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 Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's educators certificate.
Findings Of Fact In the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent, Elizabeth Weisman, held a Florida Teaching Certificate No. 475382. The certificate covered the areas of elementary education and mathematics and was valid through June 30, 2005. When the events herein occurred, Respondent was employed as a dropout prevention teacher at Second Chance School in Tallahassee, Florida. The school is part of the Leon County School District. There is no evidence that Respondent has been disciplined by Petitioner on any prior occasion since she began teaching in Leon County in October 1980. Second Chance School is a school for children with disciplinary problems and who have a history of being extremely disruptive and cannot be handled in a regular school setting. Ms. Weisman was in a difficult position when she started teaching at Second Chance School. She was assigned to teach outside her field and was replacing a teacher who was not as strict a disciplinarian or as demanding of performance as Ms. Weisman. In general, her students did not react well to the increase in discipline and expectations of performance and likely caused increased referrals to the principal's office. Both Ms. Weisman and the students had to adjust to each other On April 6, 2001, J.M. entered Respondent's classroom. Respondent asked him to leave her classroom. He was not supposed to be in the classroom because he had been referred to the principal's office the day before for discipline. J.M. attempted to comply with Respondent's request, but a number of students entering the room blocked him from leaving. Respondent made a shooing motion with her hands to J.M. and raised her foot to indicate for J.M. to leave the room. The gestures were done in a playful manner and were intended as such. While Ms. Weisman's foot was raised, she accidentally brushed or pushed J.M.'s buttocks with her foot. J.M. could feel the push. However, it did not cause him to lose his balance or cause any harm to him whatsoever. The evidence did not demonstrate that J.M. was unduly embarrassed or otherwise affected academically by the incident. Indeed, the incident gave J.M. a good story to tell to others at school. The evidence did not demonstrate that the push was inappropriate or violated any state rules or statutes governing teachers. There was no evidence that Ms. Weisman was less effective as a teacher due to this incident. W.F. testified that on two occasions he witnessed Respondent state to the class that they were "acting like jackasses." J.F.'s testimony was vague and inconsistent. Specifically, W.F. testified that on the first occasion, Respondent stated to the class that they were "acting like jackasses" after class members refused to return to their seats during an altercation between two students occurring outside the classroom. The classroom students were generally cheering the fight on. With respect to the second instance, W.F. testified that Respondent made the statement after W.F. and several of his classmates tricked Respondent into placing her hand on a pencil sharpener covered with glue. W.F. conceded the description was an accurate description of the behavior of the students at the time. At no time did Respondent call an individual student an improper name. Although W.F. testified he was embarrassed by Ms. Weisman, W.F.'s testimony is not persuasive on this point. Nor is it realistic to conclude any significant embarrassment given the bold nature of W.F.'s behavior which preceded these comments. W.F. also testified on direct examination that he witnessed Respondent call the class "a bunch of rat bastards." Again W.F.'s testimony was vague and inconsistent. During cross-examination, however, W.F. testified that the remark was made to a specific female student during a verbal altercation between the student and Respondent. However, Respondent denies ever using or knowing the term "rat bastard." Given Respondent's demeanor, the inconsistency, and the unreliability of the other evidence, Respondent's testimony is the more credible. There was no credible evidence that any student was ever affected in any way by these incidences. No evidence of any change in grades or reduced test scores was introduced at the hearing. An increase in disciplinary referrals was noted by the principal, but that increase was not shown to be tied to these incidences. The increase, if any, was more likely to be due to the fact that she was a new teacher, teaching out of field, who was more strict with her students and demanded more from them. Moreover, statistics supporting this perceived increase in disciplinary referrals was not offered at the hearing. Indeed, later testing showed Ms. Weisman's students improved their test scores. However, the testing was for a different year and class. It was not clear that the same students were being tested. The improvement does show that Ms. Weisman is an effective teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23d day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23d day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Edward T. Bauer, Esquire Brooks, Leboef, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John O. Williams, Esquire Williams & Holz, P.A. 211 East Virginia Street The Cambridge Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent should be discharged from employment as a tenured teacher based on his professional incompetence.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Petitioner employed Respondent as a certified tenured teacher. Respondent has 28 years of experience teaching mathematics. Michael Kemp became principal at Englewood High School (EHS) during the 2002/2003 school year. Respondent was a mathematics teacher at EHS for the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 school terms. EHS has approximately 2,050 students. It is unique in that it serves as Petitioner's secondary center for a program known as "English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)." Approximately 80 percent of the students at EHS score below a Level 3 (below standard) on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). In the 2002/2003 school year, EHS implemented a standards-based curriculum for the first time. EHS teachers, including Respondent, received training relative to new student performance standards. The teachers also received training in the use of a new mini-lesson plan format for 90-minute blocks of instruction in content areas. During the 2002/2003 academic year, Petitioner implemented a new college preparatory mathematics (CPM) curriculum and a new reading strategy for all content areas. Respondent, along with other EHS teachers, received training in the new math curriculum and reading strategies. Respondent did not transition well to the new way of teaching. He did not adjust his teaching style to accommodate a "block" schedule, which required 90-minutes of instruction for each class period. Mr. Kemp evaluated Respondent for the 2002/2003 school year. Mr. Kemp determined that Respondent's ability to plan and deliver instruction, Competency A on the annual evaluation form and the "Classroom Observation Instrument" (COI), was unsatisfactory. However, Mr. Kemp concluded that Respondent's overall performance for the 2002/2003 school year was satisfactory. For the 2003/2004 school year, EHS initiated a sheltered academic content teaching model. As a result of the new model, many ESOL students exited the core academic program and attended special ESOL classes with designated teachers in academic areas such as language arts, mathematics, and social studies. For the 2003/2004 school year, Respondent was not a sheltered content teacher. Therefore, Respondent's classes contained some ESOL students but not as great a percentage as in 2002/2003. A high student-failure rate was common at EHS for the 2003/2004 school year. That year, approximately two-thirds of Respondent's students previously had failed their required math classes and were repeating the courses. Parental complaints against teachers are normal. The complaints are not always valid. However, when the 2003/2004 school year commenced, Mr. Kemp became concerned about the number of parents who wanted their children removed from Respondent's classes. Some of the parents made the requests as soon as their children were assigned to Respondent's classes. Other parents requested reassignment of their children to other math classes as the year progressed. On November 7, 2003, a student in one of Respondent's classes became very disruptive. Respondent attempted to get the student to settle down. When his efforts were unsuccessful, Respondent directed a verbal obscenity to the student in front of other students while class was in session. Specifically, Respondent told the student to "get the f--- out" of the classroom. On November 14, 2003, Mr. Kemp had a conversation with Respondent about his unsatisfactory classroom performance. In a memorandum dated November 17, 2003, Mr. Kemp advised Respondent that a success plan would be developed and a support team identified to assist him. On December 3, 2003, Mr. Kemp observed Respondent teaching a math class. Mr. Kemp determined that Respondent did not demonstrate satisfactory teaching behaviors. Regarding Respondent's classroom management, Mr. Kemp's observations included the following: (a) Respondent did not control the classroom; (b) Students were not on task during the warm-up activity; (c) Students engaged in conversations, which were not related to the task at hand; (d) There were no apparent expectations for classroom behavior; (e) Respondent tolerated disrespectful talk from students; and (f) Respondent did not control classroom dialogue and discussions. Regarding Respondent's instructional delivery, Mr. Kemp's observations included, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Respondent did not connect the purpose of the lesson with its content; (b) Respondent lectured from the front of the class and did not vary his instructional delivery; (c) Many students were not on task; (d) Respondent continued the lesson despite statements of frustration and lack of understanding from students; (e) Respondent demonstrated content knowledge and mastery of material, but he did not successfully transfer content to students or communicate with them; (f) The lesson was not motivating; (g) Students were not engaged and ignored the lecture; (h) Except for two students who answered questions, the class was either lost or not engaged; (i) Some students requested other students to explain or teach them an assigned task; (j) Respondent circulated among the students but he had no organization as to what was being checked; and (k) Respondent was unaware that students were working on other assignments unrelated to the class work. In a memorandum dated December 4, 2003, Mr. Kemp notified Respondent that a conference had been scheduled for December 10, 2003. The purpose of the meeting was to initiate Respondent's success plan. On December 8, 2003, Mr. Kemp observed Respondent teach another math class. Mr. Kemp concluded that Respondent did not demonstrate satisfactory teaching behaviors. Mr. Kemp's observations included the following: (a) Respondent needed assistance with appropriate lesson planning for a block schedule; (b) Respondent relied too much on a lecture format with no connection between the content of the lesson and its purpose; (c) Respondent had adequate content knowledge but he was ineffective in transferring that knowledge to the students; (d) Respondent had difficulty keeping the students engaged and on task; and (e) Respondent had little control over classroom dialogue. On December 10, 2003, Respondent met with his success team. After the meeting, Respondent was given an opportunity to provide additional strategies and suggestions for improvement to the success plan. Respondent did not take advantage of this opportunity. Respondent's 2003/2004 success plan contained specific goals, objectives and tasks in the following areas: (a) Plans and delivers effective instruction; (b) Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (c) Evaluates the instructional needs of students; (d) Communicates with parents; and (e) Promotes student growth and performance. The success plan identified certain members of the success team to work with Respondent on each area of professional development. The plan provided for weekly meetings with the success team members between January 5, 2004, and March 30, 2004. The success plan required Respondent to attend professional development cluster meetings for off-site continuing education in the following subject areas: (a) Standards Based Education; (b) Rituals and Routines; and (c) Effective Communication. The success plan provided opportunity for on-site continuing education and professional development. For example, the plan required Respondent to read and summarize certain professional literature such as the following: (a) Two math chapters in Best Practices; and (b) Modules related discipline and communication in CHAMPS Foundation. Additionally, Respondent's plan required him to view a video tape related to effective interpersonal communications with students and explain in writing how he planned to implement communication strategies in his classes. Most important, the plan required Respondent to observe his math colleagues twice a month. The success plan required Respondent to develop weekly lesson plans. These lesson plans had to include mini-lesson plans for each class at least once in each daily lesson. The mini-lesson plans included FCAT warm-ups, opening, practice, and closure. The success plan required other on-going activities including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Preparing a written script and implementing appropriate questioning strategies using Bloom's Taxonomy; (b) Preparing a written script of appropriate questions for use when monitoring and probing for solutions with cooperative groups; (c) Preparing a written summary on learning modalities; (d) Preparing a written list of strategies to meet all classroom exceptionalities and learning styles; (e) providing students with written individual corrective feedback; (f) Posting dates for remediation, retesting, or revision of work; (g) Establishing and applying published classroom routines; (h) Posting classroom rules; (i) Creating and maintaining an Absentee Assignment Notebook; (j) Publishing and enforcing a procedure for recording and reporting tardies; (k) Maintaining a notebook of handouts for student access; (l) Publishing and implementing a routine for lesson closure and class dismissal; (m) Maintaining student data records in the "Success by Design" notebook; (n) Communicating with parents about unsatisfactory student performance and course recovery opportunities, using two methods and keeping a log and copies of any written communication; and (o) Creating a daily journal of professional reflections relative to improving student rapport. The success team members observed Respondent's classes and reviewed his written assignments to determine whether he was meeting the requirements of his success plan. The team members provided Respondent with verbal and written feedback about his progress or lack thereof. The success team met as a group on February 10, 2004. On March 10, 2004, Mr. Kemp made a final observation of Respondent's teaching performance. Mr. Kemp concluded that Respondent was attempting to establish a rapport with his students. However, Respondent's performance was inadequate in the following ways: (a) He needed to implement strategies to engage the students; (b) He needed assistance with lesson plans; and (c) He needed additional strategies for classroom management. Mr. Kemp met with Respondent on March 12, 2004. At the meeting, Mr. Kemp advised Respondent that he had not successfully completed the success plan. The annual evaluation that Mr. Kemp and Respondent signed at the meeting indicates that Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in the following areas: (a) Competency A--plans and delivers effective instruction; (b) Competency C--Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; and (c) Competency G--promotes student growth and performance. According to the evaluation, Respondent's overall performance for the 2003/2004 school year was unsatisfactory. As requested by Respondent, Petitioner assigned Respondent to a teaching position at La Villa School of Arts (La Villa) for the 2004/2005 school term. Connie Skinner was La Villa's principal and Jeffery Hutchman was head of the math department at La Villa. Mr. Hutchman made several attempts to contact Respondent during the summer before the 2004/2005 school year commenced. Mr. Hutchman intended to invite Respondent to a middle-school mathematics workshop. Respondent never received Mr. Hutchman's messages and therefore did not attend the workshop. At La Villa, Respondent did not have an assigned classroom. Instead, Respondent was a "traveling" teacher who changed classrooms each period. On September 3, 2004, Ms. Skinner observed Respondent teach a math class for the first time. Ms. Skinner had some positive and negative comments about her observations. Among other things, Ms. Skinner concluded that Respondent circulated appropriately among the students, quickly stopped disrespect by one student, and had good questions from the class at the end of the lesson. She made the following suggestions: (a) Respondent needed to speed up the mini-lesson; (b) Respondent needed to set a time limit for student work to reduce the number of students who were not engaged or slow to start; and (c) Respondent needed to get students to the board. EHS sent La Villa a copy of Respondent's 2003/2004 success plan. On September 3, 2004, the success team at La Villa decided to use a modified version of the 2003/2004 success plan until Ms. Skinner and the La Villa success team had an opportunity to observe Respondent and develop a new success plan for the 2004/2005 school year. On October 11, 2004, Ms. Skinner made an unplanned observation in Respondent's class. The purpose of the visit was not to evaluate Respondent, but to gain additional information for the development of the new success plan. During the visit, Ms. Skinner noted, among other things, that Respondent's voice registered disgust with students for not using notes. On October 20, 2004, Ms. Skinner observed Respondent teach a math class, using the COI to evaluate Respondent's teaching behaviors. Ms. Skinner noted the following: (a) There was a great deal of confusion in a group assignment; (b) Respondent did not gain student attention at the start of the lesson; and (c) Respondent made statements showing his disdain for students and his lack of class discipline. Ms. Skinner concluded that Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory. On October 21, 2004, the success team at La Villa presented Respondent with a new success plan. The plan included specific goals and objectives to effect improvement in Respondent's ability to plan and deliver instruction, to demonstrate effective classroom management skills, to show sensitivity to student needs, to demonstrate abilities to evaluate students' instructional needs, to communicate with parents, and to promote student growth and performance. The 2004/2005 success plan required Respondent to attend training classes in "Connected Math." It also required him to attend workshops in instructional strategies and classroom management as well as other on-site and off-site continuing education programs. The 2004/2005 success plan specified that success team members would assist Respondent by explaining and demonstrating classroom strategies. Additionally, the success team members were required to observe Respondent in the classroom and provide him with feedback. Ms. Skinner observed Respondent on November 17, 2004. Among other comments, Ms. Skinner noted that Respondent's students were either not engaged or asked questions unrelated to the subject of the lesson. Ms. Skinner also concluded as follows: (a) Respondent's lesson did not include a mini lesson; (b) The content of the students' notebooks were poorly arranged and inconsistent; and (c) The students' homework folders were mostly empty and contained no teacher commentary. Ms. Skinner observed Respondent on November 24, 2004, using the COI to evaluate Respondent's teaching behaviors. Ms. Skinner determined that Respondent told the class to "shhhh" over 30 times. For this and other reasons, Ms. Skinner concluded that Respondent had not demonstrated satisfactory performance. On January 20, 2005, Ms. Skinner used the COI and the Professional Behaviors Instrument (PBI) to evaluate Respondent's classroom performance. These evaluations indicated that Respondent had improved in some areas such as clarity of instruction and interaction with students, resulting in a more engaged class. However, his overall performance was unsatisfactory. On March 10, 2005, Ms. Skinner used the COI to evaluate Respondent's teaching behaviors. Ms. Skinner observed the following: (a) Respondent presented material that was hard to read; (b) Respondent handled questions poorly; (c) The pace of the lesson seemed very slow; (d) Respondent failed to praise a student for a correct answer; and (e) Respondent's tone of voice carries disdain for students. Ms. Skinner concluded that Respondent's teaching behaviors were not satisfactory. On March 11, 2005, Ms. Skinner completed Respondent's annual evaluation. She concluded that his performance was unsatisfactory in the following areas: (a) Competency A, Plans and delivers effective instruction; (b) Competency D, Shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment; (c) Competency E, Evaluates instructional needs of students; and (d) Promotes student growth and performance. Respondent's overall evaluation indicated that his professional growth was unsatisfactory. As to Compentency A, persuasive evidence indicates that Respondent's delivery was not clear and explicit. His students did not understand the lesson objectives. His written communications included misspelling and typos. As to Competency D, the record shows that Respondent failed to provide his students with positive reinforcement. Instead, his tone of voice carried disdain when interacting with his students. As to Competency E, Respondent had an unusually high failure rate. This shows that Respondent's instruction did not meet the needs of his students. As to Competency G, Respondent did not provide for individual student needs during his classes. On March 15, 2005, Ms. Skinner and Respondent discussed his 2004/2005 success plan. Ms. Skinner advised Respondent that he had not successfully completed the plan. After each observation/evaluation, Ms. Skinner discussed her findings with Respondent. She advised Respondent of strategies for improving his teaching behaviors. While there was some improvement in the middle of the 2004/2005 school term, by the end of the year there was a reversion in Respondent's professional growth. Ms. Skinner stated that "all of the strategies for standards-based education that we had worked on and helped him to understand, we thought went by the wayside." Regarding Competency A and Competency G, Respondent was unable to improve, despite the assistance of his success teams and the specific in-service training they provided. Respondent's was unable to maintain a satisfactory level of performance for Competency D and Competency E. He made improvement in only one area, Competency C. Overall, Respondent's professional growth was unsatisfactory for consecutive annual evaluations separated by a year of in-service training to correct his deficiencies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order, terminating the Respondent's employment as a tenured teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2005, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Adres Rojas, Esquire City of Jacksonville City Hall, St. James Building 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Joseph J. Wise, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, may terminate Respondent's employment as an instructional employee based upon the conduct alleged in the letter from Assistant Superintendent Ron Ciranna to Respondent dated March 3, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Brown has been employed by the School Board as a teacher for 11 years. She is a member of the Polk Education Association, the collective bargaining unit for teaching personnel; is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Polk Education Association; and holds a professional services contract with the School Board pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. During the first several years of her employment, Ms. Brown was assigned to Dundee Elementary School as an Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher, working with children classified as severely emotionally disturbed, emotionally handicapped, and varying exceptionalities. When she transferred to Spook Hill, Ms. Brown initially worked in a self-contained varying exceptionalities classroom. Three years ago the principal of Spook Hill, Matthew Burkett, requested that Ms. Brown transfer to a new ESE Pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) unit that was being established at the school.2 Ms. Brown started work in the ESE Pre-K unit at the start of the 2005-2006 school year and has remained there ever since. Most of the children in Ms. Brown's class were classified as educable mentally handicapped, or EMH. Testing showed that they were developmentally delayed, with developmental ages that were typically one to two and one-half years behind their chronological ages. At any given time, there could be as few as four or as many as 12 children in Ms. Brown's class. A paraeducator was assigned to assist Ms. Brown. The ESE Pre-K classroom was a portable with a ramp leading to the front door. The front door had a gate with a pool lock. The pool lock was chest-high to an adult, out of the reach of most small children. Outside the portable was the ESE playground, which was completely fenced, with a gate and lock. The playground contained a swing set and other equipment. A child could not exit the playground without adult assistance. The school bus pick-up area was just outside the playground gate. Between January 22, 2007, and February 12, 2008, Mr. Burkett disciplined Ms. Brown 16 times, through verbal warnings, written reprimands, letters of concern, and recommendations to the superintendent for suspensions. The first documented disciplinary action was a "written confirmation of a verbal warning" from Mr. Burkett to Ms. Brown dated January 22, 2007. The letter references "many issues" that had been discussed at a January 19, 2007, conference, stating that Ms. Brown had already addressed several of the issues discussed. Mr. Burkett then wrote: I would like to target the issue of "falling asleep" during nap time as a very critical area which must be corrected. You stated that it has happened because you have to model and cuddle with the children to get them to fall asleep and that your para was present. I instructed you to sit up while cuddling the children to sleep and that you must not ever fall asleep. Please know any instance from this point on that jeopardizes the health and safety of the students will result in further disciplinary action. On February 8, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a written reprimand to Ms. Brown. The reprimand letter stated that on February 2, 2007, at 12:45 p.m., Mr. Burkett walked through Ms. Brown's class to observe. The room was quiet and dark. All the students were lying down, and some of them were already asleep. Mr. Burkett observed that Ms. Brown was lying down with several students. She was not asleep, and she responded when spoken to by Mr. Burkett, who nonetheless felt obliged to issue a written reprimand in light of his prior warning. Ms. Brown signed the reprimand letter, acknowledging receipt, but also wrote the following: "Due to this concern I have quit sitting w/any students. I sit in my chair w/students around my desk. Any parent concerned about their child not napping will be directed to the office (Burkett or [assistant principal Sharon] Neal)." On February 9, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a "letter of concern" to Ms. Brown regarding conferences held on February 2, 5, and 8, 2007. The letter discussed a number of concerns that had been voiced by parents or school administrators. Ms. Brown's high school student assistant had not submitted the required application to obtain volunteer status and would be barred from the classroom until her paperwork was completed. An unauthorized man had been seen in Ms. Brown's class. The man was an old classmate of Ms. Brown's and was helping her to plan a class reunion. Mr. Burkett informed Ms. Brown not to conduct personal business during the school day. A parent observed that Ms. Brown was "always on her cell phone." Ms. Brown had been repeatedly cautioned about cell phone use, and the letter of concern directed her not to have her personal cell phone on her person during the school day. Another parent observed that nap time appeared to last for two hours. Mr. Burkett instructed Ms. Brown that nap time should be only one hour long. The letter of concern also addressed the issue of parents dropping off students to Ms. Brown's class prior to the 7:15 a.m. start of the school day. Mr. Burkett told Ms. Brown that he would intervene on her behalf to stop the children from arriving early, but Ms. Brown stated that she was voluntarily arriving early to take the children and would voluntarily continue to do so. On the same day as the letter of concern, February 9, 2007, Mr. Burkett also issued a "written documentation of a verbal warning" to Ms. Brown. This warning concerned Ms. Brown's having left the campus from 11:30 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. on February 7, 2007, without permission from the school's administration. The letter stated that Mr. Burkett was forced to send the assistant principal, Ms. Neal, to Ms. Brown's classroom to assist with the supervision of the students in Ms. Brown's absence. Ms. Brown's excuse was that she had to take her niece to work at McDonald's. Mr. Burkett's letter of concern emphasized that, whatever the emergency, Ms. Brown was required to make arrangements with the administration before leaving the campus. On March 6, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a written reprimand to Ms. Brown "for your continued use of your personal cell phone during student contact time." On March 1, 2007, Mr. Burkett observed Alice Staton, Ms. Brown's paraeducator, sitting on the swing set holding a child. Ms. Staton yelled across the playground, "Get back in that room." Mr. Burkett saw three of the ESE Pre-K students outside the classroom, running up and down the portable's ramp. The door and gate to the portable were open. Mr. Burkett "corralled" the three students back into the classroom, where he observed three other students in Ms. Brown's chair, swinging it in circles. Mr. Burkett then noticed that Ms. Brown was speaking on her cell phone. She did not notice that Mr. Burkett had entered until he walked all the way across the room toward the students in her chair. According to the written reprimand, Ms. Brown then "placed the phone down discreetly and proceeded to use a loud tone of voice instructing the class to clean up." Ms. Brown submitted a handwritten response to the letter of reprimand. She did not deny the facts as stated by Mr. Burkett, but offered her justification for this "unexpected" incident: A parent called my cell # at the time we were having issues with a student who was screaming & crying. Alice walked this student outside to make the room quieter. She accidentally left door & gate open. I thought she told me she would be outside. I didn't hear the "playground" due to the child screaming. I turned[,] was helping students clean when my cell phone rang. It was a parent checking on her child. I may have been on the phone 2-3 seconds. Mr. Burkett had walked in. Alice had eye contact with the outside students & I had eye contact with the ones in the room. At the hearing, Mr. Burkett testified that, although Ms. Brown's use of her personal cell phone violated the directive of his February 9, 2007, letter of concern, his overriding motivation in reprimanding Ms. Brown was the lack of supervision he observed during the incident. He believed that the children running on the ramp were out of the sightline of either Ms. Brown or Ms. Staton, and he observed that Ms. Brown was so engrossed in her telephone conversation that she did not even see him enter the portable. By letter dated March 14, 2007, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown without pay for a period of one day effective March 22, 2007.3 The grounds for this suspension were the events of March 1, 2007, as recited in Mr. Burkett's written reprimand of March 6, 2007, as well as the following, as stated in Superintendent McKinzie's letter: Later that same day [March 1], it was reported to the principal that not only did you use your cell phone again, but you asked the para assigned to your class to "keep watch" for you. This statement was provided for [sic] in writing by another employee and notarized. This action took place immediately after you had just left a conference with Mr. Burkett in which you were given a directive not to have your cell phone in class. The principal discussed with you his concerns regarding student safety and told you that you could not provide adequate supervision while on personal cell phone calls. By letter dated April 18, 2007, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown without pay for one day effective April 25, 2007. The grounds for the suspension were stated as follows in Superintendent McKenzie's letter: This action is based on an incident which happened on March 19, 2007. On that date, Principal Matt Burkett was notified that you had allegedly hit a high school student on the campus of Spook Hill Elementary. Your classroom paraeducator witnessed the altercation and attested that you had engaged in an argument during student contact time. She stated that you slapped the student in the face and that she saw you follow the student in your truck off campus. Principal Burkett spoke with you regarding the alleged incident. You admitted that you did slap the student in the face and that you did get in your truck and follow her off campus. By your own admission, you stated that there had been a prior altercation off campus with this particular student. Clearly, you allowed a personal situation to escalate into a violent confrontation on the school campus. Although you did apologize for your actions, your behavior was totally unprofessional and cannot be condoned. Your lack of judgment in this situation jeopardized the safety of the students in your charge. Please remember that teachers are role models for their students and should behave accordingly. On May 8, 2007, Mr. Burkett wrote a letter of concern to Ms. Brown to inform her of continuing inadequacies that Mr. Burkett was observing in Ms. Brown's job performance. The letter notes that on March 8, 2007, a Professional Development Plan ("PDP") had been established "to address the learning environment in your classroom." A PDP is a plan to help struggling teachers in areas of inadequate performance. A team of professionals is assigned to work with the teacher to aid in professional development and address the teacher's inadequacies. In his letter of concern, Mr. Burkett noted the following specific PDP items that were "in need of positive change": Circulate and monitor with appropriate proximity during all activities. (On 3/20 on your observation I marked you for remaining at desk. On 4/15, 4/26, 4/30, and 5/7 as I walked into your room you were sitting behind your desk.) Provide structured hands-on activities during outside play. (I have taken photos of your play area, as well as the equipment for outside play activities. They indicate a need to enhance and organize the learning environment.) Constantly engage and interact with students. (Please refer to item number one.) Daily schedule will be posted. (On 4/26 Mrs. Neal and I addressed the need to post your daily schedule and be certain that times are indicated.) IEP's must be in compliance.[4] (I showed you the report in which two of your students were listed as out of compliance.) Safety issues will be jointly addressed and teacher will comply with all administrative directives. (On 5/4/07 you called for the school resource officer. . . . I entered your classroom and observed you talking on your personal cell phone. You have also been tardy to work which is an issue we have addressed in the past.) On September 5, 2007, Mr. Burkett wrote a letter to Superintendent McKinzie recommending that Ms. Brown be suspended, based on "her history of jeopardizing the safety and welfare of her students" and in light of the following specific incident: On August 31st I went into Ms. Brown's Pre-K room and she was not present. I noticed a student tipped over strapped into a high chair. I asked the para-professional where the teacher was and she stated "I do not know." She said the teacher stated she "had to get out." The para also stated she did not place the child in the high chair. According to the para the teacher had been gone for about ten minutes. I was in the room for five minutes before the teacher returned. Ms. Brown sent me an email and stated she went to the restroom and laminated some things. I am very concerned because Ms. Brown has explained on several occasions the severity of the needs her students have and the need for more time to have in small group teaching. Therefore, while I understand the need for a bathroom break, I do not understand the need to choose this critical time to laminate. Secondly, she left a child in a high chair as a "time out" which is an inappropriate use of the chair. Furthermore, she left the child for an excessively lengthy time and in fact she left the classroom while the child was still restrained. As a result of her actions the child turned over in the high chair. At the hearing, Mr. Burkett conceded that the child's IEP stated that he could be strapped into the high chair for feeding. However, neither Ms. Brown nor Ms. Staton offered affirmative testimony that the child was in fact strapped into the high chair for feeding. Because no testimony or other evidence was presented to contradict the version of events set forth in Mr. Burkett's letter to Superintendent McKinzie and adopted by Mr. Burkett at the hearing, Mr. Burkett's version is credited. By letter dated September 10, 2007, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown without pay for five days effective September 17, 2007, through September 21, 2007, as a "result of your continued lack of attention to the safety and welfare of the students in your charge."5 In a letter dated January 25, 2008, Mr. Burkett recommended to Superintendent McKinzie that Ms. Brown be suspended "as a continuation of the progressive discipline section 4.4-1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement." Mr. Burkett noted that Ms. Brown received a verbal warning on February 9, 2007, for leaving campus without permission, and was suspended on April 25, 2007, for an incident that included her leaving the campus. Mr. Burkett's letter described the current incident as follows: On January 17, 2008, Ms. Brown once again left campus without permission during her contact hours which extend to 3:15 pm. At approximately 2:25 pm transportation contacted the school to ascertain the whereabouts of a Pre-K child because they had a bus at Spook Hill waiting on a student. The teacher placed the child on another bus. However, transportation needed to confirm the child was placed on a different bus before they allowed the bus to leave. As a result of Ms. Brown leaving the campus without informing the administration there was an unnecessary delay in getting vital transportation information regarding what bus the child was placed on by the teacher. Furthermore, there was tremendous stress placed on the office staff as they tried locating and contacting Ms. Brown in order to confirm the child was safely on the bus. In our conference on January 23, 2008, regarding the matter Ms. Brown acknowledged she left campus for a personal matter and that her actions were incorrect and she apologized for the incident. Unfortunately, Ms. Brown chose not to follow clearly stated written instructions from her previous disciplinary actions. By letter dated January 30, 2008, signed by Mr. Ciranna, assistant superintendent for Human Resource Services, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown for five days without pay effective February 6 through February 12, 2008, based on Mr. Burkett's recommendation. In a letter dated February 11, 2008, Mr. Burkett recommended to Superintendent McKinzie that Ms. Brown be suspended for failure to complete her students' progress reports as required by their IEPs. The letter stated, in relevant part: I met with Ms. Brown on January 31st, 2008, and asked if she completed progress reports for her students. She replied that she did not have time to complete them. I gave her a directive to complete her student's progress reports and I provided her coverage. On February 1st, 2008, Ms. Brown sent me a letter which stated: "Yesterday when we met you asked me about my progress reports. I spoke from memory and indicated that I was way behind because of the time it takes me to work with my one on one student. Because of the assistance you provided, I was able to review the information and found I was not as far behind as I had indicated." According to a report provided to me by Chris English (Network Specialist) not a single progress report was created by Ms. Brown prior to January 31st, 2008. To further understand the severity of this offense it should be noted that Ms. Brown is currently on a Professional Development Plan (PDP) and one of the strategies is written as follows: "All IEP's and IEP notices must be in compliance and correctly written. Teacher will provide a one week notice if coverage is needed so she can prepare the IEP." Prior to our meeting on January 31st, 2008, Ms. Brown has never requested coverage to complete progress reports as part of the student's IEP. In a written response, Ms. Brown stated that she had "asked at least twice in the past for assistance to complete IEP paperwork a week in advance and was not provided coverage." While she stated her general disagreement with Mr. Burkett's letter, Ms. Brown did not otherwise contradict any of the specific factual assertions made by Mr. Burkett. At the hearing, Mr. Burkett testified that prior to February 12, 2008, he had a discussion with the School Board's director of employee relations about terminating Ms. Brown's employment, but that Superintendent McKinzie decided to suspend Ms. Brown on this occasion. By letter dated February 12, 2008, signed by Mr. Ciranna, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown for one day without pay effective February 20, 2008, based on Mr. Burkett's recommendation. By letter dated February 29, 2008, Mr. Burkett recommended to Superintendent McKinzie that Ms. Brown be terminated as an employee with the School Board. This recommendation led to the suspension and termination letter of March 3, 2008, the relevant terms of which are set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Mr. Burkett based his recommendation on "multiple issues extending over the course of the past year," as well as the following specific events occurring during February 2008: During Ms. Brown's recent suspension she acted insubordinately by coming on school campus during her suspension. I met with Ms. Brown on February 4, 2008, and I gave her a directive not to come on campus for any reason during her suspension days. Ms. Brown later called me on the phone and asked if she could come after the school day to do her lesson plans. I again stated to her that she could not be on school campus during her suspension days. On February 11, one of Ms. Brown's five suspension days, it was brought to my attention that she was on campus and delivered lunch to her paraprofessional. I have a statement from Ms. Brown in which she admits she delivered lunch. I also have a statement from the paraprofessional which states, "Yesterday, I called Ms. Brown about the Valentine's list. She called me back and asked if I wanted her to bring us lunch. I told her no and she is not supposed to be on campus. She said it was alright if she went to the office. She called me later again, and told me to come to the back of the lunch room door to get the lunch. . ." Additionally, I have a statement from my secretary in which Ms. Brown asked her "not to let Mr. Burkett know that she was here because she would get in trouble." Ms. Brown was previously suspended on March 22, 2007, in part for asking her paraprofessional to "watch out" for administration so she could insubordinately use her cell phone. Ms. Brown's actions depict an employee that has an established pattern of deliberate insubordination. Most concerning of all, in a four day span of time between February 19, 2008, and February 22, 2008, Ms. Brown continued to display a pattern of allegations [sic] of child endangerment. The following is a brief description of the incidents: On February 19, 2008, Mrs. Jenny Baker, a paraprofessional, was covering her classroom so I could serve her notice of suspension for February 20th. Mrs. Baker stated that upon Ms. Brown's return to class she asked if she could leave. Since the teacher did not respond Mrs. Baker left the portable to attend to her other duties and noticed three Pre-K students behind her and Ms. Brown was nowhere in sight. It was obvious that these students had left Ms. Brown's classroom without her supervision. Mrs. Baker waited for the other para to return from the buses to escort the kids back into the class. On February 19, 2008, I went to the classroom at approximately 2:30 (after Mrs. Baker had informed me of her concern). I noticed Ms. Brown at her computer behind her desk. The door to the portable was wide open and two students were sitting out of the teachers [sic] view behind the "cubby." These students could have readily left the classroom without Ms. Brown's knowledge. It was previously recommended by Ms. Sherwin (Educational Diagnostician) on February 5, 2008, that "in general, I think rearrangement of your classroom. . . may help. . . . I am particularly concerned with the arrangement that has the area between your door and shelving not visible to you at all times." On February 21, 2008, Mrs. Neal, the assistant principal, was walking through Ms. Brown's portable. Upon entering she noticed Ms. Brown getting up from her desk. The para was placing a band aid on another child. Ms. Brown stated that she was printing progress reports. Mrs. Neal stated the room was "a mess" and she began to straighten a piece of carpeting so the kids would not trip over it and hurt themselves. Mrs. Neal then counted the students and noticed one was missing. "Ms. Brown . . . looked puzzled." The paraprofessional and the teacher began to look for the missing child. She was found by Ms. Brown in the bathroom. The duration of time the child was missing was approximately five minutes. On February 22, 2008, at approximately 10:40 a.m. I was walking the exterminator to the classroom. As we walked up to the portable I noticed the front door wide open and two Pre-K students were on the ramp running. One tripped and fell. I rushed to the gate because I thought he was hurt, but he was already up and running down the ramp again. Clearly, these two students were not able to be observed by Ms. Brown and were not under her supervision or control. The exterminator and I entered the gated area and then Ms. Brown came out yelling for the boys to "get back in here." * * * I am entirely in favor of helping employees grow professionally as can be established by allowing Ms. Brown to create a second Professional Development Plan. However, she has established a pattern of allegations of child endangerment that results in disciplinary action. In addition, her multiple serious violations of school and district policies over the course of time have also established a pattern necessitating disciplinary action. It is for this reason that I am recommending termination pursuant to Article 4.4-1 of the collective bargaining agreement. As to the February 11, 2008, incident described in his letter, Mr. Burkett testified that Ms. Brown knew that she was not to come onto the campus while under suspension, because he had discussed the matter with her during one of her previous suspensions. Mr. Burkett testified that he was following School Board policy in prohibiting Ms. Brown from entering the campus during her suspension. Ms. Brown testified that as of February 11, 2008, she had never been told not to come on the campus while serving a suspension. Ms. Brown stated that she simply wanted to do something nice for Ms. Staton, her paraeducator, by way of bringing lunch. Ms. Brown had known Ms. Staton since the former was herself a student at Spook Hill. While Ms. Brown's good intentions may be credited, her testimony that no one had told her not to come on campus during a suspension is not credible. Her stealth in bringing lunch to Ms. Staton indicates that she knew she should not be there. Further, Mr. Burkett's letter quotes a statement from Ms. Staton in which she told Ms. Brown that she was not supposed to be on the campus. Ms. Staton testified at the hearing, and Ms. Brown had ample opportunity to question her about the events of February 11, 2008, and her statement to Mr. Burkett. However, Ms. Staton was questioned only about the February 21, 2008, incident. Mr. Burkett testified that the February 19, 2008, incidents were of greater concern to him because of the child safety issues involved. Mrs. Baker, the paraeducator who covered the class for Ms. Brown, testified that Ms. Brown was quiet when she returned from her meeting with Mr. Burkett. Ms. Brown sat at her computer. Mrs. Baker announced that she was now leaving the class, but Ms. Brown did not respond. Mrs. Baker walked out to the gate. When she started to close the gate, she looked behind her and saw three children who had followed her out of the class. Ms. Brown was still in the classroom, apparently unaware that the children had walked out. Mrs. Baker saw that Ms. Staton was outside placing another child on a school bus. On her way back into the classroom, Ms. Staton took charge of the three children who had followed Mrs. Baker out the door. Mrs. Baker returned to the main office. When Mr. Burkett asked how things had gone, she reported the incident to him. Ms. Brown testified that she did not recall the incident. Mrs. Baker's version of this incident is credited. After receiving the report from Mrs. Baker, Mr. Burkett was concerned for the children. He went to the class and saw Ms. Brown sitting at the computer behind her desk, and two students sitting out of her view though the door to the portable was wide open. Mr. Burkett testified that experts from the School Board had already come into the portable and discussed the room set-up with Ms. Brown, particularly the fact that there were obstacles to her having a clear line of vision from the desk to the door. A bookshelf that extended from the "cubbies" blocked her view of the doorway. Mr. Burkett noted that the two children could have walked out of the classroom without Ms. Brown seeing them. Ms. Brown testified that the two students in question rode the last bus from the school. Ms. Staton had already left the classroom to go on bus duty. Ms. Brown left the door open so that she could see the bus as it came around the side of the portable. The two students sat there playing as Ms. Brown worked at her desk. No one else was in the classroom. Ms. Brown could hear the children as she worked and testified that she could have heard them go out of the room because the front ramp squeaks. She also could have seen them through the windows. Ms. Brown was adamant that she knew the children in her class and she knew where these two children were, sitting there waiting on their bus. This was their daily routine, and there was nothing unusual about this day other than Mr. Burkett's entrance. Ms. Brown testified that Mr. Burkett said nothing about his concerns for the children's safety at the time. The only discussion was "something about the cubbies." Mr. Burkett came to the room the next morning and said the cubbies had to be moved. He and Ms. Brown moved the cubbies before the children arrived, making the door more visible from Ms. Brown's desk. Ms. Brown testified that the room had been arranged the same way since school started in August and that she was concerned because consistency is vitally important to students who are functioning at the level of 18 to 24 months of age. Any change to their environment can throw off their routines and cause them to have bad days. Ms. Brown did not believe that moving the cubbies was necessary. As to the events of February 21, 2008, assistant principal Sharon Neal testified that she went to observe Ms. Brown's classroom on that date. As she walked in, Ms. Neal saw Ms. Brown sitting at her computer. She asked Ms. Brown how many students were in the class, and was told that all the students were present. Ms. Neal counted the students, then recounted them. Then she told Ms. Brown and Ms. Staton that if everybody is here today, then someone is missing. Ms. Brown and Ms. Staton began to count, then began searching the room. After a minute or two of searching, they wondered if perhaps Student D. was in the bathroom.6 They opened the bathroom door and found Student D. Ms. Neal discussed with Ms. Brown and Ms. Staton what could have happened with the child going missing for a period of several minutes. Ms. Brown testified that when Ms. Neal stated that a child was missing, she responded that the child had to be somewhere in the classroom. She knew this because the front door was equipped with a buzzer that went off when the door was opened, and Ms. Brown's desk was next to the back door. She and Ms. Staton scanned the portable and quickly concluded that the child must be in the bathroom. Ms. Brown testified that Student D. was a very large child whose functional age was eight months. She wore pull-up diapers, though it was becoming difficult to find diapers to fit the child. Ms. Brown and the child's mother had been working diligently on potty training the Student D. This was the first time she had gone to the bathroom on her own. Ms. Staton confirmed their surprise at finding Student D. on the potty, because they did not believe her capable of going to the bathroom alone. Ms. Staton conceded that neither she nor Ms. Brown knew where the child was before Ms. Neal noted that a student was missing. As to the events of February 22, 2008, Mr. Burkett testified that there had been an insect problem in the portable, and therefore an exterminator had been called. As Mr. Burkett walked the exterminator down to the classroom, he noticed the door of the portable was "wide open." Two Pre-K students were running down the ramp, and one of them tripped and fell. Mr. Burkett was concerned for the student's safety, but the child popped up and started running again. Mr. Burkett estimated that another 30 seconds passed before Ms. Brown came out of portable, "yelling for the kid to get back inside." Mr. Burkett noted that this was yet another incident in which "the door was open, the kids were on the loose, and not properly supervised." Ms. Brown testified that the students were working at their regular daily schedules when the phone rang in the classroom. The school secretary was calling to tell Ms. Brown that Mr. Burkett and the exterminator were on their way to spray the classroom. The secretary told Ms. Brown that she needed to have the children out of the portable by the time Mr. Burkett and the exterminator arrived. Ms. Brown and Ms. Staton began trying to quickly move the students out of the portable. Ms. Staton secured the women's purses, then went outside to unlock the shed on the playground as instructed by the secretary. Meanwhile, Ms. Brown was lining up the children to proceed out the door. Ms. Brown turned momentarily to get diapers from the changing table. As she turned, two of the children took off and ran out the door. Ms. Brown testified that these were two boys who were prone to running away. She knew who they were because she could hear them laughing. She turned and ran to the door and called their names. When she got to the ramp, Mr. Burkett was helping one of them up from where he fell. Ms. Brown testified that it usually takes from five to ten minutes to line up the children, get the diapers and other supplies, and proceed out the door as a class even when the move is planned, and she has Ms. Staton to help with the children. In this situation, she was moving the children on short notice, and Ms. Staton was busy securing the purses and unlocking the shed. There is no real contradiction between Mr. Burkett's and Ms. Brown's versions of this incident, save for Mr. Burkett's estimate that 30 seconds passed between the time the student fell on the ramp and Ms. Brown appeared at the door of the portable. It is found that Mr. Burkett's estimate of the time is likely exaggerated due to his dismay at the situation and that Ms. Brown in all likelihood came out the door only a few seconds after the boys. Ms. Brown's version of events, while credible, calls her judgment into question. She described a somewhat frantic decampment from the portable, as if she believed Mr. Burkett would order the exterminator to begin spraying whether or not the children were out of the classroom. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Burkett would not have preferred a slow but orderly procession to the scene he encountered. Except where noted in the above findings of fact, Ms. Brown did not contest the factual allegations made against her. Ms. Brown's defense was twofold. First, the great majority of incidents cited as grounds for discipline were run of the mill occurrences in a Pre-K ESE classroom. Second, the sheer number of disciplinary actions establish a concerted effort by Mr. Burkett to build a record against Ms. Brown by seizing any opportunity to find fault with her job performance. As to her first defense, Ms. Brown testified as follows regarding the four incidents described in Mr. Burkett's letter recommending termination: Those are things that can happen at any moment at any time in an ESE Pre-K classroom. There's children that pull away from their teachers, their parents. These children are sent to our room to get some structure, and to help them to cognitively, socially, behaviorally develop, because they are delayed in all that development. Ms. Brown's point is valid as to some of the disciplinary incidents cited in the termination letter. The February 19, 2008, incident essentially involved a difference of opinion between Mr. Burkett and Ms. Brown. He believed that she should have the children in her line of vision at all times. She believed it was safe to be able to hear what the two children were doing and testified that this had been her daily practice all year. The February 21, 2008, incident was a matter of Student D. unexpectedly taking the initiative to go to the bathroom alone. The February 22, 2008, incident involving the exterminator was simply a matter of two students bolting for the door as soon as Ms. Brown's back was turned, something that could happen at any time with a group of Pre-K children. Ms. Brown is correct when she argues that the events of February 19 through February 22, 2008, standing alone, would provide slim grounds for the dismissal of a veteran ESE teacher. However, these events were not the sole factual basis for the School Board's decision to terminate Ms. Brown's employment. The termination letter makes clear that the School Board considered these events to be emblematic of a long history of Ms. Brown's "pattern of failing to properly supervise the students under your care." The termination letter references all of Ms. Brown's previous suspensions and, expressly, references Ms. Brown's insubordination in entering the campus during her suspension despite Mr. Burkett's directive that she was not to come onto campus for any reason during that time. Ms. Brown had been suspended five times between March 14, 2007 and February 12, 2008. The March 14, 2007, suspension was for insubordination regarding the use of her personal cell phone. The April 18, 2007, suspension was for a physical altercation with a high school student, followed by Ms. Brown's leaving the campus in pursuit of the student. The September 10, 2007, suspension was for the inappropriate use of a high chair for student discipline, resulting in the student's falling while strapped into the chair. The January 30, 2008, suspension was for leaving the campus for personal reasons, without permission or notice to the administration, resulting in confusion as to whether a student was on the correct bus. The February 12, 2008, suspension was for Ms. Brown's failure to complete student progress reports. The events of February 19 through February 22, 2008, must be viewed in light of Ms. Brown's disciplinary history since at least her first suspension on March 14, 2007. In that light, these relatively minor events indicated to Mr. Burkett and the School Board that Ms. Brown's performance showed no prospects of improving. A consistent theme throughout Ms. Brown's disciplinary history, in addition to her continuing insubordination, was her failure to adequately supervise the children in her care. The fact no child was seriously injured in any of these events was fortuitous, not a reason to minimize or overlook Ms. Brown's often casual approach to minding these very young ESE students. The School Board had taken every disciplinary action available to it under the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement, including multiple suspensions short of moving for termination. This last point addresses Ms. Brown's second argument, that the number of disciplinary events indicates a vendetta on the part of Mr. Burkett. No evidence was offered that Mr. Burkett bore any personal animus toward Ms. Brown. The evidence indicated that Ms. Brown was under additional scrutiny because of her disciplinary history. The evidence further indicated that Mr. Burkett made reasonable effort to assist Ms. Brown in improving her performance, including the establishment of a PDP and the appointment of a team of professionals to observe her class and offer advice. The number of disciplinary events indicates, if anything, forbearance on the part of Mr. Burkett and the School Board, imposing multiple suspensions rather than moving precipitously to the final step of termination. The evidence did not establish that Mr. Burkett was motivated by anything other than the desire to ensure the safety of the students at Spook Hill.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Deana Brown as a teacher at Spook Hill Elementary School. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact One of the statutory duties of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") is to evaluate the performance of every teacher employed in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"), at least once per year. To accomplish this, the Board uses a personnel assessment system known as "PACES," which is an acronym for Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. PACES is the product of collective bargaining between the Board and the teachers' union, and it has been duly approved by the Florida Department of Education. The Board's evaluation procedure begins with an observation of the subject teacher, conducted by an administrator trained in the use of PACES. On a score sheet called the Observation Form for Annual Evaluation ("OFAE"), the evaluator rates the teacher's performance on 44 independently dispositive "indicators." The only grades assignable to the respective indicators are "acceptable" and "unacceptable"; thus, the evaluator's decision, for each indicator, is binary: yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down.1 A negative mark on any one of the 44 indicators results in an overall performance evaluation of "unsatisfactory." For the teacher under observation, therefore, each indicator constitutes, in effect, a pass/fail test, with his or her job hanging in the balance. If the teacher passes all 44 of the independently dispositive indicators, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory" and the evaluative process is complete. If, on the other hand, the teacher is given a failing grade on one or more of the 44 indicators and hence adjudged an unsatisfactory performer, then the initial observation is deemed to be "not of record" (i.e. inoperative) and a follow-up, "for the record" evaluation is scheduled to occur, upon notice to the affected teacher, about one month later. In the meantime, the teacher is offered the assistance of a Professional Growth Team ("PGT"), a group of peers who, having received special training in PACES, are in a position to help the affected teacher correct performance deficiencies in advance of the follow-up evaluation. The follow-up evaluation is conducted in the same manner as the initial "not of record" evaluation. If the teacher passes all 44 indicators, then his performance is deemed satisfactory and the evaluative process is complete. If he fails one or more of the indicators, however, then the teacher is placed on probation for a period of 90 calendar days (excluding vacations and holidays). The probation period is preceded by a formal Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), at which notice of the specific performance deficiencies is provided to the teacher. As well, the teacher is given a Professional Improvement Plan ("PIP"), wherein particular remedial tasks, intended to help the teacher correct the noted performance deficiencies, are assigned. During the performance probation, the teacher must be formally observed at least twice, by an evaluator using the OFAE. If, on any of these probationary observations, the teacher fails at least one indicator, then another PIP is prepared and offered. Within 14 days after the end of probation, a "confirmatory evaluation" is conducted, using the OFAE. The purpose of the confirmatory evaluation is to determine whether the noted performance deficiencies were corrected. If they were, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory." If not, the principal then makes a recommendation to the superintendent whether to continue or terminate the teacher's employment. As mentioned above, a PACES evaluation takes account of 44 crucial indicators.2 The indicators are organized under "components." The 44 outcome determinative indicators fall within 21 components, which are identified on the OFAE. These components are organized, in turn, under "domains," of which six are identified on the OFAE. Each domain has been assigned a Roman numeral identifier: I through VI. The components are distinguished alphabetically: A, B, C, etc. The indicators are numbered using Arabic numerals. Each specific indicator is named according to the Roman numeral of its domain, the letter of its component, and its own Arabic number. Thus, for example, the first indicator under Component A of Domain I is referred to as "I.A.1." Notwithstanding the PACES taxonomy, the classifications of "domain" and "component" are useful only as a means of organizing the indicators. This is because a teacher does not pass or fail a performance evaluation at the domain level or at the component level; rather, he passes or fails at the indicator level, for, again, each of the 44 indicators is independently dispositive under PACES.3 Thus, each of the determinative 44 indicators is of precisely equal weight. None is more important or less important than another.4 B. At all times material to this case, Respondent Sergio H. Escalona ("Escalona") was a teacher in the District. From 2000 until May 19, 2004, when the Board suspended him pending termination of employment, Escalona was a science teacher at Miami Springs Senior High School ("Miami Springs"), a typical high school in the District. During the 2003-04 school year, an evaluator observed Escalona in his classroom on five separate occasions, each time using the OFAE. The dates of these evaluations were, and the names of the respective evaluators are, as follows: Evaluation Date Evaluator November 5, 2003 Carlos M. del Cuadro, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs December 2, 2003 Mr. del Cuadro January 16, 2004 Douglas P. Rodriguez, Principal, Miami Springs February 17, 2004 Deborah Carter, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs April 5, 2004 Mr. Rodriguez The Board contends that Escalona failed all five evaluations; the first, however, was deemed "not of record" and thus is relevant only insofar as it opened the door to the process that followed. The following table shows, for each evaluation (including the first), the indicators that the respective evaluators thought Escalona had failed: IA1 IA2 IB1 IB3 IE3 IF1 IF2 IIA1 IIA3 IIB2 IIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x 01-16-04 x x x 02-17-04 x x x x 04-05-04 x x x IID1 IID3 IID4 IIE1 IIE2 IIE5 IIIA1 IIIA3 IIIB1 IIIB3 IIIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x 01-16-04 x x 02-17-04 x 04-05-04 x x x x x IVA3 IVA 5 IVA6 IVB1 IVB2 IVB 3 IVC2 IVD1 IVD3 IVD6 IVE2 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x 02-17-04 x x x x x 04-05-04 x ? x ? x ? x x IVE4 VA1 VA4 VB1 VB2 VC1 VIA2 VIB1 VIB3 VIC2 VIC4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x x 02-17-04 04-05-04 x ? ? ? x ? x x Because Mr. del Cuadro identified 10 performance deficiencies on December 2, 2003, Escalona was placed on performance probation, pursuant to the procedure described in detail above. Mr. Rodriguez held a CFR on December 9, 2004, to review with Escalona the identified deficiencies and explain the procedures relating to the 90-day probation. Following the CFR, Escalona was given written notice of unsatisfactory performance, in the form of a Summary of Conference-For-The-Record And Professional Improvement Plan (PIP), dated December 9, 2003 ("Summary"). In the Summary, Mr. Rodriguez charged Escalona with failure to satisfactorily perform the following PACES indicators: II.B.4, II.E.5, III.B.3, IV.A.5, IV.B.1, IV.D.1, V.A.1, V.A.4, V.B.1, and VI.A.2. (These 10 indicators are highlighted vertically in the table above.) At the same time, Escalona was given a PIP, and a PGT was assembled to provide assistance. Following the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, based on which Mr. Rodriguez identified 24 deficiencies as shown in the table above, Mr. Rodriguez notified the superintendent that Escalona had failed to correct noted performance deficiencies during a 90-day probation and recommended that Escalona's employment be terminated. The superintendent accepted Mr. Rodriguez's recommendation on April 12, 2004, and shortly thereafter notified Escalona of his decision to recommend that the Board terminate Escalona's employment contract. On May 19, 2004, the Board voted to do just that. C. Of the four evaluations "for the record," the two that were conducted during Escalona's probation (on January 16, 2004, and February 17, 2004) are presently relevant mainly to establish that the proper procedure was followed——a matter that is not genuinely disputed. The substance of these probationary evaluations cannot affect the outcome here because even if Escalona's performance had been perfect during probation, Mr. Rodriguez nevertheless found deficiencies during the post- probation, confirmatory evaluation, which is the only one probative of the dispositive question: Had Escalona corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period after the close of the 90 calendar days' probation? In view of the ultimate issue, the evaluation of December 2, 2003, is primarily relevant because it established the 10 "noted performance deficiencies" that Escalona needed to correct. For reasons that will be discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, the Board cannot terminate Escalona's employment based on other deficiencies allegedly found during probation or at the confirmatory evaluation; rather, it must focus exclusively on those 10 particular deficiencies which Escalona was given 90 calendar days to correct. Thus, stated more precisely, the ultimate question in this case is whether any of the 10 specific deficiencies identified in the Summary provided to Escalona on December 9, 2003, persisted after the 90-day probation. As it happened, Mr. Rodriguez determined, as a result of the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, that Escalona had corrected three of the 10 noted performance deficiencies, for Mr. Rodriguez gave Escalona a passing grade on the indicators II.B.4, II.E.5, and III.B.3. The remaining seven deficiencies upon which termination could legally be based are identified in the table above with the "?" symbol. It is to these seven allegedly uncorrected deficiencies that our attention now must turn. The Board contends, based on Mr. Rodriguez's confirmatory evaluation of April 5, 2004, that Escalona was still, as of that date, failing satisfactorily to perform the following PACES indicators: 5: The purpose or importance of learning tasks is clear to learners. 1: Teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. IV.D.1: Learners have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level or to integrate knowledge and understandings. V.A.1: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in developing associations. 4: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. 1: A variety of questions that enable thinking are asked and/or solicited. VI.A.2: Learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks is monitored. The only descriptive evidence in the record regarding Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004——and hence the only evidence of historical fact upon which the undersigned can decide whether Escalona failed adequately to perform the seven indicators just mentioned——consists of Mr. Rodriguez's testimony. Mr. Rodriguez, who had observed Escalona in the classroom for 50 minutes that day, recounted at final hearing what he had seen as follows: Again, there were students that were simply not engaged at all in learning. For example, there was a student that put his head down at a particular time. He slept for about fifteen minutes. Mr. Escalona never addressed the student, never redirected the learning, never tried to engage that student. Overall the students continued to pass notes in class. The students simply——there was really no plan at all. That was get up, give a lecture. Kids were not paying attention. No redirection for student learning. Questions again very basic. Most of the questions had no response from the students. And [they] just seemed very disinterested, the students did, and the lesson was just not acceptable. Final Hearing Transcript at 103-04. To repeat for emphasis, any findings of historical fact concerning Escalona's performance during the confirmatory evaluation must be based on the foregoing testimony, for that is all the evidence there is on the subject.5 Mr. Rodriguez did not explain how he had applied the seven indicators quoted above to his classroom observations of Escalona to determine that the teacher's performance was not up to standards. D. The seven indicators at issue in this case, it will be seen upon close examination, are not standards upon which to base a judgment, but rather factual conditions ("indicator- conditions") for which the evaluator is supposed to look. If a particular indicator-condition (e.g. the purpose of learning tasks is clear to learners) is found to exist, then the evaluator should award the teacher a passing grade of "acceptable" for that indicator (in this example, Indicator IV.A.5); if not, the grade should be "unacceptable." The indicator-conditions are plainly not objective historical facts; they are, rather, subjective facts, which come into being only when the evaluator puts historical facts against external standards, using reason and logic to make qualitative judgments about what occurred. Subjective facts of this nature are sometimes called "ultimate" facts, the answers to "mixed questions" of law and fact. To illustrate this point, imagine that the class Mr. Rodriguez observed on April 5, 2004, had been videotaped from several different camera angles. The resulting tapes would constitute an accurate audio-visual record of what transpired in Escalona's class that day. Anyone later viewing the tapes would be able to make detailed and accurate findings of objective historical fact, including words spoken, actions taken, time spent on particular tasks, etc. But, without more than the videotapes themselves could provide, a viewer would be unable fairly to determine whether, for example, the "[t]eaching and learning activities [had been] appropriate for the complexity of the learning context" (Indicator IV.B.1), or whether the questions asked adequately "enable[d] thinking" (Indicator V.B.1).6 This is because to make such determinations fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the rule of law requires the use of standards of decision, yardsticks against which to measure the perceptible reality captured on film. Another term for standards of decision is "neutral principles." A neutral principle prescribes normative conduct in a way that permits fair judgments to be made consistently—— that is, in this context, enables the reaching of similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time. A neutral principle must not be either political or results oriented. It must be capable of being applied across- the-board, to all teachers in all evaluations. In the unique milieu of PACES, neutral principles could take a variety of forms. One obvious form would be standards of teacher conduct. Such standards might be defined, for example, with reference to the average competent teacher in the District (or school, or state, etc.). In an adjudicative proceeding such as this one, expert testimony might then be necessary to establish what the average competent teacher does, for example, to monitor learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks (Indicator VI.A.2) or to create opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive level (Indicator IV.D.1).7 Other standards might be definitional. For example, to determine whether teaching and learning activities are appropriate (Indicator IV.B.1) practically demands a definition of the term "appropriate" for this context. Still other standards might be framed as tests, e.g. a test for determining whether a question enables thinking (Indicator V.B.1). However the neutral principles are framed, at bottom there must be standards that describe what "satisfactory" performance of the indicators looks like, so that different people can agree, most of the time, that the indicator- conditions are present or absent in a given situation——and in other, similar situations. Without neutral principles to discipline the decision-maker, the indicators can be used as cover for almost any conclusion an evaluator (or Administrative Law Judge) might want to make. In this case, the record is devoid of any persuasive evidence of neutral principles for use in determining, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether the conditions described in the seven relevant indicators were extant in Escalona's classroom on April 5, 2004, or not. E. In this de novo proceeding, the undersigned fact- finder is charged with the responsibility of determining independently, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether, as of the two-week period following probation, Escalona had corrected all of the performance deficiencies of which he was notified at the outset of probation. The only evidence of Escalona's post- probation teaching performance consists of Mr. Rogriguez's testimony about his observation of Escalona for 50 minutes on April 5, 2004, which was quoted above. Mr. Rodriguez's testimony gives the undersigned little to work with. His observations can be boiled down to four major points, none of which flatters Escalona: (a) Escalona lectured, and the students, who seemed disinterested, did not pay attention——some even passed notes; (b) Escalona asked "very basic" questions, most of which elicited "no response"; (c) one student slept for 15 minutes, and Escalona left him alone; (d) the lesson was "just not acceptable." On inspection, these points are much less helpful than they might at first blush appear. One of them——point (d)——is merely a conclusion which invades the undersigned's province as the fact-finder; accordingly, it has been given practically no weight. The only facts offered in support of the conclusions, in point (a), that the students "seemed" disinterested and were "not paying attention" to Escalona's lecture is the testimony that some students passed notes, and some (many?) did not answer the teacher's questions. But this is a rather thin foundation upon which to rest a conclusion that the students were bored because Escalona's teaching was poor. And even if they were (or looked) bored, is it not fairly common for teenaged high-school students to be (or appear) bored in school, for reasons unrelated to the teacher's performance? There is no evidence whatsoever that student boredom (or note passing or non- responsiveness) features only in the classrooms of poorly performing teachers. As for the supposedly "basic" nature of Escalona's questions, see point (b), the undersigned cannot give Mr. Rodriguez's testimony much weight, because there is no evidence as to what the questions actually were or why they were so very basic. Finally, regarding point (c), the fact that a student slept during class is, to be sure, somewhat damaging to Escalona, inasmuch as students should not generally be napping in class, but without additional information about the student (who might have been sick, for all the undersigned knows) and the surrounding circumstances the undersigned is not persuaded that the sleeping student is res ipsa loquitur on the quality of of Escalona's teaching performance. There is certainly no evidence that students doze only in the bad teachers' classes. More important, however, than the paucity of evidence establishing the objective historical facts concerning Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004, is the failure of proof regarding neutral principles for use in determining the existence or nonexistence of the relevant indicator-conditions. Even if the undersigned had a clear picture of what actually occurred in Escalona's classroom that day, which he lacks, he has been provided no standards against which to measure Escalona's performance, to determine whether the indicator- conditions were met or not. The absence of evidence of such standards is fatal to the Board's case. To make ultimate factual determinations without proof of neutral principles, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Escalona.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Florida Statutes. When a teacher contests a superintendent's recommendation of dismissal, as here, the ensuing hearing must be conducted "in accordance with chapter 120." See § 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Fla. Stat. A "chapter 120 proceeding [entails] a hearing de novo intended to 'formulate final agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily.'" Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So. 2d 831, 833 (Fla. 1993)(quoting McDonald v. Department of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)). Thus, the Board's burden in this case was not merely to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators sincerely believed, after conducting a legally sufficient assessment, that Young's performance was deficient, nor even to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators' judgment was factually and legally tenable. Rather, the Board's burden was to persuade the undersigned himself to find, independently, that Young's performance was deficient. Because this case is a proceeding to terminate a teacher's employment and does not involve the loss of a license or certification, the Board was required to prove the alleged grounds for Escalona's dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas County School Bd., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. School Bd. of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Bd. of Lake County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). B. Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, which governs the process for evaluating teachers, provides in full as follows: 1012.34 Assessment procedures and criteria.-- For the purpose of improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory services in the public schools of the state, the district school superintendent shall establish procedures for assessing the performance of duties and responsibilities of all instructional, administrative, and supervisory personnel employed by the school district. The Department of Education must approve each district's instructional personnel assessment system. The following conditions must be considered in the design of the district's instructional personnel assessment system: The system must be designed to support district and school level improvement plans. The system must provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous quality improvement of the professional skills of instructional personnel. The system must include a mechanism to give parents an opportunity to provide input into employee performance assessments when appropriate. In addition to addressing generic teaching competencies, districts must determine those teaching fields for which special procedures and criteria will be developed. Each district school board may establish a peer assistance process. The plan may provide a mechanism for assistance of persons who are placed on performance probation as well as offer assistance to other employees who request it. The district school board shall provide training programs that are based upon guidelines provided by the Department of Education to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities understand the proper use of the assessment criteria and procedures. The assessment procedure for instructional personnel and school administrators must be primarily based on the performance of students assigned to their classrooms or schools, as appropriate. Pursuant to this section, a school district's performance assessment is not limited to basing unsatisfactory performance of instructional personnel and school administrators upon student performance, but may include other criteria approved to assess instructional personnel and school administrators' performance, or any combination of student performance and other approved criteria. The procedures must comply with, but are not limited to, the following requirements: An assessment must be conducted for each employee at least once a year. The assessment must be based upon sound educational principles and contemporary research in effective educational practices. The assessment must primarily use data and indicators of improvement in student performance assessed annually as specified in s. 1008.22 and may consider results of peer reviews in evaluating the employee's performance. Student performance must be measured by state assessments required under s. 1008.22 and by local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the state assessment program. The assessment criteria must include, but are not limited to, indicators that relate to the following: Performance of students. Ability to maintain appropriate discipline. Knowledge of subject matter. The district school board shall make special provisions for evaluating teachers who are assigned to teach out-of-field. Ability to plan and deliver instruction, including implementation of the rigorous reading requirement pursuant to s. 1003.415, when applicable, and the use of technology in the classroom. Ability to evaluate instructional needs. Ability to establish and maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement. Other professional competencies, responsibilities, and requirements as established by rules of the State Board of Education and policies of the district school board. All personnel must be fully informed of the criteria and procedures associated with the assessment process before the assessment takes place. The individual responsible for supervising the employee must assess the employee's performance. The evaluator must submit a written report of the assessment to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee's contract. The evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the assessment takes place. The evaluator must discuss the written report of assessment with the employee. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the assessment, and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or her personnel file. If an employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination. The notice must describe such unsatisfactory performance and include notice of the following procedural requirements: 1. Upon delivery of a notice of unsatisfactory performance, the evaluator must confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance in helping to correct deficiencies within a prescribed period of time. 2.a. If the employee holds a professional service contract as provided in s. 1012.33, the employee shall be placed on performance probation and governed by the provisions of this section for 90 calendar days following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are not counted when calculating the 90-calendar-day period. During the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract must be evaluated periodically and apprised of progress achieved and must be provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies. At any time during the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract may request a transfer to another appropriate position with a different supervising administrator; however, a transfer does not extend the period for correcting performance deficiencies. b. Within 14 days after the close of the 90 calendar days, the evaluator must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the district school superintendent. Within 14 days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the district school superintendent must notify the employee who holds a professional service contract in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the district school superintendent will recommend that the district school board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the district school superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 days after receipt of the district school superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. The hearing shall be conducted at the district school board's election in accordance with one of the following procedures: A direct hearing conducted by the district school board within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of ss. 120.569 and 120.57. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain the district school superintendent's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment; or A hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services. The hearing shall be conducted within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal in accordance with chapter 120. The recommendation of the administrative law judge shall be made to the district school board. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain or change the administrative law judge's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment. The district school superintendent shall notify the department of any instructional personnel who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and who have been given written notice by the district that their employment is being terminated or is not being renewed or that the district school board intends to terminate, or not renew, their employment. The department shall conduct an investigation to determine whether action shall be taken against the certificateholder pursuant to s. 1012.795(1)(b). The district school superintendent shall develop a mechanism for evaluating the effective use of assessment criteria and evaluation procedures by administrators who are assigned responsibility for evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. The use of the assessment and evaluation procedures shall be considered as part of the annual assessment of the administrator's performance. The system must include a mechanism to give parents and teachers an opportunity to provide input into the administrator's performance assessment, when appropriate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant a probationary employee a right to continued employment beyond the term of his or her contract. The district school board shall establish a procedure annually reviewing instructional personnel assessment systems to determine compliance with this section. All substantial revisions to an approved system must be reviewed and approved by the district school board before being used to assess instructional personnel. Upon request by a school district, the department shall provide assistance in developing, improving, or reviewing an assessment system. The State Board of Education shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54, that establish uniform guidelines for the submission, review, and approval of district procedures for the annual assessment of instructional personnel and that include criteria for evaluating professional performance. (Underlining and italics added). Under Section 1012.34(3), school districts must establish a primarily student performance-based procedure (or system) for assessing the performance of teachers. In other words, the method of accomplishing the assessment must be tailored to meet the goal of forming evaluative judgments about teachers' performance based mainly on the performance of their students. In clear terms, then, the legislature has announced that the primary (though not exclusive)8 indicator of whether a teacher is doing a good job is the performance of his students. If a teacher's students are succeeding, then, whatever he is doing, the teacher is likely (though not necessarily) performing his duties satisfactorily. It is plainly the legislature's belief that if we do not know how the teacher's students are performing, then we cannot make a valid judgment as to whether the teacher is performing his duties satisfactorily.9 The statute further mandates that, in assessing teachers, indicators of student performance——which performance is assessed annually as specified in Section 1008.22——must be the primarily-used data. (In contrast, evaluators are permitted, but not required, to make use of peer reviews in assessing teacher performance.) Section 1008.22, which is referenced specifically in Section 1012.34(3)(a), requires that school districts participate in a statewide assessment program, the centerpiece of which is the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). See § 1008.22(3), Fla. Stat. The FCAT is a standardized test that is administered annually to students in grades three through 10. Id. Section 1008.22 is not concerned only with the FCAT, however. Subsection (7), for example, provides as follows: (7) LOCAL ASSESSMENTS.--Measurement of the learning gains of students in all subjects and grade levels other than subjects and grade levels required for the state student achievement testing program is the responsibility of the school districts. Thus, the school districts are charged with developing their own local assessment tools, to fill in the gaps left open by the statewide FCAT testing program. Section 1008.22(5) provides additionally that "[s]tudent performance data shall be used in . . . evaluation of instructional personnel[.]" Section 1012.34(3)(a) prescribes two and only two permissible measures of student performance for use in evaluating teachers: (a) the statewide FCAT assessments and (b) the gap-filling local assessments, both of which measures are required under Section 1008.22. It is clear that Sections 1012.34(3) and 1008.22 have at least one subject in common, namely, student performance-based assessment of teachers. Being in pari materia in this regard, Sections 1012.34 and 1008.22 must be construed so as to further the common goal. See, e.g., Mehl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 1993)(separate statutory provisions that are in pari materia should be construed to express a unified legislative purpose); Lincoln v. Florida Parole Com'n, 643 So. 2d 668, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(statutes on same subject and having same general purpose should be construed in pari materia). When the requirements of Section 1012.34(3) are read together with Section 1008.22, several conclusions are inescapable. First, FCAT scores must be the primary source of information used in evaluating any teacher who teaches an FCAT- covered subject to students in grades three through 10. Second, school districts must develop, and annually administer, local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT. Third, student performance data derived from local assessments must be the primary source of information used in evaluating teachers whose subjects are not covered on the FCAT and/or whose students do not take the FCAT. The absence of evidence in the record concerning the performance of Escalona's students either on the FCAT or on local assessments, as appropriate, see endnote 5, supra, deprives the undersigned of information that the legislature has deemed essential to the evaluation of a teacher's performance. Having neither state nor local assessments to review, the undersigned cannot find that Escalona's performance was deficient in the first place, much less whether he corrected the alleged performance deficiencies in accordance with Section 1012.34(3)(d). Without such findings, the Board cannot dismiss Escalona for failure to correct noted performance deficiencies. C. It was stated in the Findings of Fact above that the Board can terminate Escalona's employment only if, based on an assessment of his performance as of the two-week period following the 90 calendar days of probation, the teacher had failed to correct the particular performance deficiencies of which he had been formally notified in writing prior to probation; other alleged deficiencies, whether observed during probation or thereafter, cannot be relied upon in support of a decision to dismiss Escalona. Standing behind this observation is Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The pertinent statutory language instructs that a teacher whose performance has been deemed unsatisfactory must be provided a written "notice of unsatisfactory performance," which notice shall include a description of "such unsatisfactory performance" plus recommendations for improvement in the "specific areas of unsatisfactory performance." The statute then specifies that the teacher must be allowed 90 calendar days "following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance" to correct "the noted performance deficiencies." Clearly, the "noted performance deficiencies" are the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance described in the notice of unsatisfactory performance. Finally, the statute mandates that the teacher shall be assessed within two weeks after the end of probation to determine whether "the performance deficiencies" have been corrected. It is clear, again, that "the performance deficiencies" are "the noted performance deficiencies" described in the written notice of unsatisfactory performance. See § 1012.34(3)(d)1. & 2.a., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The reason why a decision to terminate a poorly performing teacher must be based solely on the specific performance deficiencies described in the pre-probation notice of unsatisfactory performance is plain: allowing the school district to rely on subsequently observed deficiencies would defeat the teacher's unambiguous statutory right to have 90 post-notice calendar days in which to correct the noted performance deficiencies that triggered probation in the first place. This case exemplifies the problem posed by post-notice deficiencies. The notice of unsatisfactory performance (the Summary) that gave rise to Escalona's probation, which was based on Mr. del Cuadro's evaluation of December 2, 2003, charged the teacher with 10 specific performance deficiencies. By February 17, 2004, when Ms. Carter formally observed Escalona for the last time before the end of probation, Escalona had corrected all but one (Indicator IV.A.5) of the noted performance deficiencies——suggesting that he had made significant improvement. Unfortunately for Escalona, however, Ms. Carter believed that the teacher had exhibited nine deficiencies besides the noted performance deficiencies, with the net result that, near the end of probation, Escalona still had 10 deficiencies. Of these nine post-notice deficiencies, four (Indicators I.F.1, I.F.2, II.A.1, and IV.B.3) were recorded for the first time ever on February 17, 2004. Obviously, Escalona was not given 90 days to correct these four alleged deficiencies. Yet another three of the post-notice deficiencies reported by Ms. Carter (Indicators I.A.1, IV.A.6, and IV.B.2) had not been seen since Mr. Cuadro's initial evaluation of November 5, 2003. This initial evaluation, being "not of record," cannot count as a notice of unsatisfactory performance to Escalona. Hence he was not given 90 days to correct these three alleged deficiencies. For that matter, the remaining two post-notice deficiencies alleged to exist on February 17, 2004—— Indicators II.D.4 and IV.A.3——had not been observed, post- notice, until January 16, 2004, which means that Escalona did not have 90 days to correct them, either. For the above reasons, when assessing whether, in fact, Escalona had corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period following probation, the undersigned focused, as he was required to do, exclusively on the 10 deficiencies described in the Summary, seven of which were alleged not to have been timely corrected. Having determined as a matter of fact that the evidence was insufficient to prove these seven alleged deficiencies existed or persisted, it must be concluded that the Board has failed to carry its burden of establishing the alleged factual grounds for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Escalona of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Escalona be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended; and (c) awarding Escalona back salary, plus benefits, to the extent these accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 2004.
The Issue The issues in this matter are as follows: (a) whether Petitioner followed all procedural requirements before deciding to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher; and whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment as a teacher should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact In 1985, Respondent received her Florida Teacher Certification, qualifying her to teach elementary education, Grades 1-6. She continues to hold that certification. Respondent worked as a substitute teacher in Petitioner's elementary, middle, and high schools for 13 years before she was hired as a full-time teacher in 1998. Thereafter, Respondent taught the following classes at the following schools: (a) from 1999–2003, “literacy” and language arts to sixth and seventh graders at Paxon Middle School; from 2003-2004, third graders at John E. Ford Elementary; from 2004-2006, first graders at Lake Lucina Elementary (Lake Lucina); (d) from 2006-2007, first graders at Arlington Heights Elementary (Arlington Heights); and (e) from 2007-2008, fourth graders at Sabal Palm Elementary (Sabal Palm). Throughout her tenure as a full-time teacher, school principals evaluated Respondent's performance on an annual basis. During school years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, Petitioner used the Teacher Assessment System (“TAS”) as the primary method to evaluate Respondent's teaching ability. The TAS measures teaching performance based on nine different “Competencies.” These Competencies, listed in the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 versions of the TAS include the following: (a) Promotes student growth and performance; (b) Evaluates instructional needs of students; (c) Plans and delivers effective instruction; (d) Shows knowledge of subject matter; (e) Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (f) Shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment; (g) Communicates with parents; (h) Pursues professional growth; and (i) Demonstrates professional behaviors. Under the TAS, a school administrator (usually the principal) evaluates teachers based on three scheduled classroom observations. During the observations, the principal uses the Teacher Assessment Instrument (“TAI”) to collect data and identify “indicators” associated with each Competency. In evaluating a teacher’s overall performance, principals may also consider informal, unannounced observations. The Classroom Observation Instrument (“COI”) is an earlier version of the TAI. The COI contains the same Competencies as the TAI, though they appear in different order. The “Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher” is a summative evaluation form used during the final annual evaluation conference. The form reflects the teacher’s final rating as to each Competency and the principal’s overall performance rating for the school year. The TAS procedures provide as follows in pertinent part: TAS Procedures-Principal/Supervisor PLEASE NOTE: One purpose of the TAS is to assist the employee to improve performance. Performance problems are best addressed early. If an informal observation or classroom visit indicates possible performance problems then the principal should immediately arrange to initiate a formal classroom observation using the TAI. Conduct an initial orientation for all instructional employees to be evaluated by the TAS. This should occur during pre- planning and include at minimum, 1) an overview of the forms and procedures, 2) a description of the competencies and their indicators, and 3) your schedule for observation activities. Pre-arrange with the employee at least one instructional session to be formally observed. Conduct a pre-observation conference with the employee. Discuss with the employee information regarding the lesson plan, targeted students and methodology. A pre-observation conference must occur. Conduct the observation using the TAI. All competency indicators that are observed during this observation will be checked on the TAI. Complete the TAI for all competencies/indicators not completed during the classroom observation. After the instrument has been completed, review and rate the data, and prepare the report to share with the employee. Within five (5) working days, schedule and conduct a post-observation conference with the employee to provide feedback. During the post-observation conference, review the TAI with the employee. Identify any problematic areas. At this time, schedule a conference to develop a success plan for employees who potentially may receive an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. This action must take place within two (2) weeks of the post conference but prior to February 1. During this time, a letter of Potential Unsatisfactory Evaluation must be given to the employee. Close the conference by signing all appropriate documents and securing the employee's signature of receipt. Follow the time line provided in the manual to ensure compliance with the reappointment process and to ensure due process for the employee. If a teacher demonstrates deficient performance under any Competency, a "Success Plan" is written in collaboration with the teacher. The Success Plan identifies areas of weakness by Competency, sets out objectives, and provides timelines to meet the objectives. A Success Plan Team includes the teacher, school administrators, colleagues that have expertise in the relevant subject matter, “resource” teachers or “coaches,” and, at times, a teachers’ union representative. According to the TAS, personnel decisions will be appropriate if the timeline and the following steps are followed: Notify the employee in clear and simple written communication(s) regarding your specific performance expectation as identified by the competency indicators on the TAI. Explain to the employee in oral and written detail the deficiency(ies) from the previously stated expectation(s). (Be specific by noting the time factors, place, circumstances, principal observations). Arrange with and/or for the employee to receive appropriate training or other assistance as needed in order to improve the deficiency(ies) noted on the TAS Success Plan. Record in writing any offers of help. Time any communication(s) to the employee so there is sufficient opportunity for the employee to correct deficiencies. The Success Plan Team (including the identified employee) must meet frequently to review the status of the implementation of the plan and the employee’s progress. While teaching first graders at Lake Lucina, Respondent elected to transfer to Arlington Heights in school year 2006-2007. Robert L. Snyder was, and still is, the principal of Arlington Heights. Upon meeting Respondent, Mr. Snyder considered Respondent as a pleasant and likeable person. However, because Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation the prior year, Mr. Snyder arranged for the development of a Success Plan for Respondent. With Respondent's input, the Success Plan Team drafted a Success Plan to be implemented at Arlington Heights. The Success Plan outlined areas of weakness, objectives toward improvement in those areas, and timelines. It was finalized and signed by Ms. Hunt in October 2006. The Success Plan Team included experienced teaching coaches. The coaches modeled instruction in Respondent's class on several occasions. Mr. Snyder conducted three formal observations and observed Respondent’s teaching performance informally on several occasions. During his visits to the classroom, Mr. Snyder would see students doing worksheets amounting to “busy work” which had no apparent connection to instruction or evaluation. Mr. Snyder kept personal notes documenting Respondent's tardiness to school on several occasions. He also noted her tardiness to workshops and in-service programs, including an in-service program focused on a reading assessment system for first graders known as Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). On or about January 30, 2008, Mr. Snyder intended to deliver a letter to Respondent, advising her that she was at risk to receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the year. When he went to Respondent's classroom, Mr. Snyder discovered that Petitioner was absent and had left no plans for the substitute teacher. The school policy required teachers to have three days of substitute plans in case of an unexpected absence. While Mr. Snyder assisted in the development of plans for the substitute teacher, he observed incomplete and blank DRA data collection forms. The forms did not indicate the students' levels of reading ability or the strategies put in place to enhance areas of weakness. Mr. Snyder also observed the teaching assistant doing work which should have been done by Respondent, such as grading papers. When Respondent submitted her lesson plans to Mr. Snyder, he observed that Respondent was not actually teaching the lesson plans to her class. Mr. Snyder also noted a lack of grades in Respondent's grade book. Mr. Snyder brought these concerns to Respondent's attention verbally and in writing. Throughout the school year, Respondent had a full-time paraprofessional/teacher’s assistant (“TA”) in her classroom. Mr. Snyder observed tensions between Respondent and her TA, as well as a second TA. The working relationship between Respondent and her TA deteriorated through the year. On one occasion, Respondent left her class of first graders completely unattended by an adult for twenty minutes. Mr. Snyder knew Respondent was in the office working on the computer when he saw Respondent's unsupervised students. On another occasion, Mr. Snyder saw Respondent who appeared to be videotaping students in a common hallway. The school did not have parental permission to videotape some of the students in another teacher's class. Mr. Snyder retrieved the videotape and discarded it. Respondent did not attend certain conferences with Mr. Snyder (including at least one formal pre-observation conference). Additionally, it was difficult to conduct meetings with the Success Plan Team because Respondent always insisted that an outside union representative instead of the building representative attend the meetings with her. Scheduled meetings with Respondent were delayed or cancelled on a number of occasions because an outside union representative was not available. Mr. Snyder formally observed Respondent and completed TIAs on December 15, 2006, February 6, 2007 and March 14, 2007. Mr. Snyder had a conference with Respondent before and after each formal observation to discuss the TIAs. Respondent signed each TIA. Respondent’s Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher was issued on March 15, 2007. Reflecting the findings on the TIAs, the annual evaluation showed unsatisfactory performance in the following Competencies: Promoting Student Growth and Performance; Planning and Delivering Effective Instruction; and Demonstrates Professional Behaviors. The evaluation also showed a “Needs Improvement” rating in the following Competencies: Evaluates Instructional Needs of Students; Utilizes Appropriate Classroom Management; and Parent Communications. Respondent received and signed the annual evaluation. In school year 2007-2008, Respondent elected to transfer to Sabal Palm. At the new school, Respondent taught reading, writing and science to a fourth-grade class. Respondent's co-teacher, Kim Stancil, taught math and social studies. There were approximately 26 students in the class. The principal at Sabal Palm was, and still is, Mary Mickel. Because Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation the prior year, Ms. Mickel initiated a Success Plan for Respondent. Respondent signed a final copy of the plan on December 11, 2007. The Success Plan outlined areas of weakness, objectives toward improvement in those areas, and timelines. The Success Plan Team consisted of Ms. Mickel, other teachers, a “standards coach," and a “reading coach.” Ms. Stancil retired on October 29, 2007. A new co- teacher, Christie Callison, began teaching in January 2008. Ms. Mickel became concerned when Respondent failed to attend grade-level meetings. After receiving encouragement from Ms. Mickel, Respondent began attending the meetings but did not actively participate. Ms. Mickel had several parents call to complain about how Respondent treated their children or how their children were doing in Respondent's class. Ms. Mickel participated in at least one parent/teacher conference to resolve a parent's concerns. Ms. Mickel visited Respondent's classroom from time to time throughout the school year. Ms. Mickel conducted four formal evaluations of Respondent's performance. The formal observations took place on the following dates: September 13, 2007; November 19, 2007; January 28, 2008; and March 5, 2008. Ms. Mickel provided Respondent with advanced notice of the formal observations. Ms. Mickel had a conference with Ms. Hunt before and after the observations. During the formal observations, Ms. Mickel used the COI instrument to document indicators of performance under the nine Competencies. Respondent does not challenge Ms. Mickel's use of the COIs versus the TIAs. Ms. Mickel observed Respondent using materials and teaching subjects that were not age-appropriate for fourth graders. For instance, Respondent based a lesson on a book typically used with 1st graders. Ms. Mickel discussed this with Respondent and commented on the subject in the COIs. As time passed, Ms. Mickel observed Respondent's continued failure to properly assess student performance and failure to tailor instruction to student needs. Respondent had opportunities to participate in grade- level training on a weekly basis. She was allowed to observe other teachers in her school without having to take personal time. Respondent's coaches came into her class, prepared a lesson plan with her, and modeled the instruction. According to Ms. Callison, Respondent refused to collaborate with planning and instruction. Respondent did not want, give or receive assistance from her co-teacher. Respondent typically did not provide direct instruction to the students. Instead, Respondent gave the students “busy work” via worksheets that had nothing to do with the required curriculum. Respondent openly classified students by ability, using terms such as “middle group” and “low group.” Respondent would then have students grade each others’ papers and report the grades out loud to Respondent in class. Respondent’s Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher was issued on March 14, 2008. Reflecting the findings on the COIs, the annual evaluation showed unsatisfactory performance under the following Competencies: Evaluates Instructional Needs of Students and Plans and Delivers Effective Instruction. Respondent obtained a “Needs Improvement” rating in the following Competencies: Promotes Student Growth and Performance; Communicates with Parents; and Demonstrates Professional Behaviors. Respondent received and signed the annual evaluation. Respondent testified that teaching fourth grade is particularly challenging compared to teaching other grade levels. According to Respondent, fourth-grade is difficult to teach because students must take the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in math, reading and writing. Although Respondent was without a co-teacher for a portion of the 2007-2008 school term, she is certified to teach all fourth-grade subjects. More importantly, Respondent has had experience teaching reading and writing to sixth and seventh- grade students, some of whom were working at the fourth-grade level. Respondent worked with and was evaluated by seven different principals throughout the last eight years of her employment. During those eight years, Respondent's summative evaluations showed her performance as follows: (a) eight consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Parent Communication Competency; (b) five consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Student Growth and Performance Competency; (c) five consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Planning and Delivery of Instruction Competency; (d) four consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Evaluation of Student Needs Competency.
Findings Of Fact Respondent began working for Petitioner School Board in 1960 as a teacher and has been so employed for approximately twenty years, with several breaks in service. At all times material hereto, Respondent has held Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 112370, Rank 1, covering the areas of elementary education, social studies, and junior college. During the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, Respondent worked as a social studies teacher at Cutler Ridge Junior High School. Prior to the 1981-82 school year, Respondent served as a CSI instructor for several years. CSI is the Center for Special Instruction and is an indoor suspension system. Students who have had difficulty in school, such as skipping classes and defiance of authority, are sent to the CSI room where they are isolated from their classmates to work on their regular school assignments. When Dr. John Moore became principal of Cutler Ridge Junior High School for the 1981-82 school year, he became aware that the CSI program needed to be strengthened. Parents, community leaders, and staff members of the school felt that the CSI program was not supportive of the disciplinary structure of the school, and teachers had been complaining about CSI. When Respondent was informally observed in the CSI room, the students "seemed to be having an extremely good time there . . . [,and] were running their own show, . . . [so] they liked going to CSI." The students were out of their seats, moving around at will, and some were walking in and out of the classroom. The room was noisy and in one instance in November 1979 the students were throwing a football around the room. When Dr. Moore reviewed the schedule for 1981-82, he saw that Respondent had a split schedule of part-time in CSI and part-time in social studies. He changed Respondent to a full-time social studies schedule, initially with four seventh-grade classes and one eighth-grade class. As a result of the suggestion of Respondent and another teacher, Dr. Moore merged the two teachers' schedules so that Dr. Sullivan ended up with a straight seventh- grade schedule. This would have reduced the amount of lesson planning required by Respondent and would have made his work load easier. Seventh-grade social studies is the simplest assignment Dr. Moore could have given a social studies teacher. During the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, a pattern could be discerned in Respondent's teaching. During each of those years, there was a relatively positive start with erratic performance during the first semester. By second semester, there was substantial disaster and a total lack of a learning environment. This erosion pattern was attributed to Respondent's teaching techniques. During the first semester of each year, Respondent had the students working at the lowest level of cognitive ability, i.e., memory work. Students became bored with that after a period of time. Respondent was not using feedback mechanisms to tell him what the students were understanding. Respondent did not teach in a logical sequence beginning with the first semester. These things led to frustration and boredom on the part of the students, and negative behavior became apparent. The negative behavior became resistive. This led to the erosion as above described. Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal James Marshall on November 16, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was unacceptable in preparation and planning because he had no lesson plans. He was rated unacceptable in classroom management because of the disorganization of his class. He was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the needs and abilities of his students and failed to provide opportunities for the students to express their ideas. He failed to give specific directions to the students and only used one technique of instruction, i.e., the lecture method. Mr. Marshall prescribed help for Respondent. He recommended that Respondent formulate good lesson plans according to the scope and sequence of the curriculum. A portion of the lesson plan should contain a procedure for the evaluation of the students. He recommended that Respondent praise the students and that Respondent try to obtain enough textbooks. If he could not, he should utilize duplicated materials. Mr. Marshall pointed out how Respondent could change the seats of his disruptive children and call the parents to see whether he could get some backup from them. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Assistant Principal Albert Villar on January 8, 1982. Respondent was found overall unacceptable and was rated unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, assessment techniques, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the students were taking a test which was written on the chalkboard. The test was confusing to the students, and they were not certain as to what part of the test they were to take. Further, the test was not visible to the entire class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because students walked in and out of the classroom, several students were talking during the test, and some were putting on makeup. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the students needed to answer questions with the textbook, and not all of the students had a textbook accessible to them. Respondent told the students to share, which is inappropriate because there would be a tendency to cheat on the examination. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not have a written copy of the test; therefore, it would be impossible for students who are absent to make up the test. There also should have been a copy of the test in the students' folders. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because the lack of textbooks led to a relationship which did not reflect equal recognition and respect for every individual. Mr. Villar made recommendations for improvement. He recommended that if Respondent wanted to use a chalkboard test, he should have a written copy in the students' folders, and he should enforce his classroom rules about students not talking during a test. Respondent's next formal observation was performed by the principal, Dr. John Moore, on January 27, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and professional responsibility. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the lesson he taught was not the lesson described on his lesson plan. The inadequate planning led to classroom management problems. Throughout the observation, the students were "off task, doing their own thing, talking to each other and so on." The students and Respondent were talking at the same time. Eight students were chewing gum, which is against school rules. Techniques of instruction were rated unacceptable because the students were no on task. Respondent was not getting the students involved in discussions or in expressing their ideas. He was not getting feedback from the students because the students were talking among themselves. With teacher-questioning techniques, Respondent could have gotten the students involved. He could have gotten them on task by giving them quizzes or handouts which could structure their learning. Instructions were given while the majority of the class was talking, and the students were not challenged. Respondent was rated unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because throughout the observations there were repeated examples of students' disrespect, students yelling out across the room, students talking back and refusing to follow instructions. There was no reaction by Respondent. The bulk of the students were not responding. Professional responsibility was marked unacceptable because at the beginning of the year, Respondent was directed to enforce his class rules and to establish an effective learning environment. This was a general disciplinary project for the whole school. Dr. Moore prescribed help for Respondent. He recommended that Respondent work with his department chairman to review grade level objectives and to be certain that his lesson plans reflected the Dade County Balanced Curriculum requirements. Dr. Moore also recommended that he meet with a fellow teacher to review how she prepared her lesson plans. Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent enforce his class rules and that instead of using an oral approach, Respondent should develop handouts for the students. This would give them some structure as to what they are going to do. He recommended having homework guidelines and using review quizzes. Respondent was next formally observed by Mr. Marshall on February 5, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable overall and was marked unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because while he had lesson plans, they were not done according to the sequence and pattern prescribed in the school. Respondent did not get the students to work right away at the beginning of the period and the students were not on task. Classroom management was rated unacceptable because Respondent had no control of the students. The students were doing what they wanted to do and were disrupting the class. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of his students. He was lecturing the students, and this technique did not allow the students to participate. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because the relationship was not a positive one: the students were not guided into a class discussion by Respondent; there was no relationship between Respondent and the students, and the students did not want to give information to the teacher. They just wanted to sit there. Mr. Marshall prescribed help for Respondent. He requested that Respondent make sure that each student participate in the learning activities. He recommended that Respondent duplicate the assignments so that there would be enough for all students to have and that Respondent guide the students in a discussion from his daily lesson plan. Respondent was next formally observed on February 16, 1982, by Phyllis Cohen, Area Line Director for the Dade County Public Schools. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. The instructions given to the class were not comprehensible. None of the things that were indicated in the lesson plan occurred. As a result, when the students were divided into three groups and told to read, without the appropriate directions, each group proceeded not to read. As the lesson progressed, the behavior deteriorated more and more until at the end of the lesson, three-quarters of the class was off task. There was an elaborate lesson plan, but it was not followed. Knowledge of the subject matter was rated unacceptable because the teacher did not demonstrate a knowledge of the content of the chapter while he was giving class directions. Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because his class management practices needed much improvement. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he did not adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of the students. Further, he did not use instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because many of the students' papers were not graded, most of the work on file was work book papers consisting of mostly short answers and recall questions, and there were very few essays. Mrs. Cohen recommended help for Respondent. She directed him to develop lesson plans which are useful and which list key concepts, activities, questions and vocabulary. She directed him to work with the principal who would provide models for his use. She recommended that the department head arrange to have Respondent observe a master teacher presenting a civics lesson. She recommended that he observe teachers who exhibit good class control, that he become aware of what the students are doing, and that he review and enforce class standards for behavior. She recommended that he work with the assistant principal to improve class management techniques and that Respondent have a five-minute start-up activity on the board fro students to do when they enter the class in order to settle the class down, take attendance, and begin the lesson in a more orderly fashion. She also recommended that he improve his presentation strategies and teaching techniques by working with the social studies department head. The next formal observation was performed by Mr. Marshall on March 11, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. He was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because his lesson plans were not adequate, unacceptable in classroom management because there was still a problem with student control and participation, and unacceptable in techniques of instruction since he still was not adapting materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of the students and was not providing opportunities for the students to express their ideas. Mr. Marshall prepared a memo in which he listed teaching techniques that would help improve Respondent's teaching. He recommended that Respondent praise the students more. Respondent was next formally observed by the social studies supervisor for the Dade County Public Schools, Paul Hanson, on March 19, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and was found unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher- student relationships, and in one subcategory of preparation and planning because the plans which were written were not compatible with what actually took place in the classroom. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because there was no means of controlling the students who talked and moved about the classroom at will. The discipline was nonconducive to a learning environment since students were talking, out of their seats, and not on task. Very little learning was taking place. Techniques of instruction were marked unacceptable because the students were not motivated, and the instruction given them was not conducive to learning for junior high students. The activities in the classroom did not reflect the adoption of materials and methods to the interests, needs, and abilities of the students, and there was confusion in the class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because the test which was observed did not equate with the instruction taking place, the test construction was very poor, and there were a number of grammatical errors on it. What was being tested was not compatible with what was being taught at the time, according to the lesson plan. The grades and records of the students' achievement were not up to date but rather were about two to three weeks behind. Therefore, the students' progress was not being monitored on a daily basis. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because of the behavior problem in the class. There seemed to be very little respect for the students on the part of the teacher, and it was difficult to determine who was in control of the class. Mr. Hanson recommended that the lesson plan be more specific and that it equate with what takes place in the classroom. He recommended that Respondent observe other teachers for their classroom management techniques and that a staff development course be taken. He also suggested that Respondent observe a master teacher for the techniques of instruction. Mr. Hanson provided some reading materials to Respondent dealing with such topics as how to conduct a classroom discussion, how to manage a social studies classroom, and how to use audiovisual films in a social studies classroom. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Dr. Moore on April 13, 1982. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, teacher- student relationships, professional responsibility, and supportive characteristics. There was no improvement in this observation over the prior observations. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the majority of students were off task during the observation, the written plan was not in compliance with the prior prescriptions and the lesson plan was not followed by Respondent. Knowledge of subject matter was marked unacceptable because Respondent failed to provide students with necessary explanations to implement the lesson plan. He confused the teaching objective with directions for student activity. Classroom management was marked unacceptable because the students were off task, were frequently moving, were constantly socializing, and a student was permitted to defy Respondent without consequences. Also, there were forty wads of paper on the floor. Techniques of instruction wee marked unacceptable because Respondent gave materials to the students prepared by the National Council of Social Studies for teacher use without modifying or adapting these materials for student use. He did not provide opportunities for students to express their ideas, although this was called for in his lesson plan, and he gave confusing directions to the students. The distribution of the National Council materials caused organization problems, and confusing directions used excessive class time. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not make an assessment of each student's academic progress. He gave the students credit based upon untested assertions of mastery of assignments. He asked the students to "Tell me if you know this . . . I'll mark it down and you can go on. . . ." Teacher-student relationships was rated unacceptable because defiant students regularly disregarded his direction to stop talking. Respondent was marked unacceptable in professional responsibility because he had failed to comply with directives regarding remediation practices. He was found unacceptable in supportive characteristics because it was found that he did not contribute to the total school program. Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent review prior directives on lesson planning and comply with those. He further recommended that Respondent review material with his department head and that Respondent implement the posted consequences for student behavior. Dr. Moore submitted a memorandum to Respondent outlining the problems that he saw in this observation and compiled a list of pertinent materials available in the media center. On April 16, 1982, Dr. Moore made Respondent aware of a parent complaint concerning the basis for a student's grade and the failure to notify the parent of the lack of student progress. As a result of that parent complaint, Dr. Moore reviewed Respondent's grade book and found a variety of deficiencies: There were grades that were not identified; there was no indication of makeup work, and the mechanics of keeping grades were absent. The grade book is a document which is required by law and by School Board rule. It is an attendance record and a primary record of the student's progress as compared to the course standards. Dr. Moore provided a memorandum to Respondent indicating what improvement was needed. Around the same time, Respondent became ill and was hospitalized. A series of memoranda were sent from the school to the Sullivans and vice versa. It was difficult to ascertain the nature of Respondent's illness and the expected length of his absence. Eventually it was determined that Respondent's illness was genuine, and he was given an opportunity to return to his school to complete his prescriptions. Respondent was next formally observed by Althea King, Assistant Principal, on October 18, 1982. This was the first formal evaluation under the TADS system. There is no overall rating on the individual TADS observation forms. This observation showed a great improvement over the prior observations. Prior to this observation, Mrs. King met with Respondent to go over the things she would be looking for and made an appointment with Respondent for her observation. Although Respondent sincerely desired to improve, he was found unacceptable in preparation and planning because his plan did not fill the allotted time. Mrs. King observed Respondent for one hour and found that there were 20 to 25 minutes remaining in the class period when the students had finished an activity and were not provided another activity. Mrs. King noted that preparation and planning is very significant because it is the means of gaining control of the classroom. She recommended that Respondent read certain sections of the teacher handbook and complete activities therein to help him develop a lesson plan that would have the various essential parts. The next formal observation was done by Dr. Moore on November 8, 1982. He found that Respondent's classroom management was above a minimally acceptable level. The class was noisy, but it was under control. There was, however, substantial deterioration in the other categories. Dr. Moore directed Respondent to give priority attention to the other five areas since progress had been made in classroom management. He further directed Respondent to outline the sequence of key concepts and generalizations for each unit and to discuss them with the department head to insure consistent comprehension. He directed Respondent to use inquiry strategies and to review a section in the faculty handbook to implement activities listed therein. He directed Respondent to list specific student objectives in behavioral terms in his lesson plans. The next formal observation was done by Dr. Moore on December 15, 1982. The observation, which was scheduled in advance, was relatively good. There was improvement in a number of areas over the preceding observation although Respondent was still not dealing with students who were off task, a fault which eventually leads to deterioration. Respondent was weak in using feedback mechanism. This is a shortcoming in teacher-student communication, indicating whether or not the teacher knows what the students are really perceiving and learning. In order to help Respondent, Dr. Moore recommended that Respondent read sections in the TADS prescription manual and attend Teacher Education Center workshops on teacher-student relationships and on assessment techniques. Shortly after the Christmas break, there was apparent deterioration of behavior in the classroom. There were reports from other teachers of loud, disruptive behavior. Respondent was directed to confer with Assistant Principal Daniel McPhaul and to make sure the students know that there will be consequences if they do not behave. Starting at this point, there was the same pattern of disruption that had been seen in the prior school year. Respondent was making no visible effort to restore order in his classroom. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Dr. Moore and Mr. Hanson jointly on February 8, 1983. Respondent was not found acceptable in any category. The class lesson consisted of giving workbooks to the students. There was no teaching, simply a passing out of materials. This failed to keep the students on task. There were consistent violations of the class rules and no consequences. Media still was not being used, and there were wads of paper on the wall. Respondent was marked unacceptable in preparation and planning because his lesson plan did not fill the allocated time. What was planned covered only 30 minutes of a 55-minute period. What was going on in the classroom did not follow the lesson plan, and what was being done was not included either in that lesson or the lesson plan for the next day. While Respondent exhibited knowledge of the subject matter, he was not found acceptable in the area of presentation of the subject matter. He used a "scattergun" approach. With the remaining 30 minutes, he filled in the time with something completely irrelevant to the plan for the day and irrelevant to the general overall plan for the week. The information presented to the children was simply handed to them with no logic or reason why they were getting this information. The information presented was not timely. Only one cognitive level was utilized in the entire classroom period, the lowest level-recall or remembering. No higher or challenging cognitive levels were presented, and the lesson was presented in an uninteresting manner. Classroom management was unacceptable because approximately two-thirds of the students were not on task, and the behavior was inappropriate for a classroom. This resulted in no learning taking place, and Respondent did not seem to make any attempt to correct the situation. Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he gave a skills lesson which needed some demonstration. However, he simply gave the students materials and told them to do the work. He should have taken the time to give instructions and actually demonstrate what the students were to do. The activities that took place did not give the students an opportunity for participation and verbal interaction with Respondent. The students were not invited to raise questions and were not actively involved in the lesson. It was basically a teacher-directed lesson. The lesson that Respondent presented would have been an opportune one for using media, but Respondent chose not to do so. There was a great deal of confusion on the part of the learners -- they did not know what to do with the materials, and very little clarification took place. Respondent was marked unacceptable in assessment techniques because he did not give the students more than a book-type exercise, which was not challenging, and only required students to recall basic information. This technique did not require them to actually think or apply the knowledge they learned. In the student folders, there was only one kind of evaluation, a dittoed workbook-type of page with mostly fill-in-the-blank type activities. Respondent was marked unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because there was not any mutual respect on the part of the students or teacher. Mr. Hanson found no improvement over his prior observation of March 19, 1982. Mr. Hanson prescribed help for Respondent, and Dr. Moore concurred with those prescriptions. It was recommended that Dr. Sullivan observe a master teacher at a school close to his and that Dr. Moore, a former social studies teacher, help in demonstrating some of the techniques needed in a social studies room. Mr. Hanson provided additional reading materials for Respondent. The next formal observation of Respondent was done by Mrs. King and Mrs. Cohen on March 29, 1983. Mrs. Cohen found Respondent unacceptable in all categories, and Mrs. King found him unacceptable in all categories except teacher-student relationships. Mrs. King found that his lesson plan was much decreased in quality over her prior observation: the objectives did not reflect good planning, the activities did not fill the allotted time, and the plan was not followed. Because of these, she rated Respondent unacceptable in preparation and planning. Knowledge of the subject matter was rated unacceptable because the subject presentation was unacceptable. Information and activities were not timely and accurate, and the sequence of presentation was not logical. Interesting, unusual or important dimensions were not included, and different cognitive levels were not presented. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because many students were not on task, and behavior management was not done appropriately. Techniques of instruction was marked unacceptable because the materials that were used were inadequate for the lesson. Student participation was very minimal, and there was little, if any, discussion. Students were asked to work on information in their folders. Individual questions were asked and answered but there was no other kind of instruction taking place during the observation. Assessment techniques was marked unacceptable for there was no indication that assessment had taken place or would take place for this particular lesson. The students seemed vague as to what they were supposed to be doing. Teacher-student relationships was unacceptable because there was no attempt to involve all students in the instruction. Basically, there was no instruction. Mrs. Cohen found the same conditions that existed on her previous observation of February 16, 1982. While the method of teaching had changed, as worksheets were distributed and folders were given out, there was still no teaching occurring, there was lots of confusion, and there was little attempt to draw relationships. These things contributed to a lack of control and off task behavior. Mrs. King discussed with Respondent activities that he might use to direct the students, to establish and gain control of their behavior in the class. She recommended written assignments, discussions, and lectures, using a variety of activities that might help give direction to him and to the students in the classroom. The next formal observation was performed by Daniel McPhaul, Assistant Principal, on May 5, 1983. Mr. McPhaul found Respondent unacceptable in all categories except knowledge of subject matter. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because there were some items lacking from the lesson plans, and the lesson plan did not have objectives. Classroom management was unacceptable because there were many students who were not on task strewn about the classroom floor, the desks were out of order, and students were walking around communicating with each other while Respondent was giving instructions. Techniques of instruction was unacceptable because there was no student participation. His instructional strategies were limited. There was no use of media from the library, although some was available to him. Assessment techniques were unacceptable because the lesson ended with the ringing of the bell. There was no time allowed for assessment. He did not ask questions to see if the students understood the lesson and did not evaluate the students. Respondent was found unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because if the students were interested in receiving instructions from Respondent, they would not have been playing around and communicating with each other. Mr. McPhaul suggested that Respondent get the students on task as soon as possible. One way to do this is to have handouts or pop quizzes ready at the beginning of the class. He also suggested that Respondent communicate with parents. He suggested that the students be made to clean the classroom before leaving. On May 25, 1983, Dr. Moore dropped in to visit Respondent because of a teacher's complaint. When he got there, there were several students running out of the door. Respondent indicate that no lesson was in progress, and the students were running around because there was nothing to do. The next formal observation was performed by Dr. Moore on June 1, 1983. There was no improvement: the class was noisy and off task; the lesson did not match the lesson plan; the lesson was not attended to by most of the students; many students talked while Respondent gave instructions; and nineteen out of twenty students did not follow directions. Further, since Respondent was using an inappropriate teaching technique for a fact recall level lesson, five students did nothing, fourteen students wrote statements totally unrelated to the unit they were studying, and only one student wrote one question pertinent to the unit under study. Seven weeks into the nine-week grading period, there were no grades recorded in the grade book. Based on this there would be no way to know what a student had done or how well. There were no codes in the front of the grade book to interpret the grades. There was no basis to explain a child's grade to a parent. Dr. Moore gave Respondent copies of his summatives on or about November 12, 1982, December 17, 1982, February 10, 1983, April 11, 1983, and May 1, 1983. A summative combines the preceding two classroom observations and rates a teacher overall acceptable or unacceptable at any point in the process. All of Respondent's summatives were rated overall unacceptable. Respondent was offered help at other times as well. The assistant principal had conferences with parents of disruptive students. Mrs. Parker taught directly across the hall from Respondent and observed that at times students were completely out of control, with desks and books being thrown across the room. Respondent asked her for help, and she suggested methods of control. There was so much noise coming from Respondent's room that Mrs. Parker would put her stool in the doorway and sit there and control both her class and Respondent's class at the same time. Mrs. Griswold, Respondent's department head, taught across the hall from Respondent. At times she noted the chaos. Quite frequently the students would be talkative and on occasions they would be walking around. The noise interfered with her class to the point that she would have to close her door. She offered to help Respondent by meeting with him on several occasions to discuss lesson plans, methods of controlling students, and using different techniques. She gave him materials to help him. During the 1981-82 school year, she met frequently, on a weekly basis, to go over Respondent's lesson plans. During some time periods, Respondent's lesson plans were more than adequate; at other times, they were not adequate. During the 1981-82, Respondent was told by Dr. Moore to submit lesson plans to Mrs. Griswold. He did not always comply. When he did , Mrs. Griswold went over his lesson plans with him, checking to make sure that the materials that he was using were applicable to the students in his class. She checked to be sure he was following the course outline for social studies for seventh graders. She tried to aid him in any way she could to try to maintain discipline and control in his class. On January 28, 1982, Assistant Principal Marshall gave Respondent a memorandum which dealt with tips for teaching. Mr. Marshall then monitored Respondent with informal observations two to three times a week to see whether Respondent was utilizing the suggestions made to him. The assistant principals had to enter Respondent's room at numerous times to gain control of or restore order to the classroom. Fellow teacher Beverly Dunbar also went into Respondent's room to restore control to his class. She observed that the children were so noisy that her own students could not do their work. When she went into Respondent's room, almost all of the students in the room were out of their seats, throwing papers, books, and throwing over desks. Respondent was standing there, not saying anything to them. They were out of control. On February 5, 1982, Respondent's room was changed to the first floor so that he could be closer to the administrative offices and to relieve the classes which had been around Respondent's classroom. The assistant principals were directed to assist Respondent whenever needed to restore order to his class when it was out of control. The assistant principals removed youngsters from Respondent's classroom and offered to take others out. Mr. Villar had a conference with Respondent to set up classroom rules for him and offered suggestions on the use of a seating chart to take attendance quickly and to become familiar with where students were sitting and to notice patterns in behavior that may become disruptive. Mr. Villar tried several times to talk to Respondent about his problems, but Respondent was not responsive. Mr. Villar also suggested that Respondent observe teachers in their school and in other schools in the same academic areas. He also recommended that Mrs. Griswold assist Respondent on lesson plans, ordering materials, and making sure he had a complete set of classroom textbooks. Mrs. King had conferences with Respondent. She called these her "lay-it-on-the-line" conversations. These dealt with how to get control of the students and force them through classroom activities through discipline measures, to do what they are supposed to be doing. She gave very specific recommendations such as moving certain students and specific kinds of activities that would keep the students involved. One day she went into Respondent's class and began the class for him to show how it could be done and how students could be controlled through various methods. Dr. Moore invited Mr. Hanson, the social studies supervisor, to observe Respondent's class and make recommendations to help the situation. At one point, when the principal observed Respondent's class, the room was so noisy and the students were so off task that he suggested that Respondent work with the students regarding the necessity of self control and following directions. He further recommended that Respondent work with Assistant Principal Villar to arrange for any kind of backup he would need. Dr. Moore also gave education articles to Respondent to read. The principal followed through and arranged for observations of other teachers by Respondent. Respondent was given an opportunity to raise any questions that he had about the type of support he needed. He was given an opportunity to give the administration feedback of the things they were not doing that he would like them to do for him. Dr. Moore compiled a composite record of all the prescriptions that had been given to Respondent in order that Respondent could review them and did a demonstration lesson for Respondent as an example showing the use of techniques which were explained in the readings that were given to Respondent. In spite of all the help that was given, Respondent's class continued to interfere with other teachers' classes. Mr. May testified that the noise was so loud that his students could not hear him dictating a spelling test during a semester examination. Mr. May saw things thrown through the room, such as books, and saw students out of their chairs and totally out of control. He heard glass breaking and saw glass on the ledges of the second floor. He was also afraid that some child would go out a second floor window and recommended to Dr. Moore that Respondent's class be changed to the ground floor. There was no improvement in the control of Respondent's class after he was moved to the first floor. On the occasion that Mrs. Dunbar went up to gain control of Respondent's class, her students were prevented from doing their work by the noise coming from Respondent's room. Other teachers in Mrs. Dunbar's department complained to her, and teachers complained to the assistant principals about the noise in Respondent's room. During informal observations, Respondent fared no better than he did no his formal observations. His class was generally disorganized with 100% of the time being spent without teachings. When Mrs. Dunbar observed Respondent, he was not teaching. There was commotion going on. At times, clapping and chanting could be heard coming from Respondent's room across the courtyard. The administrators received more student and parent complaints about Respondent's class than they did about other teacher's classes. When Mrs. King walked by the halls, she would come in to help establish order in Respondent's class. Sometimes she would be sent for by Respondent or by a student or other teachers. Very often she notices that there was chaos in the classroom with students moving around without inhibition. They were talking, tossing paper, and off task. They were not involved in any kind of constructive classroom activity, and the noise level was very high. On Mrs. Cohen's informal visits to the school, she observed Dr. Moore going into Respondent's room to quiet it because someone had thrown paper outside the room. It was the consensus of opinion of the experts who observed Respondent in the classroom that there was a repeated failure on his part to communicate with and relate to the children in his classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience. Respondent has not maintained direction and discipline of students as assigned by the principal and has not kept good order in the classroom. He has not taken precautions to protect the life, health and safety of every student. On one occasion Mr. Marshall had to respond to the Respondent's classroom because of the presence of a railroad spike in the possession of one of the students. Because of the gravity of the situation, the parents of the student were contacted and additional documentation was forwarded to Dr. Moore. During the 1982-83 school year, Assistant Principal King walked by the Respondent's class and observed a student holding a chair up in the air "as if in the intent of throwing it at another student." Another time she observed a student on all fours crawling along a back counter. On those occasions Respondent was standing in the front of the class, simply observing and doing nothing to (re)gain control of the class. During the 1982-83 school year, on several occasions jalousie windows were broken in Respondent's classroom by students playing and bumping into each other. Some students complained to Assistant Principal McPhaul about the noise level and disorder in Respondent's class and the difficulty they had in doing their work due to harassment by other students who wanted to play during class. Overall, during the last two years of Respondent's service, in the 1981-82 and 1982-83 school years, Respondent failed to achieve an acceptable performance rating as determined by eight formal evaluations during the 1981-82 school year, done by five different evaluators, two of which were external to the work site. In the 1982-83 school year, Respondent failed to achieve an acceptable performance rating as noted on nine different formal evaluations conducted by six different evaluators, two of which were external to the school site. The administrators asked Respondent whether there were any health conditions or medical conditions which should be considered in his case. Respondent stated that health was not a factor in his classroom observations. Neither Respondent nor his wife ever communicated to the administrators that there was a health problem that interfered with Respondent's teaching. After his suspension by the School Board, Respondent was examined psychologically and was found to have an inability to organize his social events into a meaningful order. His perceptual abilities are significantly below his age level, and his functioning is significantly below what one would expect given Respondent's level of education and teaching experience. He has extreme difficulty in differentiating relevant versus nonrelevant aspects in his environment. His thinking is highly concrete, and he is unable to coordinate data and integrate them into meaningful concepts. Respondent is verbose and uses circular reasoning to eventually reach a final conclusion. Respondent's examining psychologist determined that it would be difficult for Respondent to learn new techniques for getting a class into order, it would be difficult for him to learn new ways of doing lesson plans in order to structure his classroom activities, he would have a hard time working in a school organization where he had to perceive social situations and what is going on in a classroom, he would have a difficult time dealing with teachers, administrators, and students, and he would have a hard time perceiving the motives of the administration. His perceptions are vague and amorphous, and descriptive in nature. He has inordinate difficulties in capturing the essence of what was presented to him. While there is no evidence of thought disorder, his thinking is vague, disorganized, fuzzy, and reflective of an individual with possible organic factors interfering with his thinking and organizational abilities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in Case No. 83-2649 finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Specific Notice of Charges filed against him, affirming his suspension, dismissing him from his employment, and denying him any claim for back pay. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in Case No. 83-3793 finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 112370. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 George F. Knox, Esquire Penthouse 200 Southeast First Street Miami, Florida 33129 Donald Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER (DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD) ================================================================= SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-2649 WILLIAM D. SULLIVAN, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate the professional service contract of Respondent due to a failure to correct performance deficiencies during the 90-calendar-day probationary period.
Findings Of Fact Respondent entered the teaching profession after working 17 years as a bartender. She earned her undergraduate degree in education--specifically, learning disabilities and varying exceptionalities--and obtained her first teaching job at Gulfstream Elementary School in 1995. For her first eight years at Gulfstream, Respondent taught a physically impaired class. These are small classes of less than ten students with health or medical disabilities. Many of the students cannot walk or talk. With a paraprofessional and sometimes a fulltime aid, Respondent taught substantially the same students from year to year. The focus of much of the instruction was upon daily living skills, such as reading the signs on restrooms and businesses. In 1996, Respondent developed inoperable Stage IV nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eight months of radiation therapy scarred Respondent's airway. When Respondent returned to school after a five-month leave of absence, she, like many of her students, wore a feeding tube and relied on a vocal amplification device. Respondent made the most of these characteristics that she now shared with some of her students, encouraging them to overcome their disabilities as she was doing. In the physically impaired class, Respondent taught most of the students on a one-on-one basis. Rarely did she have to address the entire class as part of classroom instruction. For this reason, Respondent was little handicapped by her speech difficulties, which arose due to the cancer treatment. Even today, loud speech is nearly impossible for Respondent, who, to generate speech, must press against her throat to produce a gaspy speech that requires close attention to understand. A new principal arrived at Gulfstream for the 2002-03 school year. The new principal, who had previously been an assistant principal for eight years and a teacher for nine years, found Respondent's performance unsatisfactory in several respects. Respondent was often late arriving to school and failed to perform her duties on the bus ramp. Respondent often left her paraprofessional alone with the physically impaired class. To monitor the behavior of the child, Respondent sometimes brought her high-school aged daughter to school without permission. Overall, the principal found that Respondent seemed unenthusiastic about teaching. Believing that Respondent might have been depressed, the principal referred Respondent to the Employee Assistance Program. Thinking that a change in assignment might rekindle Respondent's enthusiasm for her job, for the 2003-04 school year, the principal switched the assignments of Respondent and another teacher, so that the other teacher would teach Respondent's physically impaired class, and Respondent would teach a varying exceptionalities class. Neither teacher had requested a new assignment. Respondent's varying exceptionalities class began the 2003-04 school year with 14 students. Eventually, the principal reduced the class to nine students. Respondent had the help of only a part-time paraprofessional. The wide range of cognitive abilities of the students meant that some students could only identify their names in print, and some students could read and write. Students in the varying exceptionalities class were in several classifications, such as educably mentally handicapped, traumatic brain injury, and autistic. By sometime in October 2003, the assistant principal had twice observed Respondent teaching her class. The assistant principal had concerns about Respondent's classroom management and recordkeeping. The assessments and evaluations in this case are based on the Petitioner's Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System (PACES). In conjunction with the statutory 90-calendar-day probationary period, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the PACES assessments follow a format. A PACES-trained evaluator conducts an initial observation not of record. If the teacher fails to meet standards, the evaluator goes over the findings with the teacher, offers a Professional Growth Team to provide assistance in eliminating any deficiencies, and advises that she will conduct another evaluation in a month. If the teacher meets standards on the second evaluation, which is known as the first observation of record, the teacher reverts to the normal evaluation scheme applicable to all teachers, and the first negative observation is essentially discarded. If the teacher fails to meet standards on the first observation of record, she is placed on performance probation for 90 days. The evaluator conducts a Conference for the Record and gives the teacher a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP). During the probationary period, the evaluator conducts other observations, and, at the end of the period, the evaluator conducts a final observation. If the teacher still fails to meet standards, then the evaluator conducts a confirmatory observation within 14 days after the end of the probationary period. If the teacher still fails to meet standards, the principal may recommend termination to the Superintendent. PACES assessments cover six domains: Planning for Teaching and Learning (Domain I), Managing the Learning Environment (Domain II), Teacher/Learner Relationships (Domain III), Enhancing and Enabling Learning (Domain IV), Enabling Thinking (Domain V), and Classroom-Based Assessments of Learning (Domain VI). Each of these domains comprises three to five components, for which the evaluator determines whether the teacher meets standards. If the evaluator determines that the teacher fails to meet standards as to a component, the evaluator circles a listed indicator, so that the teacher may readily identify authoritative sources of information, such as the PACES binder provided to each teacher or videotapes in the District office, that will assist her in curing a particular deficiency. The assistant principal conducted the initial observation not of record on October 14, 2003. She determined that Respondent failed to meet standards for 18 of the 21 components. Respondent met standards only in Components III.A, IV.C, and VI.A. Respectively, these are Interpersonal Relations, which is the teacher's respect for the students; Resources for Learning, which is the teacher's use of teaching aids and learning materials; and Monitoring Engagement and/or Involvement in Learning, which is the teacher's monitoring of the student's engagement during learning tasks. Among the more significant deficiencies reflected in the October 14 evaluation are that Respondent lacked lesson plans and failed to manage the learning environment. To help with these and other deficiencies, the assistant principal offered Respondent a Professional Growth Team and referred her to her PACES binder, which would describe each deficient item and suggest strategies to eliminate each deficiency. For her part, Respondent had tried to deal with her new assignment by grouping the children, where appropriate, by cognitive ability. In September or October, she was able to send one student to regular education. On November 5, 2003, the assistant principal returned to perform the first observation of record. She found Respondent reading a Thanksgiving story to the eight students who were present in her class. Respondent would read one sentence and ask a question about it. By using this approach, Respondent took one hour to read a story that should have taken five minutes to read. Each time that she stopped and asked a question about the preceding sentence, Respondent undermined the continuity of the story. Also, all of her questions tested the students' memory; none of them required higher-order thinking, as would be required by questions asking how or why something happened. Despite these shortcomings in Respondent's teaching, the assistant principal determined that Respondent had met standards in all of Domains I, II, III, and VI. However, Respondent failed to meet standards in all components of Domains IV and V, including the one component in Domain IV for which she had previously met standards. However, Respondent performed considerably better in this observation than in the previous observation--meeting standards in 13 of 21 components as opposed to meeting standards in 3 of 21 components three weeks earlier. In the ensuing Conference for the Record, the assistant principal prepared a PIP for Respondent and again recommended that she take advantage of the Professional Growth Team for assistance in eliminating the deficiencies. Dated November 14, 2003, the PIP is a detailed documentation of each deficiency noted in the November 5 observation. The November 14 PIP describes what Respondent did or did not do, as to each deficiency. The PIP also contains specific recommendations to eliminate each deficiency. The number of deficiencies is misleading, at least as an indicator of the scope of the teaching that was subject to the evaluation. The Thanksgiving story, described above, spawned all eight of the observed deficiencies. Respondent's reliance exclusively upon simple recall questions yielded five deficiencies. (One of these deficiencies also relies on Respondent's failure to correct a child who replied to the question of what sound that turkeys make, by answering, "quack, quack." Absent more context, it is possible that Respondent's failure to correct this answer was an attempt not to reward attention-getting behavior.) One of the remaining three deficiencies criticizes Respondent for introducing the Thanksgiving story with an open-ended question, "This is November. What do you think happens in November?" Another deficiency, which focuses on the one-sentence, one-question approach of Respondent to the story, faults Respondent for omitting hands-on activities. The last deficiency notes that Respondent held up a small piece of paper showing the months of the year, but she failed to post the paper for the children to see. (This deficiency implies that Respondent's classroom lacks a posted calendar.) The detail of the November 5 PACES evaluation and November 14 PIP are undermined by the oddly narrow factual basis upon which they rest. Intended as a comprehensive statement of the deficiencies of an experienced teacher, these documents reveal that Petitioner has placed Respondent on probation because of an awkward reading of a Thanksgiving story to eight students over a period of about one hour. On December 11, 2003, the principal performed an observation. The principal found that Respondent met standards in Domains I, II, III, V, and VI, but not in three components of Domain IV: Initial Motivation to Learn, Teaching Methods and Learning Tasks, and Clarification of Content/Learning Tasks. Respectively, these components involve the identification of the learning objective, the use of logically sequenced teaching methods and learning tasks, and the use of different words or examples when clarification is required. The two components within Domain IV for which Respondent met standards are: Resources for Learning and Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy. The former component involves the use of learning materials to accommodate the range of individual differences among learners, and the latter component involves the creation of an opportunity to allow different learners to learn at different cognitive levels. The basis of the deficiencies was in Respondent's presentation of another story, Little Miss Muffet, although, this time, the problems centered more around her lead-in and follow-up activities. The PIP, dated December 17, 2003, which the principal prepared, notes that the pace of a writing activity worksheet was too slow for four of 11 students, who sat with nothing to do for ten minutes while waiting for their peers to finish; Respondent failed to correct a student who answered the question, "what are you afraid of," with "sock" (perhaps the same child who had said that turkeys quack); Respondent failed to correct a student who said that a paper was missing words when it was missing only letters; and Respondent failed to identify tasks associated with the story that would challenge all of the students, although Respondent used two worksheets-- one with missing words (presumably for the higher-functioning group) and one with missing letters (presumable for the lower- functioning group). On February 4, 2004, the assistant principal performed the next observation. She found that Respondent met standards in Domains I and III. She found that Respondent failed to meet standards in Components II.D, III.A, IV.A, IV.B, and VI.B. Respectively, these are Managing Environment in Learning, Interpersonal Relations, Initial Motivation to Learning, Teaching Methods and Learning Tasks, and Informal Assessment. During this observation, Respondent read a story on how to build a house. The reading level of the story was at least third-grade, but the students were in kindergarten and first grade. For 40 minutes, Respondent used actual house blueprints as a visual aid. As another visual aid, Respondent used blocks to depict a house, but she lacked sufficient blocks to finish the project. The story took one hour when it should have taken ten minutes. Consequently, students were out of their seats and trying to find something to do. On February 10, the assistant principal prepared a PIP. Although the contents of this PIP were not dissimilar to the contents of the previous PIPs, one new deficiency was Component III.A, Interpersonal Relations. The notes in the February 10 PIP state: "One learner was ridiculed by the teacher making remarks about her behavior to the classroom paraprofessional. Her remarks included, 'She's totally off the wall' and 'She has been horrendous today.' She also said to other learners not paying attention, 'I'm not going to talk to the air' and 'I'm waiting in case you didn't notice.'" The comments to the individual student were sarcastic and derogatory. In general, the principal found Respondent to be more enthusiastic in the 2003-04 school year than she had been in the previous school year. Respondent showed an improved attitude, but her classroom remained disorganized. Respondent had received considerable assistance from her Professional Growth Team, but the principal concluded that Respondent had still failed to meet standards. From Respondent's perspective, she felt that the principal had prejudged her and was running through the 90-calendar-day probationary period as an empty exercise. Respondent became increasingly nervous, as she repeatedly tried, and failed, to please the principal and assistant principal. At one point during the 90 days, Respondent restated her desire for a transfer, as she had made such a request the prior summer when she had learned of her new assignment, but the principal refused to give the request any consideration or determine if a transfer were feasible. At least once during the 90 days, Respondent's union representative asked the principal to transfer Respondent, but the principal refused, again without giving the request any consideration. In the meantime, Respondent's difficulties in the varying exceptionalities classroom were exacerbated by the removal, by October 2003, of her voice amplification system. On March 2, 2004, the principal, having determined that the 90 calendar days had expired, performed what she believed was the confirmatory observation. She found that Respondent failed to meet standards in eight components in Domains I, II, IV, and VI. Two days later, the principal informed Respondent that she would be recommending that the Superintendent terminate Respondent's professional service contract. Unfortunately, the principal had miscalculated the 90 days. Learning of this error, the principal discarded the March 2 evaluation and performed a new confirmatory observation on March 14 and again found that Respondent failed to meet standards. Two weeks later, Respondent failed to meet standards in six components in Domains II, IV, and V. Only three of the six deficiencies covered the same components in the March 2 observation: Components II.D, II.E, and IV.D, which are, respectively, Managing Engagement in Learning, Monitoring and Maintaining Learner Behavior, and Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy. In general, these were deficiencies at the start of the 90-day probationary period, but were eliminated during the 90-day probationary period, only to return again at the end. Following the March 14 confirmatory observation, the principal recommended that the Superintendent terminate the professional service contract of Respondent. On March 19, 2004, the Superintendent advised Respondent that he was going to recommend to Petitioner that it terminate her contract, and, on April 14, 2004, Petitioner did so. A recurring issue in this case is what is meant by failing to meet standards and, more importantly, unsatisfactory performance. Based on the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses, Petitioner contends that the failure to meet any single component within any of the domains of PACES is the failure to meet standards, and a failure to meet standards is invariably unsatisfactory performance, sufficient to place a teacher on 90- calendar-day performance probation or, if already on performance probation, sufficient to terminate a professional service contract. However, the PACES form does not so indicate, nor do Petitioner's online rules, of which the Administrative Law Judge has taken official notice. Petitioner has failed to prove what is an unsatisfactory performance under the PACES evaluation system. Absent the adoption of a rule to this effect, the isolated omission of a teacher, during a single observation, to provide suggestions to improve learning (Component VI.C) or to start a class or lesson precisely on time (Component II.A) would not constitute unsatisfactory performance, at least for the purpose of initiating the 90-calendar-day probationary period or terminating the professional service contract of a teacher already on performance probation. In this case, undermining the observations of the principal and assistant principal, especially where they appear to be based on discrete failures by Respondent, are the facts that neither supervisor has any significant training in exceptional student education, the principal has no experience teaching in exceptional student education, and the assistant principal has limited experience in teaching exceptional student education. By granting Petitioner's Motion for Official Recognition, the Administrative Law Judge acknowledges that, by letter dated September 24, 2001, the Florida Department of Education has approved PACES. (The identification of PACES is missing from the letter, but the Administrative Law Judge accepts the representation of Petitioner's counsel that PACES was the subject of this letter.) However, this letter approves PACES on its face, not as applied, and may have been based on more than two-page PACES evaluation form. The present record contains only the two-page form and testimony, unsupported by any documentation, that a single deficiency means that a teacher fails to meet standards and may be placed on probation, if the deficiency arises when the teacher is not on probation, or may be terminated, if the deficiency, even if different from the one that initiated probation, is present at the confirmatory observation. The record does not document the extent to which Respondent was in attendance at school during her 90-calendar- day probationary period. By her count, Respondent missed seven or eight workdays due to illness. Petitioner's calculation does not account for these missed days, and, if it had, the second confirmatory observation was premature too. The record contains some evidence of student achievement. As noted above, one student was transferred early in the 2003-04 school year from Respondent's varying exceptionalities class to a regular education classroom, but the proximity of this event to the start of the school year suggests that the student was probably misclassified at the start of the year. The mother of another student testified that Respondent helped her daughter make considerable academic progress. The student had undergone a tracheotomy and, consequently, speech delay. While in Respondent's class, the student was eager to attend school and learned to write her name for the first time. For the first time in school, the student was progressing. When the mother learned that Respondent was being terminated, she tried to contact the principal, but the principal declined to see her, claiming it was a personnel matter and implying that a parent had no role in such matters. The record contains the individual education plans (IEPs) of nine students. Typically, IEPs are prepared in the spring of each year, and, prior to the preparation of the next year's IEP, the IEP team closes out the preceding IEP by marking the extent to which the student has achieved the goals of his IEP. The IEP team also indicates progress during the year with respect to specific goals. A mark of "1" means mastery of the goal, a "2" means "adequate progress made; anticipate meeting goal by IEP end," a "3" means "some progress made; anticipate meeting goal by IEP end," and a "4" means "insufficient progress made; do not anticipate meeting goal by IEP end." The last relevant marks for some of the IEPs were January 2004, but some of them bore marks for March 2004. For all of the IEPs, exclusive of physical or occupational therapy, with which Respondent was not substantially involved, 11 goals were marked 2, 39 goals were marked 3, and 15 goals were marked 4. Five of the nine students for whom Petitioner produced IEPs received a mark of 4 on at least one goal in his or her IEP. But 11 of the 15 4's went to two students: one had four 4's, one 3, and one 2; and the other had seven 4's, two 3's, and one One student had two 4's, but also six 3's. Another student had one 4 and six 3's, and the fifth student had one 4 and three 3's. Thus, only two of the nine students were not making satisfactory progress while Respondent was teaching the class.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order rejecting the Superintendent's recommendation to terminate Respondent for unsatisfactory performance during the 2003-04 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Randolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
The Issue Whether Respondent committed any of the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 26, 2014, and, if so, what is the appropriate disciplinary penalty?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against holders of Florida Educational Certificates accused of violating section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and related rules. Respondent Erin S. Scheumeister holds Professional Educator’s Certificate 982133. Valid through June 30, 2015, the certificate covers the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages, Exceptional Student Education, and Autism Spectrum Disorders. At all times material to this proceeding, the St. Lucie County School District (District) employed Ms. Scheumeister as an Exceptional Student Education teacher at Samuel S. Gaines Academy K-8 (“Samuel Gaines” or “Gaines Academy”). During the 2012-2013 school year, a typical school day in Ms. Scheumeister’s class ended with a science or social studies lesson which would be presented jointly with the class of Ms. Madelina. Ms. Madelina was another Exceptional Student Education teacher at Gaines Academy, and she and Ms. Scheumeister would co-teach the class. For the science lesson, Ms. Madelina would bring her class to Ms. Scheumeister’s classroom. Ms. Madelina’s self-care aide, Jane Alice Waite, assisted with the joint science lesson. During the 2012-2013 school year, two support staff members, a behavior tech and a paraprofessional, were assigned to Ms. Scheumeister’s class. Ms. Scheumeister is charged with violations that flow from an incident that occurred during a joint science class on Friday, March 8, 2013. The joint science class was conducted, as was customary, at the end of the school day but in Ms. Madelina’s absence because she was absent from school the entire day. In her place was Amy Crossland, a frequent substitute teacher at Gaines Academy. Ms. Crossland also substituted on occasion for Ms. Scheumeister when she was absent and had filled in for Ms. Scheumeister’s paraprofessional aide on more than one occasion so that she was familiar both with Ms. Scheumeister’s class and Ms. Madelina’s class and the arrangement for joint science or social studies classes at the end of the day. As Ms. Crossland put it at the hearing, “It [Ms. Scheumeister’s class] was a challenging classroom, so they [the Administration] would put me in there frequently because they knew I [could] do it.” Hr’g Tr. 11. One of the students in Ms. Scheumeister’s class was R.W., a nine-year-old male student with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Language Impairments. Described by Ms. Crossland as “a sweet kid but . . . a handful,” Hr’g Tr. 12, R.W. exhibited aggressive behavior on a regular, if not daily, basis. Ms. Scheumeister summed this behavior up as follows: He would hit, kick, punch staff, students, knock over desks, fall on the floor, roll around on the floor, knock over furniture. He would do self-injurious behavior such as pinching himself on the arm or he would run over into the kitchen and hit his head on . . . the counter where we have to block him from hurting himself. Hr’g Tr. 102. R.W.’s aggressive behavior was triggered when his routine was disrupted or he became upset. Whenever the trigger occurred, R.W.’s behavior became aggressive quickly. An example of R.W.’s aggressive behavior involved a sink in an island in the kitchen that is either adjoining the classroom or part of the classroom. The sink had a faucet that could be rotated away from a position above the sink into a position above the floor. In moments of acting out, R.W. would swivel the faucet and turn the water on so that water would pour onto the floor. Over the course of the several times that Ms. Crossland was present in Ms. Scheumeister’s class, she saw R.W. turn the faucet on above the floor. Ms. Scheumeister’s response usually consisted of attempts to redirect R.W. to appropriate behavior. By the time of the incident on March 8, 2013, R.W. had swiveled the faucet and turned it on to spill water onto the floor more than once that day. These spills occurred during the joint science class in the presence of students from the two classes of Mses. Scheumeister and Madelina. Immediately after the first time, R.W. ran from the sink and dropped to the floor, which was common behavior for R.W. when he did not get his way or was disciplined. Ms. Scheumeister “raised her voice a little bit,” Hr’g Tr. 13, and her facial expression indicated that her patience with R.W. was wearing thin. Ms. Crossland attributed Ms. Scheumeister’s less-than calm reaction to R.W.’s misbehavior, plus the added stress of the joint science lesson with so many students present in the classroom at once. Ms. Scheumeister did not do anything to R.W. physically the first time he ran the water onto the classroom floor on March 8, 2013. Her reaction became physical, however, when R.W. did it again. Ms. Scheumeister grabbed R.W.’s shoulders with both of her hands. With R.W. kicking and screaming, Ms. Scheumeister sat him on the floor. Ms. Scheumeister pushed and pulled R.W. through the water in what witnesses described as a mopping action. His shirt and shorts became wet. Ms. Scheumeister followed this physical discipline with words to R.W. with the effect that if he thought it was funny to spill water on the floor, she thought it would be funny for him to have to explain to his parents why his clothes were wet. Jane Alice Waite, a paraprofessional aide assigned to Ms. Madelina’s class, observed Ms. Scheumeister push and pull R.W. through the water on the classroom floor. Ms. Waite’s response was immediate. She gathered Ms. Madelina’s students, left Ms. Scheumeister’s classroom with them, and returned the students to Ms. Madelina’s classroom. Ms. Waite did not want her students to remain in the presence of Ms. Scheumeister’s actions with R.W. for fear that they would be upset or become over-excited, a tendency of autistic students. Ms. Waite appreciates that maintaining order in a classroom of autistic students can be a task that is “overwhelming.” Hr’g Tr. 46. Nonetheless, Ms. Waite found Ms. Scheumeister’s method of discipline of R.W. to amount to a loss of control and to be unjustifiable and inappropriate. Morgan Kelly was the behavior tech in Ms. Scheumeister’s classroom the day of the incident. Ms. Kelly confirmed the testimony of Mses. Crossland and Waite. She saw Ms. Scheumeister “proceed with the mopping action dragging [R.W.] back and forth across the water.” Hr’g Tr. 53. Ms. Kelly’s immediate reaction was to offer to change R.W.’s clothing. Ms. Scheumeister reiterated that R.W. could go home wet and his parents can wonder why. R.W. responded to the comment by again turning on the faucet and running water onto the floor. Ms. Scheumeister grabbed R.W. and dragged him through the water again and then instructed Ms. Kelly to put R.W. on the bus wet without a change in clothing. R.W. rode the bus home in wet clothing. The incident with R.W. was not the first time Ms. Kelly had observed Ms. Scheumeister act inappropriately with the autistic students in her classroom. On one occasion, Ms. Scheumeister disparaged her students for their inability to answer questions about a topic at kindergarten level that she had just read to them. On other occasions, Ms. Scheumeister said to some of her students that she intended to “choke them out.” Ms. Scheumeister also on more than one occasion pulled a student’s tee shirt over the back of the chair in which they were sitting so that the student could not get up. Ms. Kelly reported the incident with R.W. to Carolyn Wilkins, the principal of Gaines Academy at approximately 5:30 p.m. on the evening of March 8, 2013, a few hours after it occurred. Ms. Crossland also reported the matter. Rather than to the principal, Ms. Crossland submitted the report to the Exceptional Student Education Department chairperson. In the investigation that ensued, Mses. Kelly, Crossland, and Waite provided written statements. Ms. Waite’s view of the incident with R.W. differed from Ms. Crossland’s in one respect. Ms. Waite was “not sure” how R.W. ended up in the water. But her statement was consistent with the other two statements in that Ms. Waite wrote that Ms. Scheumeister “pulled him in the water two or three time[s] and stated she was not going to change him and he was going home wet and he got on the bus wet.” Pet’r’s Ex. 4. In the wake of the report from Ms. Kelly, Ms. Wilkins called the assistant superintendent of Human Resources. The assistant superintendent directed Principal Wilkins to call the Department of Children and Families and the school resource officer. Ms. Wilkins did so. She followed up the reports with a call to Ms. Scheumeister. In the conversation with Ms. Scheumeister, the principal informed her of the allegations, and ordered Ms. Scheumeister to report to the District office on the following Monday. The District followed its procedures dictated by reports of a teacher’s inappropriate conduct with a student. The District commenced an investigation, and Ms. Scheumeister was transferred to the District office on what the District refers to as a “temporary duty assignment,” Hr’g Tr. 81, or “TDA.” See Pet’r’s Ex. 7. In keeping with standard procedure, the District hand-delivered to Ms. Scheumeister a copy of a written document entitled “Notice of Investigation and TDA” dated March 11, 2013, the Monday after the incident with R.W. In May 2013, Principal Wilkins sent a letter dated May 29, 2013, to Ms. Scheumeister. It informed her that Principal Wilkins had decided not to recommend Ms. Scheumeister for reappointment for the 2013-2014 school year. An Administrative Complaint was executed on November 7, 2013. On March 26, 2014, Petitioner moved to amend the Administrative Complaint. The motion was granted following Respondent’s notice of withdrawal of her opposition to the amendment. A section of the Amended Administrative Complaint entitled “MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS” contains three paragraphs, numbered 3, 4, and 5. Paragraph 3 alleges: Respondent twice grabbed R.W., a 9-year-old student diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Language Impairment, and dragged him across the floor in an attempt to mop up a puddle of water that R.W. had spilled. During this, Respondent stated to the student, “You think it is funny to flood the room? Well, I think its funny your clothes are wet.” When another school personnel offered to change R.W.’s clothes, Respondent refused to allow it and commented she wanted R.W. to go home with wet clothes. Paragraph 4 alleges: Respondent made inappropriate comments or actions to her nine (9) students, who are diagnosed with Autism, including but not limited to, “I’m going to choke you out”; “That’s a kindergarten book and you (students) are not as smart as kindergarteners”; “It’s ok his (student’s) pants are too tight, he shouldn’t reproduce,”; putting student’s over their chairs to prevent them from getting out of their chair and yelling at students. Amended Administrative Complaint, executed March 26, 2014, EPC Case No. 123-2596. Paragraph 5 alleges that following an investigation, Ms. Scheumeister’s “employment contract was non- renewed for the 2013-2014 school year.” On the basis of the material allegations, the Amended Administrative Complaint charged Ms. Scheumeister as follows: STATUTE VIOLATIONS COUNT 1: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board of Education. COUNT 2: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board. COUNT 3: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules. RULE VIOLATIONS COUNT 4: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. COUNT 5: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Ms. Scheumeister requested a formal hearing before DOAH on an Election of Rights form in which she disputed all allegations of the Administrative Complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Office of Professional Practices Services filed the case with the EPC, and the EPC announced in a letter dated March 11, 2014, that it would forward the case to DOAH.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s educator’s certificate be revoked for a period of not less than five years and that an appropriate fine be levied for each count. If Respondent, when eligible, reapplies for an educator’s certificate and receives one, a condition of the certificate should be probation for a period of five years with additional conditions appropriate to the facts of this case to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Lois S. Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 (eServed) Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street, Suite E Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed)
The Issue Should Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board (School Board or Board), terminate the employment of Respondent, Rose M. Dacanay, for the reasons that follow: Violation of Board Policy 4140A(9), incompetence? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(9)(a), failure to perform the duties of the position? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(19), failure to correct performance deficiencies? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(20), insubordination? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(24), failure to comply with Board policy, state law, or contractual agreement?
Findings Of Fact The Pinellas County School District has employed Ms. Dacanay since August 2005. She has worked as a teacher assistant and as an exceptional student education (ESE) associate. At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Dacanay worked as an ESE associate assigned to the Paul B. Stephens Exceptional Student Education Center (Paul B. Stephens). The Center serves vulnerable students with significant developmental disabilities and medical needs. ESE associates work under a classroom teacher's direct supervision. They must assist the teacher in all aspects of both the care and the education of the students. During the first semester of the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Dacanay worked in the classroom of Paulette Pickering. Because Ms. Dacanay's performance in Ms. Pickering's class was not satisfactory, the principal, Gail Cox, reassigned her to the classroom of Linda Vest for the second semester, which started January 2012. Ms. Cox selected Ms. Vest's classroom because it did not have as many students as Ms. Pickering's, and the class was not as demanding. The reassignment was to give Ms. Dacanay an opportunity to improve her skills and continue working at the school. Also during 2011, Ms. Cox, along with other administrators and a teacher's union representative, met in October and November with Ms. Dacanay four times to review multiple deficiencies in her performance and offer improvement plans. In the meeting held November 10, 2011, Ms. Cox encouraged Ms. Dacanay to apply for other positions in the school system that would not be so demanding and would be a better fit for her. In January of 2012, Ms. Cox spoke to Ms. Dacanay and told her very directly, "This is not working, Rose. You need to find a different job. Even though everyone is nice and polite, you're still not doing your job, and you need to find another one that better fits your skills." Ms. Dacanay did not take this advice. She worked the remainder of the 2011-2012 school year at Paul B. Stephens. After summer break, she returned to employment in the 2012-2013 school year. She was assigned to assist Kim Gilbert. The students of Paul B. Stephens have emotional, mental, and physical disabilities. Many have severe and multiple disabilities. They are dependent upon the services of their teachers and teacher assistants. One of the students in Ms. Gilbert's class required the use of Dynamic Ankle Foot Orthotics (DAFOS). These are hard plastic inserts positioned around a child's foot before putting on the child's shoe. They must be positioned and wedged on carefully to avoid hurting the student. After correct placement, they are strapped on. The DAFOS are individually made for each wearer's feet. Ms. Dacanay had been instructed and trained on how to put DAFOS on. DAFOS position a child's foot to cure or resist deformity. They are uncomfortable even when properly applied. When DAFOS are put on the wrong foot, they are painful and can cause blisters and sores. They also do not properly perform their rehabilitative function. On October 23, 2012, Ms. Dacanay put a student's DAFOS on backwards. This would cause the student pain and eliminate the benefits of the DAFOS. Fortunately, Ms. Gilbert spotted the mistake and corrected it. The same student also needed and wore an arm splint. Ms. Dacanay had been instructed and trained on how to fasten the arm splints. On October 24, 2012, Ms. Dacanay was improperly fastening the arm splint. Ms. Gilbert noticed and corrected her. In 2012, Ms. Dacanay's duties included placing wheelchair-bound students in the bus and securing their wheelchairs. This service is critical to the students' safety and the safety of the other students. It requires properly fastening the students in their chairs with chest and foot straps to prevent them from falling from the chair or injuring their feet during transportation. Ms. Dacanay was trained in securing the students and their wheelchairs for transport. On October 29, 2012, Ms. Dacanay did not fasten the chest straps on one student's wheelchair. On October 30, 2012, Ms. Dacanay did not properly secure a student's feet for transport on the bus. Fortunately each time, other employees noticed the errors and corrected them. On another occasion, Ms. Dacanay did not properly fasten the chest strap of a student in a wheelchair on the bus. Another ESE associate checked the student's straps and tightened them properly. The students' wheelchairs were also strapped tightly in the bus to prevent movement or falling. Ms. Dacanay was properly trained on how to secure the bus hook-up straps. From October forward, Ms. Dacanay routinely failed to properly secure students for the bus. A fellow ESE associate regularly observed this and began routinely checking and tightening the straps for the students. Specifically, Ms. Dacanay did not properly fasten the wheelchair hook-ups on November 14 and December 4, 2012. Despite the fact that properly securing the wheelchairs was one of her duties, on December 4, 2012, Ms. Dacanay asked a student why he had not hooked up the side straps on his wheelchair. Ms. Dacanay's neglect of the task of securing students in their wheelchairs was so common that the other ESE associates who worked in Ms. Gilbert's class were concerned for the children's safety. Consequently, they regularly checked the wheelchairs of students for whom Ms. Dacanay was responsible to ensure that the students were properly secured and safe. They often found the straps loose and secured them. Swimming was part of the curriculum and services for some students. On November 5, 2012, while bringing students back from the pool, Ms. Dacanay used only one hand to push a student in a tall, cumbersome therapy chair. The chair was tall, unstable, and very difficult to maneuver along the sidewalk. With her other hand, Ms. Dacanay was escorting another student. Two other ESE associates yelled at her to stop. Ms. Dacanay did not, and the chair "wobbled" and went off the sidewalk. Ms. Dacanay was taking prescription medicine. She did not properly secure it, and a pill fell to the bathroom floor. Ms. Gilbert found the pill and gave it to the school nurse, Tomeka Miller. Ms. Dacanay went to Ms. Miller and asked her to return the pill. She also asked if anyone else knew about the pill. Ms. Miller advised Ms. Dacanay that Ms. Gilbert knew. The ready availability of the pill to the students with disabilities represented a potential risk to the students. One of the students for whom Ms. Dacanay was responsible was blind and had other issues. In the words of his teacher, Ms. Gilbert: That was my student who was blind. In addition to having a lot of other issues, he's a student who is transported in a wheelchair and he kind of cruises around furniture, but it's not a walker. He's very, very difficult, very strong, very stubborn. He has a lot of sensory issues, so you can't hurry him to do anything. It just makes the problem worse. Ms. Dacanay was aware of the student's issues and needs. On November 8, 2012, Ms. Dacanay was hurrying the student back into the classroom. She was urging him on and saying "come on, let's go." He became agitated. Ms. Gilbert instructed Ms. Dacanay to let the student calm down. Ms. Dacanay did not. This detrimentally affected the rest of the morning routine, including the student's therapy schedule. Ms. Dacanay denied each of the events described above. Her denials are not credible judged in light of the conflicting testimony, consistency of testimony among several witnesses, and consistent reports in contemporaneously created documents. In addition, Ms. Dacanay regularly displayed an inability to perform her work or learn her duties. Despite repeated instructions, she failed to correctly perform routine functions. When she worked with her students and the physical education teacher, Darlene Tickner, Ms. Tickner had to repeat instructions and requests multiple times to get her to work. Ms. Dacanay's inability to understand her duties caused Ms. Tickner to develop a "Teacher Associate Class Expectations" worksheet to help remind Ms. Dacanay and the other associates of their fundamental duties. Although the worksheet was given to all associates, Ms. Dacanay's repeated inability to perform the duties of her position was the reason Ms. Tickner prepared the worksheet. Although Ms. Dacanay was only responsible for seven students, she could not even remember their names. Ms. Dacanay also demonstrated a pattern of not paying attention to the students, preferring instead to perform chores. For instance on September 19, 2012, when Ms. Dacanay should have been assisting with a student activity, she left the classroom area for about ten minutes and spent her time folding and storing student bathing suits. This was after she had read and signed the "Class Expectations" worksheet that listed "Focus on the students and the activity, not chores" first. On another occasion, Ms. Dacanay neglected to bring a blind student who also needed a wheelchair, because of cerebral palsy, to the physical education class. Ms. Tickner asked Ms. Dacanay where the student was. Ms. Dacanay said "she didn't know." Ms. Tickner sent Ms. Dacanay back to the classroom to get the student. Ms. Dacanay returned without the student and said "she couldn't get him into his chair." Ms. Tickner had to go get the student and bring him to the class. As the "Class Expectation" worksheet notes and Ms. Tickner had emphasized, class participation was important for the students and participation with the students was an important part of the associate's job. Once when Ms. Tickner specifically instructed Ms. Dacanay to work with the other associates getting the students in and out of the pool, Ms. Dacanay disobeyed. Instead, she followed a mobile student who did not need assistance around. On another occasion, Ms. Dacanay was supposed to prepare the students for swimming. She removed the diaper from a child who was not going swimming. Similar issues and concerns about Ms. Dacanay's focus and attention to her duties caused the physical education teacher the year before, Mark Manley, to conclude that he could not leave the room if Ms. Dacanay was working with the students. She repeatedly demonstrated problems "focusing on tasks, staying on task . . . inability to stay with a program all the time." The problems Ms. Dacanay had during the 2012-2013 school year were similar to earlier performance failures during her time at Paul B. Stephens when she was working with Ms. Pickering. Ms. Cox met with Ms. Dacanay on October 18, 2012. The letter of reprimand following that meeting summarized the failings identified above and others. The letter advised Ms. Dacanay: [Y]ou appear to avoid work, especially toileting/changing student. Your ability to learn your job or perform your work responsibilities has been questioned and requires your teacher to constantly monitor you to ensure student safety. For example you appear not to remember which student uses which chair nor how to secure students in their chairs. This has happened several times. After 3-4 weeks in school you still needed direction to assist students with table activities before morning group. You have been off-task during PE and you were not able to monitor students assigned to you when they were in the pool. You also fell asleep during music class. In addition to classroom issues the assistants on the bus with you have stated that you pretend to forget how to hook up wheelchairs and harnesses, and do not do your share on the bus. You also fall asleep regularly on the way home in the afternoon which also puts more work on the other assistants. Before working at Paul B. Stephens, Ms. Dacanay received less than satisfactory ratings on her evaluations beginning on February 20, 2007, at Largo High School, where her evaluation noted that she needed to improve punctuality and that she left her assigned area without notifying the teacher. In all, between February 20, 2007, and February 10, 2011, Ms. Dacanay's evaluations reflect 16 instances of being evaluated as unsatisfactory or in need of improvement in areas that include punctuality, judgment, job knowledge, quality of work, quantity of work, initiative and attendance. The weight of the persuasive, credible evidence established that Ms. Dacanay was not competent to perform her duties, did not perform her duties, and did not improve her performance despite being given repeated opportunities to improve.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order finding that there is just cause to terminate Ms. Dacanay's employment and terminating her professional service contract for just cause pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 27th day of November, 2013.
