Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Professional Education Subtest (hereinafter referred to as the "Subtest") of the Florida Teacher Certification Examination tests the examinees' mastery and knowledge of general teaching methods and strategies. It is offered four times a year. The Subtest consists of approximately 130 to 135 multiple choice questions (each with four choices from which the examinees must choose the correct answer). The questions are printed in a question booklet. There is a separate answer sheet on which examinees record their answers to these questions by blackening, with a pencil, the appropriate bubble. Examinees are given two and a half hours to complete the Subtest. The Subtest is a criterion referenced test as opposed to a norm referenced test. To pass the Subtest, an examinee must attain a scaled score of 200. The Subtest is administered by the Office of Instructional Resources of the University of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "OIR") pursuant to a contract that OIR has with the Department. Dr. Sue Legg is the head of OIR. Pat Dovall is one of her assistants. Among OIR's responsibilities is the development, in cooperation with the Department, of a Test Administration Manual for the Subtest (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual") to guide and assist test site administrators, test room supervisors and test room proctors in discharging their duties at the test administration sites. The Manual developed by OIR provides that the following procedures should be followed in the seating of examinees: 3. Procedures for Seating of Examinees Seat examinees in the same seat they used for the morning session. For retake candidates testing only in the afternoon, follow the procedures below. Place a test book receipt card on each desk where an examinee will sit. Be certain you and your assistants have unimpeded access to every examinee. Assign examinee to a specific row or column of chairs. DO NOT ALLOW EXAMINEES TO SELECT THEIR OWN SEATING POSITIONS. Arrange seating in a manner which will separate those who are obviously acquainted. Seat examinees so they cannot see their neighbors' responses or exchange information. Fill in appropriate chairs in each row or column in order to expedite distribution and collection of test materials. Place left handed examinees in a separate row or in the last seat or each row of right-handed examinees. If use of chairs with right-handed tablet arms cannot be avoided, seat left-handed examinees with vacant chairs to their left for use as writing surfaces. If an examinee objects to his seating assign- ment, the room supervisor should make every attempt to work out a satisfactory solution. If this is not possible, the center supervisor should discuss the problem with the examinee. 4. Seating Arrangements Level Seating Arrangements: Seat examinees directly behind one another, facing in the same direction. Maintain a three-foot separation. Inclined Seating Arrangements: Maintain a three-foot separation front and rear and side-to-side. With respect to the subject of "individual examinee irregularities," the Manual states the following: Report on the Irregularity Report name social security number test name time by reset watch Misconduct Defined as any of the following: creating a disturbance; giving or receiving help; using notes, books, calculators; removing test materials or notes from the testing room; attempting to take a test for someone else. ANY EXAMINEE MAY BE DISMISSED WHO IS ENGAGING IN ANY MISCONDUCT AS DEFINED ABOVE: Two witnesses (or more) must observe the misconduct. The test center supervisor or room supervisor must be one of the witnesses. A full written report, signed by all witnesses, must be sent to OIR immediately. Cheating Defined as an examinee giving or receiving assistance during a testing period. Dismiss examinee from the testing areas if either of the above occurs. Examinee may not return. Dismiss examinee who repeatedly, after warning, continues to work on a test after time has elapsed. Dismiss examinee who uses prohibited aids. Include the following on the Irregularity Report: Examinee's identification Type of "cheating" and details of activity Warnings given Time on the reset watch Test section Degree of certainty Name of persons confirming the information Information given to the examinee at the time of the incident Attach examinee's answer folder to the Irregularity Report and return to OIR. Suspected Cheating Record name of examinee suspected. Record name of persons from whom you suspect the examinee was copying. Warn the examinee that you suspect cheating. Move examinee to provide further separation. Disturbances Defined as behavior of examinee during testing that disturbs others; loud noises or other conditions that lead to complaints by the examinees. Individual disruptive behavior Warn examinee that dismissal will result if behavior continues. Report the incident on the Irregularity Report. Outside disturbance Stop test. Have examinees close test books with answer folders inserted. Note time on the reset watch. Adjust time when test is resumed to ensure a full test period. OIR is also responsible for the selection of test administration sites, subject to the approval of the Department. The North Campus of Broward Community College (hereinafter referred to as "BCC") was selected by OIR and approved by the Department as one of the test administration sites for the August 5, 1995, Subtest. For the August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC, Dotlyn Lowe was the OIR- slected test site administrator, Greta Jackson was the test room supervisor, and Consuelo Johnson and Marcia Cadogan were the test room proctors. Each had served in similar capacities for prior examinations and, having previously reviewed the Manual, 2/ each was aware of its contents at the time of the administration of the August 5, 1995, Subtest. The August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC was administered in a classroom which had approximately 50 seats arranged in eight or nine rows. Each seat had a right-handed tablet arm for use as a writing surface. Petitioner was one of the approximately 35 examinees who took the August 5, 1995, Subtest at BCC. He sat in the last occupied row of seats (in Seat Number 42). 3/ Seated immediately to his left, approximately two to two and half feet away (in Seat Number 41), was another examinee, George Sauers. On various occasions during the Subtest, Petitioner looked at Sauers' answer sheet to see Sauers' answers. 4/ Jackson, Johnson and Cadogan all witnessed Petitioner engage in such conduct. Jackson first noticed such conduct approximately an hour after the Subtest had begun. From her vantage point, she saw that Petitioner, instead of facing straight ahead toward the front of the room, was sitting with his body angled to the left in a position that enabled him to look at Sauers' answer sheet and see Sauers' answers without having to turn his head. 5/ Petitioner's left leg was crossed over his right leg and his left ankle was resting on his right knee. Petitioner had placed his question booklet on his left knee, but he was not looking at the booklet. Rather, his eyes were focused on Sauers' answer sheet. Jackson continued to watch Petitioner for another ten to twenty minutes from various parts of the classroom. During that time, she observed him repeatedly shift his eyes toward Sauers' answer sheet and then mark answers on his own answer sheet. Jackson then asked the two test room proctors, Johnson and Cadogan, to observe Petitioner. Johnson and Cadogan complied with Jackson's request. For the next fifteen to twenty minutes Johnson and Cadogan watched Petitioner and saw him engage in the same conduct that Jackson had observed. They then reported their observations to Jackson. Jackson thereupon consulted the Manual, specifically that portion dealing with the subject of "individual examinee irregularities," to determine what action she should take. Although she was certain that Petitioner had copied answers from Sauers' answer sheet, she was uncertain as to whether the provisions of the Manual relating to "cheating" or those relating to "suspected cheating" applied to such conduct. It was Jackson's understanding that an examinee who copied answers from another examinee's answer sheet was guilty of "cheating," as opposed to "suspected cheating," as those terms were used in the Manual, only if the "copying" examinee was knowingly helped by the examinee from whom he had copied, which did not appear to be the situation in Petitioner's case. Jackson, however, was not sure that this interpretation of the Manual was correct. She therefore dispatched Cadogan to seek guidance from Lowe, the test site administrator. Lowe sent her assistant, Jacqueline Edwards, to speak with Jackson. Edwards and Jackson determined that the provisions of the Manual relating to "suspected cheating" should be followed in dealing with Petitioner's conduct. Petitioner therefore was not removed from the test site. Rather, after being told that he was suspected of cheating, he was asked to change his seat (which he did without any argument) and allowed to remain in the classroom to finish the Subtest. In his new seat, Petitioner sat facing forward and had his test materials in front of him. He made no apparent effort to look at any of his new neighbors' answer sheets. Petitioner handed in his answer sheet before the expiration of the two and a half hours the examinees were given to finish the Subtest. Later that same day, following the administration of the Subtest, Jackson prepared and submitted a written irregularity report concerning Petitioner's "suspected cheating." 6/ Subsequently, on August 10, 1995, and again on August 28, 1995, Jackson sent memoranda to OIR accurately describing the incident. The memoranda were signed not only by Jackson, but also by Johnson and Cadogan, who did so to indicate that the information contained in the memoranda was accurate to the best of their knowledge. The August 28, 1995, memorandum was the most detailed of Jackson's three written statements 7/ concerning the incident. It read as follows: On Saturday, August 5, 1995, during the Professional Education Examination, I observed Mr. Lamothe looking at another examinee's (George Sauers) answer sheet. I observed Mr. Lamothe at his desk with one leg [a]cross the other and his test booklet approxi- mately 1 ft. away from him, resting on his crossed leg. However, Mr. Lamothe's pupils were in the extreme left corner of his eyes, looking onto Mr. Sauers' desk. Mr. Lamothe would then look up and once looked directly at me, pause as though he was thinking and then marked an answer on his answer sheet. I observed this incident, within an hour of the test, over a period of 15-20 minutes[.] I then asked the proctors (Consuelo Johnson and Marcia Cadogan) to also watch the examinee. After approximately 15-20 minutes, the proctors confirmed that they also observed Mr. Lamothe cheating. I sent Ms. Cadogan to the Test Center Supervisor, Dotlyn Lowe, for advice. Mr. Lamothe was not dismissed from test room, due to our interpretation of the Test Manual instructions on page 14, number 3 (that defines cheating as giving or receiving assistance, which was not the case). Therefore, we preceded as per the Test Manual instructions on page 15, number 4. I then informed Mr. Lamothe that he was observed/suspected of cheating and asked him to change his seat. Mr. Lamothe got his belongings together and moved to the front of the room. Mr. Lamothe finished his exam without further incident. Mr. Lamothe was sitting in the back of the room in Seat Number 42 and Mr. Sauers was sitting to Mr. Lamothe's left in Seat Number 41. Petitioner's scaled score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest was 215. Sauers scored a 229. The mean scaled score of the 2478 examinees taking the August 5, 1995, Subtest at all locations was 215.32. Of these 2478 examinees, 94.2 percent received a passing scaled score of 200 or above. 8/ 33. After reviewing Jackson's August 5, 1995, irregularity report and her August 10, 1995, and August 28, 1995, memoranda, 9/ Dr. Loewe consulted with his supervisor, Dr. Thomas Fisher. Dr. Loewe and Dr. Fisher determined, based on the information provided in these documents, that Petitioner's score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest should be invalidated. By letter dated September 18, 1995, Dr. Loewe informed Petitioner of this determination. The letter read as follows: This letter is in reference to your score on the August 5, 1995 Florida Teacher Certification Examination Professional Education test adminis- tration. At that administration test proctors witnessed you repeatedly looking at the answer document of another examinee. This constitutes cheating. As a result your score will not count and no score report will be mailed. 10/ If you dispute the material facts on which this decision is based, you may request a formal hearing by submitting a written request within 20 days of the date of this letter to: Dr. Thomas Fisher Administrator, Student Assessment Services Suite 701, Florida Education Center Florida Department of Educatio Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Failure to timely request a hearing constitutes waiver of administrative proceedings, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. If you wish to complete the teacher certification testing requirements you will need to register for and retake the Professional Education test at a scheduled administration. In response to Dr. Loewe's letter, Petitioner wrote the following letter, dated to September 28, 1995, to Dr. Fisher: This letter is in response to the memo that was sent to me on Septemb[er] 18, 1995 in regard to looking at the answer sheet of another examinee. I am appalled by these allegations. I spent several months studying for this exam and did not expect a response such as this (only a positive one). I am most definitely disputing these allegations. I request a formal hearing as soon as possible. Please send me further information on a time and place so I will be able to resolve this issue. A comparison of Petitioner's answers with those given by Sauers and the other examinees who took the August 5, 1995, Subtest lends further support to the conclusion that Petitioner cheated on the examination, as alleged in Dr. Loewe's September 18, 1995, letter to Petitioner. Petitioner answered 37 of the 132 questions on the August 5, 1995, Subtest incorrectly. Sauers answered 23 of the 132 questions incorrectly. Twenty-one of the questions Petitioner answered incorrectly, Sauers also answered incorrectly. Petitioner and Sauers chose the identical incorrect response on 16 of the 21 questions they both answered incorrectly. This exceeds what would be expected based on random chance. On 11 of these 16 questions where Petitioner and Sauers selected the same incorrect answer, their answer was different than the answer most of the examinees selected. This is highly unusual. For example, on Question 71, 77 percent of the 2478 examinees chose "C," which was the correct answer. Petitioner and Sauers both selected "A," a choice made by only 5 percent of the 2478 examinees. Petitioner took the Subtest again, for the fifth time, on October 28, 1995. In addition to having taken the Subtest in August of 1995, he had also previously taken the Subtest in April of 1994, August of 1994, and April of 1995. On the April, 1994; August, 1994; and April, 1995 Subtests he had received failing scaled scores of 192, 199 and 194, respectively. On the October 28, 1995, Subtest, Petitioner received a failing scaled score of 198. The mean scaled score of the 1744 examinees taking the October 28, 1995, Subtest at all locations was 213.11. Of these 1744 examinees, 95.4 percent received a passing scaled score of 200 or above. Petitioner was among the 81 examinees who took the Subtest on both August 5, 1995, and October 28, 1995. Of these 81 examinees, 67 scored higher on the October 28, 1995, Subtest than they did on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Such an increase is typical. Nine of the 81 examinees scored lower on the October 28, 1995, Subtest than they did on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Of these nine examinees, four scored one point lower, one scored three points lower, two scored four points lower and one scored six points lower. Petitioner was the other examinee who scored lower on the October 28, 1995, Subtest. His scaled score on the October 28, 1995, Subtest was 17 points lower than his scaled score on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Such a significant decrease in scoring is consistent with his having cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest. Because Petitioner cheated on the August 5, 1995, Subtest by copying answers from Sauers' answer sheet, his score on that examination cannot be considered a reliable and accurate indicator of the extent of his mastery and knowledge of the general teaching methods and strategies covered on the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a final order invalidating the score that Petitioner attained on the August 5, 1995, Subtest because he cheated on the examination by copying answers from the answer sheet of another examinee. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of January, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 1996.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Joan Bannister, has violated the provisions of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Joan Bannister is a licensed educator in the State of Florida, holding certificate number 893735. Her certificate covers biology and math, and is valid through June 2015. During the time period relevant to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent taught math at Eustis Middle School. On or about January 30, 2012, Respondent had a student in her first-period math class named B.T. B.T. came to school that morning in a tank top and a shirt. From the testimony provided, it is inferred that the shirt was worn unbuttoned, like a sweater or jacket, over the tank top, but with the tank top showing. As B.T. entered Ms. Bannister’s classroom that morning, Ms. Bannister noticed that B.T.’s stomach was showing below the tank top. Ms. Bannister asked B.T. to adjust her shirt so that her stomach would not show. B.T. pulled her tank top down as requested. The adjustment that B.T. made to her tank top resulted in a new problem: too much cleavage visible to comply with the school dress code. As B.T. and Ms. Bannister walked into the room, Ms. Bannister asked B.T. to adjust her shirt again, so that she did not show so much cleavage. B.T. did not appreciate the second request to adjust her shirt, but Respondent’s claim that B.T. engaged the class by asking them whether her shirt was too low is rejected. B.T. was, however, apparently visibly annoyed and did not think that her tank top was too low. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Respondent, Ms. Bannister picked up a ruler off a desk near her own and said, “well, we could always measure it.” There was conflicting testimony regarding what term Respondent used to describe B.T.’s exposed chest. Whether Respondent used the term “chest,” “cleavage,” or “boobage,” is irrelevant. What matters is that Respondent made a statement in front of the class suggesting that it would be appropriate to measure the amount of B.T.’s cleavage that was visible in order to make her point about the dress code violation. The statement was loud enough that other students in the classroom could hear it. Respondent did not actually approach B.T. with the ruler or attempt to measure her in any way. However, B.T. was very upset and embarrassed by the comment, picked up her books, and left the classroom. She did not seek permission before doing so. B.T. admitted at hearing that she never liked Ms. Bannister. However, her version of the incident is credible and corroborated in several key points by other students who were present that day. By contrast, Ms. Bannister’s testimony was internally contradictory and conflicts with the testimony of the students in many respects. B.T.’s testimony that she left the classroom immediately without getting a pass or asking permission to do so is credited. B.T. went to see Erin Porter, her guidance counselor. Initially, Ms. Porter was not in her office, so B.T. consulted with the school resource officer, Deputy King, and told him about the incident. While B.T. was in his office, Ms. Porter returned to her office and B.T. told her about the interaction with Ms. Bannister. Ms. Porter felt that the situation was more a teacher issue than a guidance issue, and reported it to administration. The school district conducted an investigation of the incident, and interviewed several students, Ms. Porter, and Ms. Bannister. Ms. Bannister was notified of the investigation by letter dated February 2, 2012. Ms. Bannister was removed from the classroom during the investigation and directed to work at the District Copy Center until a decision was reached. On February 6, 2012, Respondent was notified by the Superintendent of Schools, Susan Moxley, that Superintendent Moxley was recommending that she be suspended for five days without pay, and that she participate in a professional development practicum designed to assist teachers with classroom issues. The date of the suspension was to be determined once Respondent’s due process rights were satisfied. On February 8, 2012, Respondent was notified that the investigation was concluded and that she would return to her classroom effective February 9, 2012. B.T. was reassigned to another math class. The incident was publicized in the local community, through the internet, newspaper, and local television. Both Ms. Bannister and B.T. were embarrassed by the news coverage. B.T. was also embarrassed by the amount of attention the incident received at school, because other students talked about the incident and made fun of her. Respondent resigned from her position with the Lake County School District, effective March 30, 2012, in order to take a job in another school district. Respondent submitted her resignation with an effective date of April 6, 2012, but for reasons that are unclear, the effective date was changed to March 30, 2012.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a) and (e). It is further recommended that Respondent be issued a reprimand; be required to complete a three-hour college-level course on classroom management; and be placed on probation for a period of one year, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission may require. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Joan Bannister 9256 New Orleans Drive Orlando, Florida 32818-9076 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154 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 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated April 4, 2000, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Commissioner is responsible for providing public, primary, secondary, and adult education teaching certificates in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Mitchell was employed by the Miami-Dade County School Board and was a teaching instructor assigned to Barbara Goleman Senior High School (BGSHS). At all times material to this case, an examination known as the High School Competency Test (HSCT) was required for students to qualify for a regular high school diploma pursuant to Section 229.57(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The HSCT is a secured test within the meaning of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes. That section provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for anyone to knowingly and willfully violate test security rules adopted by the State's Board of Education for mandatory tests administered by school districts pursuant to Section 229.57, Florida Statutes. It is also unlawful to copy, reproduce, or use any portion of any secured test booklet in any manner inconsistent with test security rules. Id. A violation of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes, is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both. The Department of Education has adopted Rule 6A-10.042, Florida Administrative Code, which requires, inter alia, that tests implemented in accordance with the requirements of Section 229.57, Florida Statutes, be maintained and administered in a secure manner such that the integrity of the test shall be preserved and that tests or individual test questions shall not be revealed, copied, or otherwise reproduced by persons who are involved in the administration, proctoring, or scoring of any test. On Saturday, October 4, 1997, Mitchell was one of the teachers proctoring the HSCT at BGSHS. On that date, while the communications portion of the HSCT was being administered, Mitchell unlawfully gained access to the mathematics portion of the examination, which was to have been administered at a later date. Shortly thereafter, and before the mathematics portion of the HSCT was to be administered, Mitchell sent an e-mail message to four out of approximately ten fellow BGSHS math teachers, advising them that they would find a "blue gift" in their respective school mail boxes. Each of these instructors, unlike those who did not receive a "blue gift," were friendly with Mitchell, and ate lunch with her on a regular basis. Thereafter, Mitchell in fact provided a blue disk to each of the four teachers to whom the e-mail was directed. On each disk were many of the actual HSCT mathematics questions unlawfully obtained by Mitchell. The first of the teachers to review the contents of the "blue gift" immediately suspected that Mitchell had engaged in a criminal violation of test security law, and reported her suspicions to BGSHS' principal. Following investigations by appropriate authorities and the panoply of due process protections appropriate to each forum, Mitchell was convicted on the misdemeanor charge of having knowingly and willfully breached the security of the HSCT, and her employment as a Miami-Dade County school teacher was terminated. The criminal case, State of Florida v. Margaret Mitchell, Case Number 04586-W, was tried to a jury before Honorable Caryn Canner Schwartz in the County Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, in June 1999. On June 28, 1999, following a week-long trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against Mitchell for her violation of Section 228.301, Florida Statutes. Mitchell does not dispute that the foregoing criminal and administrative proceedings were conducted, and that the charges against her in each case were sustained. Mitchell did not seek appellate relief with respect to either proceeding. Mitchell maintains here, as in both of the previous proceedings, that she did not intend to violate test security procedures. She claims that she innocently copied and distributed what she thought was an authorized practice test. Mitchell did not offer her innocent mistake defense to anyone until two months after her crime was revealed. Mitchell's claims of innocence are inconsistent with her conduct and demeanor when she was first confronted with the allegations against her, as well as the known facts and circumstances surrounding the HSCT security breach. In addition, Mitchell's testimony at final hearing in this proceeding with respect to her innocent mistake defense is unworthy of belief. Mitchell's demeanor while testifying was deceptive, and her testimony was inconsistent with the known facts and circumstances surrounding the HSCT security breach. At Mitchell's criminal sentencing, Judge Schwartz noted that the jury's guilty verdict was supported by evidence which was "overwhelming" and assessed a fine of $1,000, court costs, and ordered Mitchell to serve 90 days house arrest and six months probation. On February 10, 1999, the Miami-Dade County School Board initiated dismissal proceedings against Mitchell and, on December 28, 1999, Administrative Law Judge William J. Kendrick sustained the dismissal. In his Recommended Order, Judge Kendrick concluded, in pertinent part: Here, it should not be subject to debate that Respondent’s act of knowingly and willfully reproducing the mathematics portion of the 1997 HSCT and providing copies of that test to her fellow teachers constituted an act of immorality and misconduct in office; that such conduct was sufficiently notorious to bring Respondent into public disgrace or disrespect and impair her service in the community; and that such conduct was so serious as to impair her effectiveness in the school system. It should also not be subject to debate that, upon conviction of the crime for breach of test security, Respondent, as an educator, was also shown to have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. (P.4 at 10-11.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the teaching certificate of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 5th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa N. Pearson, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Coral Way Miami, Florida 33129 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Jerry W. Whittier, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(h), and 6B-4.009(2), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Ruffin holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 893557 for teaching mathematics. His certificate is valid through June 30, 2010. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Ruffin was employed as a mathematics teacher at Dixie Hollands High School (Dixie Hollands) in the Pinellas County School District. During 2003, T.C. was an eleventh-grade student at Dixie Hollands. Mr. Ruffin tutored T.C. in mathematics over the summer of 2002 to prepare her for the Florida Achievement Test (FCAT). During the following school year, Mr. Ruffin developed a mentoring relationship with T.C., and T.C. became Mr. Ruffin's teaching assistant. Mr. Ruffin provided his cellular telephone number to all of his students, including T.C., in case they needed to contact him. On or about May 3, 2003, Mr. Ruffin was in his classroom with two other students during lunchtime. T.C. entered the room to speak to Mr. Ruffin because she was upset and sought advice. The other two students eventually left, and T.C. and Mr. Ruffin were in the room alone. T.C. shut the door, which contained a window covered by paper. School policy required that the doors remain locked, but propped open. After she shut the door, T.C. sat at the teaching assistant's desk, but soon started to cry and sat on Mr. Ruffin's lap. Mr. Ruffin and T.C. then hugged, and Respondent patted T.C. on her back. Both T.C. and Mr. Ruffin maintain that no other touching occurred during this incident and that T.C. was not on Mr. Ruffin's lap for more than 30 seconds. During the time period when T.C. was in the classroom with Mr. Ruffin, other students were looking into the classroom through a hole in the paper on the window. The hole in the paper was small, which allowed only one student at a time to look into the classroom through the hole. Approximately seven to nine students observed T.C. and Mr. Ruffin. The school has video cameras in the hallways, which recorded the students looking into the classroom for a period of several minutes. While observing from the hallway, the students witnessed T.C. sitting on Mr. Ruffin's lap behind the desk for several minutes. One student claimed she saw Mr. Ruffin rubbing T.C.'s leg; however, the student's testimony was not distinctly remembered and it was not precise and explicit. The students also saw T.C. going through some pictures from Mr. Ruffin's wallet. Mr. Ruffin acknowledged at the final hearing, that T.C. came around to his desk, sat on his knees, put her arm around his neck, and initiated a hug. He patted her on her back. At the final hearing, T.C. also acknowledged that she sat on Mr. Ruffin's knee and that he hugged her. T.C. denied that there was any inappropriate touching by Mr. Ruffin. One student, P.H., observed the encounter through the window. P.H. confronted T.C. about the incident and told T.C. that she could have gotten into trouble. T.C. told Respondent about the confrontation with P.H. P.H. then reported the incident to the School Resource Officer, Deputy Todd Pierce. Following the reporting of the events, Michael Bessette of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards investigated the incident. When Mr. Bessette spoke with Mr. Ruffin, Mr. Ruffin claimed that he did not have any other contact with T.C. after the incident and did not know whether or not the other students had confronted T.C. about it. Mr. Bessette then reported the incident to the principal, and the school district began an investigation. After speaking with all of the witnesses, T.C., and Mr. Ruffin, the School Board concluded that Mr. Ruffin acted inappropriately when he allowed T.C. to sit on his lap. Respondent's proper course of conduct when T.C. sat on his lap would have been to stand up and politely push T.C. away from him. Following the investigation, Mr. Ruffin signed a Stipulation Agreement with the school district where he agreed to a transfer to another school, a suspension without pay for 20 days, a retention of his annual contract for an additional year, and the designation of an "at will employee" for the 2004- 2005 school year. By signing the agreement, Mr. Ruffin also conceded that he was aware that his actions violated the Code of Ethics and the Principals of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Mr. Ruffin was transferred to Lakewood High School, where he is currently employed as a teacher. Mr. Ruffin has not been the subject of any other disciplinary proceedings since the incident giving rise to these allegations, and is an effective teacher at Lakewood High School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Walter Ruffin violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a); suspending his teaching certificate for 30 days; and placing him on probation for three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 19th day of April, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a teacher and basketball coach, engaged in sexual misconduct, including lewd or lascivious molestation, with student athletes; if so, whether disciplinary action, up to and including permanent revocation, should be taken against his educator certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Javier Cuenca ("Cuenca") holds Florida Educator Certificate 958539, which covers the areas of educational leadership, mathematics, and physical education and is valid through June 30, 2022. During the time relevant to this case, Cuenca worked as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School District ("District"). For the 2011-2012 school year, Cuenca was employed by Mater Academy, a charter School in Hialeah Gardens, Florida, after which he took a yearlong leave of absence from the District to work for a private company as a tutor. Otherwise, Cuenca taught in traditional public schools. In addition to teaching, Cuenca served as a basketball coach at several schools, including Hialeah Gardens Middle School and Hialeah Gardens Senior High School. Cuenca continued coaching for these schools on a part-time basis even while on leave from his teaching position. Cuenca's employment with the District ended on November 7, 2013, simultaneously with the commencement of an investigation into allegations that he had engaged in sexual misconduct with male students on the basketball teams he coached. The facts giving rise to these allegations are relevant to some of the instant charges against Cuenca and will be addressed further below in this Recommended Order. Cuenca was arrested in 2014 and charged under three separate criminal informations with multiple felonies arising from allegations of lewd or lascivious child molestation. The alleged victims were Students D.N., D.F., and R.D., each of whom was a basketball player coached by Cuenca. Later, a fourth criminal information was filed, charging Cuenca with lewd or lascivious conduct against O.Q., another student athlete whom Cuenca had coached. On October 4, 2016, Cuenca accepted a deal under which he agreed to plead nolo contendere to the reduced charge of felony battery in the cases involving D.F. and O.Q., which would be consolidated in the process, in exchange for the dismissal of the cases involving D.N. and R.D. Accepting the plea that same day, the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami- Dade County, immediately entered a Finding of Guilt and Order of Withholding Adjudication/Special Conditions.2/ Cuenca was placed on probation for a period of two years. The upshot is that Cuenca has a criminal record comprising a pair of felony batteries committed, on separate occasions, against two student athletes. At the same time, however, Cuenca was not "found guilty" by a jury; was not adjudicated guilty by the court; and did not plead guilty to, or otherwise admit committing, these crimes. In short, strange as it might seem, Cuenca——who was sentenced and punished as a felon——is not a convicted felon. As we will see, moreover, although entering a plea of nolo contendere to a criminal charge is a disciplinable offense under current law, the statute in effect at the time Cuenca entered his plea did not authorize the Education Practices Commission ("EPC") to discipline a teacher for pleading no contest to a crime. If Cuenca has committed a disciplinable offense, it is because of his conduct leading to the criminal proceedings, not his criminal background per se. The evidence of underlying wrongdoing in this case concerns Cuenca's interactions with three players, O.Q., D.N., and D.F. The most serious allegations involve O.Q., a young man who, unlike D.N., D.F., and Cuenca himself, appeared at hearing to testify, rather than testifying via deposition as did the others. O.Q. testified credibly that, when he was between the ages of 15 and 16, his basketball coach, Cuenca, had "inappropriately touched" him on multiple occasions. O.Q. was unable to remember how many times. There was "one incident," however, which stands out in O.Q.'s mind as the "main incident" that will "stay with [him] for the rest of [his] life." O.Q. says that this incident is "constantly on the back of [his] mind," having left a "scar," which "haunts" him "[e]ven though it was years ago." For O.Q., it is "embarrassing even to mention or speak about" this incident. The incident happened at Cuenca's house, in "his room." According to O.Q., on this particular occasion, Cuenca grabbed and fondled O.Q.'s penis, for the purpose of masturbating O.Q., which he did.3/ The undersigned believes O.Q. and finds that this incident did, in fact, take place as O.Q. described it.4/ As a practical matter, this finding, alone, is dispositive because, obviously, a teacher found to have masturbated a 16-year-old student will be guilty of one or more disciplinable offenses sufficient to revoke his or her certificate. Here, the Commissioner has proved additional acts of misconduct involving D.N. and D.F., which should be addressed nonetheless, if for no other reason than to reinforce the inevitable outcome. Cuenca's modus operandi for exploiting his relationships with these players relied on his authority as a coach to pressure them into exposing themselves. He frequently asked them questions to determine whether they were sexually active, ostensibly to urge abstinence and warn against becoming involved in situations that might interfere with school work and athletics. To some extent, these conversations were unobjectionable. Coaches should not be discouraged from counseling student athletes about age-appropriate sexual behavior. Cuenca, however, overreached. Using the abstinence angle as a pretext, Cuenca pestered the players to show him their "virgin lines." There is, of course, no such thing as a "virgin line." Cuenca used this mumbo jumbo to trick his young players into believing that there is some sort of physical mark of virginity visible on the penis. Cuenca constantly demanded to see this "proof" of virginity to confirm that his players were not misbehaving. Another approach that Cuenca used was the offer of steroids, which athletes sometimes take illicitly to gain muscle mass and improve their performance. Cuenca told the boys that he needed to examine their genitals to ascertain their steroid readiness.5/ If they refused, Cuenca used the stick of retaliation, such as the threat of reduced playing time or expulsion from the team. Cuenca used these methods on D.N. and D.F. In February 2013, Cuenca succeeded in convincing D.N., then a junior in high school, to drop his shorts while the two were alone together in the weight room. Cuenca stared at D.N.'s penis and testicles, and declared that D.N. soon would be ready for steroids.6/ For D.F., the violation occurred in October 2012, when he was a 15-year-old freshman. Under the guise of inspecting D.F.'s "virgin line," and to gauge his readiness for steroids, Cuenca directed D.F. to sit on a table in an empty classroom for an examination. D.F. pulled down his pants, Cuenca took a look, and then he reached in to touch D.F.'s genitals. D.F. slapped Cuenca's hand, and Cuenca withdrew. In D.F.'s words, which the undersigned credits as truthful and telling, the incident left D.F. "in a dark place," "depressed," and "sad," and "nothing has been the same [for him] since" this happened. The Charges In the Amended Administrative Complaint against Cuenca, the Commissioner accused Cuenca of having committed six disciplinable offenses, namely those defined in subsections (1)(d), (1)(f), and (1)(g) of section 1012.795, Florida Statutes; and violations of subsections (2)(a)1., (2)(a)5., and (2)(a)8. of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081, which are part of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.7/ If proved by clear and convincing evidence, the alleged rule violations would be grounds for discipline under section 1012.795(1)(j). It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that Cuenca is guilty of gross immorality, which is an offense punishable under section 1012.795(1)(d); and that he exploited his relationships with O.Q., D.N., and D.F. for personal gain or advantage, namely sexual gratification, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)8., which is an offense punishable under section 1012.795(1)(j). It is further determined that Cuenca is not guilty of having been convicted or found guilty of, or of having pleaded guilty to, any criminal charge; such a criminal record, if established, would have constituted a disciplinable offense under section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2016). As for the remaining charges, to determine Cuenca's guilt or nonguilt would require the undersigned to explicate the meaning of statutory and rule provisions whose applicability to the facts at hand is not readily apparent. Because there are ample grounds for permanently revoking Cuenca's educator certificate without these additional legal conclusions, the undersigned makes no findings of ultimate fact regarding Cuenca's alleged violations of section 1012.795(1)(g) and rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 5. If the EPC determines that such findings are necessary, it may remand this case to the undersigned for the entry of a supplemental recommended order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Cuenca's educator certificate and deeming him forever ineligible to apply for a new certificate in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 26th day of November, 2019.
