The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent for 30 days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Henry E.S. Reeves Elementary School (“Henry Reeves”), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board as a teacher in 1982. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”). Julian Gibbs, the principal of Henry Reeves (“Principal Gibbs”), was authorized to issue directives to his employees, including Respondent. The 2011-2012 School Year After holding various teaching positions within the School Board, Respondent was assigned to Henry Reeves beginning with the 2011-2012 school year. On August 18, 2011, Respondent arrived late to work on her first day at Henry Reeves. Respondent was supposed to arrive at Henry Reeves at 8:20 a.m., for a pre-planning faculty meeting and to set-up her room, but she did not arrive until after 12:30 p.m., because she reported that morning to another school, Van E. Blanton Elementary School. On August 23, 2011, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Duty and Responsibilities memorandum concerning Respondent’s tardiness and informed Respondent that failure to report to work on time in the future would result in further disciplinary action.1/ Some time during the next few weeks, Principal Gibbs conducted an informal classroom walkthrough of Respondent’s class. At that time, Principal Gibbs observed that Respondent did not have any lesson plans, grades for students, or a “print- rich” classroom and outside bulletin board.2/ On September 16, 2011, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for failing to display current student work, update and have print-rich classroom and outside bulletin boards, timely grade and file student assignments, label data charts, and graph student assessment results. Respondent was advised to ensure she fulfilled these responsibilities by September 20, 2011. On January 4, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for failing to update outside bulletin boards and ensure her desk was organized and clutter free. The memorandum advised Respondent to ensure she fulfilled these responsibilities by January 6, 2012. The 2012-2013 School Year On October 17, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for allegedly not providing updated lesson plans for a substitute teacher when she was absent on October 8 and 12, 2012. However, the School Board did not prove at the hearing that Respondent failed to provide updated lesson plans for a substitute teacher when she was absent. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the October 17, 2012, memorandum he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the lack of updated lesson plans for the substitute teacher on October 8 and 12, 2012. No witness with personal knowledge of the lack of updated lesson plans for the substitute teacher testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum is hearsay. In any event, the October 17, 2012, memorandum directed Respondent to “read and review the Code of Ethics cited in The School Board of Miami-Dade County Bylaws and Policies, 4210.01 and Common Sense Suggestions and School Board Policy 1139, Responsibilities and Duties for Full-Time Personnel.” Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that failure to comply with her “professional responsibilities may be considered a violation of School Board and Administrative policies.” On November 29, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for arriving late to two meetings on November 13 and 29, 2012. Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that it is her “professional duty and responsibility to report to all scheduled meetings on time” and “to review all notifications in regards to scheduled meetings and events.” Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that failure to comply with her “professional responsibilities may be considered a violation of School Board and Administrative policies.” On December 12, 2012, Principal Gibbs placed Respondent on support dialogue following an observation he made of Respondent in her classroom. Support dialogue involves a “two-way conversation” between the principal and teacher to develop strategies so that the teacher may improve for the next evaluation. Respondent was upset that she was placed on support dialogue. During the support dialogue meeting between Principal Gibbs and Respondent, Respondent spoke to Principal Gibbs in a loud manner. Later that day during dismissal, Respondent again spoke to Principal Gibbs in a loud manner, but this time in front of other teachers. Because of Respondent’s loud tone of voice during and after the support dialogue meeting, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum advising her to “immediately refrain from exhibiting inappropriate behavior, and adhere to all school site and M-DCPS policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, 3210.01, and Code of Ethics.” Respondent was informed that “[a]ny recurrence of the above infraction may lead to further disciplinary actions.” On December 18, 2012, Principal Gibbs held a Conference For The Record (“CFR”) with Respondent, because she allegedly struck a student with a ruler. During the conference, Principal Gibbs provided Respondent with a copy of School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics, and “How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgment to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching.” Respondent was “advised of the high esteem in which M-DCPS employees are held and of the District’s concern for any behavior which adversely affects this level of professionalism.” Respondent was “reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students.” Respondent was informed that “[n]oncompliance with these directives will necessitate further review for the imposition of additional disciplinary measures and will be deemed as insubordination.”3/ During the December 18, 2012, conference, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a written letter of reprimand. The written reprimand directed Respondent to: 1) immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students; 2) adhere to all School Board policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Respondent was informed that “[a]ny recurrence of the above infraction may lead to further disciplinary actions.”4/ On January 16, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent “Absences and Tardies From Work Directives,” because Respondent was allegedly tardy and/or absent from work during the 2012-2013 school year on the following occasions: October 1, 2012: tardy one hour October 8, 2012: sick one day October 11, 2012: tardy 1 ½ hour October 12, 2012: personal one day October 25, 2012: sick one day December 4, 2012: personal one day December 6, 2012: sick one day December 12, 2012: sick one day December 19, 2012: personal .5 day January 9, 2013: sick one day January 10, 2013: sick one day January 15, 2013: sick one day However, the School Board failed to prove at the hearing that Respondent was tardy and/or absent from work as indicated in the directives and accompanying documentation. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the January 16, 2013, directives he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the tardiness and absences. No witness with personal knowledge of the tardiness and absences testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum and accompanying documentation are hearsay. In any event, Respondent was informed that “[n]on-compliance with the directives will be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination.”5/ On February 22, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Duty and Responsibility memorandum because she was allegedly six minutes late picking up her students from the cafeteria. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the February 22, 2013, memorandum he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the incident. No witness with personal knowledge of the incident testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum is hearsay. In any event, Respondent was informed in the memorandum that “[i]t is essential that all teachers pick up their classes on time, especially when other classes are entering the cafeteria.” On March 14, 2013, Principal Gibbs held a CFR with Respondent because she “grabbed” a student “by the arm” on some unspecified date and time when the student was attempting to obtain a set of headphones out of his backpack. Principal Gibbs witnessed this incident [while] conducting an observation of Respondent in her classroom. However, at the hearing, Principal Gibbs provided no further detail regarding the alleged incident other than indicating that Respondent “grabbed” the student “by the arm.” There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent caused the student any emotional or physical injury. The student did not testify.6/ In any event, the CFR directed Respondent to: 1) immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students; 2) adhere to all School Board policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. The 2013-2014 School Year The School Board alleged in paragraph 18 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 13, 2013, a parent reported that her child had been poked under the eye and Respondent failed to render first aid. When asked about the incident, Respondent was completely unaware that a student had been injured [while] under her supervision.”7/ The School Board failed to prove that a student was poked under the eye on September 13, 2013, while under Respondent’s supervision. The parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the alleged incident testified at the hearing. Respondent denied the allegations. In an effort to demonstrate that Respondent is guilty of the allegations, however, the School Board points to Principal Gibbs’s testimony that he “personally observed the lead mark under the child’s eye.” This observation by Principal Gibbs allegedly occurred at some point on September 13, 2013, after the school’s dismissal of students, and after “the parent” returned to the school with the child. The undersigned finds that Principal Gibbs’s testimony is unpersuasive. Even if Principal Gibbs observed a lead mark under a child’s eye at some time after the alleged incident occurred, that does not prove that the child was poked under the eye while under Respondent’s supervision. The child could have been poked under the eye at any time and anywhere. Principal Gibbs’s conclusion that a child was poked under the eye with a pencil while under Respondent’s supervision is based on speculation and hearsay of the parent and students. Nevertheless, on September 16, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” The School Board alleged in paragraph 19 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 17, 2013 Respondent informed Mr. Gibbs that she had scratched ‘L.G.’, her student.” The School Board failed to prove that Respondent scratched a student under her supervision as alleged in paragraph 19 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. No evidence was adduced at hearing in support of the School Board’s allegations in paragraph 19 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Moreover, the School Board failed to address this issue in its Proposed Recommended Order. The School Board alleged in paragraph 20 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 18, 2013, a parent reported that her child had been stabbed . . . three times with a pencil by another student. Respondent failed to render first aid and failed to notify the other student’s parents.” The School Board failed to prove that a student was stabbed with a pencil by another student while under Respondent’s supervision as alleged in paragraph 20 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Again, the parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the alleged incident testified at the hearing. In an effort to demonstrate that Respondent is guilty of the allegations, however, the School Board argues in its Proposed Recommended Order that: “[w]hen Respondent was asked about the incident, she indicated that she was on the other side of the room when it happened.” The School Board’s position, however, contradicts Principal Gibbs’s testimony at the hearing when he was asked: Q. Did you speak to Ms. Parris about this incident? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what did she say to you? A. She doesn’t recollect the child being poked by another child in the wrist with the pencil. She just had no memory. Transcript, pages 53-54. Nevertheless, on September 19, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” The School Board alleged in paragraph 21 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “Based on the witness statements, the following was gathered during the investigation: i. On September 24, 2013, under Respondent’s supervision, or lack thereof, four students were injured. [One] student, ‘A.J.’ was taken to the hospital by her mother hospital [sic] because of a facial contusion.” The School Board failed to prove that any students were injured while under Respondent’s supervision as alleged in paragraph 21 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Any witness statements are hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the incident testified at the hearing. The School Board argues in its Proposed Recommended Order that on September 25, 2013, a third incident occurred in Respondent’s classroom. Specifically, the School Board contends: “A parent approached administration concerned about the safety of her child. . . . The student had been kicked in the face causing her face to swell.” Notably, this alleged incident is not referred to in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. The notice was, therefore, insufficient to inform Respondent of the School Board’s contention. Even if Respondent was on notice of the allegations, however, the School Board failed to prove that a student was kicked in the face while under Respondent’s supervision. The parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the incident testified at the hearing. Respondent denied the allegations. Notably, Principal Gibbs testified that when asked about the incident, Respondent “said that she doesn’t recall a child being kicked in the face, but allegedly she was pushed by another child in the class, but she doesn’t recall the child being kicked in the face.” The undersigned finds that Principal Gibbs’s testimony is not credible and is unpersuasive. The purported statement contradicts what Principal Gibbs wrote in the September 26, 2013, Professional Responsibilities memorandum. At that time, Principal Gibbs wrote that when Respondent was “asked what happened. [She] stated I have nothing to say.” Nevertheless, on September 26, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” On September 25, 2013, Principal Gibbs met with Respondent in his office to discuss her classroom supervision. The meeting was held behind Principal Gibbs’s closed door. During the meeting, Respondent felt as if Principal Gibbs was speaking to her in an arrogant manner. Respondent became upset at Principal Gibbs, spoke to him in a loud manner, and, at one point, hit his desk with one of her hands and stated: “No, I’m not going to allow you to speak to me like that, because I’m 61 years old and I’m old enough to be your mother.” At no time during the meeting did Respondent threaten or intimidate Principal Gibbs in any way. Approximately one week later, Principal Gibbs and Respondent met in his office to discuss some student discipline referrals. During this meeting, Respondent became upset at Principal Gibbs and spoke to him in a loud manner. At no time during this meeting did Respondent threaten or intimidate Principal Gibbs in any way.8/ In sum, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s loud voice and conduct in her meetings and conversations with Principal Gibbs constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. Although Respondent may have used a loud voice during the meetings and conversations, and staff members may have overheard Respondent’s loud voice, given the context in which these meetings and conversations occurred (they were meetings and conversations between a principal and teacher--not a classroom situation involving students), the School Board failed to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct which rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. As to the alleged incident on March 14, 2013, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent engaged in conduct which rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. As to each of the alleged incidents in September 2013, involving allegations of students getting injured while under Respondent’s supervision, the evidence at hearing failed to show that students were injured while under Respondent’s supervision. Accordingly, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or that she violated applicable School Board policies with regard to these alleged incidents. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s failure to have any lesson plans, grades for students, or a “print-rich” classroom and outside bulletin board, constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent did not have lesson plans available for a substitute teacher on October 8 and 12, 2012. Thus, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or that she violated applicable School Board policies with regard to these allegations. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent “significantly arrived late” to important faculty meetings. The evidence presented at hearing merely showed that Respondent was late to a pre-planning faculty meeting on her first day at Henry Reeves on August 18, 2011, because she went to the wrong school. The significance of this faculty meeting was not established at the hearing. During the next school year, she was late to two other meetings in November 2012. It is unclear from the record that these two other meetings in November 2012, were, in fact, faculty meetings. Be that as it may, the fact that Respondent was late to three meetings from August 2011 to September 2013-- one of which was on the first day of school when she went to the wrong school--is insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent engaged in conduct which constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetence due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent was tardy and absent from work to the extent alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Even if she was tardy and absent as alleged, however, the tardiness and absences do not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetence due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent engaged in any conduct alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges which constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of School Board policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order rescinding the 30-day suspension with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 August, 2014.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Kenneth Ingber has been employed by Petitioner and assigned under a continuing contract to West Little River Elementary School. During Respondent's 23 years of employment by Petitioner, he resigned/retired twice. He was rehired by Petitioner after each resignation, the last rehiring taking place for the 1985/86 school year. His then-principal, Glenda Harris, hired him with the knowledge that he was an admitted recovering alcoholic. He told her that he was under control. She told him that she would give him a chance but that he would have to meet the expectations that all teachers have to meet. From the 1985/86 school year through the 1990/91 school year, Harris rated Respondent acceptable on his annual evaluations; however, during the 1989/90 school year, Respondent had an attendance problem when he began drinking again. Harris tried to get Respondent to obtain help, but he felt he could do it on his own. He deteriorated during that year but improved during the 1990/91 school year. During the time that Harris supervised Respondent, she had a problem with his not having lesson plans. He felt that he did not need them. For the 1991/92 school year, Respondent came under the supervision of Principal Lillian Coplin. Coplin was never advised of Respondent's alcoholism. On January 29, 1992, Respondent left school early without permission. He also failed to attend a Global Awareness Workshop scheduled for that day. Coplin discussed these failures with him on January 30, 1992. On January 31, 1992, Respondent arrived at work late and left early. The official working hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 3:20 p.m., but Respondent only worked from 9:47 a.m. to 2:50 p.m. On February 7, 1992, Coplin directed Respondent to observe the working hours set by the collective bargaining agreement between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (Labor Contract). On February 27 and March 2, 1992, Respondent failed to have lesson plans. On February 27, 1992, Assistant Principal Edith Norniella observed Respondent smoking outside of his classroom, but within view of his students. Prior to that date, Norniella had observed him smoking on school grounds on August 30, 1991, November 14, 1991 and February 18, 1992. On each of these occasions, she told him not to smoke on school grounds. Coplin had also told him several times not to smoke on school grounds. On March 3, 1992, Coplin directed Respondent to adhere to Petitioner's non-smoking rule. Norniella saw him smoking on school grounds at least two more times after that. On March 3, 1992, Coplin also directed Respondent to develop lesson plans according to the Labor Contract. On March 27, 1992, all teachers were given a site directive to turn in parent logs, gradebooks, and daily schedules before leaving for spring-break on April 3, 1992. On April 3, 1992, Respondent reported to work at 9:25 a.m. in spite of the directive given on February 7, 1992. On that same date, Respondent also failed to comply with the directive to turn in parent logs, gradebooks, and daily schedules. Moreover, by April 22, 1992, he still had not complied with that directive. On April 22, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to discuss his attendance problems and other failures to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and administrative directives. During the conference, he stated that he lost the gradebook but that the principal would not like it anyway. He also admitted that he did not maintain a parent log. Respondent was warned that any further violation of directives would be considered gross insubordination. He was also issued a written reprimand and directed to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and site directives. He was advised of the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP), a program which offers assistance to employees in overcoming personal problems that may be affecting their work. Respondent declined the assistance and treated the matter as a joke by posting the EAP referral on his classroom door. On May 27, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Norniella, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. He did not have lesson plans, student work folders with tests, or a gradebook. It was impossible to assess his students' progress. Respondent was given a prescription to help him correct his deficiencies. Prescriptions are activities which the employee is directed to complete. He was directed to write detailed lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella weekly. He was to prepare two teacher-made tests and submit those to Norniella for review. He was also to complete some activities concerning assessment techniques from the TADS prescription manual. His prescription deadline was June 16, 1992. On June 2, 1992, Respondent was wearing a "pocket-knife" on his belt. Both Coplin and Norniella considered the pocket-knife to be a weapon in violation of the School Board rule because, although Respondent did not physically threaten anyone with the knife, the wearing of such a knife was intimidating to students and to Coplin. The matter had come to Coplin's attention through a complaint from the parent of a student. In addition, both administrators believed that wearing a knife set a bad example for the students and did not reflect credit upon Respondent and the school system. On June 3, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held to address the knife incident. Respondent was issued a written reprimand and directed to cease and desist from bringing the pocket-knife to school. He was further advised that any re-occurrence of that infraction would result in additional disciplinary action. On June 5, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held to address Respondent's performance and his future employment status. During the conference, he admitted to not having had a written lesson plan during the May 27 observation. He was told of the Labor Contract provision which requires weekly lesson plans reflecting objectives, activities, homework, and a way of monitoring students' progress. He was also warned that if he did not complete the prescription from that observation, he would be placed on prescription for professional responsibilities and given an unacceptable annual evaluation. On June 19, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent. He had failed to correct his deficiencies and had failed to complete his prescription. Moreover, he still had not turned in his gradebook, parent log, and daily schedule, as directed on March 3, 1992. He was given an unacceptable annual evaluation because of his deficiencies in professional responsibility. Respondent verbally disagreed with that decision stating that the unacceptable evaluation was for simple paper-pushing requirements. The prescription for professional responsibilities required Respondent to review from the faculty handbook School Board policy on grading criteria, to submit his gradebook on a weekly basis to Coplin, to maintain a gradebook and a log of parent conferences, to maintain daily attendance, to submit student assessment records to Coplin for review prior to submission of the nine-week grade report, and to complete the prescription from the May 27 observation by September 15, 1992. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1991/92 school year was overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in the category of professional responsibility. On September 20, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent because he was still wearing a "pocket-knife" in spite of the prior directive. He was directed not to wear the knife or the knife case. Respondent stated that he would not do as directed. On October 9, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Coplin and was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. He did not have a lesson plan, student work folders, tests, or a gradebook. It would not be possible to evaluate the students' strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, if an administrator were called upon to explain to a parent why a student got a particular grade, the administrator would not have been able to do so. Respondent was prescribed activities to help him correct his deficiencies. He was directed to write detailed lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella weekly. He was directed to complete specific activities in the TADS prescription manual dealing with lesson planning and assessment techniques and to prepare two teacher-made tests and to submit all to Coplin for review. The prescription was to be completed by October 30, 1992. By November 13, 1992, Respondent was exhibiting a pattern of excessive and unauthorized absences. The absences were unauthorized because he failed to call the school prior to his absences as required by directives contained in the faculty handbook. He was advised that his absences were adversely impacting the continuity of instruction for his students and the work environment. He was given directives to report his absences directly to the principal, document absences upon return to the worksite, and provide lesson plans and materials for use by the substitute teacher when he was absent. On November 13, 1992, it was noted that Respondent had not met the prescription deadline of October 30, 1992. Coplin gave Respondent a new prescription deadline of November 30, 1992. In addition, she made a supervisory referral to the EAP because of Respondent's excessive absences, unauthorized disappearance from work, poor judgment, and failures to carry out assignments. By the end of November, 1992, Respondent had accumulated 21 absences. While he was absent, there were no gradebook, lesson plans or student folders for the substitute teacher. The substitute teacher was told to create a gradebook, lesson plans, and student work folders. All was in order when Respondent returned to work. On December 11, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Norniella and was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, in techniques of instruction, and in assessment techniques. Because his techniques of instruction were also rated unacceptable, Respondent recognized for the first time that his teaching performance was being criticized. He had dismissed the prior criticisms as simply problems with creating a "paper-work trail". Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because he did not have a lesson plan. Norniella gave him a chance to turn in the lesson plans the following Monday, but he failed to do so. Respondent was unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he used the same materials and methods for all students regardless of their individual needs. Respondent failed to establish background knowledge before beginning the lesson. The sequence of the lesson was confusing to Norniella. Respondent covered three different subjects (vocabulary, science, and math), all within a period set aside for language arts. Respondent was given a prescription to help correct his deficiencies. He was directed to write lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella on Fridays. He was to observe a reading/language arts lesson by another sixth- grade teacher. He was directed to maintain at least two grades per week in each subject for each student. He was also directed to complete specific activities in the TADS prescription manual relating to preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. He was directed to complete the prescription by January 15, 1993. He failed to complete any of the prescription activities. On January 4, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his performance and future employment. His absences and reporting procedures were also discussed as was his failure to comply with his prescription and prior directives. During the conference, Respondent was rude, agitated, and disrespectful. He yelled at the principal. His behavior did not reflect credit upon himself and the school system. He treated the conference as a joke. As of January 20, 1993, Respondent still had no gradebook. On January 25, 1993, he was notified that upon his return to the school site, there would be a conference-for-the-record to deal with his noncompliance with the directives to maintain a gradebook and to complete his prescription activities. A conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on March 3, 1993. It was noted that because of his absences, he had failed to meet the prescription deadline on January 15, 1993. Coplin gave him a new deadline of March 11, 1993. Respondent failed to meet the March 11, 1993, prescription deadline. Moreover, he still had not completed his prior prescription for professional responsibility. Because of these failures, Coplin extended the 1992 professional responsibility prescription through June 1993. On March 26, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Coplin and was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. While Respondent had some lesson plans, he did not have one for each subject taught during the day. The student folders contained no tests. Respondent was prescribed activities to help him correct his deficiencies. He was directed to develop weekly lesson plans and to submit them on Wednesdays for the principal to review. He was also to complete an assessment techniques activity from the TADS prescription manual and was to submit the activity to Coplin for review. His prescription was to be completed by April 23, 1993. On April 1, 1993, Respondent was placed on prescription for professional responsibilities for failure to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and school site policies and directives concerning lesson plans, student assessment, record keeping, and maintaining a gradebook. He was directed to develop weekly lesson plans for each subject taught and to submit those to the principal for review. He was directed to read Article X of the Labor Contract and to submit a summary to the principal for review. He was directed to review the section of the faculty handbook concerning maintaining a gradebook. He was directed to maintain an updated gradebook with at least two grades per week per subject and to label the grades. He was directed to maintain a parental conference log in the gradebook. He was directed to submit his gradebook to the principal for weekly review. On May 12, 1993, Coplin advised Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) that Respondent had failed to comply with the directive of November 13, 1992, concerning procedures for reporting absences. He had been absent on April 13, 16, 23, 27, and May 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11, 1993, without calling the principal in advance. Respondent claims that he called the school secretary at her home before 7:00 a.m. every time he was absent, except for one time. Although the secretary told him he would have to speak directly to the principal, he chose not to call the school when Coplin was there. Calling the secretary does not absolve him from his responsibility to comply with the principal's directive to speak to her personally. On May 19, 1993, Respondent was sent a letter directing him to schedule a conference at OPS. Respondent did not do so. On that same day, Coplin was advised by EAP that EAP was closing Respondent's case due to his noncompliance with the program. Respondent was absent without authorized leave from April 23 - June 17, 1993. Moreover, he had 106 absences for the school year. Nine of these were paid sick leave, and 97 were leave without pay. The school year has 180 student contact days. Because of Respondent's absences and failure to follow leave procedures, Coplin was not able to secure a permanent substitute teacher. Respondent's students were subjected to frequent changes in substitute teachers and a lack of continuity in their education. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1992/93 school year was overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Because of Respondent's absences, the usual conference-for-the-record could not be conducted, and Respondent's annual evaluation was sent to him by mail. Respondent failed to complete all prescriptions given him by Coplin and by Norniella. By letter dated June 15, 1992, OPS notified Respondent that he was willfully absent from duty without leave. He was given an opportunity to provide a written response and was advised that failure to do so would result in the termination of his employment. On July 6, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was conducted by Dr. Joyce Annunziata at OPS. The conference was held to discuss the pending dismissal action to be taken by Petitioner at its meeting of July 7, 1993. During the meeting, Respondent was extremely disoriented, turned his back on Annunziata, did not take the meeting seriously, made irrelevant comments, carried a stuffed purple animal which he talked to and through, and had watery, bloodshot eyes. He also wore his "pocket-knife" to the conference. Petitioner suspended Respondent and took action to initiate dismissal proceedings against him on July 7, 1993.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 12th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-3963 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3-27, and 29-56 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 28 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 and 7-9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 14-16 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10-13 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: William DuFresne, Esquire Du Fresne & Bradley 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 The Honorable Doug Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes,2 for Petitioner to suspend Respondent from his employment as a teacher for ten days without pay in Case No. 19-3380; and (2) whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, for Petitioner to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher in Case No. 19-3381.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the entity charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all district public schools in Broward County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.33. Respondent is employed by the District as a mathematics teacher at Miramar High School ("MHS") pursuant to a professional services contract issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). He holds a professional educator's certificate in mathematics for 6th through 12th grades. Respondent was employed by the District in 2007, and has been a teacher at MHS since the 2007-2008 school year, with the exception of most of the 2015-2016 school year, during which he was administratively reassigned with pay pending the outcome of a personnel investigation. He returned to teaching at MHS for the 2016-2017 school year, and was a teacher at MHS during the 2018-2019 school year, when the conduct giving rise to these proceedings is alleged to have occurred. The Administrative Complaints February Administrative Complaint The February Administrative Complaint, which gives rise to Case No. 19-3380, alleges that during the 2017-2018 school year and the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent engaged in conduct that violated specified statutes, DOE rules, and School Board policies. Pursuant to the February Administrative Complaint, Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent from his employment as a teacher for ten days without pay. Specifically, the February Administrative Complaint alleges that after previously having been disciplined for making racially insensitive and inappropriate comments to students, Respondent continued to use embarrassing or disparaging language toward students. As a result, a cease and desist letter was issued to Respondent on or about March 23, 2017, directing him to cease engaging in such conduct. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent continued to use racially insensitive, embarrassing, and disparaging language toward students—specifically, that he referred to an African-American male student as "boy." The February Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent threatened to remove students who talked from his class; graded students based on their behavior, rather than their work product; and failed to grade student work in a timely manner. As a result of this alleged conduct, Respondent received a meeting summary memorandum on or about December 7, 2017. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent still failed to contact the parents of students who were failing and engaged in unfair grading practices, resulting in issuance of another meeting summary memorandum to him on or about April 27, 2018. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that in the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, during a Code Red Drill, Respondent is alleged to have engaged in racially insensitive conduct by disparately disciplining African-American students for engaging in the same type of conduct in which white and Hispanic students engaged, without any disciplinary consequences. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that during the Code Red Drill, Respondent was so disengaged from his students that he did not know one of his student's name and, consequently, wrote a disciplinary referral for the wrong student. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in conduct demeaning to students. Specifically, it is alleged that Respondent did not respond to student questions regarding how to do problems; embarrassed a student by saying he did not understand fifth grade math; and wrote "1 + 1" on the board to mock students in his class. He also allegedly reduced a student's class participation grade for talking. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent spoke to a "black girl who is Jamaican in Creole because he assumes she is Haitian." The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent embarrassed and degraded a student by saying he did not understand the classwork "because it's not fifth grade math." The February Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent demeaned students by saying "'slick stuff,' such as 'math is simple and we are used to [second] or [fifth] grade math.'" The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent lowered the grade of a student for talking, and told her that she and several other students were "on his 'watch list'" of students who would have their grades lowered for talking. The February Administrative Complaint further alleges that when that student asked about Respondent's grading practices, he responded "you ask too much questions," causing the whole class to laugh. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about October 10, 2018, during the administration of the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test ("PSAT"), Respondent did not follow proper testing protocol. Specifically, it is alleged that Respondent did not pick up the testing materials on time, started the test late, and did not read all of the directions to the students. It is also alleged that he did not collect book bags and cell phones and place them at the front of the room, and that a cell phone rang during the test. Additionally, he is alleged to have allowed students to talk loudly during the test. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent took points off of a student's grade for talking. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent refused to allow students who had missed class due to a band trip to make up their class work. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent made demeaning comments about students' writing; used the word "horrible" to describe their work, which made them feel "dumb or stupid"; was "disrespectful and sarcastic"; and deducted students' class participation points for talking or asking for a pencil or paper. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent talked to students in a demeaning manner about being "slow" and told students he thought the Chinese were smarter than Americans. May Administrative Complaint The May Administrative Complaint, which gives rise to Case No. 19-3381, alleges that in the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent continued to engage in conduct that violated specified statutes, DOE rules, and School Board policies. Specifically, the May Administrative Complaint alleges that in February 2019, Respondent threatened to put tape over students' mouths for talking; disparaged students through racially insensitive treatment and comments; and made insulting and offensive comments to students regarding their mental health and ethnicity. The May Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent wrote a "red list" of students' names on the board who were disruptive or talking and continued to engage in inappropriate grading practices, such as lowering students' grades as a means of discipline for behavior issues. The May Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent continued his practices of not contacting parents of failing students; not writing referrals to deal with disciplinary matters; and failing to create a discipline plan for dealing with behavior issues in his classroom, as directed. In addition, the May Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent claimed that during the past four years, Respondent's students were manipulated by an assistant principal, Ms. Hoff, to write false statements against him, notwithstanding that Hoff had not been employed at MHS for the previous two years. Pursuant to the May Administrative Complaint, Petitioner seeks to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher. Stipulated Facts Regarding Disciplinary Corrective Action History The parties stipulated to the following facts regarding Respondent's history of disciplinary corrective actions while employed as a teacher with the District.8 On or about February 13, 2013, Respondent received a verbal reprimand for failing to meet the performance standards required of his 8 Petitioner's Corrective Action Policy, Policy 4.9, section I(b), states: The types of corrective action may include, but are not limited to the following employment actions: verbal reprimands, written reprimands, suspension without pay, demotion, or termination of employment. There are other types of actions to encourage and support the improvement of employee performance, conduct or attendance that are not considered disciplinary in nature. These actions may include, but are not limited to: coaching, counseling, meeting summaries, and additional training. Policy 4.9, Corrective Action. Respondent cannot be subjected to discipline in these proceedings for previous violations of statutes, rules, or policies for which he has already been disciplined. See Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Case No. 11-4156 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 19, 2011; Fla. DBPR Oct. 2, 2012)(multiple administrative punishments cannot be imposed for a particular incident of misconduct). However, under Policy 4.9, section III, the history of disciplinary corrective actions is relevant to determining the appropriate penalty, if any, to be imposed in these proceedings, and history of disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions is relevant to determining whether Respondent subsequently engaged in conduct constituting gross insubordination, as charged in these proceedings. position, by failing to follow School Board policy and procedures and engaging in unprofessional conduct. On or about May 30, 2013, Respondent received a written reprimand for not following proper procedures, and being insubordinate by failing to follow such procedures after numerous directives. Specifically, he failed to contact the parents of students who had been habitually truant or were failing his class; arrived late to work several times; lied about parking in the student parking lot; and left students unsupervised on multiple occasions. On November 8, 2016, Respondent received a verbal reprimand for not providing accommodations to his exceptional student education ("ESE") students; not taking attendance; not grading students’ work or grading students’ work inaccurately; and failing to provide feedback to students. On February 7, 2017, Respondent received a five-day suspension for making racially insensitive and inappropriate comments to students. This five-day suspension resulted from a personnel investigation by the District police department into allegations that Respondent made racist and racially insensitive remarks to students. The request for the investigation was made on or about October 16, 2015. Respondent was administratively reassigned out of the classroom on November 6, 2015, and was not released from administrative reassignment until August 15, 2016. Respondent originally challenged the five-day suspension in Case No. 17-1179TTS, but later withdrew his challenge, and the case was closed on May 19, 2017. The Commissioner of Education ("COE") also filed an administrative complaint with the Education Practices Commission, based on Respondent making racially, ethnically, and/or socioeconomically-driven disparaging comments toward students. Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with the COE under which he received a written reprimand; was fined and placed on probation for one year; and was assessed costs for monitoring his probation. The written reprimand was placed in his District personnel file. On or about October 27, 2017, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District's professional standards committee for unfair grading practices; making embarrassing remarks to students; failing to provide feedback to students; grading inaccuracies; refusing to accept work; grading student behavior rather than student work product; failing to contact parents; failing to follow a discipline plan; failing to grade student work in a timely manner; entering incorrect grades; failing to provide ESE accommodations to students entitled to receive such accommodations; and making disparaging remarks about colleagues. This letter of reprimand resulted from a personnel investigation conducted by the District police department regarding numerous allegations against Respondent. These allegations included, but were not limited to, unfair grading practices; making embarrassing remarks to students; failing to provide feedback to students; lowering grades based on behavior; failing to contact parents; grading and attendance inaccuracies; providing fake lesson plans to his assistant principal; and making remarks to a student that a fellow math teacher did not know what she was doing. The request for the investigation was made on or about November 21, 2016. Respondent did not challenge the letter of reprimand. Stipulated Facts Regarding Non-Disciplinary Corrective Action History The parties stipulated to the following facts regarding Respondent's history of non-disciplinary corrective actions while he was employed as a teacher with the District. On or about July 16, 2011, Respondent received a concerns and expectations memorandum for failing to follow and adhere to School Board and school policies, procedures, and regulations; failing to maintain accurate student records and follow the District grading system; and not fulfilling his responsibility as a professional educator in a timely manner, with integrity. On or about October 20, 2011, Respondent received another concerns and expectations memorandum for failing to follow and adhere to School Board and school policies, procedures and regulations; failing to maintain accurate student records and follow the District grading system; and not fulfilling his responsibility as a professional educator in a timely manner, with integrity. On or about October 31, 2012, Respondent received another concerns and expectations memorandum for failing to follow the District’s grading system. On or about January 7, 2013, Respondent received another concerns and expectations memorandum for failing to follow and adhere to School Board and school policies, procedures and regulations; failing to maintain accurate student records of students and failing to follow the District grading system; and not fulfilling his responsibility as a professional educator in a timely manner, with integrity. On January 23, 2015, Respondent received a meeting summary regarding grading criteria; students not learning in, and failing, his class; and making students feel disparaged or embarrassed. He was directed to ensure that students understand his grading criteria for classwork and homework; use strategies to help students with new knowledge; use strategies to help students practice and deepen the new knowledge in all lessons and activities; and not intentionally expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. On October 14, 2016, Respondent received a summary memorandum for his use of embarrassing language towards students; failure to contact parents or write referrals for behavior issues; and concerns about his failure to provide daily remediation. Respondent was advised that he was expected to create and maintain a positive and pleasant learning environment in the classroom; use effective instructional strategies and feedback techniques that do not embarrass students; create and follow a discipline plan for his classroom; contact parents when students are failing; write referrals for referable acts; and remediate and teach students daily. Respondent was informed that his failure to correct these issues may result in disciplinary action. On or about March 23, 2017, Respondent was issued a cease and desist letter for his continued use of embarrassing and disparaging language toward students. On or about December 7, 2017, Respondent received a meeting summary for his use of embarrassing and condescending language towards the students, by referring to an African-American male student as "boy"; threatening to remove students from his class if they misbehaved during a formal observation; grading students on their behavior rather than their work product; and failing to grade student work in a timely manner. He was directed to refrain from using condescending language that makes students feel inferior in math; learn his students’ names and refer to them by name; create and follow a discipline plan for his classroom without removing students unless they have completely disrupted the teaching and learning process in the classroom; enter grades in a timely manner and refrain from deducting participation points from students' grades for talking; and contact parents and write referrals for student misbehavior. On or about April 27, 2018, Respondent received a meeting summary memorandum for failing to contact parents of students who had D's or F's in his classes, and for keeping inaccurate grades. Findings of Fact Based on Evidence Adduced at Final Hearing Based on the preponderance of the competent substantial evidence; the following Findings of Fact are made regarding the conduct charged in the February Administrative Complaint and the May Administrative Complaint. February Administrative Complaint The February Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having engaged in conduct during the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year that is alleged to violate statutes, DOE rules, and School Board policies. By way of background, Tevin Fuller and Julian Cardenty were students in Respondent's financial algebra class in the 2017-2018 school year. Both credibly testified that during a class in the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent called Fuller, who is African-American, "boy" and "bad boy." Both Fuller and Cardenty were offended by Respondent's use of the word "boy" in referring to Fuller, and considered it a racially demeaning remark. They reported Respondent's conduct to Assistant Principal J.P. Murray. Fuller credibly testified that as a result of Respondent's disrespectful conduct toward him, he avoided attending Respondent's class. As discussed above, in December 2017, as a result, Respondent previously had been issued a summary memorandum—a non-disciplinary corrective action—which instructed him to, among other things, cease using racially demeaning terms toward African-American students, and cease using condescending language that made students feel inferior regarding their mathematical ability. The credible, consistent evidence establishes that during the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent continued to make racially insensitive and demeaning comments, and engage in conduct directed toward students in his classes that they found embarrassing and offensive. Specifically, several students testified, credibly, that on one occasion during the 2018-2019 school year, after Respondent gave an unannounced quiz to his financial algebra class, he stated that he would not grade the quiz papers because he could "see the F's on their foreheads," or words to that effect. The credible evidence establishes that the students considered this remark as demeaning to their ability and intelligence, and they were offended. This testimony corroborated several written statements, admitted into evidence, which were provided by students at or about the time this incident took place. Two students, Malik Cooper and Nyesha Dixon, credibly testified that they witnessed Respondent belittle and mock a student, Jordan Lee, when he asked for assistance on a class assignment in Respondent's financial algebra class. Specifically, they saw and heard Respondent comment to Lee that he (Lee) did not understand the lesson because he could "only understand fifth grade math," or words to that effect. Dixon and Cooper both credibly testified that the whole class laughed at Respondent's comment to Lee. Dixon testified, credibly, that Lee appeared shocked and embarrassed by Respondent's comment. Although Petitioner did not present Lee's testimony at the final hearing, Lee provided a written statement that was admitted into evidence, describing this incident. An email from Lee's mother to Murray regarding this incident corroborates Dixon's and Cooper's testimony and Lee's reaction to Respondent's insulting comment to him. Two students, Breanna Dwyer and Malik Cooper, credibly testified that on one occasion, Respondent told his students that the Chinese were smarter and learned faster than Americans, a comment that the students interpreted as belittling their intelligence. Two students, Dorcas Alao and Nyesha Dixon, testified, credibly, to the effect that Respondent singled out Haitian students and made remarks to them, which those students found offensive. Specifically, they testified that Respondent would attempt to speak to Haitian students in Creole, that the students told him they found his behavior offensive, and that Respondent would "just laugh." Several students credibly testified, in more general terms, that Respondent frequently spoke down to them, treated them in a condescending manner, made rude remarks to them, and was disrespectful toward them, and that his conduct and remarks were insulting and made them feel as if they were ignorant and unintelligent. Additionally, one student, Whitney Malcolm, testified, credibly, that in response to her asking a question about a syntax error on a calculator, Respondent yelled at her loudly enough for the entire class to hear. Malcolm testified, credibly, that she was embarrassed by the incident. The credible evidence establishes that Respondent continued to lower students' academic course grades as a means of addressing behavioral issues, notwithstanding that he had been issued a meeting summary on April 27, 2018, directing him not to do so. Specifically, several students testified, credibly, that Respondent kept a "watch list" of students for whom he deducted points off their academic course grade for behavioral issues, such as talking in class. Murray credibly testified, and the MHS Faculty Handbook for the 2018-2019 school year expressly states, that student misbehavior cannot be reflected in the academic course grade, and, instead, is to be addressed in the conduct grade. Murray testified that he counseled Respondent numerous times on this issue and directed him to cease deducting points from students' academic course grades for behavior issues. The evidence regarding Respondent's history of disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions bears out that he repeatedly has been directed not to lower students' academic course grades as a means of dealing with classroom behavioral issues. The competent substantial evidence also establishes that Respondent did not follow proper testing protocol when administering the PSAT to his homeroom students on October 10, 2018. Specifically, notwithstanding that all teachers, including Respondent, who were administering the PSAT had been given training and provided written instructions regarding picking up the exams, reading the instructions to the students, and administering the exams, Respondent did not timely pick up the exams on the day it was administered. The exams for his homeroom students had to be delivered to the room in which he was to administer the exam, and as a consequence, he was late starting the exam administration. The credible evidence establishes that Respondent instructed the students to turn off their cell phones, place them in their book bags, and put their book bags away. However, he did not collect students' book bags or require students to place their book bags at the front of the room, as expressly required by the exam proctor reminders document and the PSAT/NMBQT Coordinator Manual, both of which previously had been provided to the teachers, including Respondent, who were administering the PSAT. As a result of Respondent's failure to follow exam protocol, the students kept their book bags next to, or under, their desks, in violation of that protocol. A cell phone rang during one of the testing sessions. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent had instructed students to silence their cell phones and put them away; thus, the cell phone ringing during a testing session was the result of a student failing to follow instructions, rather than Respondent failing to provide such instructions. Two teachers, Tamekia Thompson and Richard Cohen, went to Respondent's classroom at different times on the day the PSAT was administered, to tell the students in his classroom to be quiet. Amaya Mason, a student in Respondent's homeroom class who took the PSAT that day, complained in a written statement, and subsequently testified, that students were talking during the testing sessions, while the students were in the process of taking the exam. Other students who took the PSAT in Respondent's homeroom class that day testified that students did not talk during the testing sessions, but that they did talk loudly during breaks between the testing sessions. Thus, the evidence does not definitively establish that students were talking during the testing sessions themselves. As a result of these testing protocol irregularities, Alicia Carl, the Student Assessment Specialist at MHS, contacted the College Board regarding the testing conditions in Respondent's classroom. Ultimately, the students' exam scores were not invalidated. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent refused to allow two students, Dejah Jeancharles and Asia Parker, to make up classwork they had missed, notwithstanding that they had excused absences due to a band trip. However, the credible evidence established that Respondent ultimately did allow the students to make up the missed work. The February Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with disciplining African-American students during a Code Red Drill conducted on or about September 6, 2018, while not subjecting white and Hispanic students to discipline for engaging in the same conduct during the Code Red Drill. The students' testimony regarding whether Respondent engaged in this conduct was conflicting, and the greater weight of the competent, credible evidence fails to establish that Respondent engaged in this behavior. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about April 27, 2018, Respondent was issued a meeting summary for failing to contact parents of failing students and engaging in unfair grading practices. Murray testified, and Petitioner presented excerpts of Respondent's grade book showing, that as of March 6, 2018, approximately 75 percent of Respondent's students were earning either D's or F's in Respondent's classes. Murray testified that MHS has a policy, stated in the 2018-2019 Faculty Handbook, that teachers "shouldn't have that many D's or F's."9 Murray testified, and Petitioner presented evidence consisting of an email from Murray to MHS Human Relations Specialist Nicole Voliton, stating that he (Murray) had spoken to parents, who told him that Respondent had not contacted them regarding their children's failing grades. Murray also testified that Respondent acknowledged to him that he had not 9 However, the February Administrative Complaint does not specifically charge Respondent with conduct related to the amount of D's and F's his students earned. Additionally, as discussed below, the Faculty Handbook policy does not establish a mandatory compliance standard regarding the amount of D's and F's given students on which disciplinary action can be based. contacted the parents of all students who were failing his courses. Murray's email and his testimony regarding parents' statements made to him constitute hearsay evidence that has not been shown to fall within an exception to the hearsay rule in section 90.802, Florida Statutes, and is not substantiated by any competent substantial evidence in the record; accordingly, the undersigned cannot assign weight to this evidence.10 May Administrative Complaint The May Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having engaged in conduct in the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year that is alleged to violate DOE rules and Petitioner's policies. The credible evidence establishes that Respondent continued to engage in conduct, directed toward his students, that was demeaning and racially insensitive. Specifically, several students submitted written statements that in February 2019, Respondent threatened to tape students' mouths shut because they were talking in class. Students Dorcas Alao, Breanna Henry, and Darius Gaskin credibly testified about this incident, confirming that Respondent had engaged in such conduct toward students in his class. Alao, who is of Nigerian heritage, testified, credibly, that Respondent remarked to her that if she couldn't understand something in English, he would "say it in Yoruba," or words to that effect. She also testified, credibly, that Respondent told her that she had "mental issues." She was offended by Respondent's comments and reported the incidents to Murray. The credible evidence also establishes that Respondent continued to deduct points from students' academic course grades for behavioral issues, such as talking in class. 10 § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence but is not sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions. The burden of establishing that hearsay evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rules in sections 90.803 and 90.804 is on the proponent of the hearsay. See Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952, 956 (Fla. 2008)(evidentiary proponent has burden to establish predicate for exception to hearsay rule). To this point, Alao and Henry credibly testified that Respondent deducted points from their academic course grades for talking in class. Murray corroborated this testimony, credibly testifying that he examined Respondent's grade book and confirmed that Respondent had deducted points from their grades. As a result, Henry's class grade dropped a letter grade, from an "A" to a "B." Several students also testified, credibly and consistently, that Respondent did not timely grade their classwork or homework papers, so they were unable to determine what their grades were, even when they accessed the Pinnacle electronic gradebook. The 2018-2019 Faculty Handbook for MHS expressly requires that grades be posted within 48 hours of collecting the assignment/test. Respondent has repeatedly been directed to timely and accurately grade classwork and homework, and to record the grades in Pinnacle so that students and parents can be apprised of student progress in the course. The disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions to which Respondent previously has been subject bear this out. Murray testified, credibly, that in the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent still did not timely or accurately grade classwork, homework, or tests, as required by the Faculty Handbook, and as previously directed through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions, discussed above. The May Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent made claims that former assistant principal Cornelia Hoff had manipulated students, during the previous four years, to write false statements about him. Murray testified, credibly, that Respondent did, in fact, make such claims. There was no evidence presented to substantiate any of Respondent's claims against Hoff, and the competent substantial evidence establishes that Hoff had not been employed at MHS for over two years at the time Respondent made such claims. The May Administrative Complaint also charges Respondent with failing to contact parents, write disciplinary referrals, and create a discipline plan for student behavior issues in his classroom, as previously directed. However, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence to substantiate the allegation that Respondent engaged in this specific conduct during the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year, which is the period covered by the May Administrative Complaint.11 Thus, Petitioner did not demonstrate that Respondent engaged in this conduct during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint. Witness Credibility Respondent contends, on the basis of inconsistencies between student witness's testimony and written statements regarding various details of Respondent's alleged conduct and surrounding circumstances, that these witnesses were not credible, so that their testimony should not be afforded weight in these proceedings. The undersigned rejects this contention. Although the students' accounts of Respondent's conduct and surrounding circumstances were not uniformly consistent, the inconsistencies concerned minor or collateral details, which the undersigned ascribes to the fact that the students were testifying about incidents that occurred as much as two years earlier. The undersigned found the student witnesses to be credible and persuasive. Crucial to this credibility determination is that the students' testimony was remarkably consistent with respect to whether Respondent 11 The evidence presented regarding this charge concerned conduct that is alleged to have occurred in the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, which is not addressed in the May Administrative Complaint. Notably, the February Administrative Complaint, which addressed conduct that is alleged to have occurred in the 2017-2018 school year and the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, did not charge Respondent with having engaged in such conduct. See Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins., 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (predicating disciplinary action against a licensee on conduct never alleged in an administrative complaint violates the Administrative Procedure Act). engaged in, and the significant circumstances pertaining to, the conduct at issue in these proceedings. Findings of Ultimate Fact Under Florida law, whether conduct charged in a disciplinary proceeding constitutes a deviation from a standard of conduct established by statute, rule, or policy is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, considering the testimony and evidence in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); MacMillan v. Nassau Cty. Sch. Bd., 629 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, whether conduct alleged in an administrative complaint violates the statutes, rules, and policies cited as the basis for the proposed disciplinary action is a factual, rather than legal, determination. February Administrative Complaint Here, Petitioner demonstrated, by the preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct with which he was charged in the February Administrative Complaint. As discussed below, Respondent's conduct violated DOE rules, School Board policies, and Florida Statutes. Rule 6A-5.056(2) – Misconduct in Office As found above, Respondent made racially insensitive comments and comments that demeaned and belittled students in his classes. The evidence also established that Respondent yelled at students. As a result, many of his students felt disrespected, embarrassed, and offended. One student, Tevin Fuller, even went so far as to avoid going to Respondent's class in order to avoid Respondent's harassment and disrespectful treatment of him. Respondent's behavior toward his students constituted misconduct in office under Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), because it disrupted the students' learning environment, in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(d), and it reduced his ability to effectively perform his teaching duties, in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(e). Additionally, Respondent's behavior toward his students constituted misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2)(b), because it violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a), which establishes a teacher's professional obligations to students. Specifically, in making demeaning, racially insensitive, and embarrassing comments to students in his classes, he failed to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to their learning and mental health, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. He also intentionally exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., and harassed students on the basis of race, color, and national or ethnic origin, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)7. Respondent's racially insensitive and disrespectful comments toward his students also constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2)(c), because they violated School Board Policy 4008.B., regarding duties of instructional personnel. Specifically, Respondent did not comply with paragraph 1. of Policy 4008.B., because he violated the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A-10.081, as discussed herein. Additionally, Respondent violated paragraph 4. of Policy 4008.B., because he did not treat all students with kindness and consideration, as required by that policy. Rule 6A-5.056(3) – Incompetency In making racially insensitive and demeaning comments, and in engaging in disrespectful conduct toward his students, Respondent failed to discharge his required teaching duties. Specifically, in making such comments and engaging in such conduct, Respondent failed to communicate appropriately with, and relate to, his students, and, thus, exhibited incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)2. As discussed above, Respondent's conduct also violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 7., and, thus, constituted incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)1. Additionally, as found above, Respondent did not follow established exam protocol when he failed to collect students' book bags and place them at the front of the room during administration of the PSAT to his homeroom class on October 10, 2018, as specified in the PSAT/NMSQT administration manual and mandated pursuant to section 1008.24(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Thus, Respondent failed to perform duties prescribed by law, which constitutes incompetency due to inefficiency under rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)1. Rule 6A-5.056(4) – Gross Insubordination As found above, on January 23, 2015, Respondent received a meeting summary regarding grading criteria; students not learning in, and failing, his courses; and making students feeling disparaged or embarrassed. On October 14, 2016, Respondent received a summary memorandum for his use of embarrassing language toward students. On February 7, 2017, Respondent received a five-day suspension for making racially insensitive and inappropriate comments to students. On March 23, 2017, Respondent was issued a cease and desist letter for his use of embarrassing and disparaging language toward students. On October 27, 2017, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District's professional standards committee for making embarrassing remarks to students. On or about December 7, 2017, Respondent received a meeting summary for making racially insensitive comments to a male African-American student. In each of these corrective actions, Respondent was specifically and expressly directed to cease engaging in specified conduct. These directives were directly based on school and School Board policies and DOE rules, and, thus, were reasonable in nature. The directives were given by his supervisors at MHS and Petitioner, all of whom had proper authority to issue such directives. As found above, Respondent continued to make racially insensitive, demeaning, and disrespectful comments to his students during the timeframe covered by the February Administrative Complaint, after repeatedly having been directed not to do so through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions. Respondent's conduct in this regard constitutes gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4). As found above, Respondent continued to lower students' academic course grades as a means of dealing with classroom behavioral issues during the timeframe covered by the February Administrative Complaint, after repeatedly having been directed not to do so through disciplinary and non- disciplinary corrective actions. Respondent's conduct in this regard constitutes gross insubordination under rule 6A-5.056(4). Rule 6A-5.056(5) – Willful Neglect of Duty "Willful neglect of duty" is defined in rule 6A-5.056(5) as the intentional12 or reckless failure to carry out required duties. In continuing to intentionally engage in unauthorized grading practices by lowering students' academic course grades to address behavioral issues, Respondent engaged in willful neglect of duty. In continuing to intentionally make racially insensitive and demeaning comments, and engaging in disrespectful conduct toward his students, Respondent failed to comply with authority that establishes required duties. Specifically, Respondent's conduct did not comply with School Board Policy 4008.B.4., requiring that he treat students with kindness and consideration. Additionally, his conduct did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 7., requiring that he make reasonable efforts to protect students from conditions harmful to learning; refrain from exposing 12 "Intentional" is defined as "done with intention" or "on purpose." Dictionary.com, https://dictionary.com (last visited Apr. 21, 2021). The evidence establishes that Respondent's actions in this regard were done with intention or on purpose; there was no evidence presented from which it reasonably can be inferred that Respondent's actions in this regard were accidental. students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and refrain from harassing or discriminating against students on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity. Section 1008.24 – Test Administration and Security Based on the facts found above, it is determined that Respondent did not follow testing protocol when he failed to collect students' book bags before administering the PSAT on October 10, 2018. However, in order to violate section 1008.24, the failure to follow test administration directions must be done both "knowingly and willfully." Neither "knowingly" nor "willfully" are defined in chapter 1008. Where the legislature has not defined the words used in a statute, the language should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.13 The term "knowingly" is defined as "having knowledge or information"14 or "deliberate, conscious."15 The term "willfully" is defined as "deliberate, voluntary, or intentional."16 The evidence fails to establish that Respondent made the deliberate decision not to collect the book bags, notwithstanding the test manual and exam directions. From the evidence in the record, it is equally reasonable to infer17 that he either did not realize that he needed to collect the book bags, 13 Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cty. v. Survivors Charter Sch., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1220, 1233 (Fla. 2009). It is appropriate to refer to dictionary definitions when construing a statute in order to ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning of words used in the statute. Id.; Barco v. School Bd. of Pinellas Cty., 975 So. 2d 1116, 1122 (Fla. 2008); see also Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So. 2d 294, 298 (Fla. 2000)(when necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary). 14 Dictionary.com, https://dictionary.com (last visited Apr. 22, 2021). 15 Black's Law Dictionary, Deluxe 7th ed., at p. 876. 16 See id. at p. 1593, describing "willful" or "willfully" as meaning "only intentionally or purposely as distinguished from accidentally or negligently." 17 See Heifetz v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(it is the presiding officer's function to, among other things, draw permissible inferences from the evidence). or that he simply forgot to do so. The latter inference is particularly plausible, given that he was running late in beginning administration of the test. Thus, it is found that Respondent did not violate section 1008.24, as charged in the February Administrative Complaint. School Board Policy 4008 - Responsibilities and Duties (Principals and Instructional Personnel) As discussed above, Respondent's racially insensitive, demeaning, and disrespectful comments toward his students violated School Board Policy 4008.B., regarding duties of instructional personnel. Specifically, as discussed herein, Respondent did not comply with rule 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, as required by paragraph 1. of Policy 4008.B. Additionally, Respondent did not treat all students with kindness and consideration, as required by paragraph 4. of Policy 4008.B. School Board Policy 6314 – Testing – Assessing Student Achievement School Board Policy 6314, the text of which is set forth in the Conclusions of Law, below, establishes a District-wide policy regarding annual achievement testing. The plain language of the policy states, in pertinent part, "[a] program of achievement testing shall be conducted annually . . . ," and "[t]esting within the Broward County School District should be conducted to . . . [p]rovide parents/guardians with a yearly individual student test report and interpretation for those students who have been tested." Policy 6314, at preamble, ¶ 2 (emphasis added). From this language, it is clear that Policy 6314 is specifically directed toward annual achievement testing, rather than routine classroom tests and quizzes. Further to this point, nowhere in Policy 6314 is there any language establishing a prohibition on giving unannounced class quizzes, or deciding not to count quiz grades in a class. Additionally, although the February Administrative Complaint cites Policy 6314 as a basis for imposing discipline, the policy does not establish any specific standards of conduct to which instructional personnel must adhere, or which can constitute the basis of disciplinary action for lack of compliance. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order cites Policy 6314 as a basis for imposing discipline on Respondent for having given an unannounced quiz in his class on material that he allegedly had not yet taught his class, and then deciding not to grade the quiz "because he could 'read the F's on their foreheads.'" However, as discussed above, the language of Policy 6314 makes clear that it does not apply to routine class tests and quizzes. Additionally, the February Administrative Complaint does not specifically charge Respondent with having engaged in any of this conduct. As discussed herein, Respondent cannot be disciplined for conduct which was not specifically charged in the Administrative Complaint.18 Therefore, even though credible testimony and other evidence was provided showing that Respondent engaged in this conduct, that evidence is relevant only with respect to whether Respondent made demeaning comments to his students. That conduct was charged in the February Administrative Complaint, and, as discussed herein, has been considered in determining that Respondent engaged in conduct constituting misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2). School Board Policy 4.9 – Corrective Action Petitioner also alleges that Respondent "violated" School Board Policy 4.9, titled "Corrective Action," as a basis for its proposal to terminate his employment. As further addressed in the Conclusions of Law, below, Policy 4.9 does not establish a separately enforceable standard of conduct which may be 18 Cottrill, 685 So. 2d at 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). See note 11, supra. violated for purposes of serving as the basis for discipline, but, rather, constitutes a policy designed to improve and/or change employee's job performance and conduct, as well as establishes Petitioner's progressive discipline policy for purposes of determining the appropriate penalty range for violations of applicable standards of conduct established in statutes, DOE rules, and School Board policies. In this case, Respondent has been charged with "Category B" offenses under Policy 4.9. Section III of Policy 4.9, titled "Other Considerations," sets forth a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may be considered in determining the appropriate penalty for Category B offenses. The racially insensitive and demeaning comments that Respondent repeatedly made to his students, over a substantial period of time in his employment with Petitioner, constitute a severe offense. The evidence establishes that Respondent's comments not only offended and embarrassed his students, but also affected his effectiveness as a teacher—to the point that one student avoided going to class in order to avoid Respondent's racially insensitive and disrespectful conduct toward him. Additionally, Respondent's conduct in lowering students' academic course grades to deal with behavioral issues, directly contrary to school grading policy set forth in the MHS Faculty Handbook, was severe, in that it inappropriately affected students' course grades in a negative manner. Moreover, Respondent's students were directly involved in, and affected by, his conduct. To this point, Respondent's racially insensitive and demeaning comments and disrespectful conduct was directed to his students, who were offended and embarrassed by his comments and conduct. Additionally, his students' grades were directly and negatively affected by Respondent's practice of lowering academic course grades to address behavioral issues. Respondent's conduct had direct, negative impacts on his students. Respondent has a lengthy corrective action history during his employment with Petitioner, dating back to 2011. He previously has received two verbal reprimands, two written reprimands, and a five-day suspension without pay. Additionally, he has received numerous non-disciplinary corrective actions during his employment with Petitioner. Collectively, he has received approximately 14 corrective actions, five of which were disciplinary, between July 2011 and November 2018. Notwithstanding these numerous corrective actions, Respondent has persisted, during the timeframe covered by the February Administrative Complaint, in engaging in much of the same conduct for which he previously has been disciplined or issued non- disciplinary corrective actions. The competent, credible evidence shows that these corrective actions have had little, if any, deterrent effect on Respondent's conduct. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, it is determined that Respondent should receive a ten-day suspension without pay in Case No. 19-3380, for having engaged in conduct that was charged in the February Administrative Complaint and proved by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence. May Administrative Complaint Petitioner demonstrated, by the preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct with which he was charged in the May Administrative Complaint. As discussed below, Respondent's conduct violated DOE rules and School Board policies. Rule 6A-5.056(2) – Misconduct in Office As found above, in the second semester of the 2018-1019 school year, Respondent continued to make racially insensitive and disparaging comments, and engage in demeaning and disrespectful conduct, directed toward his students. Specifically, he directed racially insensitive comments toward an African-American student, Dorcas Alao, regarding her language and ethnicity. As discussed above, Alao found Respondent's conduct offensive. Respondent's conduct in this regard constituted misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2). Specifically, it disrupted his students' learning environment, in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(d), and it reduced his ability to effectively perform his teaching duties, in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(e). Additionally, Respondent's behavior toward his students constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2)(b), because it violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a), which establishes his professional obligations to students. Specifically, in making racially insensitive and demeaning comments, he failed to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to their learning and to their mental health, in violation of rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1.; he intentionally exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5.; and he harassed students on the basis of race, color, and national or ethnic origin, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)7. Respondent's racially insensitive and demeaning comments and disrespectful conduct toward his students also constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2)(c), because it violated School Board Policy 4008.B., regarding duties of instructional personnel. Specifically, Respondent did not comply with paragraph 1. of Policy 4008.B., because he violated the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A-10.081, as discussed herein. Additionally, Respondent violated paragraph 4. of Policy 4008.B., because he did not treat all students with kindness and consideration, as required by that policy. Respondent's conduct in making unsubstantiated accusations against former assistant principal Hoff constituted misconduct in office because it violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)5., which establishes the professional standard that an educator shall not make malicious or intentionally false statements about a colleague. Although the evidence does not establish that Respondent's accusations about Hoff were malicious—i.e., characterized by, or showing malice, intentionally harmful, or spiteful19—it is reasonable to infer that they were intentionally false, given that Hoff had not been employed at MHS for over two years when Respondent made those accusations, and that Murray had succeeded Hoff as Respondent's supervisor. Rule 6A-5.056(3) – Incompetency In making racially insensitive and demeaning comments, and engaging in disrespectful conduct, toward his students, Respondent also failed to discharge his required teaching duties. Specifically, in making such comments and engaging in such conduct, Respondent failed to communicate appropriately with, and relate to, his students, and, thus, exhibited incompetency as a result of inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)2. As discussed herein, Respondent's conduct also violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 7., and, thus, constituted incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)1. Rule 6A-5.056(4) – Gross Insubordination As found above, on January 23, 2015, Respondent received a meeting summary regarding grading criteria; students not learning in, and failing, his courses; and making students feeling disparaged or embarrassed. On October 14, 2016, Respondent received a summary memorandum for his use of embarrassing language towards students. On February 7, 2017, Respondent received a five-day suspension for making racially insensitive and inappropriate comments to students. On March 23, 2017, Respondent was issued a cease and desist letter for his use of embarrassing and disparaging language toward students. On October 27, 2017, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the School Board’s professional standards committee for making embarrassing remarks to students. On or about December 7, 2017, 19 Dictionary.com, https://dictionary.com (last visited Apr. 22, 2021). Respondent received a meeting summary for making racially insensitive comments to a male African-American student. Additionally, as discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that Respondent be suspended without pay for ten days in Case No. 19-3380, for continuing to engage in such conduct during the timeframe covered by the February Administrative Complaint. This ten-day suspension constitutes yet another disciplinary corrective action against Respondent for continuing to engage in conduct about which he repeatedly has been admonished, and has been directed to cease. In each of these corrective actions, Respondent was specifically and expressly directed to cease engaging in specified conduct. These directives were directly based on school and School Board policies and DOE rules, and, thus, were reasonable in nature. The directives were given by his supervisors at MHS and Petitioner, all of whom had proper authority to issue such directives. As found above, Respondent continued to make racially insensitive and demeaning comments and engage in disrespectful conduct toward his students during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint, after repeatedly having been directed not to do so through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions. Respondent's conduct in this regard constitutes gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4). As found above, Respondent continued to lower students' academic course grades as a means of dealing with classroom behavioral issues during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint, after repeatedly having been directed not to do so through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions. Respondent's conduct in this regard constitutes gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4). Rule 6A-5.056(5) – Willful Neglect of Duty "Willful neglect of duty" is defined in rule 6A-5.056(5) as the intentional20 or reckless failure to carry out required duties. In continuing to intentionally engage in unauthorized grading practices by lowering students' academic course grades to address behavioral issues, Respondent engaged in willful neglect of duty. In continuing to intentionally make racially insensitive, demeaning, and disrespectful comments and conduct toward his students, Respondent failed to comply with authority that establishes required duties. Specifically, Respondent's conduct did not comply with School Board Policy 4008.B.4., requiring that he treat students with kindness and consideration. Additionally, his conduct did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 7., requiring that he make reasonable efforts to protect students from conditions harmful to learning; refrain from exposing students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and refrain from harassing or discriminating against students on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity. School Board Policy 4008 – Responsibilities and Duties (Principals and Instructional Personnel) As discussed herein, Respondent's racially insensitive, demeaning, and disrespectful comments toward his students violated School Board Policy 4008.B., regarding duties of instructional personnel. Specifically, as discussed herein, Respondent did not comply with rule 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, as required by paragraph 1. of Policy 4008.B. Additionally, Respondent did not treat all students with kindness and consideration, as required by paragraph 4. of Policy 4008.B. School Board Policy 4.9 – Corrective Action Petitioner also alleges that Respondent "violated" School Board Policy 4.9, titled "Corrective Action," as a basis for its proposal to terminate his employment. As previously discussed and further addressed in the Conclusions of Law, below, Policy 4.9 does not establish a separately enforceable standard of conduct which may be violated for purposes of serving as the basis for discipline, but, rather, constitutes a policy designed to improve and/or change employee's job performance and conduct, as well as establishes Petitioner's progressive discipline policy for purposes of determining the appropriate penalty range for violations of applicable standards of conduct. The racially insensitive and demeaning comments that Respondent made to his students, repeatedly, over a substantial period of his employment with Petitioner, constitute a severe offense. The evidence establishes that his comments not only offended and embarrassed his students, but also affected his effectiveness as a teacher. Additionally, Respondent's conduct in lowering students' academic course grades to deal with behavioral issues, directly contrary to school grading policy set forth in the MHS Faculty Handbook, was severe, in that it inappropriately affected students' course grades in a negative manner. Moreover, Respondent's students were directly involved in, and affected by, his conduct. To this point, Respondent's racially insensitive and demeaning comments and disrespectful conduct was directed to his students, who were offended and embarrassed by his comments and conduct. Additionally, his students' grades were directly and negatively affected by Respondent's practice of lowering academic course grades to address behavioral issues. Respondent's conduct had direct and negative impacts on his students. As discussed above, Respondent has a lengthy corrective action history during his employment with Petitioner, dating back to 2011. He has previously received two verbal reprimands, two written reprimands, and a 20 See note 12, supra. five-day suspension without pay. Additionally, in Case No. 19-3380, the undersigned has recommended that Respondent be suspended for ten days without pay for engaging in conduct charged in that case. Respondent also has been subjected to numerous non-disciplinary corrective actions during his employment with Petitioner. Collectively, counting the ten-day suspension that has been recommended in Case No. 19-3380, Respondent has received approximately 15 corrective actions, six of which were disciplinary in nature, between July 2011 and March 2019. Notwithstanding these numerous corrective actions, Respondent has persisted, during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint, in engaging in much of the same conduct for which he previously has been disciplined and issued non- disciplinary corrective actions. The evidence shows that these corrective actions have had essentially no deterrent effect on Respondent's conduct. The competent, credible evidence establishes that Petitioner has given Respondent numerous chances, through its corrective action policy, including the progressive discipline process, to change his conduct which violated, and continues to violate, DOE rules and School Board policies. The competent, credible evidence establishes that nonetheless, Respondent has continued, during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint, to engage in much of the same conduct which violates DOE rules and School Board policies, and for which he previously has received numerous disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions. Petitioner has closely adhered to the progressive discipline provisions in Policy 4.9, meting out multiple verbal and written reprimands, interspersed with non-disciplinary corrective actions to Respondent, before resorting to suspending him from employment—first, for five days, then for ten days—for his persistent conduct which violated DOE rules and School Board policies. The purpose of Policy 4.9 is "to improve and/or change employees' job performance [and] conduct."21 Despite giving Respondent numerous opportunities, through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions, to change his conduct, Respondent has not done so. Given that Petitioner has closely followed the progressive discipline provisions of Policy 4.9, and the fact that Respondent has received numerous corrective actions over his period of employment with Petitioner—which have not resulted in him changing his conduct such that he does not engage in behavior which violates DOE rules and School Board policies—it is determined that, pursuant to Policy 4.9, Respondent should be terminated from his employment as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County School Board, enter a Final Order in Case No. 19-3380 suspending Respondent for ten days without pay, and enter a Final Order in Case No. 19-3381 terminating Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Marie Heekin, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Elizabeth W. Neiberger, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Katherine A. Heffner, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Ranjiv Sondhi, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Robert W. Runcie Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue, Tenth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent's suspension should be upheld and whether his employment with Petitioner should be terminated, as set forth in Petitioner's action letter dated August 21, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board was a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2002). At all times material hereto, Mr. Moore was employed full-time with the School Board as a paraprofessional at Robert Renick Educational Center (Renick) and subject to the rules and regulations of the School Board in accordance with Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2002). The UTD Contract, between the School Board and UTD, also governs the terms and conditions of Mr. Moore's employment. In April 1977, Mr. Moore began his employment with the School Board and was assigned to Renick. He remained at Renick as a paraprofessional through February 9, 2003. In December 1996, prior to beginning his employment with the School Board, Mr. Moore was charged with possession of stolen property and driving with a suspended license and an expired registration. A few months later, on February 20, 1997, Mr. Moore completed an application for employment with the School Board and indicated on the application that he had no criminal charges pending. However, at the time that he made application for employment, the charges of December 1996 were pending. Mr. Moore does not contest several performance problems and deficiencies for the period October 19, 1998 through March 10, 2002. By memorandum dated October 27, 1998, Mr. Moore was notified by the assistant principal, James DeWitt, that he violated School Board policy on October 19, 1998, by allowing a student to be in possession of the key to his classroom. Mr. DeWitt advised Mr. Moore that a reoccurrence of the violation would lead to a conference-for-the-record. By memorandum dated October 17, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that he had arrived late at school that same day without notifying the main office of his tardiness in accordance with the UTD Contract. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the established work hours and advised Mr. Moore that further failure to adhere to his work schedule would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated November 2, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 1, 2000, he (Mr. Moore) was playing a game on his computer while the students were taking a test even though he was required to monitor the test; and that his (Mr. Moore's) failure to supervise and monitor the test resulted in a student writing the answers in the wrong section of the test. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that, among other things, his lack of supervision would not be tolerated and that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 5, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by the principal, Eugenia Smith, that, among other things, he was on leave without authorization for 17 days of the 2000-2001 school year, from February 8, 2001 through March 5, 2001. Ms. Smith directed Mr. Moore to, within three (3) days of the date of the memorandum, provide his intended date of return or resign from employment with the School Board. By memorandum dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on December 5, 2001, because of his (Mr. Moore's) lack of supervision, a student pushed the emergency call button twice even though no emergency existed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 8, 2002, Ms. Smith notified Mr. Moore that he had been tardy for several days, specifying the days of tardiness. On March 8, 2002, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore to address his tardiness, including noncompliance with verbal and written directives regarding his tardiness. Also present were, Ms. Smith, Mr. DeWitt, and a UTD representative. At the conference-for-the-record Mr. Moore was given specific directives regarding future tardiness, which were to be to work on time and to adhere to procedures in the UTD contract. A summary of the conference-for-the-record dated March 10, 2002, was prepared and was subsequently signed by Mr. Moore. By memorandum dated November 8, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 7, 2002, Mr. Moore's personal telephone was confiscated because it had been used in the classroom as an extension of the school's telephone system. By memorandum dated November 13, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that his (Mr. Moore's) use of his personal telephone as an extension of the school's telephone system was a violation of the School Board's policy prohibiting telephones in the classroom unless approved by the administration. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to School Board policies and advised Mr. Moore that failure to do so would result in disciplinary action. Mr. Moore does not contest violating the School Board's policy regarding the use of his personal telephone in the classroom. By memorandum dated January 17, 2003, Mr. DeWitt notified Mr. Moore that, on January 22, 2003, he (Mr. Moore) left the school for approximately one and one-half hour, from approximately 11:50 a.m. to 2:20 a.m., without signing-out as required by the School Board's policy. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the scheduled work hours and advised (Mr. Moore) that his failure to so adhere would result in further disciplinary action. On January 22, 2003, Mr. Moore was arrested based on an outstanding warrant for the December 1996 charges previously indicated. Renick is a special center for emotionally handicapped and severely emotionally disturbed students. The student's have emotional problems, which interfere with their ability to learn. The teachers, including paraprofessionals, at Renick are specially trained to deal with the behavior problems of the students. The School Board adheres to a graduated system of discipline for students, which consists of the following: first, student conferences are held, then parent conferences, and then parent-teacher conferences; and after the conferences, indoor suspension, then detention, and, lastly, outdoor suspension. Also, located in each classroom is a call button to call security for assistance if needed. The use of profanity and corporal punishment is prohibited by School Board rules. As a paraprofessional with the School Board for several years, Mr. Moore knew or should have known the School Board's graduated system of discipline, rules, and policies. Training is provided for teachers, including paraprofessionals, in the management of students at Renick, who are misbehaving. Also, in-house workshops are provided. The training is "crisis management," which was formerly safe physical management. In crisis management, physical restraint is the last resort; interventions are used instead. A student's parent must consent in writing for the use of physical restraint; however, even without consent, physical restraint may be used for situations that do not de-escalate. If physical restraint is used, the situation must be documented and the student's parent must be notified. One intervention is a prearranged intervention in which the student and teacher agree on a technique to be used by the teacher to make the student aware that his/her behavior is escalating. The prearranged intervention may be, for instance, a pulling of the student's ear. If the prearrange intervention fails to de-escalate the student's behavior, another intervention referred to as proximity control may be used. In this technique, the student feels the teacher's presence by the teacher moving towards the student, which interrupts the student's behavior. If no interventions, whether verbal or non-verbal, de- escalates the student's behavior, which begins to get out-of- control, forms of physical restraint may be used, as a last resort. One form of physical restraint is for the teacher to hold the student with his/her hand to communicate to that student that his/her behavior is escalating, with safety being the primary issue. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may resort to a more restrictive restraint such as the cradle. In using this technique, both the student and teacher are standing, with the student having his/her back to the teacher, and the teacher holding the student, with safety being the primary issue. Again, the teacher is attempting to have the student realize that his/her behavior is escalating. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may take the student to the floor. One technique used is the cradle assist. In this technique, the student is brought to the floor by the teacher and the student is held by the teacher in a cradle-like position. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher, with the assistance of a colleague, may hold the student to the floor. Using a colleague, assists the student in calming down. Whenever physical restraint is used, the parents of the student are notified. Furthermore, the student is counseled, and the student's file must be documented regarding the use of physical restraint. Mr. Moore received the training as to the interventions and the physical restraints. Furthermore, he attended at least one in-house workshop. Therefore, Mr. Moore had knowledge of the behavior techniques. A past performance problem involving Mr. Moore and a student was documented by a memorandum dated July 24, 1998 from Mr. DeWitt to Mr. Moore. The memorandum addressed "alleged misconduct" by Mr. Moore committed on July 20, 1998, in which Mr. Moore allegedly choked a student, when he was putting the student in time-out, and used inappropriate language by calling the student a "faggot." Although the memorandum indicated that Mr. Moore stated that he may have grabbed the student's neck, the memorandum did not indicate that the allegation was confirmed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to "refrain from using inappropriate procedures and language" while performing his duties. The statement by Mr. Moore showed that he admitted, not denied, that he did take some action with the student. Regarding incidents with students, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges a specific incident, occurring on December 19, 2002, between Mr. Moore and a student, J. G. Allegedly, Mr. Moore told J. G. that he "was going to kill him" and "for him [J. G.] to meet him [Mr. Moore] at the store in five minutes since he [J. G.] was bad, so they could fight"; and that he "was going to make him [J. G.] his girl"; Furthermore, Mr. Moore allegedly called J. G. a "fat bitch." Additionally, Mr. Moore allegedly told another student, X. W., that he would "fuck X. W.'s mother in the grave" and called X. W. a "faggot." Also, Mr. Moore allegedly grabbed another student, I. J., and subsequently, another student, M. S., and pulled their arms behind their backs and pushed them against a wall. Further, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges contains a general allegation of how Mr. Moore treated students, i.e., "Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, pushed students to the ground, picked a student up and slammed him to the floor, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay." As to the general allegation, student D. J. testified regarding Mr. Moore pushing a student to the ground. D. J. testified that he did not want to do his work and attempted to leave the classroom without permission from Mr. Moore; that Mr. Moore would not allow him to leave the room; and that Mr. Moore placed him on the floor, face first, with his (D. J.'s) arms behind his back in a manner that hurt him (D. J.). No one else was in the classroom to witness the alleged incident. No specific time period was provided for the alleged incident. Mr. Moore's testimony did not address this particular incident. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. D. J.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find D. J.'s testimony convincing. Even if Mr. Moore engaged in the physical restraint of D. J., the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. D. J. was attempting to force his way out of the class. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the incident and notify D. J.'s parents that physical restraint was used. Also, as to the general allegation, student M. L. testified regarding picking a student up and slamming the student to the floor. M. L. testified that, except for him, all the other students in the class had completed their work and were in the rear of the classroom with the teacher; that he had just completed his work and was walking to the rear of the class when Mr. Moore walked into the classroom; that Mr. Moore told him that he was out of his seat without permission; and that Mr. Moore picked him up and slammed him to the floor, placing his (Mr. Moore's) knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore testified that M. L. was out of his seat without permission and that M. L. was running in the classroom and would not sit down even though Mr. Moore asked him to sit down and stop running. M. L. admitted that he had been disciplined before for running around in the classroom. Mr. Moore admits that he put M. L. to the floor, which de-escalated the situation, and that he then allowed M. L. to get up. Furthermore, Mr. Moore admits that he did not document the incident and did not notify the parents of M. L. that physical restraint had been used on M. L. No testimony was presented from Mr. Moore's supervising teacher, Jaime Calaf, regarding the incident with M. L. No other testimony was presented. As to the incident with M. L., the only witnesses testifying were M. L. and Mr. Moore. In considering M. L.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. M. L.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, and his admission that he had been disciplined for the same action previously detracted from the credibility of his testimony. Specifically, the undersigned is not convinced that M. L. had completed his work, that he was not disruptive, that Mr. Moore slammed M. L. to the floor, and that Mr. Moore put his knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore admits that he put, not slammed, M. L. to the floor. The undersigned does not find M. L.'s testimony convincing. The evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the situation and failed to notify the parents of M. L. as required that physical restraint had been used with M. L. Regarding the general allegation that Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay, M. L. testified as to Mr. Moore punching students in the arm, who were misbehaving, and O. B. testified as to Mr. Moore hitting students with a broom. M. L. testified that, at times, Mr. Moore punched him and other students in the arm when they were misbehaving. The undersigned's decision as to M. L.'s credibility remains the same. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore punched students who were misbehaving. O. B. testified that Mr. Moore attempted to hit him once with a broom when he was misbehaving and, at times, hit other students with a broom when they were misbehaving. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. O. B. testified that he did not consider J. B. to be a disruptive student; whereas, the evidence presented, regarding J. B., clearly indicates that J. B. is a disruptive student. O. B.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, together with his unsupported conclusion that J. B. was not a disruptive student, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find O. B.'s testimony convincing. Further, Mr. Calaf testified that, on occasions, he observed Mr. Moore grabbing students in the back and getting rough with them. Mr. Calaf did not testify that he reported his observations to the principal or other person who could exact discipline upon Mr. Moore. Moreover, Mr. Calaf did not testify that what he observed was inappropriate or contrary to the established crisis management training. Consequently, Mr. Calaf's observations cannot be used to support the alleged inappropriate conduct by Mr. Moore. Regarding the specific incident involving J. G. in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges, according to the principal of Renick, Eugenia Smith, she would not have recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore if it had not been for the incident on December 19, 2002, involving J. G., a middle school student at the time. No dispute exists that the School Board uses progressive discipline. For Ms. Smith, the incident involving J. G. was the incident that triggered the dismissal of Mr. Moore. As a result, this incident is the defining incident for Ms. Smith's decision to recommend dismissal of Mr. Moore and, therefore, if this incident is not proven, the basis for her recommendation of Mr. Moore's dismissal no longer exists. As to the specific incident involving J. G., the witnesses to the incident are J. G., other Renick students in the class, and Mr. Moore. No dispute in the testimony exists that, on December 19, 2002, Mr. Moore and J. G. got into a shouting match and that Mr. Moore never touched J. G. At Renick, J. G. was disruptive in his classes and had had many discipline problems. One psychologist at Renick, Joseph Strasko, described J. G. as physically disruptive and aggressive. Another psychologist at Renick, Theodore Cox, Jr., had observed J. G. engaging in inappropriate behavior. Also, Mr. Strasko described J. G. as a student who would not tell the truth when it was detrimental to him (J. G.); whereas, Mr. Cox had not known J. G. to tell an untruth. As to whether J. G. would tell the truth, the undersigned finds Mr. Strasko to be more credible and, therefore, finds that J. G. will not tell the truth when it is detrimental to him (J. G.). As to what lead to the shouting match, only Mr. Moore was certain as to what happened. The undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony credible regarding this aspect of the incident. J. G. was bullying a new student in the class and had physically moved toward the new student. Mr. Moore interceded to stop the bullying by J. G. and to protect the new student, requesting J. G. to take his seat but J. G. refused. Mr. Moore kept himself between J. G. and the new student, thereby, preventing J. G. from advancing upon the new student. What Mr. Moore said during the shouting match is where the testimony differs. However, no dispute exists as to certain aspects of the incident: that J. G. became angry and disrespectful toward Mr. Moore; that J. G. stated to Mr. Moore that, if Mr. Moore put his hands on him, he (J. G.) would bring his father and brother to Renick and they would deal with Mr. Moore; and that J. G. used profanity with Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore denies that he used profanity or disparaging remarks during the incident with J. G. The crisis management expert, Mr. Strasko,2 testified that it is not appropriate for a teacher to shout profanities at a student who is shouting profanities at the teacher; and that a teacher is required to be professional even when students are being disruptive. X. W., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that Mr. Moore called J. G. a "fat bitch" and called him (X. W.) a "punk." X. W. is J. G.'s cousin. D. J., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that he did not hear about what J. G. and Mr. Moore were arguing. However, D. J. testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother and that he (Mr. Moore) would "lay him on the ground." O. B. a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother to the store and that they would deal with it then. O. B. further testified that J. G. and Mr. Moore were calling each other gay and other derogatory names. Further, regarding the incident on December 19, 2002, Mr. Calaf did not witness the incident. Mr. Calaf returned to the class after the incident had occurred and observed J. G. crying and Mr. Moore and J. G. shouting at each other. Mr. Calaf did not testify as to what Mr. Moore and J. G. were shouting but did testify that he advised Mr. Moore that he (Mr. Moore) should not shout at students and should always remain professional, not getting on the level of the students. As to J. G.’s being disruptive in the class, Mr. Calaf testified that J. G. was generally disruptive and that usually Mr. Moore could calm J. G. down. The undersigned finds Mr. Calaf's testimony credible. In considering J. G.'s credibility, the aforementioned factors describing J. G. must be considered. In considering X. W.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but also that teachers are required not to use profanity and to be professional. Further, the undersigned must consider the fact that X. W. is J. G.'s cousin, which was unbeknownst to Ms. Smith. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider the factor that D. J. complained that Mr. Moore used physical restraint against him in an earlier incident in which the only witnesses were he and Mr. Moore. The incident and D. J.'s credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider that O. B. complained that he observed Mr. Moore hitting students at Renick with a broom. The incident and O. B's credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering Mr. Moore's credibility, the character testimony provided by Mr. Strasko and the character letters provided by Mr. Moore's colleagues must be considered. Mr. Strasko and Mr. Moore's colleagues address, among other things, what they consider the appropriate manner in which Mr. Moore handled students who were having behavior problems. Further, Mr. Moore's length of employment with the School Board, and his aforementioned past performance situations must be considered, including the one documented alleged inappropriate crisis management technique and language used by Mr. Moore in July 1998. Taking all of the aforementioned factors of credibility into consideration, the undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony more credible than the students, the character testimony and letters persuasive, and the lack of evidence, as to what was said, by a witness who was not involved in the incident, i.e., Mr. Calaf. Therefore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Moore did not use profanity during the incident of December 19, 2002. Mr. Moore did not report the incident involving J. G. Mr. Moore did not believe that the incident rose to the level that reporting was necessary. Moreover, no physical restraint was used. On May 1, 2003, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore by the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to review his employment history and future employment with the School Board. Among those in attendance with Mr. Moore were a UTD advocate, Ms. Smith, and the assistant superintendent for the Office of Exceptional Student Education and Student/Career Services. By a summary of the conference- for-the-record, dated June 6, 2003, the conference-for-the record was memoralized. By memorandum dated May 28, 2003, Ms. Smith and the assistant superintendent recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore. By letter dated August 21, 2003, the School Board notified Mr. Moore that at its meeting on August 20, 2003, it took action to suspend him and initiate dismissal proceedings against him from all employment with it.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: Finding Algernon J. Moore, Jr. in violation of Counts I and IV in accordance with this Recommended Order. Dismissing Counts II and III. Upholding the suspension of Algernon J. Moore, Jr. Dismissing Algernon J. Moore, Jr. from all employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 30th day of December, 2004.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent's employment as a teacher without pay for one day.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County. The School Board hired Respondent on September 1, 1981. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a middle school social science teacher and department head at Whiddon-Rogers Education Center ("Whiddon-Rogers"). At all times material to this case, Respondent's employment with the School Board has been governed by Florida law and the School Board's policies. The conduct giving rise to the School Board's proposed one-day suspension of Respondent occurred on October 1, 2019, during the 2019-2020 school year. On the morning of October 1, 2019, M.G., an eighth grade male student at Whiddon-Rogers, received a telephone call regarding some family members who had died that morning. Due to the deaths in his family, M.G. was upset and in a "bad mood" throughout the morning and later that day when he arrived in Respondent's fourth period social studies class. During Respondent's fourth period class, M.G. did not want to be disturbed. He had a "hoodie over his head," his head down on his desk, and he was not doing any work. M.G. was often picked on in class by other students. On this particular occasion in Respondent's fourth period class, M.G. was being picked on by other students as he laid his head down on his desk. At some point, M.G. picked his head up from his desk and made a verbal threat to other students that he was going to shoot up the school. Respondent did not hear M.G. make the threat. One of the other students that heard M.G.'s threat went to Respondent during class and told him M.G. had threatened to shoot up the school. Respondent did not report M.G.'s threat to school administration. Respondent did not consider M.G.'s comment to be a dangerous threat. Respondent did not want to embarrass M.G. and told him during his fourth period class on October 1, 2019, that he could not say things like that. M.G., who was angry, did not respond to Respondent and walked out of the classroom. Respondent instructed M.G. to return to the classroom, but M.G. ignored him. On October 2, 2019, M.G. did not attend school. On the morning of October 3, 2019, Assistant Principal Sabrina Smith received a text message from another teacher at Whiddon-Rodgers, N'Kenge Rawls, notifying her of M.G.'s threat on October 1, 2019, to shoot up the school. Ms. Smith notified the other assistant principals of the threat and assembled the mandatory members of the Behavioral Threat Assessment ("BTA") team to collaboratively analyze available data, determine the level of risk, and develop appropriate interventions. As part of the threat assessment, Ms. Smith spoke to M.G. on October 3, 2019, who admitted he had threatened to shoot up the school. Ms. Smith also spoke to Respondent, who admitted he did not report M.G.'s threat to administration on October 1, 2019. Respondent admitted to Ms. Smith that he should have reported M.G.'s threat and that he made a mistake in not reporting the threat. Based on the behavioral threat assessment, the BTA team determined M.G.'s risk level to be "Medium/Serious Substantive." A "Medium/Serious Substantive" risk level means that the student "does not appear to pose a threat of violence at this time but exhibits behaviors that indicate a continuing intent to harm and/or potential for future violence." By all accounts, Respondent is a good teacher and well respected by his colleagues as evidenced by his team leader role at Whiddon-Rodgers. However, on this particular occasion, Respondent used poor judgment and erred in not reporting M.G.'s threat to shoot up the school on October 1, 2019. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent failed to report M.G.'s threat to shoot up the school, which constitutes misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056. By failing to report M.G.'s threat to shoot up the school, Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., by failing to make reasonable effort to protect the students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the students' mental and/or physical health and/or safety. Respondent's conduct also constitutes "[i]ncompetency" and "[i]nefficiency," in violation of rule 6A-5.056(3) and (3)(a)1., by failing to discharge the duty to report such a threat as prescribed by law and "[i]nefficiency" in violation of rule 6A- 5.056(3)(a)3., by failing to communicate appropriately with and relate to administrators. Respondent's conduct also violates School Board Policy 2130, which requires School Board employees "to report to school administration any expressed threat(s) or behavior(s) that may represent a threat to the community, school, or staff," and School Board Policy 4008, which requires Respondent to comply with the "Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida," and "all rules and regulations that may be prescribed by the State Board and by the School Board." Respondent has only received prior discipline on one occasion. On September 19, 2007, Respondent received a written reprimand for inappropriate discipline of a student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order upholding the one-day suspension of Respondent's employment without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 10th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew Carrabis, Esquire Broward County School Board 600 Southeast 3rd Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Melissa C. Mihok, P.A. 201 East Pine Street, Suite 445 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County Public Schools 600 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George L. Johnson (Johnson), has been continuously employed as a teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board), since 1982. 1/ The 1982-83 School Year In August 1982, Johnson was employed by the School Board as an occupational specialist, and assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School. During the course of that employment, two events transpired which foreshadowed Johnson's conduct during the 1985-86 school year, and which precipitated this disciplinary proceeding. The first event occurred on March 9, 1983, when Johnson struck Pierre Sylla, an 8th grade student. On that date, Pierre had been disruptive in class, and had referred to Johnson by the nickname of "Flash". Pierre's conduct apparently offended Johnson's sense of decorum since he excused the class, called Pierre into a smaller room and, upon stating "this is why they call me Flash", punched Pierre in the left eye. The second event occurred on April 27, 1983, when Johnson struck Derrick Corner, a 14 year old student. On that date, Johnson was on leave, but reported to the school to pass out lunch cards. When Derrick approached Johnson to retrieve his card, he smelled alcohol on Johnson's breath and announced "I smell some Bacardi" rum. At that time, Johnson backhanded Derrick across the face, knocking him over a chair to the floor. On July 13, 1983, a conference was held between the School Board and Johnson to discuss the battery committed upon Pierre Sylla and Derrick Corner, as well as any disciplinary action to be taken against Johnson. The School Board concluded that Johnson would be referred to the employee assistance program, transferred to a regular school setting, and that no further disciplinary action would be taken. Johnson was, however, directed to comply with School Board rules for handling disruptive student behavior, and to discontinue the use of his hand in disciplining students. 2/ Notwithstanding Johnson's battery upon Pierre Sylla and Derrick Corner, Johnson's annual evaluation for the 1982-83 school year rated his performance acceptable in all categories, and recommended him for continued employment. The annual evaluation did note, however, that: Mr. Johnson's techniques for handling disciplinary problems need to be improved. Otherwise, he has potential for becoming a good teacher. The 1983-84 and 1984-85 School Years During the 1983-84 school year, Johnson was employed by the School Board as a physical education teacher at McMillan Junior High School. Johnson's annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year rated his performance acceptable in all categories, and recommended his continued employment. The only negative remark contained on his evaluation was: Although your overall performance during the past year has been acceptable, I would recommend that you carefully self-evaluate your performance with regard to your professional responsibilities, i.e., punctuality. During the 1984-55 school year, Johnson was employed by the School Board as a physical education teacher at Riverside Elementary School and Douglas Elementary School. Johnson's annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year rated his performance acceptable in all categories, and recommended his continued employment. The only negative remark on his evaluation was: You need to be on time every day and the same applies to lesson plans and reports. Adherence to school board policies is of the utmost importance -- also getting along with your peers. The 1985-86 School Year For the 1985-86 school year, Johnson was employed under a continuing contract with the School Board, and assigned to Silver Bluff Elementary School as a physical education teacher. The proof establishes that during the course of that school year Johnson reacted violently toward students for minor breaches of discipline, and that he failed to comply with lawful orders to refrain from the use of physical force to discipline students. That Johnson was fully cognizant of Silver Bluff's policy against the use of physical force is not disputed. At the school's first faculty meeting of August 28, 1985, Johnson was specifically advised that teachers were not to hit or paddle a child, and that they were not authorized to inflict corporal punishment. On September 16, 1985, following a complaint from a mother that Johnson had grabbed and shaken her son, the principal, Margarita Alemany, again cautioned Johnson that she did not approve of physical discipline, and that he was not to touch his students in any way. Notwithstanding the lawful directives of his principal, the evidence establishes that Johnson routinely relied upon physical and verbal abuse to discipline students for minor transgressions. From late September 1985 to December 1985, the proof establishes that Johnson committed the following abuses toward fourth grade students in his charge: Estany Carballo, who should have been standing in line, was playing in a mud puddle with a toy car. Johnson approached Estany from behind, grabbed his neck, and forced his head downward toward the water. Johnson pulled Estany up by the neck, admonished him "not to do that again", and returned Estany to his place in line. The force exerted by Johnson upon Estany was sufficient to traumatize his neck, inflict pain and limitation of movement, and require the treatment of a physician. Noah Verner and Aramis Hernandez were standing out of line and talking. Johnson grabbed each by the hair with a clenched fist, banged their heads together, and ordered them back into line. Robert Diaz, while standing in line, was talking to a girl behind him. Johnson approached Robert from behind, grabbed him by the hair and, exerting enough force to almost lift him from the ground, stated "who do you think you are asshole?" James Worthington was leaning against a fence, an apparent violation of a Johnson directive. Johnson grabbed his head between his hands and, shaking the child violently enough to induce pain, admonished James not to lean on the fence. Roberto Sanchez was attempting to perform an exercise with the rest of the class, but was unsuccessful. Johnson noted Roberto's failing to the class and opined vocally that if a boy couldn't do an exercise when he was in school, the whole class would beat the boy up. Johnson also embarrassed Roberto by referring to him as "fatso" in the presence of the class. While not exhaustive of the litany of incidents established at the final hearing in this case, the events related in paragraph 11, supra, establish Johnson's failure to abide by lawful directives of his superior, as well as a penchant toward a violent behavior which was harmful to the health and safety of his students. Due to the notoriety of his conduct, Johnson's service in the community, as well as his effectiveness in the school system, was severely impaired. In addition to its claims of insubordination and misconduct in office, the School Board also seeks to discipline Johnson under a claim of incompetence. The predicate for the School Board's charge are the results of three formal observations of Johnson's performance at Silver Bluff Elementary School between October 17, 1985 and January 10, 1986. On October 17, 1985, Ms. Catherine Day, assistant principal of Silver Bluff Elementary School, conducted a formal observation of Johnson's 1:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m., second grade physical education class. It is worthy of note that the impetus for the October 17, 1985, observation was Johnson's request that the 1:30 - 2:00 p.m. class be observed. That class was a double class, over 60 students, and unwieldy. Ms. Day found that the session taught by Johnson did not comport with the mandatory objectives or activities contained in his lesson plan, that he did not explain to the students the objectives or activities for that day, that he provided no feedback to the students regarding their performance that day, that he allowed students to stand idle for 10 minutes and dismissed them 10 minutes early, and that his class record book contained no grades. Accordingly, Ms. Day rated Johnson's performance as unacceptable in the categories of (1) preparation and planning, (2) knowledge of subject matter, (3) classroom management, (4) techniques of instruction and (5) assessment techniques. Ms. Day reviewed the results of her observation with Johnson, provided Johnson with a prescription for improvement, agreed to provide Johnson with an assistant for the 1:30 - 2:00 p.m. class, and established a deadline of November 1, 1985, to correct the deficiencies. On November 20, 1985, the principal, Ms. Alemany, conducted a formal observation of Johnson's 10:15 a.m. second grade class and 10:45 a.m. sixth grade class. Ms. Alemany found, inter alia, that the lesson plan for Johnson's sixth grade class contained no objectives, that he failed to provide feedback or suggestions to improve performance, and that after 9 weeks his grade book for the sixth grade class failed to indicate the activity graded and for the second grade class failed to show any grades -- the grade book should have reflected one grade per week for a designated activity. Accordingly, Ms. Alemany, as did Ms. Day, rated Johnson's performance as unacceptable in categories (1) preparation and planning, (4) techniques of instruction, and (5) assessment techniques. On January 10, 1986, Ms. Alemany conducted the final observation of Johnson's performance. While Johnson's overall performance had improved, he was still rated unacceptable in categories (1) preparation and planning, since he failed to have lesson plans available, (4) techniques of instruction, since he failed to provide feedback or suggestions to improve performance, and (5) assessment techniques, since he failed to have any grades for the second, third, fifth or sixth grade classes. Ms. Alemany reviewed the results of her observation with Johnson, provided a prescription for improvement, and established a deadline of January 16, 1986, to correct the deficiencies. On January 17, 1986, a conference-for-the-record was held between Ms. Alemany and Johnson. At that time, Johnson's performance assessments were reviewed and he was advised: It should be noted for the record that you were advised that noted deficiencies must be remedied by your next observation which (sic) approximate date is 1-24-86. Failure to do so ... will have an adverse impact upon your employment. We will continue assisting you as we have in the past. Johnson was not, however, to be accorded any further observations. As events transpired, January 17, 1986, was his last day of employment at Silver Bluff Elementary School; thereafter, he was assigned to the South Central Area office pending School Board action. On February 19, 1986, the School Board suspended Johnson and initiated these dismissal proceedings. Johnson resists the School Board's suspension and proposed dismissal for incompetency on several grounds. First, he avers that Ms. Alemany harbored some animosity toward him because of his service as a United Teachers of Dade union representative. The proof fails to support such a finding. Second, Johnson avers that his request for an independent observation following Ms. Alemany's observation of November 20, 1985, should have been granted. While it may have been better practice to grant such a request, the School Board was bound to no such requirement. Finally, Johnson avers that the School Board's failure to accord him an independent observation following two unacceptable "summative observations" requires that his suspension and proposed dismissal for incompetence not be sustained. 3/ Johnson's final assertion is also without merit. While the proof established that the School Board routinely employed an independent observation following two unacceptable summatives before it recommended dismissal for incompetence, Johnson's removal from the classroom prevented further observation. Where, as here, the School Board removes a teacher from the classroom for cause, i.e.: battery upon a student, it is not thereby barred from seeking the suspension and dismissal of a teacher for incompetence even though an independent observation was not performed. While the School Board is not precluded from maintaining its charge of incompetence, it has failed to demonstrate that Johnson's unsatisfactory performance, observed on three occasions, deprived the students in his charge of a minimal educational experience, or that such performance failed to comply with the rules of the School Board or the terms of the parties' contract. Johnson's deficiencies, absent such proof do not demonstrate incompetence by reason of inefficiency. Further, the physical and verbal abuses Johnson was shown to have visited upon students, while improper, do not establish a lack of emotional stability. Therefore, the School Board also failed to demonstrate that Johnson was incompetent by reason of incapacity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent, George L. Johnson, from his employment, and dismissing Respondent, George L. Johnson, from his employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1986.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause for Palm Beach County School Board to suspend Deborah Stark for 10 days without pay based upon the allegations made in its Administrative Complaint filed on November 8, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the Palm Beach County Public School System. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Stark was hired by the School Board in 2005. She is employed pursuant to a professional services contract with Petitioner. At all relevant times to this case, Stark was a teacher at Diamond View. She taught second grade. One of Stark's teaching responsibilities was to provide student information to the School Based Team ("SBT") such as conference/staffing notes,1 to assist the SBT in determining how best to support students who were having challenges or difficulties with reading. During Stark's last several school years with the School Board, Stark engaged in a pattern of misconduct. On June 1, 2015, Stark received, by hand delivery, her first written reprimand. She was disciplined for falsifying three memos by inappropriately using the School Board's letterhead and creating misleading and false documents under co-workers' names without permission. One problem area Respondent had was that she failed to keep her classroom organized and neat. Because of the disorganized book area and unkempt cluttered classroom, Respondent's classroom failed to be an environment conducive to learning and impacted the students' morale negatively. On September 30, 2015, Principal Seal, by memorandum, addressed two of Stark's work deficiencies. Seal pointed out to Stark that her classroom management did not correspond with the School Wide Positive Behavior Support Plan and that Stark's 2014-2015 Reading Running Records ("RRR")2 were not accurately and properly administered. Seal instructed Stark to sign up for a classroom management course through eLearning within a week and notify Seal of the enrollment. Seal even specifically suggested a two- day course that started on October 6, 2015, at the Pew Center. Seal also outlined Stark's RRR inaccuracies and deficiencies in the September memo, which included Stark's failure to provide an accurate report on September 25th for a student during a scheduled SBT meeting, improper use of school materials as a benchmark, and writing in the teacher materials with student's information inappropriately. As a result of Stark's RRR shortcomings, Seal directed Stark to sign up for the next RRR training available on either October 13, 14, 23, or 24, 2015, through eLearning and instructed Stark to verify the RRR training enrollment. The memo ended with the following: "Failure to comply with these directives will be considered insubordination and may result [in] disciplinary action to include up to suspension or termination of employment." On November 10, 2015, Seal specifically directed Stark to clean up her classroom and update her students' progress on the class bulletin board. Stark was provided a deadline of on or before November 24, 2015, to correct the performance deficiencies. Stark did not do so. In December 2015, Stark still had student work posted from August and her classroom was not up to date. On December 18, 2015, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held. In that meeting, Stark informed Seal that she went to training, but admitted that she did not provide the required documentation of attendance. Stark's performance with RRR had not improved. By February 2016, Respondent had failed to comply with Seal's directives of November 10, 2015. Stark's classroom was unacceptable and had not been cleaned up, updated, organized as directed. The closet was cluttered from the floor to the ceiling with boxes, papers, and books. Additionally, Stark's student work bulletin board still was not changed and up to date. On February 12, 2016, Seal met with Stark to address the issues and gave Stark a verbal reprimand with written notation. The verbal reprimand with written notation memo stated that Respondent was insubordinate for fail[ing] to comply with "directives given to her in the memorandums dated September 30, 2015, and November 10, 2015." On May 24, 2016, a pre-determination meeting was held with Stark and she acknowledged that she had fallen behind in the RRR and math/reading assessments but planned to catch up by the end of the year. On June 2, 2016, Seal held another disciplinary conference with Stark. Seal provided Stark a written reprimand by memo detailing that Stark exhibited: poor judgement, lack of follow up, inappropriate supervision of students, excessive absence without pay, failure to properly and accurately administer and record Reading Running Records as well as Math and Reading assessments, during the school year 2015/2016 with fidelity and insubordination. Seal also instructed Stark in the memo: Effective immediately, you are directed to provide the appropriate level of supervision to your students, follow your academic schedule, meet deadlines with respect to inputting reading and math date into EDW, accurately complete Running Reading Records, cease from taking unpaid time and follow all School Board Policies and State Statutes. Finally, pursuant to the CTA contract, I am directing you to provide a doctor's note for any absences going forward. This requirement will be in effect until December 22, 2016. Respondent failed to follow the leave directive of the written reprimand of June 2, 2016. Stark's duty day started at 7:50 a.m. On October 14, 2016, Stark notified Diamond View at 8:26 a.m. that she would not report to work because she had a ride to an appointment. On November 29, 2016, Stark notified the school at 7:40 a.m. by stating, "I have a meeting boo," as she took the full day off. On December 16, 2016, she notified the school at 6:24 a.m. that her husband requested a shopping day and family activities for the day. On February 10, 2017, Stark notified the school at 7:38 a.m., "I am going to a friend's house today to help them." On March 2, 2017, she notified the school at 7:14 a.m. that "I am finalizing a college class today." On March 7, 2017, Stark notified the school at 6:18 a.m. that Nationals verses Boston were at the new park and she would not be in to work. On April 5, 2017, Stark notified the school at 7:34 a.m. that she had a meeting and missed half the school day. Stark's absences of September 21, September 23, October 14, November 29, and December 16, 2016, were unauthorized leave and her leave of March 2, March 7, April 5, and February 10, 2017, were days without pay. Stark's excessive absenteeism disrupted the learning environment for her students and caused Respondent to miss out on valuable School Board resources she needed to perform her job duties and correct her work performance deficiencies. By missing work, Stark was neither able to obtain the needed available professional development nor obtain support from the Literacy Staff Developer. Stark's ineptness continued throughout the 2016-2017 school year. Stark failed to provide requested student information needed to assist in creating report cards for several former students, which adversely impacted the school and the students because, among other things, the school was not able to provide the students' new teachers with accurate data for placement. Stark was offered coaching services to improve her work performance through Peer Assistance Review ("PAR"). Stark failed to show up and meet with the trainers assigned to provide her support on January 20, February 1, and March 7, 2017. Stark failed to submit the required SBT documentation for five students timely. Stark's duties included meeting with the parents of each student to communicate the students' academic concerns. Stark did not meet with the parents. Instead, Stark submitted five untimely falsified student records indicating parent meetings that did not take place. She also forged translator Torres-Vega signature like she was present at the meetings, when Torres-Vega had not participated. On or about April 24, 2017, an investigation report was completed detailing Stark's misconduct for the 2016-2017 school year. The investigative summary concluded Stark failed to comply with numerous directives given by the principal and vice principal. Stark failed to complete and submit SBT documentation for five students who could have benefited from additional supportive services. Respondent falsified student records indicating she contacted and conferenced with the parents for each student. She also falsified that a translator had participated in the parent conferences. At the same time, Stark sent last minute notification emails to the principal as to why she would not be reporting to work, failed to notify Seal in a timely manner when she would not be reporting to work, and did not prepare substitute lesson plans. Stark's unexcused absences totaled approximately 40 hours without pay within a five month period and did not adhere to the 24 hour advanced notice requirement of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Respondent's absences from work also caused her to miss valuable School Board training and support. Ultimate Findings of Fact Stark failed to fulfill the responsibilities of a teacher by not preparing and submitting the documents to the SBT so that the students could qualify for the support and services after multiple follow-ups and reminders by her supervisors. Stark's actions of falsifying the five students' records with Torres-Vega's signature and indicating that she met with the parents when she did not was ethical misconduct, failure to exercise best professional judgment, failure to provide for accurate or timely record keeping, and falsifying records. Stark misused her time and attendance when she had exhausted her paid time, but continued to use leave without pay when her work was not up to date and after she had been reprimanded and warned regarding absences by Seal. Stark's explanation of her absences failed to fall in the category for extenuating circumstances and her absences disrupted the learning environment. Stark was insubordinate and also failed to follow procedures, policies, and directives of the Diamond View principal and vice principal. Stark never cleaned up her classroom and failed to protect the learning environment. She also did not update her RRRs as instructed by Seal. On February 1, 2017, Vice Principal Diaz had also instructed Stark to always follow and adhere to an academic schedule with the students in order to provide structured learning. Instead, Stark continued to constantly allow the students to walk around the classroom, draw and eat snacks, without an academic schedule. By letter dated September 19, 2017, Respondent was notified that the School Board was recommending she receive a 10 day suspension without pay because of her misconduct. On or about October 4, 2017, the School Board took action by voting to suspend Respondent for 10 days without pay. Petitioner ultimately filed charges against Stark by Administrative Complaint dated November 8, 2018, that alleged Stark violated the following School Board policies: Failure to Fulfil the Responsibilities of a Teacher pursuant to School Board Policy 1.013(4), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff; School Board Policy 2.34, Records and Reports; Collective Bargaining Agreement with CTA, Article II, Section U, Lesson Plans Failure to Protect the Learning Environment pursuant to School Board Policy 0.01(2)(3), Commitment to the Student, Principle I-(formally 0.01(2)(c); 6A- 10.081(2)(a)(1), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession Misuse of Time/Attendance pursuant to School Board Policies 3.80(2)(c), Leave of Absence; Collective Bargaining Agreement with CTA, Article V, Leaves, Section B Ethical Misconduct pursuant to School Board Policy 3.02(4)(b), (4)(d), (4)(f), (4)(h), and (4)(j), Code of Ethics; School Board Policy 3.02(5)(c)(iii), Code of Ethics; 6A-10.081(1)(c) and (2)(c)(1), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida Failure to Exercise Best Professional Judgment pursuant to School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), Code of Ethics; 6A-10-081(1)(b), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida Insubordination: Failure to Follow Policy, Rules, Directive, or Statute pursuant to School Board Policy 3.10(6), Conditions of Employment with the District; School Board Policy 1.013(1), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff. Respondent contested the reasons for suspension.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order: Finding Deborah Stark in violation of all six violations in the Administrative Complaint; and Upholding Deborah Stark's 10-day suspension without pay for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2018.
