The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's behavior toward an assistant principal violated the prohibitions against misconduct in office, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), and gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4), so as to constitute just cause for Respondent's dismissal, pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has employed Respondent as a teacher since 2001. He has taught English at North Dade Middle School for the past nine years. For the 2015-16 school year, Respondent was supervised by principal Fabrice Laguerre and assistant principal Kayla Edwards. Following an observation of Respondent, Ms. Edwards submitted to the principal a report citing several teaching deficiencies. The principal, who is now a principal at another school, decided that Respondent was or might be in need of professional assistance in the form of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Placing a teacher on a PIP requires the principal to provide Respondent with notice of a Support Dialogue Meeting. The record does not reveal whether the purpose of the Support Dialogue Meeting is to determine whether Respondent shall be placed on a PIP, to prepare the PIP, or to deliver an already- prepared PIP. Earlier, the principal had agreed with Respondent not to conduct any disciplinary meetings with Respondent without Respondent's union representative in attendance. Respondent wanted a witness to what might transpire during such a meeting, and the principal understood that this was the purpose of having a witness at each such meeting. Toward the end of the school day on December 15, 2015, the principal summoned Respondent to his office. Respondent did not know why he was being summoned to the principal's office. Respondent tried unsuccessfully to have the school's union representative in attendance, so Respondent reported to the principal's office without a representative. When Respondent arrived at the principal's office, he asked if he needed a union representative or other witness. The principal replied that Respondent could have a representative, but this meeting was merely to provide Respondent with notification of the "real" meeting, which was to be within 48 hours of delivery of the notice. The meeting to which the principal referred was a Support Dialogue Meeting. Despite the principal's assurance to the contrary, the December 15 contact seems to have involved more than merely delivering a notice of a Support Dialogue Meeting in a day or two. As the principal testified, as soon as Respondent entered the office, implicitly assenting to sufficient contact to receive the notice described by the principal, the principal invited Respondent to sit down at a table, at which Ms. Edwards was already seated. The mere delivery of a notice would not have required that Respondent take a seat and probably would not have required the attendance of Ms. Edwards, unless the principal wanted a witness to his delivery of the notice to Respondent. Still standing, Respondent read some papers in front of him on the table and correctly concluded that they reflected unfavorably on his teaching performance and the source of the information was Ms. Edwards. It is impossible to sort out exactly who said what at this juncture. Respondent testified that his first comment was that he could not attend the meeting without a witness, and Ms. Edwards replied, "boy, get in here, stop your drama, and sign these papers." The reference to "boy" is implausible. It seems unlikely that Ms. Edwards would have uttered such an insult and, if she had, it seems as unlikely that Respondent would have remained in the office after hearing this disrespectful appellation. Ms. Edwards may have spoken the remaining words, but they are inconsequential--direct and plainspoken, but not unprofessional or disrespectful. The principal testified more plausibly that Respondent looked up after examining the paperwork and announced that this better not be about his teaching because he had taught a "perfect" lesson to the class that Ms. Edwards had observed. The principal again invited Respondent to take a seat. Instead, Respondent characterized the PIP as part of a "witch hunt" and averred that Ms. Edwards did not know what she was doing when observing Respondent. This testimony of the principal is credited. Past observations of Respondent performed by other administrators were satisfactory. Respondent and Ms. Edwards appear to have had some difficulties in the past. Most importantly, as noted above, Respondent had good cause to doubt that the sole purpose of the December 15 meeting was to deliver a notice of a Support Dialogue Meeting. Even the Notice of Specific Charges characterizes the December 15 meeting as the Support Dialogue Meeting itself. Respondent thus could reasonably believe that he could still prevail upon the principal not to implement a PIP or to design a less-elaborate PIP. On these facts, in a meeting attended exclusively by himself, the principal, and Ms. Edwards, Respondent's questioning the qualifications of Ms. Edwards did not constitute just cause for any adverse employment action, as long as he did not do so in bad faith, and nothing in the record indicates that he did. The principal testified that Ms. Edwards refrained from insulting Respondent and, more specifically, said nothing about where he went to college. Ms. Edwards' testimony candidly does not bear out the principal's testimony on this point. Ms. Edwards testified that she and Respondent each inquired of the other where he or she went to college, implying an inferiority in the other's school of higher learning. However, the parties' "questions" as to academic pedigrees are found to have been intended as nothing more than mild insults--that is, slights--and, as such, insubstantial. The principal also testified that, during this exchange, Respondent pointed a finger at Ms. Edwards with a "relaxed hand." This testimony is credited, but any implication that such a gesture was intended or perceived as threatening is rejected. Respondent's gesture was for mild emphasis: textually, this emphasis would be expressed by underlining, not boldface. This marks the end of the portion of the December 15 incident alleged as proof of misconduct in office. Interestingly, the testimony of Ms. Edwards and the principal set forth in the preceding two paragraphs does not describe Respondent in terms suggesting any loss of composure, but rather in terms not inconsistent with an employee unapologetically advocating for himself. The principal next asked Ms. Edwards to make a copy of a document, which necessitated her leaving the office for a few moments. But even this seemingly innocuous act proved fraught. Returning, Ms. Edwards did not see Respondent standing behind the door, and, when she opened it, the door struck Respondent harmlessly. Trying to seize a potential advantage, Respondent, implying that the act had been intentional, asked the principal if he had seen what had happened. The principal sensibly replied that Ms. Edwards could not see Respondent through the solid door, and the bump was accidental. The principal then ushered Ms. Edwards and Respondent out of the office. Up to this point, there had been no other witnesses because the office door had been closed--or, as to the last matter, closing. Once the unhappy trio left the office, the principal and Ms. Edwards testified that Respondent "kept going after" Ms. Edwards, now loud enough for others to hear, and caused much embarrassment. Ms. Edwards added that she was crying. Even though not alleged as grounds for adverse employment action, from Petitioner's perspective, this testimony from the principal and Ms. Edwards is important because it could provide a basis for inferring an earlier lack of composure on Respondent's part. However, as assessed by the Administrative Law Judge, this testimony is important because it is untrue and undermines the credibility of the principal and Ms. Edwards as witnesses. Three independent witnesses to the exit of the edgy ternion from the principal's office uniformly portrayed Respondent as not agitated. The first of these witnesses was a secretary, who was in her office two doors down from the principal's office. The secretary heard absolutely nothing, even though she was close enough to hear anything that might have been said, even if not loudly. Her testimony is credited. Ms. Edwards approached Respondent to give him the papers that she had copied. Ms. Edwards testified that she did not want Respondent to see that she was crying, so she extended her arm out in Respondent's direction and released her grip. It is hard to understand how, with her eyes averted from Respondent, Ms. Edwards would have known if Respondent was looking at her to receive the papers. In her version, Ms. Edwards released the papers and, for whatever reason, Respondent did not grasp them before they fell to the floor. Ms. Edwards' testimony is not credited, except for the papers falling to the floor. For his part, Respondent testified that he was the one crying because Ms. Edwards employed a phrase that reminded him of his recently deceased mother. Based on the testimony of the three independent witnesses, which omits any mention of tears and, to varying degrees, is inconsistent with such emotion, the crying testimony of Ms. Edwards and Respondent is rejected as melodramatic embellishment. Respondent testified that Ms. Edwards thrust the papers into his chest, leading with her closed hand. This testimony, which is credited, is corroborated by two custodians who witnessed the attempted exchange. The exchange was attempted because everyone agrees that the papers fell to the ground where the principal gathered them up. One custodian testified that Ms. Edwards, who was visibly agitated, walked quickly up to Respondent and, without much force, pressed the papers into the chest of Respondent, who grinned in response. The other custodian testified that Ms. Edwards, with her hand leading, "very strongly" "snapped" the papers into Respondent's hands "and stomach area," but this custodian thought that the two of them were playing around. Despite minor discrepancies in their testimony, the three independent witnesses clearly establish that Respondent had not lost his composure. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner failed to prove misconduct in office. Specifically, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to treat Ms. Edwards with dignity or exercised poor judgment by insulting her and objecting to her supervisory qualifications. Each party slighted the other's academic pedigree; this inconsequential lapse, committed in the presence of only the principal, did not render objectionable Respondent's behavior in the incident. His questioning of Ms. Edwards' qualifications to observe his teaching would raise a different factual issue if directed toward his students or even uttered in the presence of his students, but raising this issue with the principal was appropriate and raising it in the presence of Ms. Edwards, whom the principal had included in the meeting, was forthright and timely. Respondent raised this issue at what he might have reasonably assumed was his Support Dialogue Meeting--meaning that this might have been his last chance to avoid a PIP or at least avoid a more elaborate PIP. Petitioner failed to prove any aggression by Respondent--unwarranted or warranted--or that Respondent was intimidating, abusive, harassing, and offensive toward Ms. Edwards. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent made malicious and untrue statements in defending this case. His testimony that Ms. Edwards referred to him as "boy" has been discredited, but the record fails to establish that this testimony was a knowing falsehood. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's effectiveness has been impaired by anything that he said or did in connection with the December 15 meeting. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent committed gross insubordination. As alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, this count fails even to state a claim of gross insubordination under the rule for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Specific Charges and reinstating Respondent with "back salary," as provided in section 1012.33(4)(c). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Polk County School Board ("School Board") has just cause to terminate Judy Gail Vann ("Respondent" or "Vann") pursuant to Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent started working for the School Board in 2000. During the last ten years, she has taught English. In November 2008, the School Board recommended Respondent's termination for excessive absenteeism, dishonesty, ongoing gross insubordination, and not preparing lesson plans. The case came before the Division of Administrative Hearings in Case Number 09-0955.1 On August 20, 2009, a Recommended Order was entered concluding that a preponderance of the evidence in that case did not support the alleged acts in the charging document, and Respondent was reinstated with full back pay. After the School Board reinstated Respondent, for the 2009-2010 school year, she was assigned to Traviss Career Center ("Traviss") to teach 11th and 12th grade English. Prior to this assignment, Respondent had never taught in a high school. Traviss is a school for high school students and adults. Both high school diplomas and certificates in a career field or vocational trade are available to graduates. Traviss students that are trying to achieve a regular high school diploma take the FCAT. Seventy-seven percent of the student population at Traviss who took the 2008-2009 FCAT were reading at level two or below. Level two is a fifth-sixth grade reading level. Polk County requires that the 11th and 12th grade students do the same work as their counterparts at the traditional schools and follow the same curriculum maps.2 Alan Harrell ("Harrell"), the assistant director of curriculum, was Vann's supervisor at Traviss. His primary responsibility is to oversee the academic programs. Such duties include monitoring lesson plans and learning guides, and keeping the curriculum maps on target. Harrell also oversees students' grades and makes sure students are getting the right courses for their diploma. Harrell supervised Vann during the six periods she taught a day. Three of the classes were English III for juniors and three were English IV for seniors. Vann tried to be creative when teaching the curriculum maps. When the students were required to study Shakespeare, Chaucer, and epic works such as Beowulf, she would often-times show modern movies like Hercules to keep the students interested. Harrell did not think the movies were the best teaching methods for the students. Harrell made regular visits to Vann's classroom and met with her about various issues periodically. During Harrell's second meeting with Vann on October 16, 2009, some items discussed were students' grades, homework, and lesson plans. On November 17, 2009, Harrell emailed Vann to instruct her about her lesson plans for the two previous weeks. The email stated: Please post your lesson plans for week of 11/09/2009 and for week of 11/16/2009. They should be posted on Friday prior to the next week so we have some guideline for the substitute to be able to follow when the teacher is absent. During Harrell's fifth meeting with Vann on November 30, 2009, Harrell discussed several areas of concern. The first was her lesson plans not being posted. During the first semester, Vann was absent from school approximately 15 days. On December 11, 2009, Harrell met with Vann again to discuss proper protocol and procedures for preparing lesson plans. Harrell also discussed Vann's numerous absences and the effect on the students. On January 11, 2010, Harrell contacted Vann again about incomplete lesson plans by email. It stated: In reviewing your lesson plans for the week of 1/11/2010, I observe a number of discrepancies that need to be corrected. "same as above" under PLANNING does not define the objectives. "same as above" under PLANNING does not define the Standards/Benchmarks. Under Procedures/Activities, a description of what the intended activity is going to be needs to be described. As previously discussed your lesson plans need to be in line with the curriculum map. On January 13, 2010, Vann emailed Harrell and informed him that she had "reposted the completed version of the lesson plan template for 1/11/10." Deficiencies in Vann's performance as a teacher and absences from school continued into the second half of the school year. Vann's posted lesson plans were incomplete or insufficient, and she would email lesson plans to the school on the mornings when she was absent. Vann was absent approximately 10 days without pay between January 7, 2010, and February 11, 2010, including the 11th. The emails Vann sent during that period listed the following explanations for her absences: January 7, 2010, "I have no voice."; January 11, 2010, "Sick . . ."; January 12, 2010, at 5:19 a.m., "Sick since Friday . . . trying to see doctor today"; January 12, 2010, at 5:24 a.m., "As stated my lesson plan template was incomplete for 1/11/10 because I have been sick and was unable to complete the template."; January 19, 2010, "I have been down with a Migraine for three days and I hope to be able to see the doctor today."; February 9, 2010, "I am having very severe back problems and have a doctor's appointment today."3 On February 12, 2010, Respondent was in a car accident on the way from school on Thornhill Road. A car slammed into her going approximately 55 miles per hour in the drizzling rain. Vann first sought medical treatment on February 25, 2010, from a chiropractor, Dr. Sundermeyer.4 Vann was treated the rest of the school year for her back and spine by the chiropractor. As a result of Vann's continuing decline in performance, on February 25, 2010, Respondent received a Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance, which advised that she had performance deficiencies and was being placed on a 90-day probationary period pursuant to Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance informed Respondent that she had failed to perform satisfactorily in the following aspects or duties of her job: You have had excessive absences. You have failed to prepare and maintain current lesson plans for your classes. In addition to the fact that the preparation of lesson plans is a requirement of your job, your failure to prepare such plans has made it extremely difficult to maintain the educational process for your students during your absences. The management of your classroom environment, including student discipline, has been extremely poor. You have failed to prepare and deliver appropriate or effective teaching strategies for your students. You have failed to maintain an appropriate and distinct relationship as a teacher with your students. A meeting was held on March 1, 2010, with Vann to discuss recommendations and a plan of action to provide assistance in correcting the deficiencies identified in the Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance. Dr. Dickens, Harrell, Mrs. Amy Hardee("Hardee"), Ms. Angela Dawson, and Vann with her PEA representative attended the meeting. At the March 1, 2010, meeting Vann was informed that she needed to correct the following deficiencies: excessive absences, lesson plan preparation, classroom management, effective teaching strategies, and maintaining an appropriate and distinct relationship with her students. After the meeting, Vann and her union representative met with Hardee, the senior curriculum coordinator of language arts. Vann indicated that her textbook resources were out of date and requested Hardee fix the problem. Hardee immediately located literature and grammar books and made arrangements to have them delivered to Vann. On March 2, 1010, Vann received her 90-Day Corrective Action Plan that specified the following five areas that Respondent was to correct during her probationary period from March 2, 2010, to May 30, 2010: Excessive Absences-It was agreed that you will provide Traviss Career Center a doctor's note when you are ill. You will also make a diligent effort to contact Ms. Loretta Stewart(Principal Secretary) before 6:30am when you are not going to be at work. This will allow sufficient time to obtain a substitute instructor for your class. Lesson Plans-To assist you with improving your classroom management skills, it was suggested that PD 360 be used. Outlines of the segments are attached for your use. Classroom Management-To assist you with preparing lessons for your class, it was suggested PD 360 be used. Outlines of the segments are attached for your use. Effective Teaching Strategies-To assist you in developing effective teaching strategies, it was suggested PD 360 be used. Outlines of the segments are attached for your use. Maintaining a distinct relationship-It was recommended that you refrain from use of unprofessional language and allowing disruptive student behavior during instructional time. You are to work on building a better instructional relationship with your students and expect the respect you deserve. * * * Traviss will provide a substitute for you on Mondays and Thursdays for the remainder of this school year to allow you time to work in the above mentioned areas of deficiency. It is your responsibility to be present at school and working on the criteria listed above. To address the issues with lesson plans, classroom management, and effective teaching strategies, Hardee assigned Vann 39 segments of Professional Development 360 ("PD360") training to view and complete the questions during her probationary period.5 Vann had less than seven hours of PD360 training to complete during her 90-day probationary period. Respondent was provided a list of the 24 modules addressing classroom instruction and 15 modules on differentiated instruction. Each module included a video Vann was to view, followed by approximately six reflection questions that were to be answered on-line by her. On March 2, 2010, Vann acknowledged her understanding and agreement to adhere to the corrective action plan with her signature. To ensure that Vann was successful in completing her PD360 training, a substitute instructor was hired for classroom instruction to allow Vann some time to complete the professional development plan during the 90-day probationary period. However, Respondent chose not to come to work and was absent most of the remainder of the school year. While on probation, from March 3, 2010 to May 5, 2010, Respondent was absent without pay 12 days during March and 17 days during April 29 days.6 Respondent claims that she was not at work because she was sick and couldn't attend. However, Respondent only provided one medical note excusing her from working due to illness. Vann provided the School Board a note that excused her from work from March 17, 2010, until March 18, 2010, which was on an Auburndale Chiropractic, LLC Authorization for Absence form.7 Respondent also provided the School Board a letter dated May 10, 2010, that specified treatment but did not indicate Vann was prohibited from attending work. The letter was from the same chiropractor, Dr. Sundermeyer, on Auburndale Chiropractic, LLC letterhead, not an Authorization for Absence form as previously submitted by Respondent for the March 2010 excused absence. The letter on her chiropractor's letterhead stated: To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in regards of my patient, Judy Gail Vann. I have been treating Ms. Vann for neck pain and lower back pain since February 25, 2010. She has been under my constant care 3 times per week since she started her treatment in this office. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning my patient's health. Thank you, Dr. Sara Sundermeyer8 During her probationary period, Vann never sought treatment from a medical doctor other than the chiropractor, Dr. Sundermeyer. Respondent was not prohibited from attending work due to her illness.9 Vann failed to provide a doctor's note indicating that she could not attend work for her 29 days of absences without pay during her probationary period. Vann improved with her lesson plans. However, starting April 13, 2010, Respondent submitted the same lesson plans for all classes, no matter whether for the 11th or 12th grade students, and did not distinguish between the separate curriculums required for each grade. While on probation, Vann viewed only 15 of the assigned 39 PD360 modules.10 She completed one of the 15 reflection questions and answers, which was a total of two and one-half hours of the seven hours assigned. Vann also failed to meet either the criteria of contacting Ms. Loretta Stewart (Principal's Secretary) when absent or making the contact before 6:30 a.m. some mornings including: April 5, 2010; March 17, 2010; and April 15, 2010.11 By letter dated May 14, 2010, Principal Dickens ("Dickens") informed Vann that a decision had not yet been made on her reappointment at Traviss. The letter further informed Respondent that she had failed to fulfill several of the requirements for her 90-day Corrective Action Plan, including not providing a doctor's note covering all of her absences for illness when she was ill and unable to report to work and failing to complete the PD360 segments designed to help her with her classroom management skills, lesson plans, and effective teaching strategies. On June 3, 2010, Dickens recommended to Superintendent Gail McKenzie that Respondent's employment be terminated for failure to comply with the 90-day Corrective Action Plan, and her failure to perform her duties as an English teacher. The following items were identified as not being completed during the probationary period: failure to provide physician's notes when absent; Dr. Dickens' secretary was not contacted on days Respondent was absent; and the failure to complete the PD360 training. By letter dated July 15, 2010, Respondent was informed that the Superintendent would recommend her termination because Vann had "failed to correct [her] performance deficiencies, failed to complete [her] Professional Development Plan, and that there is 'just cause' for [her] termination pursuant to Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED Polk County School Board enter a final order ratifying Vann's termination from further employment in Polk County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2010, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated due to two years of unsatisfactory and unacceptable performance.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, the Respondent, Robert Nolan, Jr., was employed as a seventh and eighth grade math teacher at Rockway Middle School ("Rockway"). Nolan has been employed by the School Board as a math teacher since the 1987/88 school year. The School Board has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, V., which provides: Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State and District Boards, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and by the Rules of the State Department of Education. Article XI of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part: Classroom teachers are required to develop weekly lesson plans which shall reflect one or more objectives, activities, homework assignments, and a way of monitoring student progress. Principals or supervising administrators may suggest, but not require, a particular format or organization. Only where a principal has documented deficiencies through classroom observation, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS), may a teacher be required to use a set form in preparation of lesson plans. Article XIII, Introduction, B., of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part: The parties agree to the continuation of a developmental approach to improving teaching performance, using the TADS. In accordance with Florida Statutes, no disciplinary action shall be taken, based on incompetence in the absence of documentation and procedures required by TADS. Article XIII, Section 2, of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides in pertinent part: Any teacher whose performance is assessed unacceptable in any observation category shall be entitled to a plan of professional growth practices which shall include reason- able timeframes for implementation. . . Teachers shall follow the growth practices required. Failure to implement required professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was required shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Contract. Where an administrator has substantiated, through two formal observations, as stipulated above, that teaching is unaccep- table in any of the observation categories, DCPS may utilize diagnostic tests and assessment techniques to identify teaching weaknesses and strengths and to assist in selecting appropriate professional growth practices to improve teaching performance. . . Where teaching deficiencies are diagnosed as a result of tests or assessment techniques, DCPS shall require professional growth practices which shall be obligatory on the teacher. Respondent's employment history with the Petitioner includes numerous instances of unsatisfactory and deficient classroom performance reflecting an unwillingness or inability to fulfill his teaching duties and responsibilities. On June 2, 1993, Carole Abrams ("Abrams"), an assistant principal at Rockway at the time, reviewed Respondent's grade book and noticed that Respondent did not have complete grades for the four nine-week grading periods; Respondent was placed on notice that he was required to have a completed grade book by the end of the school year. Even though Respondent was directed to complete his grade book by the end of the school year and was offered assistance so that Respondent may complete his grade book, Respondent failed to complete his grade book as directed. On October 13, 1993, Abrams formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent unacceptable in three categories of the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS"): preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and techniques of instruction. At the time of the observation on October 13, 1993, Abrams concluded that Respondent was not following a particular lesson plan. When Abrams asked to see Respondent's lesson plans during the observation on October 13, 1993, Respondent produced lesson plans that were two years old and belonged to another teacher. During the October 13, 1993 observation, Respondent appeared confused, spent the entire lesson on one mathematical problem, was not able to demonstrate to his students how to complete the problem mathematically, and was unable to accurately answer students' questions regarding the math problem. Respondent was found unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction due to his inability to answer students' questions, to demonstrate the mathematical process for arriving at the correct answer, or to address the necessary topics of the lesson that Respondent was attempting to give. As a result of Respondent's unacceptable classroom performance as demonstrated by the October 13, 1993 observation, Respondent was placed on prescription and was provided with assistance and activities for his performance improvement. Part of Respondent's prescription required that Respondent provide weekly lesson plans, but Respondent failed to do so, even after receiving memoranda from Abrams reminding Respondent of this requirement. On December 7, 1993, Respondent's classroom performance was observed by Patricia Duncan ("Duncan"), another assistant principal at Rockway; Duncan found Respondent unsatisfactory in the area of assessment techniques. Duncan found that Respondent's assessment of students' work was deficient because the grades in Respondent's grade book did not correlate with the days that class was in session, nor with work contained in the students' folders. During the December 7, 1993 observation, Duncan also noted that Respondent did not have the required work folders for some of the students listed in Respondent's classroom. In an effort to assist Respondent, Duncan provided Respondent with a prescription for Respondent's performance improvement which required that Respondent produce his grade book and student folders to Duncan for review and seek the assistance of the math department chairperson. On December 15, 1993, a mid-year Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), was held with Respondent and Jorge Sotolongo ("Sotolongo"), the principal of Rockway at the time, to address the results of Respondent's observations, Respondent's unsatisfactory performance, Respondent's failure to timely complete activities and assignments designed to help him reach an acceptable level of performance. At the CFR on December 15, 1993, Respondent was advised that if he had to remain on prescription, he would receive an unacceptable annual evaluation at the end of the 1993/94 school year. Although Respondent already had been reminded of the requirement that he complete his prescription, on February 4, 1994, Respondent again had to be notified of his failure to complete his activities and assignments as required by Respondent's prescription. On April 12, 1994, Sotolongo formally observed Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent's performance unsatisfactory and unacceptable under TADS in: preparation and planning; and assessment techniques. During the observation on April 12, 1994, Sotolongo noted: that Respondent did not have lesson plans for the class Respondent was teaching; that Respondent's grade book showed that Respondent did not have the required two grades per week for each student; that Respondent had failed to note assignments contained in the students' work folders in his grade book; and that Respondent had failed to properly identify students in his grade book. Including the observation on April 12, 1994, Respondent had been formally observed four times during the 1993/94 school year, and Respondent's classroom performance had been found unacceptable in three out of the four observations. (An observation by Sotolongo on February 10, 1994, scored Respondent's performance as satisfactory.) Since Respondent had received three unacceptable observations during the 1993/94 school year, on May 5, 1994, Sotolongo requested that the School Board perform an external review of Respondent's classroom performance. On May 16, 1994, an external observation of Respondent's performance was conducted by: Billy Birnie, the School Board's Regional Director of Instructional Support; and the principal, Sotolongo. The external observation of Respondent's performance concluded with Respondent being rated, by both observers, unacceptable under TADS in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and assessment techniques. The Respondent questioned whether Birnie and Sotolongo improperly collaberated in completing their TADS observation reports on the observation on May 16, 1994. But both explained that their reports were completed separately, after which they conferred, as contemplated (and, indeed, required) by the TADS procedures. There was no evidence of any improprieties. During the external observation on May 16, 1994, Respondent failed to, and did not even attempt to, follow the lesson plans he had prepared for that day. In addition, the Respondent's lecture was not directed towards any of the objectives listed in Respondent's lesson plans, and Respondent was unable to properly present a lesson on the metric system. A review of Respondent's student work folders during the classroom observation on May 16, 1994, revealed that Respondent did not employ a variety of test formats as required by TADS; rather, Respondent used only those tests contained in the student textbook. As a result of Respondent's unsatisfactory performance and unacceptable observation of May 16, 1994, Respondent was provided with additional activities to assist him in improving his performance. Respondent failed to complete the required assignments and activities related to his unacceptable external observation of May 16, 1994. On June 8, 1994, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's continuing unsatisfactory performance, Respondent's failure to complete assigned activities, and Respondent's annual evaluation. In accordance with TADS, Respondent also was placed on prescription in the area of professional responsibility due to his failure to comply with directives regarding his assigned activities and his failure to complete the assigned activities. At the CFR on June 8, 1994, Respondent was informed that due to his unsatisfactory performance, he would stay on prescription for the remainder of the 1993/94 school year and that he would start the 1994/95 school year on prescription. By the end of the 1993/94 school year, Respondent had been formally observed five times and Respondent's performance had been rated unacceptable in four out of the five observations. On June 8, 1994, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year, which reflected that Respondent had been rated unacceptable in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; assessment techniques; and professional responsibility. On June 17, 1994, Respondent was notified by certified letter that, because he had received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was entitled to request a review of the evaluation. Respondent started the 1994/95 school year on prescription. On October 11, 1994, Respondent was again formally observed by Sotolongo and, in accordance with TADS, was found unacceptable in knowledge of the subject matter and techniques of instruction. During the observation on October 11, 1994, Respondent was unable to provide a correct answer to a mathematical word problem even after resorting to a calculator; the incorrect answer to the problem remained on the board for the duration of the class. Respondent also was found unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction in the observation on October 11, 1994. Respondent failed to provide feedback to students who gave incorrect answers to the math problems being discussed. Respondent was prescribed activities to assist him in overcoming his deficiencies as identified in the classroom observation on October 11, 1994. He was directed to complete these activities by November 4, 1994. By November 22, 1994, Respondent still had not completed the activities. In a further effort to assist Respondent with his performance improvement, Respondent was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program after Sotolongo learned that Respondent had been arrested for possession of cocaine. On December 1, 1994, almost a year after Duncan first formally observed Respondent's performance, Duncan again observed Respondent's classroom performance. Duncan found Respondent unacceptable and unsatisfactory under TADS in knowledge of the subject matter after Respondent was unable to correctly present a lesson involving graphs (instead giving inaccurate information to his students.) On December 7, 1994, a mid-year CFR was held between Respondent and Carmen Marinelli ("Marinelli"), the new principal at Rockway, to discuss Respondent's two unacceptable observations during the 1994/95 school year and Respondent's failure to complete the prescription plan activities assigned him, and to offer Respondent assistance in remediating his unsatisfactory performance. At the CFR on December 7, 1994, Respondent again was reminded that completion of his assigned activities was part of his professional responsibility, and Respondent was advised that if he did not remediate all of his deficiencies by April, 1995, his Professional Service Contract (PSC) would not be renewed. On February 13, 1995, Marinelli performed a formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance and, in accordance with TADS, found Respondent unsatisfactory in: preparation and planning; and knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent was again prescribed activities to assist him in overcoming the deficiencies identified in the classroom observation on February 13, 1995. During the observation on February 13, 1995, Marinelli noted that Respondent did not have lesson plans for his class and that Respondent was unable to correctly present a lesson which required the use of fractions. As a result of Respondent having been formally observed three times during the 1994/95 school year and because Respondent's performance had been rated unacceptable in all three observations, Marinelli requested another external observation. On March 27, 1995, Marinelli and Dr. Hector Hirigoyen, a regional mathematics coordinator, conducted an external observation of Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent unsatisfactory in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; and assessment techniques. During the observation on March 27, 1995, Respondent's lesson plans did not reflect any planned activities for his class, and Respondent's grade book did not contain any grades for a three-week period. Respondent also gave students incorrect information regarding a mathematics vocabulary lesson. After the observation on March 27, 1995, Respondent was prescribed still more activities to assist him in overcoming the deficiencies observed. He also was offered additional assistance from the district supervisor, assistant principal, or department chairperson. By letter dated March 28, 1995, Respondent was notified by the Superintendent of Schools that the deficiencies noted in Respondent's performance during the 1993/94 school year had not been corrected and that the Superintendent was recommending that Respondent not be issued a new PSC. Additionally, the Superintendent's letter of March 28, 1995, notified Respondent that assessment of Respondent's performance would continue for the remainder of Respondent's contract. On May 3, 1995, Marinelli held a CFR with Respondent to discuss the status of his prescription, to remind Respondent that if he remained on prescription he may not be reappointed, and to review Respondent's interim annual evaluation of unacceptable performance. On May 12, 1995, Martha Boden, an outside observer, conducted a formal observation of Respondent's classroom performance and found Respondent's techniques of instruction to be unsatisfactory. Boden cited Respondent's failure to allow students to answer questions and failure to determine whether students understood the lesson being given as the reasons for Respondent's unacceptable performance. During the observation on May 12, 1995, when the school year was close to ending, the outside observer also found that Respondent had only two grades per student in his grade book. On June 9, 1995, Marinelli held another CFR with Respondent to address Respondent's unsatisfactory performance during the 1994/95 school year and to advise Respondent that, since he had not remediated his deficiencies, he would receive an overall unacceptable annual evaluation, and that his PSC would not be renewed. On June 9, 1995, Respondent received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1994/95 school year in: preparation and planning; knowledge of the subject matter; techniques of instruction; and professional responsibility. The Respondent has argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of offense taken at his expression of "concern with the inadequacies of the textbooks that he was directed to use in his math classes." This argument is rejected. First, the Respondent's testimony on the textbook argument consisted of speculation that one assistant principal who evaluated him (Carole Abrams) might have taken offense when the Respondent went "over her head" and took direct action to have copies of textbooks delivered to the school. According to the Respondent's testimony, this argument would not apply to any of the other educators who observed the Respondent and judged his performance to be less than satisfactory. In addition, the Respondent did not testify that any offense was taken even by Abrams at the Respondent's insinuation that the textbooks were inadequate. There was no evidence that the textbooks were inadequate; rather, the evidence was that they were new and that the Respondent wanted to use his old textbooks because he was more accustomed to and comfortable with them. The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of envy on account of his successful application for grants from the School Board. Although this argument is based on testimony from the Respondent, that testimony is rejected. It is not found that any, much less all, of the educators who observed the Respondent and judged his performance to be less than satisfactory were envious of the Respondent's grants, or that any of their evaluations were affected by the Respondent's grant applications or grants. The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that his unsatisfactory performance evaluations were the result of TADS's inflexibility and inability to fairly evaluate the Respondent's performance under his grants. However, the Respondent's grants had no impact on lesson planning or grading, or on the evaluation of his performance in those areas under TADS. (Indeed, in response to criticism that he had no lesson plans, the Respondent produced another teacher's lesson plans from a time period that preceded the Respondent's grant by two years and claimed that he was following them. As for grading, the Respondent already had been cited under TADS for failing to maintain sufficient grades in his grade book during the 1991/1992 school year, which was before he started implementing his first grant.) As for teaching techniques, another area in which the Respondent consistently performed poorly, it is found that TADS was flexible enough to allow for a fair evaluation of the Respondent's performance under his grants. TADS was specifically formulated to allow for any type of effective teaching and for a variety of teaching methods, and the areas observed under the techniques of instruction category would not conflict with an individual teacher's teaching style or method. The problem was not that the Respondent was teaching under a grant; the problem was that he was not teaching well, grant or no grant. (Indeed, for most of the time the Respondent claimed to have been utilizing special teaching techniques under the grant to "teach down" to students in the "At Risk Program" to prevent them from dropping out, he testified that he actually was teaching mainstream students; the problem was the Respondent's inadequacies, not his students.) The Respondent also argued in his Proposed Recommended Order that he did not get the assistance to which he was entitled so as to improve his unsatisfactory performance. But the proof of the School Board's attempts to assist the Respondent was overwhelming. Indeed, in the face of the evidence, at final hearing, the Respondent testified to the exact opposite of what he then argued in his Proposed Recommended Order--he complained that he was given too much assistance, which hindered his attempts to improve his performance. 1/ Other arguments the Respondent attempted in the course of his testimony were not even argued in his Proposed Recommended Order. The Respondent testified that some of the people from whom he sought assistance seemed afraid to help, but he did not identify who these people were, and it is not found that anyone declined to help the Respondent out of fear of repercussions. He also testified that he was unable to take advantage of planning periods to prepare lesson plans because he was required to cover for other teachers who had to miss classes to coach softball, but softball season was in the spring and could not excuse the Respondent's failure to prepare lesson plans in the fall and winter. The Respondent also testified that he tried to avoid having to cover for teachers while he was on prescription and that the persistence of these teachers indicated that administrators had overridden the Respondent; but neither the teachers nor the admin- istrators were identified, and it is not found that any administrator required the Respondent to cover classes for those teachers while he was on prescription. The Respondent also testified that the grant required him to do extra work arranging field trips, leaving him less time for lesson planning, teaching and completing prescrip- tions; but, in the 1994/1995 school year, the Respondent used some of his grant money to hire a "para-professional" to help him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter the final order: (1) that Robert Nolan, Jr., not be issued a new Professional Service Contract; (2) that Robert Nolan, Jr., be dismissed as an employee of The School Board of Dade County, Florida; and (3) that Robert Nolan's suspension of April 12, 1995, be sustained and that he receive no back pay for the period of this suspension. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1996.
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 Whether the Petitioner's decision not to renew the Respondent's professional service contract for the 1998-99 school year should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the county and to "provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees" of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1997). At the times material to this proceeding, Loretta Young was a science teacher employed under a professional service contract by the School Board and assigned to North Dade Middle School ("North Dade"). She was initially hired by the School Board as a substitute teacher in February 1987, was subsequently hired as a full-time teacher, and then placed on a professional service contract at some time after the 1994-95 school year. Ms. Young is a member of United Teachers of Dade and is governed by the Contract Between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("Contract"). The Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS") is the instrument which has been used by the School Board since the 1984-85 school year for evaluating teachers' performance. TADS is certified by the State of Florida as an appropriate evaluation system, and TADS and all of the materials associated with TADS, including the training requirements, are incorporated into Article XIII of the Contract. TADS is based on the assumption that a teacher must perform certain basic teaching behaviors in order to be effective in the classroom, and it is a baseline instrument; that is, it does not distinguish between a teacher whose performance is minimally acceptable and a teacher whose performance is exceptionally good. The assessments of teacher performance are derived from actual observations of the teacher teaching in the classroom. The observations normally last for an entire class period. TADS interim and annual evaluations are normally done by school principals or their designees, but the actual observations of a teacher's performance can be done by anyone on an administrative level who is certified as proficient in the use of the system. Certification requires four days of training, and a person is not considered proficient in the system unless he or she passes several examinations. The number of times each year a teacher is observed as part of the TADS process is based on the teacher's contract status. A teacher under a professional service contract must be observed at least one time during the school year unless the teacher has received an annual evaluation of unacceptable at the end of the previous school year. In such a situation, several observations are required because the deficiencies on which the unacceptable evaluation is based are considered remediated, or corrected, only when the teacher achieves two consecutive acceptable summative decisions, or assessments.1 Only then can such a teacher receive an annual evaluation of acceptable. The TADS manual provides the framework for assessing the classroom performance of a teacher. It is divided into several parts: The Classroom Assessment Instrument contains assessment items, directions, definitions, and the ground rules for making an observation; the Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement ("Record") is a form designed to assist the observer in organizing the information derived from an observation; the Interpretive Guide, describes in detail the teaching behaviors which are to be the subject of the observation, together with an explanation of the basis for acceptable performance ratings in each category. TADS is divided into two sections. Component A deals with teaching behaviors which are the subject of observation of the teacher's performance in the classroom. The decision categories included in Component A of TADS and the specific behaviors, or indicators, are the following: CATEGORY I - PREPARATION AND PLANNING THE TEACHER SHOWS EVIDENCE OF PREPARATION AND PLANNING IN STRUCTURING THE LEARNING EXPERIENCES OF STUDENTS. The teacher develops lesson plans. The classroom activities reflect evidence of effective instructional planning. CATEGORY II - KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER THE TEACHER DEMONSTRATES SUBJECT MATTER COMPETENCE WHILE TEACHING. Subject matter content. Subject matter presentation. CATEGORY III - CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT THE TEACHER ADMINISTERS ACTIVITIES WELL SO THAT PUPILS ARE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND EXPECTATIONS AND WORK EFFICIENTLY WITH LITTLE DISRUPTION. Most of the observation period is devoted to some form of instruction rather than to organizational activities, i.e., roll taking, distribution of supplies/materials and regrouping for instruction. The teacher uses strategies to prevent, identify and redirect off-task learners. Pupil behavior is managed appropriately. CATEGORY IV - TECHNIQUES OF INSTRUCTION THE TEACHER INSTRUCTS AT LEVELS WHICH ARE COMMENSURATE WITH THE INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS OF LEARNERS, PRESENTS CONTENT IN SEQUENTIAL AND ORDERLY FASHION, AND FACILITATES INTERACTIONS PERTINENT TO LESSON OBJECTIVES. Instructional materials and methods are appropriate to the needs and abilities of the learners. Pupil performance on learning objectives is monitored. Opportunities are provided for verbal interaction. Opportunities are provided for active involvement. Media are used to facilitate instruction. Instruction follows a sequence. Clear explanations and directions are provided. Directions and explanations are clarified when necessary. CATEGORY V - TEACHER-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS THE TEACHER ESTABLISHES POSITIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH STUDENTS TO STIMULATE AND MAINTAIN A POSITIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT. Attempts to systematically involve all students in class activities. Promotes a positive interpersonal environment. CATEGORY VI - ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES THE TEACHER UTILIZES A VARIETY OF INFORMAL AND FORMAL ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES WHICH MOTIVATE AND ENABLE STUDENTS TO LEARN AND WHICH ASSIST THE TEACHER IN UNDERSTANDING THE DEGREE OF STUDENT LEARNING AND THE DEGREE TO WHICH INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES ARE BEING ATTAINED. Makes informal assessments of student learning and progress during the lesson. Makes formal assessments of student academic and/or vocational progress. Component B of TADS consists of Category VII, which measures a teacher's performance of his or her professional responsibilities. Teachers are assessed on a continuing basis with respect to this category, and the decision categories for the professional responsibility component are the teacher's compliance with School Board rules and with the provisions of the Contract. Data relating to professional responsibility are used only in making the decision regarding a teacher's annual evaluation. The Record is an essential component of TADS. It is the form in which the person conducting a formal observation of a teacher's performance describes in detail the observed behavior that is found deficient, organized by categories. The observer also includes in the Record a detailed description of "prescription plan activities" designed to assist the teacher in correcting the observed deficiency or deficiencies and to identify resources, usually school personnel, which the teacher may or must consult in order to complete the prescribed activities. A date by which the activity must be completed is identified in the report, as well. The teacher is entitled to provide in the Record an explanation of the behavior that was cited as deficient. TADS was used in assessing Ms. Young's teaching performance, and most of the observations of her classroom teaching lasted two hours because this was the length of a class period for her science classes, many of which were on block scheduling. Ms. Young began the 1996-97 school year "on prescription,"2 as a result of an external observation conducted on May 30, 1996, by Elizabeth Rivero, an assistant principal at North Dade, and Dr. Gus Loret de Mola, a District Science Supervisor. In this observation, Ms. Young's performance was found unacceptable in parts A and B of the preparation and planning category, in all three parts of the class management category, and in parts F and G of the techniques of instruction category. The Report contained prescription plan activities which Ms. Young was expected to complete in August and September of the 1996-97 school year. Ms. Young's TADS Annual Evaluation reflected an overall unacceptable rating, and a Summary of Conference-for-the- Record held June 6, 1996, reflects that Ms. Young was advised of this rating and of the fact that the prescriptions contained in the Record would carry over into the 1996-1997 school year. On September 19, 1996, Eunice Davis, who became principal of North Dade in September 1996, conducted a formal observation of Ms. Young's teaching performance as she taught a science class. In the Record of the observation, Ms. Davis identified two deficiencies in part B and three deficiencies in part C of the classroom management category and two deficiencies in part F and two deficiencies in part G of the techniques of instruction category. The deficiencies in classroom management related generally to Ms. Young's failure to redirect students who were either disruptive or off-task and her failure to make clear to the students her expectations regarding their behavior. The deficiencies in techniques of instruction related generally to Ms. Young's failure to put the components of the lesson in the appropriate sequence, her failure to provide closure of the lesson, and her failure to explain and/or demonstrate clearly an assignment involving use of a ruler which the students obviously did not understand. Ms. Davis included prescription plan activities for each deficiency identified, which were to be completed by October 11, 1996. Ms. Young provided in the Record an explanation of why she did not deal appropriately with a student who kept her head on her desk for approximately thirty minutes of the class period, but no changes were made in the Record regarding the cited deficiencies in Ms. Young's teaching performance. On December 11, 1996, a Mid-Year Conference-for-the- Record was held with Ms. Young, Ms. Davis, Ms. Rivero, and Georgeanna Vagias, Ms. Young's union steward. The conference was summarized in a memorandum dated December 11, 1996. As recited in the summary, one purpose of the conference was to review Ms. Young's performance assessment to date. Ms. Young was reminded that she had received an unacceptable observation on September 19, 1996, followed by an acceptable observation on October 21, 1996, which resulted in a summative assessment of unacceptable. Ms. Young was further advised that, because she had been rated unacceptable in her TADS annual evaluation for the 1995-96 school year, remediation of her cited deficiencies would be accomplished only when she had received two consecutive summative ratings of acceptable. Additional assessment procedures were explained to Ms. Young, and she stated she had no further questions. In addition to the deficiencies found in Ms. Young's performance in the classroom assessment component of TADS during the fall of 1996, Ms. Young was cited for deficiencies in the area of professional responsibility. These deficiencies were discussed during the December 11, 1996, Mid- Year Conference-for-the-Record. As recited in the summary of the conference dated December 11, 1996, the other purpose of the conference was to review the results of an investigation into an incident in which Ms. Young allegedly committed battery on a student. Ms. Davis read the statements of Ms. Young, the victim, and the witnesses to the incident during the conference. Ms. Young was given the opportunity to speak, and she stated that she was not guilty of the offense charged; in response to a question from the union steward, however, Ms. Young admitted that she had touched the student. After reviewing all of the statements and the results of the investigation, Ms. Davis concluded that the charge against Ms. Young was substantiated. According to the summary, the resulting discipline consisted of the Conference-for-the- Record and the preparation of a TADS Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement. The Record, prepared December 11, 1996, reflected two deficiencies in the professional responsibility category. Ms. Young was cited for being non-compliant with School Board rules relating to corporal punishment and to the responsibilities and duties of teachers and with the portion of the Dade County Public Schools/United Teachers of Dade Contract dealing with student discipline. Ms. Young was also cited for being non-compliant with site directives regarding the use of physical means to discipline students. In the Record, which Ms. Davis signed on December 17, 1996, she included prescription plan activities to assist Ms. Young in remediating these deficiencies, with a completion date of February 17, 1997. Ms. Young provided an explanation of the incident in the Record, in which she stated that, as she closed the door of the classroom from the outside (because she needed to make a quick trip to the office), the victim grabbed the door handle and tried to keep her from closing the door. Ms. Young stated in her explanation that she "simply removed [the student's] hand from the door." Ms. Young's mother died in the winter of 1997, and Ms. Young was absent from North Dade beginning on January 6, 1997. In a letter dated February 11, 1997, Ms. Davis requested that Ms. Young notify the school with respect to her employment intentions. The options presented to Ms. Young were to notify Ms. Davis of the date she intended to return to school, to request leave, to resign her position, or to retire. Ms. Young responded by informing Ms. Davis that she intended to return to work on March 3, 1997, and she did so. During the time that Ms. Young was absent from school, Ms. Davis notified Ms. Young that performance deficiencies cited during the 1996-97 school year had not been remediated and that she was recommending that Ms. Young's professional service contract not be renewed for the 1997-98 school year. This information was conveyed to Ms. Young in a letter dated February 20, 1997, with the reference "CONFERENCE DATA DELINEATED FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR NON-RENEWAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT." The information was provided to Ms. Young by letter because she was absent during the time that the conference was required to be conducted. A copy of Ms. Young's interim evaluation, in which her performance was rated unacceptable, was enclosed with the letter. Ms. Young was advised in the letter that assessment procedures would continue and that a conference-for-the-record would be held when she returned to school. Ms. Young signed the interim evaluation form on February 24, 1997. The promised conference-for-the-record was held on March 7, 1997; in attendance were Ms. Young, Ms. Davis, Thomas Sippio, assistant principal at North Dade; and Georgeanna Vagias, Ms. Young's union steward. The summary of the conference, dated March 10, 1997, recites that Ms. Young was advised that it had been recommended that her professional service contract not be renewed because her first summative assessment for the 1996-97 school year was unacceptable, based on the unacceptable observation conducted on September 19, 1996, and on an acceptable observation conducted on October 21, 1996. According to the summary, Ms. Young apprised that, because she had received an annual evaluation of unacceptable for the 1995-96 school year, remediation of the deficiencies in performance would occur only when she achieved two consecutive acceptable summative assessments. Ms. Young was also informed at the conference that, should her professional service contract not be renewed, the possibility existed that she would not be appointed for an annual contract. The summary reflects that Ms. Young indicated during the conference that she understood the seriousness of her situation. In a letter dated March 10, 1997, the Superintendent of Schools notified Ms. Young that she was being charged with unsatisfactory performance during the 1996-97 school year in the area of "Category VII-Professional Responsibilities." Ms. Young was further advised that her employment might be terminated if the performance deficiency was not corrected during the 1997-98 school year. Ms. Young was offered a meeting with Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Senior Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Responsibility, to discuss her unsatisfactory performance and her right to request a transfer. Finally, Ms. Young was notified that her performance would continue to be evaluated during the remainder of the 1996-97 school year and during the 1997-98 school year. In a letter dated March 20, 1997, Dr. Annunziata advised Ms. Young that she had not been recommended for renewal of her professional service contract and that the School Board had acted on this recommendation: Assessment of your performance will continue throughout the 1996-97 and 1997-98 contract years as a follow-up to the completion of prescriptive guidelines. This is your official notification that unless the performance deficiencies are remediated, your employment with Dade County Public Schools will terminate at the close of the 1997-98 contract year. On March 21, 1997, Ms. Rivero conducted another formal observation of Ms. Young's teaching performance as she taught a seventh grade science class. In the Record of the observation, Ms. Rivero identified two deficiencies each in parts A and B of the planning and preparation category; three deficiencies in part B and two deficiencies in part C of the classroom management category; and two deficiencies in part A of the techniques of instruction category. The deficiencies in preparation and planning generally related to Ms. Young's lack of a lesson plan, with the resulting lack of the required competency-based curriculum objectives for the lesson. The deficiencies in classroom management related generally to Ms. Young's failure to redirect students who were either disruptive or off-task. The deficiencies in techniques of instruction related generally to the lack of appropriate instructional materials and methods. Ms. Rivero included prescription plan activities for each deficiency identified, which were to be completed by April 16, 1997. Ms. Young provided in the Record an explanation of her performance with respect to each deficiency identified by Ms. Rivero, but Ms. Rivero concluded that the explanations were not sufficient to change her determination of the deficiencies in Ms. Young's teaching performance. Ms. Young was given an overall summary rating of unacceptable in the summative assessment of her teaching performance signed by Ms. Rivero on March 26, 1997. This rating was based on the October 21, 1996, and March 21, 1997, formal observations of Ms. Young's teaching performance. The overall rating derived from ratings of unacceptable in the preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction categories. Because Ms. Young had two consecutive summative assessments in which her teaching performance was rated unacceptable, an external observation of her teaching performance was conducted on April 23, 1997, by Ms. Davis and Ted Boydston, a District Science Supervisor. Ms. Young was observed teaching a seventh grade science class. In the Record of the observation, Ms. Davis and Mr. Boydston identified two deficiencies in part B of the planning and preparation category; two deficiencies each in parts A and H and three deficiencies in part E of the techniques of instruction category; and three deficiencies in part B of the assessment techniques category. The deficiencies in preparation and planning related generally to Ms. Young's failure to develop a lesson plan that filled the entire class period and her failure to adhere to the lesson plan she had prepared. The deficiencies in techniques of instruction related generally to the lack of appropriate instructional materials and methods; Ms. Young's failure to use any media other than the chalkboard to demonstrate lab activity (it was noted that she did not use the chalkboard effectively); and her failure to correct wrong answers and to clarify the confusion of individual students and of the class as a whole. The deficiencies in assessment techniques related generally to Ms. Young's failure to develop effective tools to assess instructional objectives and to use more than one kind of assessment tool. Mr. Boydston and Ms. Rivero included prescription plan activities for each deficiency identified, which were to be completed by May 16, 1997. Ms. Young chose not to provide an explanation of her performance in the Record with respect to the deficiencies cited. Another external observation of Ms. Young's teaching performance was conducted on May 28, 1997, by Thomas Sippio, an assistant principal at North Dade, and Carnell White, the Director of District I of the school district. Ms. Young was observed while she was teaching a seventh grade science class. In the Record of the observation, Mr. Sippio and Mr. White identified two deficiencies each in parts B, F, and G of the techniques of instruction category. These deficiencies in techniques of instruction related generally to Ms. Young's failure to provide feedback to the students or to suggest ways that the students could improve their performance; her failure to establish the necessary background for the planned lesson or to complete the lesson within the class period; and her failure to communicate clearly with the students and to explain matters about which the students were confused. Mr. Sippio and Mr. White included prescription plan activities for each deficiency identified, which were to be completed by September 22, 1997. Ms. Young chose not to provide an explanation of her performance in the Record with respect to the cited deficiencies. On June 11, 1997, a Conference-for-the-Record was held with Ms. Young, Ms. Davis, and Ms. Rivero in attendance.3 As recited in the summary dated June 13, 1997, the purpose of the conference was to discuss Ms. Young's unacceptable performance and her future employment with the Miami-Dade County public school system. Ms. Young's performance to date was reviewed; she was offered assistance to help her improve her performance in the 1997-98 school year; she was advised that her teaching performance was rated unacceptable in her annual evaluation for the 1996-97 school year and that her salary was frozen as a result; she was informed that a teacher could be terminated from employment if two years of unremediated performance deficiencies were accumulated; and she was offered assistance from the Dade County School Referral Agency. According to the summary, Ms. Young acknowledged during the conference that she understood the seriousness of her position. In her TADS Annual Evaluation for the 1996-97 school year, Ms. Young was rated unacceptable in the following Component A categories: preparation and planning; classroom management; techniques of instruction; and assessment techniques. Ms. Young was also rated unacceptable in Component B, the professional responsibility category, of the TADS. The annual evaluation was based on observations conducted on September 19, 1996; December 11, 1996; March 21, 1997; April 23, 1997; and May 28, 1997. On October 10, 1997, Ms. Rivero conducted the first observation of Ms. Young's teaching performance for the 1997- 98 school year. Ms. Young was observed as she taught a science class. In the Record of the observation, Ms. Rivero identified one deficiency in part B of the planning and preparation category and two deficiencies each in parts A and C and three deficiencies in part B of the classroom management category. The deficiency in preparation and planning was based on Ms. Rivero's observation that Ms. Young completed less than half of the lesson outlined in the lesson plan for that class. The deficiencies in classroom management were related generally to Ms. Young's failure to use class time efficiently, her failure to redirect or effectively redirect students who were either disruptive or off-task, and her failure to make her students aware of her expectations regarding their behavior. Ms. Rivero included prescription plan activities for each deficiency identified, which were to be completed by November 3, 1997. Ms. Young chose not to provide an explanation of her performance in the Record with respect to the cited deficiencies. On December 17, 1997, a Mid-Year Conference-for-the- Record was held, with Ms. Young, Ms. Davis, Ms. Rivero, and Ms. Vagias, Ms. Young's union steward, in attendance. As recited in the summary, the purpose of the conference was to discuss Ms. Young's unacceptable performance assessment to date and her future employment with the Miami-Dade County public school system. Ms. Young was reminded that she had received an unacceptable observation on October 16, 1997, followed by an acceptable observation on December 11, 1997, which resulted in a first summative assessment of unacceptable. Ms. Young was advised that, because her TADS annual evaluation for the 1996-97 school year was unacceptable, she needed two consecutive acceptable summative decisions for remediation of the cited performance deficiencies. She was further advised that her employment with the school system could be terminated if she had unremediated performance deficiencies for two consecutive years. According to the summary, Ms. Young acknowledged at the conference that she understood the seriousness of her situation and knew what she needed to do to remediate the performance deficiencies. On February 20, 1998, Thomas Sippio, an assistant principal of North Dade, conducted a formal observation of Ms. Young's teaching performance as she taught a science class. In the Record of the observation, Mr. Sippio identified two deficiencies each in parts B and C of the classroom management category and three deficiencies each in parts A, B, and H, four deficiencies in part C, and two deficiencies each in parts F and G of the techniques of instruction category. The deficiencies in classroom management related generally to Ms. Young's failure to redirect students who were off-task and her failure to make clear to the students her expectations regarding their behavior. The deficiencies in techniques of instruction related generally to Ms. Young's failure to use materials and methods appropriate for the needs of her students; her failure to explain the lesson, to acknowledge many students who had questions, and to answer adequately those questions she did address; her failure to provide feedback to students about the strengths and weaknesses in their performance; her failure to provide information necessary for the students to understand the lesson; and her failure to clarify the confusion of most students in the class. Mr. Sippio included prescription plan activities for each deficiency identified, which were to be completed by March 16, 1998. Ms. Young chose not to provide an explanation of her performance in the Record with respect to the cited deficiencies. On March 9, 1998, a Conference-for-the-Record was held, with Ms. Young, Ms. Davis, Ms. Rivero, and Ms. Vagias in attendance. As recited in the summary dated March 16, 1998, the purpose of the conference was to discuss Ms. Young's performance to date, her prescriptive status, and her future employment with the Miami-Dade County public school system. Ms. Young was reminded that she had received an unacceptable observation on October 16, 1997, followed by an acceptable observation on December 11, 1997, which resulted in a first summative assessment of unacceptable and that she had received an unacceptable observation on February 20, 1998, which resulted in a second summative assessment of unacceptable. Ms. Young was further advised that, because she had been rated unacceptable in her TADS annual evaluation for the 1995-96 school year, remediation of her cited deficiencies would be accomplished only when she had received two consecutive summative ratings of acceptable. Ms. Young was advised that her employment with the school system could be terminated if she had unremediated performance deficiencies for two consecutive years. According to the summary, Ms. Young was also told that she would receive an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1997-98 school year if she did not remediate all cited deficiencies. Finally, Ms. Young was given an EMP-7 Instructional Form, in which it was recommended that she be terminated at the end of the 1997-98 school year. Ms. Young voiced several concerns during the conference, and these were addressed by Ms. Davis and Ms. Rivero. The letter from the Superintendent of Schools notifying Ms. Young that he was recommending that her professional service contract not be renewed for the 1998-99 school year was dated March 12, 1998. The School Board considered the recommendation at its meeting on March 18, 1998, and decided not to renew Ms. Young's professional service contract and not to reappoint her to a teaching position for the 1998-99 school year. Nonetheless, because Ms. Young had two consecutive summative assessments in which her teaching performance as rated unacceptable, an external observation of her teaching performance was conducted on May 5, 1998, by Ms. Davis and Dr. Gustavo Loret de Mola, a District Science Supervisor. In the Record of the observation, Ms. Davis and Dr. Loret de Mola identified one deficiency in part A and three deficiencies in part B of the knowledge of subject matter category; one deficiency in part A and two deficiencies in part C of the classroom management category; and four deficiencies in part F and two deficiencies in part H of the techniques of instruction category. The deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter were related generally to the existence of substantive errors in Ms. Young's presentation and to her failure to present information in the appropriate sequence, her failure to address important aspects of the topic being presented, and her failure to present information on more than one cognitive level. The deficiencies in classroom management related generally to Ms. Young's failure to begin the lesson promptly, her failure to make her expectations regarding behavior clear to the students, and her failure to deal appropriately with students who were disruptive and/or off- task. The deficiencies in techniques of instruction related generally to Ms. Young's failure to establish a background for the lesson, her failure to include necessary topics, her failure to present information in an appropriate sequence, and her failure to assess and appropriately address her students' confusion. Dr. Loret de Mola and Ms. Davis included prescription plan activities for each deficiency identified, which were to be completed by September 25, 1998. Ms. Young chose not to provide an explanation for her performance in the Record with respect to the cited deficiencies. Ms. Young received a rating of unacceptable in her TADS annual evaluation for the 1997-98 school year, and the Superintendent's non-reappointment nomination was not rescinded. In her defense, Ms. Young testified that she always prepared good lesson plans and kept order in her classroom. She testified that she always did every activity prescribed for her in the records of the observations in which her performance was found unacceptable. Finally, Ms. Young attributes the unacceptable observations to bad motives on the part of the persons conducting the observations.4 Ms. Young's observations regarding the motives of those persons evaluating her performance are rejected as contrary to the more credible proof presented by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish that Ms. Young's teaching performance during the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years was unsatisfactory and remained unremediated at the end of the 1997-98 school year. The evidence is also sufficient to establish that Ms. Young was provided with the required notices of her unsatisfactory performance and was offered appropriate assistance and inservice training opportunities during the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years to assist her in improving her performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining its decision not to renew Loretta L. Young's professional service contract for the 1998-99 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1999.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the Broward County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed with Petitioner as an exceptional student education ("ESE") teacher at Silver Ridge Elementary School in Broward County, Florida. The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Respondent has extensive educational training and experience in working with disabled and special needs students for many years. Respondent worked in the school system in Long Island, New York, as a paraprofessional for an estimated 13 to 14 years. Her duties included working with exceptional students at a cerebral palsy center, where she assisted teachers in changing students' diapers, feeding them, and assisting them in using various types of adaptive equipment. She also taught and tested special needs students having physical disabilities but possessing greater cognitive awareness. At the encouragement of teachers with whom she worked, Respondent pursued and received her bachelor's degree in elementary education in 1999, while continuing to work as a paraprofessional in the school system. Thereafter, she pursued her master's degree while working as a substitute teacher during the school year and as a teacher for summer school during the summer months. Respondent received her master's degree in special education in 2003. Respondent began working as an ESE teacher at Silver Ridge Elementary School in 2003, shortly after she moved to Florida. The allegations giving rise to this proceeding span the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. During both school years, Respondent's ESE students were disabled and most of them were nonverbal. Petitioner alleges that during both school years, Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive actions toward students in her classroom in violation of Department of Education rules and Petitioner's policies. The 2011-2012 School Year Background Starting in August of the 2011-2012 school year, paraprofessionals Rostande Cherelus and Cara Yontz were assigned to assist in Respondent's classroom. Cherelus and Yontz both testified that they had a good working relationship with Respondent. However, this testimony is belied by the credible, persuasive evidence establishing that Respondent did not enjoy a smooth working relationship with either of them. The persuasive evidence establishes that the difficulties in Respondent's relationship with both paraprofessionals stemmed from their frequent tardiness, leaving the classroom during instructional time without Respondent's permission, and frequent use of their cell phones in the classroom during instructional time. Respondent let them know on many occasions that this behavior was not acceptable. The persuasive evidence further establishes that neither paraprofessional was particularly cooperative in assisting Respondent in the classroom. For example, when Respondent attempted to engage the participatory-level students in the various learning activities class, the paraprofessionals ——particularly Cherelus——would often respond with what Respondent characterized as "huffing and puffing," rolling of the eyes, crossed arms, and comments questioning the utility of engaging in activities to educate the students because "that kid can't do anything anyway." Respondent credibly testified that when admonished, Cherelus would make statements such as "thank God, God didn't give me a kid like that." Respondent consistently reported the ongoing problems with Cherelus and Yontz to then-Principal Marion Gundling and then-Assistant Principal Saemone Hollingsworth. However, it appears that this effort was in vain. By November 7, 2011, the situation in Respondent's classroom had deteriorated to the point that Respondent requested a meeting with Gundling and Hollingsworth to address the continuing problems with the paraprofessionals. After the November 7, 2011, the situation in Respondent's classroom did not improve. Respondent testified, credibly, that both paraprofessionals continued to be difficult to work with, that there was constant friction in the classroom, and that both paraprofessionals were aware of her lack of satisfaction with their behavior and job performance. They also knew that she communicated her dissatisfaction to the school administration. On December 1, 2011——notably, before Cherelus and Yontz alleged student abuse by Respondent1/——Respondent contacted Gundling and Hollingsworth by electronic mail ("email"), stating "[m]y classroom is an absolute disaster since our meeting." The email described in great detail2/ events, actions by the paraprofessionals, the dysfunctional atmosphere in Respondent's classroom arising from the paraprofessionals' behavior and poor job performance, and Respondent's continued dissatisfaction with them. On December 15, 2011, Yontz filed a written statement with the school administration alleging that Respondent had taken abusive actions toward students D.N. and J.M. Yontz's statement alleged that in October of that year, Respondent had become angry with D.N., screamed at her, and grabbed her hair from behind. The statement also alleged that in October of that year,3/ Respondent punished student J.M. by confining her to the classroom bathroom from 8:30 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. The statement further alleged that on December 15, 2011, Respondent had become angry with and screamed at student J.M., pushed her face, and attempted to secure J.M's glasses, which were too large for her face, with a rubber band. According to Yontz's statement, Respondent pulled J.M.'s hair, causing her to make noises indicating that she was in pain. Cherelus filed a written statement with the school administration on December 16, 2011, stating that when she had returned from break the previous day, J.M. was upset. According to Cherelus' statement, when she asked J.M. what was wrong, J.M. said "Ms. T. pull" and made a pulling motion while pointing to her glasses. On December 16, 2011, Respondent was removed from her classroom pending an investigation of the allegations against her made by Yontz and Cherelus. Ultimately, the investigation yielded insufficient evidence to support Yontz's and Cherelus' allegations and Petitioner took no disciplinary action against Respondent at that time. She was returned to her classroom in April 2012. Notwithstanding that the investigation absolved Respondent, Petitioner now seeks to take disciplinary action based on these accusations. Allegations in Amended Administrative Complaint In Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint filed in this proceeding on April 1, 2014, Petitioner alleges that during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive acts toward students D.N., J.M., A.S., and C.A., who were assigned to her class. Each of these allegations is addressed below.4/ Student D.N. Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that in October 2011, Respondent screamed at student D.N. for being unable to complete her work and pulled her hair. At the final hearing, Cherelus and Yontz both testified that one day in the classroom, Respondent grabbed D.N. by her ponytail. However, their testimony is inconsistent regarding key details and circumstances. Cherelus testified that Respondent grabbed D.N. and pulled her up from her chair because she had asked D.N. to get up and go get her classwork, and D.N. did not do so. Cherelus testified that Respondent said something to the effect of "[l]et's go, you don't want to do your work" and pulled D.N. up from her chair by her ponytail, causing D.N. to fall on the floor. Cherelus testified that D.N. screamed and Respondent let her go. Cherelus further testified that Respondent did not scream at D.N. Yontz, on the other hand, testified that Respondent screamed at D.N. because she was not focusing on the classwork in front of her on her desk. Yontz testified that at one point, Respondent grabbed D.N. by the back of the neck and forcefully held her head to keep her facing downward. Yontz testified that Respondent then grabbed and tugged D.N.'s ponytail and pulled her head backward to force her to look at her work. The inconsistencies between the Cherelus' and Yontz's testimony are significant. Cherelus described a situation in which Respondent jerked D.N.'s ponytail to make her get up from her desk, and that as a result, D.N. fell to the floor. However, Yontz described a situation in which D.N. remained seated and Respondent jerked her head backward by her ponytail to make her focus on the work on her desk.5/ Additionally, Yontz testified that Respondent screamed at D.N., while Cherelus specifically stated that she did not scream. Yontz testified that Respondent grabbed the back of D.N.'s neck, while Cherelus did not testify to that effect. Testimony regarding key details and circumstances surrounding the incident is vital to determining credibility in a case such as this, where the witnesses for both parties have differing accounts of the events at issue. Here, due to the inconsistencies in their testimony regarding significant details and circumstances regarding the alleged incident, the undersigned finds neither Cherelus' nor Yontz's testimony persuasive or credible. By contrast, Respondent provided a clear, detailed account of the incident that significantly differed from that provided by Cherelus and Yontz. On the day in question, Respondent was working with D.N., who has a movement-related disability, to direct her to focus on her work. Because of D.N.'s disability, she was easily distracted and often looked around at activity occurring on either side of her. Thus, when Respondent engaged in one-on-one instruction with D.N., she would stand behind D.N. and use a series of voice and gestural commands, verbal and gestural prompts, and physical prompts as necessary, to get D.N. to focus on her work. Pursuant to D.N.'s individual education plan ("IEP"), she had worn a weighted vest to assist her in focusing on her work, but shortly before the incident, her IEP had been amended to no longer include use of the vest, so Respondent had instead begun using physical compression on D.N.'s shoulders, with her thumbs touching the back of her neck, to assist D.N. in focusing. Respondent credibly testified that the compression was slight, not forceful. On the day in question, Respondent used the compression technique but D.N. continued to look around, so Respondent put her hands on the sides of D.N.'s face to focus her to gaze downward at her work. When Respondent removed the compression from D.N.'s shoulders, she popped backward. Respondent credibly testified that she did not pull D.N.'s hair or jerk her head backward by her ponytail. Respondent's account of the incident is credible and persuasive.6/ Further, the timing of Respondent's email communication with Gundling and Hollingsworth is significant to determining the comparative credibility of Respondent, Cherelus, and Yontz. Respondent's December 1, 2011, email to Gundling and Hollingsworth described in significant detail the events and actions that had taken place in Respondent's classroom following her November 7, 2011, meeting with them. Of particular note is Respondent's detailed description of Cherelus' actions on December 1, 2011, toward student D.N.——specifically, that Cherelus pulled D.N's hair and screamed at her. Respondent's email account of that incident, sent on the same day it was alleged to have occurred and describing it in substantial detail, is far more persuasive than both Cherelus' or Yontz's subsequent statements and hearing testimony regarding the incident. The credible, persuasive evidence leads to the inference that as a result of the paraprofessionals' poor relationship with Respondent, they accused her——after she had reported their poor performance——of the very conduct toward student D.N. that Respondent previously reported that Cherelus had committed. This is a far more reasonable inference than the version of events that Petitioner espouses——which would require the undersigned to infer that Respondent somehow knew that she was going to be accused, at a later date, of pulling D.N.'s hair and screaming at her, so she covered herself by preparing and sending the December 1, 2011, email accusing Cherelus of engaging in that same conduct. For these reasons, the undersigned finds the testimony of Cherelus and Yontz regarding the alleged incident involving D.N. incredible and unpersuasive. Conversely, the undersigned finds Respondent's testimony regarding D.N. credible and persuasive. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint regarding student D.N. Student J.M. In paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in October 2011, Respondent confined student J.M. to the classroom restroom from 8:30 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. as punishment for urinating in her pants. Petitioner's direct evidence to support this allegation primarily consisted of Yontz's testimony.7/ According to Yontz, J.M. came to school one morning after having wet her pants the previous day, and Respondent immediately placed her in the classroom restroom, with the door closed, to punish her.8/ Yontz testified that Respondent left J.M. in the restroom by herself with the door closed beginning at 8:30 a.m. until 1:45 p.m., only being allowed to leave the restroom for lunch in the cafeteria. Yontz also testified that because J.M. was confined to Respondent's classroom restroom all day, the other students in Respondent's class had to use the restroom in other classrooms. Cherelus did not testify regarding this alleged incident.9/ Respondent's clear, credible explanation of this incident differed sharply from that provided by Yontz. Because J.M. frequently would urinate in her pants, her mother would send multiple sets of clothing to school so that Respondent could change J.M.'s clothes when this happened. J.M. had urinated on herself the previous day and had gone through her last set of clothing that day, so Respondent sent a note home to J.M.'s mother asking her to send a fresh set of clothing to school the following day. However, when J.M. arrived at school the next day, she had urinated in her pants and her mother had not sent extra clothing. Respondent changed J.M. into a borrowed set of D.N.'s clothing. J.M. again urinated in her pants and at that point, there was no extra clothing in the classroom for J.M. to wear. Respondent sent Cherelus to the school clinic to see if there was extra clothing that J.M. could wear and she also contacted J.M.'s mother to bring clothing to school for J.M. During the time it took for Cherelus to go to the clinic and return with clothing for J.M. to change into, Respondent put J.M. in the restroom. Respondent could not recall the exact amount of time that J.M. was confined to the restroom, but estimated that it was a short amount of time. She credibly testified that J.M. did not spend the entire day confined to the restroom, and that J.M. was not placed in the restroom as punishment, but, rather, to await a change of clothing. J.M.'s mother, Shakima Brown, verified Respondent's account of the incident. Brown testified that Respondent called her on the day in question to request that she bring a change of clothes to the school. Brown lived only ten minutes away, and she directed Respondent to place J.M. in the restroom until she could bring the extra clothing to the school. Brown testified, credibly, that J.M. had never communicated to her that Respondent confined her to the restroom as punishment, and that had that happened, J.M. would have let her know. The credible, persuasive evidence supports Respondent's account of this incident. The undersigned finds Yontz's account of this incident incredible and unpersuasive. Petitioner also alleges, in paragraph 6. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that on December 15, 2011, Respondent verbally abused J.M., slapped her face, and popped her with a rubber band that she had tied to J.M.'s glasses in an effort to keep them on her face. Yontz is the only witness whose testimony Petitioner presented who claimed to have actually seen the incident. Yontz testified that on the day in question, J.M. was attempting to write her name but was unable to do so without making mistakes. According to Yontz, this annoyed Respondent, who screamed at J.M. Yontz testified that J.M.'s glasses kept falling off, so Respondent tied a rubber band on the ends of them to keep them from falling off. However, the rubber band was too tight so kept popping J.M.'s ear, causing her to make noises as if she were in pain. According to Yontz, Respondent pushed J.M.'s face and screamed at her "oh, you're so annoying, you freaking idiot." Yontz testified that Respondent did not slap J.M.'s face.10/ Cherelus' also testified regarding this incident. She testified that on that day, she took J.M. to another classroom, and that as she was doing so, J.M. cried. Cherelus testified that when she asked J.M. what was wrong, J.M. said "Ms. T slapped me" and gestured in a manner that Cherelus interpreted as showing that Respondent had slapped J.M.11/ On cross examination, Cherelus acknowledged that she did not see Respondent slap J.M., pull her hair, or otherwise hurt her. Cherelus further acknowledged that J.M. is largely nonverbal and incapable of articulating sentences, and that she only said "Ms. T." while making a pulling motion. In any event, Cherelus did not have personal, independent knowledge of this alleged incident, and her testimony was based on J.M.'s limited statement and gesture. Maureen McLaughlin, the child abuse designee for Silver Ridge Elementary School, also testified regarding this alleged incident. McLaughlin testified that Yontz brought J.M. to her office,12/ and that at Yontz's prompting, J.M., using a teddy bear, indicated that Respondent had pushed her head using an open hand. McLaughlin testified: [a]nd basically, it's hard to enact, but J. took her hand, sort of open like this, and what I remember is that her head turned, like, she turned her head. So it was hard to tell, like, is it a slap, is it a push, but it was an open hand and her head ended up being turned because of it. McLaughlin reported the incident to the abuse hotline.13/ Respondent provided a credible, persuasive explanation of the incident. She testified that J.M. previously had a pair of glasses that did not fit her and had used a teal elastic band to hold them on her face. At some point, J.M. lost both the elastic band and her glasses, so Respondent contacted J.M.'s mother regarding getting another pair of glasses for J.M.; however, J.M.'s mother told her that they could not afford to purchase another pair of glasses. Respondent gave J.M.'s mother a pair of glasses frames that had belonged to her daughter, and J.M.'s mother had the frames fitted with J.M.'s prescription. However, those glasses also did not fit J.M.'s face and fell off when she looked down. On the day in question, Respondent tried, unsuccessfully, to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face using a large rubber band. The rubber band popped, causing J.M. to make a sound. Respondent apologized, tried one more time to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face using the rubber band, then gave up. Respondent testified that while she was attempting to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face, J.M. was moving around, so Respondent had J.M. put her head down on the desk. J.M. was hearing-impaired and had put her head down on the side on which her functioning ear was located, so Respondent used her open hand to turn J.M.'s head to the other side. Respondent credibly testified that she did not slap J.M., scream at her, or pull her hair. J.M.'s mother, Shakima Brown, testified that she had been informed of the incident concerning J.M.'s glasses and that on her own, over a period of days, had asked J.M. several times if anyone had hit her. Brown testified, credibly, that J.M. said "no" every time she was asked.14/ The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not scream at J.M., did not slap her face, and did not intentionally hurt her by popping her ear with a rubber band. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 6. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student A.S. In paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent handled A.S. in a physically rough manner, causing him to sustain a scratch on his neck. Cherelus testified that she did not recall any incident involving a student named "A.," and she could not recall his last name. Yontz testified that one day, she took the children out for recess, and as they were leaving, A. was in the room with Respondent. A. subsequently came outside and was crying, and Yontz observed scratch marks on A.'s neck. Yontz testified that she had asked what had happened, and Respondent told her that A. had scratched his neck on the corner of the counter as he put trash in the trash can. Neither Yontz nor Cherelus saw Respondent scratch A., and Petitioner presented no other evidence showing that Respondent scratched A. The sum of Petitioner's evidence regarding this allegation is that A. was scratched while in the classroom with Respondent. There is absolutely no competent substantial evidence in the record showing that Respondent scratched A. Additionally, neither Yontz nor Cherelus, or any other witness, specifically identified "A." as the student "A.S." named in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence linking the testimony about "A." to any allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations set forth in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint involving student A.S. Student C.A. Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 7. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that C.A. went home with scratches on his neck and face over a three-day period, and that when Respondent was questioned, she claimed that C.A. "had an encounter with a tree." Presumably, paragraph 7. is intended to charge Respondent with scratching C.A. and then lying about it. However, this paragraph does not expressly allege that Respondent scratched C.A. or otherwise injured C.A., so fails to allege that Respondent engaged in conduct that, if proven, would violate Petitioner's policies or Department of Education rules. Further, to the extent paragraph 7. could be read to sufficiently allege that Respondent scratched or otherwise injured C.A., there was no testimony presented at the final hearing by anyone having personal knowledge of the alleged incident. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence supporting this allegation.15/ Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation involving student C.A. set forth in paragraph 7. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The 2012-2013 School Year Background Petitioner alleges in the Amended Administrative Complaint that during the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent again engaged in physically and verbally abusive acts toward students assigned to her class. Paraprofessionals Shirley Brown and Monica Jobes were assigned to assist in Respondent's classroom in the 2012-2013 school year. That year, approximately nine ESE students were assigned to Respondent's classroom. The credible, persuasive evidence made abundantly clear that neither Brown nor Jobes enjoyed a smooth working relationship with Respondent. This was, in large measure, due to the fact that Respondent had high expectations regarding their performance in assisting her in the classroom, and she consistently reminded Brown and Jobes of those expectations.16/ In particular, Respondent made clear that her——and, by extension, the paraprofessionals'——job entailed taking reasonable and necessary measures to work with students to help them achieve to their capabilities. Respondent testified, persuasively, that neither Brown nor Jobes were dedicated to this approach and instead viewed their jobs more as caretakers or "babysitters" of the students for the school day. Respondent frequently made clear to Brown and Jobes that as the teacher, she was in charge of the class and the instructional approach and all other activities and aspects of classroom management. It was apparent from the credible, persuasive evidence that Brown and Jobes resented Respondent's repeated, overt assertion of authority over them. The persuasive evidence establishes that Brown was as much as a half-hour late to Respondent's class nearly every day, and that Respondent also regularly had to admonish her about frequent use of her cell phone for personal matters during instructional time. Brown also frequently disregarded Respondent's instructions on a range of student-related matters, and when Respondent confronted her, Brown verbally lashed out.17/ The persuasive evidence also establishes that Jobes often sent and received personal text messages during instructional time, causing her to be distracted and interfering with her work. The persuasive evidence established that Brown's and Jobes' behaviors were disruptive to the classroom environment and, in some instances, posed a danger to the students, and that Respondent let them know that their behavior was unacceptable. Shortly before the holiday vacation in December 2012, a holiday celebration was held in Respondent's classroom. While Respondent tended to the other students in the class and their parents, she specifically asked Brown and Jobes to stay with and tend to student C.R., since he did not have a parent present at the celebration. At some point, both paraprofessionals left C.R. alone. While unattended, C.R. ingested something to which he was allergic, went into anaphylactic shock, and ultimately had to be transported to the hospital. In early January 2013, shortly after school commenced following the holiday vacation, Respondent's students went to the music teacher's classroom. Brown was going to place C.R. on the floor, notwithstanding that Respondent had specifically directed her not to do so because he might again ingest something that could make him ill. At that point, Respondent told Brown not to place C.R. on the floor, to which Brown responded "don't worry, I got this" or something to that effect. Respondent tersely admonished Brown and reminded her that it was her (Respondent's) call because she was the teacher.18/ It was apparent from Brown's testimony that she greatly resented Respondent's assertion of authority over her. To address Brown's ongoing behavior and performance issues, Respondent requested a meeting on January 9, 2015, with Principal Hollingsworth, Assistant Principal Long, and ESE Supervisor Vickie Bloome. At the meeting, Hollingsworth informed Brown that Respondent had complained to her about her (Brown's) repeated cell phone use during classroom instructional time and directed her to refrain from using her cell phone during that time. Notwithstanding this meeting, nothing changed in Respondent's classroom. Respondent continued to experience friction in working with the paraprofessionals, who knew that Respondent had complained to the school administration about their performance. On January 16, 2013, an incident involving C.R., discussed in detail below, occurred. During this incident, C.R. became very aggressive, fought, bit and scratched himself, and grabbed for Respondent's insulin pump, which she wore on her arm. As discussed in greater detail below, Respondent and C.R. fell on the floor. Respondent prepared a written report detailing the incident. Persons who witnessed the incident, including Brown and Jobes, signed the report, and Respondent filed it with the school administration that day. On January 23, 2013, Respondent called a meeting with Jobes and Brown to address their ongoing performance issues, update them on student issues, and cover common core implementation procedures. In the email Respondent sent to Jobes and Brown regarding the meeting, she reminded them: "STILL seeing phones being checked and answered during class time. Even if a phone rings during class, it should NOT be answered until your personal time." At the meeting, Respondent once again reminded Brown and Jobes that they were not to use their cell phones during classroom instructional time. On the afternoon of January 23, 2013, following Respondent's meeting with her and Jobes, Brown reported to Assistant Principal Long an incident in which T.P. allegedly said "Ms. T. hurt me." At some point, Jobes also reported to Long that T.P. told her the same thing.19/ Jobes also sent an email to Hollingsworth that afternoon describing a situation in which T.P told her "Ms. T. hurt me." Thereafter, Long spoke with Respondent to get her version of what had happened. At some point on the evening of January 23, 2013, Respondent sent an email to Long stating that she had not been alone with T.P. that day. It was apparent from Respondent's email that she felt that could not trust Brown. She requested that Brown be removed from her classroom. Brown was removed from Respondent's classroom on the morning of January 24, 2013. At some point thereafter, Brown prepared, signed, and filed a report, dated January 23, 2013, alleging that Respondent had engaged in numerous aggressive and abusive acts toward students over a period of months. It is obvious in reading the report——which references Brown's removal from Respondent's classroom———that it was not prepared until sometime after Brown was removed from Respondent's classroom on January 24, 2015. Jobes also signed the report. She testified that Brown had prepared it and that she had contributed "notes." Brown also prepared and filed another written statement alleging that Respondent had engaged in specific instances of abusive and aggressive behavior toward students in her class. This report also was dated January 23, 2013, but again referenced her removal from Respondent's classroom, so obviously was prepared sometime after January 24, 2013. On the evening of January 24, 2013, Jobes sent an email to Hollingsworth requesting to be removed from Respondent's classroom. The email stated: "I came home today so stressed and exhausted from Ms. T all day at me." Jobes, who was pregnant, was concerned that the stress she was experiencing in working with Respondent in her classroom would adversely affect her health. On January 25, 2013, Jobes was removed from Respondent's classroom. On or about January 29, 2013, Respondent was removed from her classroom and reassigned to another position in the school system pending the outcome of an investigation conducted by the Broward County Sheriff's Office Child Protective Investigations ("CPI") Section. In a statement dated February 3, 2013, Jobes alleged that Respondent had taken aggressive and abusive actions toward certain students in her class over a period of months. She also stated that she felt bullied because Respondent, at times, spoke to her disrespectfully, and that Respondent would "constantly remind everyone in the room that she is the boss and if they wanted to be the boss then they need to go get a 4-year degree." Notably, prior to their January 23, 2013, meeting with Respondent, neither Jobes nor Brown had ever reported that Respondent had engaged in aggressive or abusive behavior toward her students.20/ Allegations in Amended Administrative Complaint In the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive behavior toward specific students in her class. Each of these allegations is addressed below. Student M.M. In paragraph 9. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent grabbed student M.M. by the back of her neck, held her head down in the garbage can to make her retrieve an open bag of chips, and forced her to eat them because she had asked for them. At the hearing, Brown and Jobes both testified that on one occasion during classroom snack time, Respondent had given M.M. a bag of chips at her request. M.M. ate a few chips, then tossed the bag in the trash can. Brown and Jobes testified that Respondent held M.M. by the back of the neck and forced her to remove the chips from the trash can. On direct examination, Jobes testified that Respondent forced M.M. to eat the chips, but on cross-examination, testified that, M.M. did not eat the chips. Brown testified that M.M. ate some of the chips but did not finish. Respondent confirmed that she did make M.M. retrieve the chips from the garbage can, but explained the context and the circumstances for making M.M. do so. She credibly denied that she had forced M.M. to eat the chips. Specifically, M.M. had been purchasing school lunches, but Jobes and Brown informed Respondent that M.M. was not eating her lunch. Respondent contacted M.M.'s mother, and collectively, Respondent and M.M.'s mother arrived at a plan in which M.M. would pick out her lunch and snack items at home. The items would be packed in her lunch box, and she would bring her lunch and snacks to school every day. M.M.'s mother also sent a large bag of snacks for M.M. that was kept in the classroom closet and M.M. would get the snack of her choice at snack time. M.M.'s mother specifically requested that Respondent send home anything that M.M. did not eat so that she (M.M.'s mother) would know what M.M. was and was not eating. On the day at issue, M.M. requested a bag of chips. Respondent gave them to her and M.M. returned to her seat, where she ate one or two chips, then threw the bag of chips away in the trash can. Respondent saw this and told M.M. to retrieve the chips from the trash can. Respondent did this so that she could send them home with M.M., consistent with the plan she had devised with M.M.'s mother. Consistent with Respondent's method of prompting M.M.'s behavior, she asked M.M. three times to remove the chips from the trash can. She then added a gestural prompt, done multiple times, that consisted of pointing to the trash can to inform M.M. exactly what she wanted her to do and where she was to go. When M.M. did not respond, Respondent took M.M. by the hand, led her to the trash can, and again gestured and asked her to remove the chips. Again, M.M. did not respond, so Respondent employed a physical prompt that consisted of placing her hand on M.M.'s shoulder and hand and applying enough pressure to show M.M. that she needed to bend down to retrieve the chips. At that point, with Respondent's help, M.M. retrieved the chips from the trash can. Respondent told M.M. to put them in her lunch box so that she could take them home, consistent with M.M.'s mother's request. Respondent credibly testified that she did not tell M.M. she had to eat the chips or force her to eat them. The evidence does not establish that M.M. cried or was distressed as a result of Respondent's actions, and there was no evidence presented to show that M.M. was injured or sickened as a result of this incident. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not punish M.M. for throwing the chips away, that she did not forcefully grab M.M. by the back of the neck or hold her head down into the trash can, and that she did not force M.M. to eat the chips. The evidence instead shows that Respondent's actions in dealing with M.M. on this occasion were appropriate and were consistent with her discussions with M.M.'s mother. Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 9. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student T.P. In paragraph 10. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in December 2012, Respondent force-fed student T.P., causing him to regurgitate. The undisputed evidence establishes that T.P. often refused to eat. On the day in question, T.P. purchased lunch from the cafeteria but he refused to eat the lunch, so was brought back to the classroom, where Respondent attempted to get T.P. to eat his lunch. Brown testified that Respondent forced a piece of chicken and chicken skin into T.P.'s mouth, that he was crying hysterically, and that he gagged. Brown further testified that Respondent made a video recording of T.P. eating. Jobes, who also was present when the incident occurred, did not testify that Respondent force-fed T.P.——only that Respondent was verbally urging T.P. to eat plantains. She did not testify that T.P. gagged or regurgitated. She also testified that Respondent made a video recording of the incident. Respondent testified that T.P. was a very picky eater who did not eat well, and that he regurgitated on the way to lunch every day. She testified, credibly, that she had discussed this issue with T.P.'s parents, and they had directed her to encourage him to eat.21/ Because the sight of other students eating or the smells of food would cause T.P. to vomit, he typically ate at a small table in the cafeteria positioned so he could see the outdoors. On the day in question, the students ate lunch in the classroom. T.P. was having particular difficulty eating that day because he was situated with the entire class as they ate, making him uncomfortable. In an effort to persuade T.P. to eat, Respondent went over to him, picked up a piece of food and coaxed him to eat. T.P. regurgitated all over his food. At that point, Respondent stopped trying to persuade T.P. to eat and sent a note home to his parents describing what had happened. Respondent's version of events is credible. By contrast, the testimony of Jobes and Brown regarding this incident was inconsistent, incredible, and unpersuasive. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 10. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. In paragraph 14. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that on January 23, 2013, Respondent grabbed T.P. by the back of the neck and pushed him toward the door, causing him to stumble and fall to the ground and to verbalize that "Ms. T. hurt me." Jobes testified that on that day, she was in the cafeteria when Brown and T.P. entered, with T.P crying. Jobes testified that Brown told her at lunch that she (Brown) had heard some kind of altercation while she was in the classroom restroom. Jobes did not see Respondent grab, push, or take any other action toward T.P. Jobes testified that later that day, T.P. told her "Ms. T. hurt me," and held his hands in a "U" shape. Jobes interpreted that as indicating that Respondent had choked T.P. Brown testified that she actually saw Respondent grab T.P. by the back of the neck and push him toward the door, causing him to fall, and that he got up, crying, and went with Brown and the rest of the class to lunch. She testified that later in the afternoon, T.P. told her and Jobes that "Ms. T. hurt me." Specifically, she testified: I didn't understand him clearly, you know. So Ms. Jobes was on the other side. He turned, he said 'Ms. Jobes, Ms. Jobes, Ms. T. hurt me, she grabbed me like this." And I, like, what? He said 'I'm going to tell them, I'm going to tell them, Ms. Brown, that Ms. T. hurt me, you see, Ms. T. hurt me.' The undersigned finds Brown's testimony incredible and unpersuasive. First, Brown's statement that she actually saw Respondent grab and push T.P. is inconsistent with her statement made to Jobes while at lunch that same day, that she had been in the restroom at the time and had heard an altercation. Further, the evidence showed that while T.P. is somewhat verbal, he is not capable of the extended, coherent discourse that Brown claims he verbalized in telling her and Jobes that Respondent had hurt him. The undersigned also assigns no weight to Jobes' testimony regarding whether the alleged incident actually occurred. Jobes did not witness the alleged incident, so has no personal independent knowledge regarding whether it occurred. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 14. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student M.P. In paragraph 11. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in an effort to make M.P. stop crying, Respondent jerked her chair backward to scare her to make her stop crying, and that when M.P. did not stop crying, Respondent laid the chair down on the floor so that M.P.'s feet were in the air, leaving her in that position for approximately 20 minutes. Brown and Jobes both testified that M.P. often cried and rocked back and forth in her chair. They testified that in order to make M.P. stop crying, Respondent would try to scare her by jerking the chair backward. Then, if M.P. did not stop crying, Respondent would lay her chair down on the floor so that M.P.'s feet were in the air, and she would leave M.P. in that position until she cried herself to sleep. Both Brown and Jobes testified that they had seen Respondent do this on numerous occasions. Respondent acknowledged that she had, on more than one occasion, laid M.P. down on the floor in the Rifton chair,22/ but, again, provided credible context for taking this action. Specifically, as a result of her exceptionality, M.P. would constantly verbalize and often would rock in her chair. When she became agitated, she would rock her chair so violently that she tipped the chair backward. Initially, Respondent had moved M.P.'s chair against a bookshelf, but M.P. banged her head on the bookshelf. In an effort to prevent M.P. from hurting herself, Respondent then removed M.P. from her chair and placed her on the floor; however, M.P. banged her head on the floor. At that point, Respondent placed M.P. in the Rifton chair. M.P. continued to rock violently, so Respondent ordered a Rifton chair with footrest; however, that measure did not solve the problem with M.P.'s rocking. Respondent then considered placing M.P.'s chair up against the teacher's desk, which would help stabilize the chair but had nothing against which Respondent could bang her head. On one occasion, as Respondent tipped the chair back at a 45-degree angle to place it against her desk, she noticed that M.P. calmed down and closed her eyes. Thereafter, Respondent would sometimes tip M.P.'s chair against her or her desk if she was not otherwise occupied with activities. However, when she was occupied with other activities, she would sometimes completely recline the Rifton chair, with M.P. strapped in it, on the floor. She did this because it calmed M.P., who otherwise would constantly vocalize, cry, and rock back and forth. To determine whether this was an appropriate technique, Respondent asked colleagues who also taught ESE students about their view of this technique and whether there were better techniques of which they were aware. Respondent testified, credibly, that the consensus among other ESE teachers was that if the technique worked to soothe the child and did not endanger her, it was appropriate to use. Respondent also had consulted regularly with occupational specialist Mariana Aparicio-Rodriquez regarding techniques to prevent M.P. from rocking her chair so that she would not tip her chair over and injure herself, but they had not collectively arrived at a solution to the problem. Respondent testified that she and Aparicio-Rodriquez had not specifically discussed reclining the Rifton chair on the floor with M.P. strapped in it. One day, while Respondent was alone in the classroom, Aparicio-Rodriquez entered the classroom and saw M.P. completely reclined on the floor in the Rifton chair. Initially, Aparicio- Rodriquez was alarmed that M.P. had tipped the chair over. Aparicio-Rodriquez testified that Respondent told her that she had placed M.P. on the ground to give her a sense of what it felt like to fall back. Respondent then picked up the chair and placed M.P. in an upright position. Aparicio-Rodriquez confirmed that during the entire time that she was in Respondent's classroom, M.P. was calm, unhurt, and not in distress, and that she did not cry. Aparicio-Rodriquez testified that she did not believe this was an appropriate or useful technique for teaching M.P. not to rock in her chair, and she had intended to report the incident to her supervisor, but because one of Respondent's paraprofessionals informed her that the matter was going to be reported, Aparicio-Rodriquez did not report it. Aparicio- Rodriquez testified that she did not consider the incident to constitute child abuse, so did not report it to the Department of Children and Families. On cross-examination, Aparicio-Rodriquez stated that it was her opinion, from an occupational therapist's perspective, that using the Rifton chair in such a manner was not appropriate; however, she conceded that placing M.P. on the floor in a reclined position in the Rifton chair was not unsafe, and that M.P. was neither hurt nor in imminent or potential danger. She acknowledged that she and Respondent had a difference of opinion regarding the propriety of the use of the Rifton chair in this manner.23/ Aparicio-Rodriquez did not identify any statute, rule, policy, or other applicable standard that was violated by Respondent's use of the Rifton chair in this manner. The persuasive evidence supports the inference that Respondent's placement of M.P. in the Rifton chair in a reclined position on the floor was not intended as a disciplinary measure to frighten or punish M.P. for crying or rocking in her chair, and was appropriate under the circumstances. Respondent credibly testified that she had tried numerous measures to prevent M.P. from harming herself while rocking back and forth, and that when she inadvertently discovered this technique, she discussed it with other ESE professionals, who had suggested that she continue using it since the child was not distressed or injured and the technique worked to soothe her and prevent her from rocking back and forth and potentially injuring herself. Aparicio-Rodriquez disagreed with Respondent regarding the appropriateness of the technique, but she was neither qualified nor presented as an expert witness in appropriate teaching techniques for ESE students or in any other subject, and she did not identify any applicable professional or other standards that were violated by Respondent's use of the Rifton chair in this manner. The persuasive evidence establishes that Aparicio- Rodriquez and Respondent had a difference of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this technique; however, unlike Aparicio- Rodriquez, Respondent had actual successful experience in using this technique without harming M.P. Thus, Respondent's view regarding the appropriateness of using this technique under the circumstances is afforded greater weight than Aparicio- Rodriquez's view. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent distressed, injured or otherwise harmed M.P., placed M.P. in danger, or violated any applicable statute, rule, policy, teaching technique, or standard by placing M.P. in the Rifton chair in a reclining position. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations set forth in paragraph 11. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner also alleges that on one occasion, Respondent disciplined M.P. for crying by placing a plastic bag of ice directly on M.P.'s bare chest, and when that technique was unsuccessful, Respondent placed the bag of ice on M.P.'s back, causing her to cry more loudly. Petitioner presented the testimony of Jobes to substantiate this allegation. Jobes testified that "a couple of times," she saw Respondent place bags of ice under M.P.'s clothing on her bare skin in an effort to get M.P. to stop crying, but that M.P. would not stop crying. Petitioner did not present the testimony of any other witnesses to corroborate Jobes' testimony. Respondent flatly denied ever having placed ice on M.P. for any reason, and stated that under any circumstances, she did not know how that would have helped make M.P. stop crying. Respondent also denied having kept ice in the refrigerator in her classroom. Respondent's testimony was credible, and Jobes' testimony was not credible, regarding these allegations. Accordingly, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 12. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student C.R. In paragraph 13. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that on one occasion, Respondent removed C.R. from his wheelchair, screamed in his ear, held both hands behind his back, laid him face-down on the floor, and laid on top of him for several minutes as he gasped for air. The undisputed evidence shows that on the morning of January 16, 2013, student C.R. (also referred to as "C.J." in the final hearing testimony) arrived at school in an extremely emotionally-distressed state. Although C.R. is a small child who weighs approximately 30 pounds and is confined to a wheelchair, he becomes physically aggressive when distressed and is capable of inflicting injury on others by biting, scratching, and hitting. Upon arriving at school that day, C.R. physically struggled with school personnel, including Jobes, Brown, and Cherelus. Brown took C.R., still upset, in his wheelchair to Respondent's classroom, where he was placed in his classroom chair. C.R. attempted to grab, bite, and scratch Respondent, Jobes, and Brown, bit his own hands, and rubbed and scratched his own face, arms, and legs. Respondent left him in his chair and he eventually calmed down. At that point, Respondent removed C.R. from his chair and carried him to another classroom, where the rest of the class was engaged in instructional exercises. Thereafter, when Respondent carried C.R. back to her classroom, C.R. again became very upset and bit and scratched her. At that point, Respondent notified the school administration and C.R.'s mother of the incident involving C.R. that morning. Assistant Principal Long visited Respondent's classroom to determine what had happened. As of 11 a.m. that day, C.R. was still seated in his classroom chair aggressively biting his own hands and rubbing and scratching his face, arms, and legs.24/ Respondent prepared and submitted an incident report detailing these events, and Brown, Jobes, and Cherelus, and another school staff member, Julie Weiss, signed and dated the report that same day. Jobes testified she read the January 16, 2013, incident report before signing and dating it that same day. She stated that although she had signed the document without being under duress, she had questioned Respondent regarding its accuracy before signing it. Brown testified that she signed the January 16, 2013, incident report that day, but did not read it before she signed it. It is undisputed that at some point in the day on January 16, 2013, Respondent and C.R. ended up on the floor of Respondent's classroom, with Respondent laying on top of C.R. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the time of day, sequence of events, and circumstances that led to this incident. Jobes and Brown both testified that the events that led to Respondent and C.R. being on the floor with Respondent laying on top of C.R. occurred in the morning after C.R. came to school in an emotionally distressed state, and that Respondent had placed C.R. on the floor and laid on top of him to punish him for his aggressive behavior. However, their testimony is contradicted by the version of events detailed in the January 16, 2013, incident report——which they both had signed and dated that same day, thus tacitly acknowledging its accuracy. As discussed in greater detail below, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the incident during which Respondent and C.R. ended up on the floor actually occurred later that same day, and that afterward, C.R. was taken from the classroom to the school clinic and did not return to the classroom for the rest of the day. Had Brown and Jobes been correct regarding the time of day when the incident occurred, C.R. would have been removed from the classroom during the morning. However, according to the January 16, 2013, incident report, C.R. was still in the classroom as of approximately 11 a.m. that day. Indeed, according to the incident report, Assistant Principal Long visited the classroom to investigate the events that were detailed in the report. Had C.R. been removed from the classroom in the morning after the incident, Long would have discovered that when she visited the classroom.25/ Further, Respondent would have known that so would not have stated in the written incident report that C.R. was still in the classroom as of 11 a.m. that day. It is undisputed that Jobes did not actually witness Respondent place C.R. on the floor. Jobes testified that when she looked over from another part of the classroom where she had been tending to other students, she saw C.R. face down on the floor with Respondent on top of him. Notwithstanding that by her own admission, Jobes did not witness the entire incident between Respondent and C.R., she nonetheless testified that Respondent held C.R. down on the floor for three to five minutes.26/ Brown claims to have witnessed the entire incident between Respondent and C.R. She testified that C.R. was acting aggressively, so to punish him, Respondent picked him up, flipped him around, placed him face-down on the floor, and laid on top of him for approximately 20 seconds as he gasped for breath. As noted above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the allegation regarding Respondent laying on top of C.R. arose from an incident that occurred later in the day on January 16, 2013, after lunch and after the incident that had happened earlier that day. The credible evidence establishes that when C.R. returned to Respondent's classroom after having had lunch in the cafeteria under Jobes' and Brown's supervision, his face was red and he was scratching himself and squirming in his chair. Respondent became very concerned, from the previous experience that school year, that C.R. was again having an allergic reaction to something he had eaten. Respondent removed C.R. from his wheelchair in order to place him in his Rifton chair so that she could administer his epi-pen to counter any allergic reaction he might have been having. Respondent is diabetic and wears an insulin pump strapped to her left arm. Respondent testified, credibly, that as she was removing C.R. from the wheelchair, he grabbed at her insulin pump. In an effort to prevent C.R. from pulling her insulin pump off of her arm, Respondent jerked her hand and arm backward, causing her to lose her balance. She fell to the floor with C.R. and landed on top of him. Respondent estimated that she and C.R. were in that position for perhaps five seconds,27/ at which point she scrambled off of C.R. and placed him in his Rifton chair. C.R. was then taken to the clinic to address his allergic symptoms and did not return to the classroom that day. Respondent testified, credibly, that Brown did not witness the entire event because for part of it, she was in the restroom with M.P., consistent with their established routine after the students returned from lunch. The undersigned finds Jobes' and Brown's version of the incident unpersuasive and incredible.28/ Their testimony was imprecise, inconsistent, and directly contradicted by other credible evidence regarding the incident. By contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the incident was specific, precise, and detailed. The undersigned finds her account of the incident credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 13. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Allegations Regarding Unspecified Students Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that Respondent "was observed grabbing students by the arm and forcefully pulling them to the ground." The Amended Administrative Complaint does not identify the students whom Respondent is alleged to have treated in such a manner. Jobes testified that "one or two times" she had seen Respondent grab a student by the arm and pull that student to the ground in an effort to get the student to sit down. She could not recall which students she allegedly saw Respondent treat in that manner and she did not provide any detail regarding these alleged incidents. Her testimony was not corroborated by any other competent evidence in the record and was too vague and lacking in detail to be deemed credible or persuasive. Brown testified that on one occasion, Respondent pushed M.P. to make her walk faster, causing her to fall to the ground. Although Brown identified the specific student, she provided no temporal context or detail regarding the incident. Her testimony was confused and imprecise, so was neither credible nor persuasive. Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent grabbed students by the arm and forcefully pulled them to the ground. Petitioner also generally alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that on occasion, Respondent would grab students by the neck to force them to look at their work. However, neither Brown nor Jobes identified any specific students to whom Respondent's alleged conduct was directed or provided any detail or context in which these alleged incidents occurred, and their testimony was too vague and imprecise to be deemed credible or persuasive. Petitioner did not present any other competent substantial evidence to substantiate this allegation. Respondent testified that at times, it was necessary for her to physically focus students' attention on their work. At those times, she would place her hands on the student's head and turn the student's face down toward the desk so that the student could attend to his or her work. She testified that she did not grab students by the back of the neck or engage in any forceful techniques as she focused their attention on their work. Her testimony was credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent grabbed students by the neck and forced them to look at their work. Petitioner also alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that "[i]n one incident, Respondent crumbled [sic] a student's paper into a ball before throwing it at the student." The student whom Respondent is alleged to have treated in this manner was not identified in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 8. specifically states that the incidents alleged therein occurred "shortly after the commencement of the school year in August 2012." However, the only evidence Petitioner presented in support of this allegation was the testimony of Cara Yontz, a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom in the 2011-2012 school year——a completely different school year than Respondent's actions alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any evidence to substantiate this allegation in paragraph 8. Even assuming that the reference in the Amended Administrative Complaint to the 2012-2013 school year was a drafting error and that Petitioner actually intended to allege that Respondent engaged in such conduct during the 2011-2012 school year, Petitioner still did not prove this allegation by credible, persuasive evidence. Yontz testified that on one occasion, a student named "D." was having difficulty with his work and that twice, when he turned his work in to Respondent, she yelled at him, crumpled up his paper, and threw it back at him, causing him to cry. Petitioner did not present any other competent substantial evidence to support this allegation. Respondent denied having thrown D.'s paper at him and testified, credibly, that she never had thrown anything at any student. The undersigned finds Respondent's testimony on this point credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent crumpled a student's work and threw it at him. Petitioner also alleges in paragraph 8. that Respondent verbally abused unspecified students, making statements such as "they're so stupid," and that she was "happy that God never gave her kids like them." Petitioner did not present credible, persuasive evidence proving this allegation, and Respondent credibly testified that she had not, and would not, ever address a student in such a manner. Failure to Provide Statement On March 4, 2013, the Broward District Schools Police Department issued a Notice to Appear for Statement ("NTA") to Respondent, informing Respondent that an investigation regarding a reported incident had been initiated. The NTA informed Respondent that on March 11, 2013, she was required to appear at a designated location and provide a statement as part of the investigation. The NTA further informed her that a representative of her choice could be present during the statement and that her failure to appear on the scheduled date and to provide a statement would constitute gross insubordination and lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination. Respondent is a member of the Broward Teacher's Union ("BTU") and was represented by Diane Watts, a field staff representative with BTU, in the investigation. Watts had contact with Kathleen Andersen, a detective with the Broward District Schools Police Department regarding scheduling the appointment and other matters with respect to Respondent's statement. At some point before Respondent was to appear and provide her statement, Andersen called Watts to give her a "heads-up" that the investigation was "going criminal"——meaning that a criminal investigation was being commenced and that criminal charges may be filed against Respondent. Watts testified, credibly, that when a matter "goes criminal," the BTU retains a lawyer to represent the member being investigated. At that point, BTU had not yet retained an attorney to represent Respondent in any investigation that may "go criminal." Under those circumstances, it is customary for the employee not to appear and provide a statement. Watts testified, credibly, that she informed Andersen that under the circumstances, Respondent would not appear as scheduled on March 11, 2013, to provide the statement. Watts understood Andersen to have agreed that, given the circumstances, Respondent was not required to appear and, in fact, she credibly testified that she believed Andersen had called her to give her a "heads-up" specifically so that she and Respondent would not make a wasted trip to appear at the location of the scheduled statement, only to find out there that the investigation had "gone criminal"——at which point, Watts would have advised Respondent not to make a statement pending BTU's retention of a lawyer to represent her. Based on her belief that she had an understanding with Andersen, Watts advised Respondent that she was not required to appear and provide a statement on March 11, 2013. Therefore——specifically at Watts' direction and advice——Respondent did not appear and provide a statement on March 11, 2013. At the final hearing, Andersen disputed that she had agreed with Watts that Respondent did not need to appear and provide a statement as directed in the Notice to Appear. Andersen testified that pursuant to Petitioner's Policy 4.9, Respondent was required to appear and provide a statement, and that she had not done so.29/ IV. Findings of Ultimate Fact Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and to terminate her employment as a teacher on the basis of just cause, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. The statute defines just cause to include immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination; and being convicted of or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty of, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude. Here, Petitioner charges that just cause exists, on each of these bases, to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment. As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to establish each element of each offense with which Respondent is charged. Further, whether Respondent committed the charged offenses is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each alleged violation.30/ For the reasons discussed in detail above, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, any of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and therefore failed to prove any of the administrative charges stated in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner asserts in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order that "Petitioner had a number of witnesses to testify to these various events. Respondent had none." This mischaracterizes the evidence presented in this case. Although Petitioner presented the testimony of four persons having personal knowledge of some of the incidents, for several of the allegations, Petitioner presented the testimony of only one witness who had personal knowledge of the alleged incidents, and, as discussed above, often that testimony was not credible. Even when Petitioner presented the testimony of more than one witness regarding a particular allegation, as discussed above, often that testimony was inconsistent on significant details, calling into serious question the credibility and reliability of the testimony. Also, Respondent herself testified. Her testimony was clear, precise, credible, and persuasive, and she provided consistent, logical accounts of the incidents that gave rise to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint.31/ In addition to her own testimony, Respondent presented the testimony of the mother of student J.M., who credibly supported Respondent's version of the incident giving rise to one of the allegations involving her daughter. Here, the undersigned did not find the testimony of Cherelus, Yontz, Brown, or Jobes credible or persuasive on most of the matters about which they testified. As discussed in detail above, in many instances their testimony was vague, unclear, or inconsistent with other testimony or evidence. Moreover, it was abundantly clear that each of these paraprofessionals found Respondent difficult to work with because she was demanding, did not tolerate lax performance, and consistently reminded them that as teacher, she was in charge of the management of her classroom. It was apparent that each of them resented her frequent assertion of authority over them. Each of them had ample motive to be untruthful or to exaggerate regarding certain events——such as those involving J.M. being placed in the restroom, C.R. and Respondent falling on the floor, and T.P. being fed by Respondent. In other instances——such as reclining M.P. in the Rifton chair or directing M.M. to retrieve her snack from the trash can——it is plausible to infer that the paraprofessionals misunderstood Respondent's actions and judged to be inappropriate, when, in fact, they were appropriate under the circumstances. Another factor militating against the paraprofessionals' credibility is that each of them was a mandatory child abuse reporter under Florida law, each of them knew that, and each understood her legal duty. Nonetheless, most of the incidents alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint were not reported until sometime after the incident is alleged to have occurred. In particular, Brown and Jobes first reported that Respondent had engaged in abusive behavior only after she had taken measures to address their classroom performance issues, including her requesting a meeting with the principal and holding her own meeting aimed at, again, addressing their unacceptable behavior and performance. Petitioner focuses on a statement in Respondent's January 23, 2013, email thanking Brown and Jobes for their efforts as indicating that up to that point, Respondent and the paraprofessionals enjoyed a smooth working relationship and that Respondent did not have any problems with their performance, and, in fact, was pleased with their performance. However, this position is contradicted by the strong evidence showing otherwise. Respondent's emails to the school administration dated December 1, 2012, and January 9, 10, and 23, 2013, particularly speak to the ongoing difficulty she was having with both paraprofessionals, even before they submitted statements alleging that she had abused students. Further, the testimony by Brown, Jobes, and Respondent shows that the relationship between Respondent and the paraprofessionals was not a smooth one. In sum, the evidence establishes that the paraprofessionals were not reliable witnesses, and their testimony was neither credible nor persuasive. Conversely, Respondent's testimony was credible and persuasive. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years that violated Department of Education rules and school board policies, and, thus, constituted just cause to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with gross insubordination for failure to appear and provide a statement to the Broward District Schools Police Department on March 11, 2013. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not appear and provide a statement to the Broward Schools Police Department specificially because she had been directed and advised by her BTU representative not to do so. Further, even if Watts did not, in fact, have an understanding with Andersen that Respondent would not provide a statement, it is undisputed that Watts told Respondent that such an understanding existed so that she did not need to appear and provide a statement. Thus, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not intentionally refuse to appear and provide a statement, but, instead, simply and reasonably followed the advice and direction of her BTU representative, who had specifically told her not to appear and provide a statement. Under these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that Respondent intentionally refused to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature. Accordingly, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not commit gross insubordination. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner failed to meet its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct, alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, that violates Department of Education rules and school board policies. Accordingly, Petitioner did not prove that just cause exists to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment.
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 dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent; reinstating Respondent's employment as a teacher; and awarding Respondent back pay for the period of her suspension, less the amount of back pay that would be owed for the period commencing on November 6, 2013, and ending on January 23, 2014.42/ DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2015.
The Issue Did Petitioner, Gregory K. Adkins, as Superintendent for the Board of the School District of Lee County, Florida (Superintendent), prove just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres?
Findings Of Fact The Superintendent, on behalf of the School Board of Lee County (Board), is responsible for hiring, overseeing, and terminating, all employees in the school district. At all times material to this case, the Board employed Mr. Torres as a security specialist at East Lee County High School (East Lee). Mr. Torres also sometimes served as an assistant coach and/or substitute athletic trainer. Mr. Torres has worked for the Board since August 5, 2011. For the 2011 through 2015 school years Mr. Torres’ received a final Performance Evaluation with a score of “Effective” in all areas assessed. The "Manager Comments" on Mr. Torres' Final Performance Evaluations consisted of the following: "Mr. Torres is an integral part of the MLE [Mirror Lakes Elementary] team. He has been a great addition to our staff [2014-2015 Evaluation]”; "Mr. Torres is a very valuable asset and is well respected and supported as an integral part of the MLE team [2013-2014 Evaluation]"; "Orlando performs various duties at East: security and coaching. He has done a good job with both. Orlando was accepting of taking on the night security position until a candidate was hired [2012-2013 Evaluation]"; and "Orlando is a team player and is always willing to go above and beyond to help staff and students [2011-2012 Evaluation]." Mr. Torres is a member of SPALC and was a member during all periods relevant to this matter. On February 4, 2016, the Board’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (PS&E) received reports that on several occasions Mr. Torres made inappropriate comments and sexual remarks in the presence of or to female high school students. The comments included suggestions that Mr. Torres was interested in sex with the students. The comments caused the students extreme discomfort and embarrassment and created an inhospitable learning environment. The Board investigated. The information it collected caused the Board to terminate Mr. Torres’ employment. PS&E Coordinator, Andy Brown, conducted an investigation that included interviews of several students and of Mr. Torres. When Mr. Torres met Mr. Brown for his interview, Mr. Torres did not know the reason for the interview. Mr. Brown advised Mr. Torres that he was the subject of an investigation and asked him if he knew what it was about. Mr. Torres said: “When I meet with a female, I always have another female present.” This was not true. Mr. Torres’ spontaneous and dishonest statement in response to simply being asked if he knew what the investigation was about is persuasive evidence that he had improper conversations with female students and is a contributing factor to concluding that his testimony denying the charges is not credible. In November and December of 2015, and January 2016, Mr. Torres made several sexually charged, inappropriate comments to students. Five of the incidents involved N.M., who was an eleventh grade student at the time. N.M.’s mother worked at the school. Consequently, N.M. stayed at school after classes until her mother left work. N.M.’s mother arranged for N.M. to assist Mr. Torres in his training tasks after school. This is how she met Mr. Torres. The arrangement lasted about a week. Around November 2015, Mr. Torres gave N.M. a “high-five.” He prolonged the contact by grabbing her hand and intertwining his fingers with hers. In a separate incident, while giving N.M. a “bandaid” for a scratch, Mr. Torres asked her if she would ever get involved with a married man. She said no and walked away. On another occasion, N.M. encountered Mr. Torres while she was walking to lunch. N.M. was wearing what she described as a “burgundy semi-see-through” shirt. Mr. Torres told her to cover up her “goodies” or her “girls,” referring to her breasts, so nobody else could see them. N.M.’s testimony used the word “girls” while her statement in February 2016 said “goodies.” This minor discrepancy is understandable given the passage of time and the stresses of an interview and testimony. On yet another occasion, Mr. Torres remarked in Spanish, when N.M. bent down, “I like ass.” Mr. Torres spoke to N.M. after she had been called to the school office to provide a statement about a conflict that Mr. Torres had with another student. When he learned the purpose of the request for a statement from N.M., Mr. Torres said, “I thought I was gonna get in trouble for flirting with you; thank god we didn’t take it to second base.” In early February, N.M. was walking with her then- friend S.S., when Mr. Torres exited a room and saw them. He said “you look delic . . ., beautiful,” to N.M., shifting from “delicious” to “beautiful” when he noticed S.S. Mr. Torres also made a comment about wishing N.M. was 18. Another Security Specialist, Russell Barrs, who N.M. considered a friend, overheard bits of a conversation between N.M. and S.S. about the encounter. He asked N.M. about it. She replied with generalities A day or two later N.M. met with Mr. Barrs and provided complete information about Mr. Torres’ comments to her. Mr. Barrs reported this to Assistant Principal Edward Matthews. Mr. Matthews launched the investigation. It is noteworthy that S.S., whose friendship with N.M. ended, still testified to the same events as N.M. did. The two had a falling out sometime in 2016. The testimony of S.S. was not a matter of loyal support for a friend. In fact, the tone and body language of both students gave the distinct impression that the end of the friendship was not pleasant. N.M.’s mother had just started working at the school. N.M. did not immediately report Mr. Torres’ advances to her mother or other adults. When she did report them, her initial statements were incomplete and vague. She just told her mother she was not comfortable being in the room with Mr. Torres. She also told her mother that Mr. Torres “says things.” Later, after speaking to Mr. Barrs, N.M. provided her mother a complete description of the comments. After classes, Mr. Torres spent a good deal of time in the training room where first aid supplies and ice are stored for student-athletes. The training room was divided into two smaller rooms separated by a door that was usually shut. One room contained the ice machine, other equipment, and supplies. The other part of the room served as an office for Mr. Torres. Students, including N.M. and C.P., assisted or visited with Mr. Torres in the training room at times. C.P. was a female student who served as one of the managers for the girls’ basketball team. Once while observing her prepare an ice pack by sucking air out of it, Mr. Torres said words to the effect of “like how you suck a boy’s dick.” C.P. was a ninth grader at the time. Mr. Torres also told her that he would like to marry her when she turned 18. Another time, Mr. Torres tried to hug C.P. Mr. Torres also told C.P. that they should not talk in the hall because the security video cameras may record them. Another time, after overhearing a discussion in Spanish by several female students about sexual activity, Mr. Torres told C.P. that if he ever had sex with her he would break her. Two or three times Mr. Torres told C.P. that she was beautiful and he wanted to marry her after she graduated. The comments made C.P. extremely uncomfortable and unsure of what to do. She was scared. She quit her position as manager to avoid contact with Mr. Torres. Like N.M., C.P. was slow to report the comments to an adult. When she first told her step-mother she described Mr. Torres’ comments as coming from a substitute teacher. C.P. was scared and did not want to get involved. When she did, the details understandably came out in bits and pieces. Mr. Torres’ improper familiarity with students N.M. and C.P. and his sexually charged comments were frequent and varied. They were improper and detrimental to the emotional and mental health of the students. The crux of Mr. Torres’ defense is that none of the testimony about his actions is true. His testimony is not as credible as that of the students who testified to his offenses. One reason, mentioned earlier, is Mr. Torres’ spontaneous statement when Mr. Brown met him for the interview that he was never alone with a female. It manifests guilt and anxiousness that would not be present without his being aware of his improper behavior. Another reason is that the testimony of the students is sufficiently consistent to provide credibility. And N.M., C.P., and S.S. all made reports within a few months of Mr. Torres’ comments. A third reason is that N.M.’s testimony was supported by S.S. at hearing even though their earlier friendship had ended. A fourth reason is that there is no evidence of a motive for N.M., S.S., and C.P to fabricate their reports. For the time period when Mr. Torres made the comment to C.P. about “breaking her,” several students offered differing testimony about who was in the room when and whether Mr. Torres was giving a student instruction on a trumpet. This testimony is not sufficient to impeach the credibility of N.M. and C.P. Those were not the students to whom the offending remarks were made. The details of that day would not have been noteworthy to them at the time. Similarly, given the nature of Mr. Torres’ comments, the details of exactly who was present when would have been secondary to N.M. and C.P. Finally, Mr. Torres made one particularly transparent and deliberate effort to manipulate the truth during cross-examination that undermines relying on Mr. Torres’ testimony. Early in the hearing, in Mr. Torres’ presence, the Board attempted to enter evidence that during prior employment as a detention officer with the Sheriff of Lee County, Mr. Torres reacted to teasing by other officers by drawing his service pistol. The objection to the evidence was sustained. Later Mr. Torres testified that the testimony against him was not credible because he would never take such risks at a school where his wife was also employed, his children were students, and N.M.’s mother was employed. This testimony opened the door to the pistol drawing incident as evidence of Mr. Torres taking risky actions at work. The exchange about the incident, starting at page 329 of Volume II of the Transcript, follows: Q: But you engaged in risky behavior in your two law enforcement jobs prior, did you not? A: I don’t consider that risky behavior. Q: Well, you don’t consider pulling your service revolver as risky behavior? [objection and ruling] A: I have never carried a revolver. Q: Your service weapon, sir? ALJ: You said you never carried a revolver. Have you ever carried a pistol? A: Yes sir. ALJ: Next question. Q: Would you consider pulling your service pistol in an inappropriate manner risky behavior, sir? A: Yes, sir. Mr. Torres testified with full knowledge from the earlier attempt to introduce evidence of the incident to what the question referred. His answer was hair-splitting at best and demonstrated a willingness to shade, if not evade, the truth that significantly undermines his credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order finding just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres, and dismissing him from his position with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2016.
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.
