete answer as to whether the use of an organizer was an allowable accommodation, or what that organizer would look like, Ms. Quinn raised the issue during an ESE Department meeting in early 2017. This meeting was attended by an ESE ELA teacher, Stacy Christian; a behavioral specialist, Richelle Turner; and Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom. During that meeting the participants discussed whether an organizer type accommodation could be provided to ESE students for use during the 2017 FSAT. There is a dispute as to what Ms. Quinn relayed to the group about her conversations with Mr. Eline. Ms. Quinn’s version of events is supported by that of Ms. Christianson and Ms. Turner. The undersigned finds Ms. Quinn did not imply or state at the meeting that she had received approval for using a graphic organizer. Rather, at that meeting she voiced frustration that she could not get clear direction from the District or the Department regarding the use of such an accommodation. She then asked the team members for input. None of the team members, not even Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom, questioned providing some type of organizer as an accommodation for the ELA portion of the FSAT to those students who had IEPs referencing such an accommodation. The group at the meeting then discussed the form this type of accommodation might take. Ms. Turner advocated using an accommodation that mirrored the type used in the classroom. Ms. Christian relayed to the group that she used a chart that hung on her classroom wall to accommodate students with the “organizers, outlines, checklists, and other writing supports” accommodation on their IEPs. That chart was not in the room during the meeting, nor did Ms. Christian provide the team with a copy of the chart. It is unclear who, if anyone, at this meeting was familiar with Ms. Christian’s chart. After the meeting Ms. Christian reduced the wall chart to the size of a letter sized hand-out (Graphic Organizer). The Graphic Organizer was a two-sided sheet, with a flow chart titled “Argumentative Essay Planner” on one side and another flow chart titled “Explanatory Essay Planner” on the other side. The top bubble on each flow chart describes an “introduction paragraph” with an arrow to two or three bubbles titled “body paragraphs,” and then an arrow to a bubble titled “conclusion paragraph.” Each bubble describes the types of sentences or thoughts that should be included in that paragraph. Ms. Christian initially showed the Graphic Organizer to Ms. Quinn. Ms. Quinn did not approve its use, rather she asked Ms. Christian to show it to Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom. Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom’s testimony was that she was shown something by Ms. Christian, but did not review it. She also testified she was not authorized to approve FSA Accommodations. Ms. Christian’s credible and convincing testimony established she showed the Graphic Organizer to Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom, and told her Ms. Quinn wanted her approval. Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom reviewed the Graphic Organizer. When asked by Ms. Christian whether it was okay, Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom replied, “yes.” The undersigned finds the testimony of Ms. Christian more believable. Even if Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom’s testimony that she did not look at what was shown to her by Ms. Christian is true, the undersigned finds the members of the ESE meeting, including Ms. Quinn, reasonably believed Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom approved the use of the Graphic Organizer for use as an accommodation on the ELA portion of the FSAT. 2017 FSAT After Ms. Christian received approval from Assistant Principal Vongsyprasom regarding the Graphic Organizer, Ms. Quinn made copies of the reduced version of the chart/organizer she obtained from Ms. Christian for each of the students who had listed on their IEP “organizers, outlines, checklists, and other writing supports” under accommodations for testing assessments. Ms. Quinn wrote each ESE student’s name on the top of his or her copy of the Graphic Organizer, placed the documents in a manila folder with that student’s test proctor’s name on the folder, and distributed the folders to the appropriate proctor the morning of the ELA portion of the FSAT. On February 28, 2017, PPMS administered the ELA portion of the FSAT. In total, 37 ESE students received a copy of the Graphic Organizer with their testing materials. Of these, all but one had on their IEPs listed “organizers, outlines, checklists, and other writing supports” as an assessment accommodation. Ms. Quinn did not collect the Graphic Organizers after testing. Rather, each document was either taken home by the student or turned in with all other testing materials. Ms. Quinn made no attempt to hide her distribution of the Graphic Organizer. On the day of the testing, or shortly thereafter, an ESE student’s parent (who coincidentally was a District employee) discovered the Graphic Organizer and sent it to Principal Rosenberger’s attention. Assistant Principal Bernal also discovered copies of the Graphic Organizer in the testing materials being collected back from the proctors. She raised concerns with Principal Rosenberger, who in turn questioned Ms. Quinn. Contrary to Petitioner’s position that Principal Rosenberger “knew immediately that the graphic organizer was not allowed,” see Pet’r PRO, ¶37, the emails show otherwise. Principal Rosenberger emailed Ms. Quinn at 7:14 p.m. on February 29, 2017, indicating he had been contacted by a parent, who was worried there was cheating going on during the FSAT. He noted, “So far, only ESE students appear to have them. I will need to know the source, and can I justify their use as an acceptable type of support, as a reasonable accommodation for ESE students on a standardized test? Your thoughts please, I need to nip this quickly.” In response, Ms. Quinn provided a lengthy explanation for the use of the Graphic Organizer. This response was prepared in collaboration with Ms. Turner and contained citations to various sources. Principal Rosenberger cut and pasted the explanations Ms. Quinn had provided in an email he sent to Mr. Eline, noting “Ms. Quinn made a valid point that the graphic organizer viewed in isolation clearly paints the school in a poor light. She has requested that we include a rationale for its use. The reader should be reminded that only ESE students with testing accommodations indicated on their IEP had access to the document.” There is no indication how Mr. Eline responded to Principal Rosenberger, or that Mr. Eline informed Principal Rosenberger that any kind of organizer was an unacceptable accommodation. The Department alleges Ms. Quinn was dishonest in her conversations with Principal Rosenberger after the 2017 FSAT. Principal Rosenberger testified that Ms. Quinn implied Mr. Eline had given her permission to use the Graphic Organizer, but her emails to him showing her explanation do not indicate she received permission from anyone. Rather, they indicate, as did the testimony at the hearing that Mr. Eline did not give Ms. Quinn a firm “no.” Even Principal Rosenberger admitted, “the recommendations from the district never specifically said ‘no,’” although he inferred a “no” from the email Mr. Eline sent to Ms. Quinn at 3:50 p.m. on November 30, 2016. On March 2, 2017, Principal Rosenberger notified Ms. Quinn the District office had rejected the use of the Graphic Organizer. He noted, “Basically the blank graphic organizer might have passed . . . however what was provided was so detailed that it appeared to be directions on how to complete the test. The [District] ESE office up here was consulted and they immediately declined it. Without a special review by [the Department], I do not think it was truly reviewed in detail, if nothing else we failed to follow the process[,] thus it is a violation.” Ultimately, the Department ruled the Graphic Organizer was not an appropriate accommodation for the ELA portions of the FSAT. The District invalidated the ELA test scores for all 37 ESE students who received a copy of the Graphic Organizer. Upon further investigation, the District learned that 36 of the 37 ESE students were eligible for an “organizer” as an “approved” accommodation during an assessment test. The remaining ESE student did not have that accommodation listed on his or her IEP. On or around April 6, 2017, Ms. Quinn was notified she would be questioned by John Frank, the administrator for the District’s Office of Professional Standards. Although Mr. Frank’s testimony and notes are largely hearsay, it is clear from the evidence at the hearing that Ms. Vongsyprasom was unwilling to take any responsibility for the use of the Graphic Organizer. Ms. Quinn, on the other hand, acknowledged her role and fully cooperated with Mr. Frank’s investigation. The District and Ms. Quinn entered into a stipulation regarding the use of the Graphic Organizer, and Ms. Quinn was suspended for one day without pay.8/ The matter was referred to the Department’s Education Practices Commission (EPC). Although the evidence established that invalidation of FSAT scores are “a big deal” and “serious business,” there is insufficient evidence to determine, what effect, if any, this had on the individual ESE students or their educational plan. Although there was testimony the ESE students with invalidated tests would require additional reading and writing instruction, it is unclear that the results would have been different had the test scores not been invalidated. The IEPs of the 37 students involved reflect that most, if not all, had not been deemed proficient on the ELA portion of the FSAT (i.e., their past scores were below a 3). Only ten percent of all ESE students showed grade level proficiency in ELA in the previous school year. The Department argues, “Mrs. Quinn’s defense and demeanor clearly indicated she has not taken ownership of what she did wrong.” (Pet’r PRO, ¶52.) The evidence establishes otherwise. Ms. Quinn made no effort to hide the use of the Graphic Organizer from anyone. She immediately responded to Principal Rosenberger’s request for her reasoning behind the use of the Graphic Organizer. She accepted the District’s discipline without dispute. She admitted that the inclusion of verbiage inside the flow chart bubbles was, in retrospect, an error. Moreover, during her testimony at the hearing she did not try to blame anyone else for the use of the Graphic Organizer. Ms. Quinn has two other disciplines from the District, but neither involves testing violations. She has no previous violations brought by the Department or the EPC. Ms. Quinn remains the chair of the ESE Department at PPMS. She continues to serve ESE students, parents and teachers. Although there was testimony Ms. Quinn is not allowed to proctor FSAT, she had not been proctoring the test previously.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 May, 2019.
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 As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment as a continuing contract teacher should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the public schools within Nassau County, Florida. Respondent graduated from the University of Florida in 1978 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English. She began working for Petitioner in the 1980/1981 school year at Emma Love Hardee Elementary School. That year, Respondent gave Petitioner an out-of-field assignment as a teacher of emotionally handicapped students. Respondent received her Master of Arts degree in Special Education from the University of North Florida in 1985. She began working as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) instructor at Fernandina Beach High School in the 1983/1984 school term. Beginning with the 1999/2000 school year, Respondent's primary teaching assignment was as a performing arts instructor at Fernandina Beach High School. Respondent worked in that capacity until the 2006/2007 school year when she became a full- time English and ESE co-teacher. For the 2007/2008 term, Respondent taught English III and English IV. In 2008/2009, Respondent worked as a regular education English teacher. She also served as an ESE co-teacher for intensive language arts. Jane Arnold began working as Principal at Fernandina Beach High School for the 1998/1999 school term. Ms. Arnold completed a performance appraisal of Respondent in 1999 that resulted in an overall unsatisfactory rating. Of particular concern to Ms. Arnold in the 1998/1999 appraisal was Respondent's problem with completing documentation of lesson plans, including daily instructional strategies as well as specific examples showing how the subject matter would be delivered. The failure to provide proper lesson plans made it difficult to know whether Florida's Sunshine State Standards were being met. Respondent was also having problems with grading students' work and recording the grades. Student work papers were disorganized and some papers were missing. Therefore, it was hard to discern what work was completed and when it was completed. The failure to timely grade and record students' work made it difficult for students to know what they needed to do to improve. Ms. Arnold subsequently placed Respondent on a professional development plan (PDP). The one-page PDP required Respondent to improve three job-service categories. After Respondent satisfactorily completed the PDP within the prescribed 90-day period, Ms. Arnold recommended that Respondent's employment continue. Respondent received a satisfactory or above- satisfactory rating on all of her teacher performance evaluation from the 1999/2000 school year through the 2006/2007 school year. However, Respondent admits that she has had consistent problems with time management and organization throughout her career. In October 2007, Respondent received a mini-grant from the Fernandina Beach High School Foundation. Respondent used the grant to provide her students with novels she used to teach literature. Additionally, in October 2007, Respondent earned continuing education credits toward recertification by attending a conference sponsored by the Florida Association for Theatre Arts. During the conference, Respondent participated in the "In Search of Shakespeare" workshop, which she hoped would prepare her to introduce Shakespeare as part of the British literature curriculum. Respondent's problem with providing focused instruction became critical during the 2007/2008 school year. Students in Respondent's classes were receiving failing grades and did not know why. Respondent made errors when reporting grades and had difficulty submitting them on time. Respondent was easily upset in the classroom. She would become emotional, lose her temper, and say things that were less than professional. Ms. Arnold heard disruptions in Respondent's classroom, which was behind a curtain, behind a stage, and behind double doors. Curtis Gaus was the assistant principal at Fernandina Beach High School from 2004 to 2008. Mr. Gaus also witnessed periods with the level of noise in Respondent's classroom was so loud that it could be heard in the cafeteria during lunchtime. Respondent was frequently tardy. As a result, Mr. Gaus would have to unlock Respondent's room and wait with her students until Respondent arrived. In October 2007, Respondent was required to complete progress monitoring plans and schedule parent conferences. The conferences were scheduled on October 14, 15, and 16, 2007. Petitioner did not turn in the progress monitoring plans until two months after holding the conferences. As observed by Ms. Arnold and Mr. Gaus, Respondent frequently failed to provide her students with any explanation of expectation as to a lesson or any modeling of what it was she expected the student to do. She provided no immediate feedback or clarification for the work they were attempting. In January 2008, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent using instructional time to read questions to students, expecting them to write the questions as she read them. Ms. Arnold advised Respondent that she should not use class time to dictate questions. On January 31, 2008, Ms. Arnold met with Respondent and gave her type-written comments, suggesting areas for Respondent to improve classroom instruction. Mr. Gaus observed teacher classroom at least once a month. Many times Respondent would be unaware that Mr. Gaus was in her classroom. For the majority of Mr. Gaus' visits, Respondent's students were off task. On one occasion, while Respondent was handing out notebooks, the students were playing video games and talking to each other. In February 2008, Respondent's English IV students presented a Renaissance Faire. The students researched and prepared exhibits, presented projects, and competed in a soliloquy contest sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts to earn extra credit toward their semester grade. In support of the Renaissance Faire, Respondent wrote lesson plans, developed a project rubric, implemented classroom assignments and kept a record of student project grades. Respondent invited parents, current and former teachers, as well as community leaders to act as judges for an evening program presented by the students. Respondent took a six-week medical leave effective March 5, 2008. On March 8, 2008, Respondent attended a teacher's conference entitled Super Saturday. As a result of participation at the conference, Respondent earned the points she needed to renew her teaching certificate. Petitioner's Classroom Teacher Assessment Handbook for the 2007/2008 school year states that a continuing contract teacher must receive one formal observation, followed within 10 days by a post-observation conference. During the post- observation conference, a PDP must be developed for teachers receiving unsatisfactory performance appraisal reports. The formal observation must be completed by March 14. Performance appraisals are required to be completed and submitted to the Superintendent no later than April 7. However, Petitioner was on medical leave on these dates. In May 2008, Respondent provided Petitioner with a physician's written recommendation for extension of Respondent's medical leave. Petitioner approved extension of the leave through August 11, 2008. On May 29, 2008, Ms. Arnold wrote a letter to Respondent, who was still on medical leave. A Notification of Less Than Satisfactory Performance was included with the letter. The May 29, 2008, letter reminded Respondent that they needed to arrange a time in July to complete Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal and to discuss the implementation of a PDP for the 2008/2009 school year. The letter refers to written comments that addressed Respondent's performance and that were provided to her earlier in the school year. In July 2008, Petitioner sponsored vertical and horizontal curriculum development workshops for English teachers of advanced placement and honors students. Some English teachers of regular/average students also attended the workshops. Respondent did not receive this training. On July 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent met to discuss Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal and PDP. The evaluation rated Respondent unsatisfactory with a total overall score of four out of a possible 100 points. Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal contained Ms. Arnold's comments in each of the performance categories as follows: Planning/Preparation: Lack of long and short term planning[.] Detailed lesson plans must identify learning objective and the instructional strategies/activities/assessment planned to accomplish the objective. Work should be clear, compelling and engaging and include representative works and genres from the Anglo Saxon period through the present day. Feedback to students should be timely and specific. Documentation should be organized and accessible. Classroom Management: Classroom environment hostile, negative and chaotic. 3-step discipline procedure not documented. Records not accurate or timely. Classroom procedures lack organization. School & Board policies not consistently enforced. Room in disarray with papers, books, and materials in haphazard piles throughout the room. Assessment/Management: Interventions for academic, attendance and behavioral problems lacking. Parent contacts inconsistent and not documented. 3-step discipline procedure not implemented. Effective instructional strategies lacking. Work is frequently not meaningful or relevant to unit of study. Intervention/Direct Services: Teacher read test questions to students, refused to repeat questions, and subtracted points from students who requested additional clarification. Papers are frequently "lost," performance expectations for assignments not clearly defined, and grade information not easily available to students and parents. Technology: Teacher web site/Edline not utilized[.] Frequent errors in grade reporting[.] Difficulty meeting deadlines[.] Collaboration: Frequently alienates students and parents by failing to produce documentation for grades or clarification of assignments[.] Does not follow Board Policies for make-up work, and fails to communicate problems to parents to seek their assistance. Staff Development: While Ms. Autry has participated in numerous professional development activities for effective instruction, the strategies identified and recommended have not been implemented with any consistency in her classroom. Parental Input: Parents express frustration and impatience with the problems encountered by their students in Ms. Autry's class. Clear communication of academic and behavioral expectations needs to be provided to all stakeholders. Complaints about "disparaging comments" made by Ms. Autry about the students in her classes are frequent, both from students and teachers. Professional Responsibilities: Ms. Autry must learn to maintain a professional demeanor at all times in the classroom, and must avoid making negative comments about the students with whom she works. Improvement of instruction must become a priority. Extra-curricular involvement should be limited as it appears to interfere with time that should be devoted to her classes. Deadlines need to be met. Grading and attendance should be timely and accurate. Curriculum deficiencies must be addressed. Interim Student Growth: Academic interventions should be provided and documented for students experiencing difficulty in successfully completing the coursework[.] Parents must be notified and encouraged to participate in the intervention strategies. Grades should be fair, consistent, and easily available to students and parents. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Ms. Arnold's comments on the 2007/2008 performance appraisal accurately summarized Respondent's professional deficiencies. Many of Ms. Arnold's comments show the same types of problems that Respondent has experienced for years. In 1984, Respondent used sarcasm towards students and failed to submit paperwork on time. In 1988, Respondent had problems with organization, submitting timely grades, and completing paperwork accurately and on time. In June 1998, Respondent was disorganized, late to work, and untimely in submitting paperwork. In August 1998, Respondent had trouble with accurate and punctual recordkeeping, using varied and appropriate educational strategies, and demonstrating effective classroom management. In the 2001/2002 school term, Respondent had trouble submitting grades on time. The final comment of Ms. Arnold on the last page of the 2007/2008 performance appraisal, states as follows: As a result of an unexpected medical leave, this evaluation and resulting professional development plan can not be completed until Ms. Autry's return to work. Ms. Arnold and Respondent signed the evaluation on July 21, 2008. Also on July 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent reviewed a 32-page PDP plan. The PDP was designed to meet each area of deficiency on Respondent's 2007-2008 performance appraisal. Respondent did not take advantage of the opportunity to request any specific strategies or otherwise provide input regarding the PDP on July 21, 2008. However, the next day, Respondent sent Ms. Arnold an e-mail, requesting Ms. Arnold to review a folder of documentation to support Respondent's performance in certain areas. Ms. Arnold responded in an e-mail dated July 22, 2008. Ms. Arnold agreed to review the materials provided by Respondent. She also stated that "evaluation specific activities" might help them revise the PDP as needed. Ms. Arnold also invited Respondent to utilize the "Comments of Evaluatee" section of the performance appraisal. In subsequent e-mail, Respondent and Ms. Arnold agreed on a time to meet. Sometime after receiving the 2007/2008 performance appraisal, Respondent performed a self-assessment on all essential performance functions. She gave herself an overall rating of "needing improvement," with 30 of 100 points. For the 2008/2009 school year, Ms. Arnold assigned Respondent to teach four sections of English IV, first through fourth periods. Respondent had some regular education students and some ESE students in these classes. With only one preparation, Respondent did not have and should not have needed a co-teacher to assist her in teaching four classes of English IV. Respondent also was assigned as a co-teacher in two intensive language classes, fifth and sixth period. Anita Bass, a Reading Coach, was primarily responsible for planning and teaching the two intensive-language classes. Respondent, as a co-teacher, was supposed to provide assistance in general and to specifically provide help to ESE students. When Ms. Bass was absent, Respondent would teach the intensive-language class. On one occasion, Respondent taught a lesson on fables. On another occasion, Respondent taught a lesson on neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson. In August 2008, Respondent was assigned a new classroom. She moved her materials from the room behind the cafeteria to a more traditional classroom. On September 12, 2008, Ms. Arnold visited Respondent's classroom for 15 minutes. During that time, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent reading from a text. Only three students had their books open and there was very little student participation. On September 15, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e-mail, advising that her lesson plans and weekly course outline were past due. On September 16, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e-mail regarding her classroom observation on September 12, 2008. The message also requested submission of Respondent's lesson plans and weekly course outline along with a written explanation as to Respondent's reason for not meeting the deadline. On October 13, 2008, Ms. Arnold visited Respondent's classroom. Ms. Arnold found the students talking, sleeping, and watching CNN because the movie described in Respondent's lesson plan was over. None of the students had books or papers on their desks. Respondent stayed behind her desk for approximately ten minutes then handed some graded brochures back to the students. Respondent spoke to her students for about five minutes during the 22 minutes of Ms. Arnold's visit. The students did nothing during that time. In an e-mail written later on October 13, 2008, Ms. Arnold noted that Respondent's weekly syllabus dated October 13, 2008, showed that the students were scheduled to watch a movie then complete a reading guide and a quiz. The e- mail discussed Ms. Arnold's observations earlier in the day and requested revised lesson plans for the week. Referring to the lesson observed that morning, Ms. Arnold also requested an explanation of the learning objectives and teaching strategies employed by Respondent. Ms. Arnold reminded Respondent that required tasks were to be completed in a timely and accurate fashion. A subsequent e-mail dated October 13, 2008, stated that Ms. Arnold had received Respondent's ESE Mainstream Report for four students. According to the message, the reports were given to Respondent on September 29, 2008, were due on October 3, 2008, and not given to the teacher of record until October 7, 2008. Because the Mainstream Reports were incomplete for several students, Mr. Arnold requested Respondent to review her Professional Growth Plan, requiring tasks to be completed in a timely and accurate fashion. Ms. Arnold also requested Respondent to provide the missing information. On October 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e- mail, requesting lesson plans that were due on October 17, 2008. Joyce Menz is Petitioner's Director of Staff and Program Development. In November 2008, Ms. Menz provided Respondent with an opportunity to attend a workshop related to classroom management. Petitioner did not attend the workshop. In the fall of 2008, Ms. Menz hired Jimi Buck, a retired language arts resource teacher and reading curriculum specialist, to sit and plan a lesson with Respondent. Ms. Buck then demonstrated instruction of the lesson plan in one of Respondent's classes. Ms. Menz arranged for Respondent to observe Ms. Drake, an English IV teacher at another school. Respondent and Ms. Drake spent some time going over Ms. Drake's yearlong plan of how and what she would be teaching. Ms. Menz hired a substitute for Respondent's classes so that she could consult with Ms. Drake. Ms. Menz hired Ms. Mealing, another consultant, to meet with Respondent and work on a week of lesson plans. During their time together, Respondent and Ms. Mealing viewed and discussed a DVD entitled "Strategies for Secondary English Teachers." Ms. Menz purchased the DVD specifically for the purpose of helping Respondent. Ms. Menz provided a substitute for Respondent's classes while she reviewed the materials with Ms. Mealing. Ms. Arnold made it possible for Respondent to observe Ms. Barlow's classes at Fernandina Beach High School, by hiring a substitute for one-half day. Ms. Barlow taught Advanced Placement and English IV Honors. Ms. Arnold also provided additional help to Respondent when school began in the fall of 2008. First, Ms. Arnold did not assign Respondent as a teacher of record for any ESE students. As a teacher of record, Respondent would have been required to keep track of what was happening with her ESE students. Ms. Arnold also excused Respondent from participating in any extracurricular activities. Ms. Arnold hoped that Respondent would devote all of her energy to improving her instruction. At times, Ms. Arnold would go into Respondent's class to get it under control in response to disruptive behaviors. Ms. Arnold then would make suggestions to Respondent about how to keep control, reminding her of the need to use the three-step discipline procedure. On November 6, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent signed a performance appraisal. Respondent's overall rating on the evaluation was unsatisfactory. Respondent indicated that she thought her overall rating should have been "needs improvement," which would have still required a plan of assistance. Mr. Gaus observed Respondent during the PDP period and completed a performance evaluation. Mr. Gaus found that there was no improvement in keeping students on task. During the post-observation conference with Respondent, she continually acknowledged that she had problems with administrative tasks, lesson plans, submitting grades and managing the behavior of her students. On November 17, 2008, Ms. Menz observed Respondent's classroom. Ms. Menz found that Respondent's overall planning was not based on students' needs and was not clear and engaging. Ms. Menz observed two students who appeared to be sleeping and another texting. While Ms. Menz was in Respondent’s class, six students lost their early-lunch privilege. On the November 17, 2008, performance appraisal prepared by Ms. Menz, Respondent received an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Respondent made a comment on the evaluation form, indicating that she had learned a lot from the post- observation conference with Ms. Menz and looked forward to receiving further assistance. On November 21, 2008, Mr. Gaus, sent Respondent an e- mail. The message advised that Respondent had not posted her grades on Edline since October 21, 2008, and should do so as soon as possible. Edline is the computer program that Petitioner uses to record grades. Despite the PDP, Respondent's deficiencies did not improve. In her semester exam, she used materials that the students had not read. When the students questioned Respondent, she told them, "If you want to read it, look it up on the internet." In response to the PDP, Respondent developed a behavioral incentive plan to implement in the reading classes where she was the co-teacher. Respondent sent a letter to inform parents about the plan. The behavior incentive plan sought to reward positive student behavior with bathroom passes, snacks, and paper money. However, there were school rules against having food in the classroom and allowing bathroom passes except for emergencies. Moreover, the plan was not well received because the students thought Respondent was tallying their actions. As a co-teacher, Respondent was required to help implement a computer-directed reading program. Because Respondent was unable to provide assistance with the program, a third person had to be called in to perform the task for Respondent. An additional concern of Ms. Arnold's was that Respondent continued to ignore Petitioner’s policy regarding makeup work. Ms. Arnold was also concerned that Respondent was losing her temper and taking points from students who asked for clarification on assignments. In January 2008, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent's classroom again. Her comments on the performance appraisal were as follows: Planning/Preparation: Second 9-weeks spent on "Pygmalion" [.] Based on lesson plans, there were no novels, short stories, or poems by British writers included in the material taught (See eval. #1)[.] Classroom activities lack relevance and timeliness. (See eval. #2) Strategies and Objectives listed in lesson plans were not reflected in actual classroom activities. Classroom Management: Inappropriate student behavior during classroom observation was addressed and corrected by instructor. Developed behavioral incentive plan for students in Reading Classes with reward system for positive student behavior and achievement (bathroom passes, snacks, paper money)[.] Assessment/Management: Portions of the semester exam do not correlate to stated learning objectives, learning strategies, or class activities listed in the semester outline, lesson plans, or weekly syllabus. Students have not read "Julius Caesar" or "Heart of Darkness." Neither have they studied the three poems they are to compare. Students were told to "look up" the meaning of the literary terms that they were given to use in analyzing the poems on the exam. Many questions given to student in advance. Intervention/Direct Services: Ms. Autry does not demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the English IV curriculum. Significant works by British writers have not been taught. (See observation #1) Pacing is slow, with 9-weeks spent on "Pygmalion" to the exclusion of British novels, short stories and poems. Activities are not aligned with student needs. In- depth skills development is lacking. Technology: Ms. Autry utilizes technology for administrative and instructional tasks[.] However, on December 16th, Edline grades had not been updated since 10/23[.] Also on that date, the last weekly syllabus posted was for week 11. Collaboration: Ms. Autry's written complaints about ESE co-workers in which she stated the need for colleagues to provide accommodation for her [medical condition] resulted in strained working relationships. Ms. Autry attends department meeting and faculty meetings as outlined in the Plan of Assistance. Staff Development: Completed training in ESE/IEP, Tablet PC, Edline/Grade Quick and ELMO. Received direct training by Ms. Menz, Ms. Mealing & Ms. Buck to address instructional deficiencies. Declined suggested training opportunities in Discipline & Motivation Strategies, Behavior Management Strategies, Classroom Management, Lesson Planning, Parental Input, Classroom Assessment and Professional Responsibilities. (Based on identified needs in PDP and classroom observations.) Parental Input: Edline/Grade Quick posting irregular. Few documented parent contacts. Professional Responsibilities: Ms. Autry is teaching four sections of English IV and is the co-teacher in two sections of Reading taught by the Reading Coach. She in (sic) not the teacher of record for any ESE students. During the 90- day plan of assistance, lesson plans were submitted late 15 out of 18 weeks. Grades were not posted in a timely fashion on Edline. (Ms. Autry was excused from participating in extra curricular activities in order to focus on her plan of assistance. Interim Student Growth: Students who had not passed the FCAT were assigned to the Reading Coach who provided individual/group instruction during the first 9-weeks. 96% of Ms. Autry's students received semester grades of 70% or higher. No other assessments are available at this time. Ms. Autry and Ms. Arnold signed the performance appraisal dated January 7, 2009. Ms. Autry requested that Ms. Arnold attach information about a disability and its accommodations to the evaluation. Ms. Arnold complied with the request. Two weeks before the expiration of the PDP, Respondent requested a two-month extension because she could not comply with the plan. Respondent's request was denied. Petitioner's Superintendent, Dr. John Ruis, placed Respondent on paid suspension when she did not improve. Dr. Ruis then recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay pending termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 22nd day of April, 2010.
