Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order dismissing the charges against respondent Sallie L. Brierley in DOAH Case No. 84-0667; and That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the charges against respondent Sallie L. Brierley in DOAH Case No. 84-1412. RECOMMENDED this 30 day of November, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1984.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's employment should be terminated by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, the School Board was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Lake County, Florida. Respondent, Robert Jenner, began working as a technology education teacher for the School District in August 2004, and has held a professional services contract since 2007. Technology education is the current-day version of shop class or industrial arts. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent taught at Carver Middle School (Carver). Linda Shepherd is the principal and Greg Smallridge is the assistant principal of Carver. While not a member of the local teachers’ union, Mr. Jenner is an instructional employee and, therefore, a member of the collective bargaining unit between the School Board and the Lake County Education Association. Respondent is also subject to all School Board policies regarding instructional personnel. All classrooms at Carver have a traditional classroom with a lab connected to it. Respondent’s lab area contained several technology workstations for the students, and contained specialized equipment, e.g., a lathe and a robotic arm. Typically, class would begin in the traditional classroom area, and then the class and Respondent would go into the lab area. Because of the configuration of the classroom and the lab, as well as the nature of the course, there were instances when Respondent could not see every student every minute of class. During October and November 2009, three incidents occurred in Respondent’s classroom involving a female student. These incidents involved inappropriate behavior, including behavior of a sexual nature with a male student. The female student received discipline for two of the three incidents ranging from an in-school suspension to an out-of-school suspension. Two of the incidents were observed not by Respondent, but by a teacher who was teaching in an adjacent classroom. These incidents raised the issue of whether Respondent was adequately supervising his classroom. Mr. Smallridge became aware of these issues and on November 23, 2009, he, Ms. Shepherd, and Respondent met and visited Respondent’s classroom to discuss steps to correct the problems concerning supervision of students. On November 30, 2009, a meeting took place which included Mr. Smallridge, Respondent, Dr. Maggie Teachout, and Dr. Teachout’s assistant. The purpose of the meeting was for Dr. Teachout to visit Respondent’s lab to make suggestions and recommendations as to ways in which supervision of the students could be improved in light of the configuration of the classroom and lab.1/ At some point, Mr. Smallridge determined that completing an Appraisal II for Respondent was the appropriate course of action. An Appraisal II takes place due to problems or concerns regarding a teacher that have arisen outside of an actual classroom observation. An Appraisal II is part of the Instructional Personnel Performance Appraisal System (IPPAS) for teachers, which is a policy adopted by the School Board. An Appraisal II notes deficiencies, places the teacher on notice about these deficiencies, and gives direction to the teacher as to what steps should be taken to correct the deficiency. On December 2, 2009, Ms. Shepherd, Mr. Smallridge, and Respondent met in Ms. Shepherd’s office during Respondent’s planning period for the purpose of completing the Appraisal II. During such a meeting, it is standard practice to complete the form during the course of the meeting. Mr. Smallridge had a blank Appraisal II form and intended to complete the form during the course of the meeting. However, during the meeting and before the Appraisal II form had been completed, Respondent stated that he would not sign the form. Mr. Smallridge informed Respondent that if he did not sign the form, it would be considered insubordination. Blank signature lines appear at the bottom of the Appraisal II form for the signatures of the teacher and the person assessing the teacher. Underneath the blank for the teacher’s signature appears the following: “Indicates receipt of appraisal and not necessarily agreement with the contents.” Mr. Smallridge read this to Respondent, but Respondent still refused to sign the form and stated that he was going to quit. Further, paragraph V (5) of the Appraisal II form provides a space for the teacher’s response with the notation “Attach additional sheets if desired.” Ms. Shepherd and Mr. Smallridge asked Respondent to reconsider his announcement that he would quit. However, Respondent went back to his classroom, and collected his personal items. He returned to Ms. Shepherd’s office, placed his keys on Ms. Shepherd’s desk and left school. This was the last time Respondent worked at Carver. While Respondent returned to Ms. Shepherd’s office to turn in his keys, Ms. Shepherd spoke to Respondent again and saids “Please, please don’t do this.” Despite this, Respondent left school during the school day. Ms. Shepherd instructed her secretary to call for a substitute. Ms. Shepherd stayed with Respondent’s class until the substitute arrived so that the class would not be unattended. At no time did Ms. Shepherd or Mr. Smallridge tell Respondent that he was terminated. Respondent did not request leave prior to leaving school, or at any time thereafter. Ms. Shepherd next saw Respondent on December 15, 2009, when he came to school on payday. She again asked him to reconsider his decision. He responded that he would let her know his decision that Thursday, but did not do so. On December 16, 2009, Ms. Shepherd wrote a memorandum to Respondent which states as follows: This letter is written to put you on notice that I am requesting the Superintendent to take your termination to the Board based on your absence without leave since December 2, 2009. This violates School Board Policy 6.511, Absence without Approved Leave. I base this letter on the facts that on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 10:20am, we (Mr. Smallridge, you and I) were prepared to write an Appraisal II for the lack of supervision that occurred in your classroom on Wednesday, November 18, 2009. At that time, you stated that you were not going to sign the Appraisal II document and if we (Mr. Smallridge and I) were going to write you up for the incident that occurred in your classroom, you were handing in your keys. I asked you to sign a resignation and you stated that people walk off the job everyday without signing a resignation. You handed in your keys and left campus approximately 12:15pm. You have not reported to work since that date. On December 17, 2009, Superintendent Moxley sent a letter to Respondent informing him that he was considered absent without approved leave in violation of School Board Policy 6.511. The letter informed Respondent that she would be recommending his termination of employment to the School Board and gave him notice of his right to a hearing regarding his dismissal. Respondent sent a letter to Dr. Moxley requesting a hearing on his termination, which gave rise to this proceeding. At hearing, Respondent explained his reasons for not signing the Appraisal II: he refused to sign the Appraisal II because he did not want his name “besmirched”; he believes that the school administration has not adequately dealt with the female student’s discipline regarding her inappropriate behavior in his class and felt he was somehow being made a scapegoat; he was concerned that there would be some type of criminal implications regarding the female student’s behavior and, “if I signed that document, I would have been brought into it.” Prior to the events that transpired in November and December 2009, Respondent had received satisfactory evaluations in the area of classroom supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 30th day of April, 2010.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Bob M. Eckert, was certified as a teacher in the State of Florida, authorized to teach gas engine repair and diesel mechanics at the vocational level and was employed by the School Board of Palm Beach County, (Board), teaching small engine repair at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's stockade. He has been employed as a teacher with the Board since 1980. Respondent taught at the Job Skills Center in Palm Beach County during the 1981-1982 school year. When the Center was closed, the Respondent was transferred to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's stockade. Many of the inmates speak a language other than English. The position at the stockade was originally supervised by the Director of Vocational-Technical Education of the Board. Effective with the 1986-1987 school year, the program was transferred to the supervision of the North Technical Education Center, (NTEC), and the principal of that facility became Respondent's supervisor. On July 18, 1986, a teacher's meeting of all 226 day contract teachers, of whom Respondent was one, was held at the Board's vocational office in West Palm Beach for the purpose of a briefing on new programs and policies to be implemented by NTEC for the coming school year. A new instructional program system was planned for implementation and this meeting was to orient the teachers to the new system and included the requirement for lesson planning and curricula framework. Respondent attended this meeting at which Dr. Thurman R. Hux, Assistant Director for Curriculum at NTEC spent considerable time going over each item on the agenda so that all teachers at all centers could use the same system. It was shortly after this meeting that the program at the Sheriff's facility was turned over to the supervision of NTEC. At the time of transfer in September, 1986, Dr. Hux met with instructors on a planning day on or about October 15, 1986. At this meeting, all teachers were given another orientation as to the program changes. The teachers were also given instructions on the preparation of lesson planning forms and a graphic representation of the lesson plan was handed out to them for their information. Subsequent to this meeting, Dr. Hux received lesson plans submitted by all the instructors, including Respondent. In going over the submittals, he found that Respondent's program, as well as some of the others, did not meet certain state requirements. The deficiencies in the plans were minor and easily correctable. Respondent was given a copy of the requirements omitted and asked to define which elements thereof he could meet at his locale. Other instructors requested to do the same all complied. At a subsequent meeting with Respondent, Dr. Hux and Respondent agreed on the hours to be worked by Respondent and a lesson guide and a document dated October 11, 1986, signed by Respondent was prepared to memorialize this change. This proposal was approved by both the Board and Respondent. Based on the input provided by the teachers, the Board subsequently requested each one to start preparing lesson plans at the rate of 10 per week. Respondent did start doing this and completed a number of them, but there were some problems. They were not done according to the lesson planning guide and Respondent was asked to correct them. Notwithstanding this request for correction and completion of the remaining plans due, no additional plans were submitted by Respondent nor were corrections made. Thereafter, on November 20, 1986, Mr. Art Dingee, the ICE coordinator at NTEC, visited Respondent at his facility to discuss the need for program performance standards and the requirement for developing lesson guides. At that meeting, Mr. Eckert informed Mr. Dingee: That he would not adhere to the performance standards as prescribed in the curriculum framework related to gasoline engine mechanics; That though he had submitted some lesson guides, he did not intend to continue, That it was not necessary to compile the requested paperwork because it did not reflect what he was teaching, That he utilized a textbook and that was all that was needed of paperwork, and That if the administrator did not agree with this, they could find someone else to replace him. Mr. Dingee prepared a memo about this and submitted it to Dr. Hux on November 24, 1986. Based on the information contained in that memo, Dr. Hux prepared his own memo to Mr. Eckert in which he thanked him for submittal of the lesson guides previously furnished but pointed out the few corrections which were required and the need to submit the remaining guides. Conciliatory in nature, this memo left little doubt that Respondent was expected to comply with the requirements of NTEC. Nothing was forthcoming from Respondent as a result of this memo and on December 2, 1986, Dr. Hux wrote a brief second memo to Respondent pointing out that subsequent failure to provide lesson guides would be construed as gross insubordination. By this time, all other instructors within the system had submitted the required lesson guides. When Respondent failed to comply, Dr. Hux informed Respondent that there would be a formal evaluation conducted of his performance and that additional informal evaluations would also be run. Consistent with this, on December 15, 1986, Dr. Hux went to the Respondent's classroom at 9:30 am and upon entering, found that Respondent was conducting a class. Dr. Hux instructed Respondent to continue with his teaching but Respondent refused and stopped the class. He said he wanted to talk. Respondent took Dr. Hux to his office area which was open to the classroom where in the presence of his students, he stated that he was not going to turn in the "fucking" things, referring to the lesson plans. At that point; Dr. Hux instructed Respondent to come to his, Dr. Hux's, office the following morning in response to which Respondent indicated that he would not do so. In fact, he said, "if you want to see me, come here." Dr. Hux then repeated his direction for Respondent to come to NTEC whereupon Respondent became profane and when cautioned by Dr. Hux not to speak not to speak that way; referred to him, Dr. Hux, as a "shit head." Dr. Hux subsequently prepared a memorandum outlining the above and at the hearing, when Respondent was asked if he objected to the introduction of the memo as an exhibit, he replied that he was "proud of it." Upon leaving Respondent, Dr. Hux reported the incident to Mrs. Nugent, the NTEC principal, who requested an interview with Respondent. She set up a meeting at NTEC with Respondent for 8:00 am on December 16, 1986. Respondent did not appear as requested and somewhat later that morning, called in stating that he had to go to the doctor at 1:30 pm. Ms. Nugent replied that there was still time for a meeting and directed that he come in at 11:00 am. When Respondent appeared, Ms. Nugent, in the presence of Dr. Hux and Mr. Hatcher, went over the complaints filed. At first, Respondent had little to say, but subsequently agreed with the substance of Hux's and Hatcher's comments. When Respondent admitted he had made the comments attributed to him, Ms. Nugent advised him that he must refrain from profanity. In response to this, Respondent indicated he had used profanity because that was all the "jailbirds" understood. In the conversation with Mrs. Nugent Respondent referred to Dr. Hux and Mr. Hatcher as "jerks" and said he could not work with them. He did not like Dr. Hux's comments about his lesson plans and refused to do any further. When Mrs. Nugent asked Respondent to remain at NTEC for the rest of the day, he refused and went home "sick." When she asked him to come in to the center for help and assistance on subsequent days, he refused to do so. Mrs. Nugent scheduled a formal observation of Respondent by Dr. Hux on January 5, 1987 at 8:00 am. A follow-up conference with Dr. Hux and Mrs. Nugent was also set for January 13, 1987. Between December 17 and 19, 1986, Respondent called in sick daily. On December 19, 1986, Mrs. Nugent sent a registered letter to Respondent informing him to report to NTEC but he failed to do so. Between January 5 and January 9, 1987, Respondent did not report for work but submitted a medical report from his physician dated December 19, 1986, which indicated that on December 16, 1986, he had been treated after a recurrence of "original" problem. He was seen again on December 19, 1986, and it was estimated he would require three to five more treatments. This chiropractic physician's statement did not describe what the condition was nor that it was rendering Respondent incapable of working. Though furnished with a letter from Mrs. Nugent on December 19, 1986, which required him to report on January 5, 1987, Respondent did not come in. Consequently, Mrs. Nugent submitted a request for guidance to Dr. Monroe, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel for the Board. Thereafter, Dr. Monroe held a meeting with Respondent which was attended by counsel for the Board and at which the situation was reviewed with Respondent who said it was "all absolutely true." Notwithstanding that, Respondent indicated he would not work with Dr. Hux or Mr. Hatcher and as a result, Dr. Monroe referred the matter to the Superintendent of Schools who, by letter dated January 26, 1987, suspended the Respondent from duty without pay. Dr. Hux was not the only official to work with Respondent in an effort to get him to comply with Board rules. In November, 1986, Mr. Robert Hatcher, Assistant Director for Administration at NTEC, visited the Respondent's instructional area, arriving sometime prior to 8:00 am. Mr. Hatcher had heard that Respondent had had some trouble in getting some of the supplies he had requested and he had heard rumors of Respondent's bad performance. As a result, he was going to take to Respondent some of the materials he needed and was also prepared to go over with him the steps necessary for requisitioning supplies. Mr. Hatcher took Mr. Dingee with him on this visit. When they arrived at the Respondent's room, neither Respondent nor anyone else was present, but shortly thereafter, Respondent came in. The parties briefly talked over innocuous matters and Mr. Hatcher began to ask questions about Respondent's job. He contends he felt sorry for Respondent because his environment was so bad. When Hatcher suggested cleaning up the place as a means of improving it, Respondent took his comments as criticism and suggested they go to his office. There, Respondent began complaining about educators and their methods. He thought educators to be stupid and incompetent, pointing out a book, the cover of which had been affixed upside down. In an attempt to reduce the obvious stress that Respondent appeared to be suffering, Mr. Hatcher tried to change the subject. In response to Hatcher's questions, Respondent painted a picture of a loosely run operation. For example, when Hatcher looked at Respondent's roll book, it was neat but there were no entries for the previous day showing what matters had been covered and what grades, if any, had been given. In response to that, Respondent indicated that he filled it out the following morning instead of immediately after class. When asked about his lesson plans, Respondent folded them up into a ball and told Hatcher he could, "stick them up your ass." At this point, Hatcher decided to leave and started to retreat from the area. Respondent appeared to be obviously stressed and Hatcher wanted to calm the situation down by leaving. As he walked out through the work area, in front of an officer and several inmates, Respondent called out that Hatcher was the man who was going to close down the program. This inflammatory comment was not true. When Hatcher spoke to the officer to deny this and to explain what was happening, Respondent interjected himself with profanity to the point where the inmates started coming up to see what was going on. As a result, Mr. Hatcher left, considering this to be the more appropriate course of action. However, upon his return to the office, he discussed the matter with Mrs. Nugent and reduced his report to writing. As a result of Respondent's conduct, both Dr. Hux and Mr. Hatcher consider it difficult to work with him. Mr. Hatcher would work with him, but Respondent has a negative attitude toward the system and a tendency to verbally abuse his coworkers. In his opinion, it is not likely that Respondent will ever comply with any request unless he agrees with it. Dr. Hux feels that working with Respondent would be difficult but possible if Respondent would agree to work within the framework of the Board's policies and instructions. However, he does not believe this will happen and considers that Respondent's misconduct has adversely affected his effectiveness within the school system to the point where it would be difficult for anyone who was a member of and supports the Board, to work with Respondent. Mrs. Nugent considers that Respondent's behavior as described to and observed by her has impaired his effectiveness within the system in that: His ability to work with Dr. Hux and Mr. Hatcher is nonexistent. He is unable to communicate with them. He is unable to work with Mrs. Nugent. He has refused to obey and his refusal to obey her instructions as well as those of other supervisors is willful. His reference to Dr. Hux and Mr. Hatcher as "jerks" and his shaking of his fist at them is contra to good order and discipline, and His refusal to keep lesson plans as required constitutes a neglect of duty. Respondent contends, and there is no dispute of the fact that his record as a teacher in the classroom has been either excellent or exceptional during the number of years he has worked with the school board. He further states that over 30 percent of his students got jobs when they got out of jail and, even more, were qualified by him for work release programs prior to expiration of their term of confinement. All of this was, however, before the transfer of the program to NTEC. When that agency took over, they imposed a lot of new rules and made it clear that more were to come. These rules required too much paperwork and this paperwork interfered with Respondent's ability to teach. Respondent urges that he was hired to teach, not to complete paperwork. He admits he does not accept the distractions caused by the paperwork which interfered with his teaching according to his methods at his institution. He would not accept distractions from the Sheriff's Office or the Board. His students were special individuals (inmates) who needed to learn, in a short time, in a special way. Respondent contends he did not have the time to spend on useless paperwork. He was successful in doing what he was paid to do, prepare criminals for release employment. Respondent submitted several newspaper articles from the local paper which tended to support him and which pointed out that the majority of his student were non-English speaking individuals who had dropped out of school because of their inability or unwillingness to take the type of tests being required by the new rules imposed by NTEC. Respondent contends, and with some merit, that to treat these students as normal vocational students would be of no benefit to them or to the program and would result in a diminishment of their interest and performance within the program. It was because of tests and because of the strict regimen that the majority of them dropped out of school in the first place and they will not respond, according to Respondent, to a program which imposes the same structure and requirements as are found in the normal school environment. Respondent testified that the Sheriff's Office is not now satisfied with how the school is being run since he left and that the NTEC changes are counterproductive. This evidence is hearsay, however, and, unsupported by other evidence, cannot be considered. With respect to the lesson plans he did submit, Respondent contends that he submitted them on the basis of how Mr. Dingee told him to do it and they were still returned as incorrect. When NTEC officials indicated they would accept them even though incorrect this proved to him that NTEC would accept any paperwork. Respondent contends that the Board is more concerned with form than with results and that all the things found wrong with his performance were merely harassment. Respondent feels he was hired to do a job and did it successfully until NTEC took over. NTEC changes were merely to give bureaucrats a job and had no substance. When he resisted, he was considered obtuse and redundant and an effort was made to drive him out of his job. Respondent is a qualified and successful teacher in the area of vocational education and he would operate successfully in a free-form environment. However, his demeanor is not well received in the more cloistered environs of academia and school officials take a dim view of being told to shove paperwork up their collective "asses" or to commit other indignities upon their persons. His inability to accept that which is not to his liking, and his explosive responses thereto and unwillingness to compromise, substantially result in a diminishment in his effectiveness as a member of the instructional staff of the school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a Final Order upholding the suspension without pay of Respondent and dismissing him from employment the Board. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of August, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Mills, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3323 Belvedere Road Building 502 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Abbey G. Hairston, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road Building 503, Room 232 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Bob M. Eckert 4549 Bangor Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33417
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in office, or insubordination and, if so, whether Petitioner may suspend her without pay for 13 days.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner for 26 years, but not for the period of 1997-2007. For the most part, Respondent has served as a classroom reading teacher, but she has also served as a district-level behavior specialist over ten years ago. Starting in the 2006-07 school year and through the 2011-12 school year, Respondent has been assigned as a tenth grade reading teacher at Blanche Ely High School. Respondent has never received any discipline on her educator's certificate. Until the 2011-12 school year, Respondent had never received any adverse employment action from Petitioner. All of her evaluations during her tenure at Blanche Ely bore satisfactory marks. For the first two years after Respondent returned to teaching in Petitioner's schools, she was on annual contract, but she regained a professional service contract starting the 2008-09 school year. Ms. Baugh's first year as assistant principal at Blanche Ely was the 2011-12 school year. Ms. Baugh previously served as assistant principal at Deerfield Beach High School and, before that, served for seven years as a classroom reading and English teacher. Among Ms. Baugh's responsibilities at Blanche Ely during the 2011-12 school year was to supervise the reading and English departments. Ms. Baugh was thus Respondent's direct administrator. Ms. Baugh's first observation of Respondent's class took place on September 28, 2011. Ms. Baugh remained in the classroom for 30 minutes. Ms. Baugh observed deficiencies in three areas. First, as to instructional planning, Respondent had failed to write the learning objectives on the board, so the students lacked a clear understanding of what they were supposed to learn from the lesson. By failing to introduce the students to the material properly, Respondent allowed students to become confused as to their tasks in reading an interview in a textbook. Lastly, Respondent broke the class into pairs to write an interview, without first providing an example of how to write an interview or giving the students a chance to practice the task, and some students did not understand their respective roles in the small groups. Second, as to lesson presentation, only a few students engaged in an assigned activity because Respondent had failed to provide pre-reading assignments or to explain the purpose of the reading assignment. In reviewing an activity in which students were to determine their areas of weakness, Respondent asked three students to share their three most common mistakes, but failed to determine whether the students actually knew their areas of weakness. Lastly, Respondent failed to write on the board the vocabulary, learning objectives, and specific tasks for the lesson. Third, as to subject-matter knowledge, Respondent consistently misidentified the FCAT 2.0 Reading Category Four as "Informational Text and Technology." It is "Information Text/Research Process." Respondent did not resist Ms. Baugh's comments during the post-observation conference, which took place on October 3, 2011, although Respondent incorrectly insisted that the FCAT section to which she had referred would cover technology. During the conference, Ms. Baugh informed Respondent that she would receive assistance in instructional planning, lesson presentation, and subject-matter knowledge. Ms. Baugh warned Respondent that she would be placed on a Performance Development Plan, if she failed to remediate these deficiencies. One day within two weeks of the October 3 conference, Respondent was instructing her class when a student asked a completely off-topic question about sex. Unable to regain control of the class, Respondent floundered, and other students seized the opportunity to ask inappropriate questions. In the ensuing verbal melee, answering questions posed to her, Respondent told the students that she first had had sex in college and it had been physically painful. As surprising as Respondent's lapse in judgment in answering these questions about her personal sex life, her explanations for why she did so were even more surprising. When asked during cross-examination why she would answer such obviously impertinent questions, Respondent twice, sitting silently, responded by snapping her fingers repeatedly. As though she were overwhelmed by the attorney's question, Respondent resorted to this gesture to indicate that the rapid- fire questions themselves had overwhelmed her. When finally coaxed to substitute language for gesture, Respondent lamely explained that a teacher cannot ever be viewed as inappropriate when she is honest with a child. After a conference on October 22, during which Respondent denied having made any sexual comments in class, Ms. Baugh informed Respondent, somewhat cryptically, "to no longer engage in nonacademic discourse and off-topic discussion by desisting students' negative behaviors." Doubtlessly, though, Respondent understood that she was not to do this again. Ms. Baugh's second observation of Respondent's class took place on November 9, 2011. As Ms. Baugh entered the class, the students were loudly demanding to know what they were supposed to be doing in class. In response to one student, Respondent replied that they should write the words on the overhead projector. The lesson was devoted to acquiring vocabulary through morphemes. While students were working on the lesson, a loud dialog took place between a student sitting near Ms. Baugh and another student sitting across the classroom. Their comments included profanity and disparaging remarks, including one statement referring to the boy on the other side of the classroom as "fat boy." Other students were leaving the classroom, some with and some without passes. Still other students were laughing and talking. Few students were doing the assigned work, but Respondent never intervened. When later asked why she had not intervened, Respondent told Ms. Baugh she did not want the behaviors to worsen and the situation to escalate. After working on the morphemes assignment, the students turned their divided attention to another assignment. Respondent neither explained the purpose of the new activity, nor did she introduce the new activity to the students. Instead, Respondent told the students merely to turn to a certain page and begin to work. Ms. Baugh observed deficiencies in instructional planning, lesson presentation, and behavior management. As to the last, Ms. Baugh told Respondent to stop negative behaviors and impose consequences for misbehavior. By this time, Respondent was receiving assistance from Ms. Powell, another reading teacher, and a retired principal. Later, Ms. Baugh assigned a second reading coach to try to help Respondent. Ms. Powell actually had started helping Respondent in 2009, at least in group sessions given for the benefit of all of the reading teachers. Clearly, though, by the 2011-12 school year, Ms. Powell was providing much more in-depth, individual assistance to Respondent. For instance, following an observation on October 28, Ms. Powell provided Respondent with a detailed Teacher Support Narrative. As to one observation, Ms. Powell noted how Respondent's board was cluttered, bore incorrect lesson objectives, and reflected the use of obsolete student-grouping criteria. Ms. Powell told Respondent to visit the classrooms of three other teachers to see how a board should be organized. But, by their next meeting, Respondent had not done so. Increasingly, though, Respondent was losing control of her classroom. Nearby teachers would enter Respondent's classroom to try to help restore order. Respondent later explained that she did not summon security because she had done so on a couple of occasions early in the school year, but security had never responded. On at least two or three occasions, when a student swore openly in class, Respondent's "strategy" was to repeat the word, in asking what he had said, such as "did you say 'fuck?' or "did you say 'bitch?'" Predictably, the effect of the teacher's repeating the swear word did not de-escalate the situation. On December 12, 2011, one student repeatedly directed a profanity toward Respondent in class and then seized Respondent's personal computer to access a grade program to change his grade. When the other students became disruptive too, another teacher had to enter the classroom to restore order. Because Respondent had not contacted security, the other teacher did so. Eventually, Respondent issued a referral only for the profanity, not the seizing of the computer, although this act compromised confidential information of other students. By letter dated January 17, 2012, Ms. Baugh issued Respondent a written reprimand for failing to manage the behavior of her students and allowing an unsafe learning environment to ensue. Ms. Powell witnessed the aftermath of a more serious incident that took place on December 15 in Respondent's classroom. At the start of class, a boy struck a girl in the head with a bottle. Although Respondent wrote a referral on the boy, she allowed both students to remain in the class for the duration of the period. As Ms. Powell entered the classroom, the period had evidently just ended, and the boy had just left the classroom, but she saw the girl, crying, on her cellphone talking to someone. She was asking the person with whom she had called to come to school to pick her up because a boy was bothering her, and her teacher was not doing anything about it. Instead of comforting the child, Respondent was busily walking around the classroom picking up papers. In response to questions from Ms. Powell, Respondent confirmed what had happened. When Ms. Powell asked if Respondent had called security, she said she had not because she was straightening up the room. Respondent then told the girl to proceed to her next class, but Ms. Powell told her not to leave the safety of the classroom until they knew the location of the boy. The girl left the classroom anyway, and Ms. Powell trailed her to make sure that the boy did not approach her. Just at that moment, the security guard arrived, so Ms. Powell could return to the classroom and admonish Respondent for, among other things, cleaning up the room before addressing the needs of the student who had been struck by the bottle. Later, in a conference, Respondent told Ms. Baugh that she had not called security because the fight had taken place just outside her classroom. Respondent added that she also knew that the boy did not bother girls, only other boys. Unmoved by Respondent's so-called explanations, by letter also dated January 17, 2012, Ms. Baugh issued a written reprimand for Respondent's failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to her health or safety. Ms. Baugh's third observation of Respondent's class took place on January 5. The observation generally noted the same deficiencies as had been noted in the preceding two observations. This time, students laid their heads on their tables, and Respondent did not make them pay attention. The classroom was noisy, as students laughed and talked without being redirected. Two students even had headphones over their ears. When later asked about these matters, Respondent told Ms. Baugh that she did not address these behaviors because she did not want to delay instructional momentum. As was the case with the second observation, Ms. Baugh noted deficiencies in instructional planning, lesson presentation, and behavior management. In February 2012, Respondent experienced serious problems in assigning correct grades and less serious problems in proctoring exams and handling secure exam materials. Eventually, Respondent managed to combine her deficiencies in teaching and classroom management by improperly assigning low academic grades based on misbehavior. By letter dated March 21, 2012, which was later superseded by a letter dated March 22, 2012, Ms. Baugh advised Respondent that she was recommending a three-day suspension for the above-discussed performance deficiencies, which covered a period starting with the beginning of the school year and ending on the date of a predisciplinary meeting that had taken place on March 2. This is the proposed action that is the subject of DOAH Case No. 12-1924TTS. Two more classroom-trashings occurred in the two days following the March 21 three-day suspension letter. First, on March 22, Ms. Powell found Respondent trying to use an overhead in a fully lighted room. Because the image was washed out, Ms. Powell suggested that they turn out the lights, but provide some light by opening the blinds shading the top of the windows. Ms. Powell and Respondent adjusted the lighting accordingly. Ms. Powell left the classroom to help another teacher. Returning to Respondent's classroom 30 minutes later, Ms. Powell could hear a loud commotion as she approached the classroom in the hall. She heard falling desks and chairs and loud shouting. As Ms. Powell entered the classroom, it was pitch black. Ms. Powell turned on the lights and saw that the students had trashed the classroom, again flipping desks and chairs and strewing the floor with papers and books. Ms. Powell asked what was going on, and Respondent explained, with no sense of urgency, that the students kept turning off the lights. When Ms. Powell asked Respondent to identify the misbehaving students, Respondent mentioned the name of one student. The student declared that he was innocent, but Respondent said, "oh, yes, it was you." When Ms. Powell began to call this student's parents, Respondent interrupted and said she was not sure that he was the perpetrator. Second, on the afternoon of Friday, March 23, Ms. Powell noticed students running from the computer lab toward the vending machine area. Ms. Powell approached Respondent, who had just escorted her class (or most of it) from the computer lab back to her regular classroom. Respondent denied that there had been any trouble. Unconvinced, Ms. Powell walked over to the computer lab and found overturned desks, flipped chairs, the phone off the hook and on the floor, and papers and books strewn along the floor. Respondent entered the room and denied that her students had done this trashing of the lab. This denial, which Respondent repeated at hearing, is specifically not credited. Additionally, after receiving the March 21 three-day suspension letter, Respondent continued to grade student work arbitrarily. On one occasion, also on March 22, Ms. Powell noticed that two students with the identical answers had received very different grades for their homework--one getting a 100% and one getting a 50%. When Ms. Powell asked Respondent about the discrepant grading, Respondent replied that she had concluded that the student with the 50% had cheated. Respondent reasoned that the first student to have handed in her assignment had obviously done her own work, but the other student must have copied. When Ms. Powell pointed out the fallacy of this thinking and asked if Respondent had bothered to speak to either of the students, Respondent admitted that she had not. On another occasion, within the same week, Respondent reduced a student's grade on an assignment because of classroom misbehavior--again, improperly using an academic assessment to deal with misbehavior. The student demanded to know whether Respondent had reduced her grade because she is black. Resorting to her earlier strategy of repeating profanity, Respondent sarcastically repeated the question by saying that she had reduced her grade because she was black. Outraged, the student then became loud and aggressive with Respondent. This statement of Respondent, who is white, was insensitive, at the least. As noted by the reference in Petitioner Exhibit 44, this statement came shortly after the racially charged killing of Trayvon Martin. This exhibit states that Respondent tried to justify her reducing the student's grade because the student had taken a piece of yellow paper from Respondent's desk, without permission, and had written on it: "RIP Trayvon Martin." This is a good example of Respondent's missing a crucial teachable moment, instead insensibly clinging to her "technique" of repeating the student's utterance--for what purpose is never clear. The evidentiary record reveals some evidence of insubordination, considerable evidence of incompetency, and overwhelming evidence of misconduct in office. In some cases allowing and in other cases creating conditions in her classroom the precluded learning and endangered the safety of the students entrusted to her, Respondent's deficiencies in classroom management--exacerbated by her incompetency in the form of inefficiency and incapacity--are so serious as to impair her effectiveness in the school system. Considering the acts and omissions covered by the two written reprimands solely for the purpose of applying the progressive discipline policy of Petitioner, the evidentiary record amply supports a 13-day suspension, without pay, for the misconduct in office and incompetence proved in these cases.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order suspending Respondent, without pay, for 13 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2013, 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 12th day of February, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire Brian Engel, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis, and Schwamm, P. A. One Financial Plaza, 7th Floor 100 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Dr. Tony Bennett Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Raphu Williams, presently holds Florida Teacher's Certificate Number 3436, Life Graduate State, Rank 3, and is employed in the public schools of Dade County, Florida. By way of background, Respondent was a teacher employed in the public schools during 1937 through 1942 and from 1961 to the present time. He attended Tuskegee Institute, where he received a Bachelor of Science degree. Respondent is presently certified in the fields of Auto Mechanics, Industrial Arts, Business Administration, and Guidance and Counselling. During his educational pursuit, he attended Boston University, Pittsburgh State, FAMU, Harvard, Suffolk Law School, and the University of Miami. When Respondent was re-employed as a teacher during 1961, he taught at Mays for approximately five years and returned to Booker T. Washington High School, where he was employed through school year 1970. At the end of the 1970 school year, he was transferred to Riviera Junior High School, where he remained until 1975. Throughout his career, he always taught "trainable" students. This, according to Respondent, is a student classification based on students whose IQ's range from 55 down to 30. During the 1975-76 school year, he served as an itinerant teacher receiving assignments from his supervisor, Mrs. Wylamere Marshall. Pauline A. Young, an educational specialist for Dade County for approximately eight years, met Respondent while he was employed at Riviera Junior High School. Miss Young was called upon to observe the vocational unit as a liaison from the area office; and in her opinion, Respondent's performance was inadequate. This opinion rested upon her observation that when she visited the Respondent's classroom, he was asleep. She observed the Respondent asleep on two occasions. On the first occasion, she awakened him and the second time, she browsed around his room for several minutes; and he never knew that she was there. She testified that the students were "just milling round the room -- doing nothing in particular". She testified that when she awakened the Respondent on the first occasion, he acknowledged the fact that he was asleep, and Respondent said "What can you expect? They can only do so much". The Respondent was then teaching trainable mentally-retarded students. While observing Respondent's class, Miss Young requested that Respondent show her his lesson plans, whereupon he responded that he had no lesson plans, his plans were in his head and that he had no plans for Mr. Jones, Mr. Whigham, or Mr. Turner. Respondent advised Miss Young that the "white man owed him this salary and that he was going to continue to stay on even though he made more money on other jobs and, in fact, did not need this job". Miss Young further testified that when Respondent was presented with new reading techniques, he resisted change. Respecting Respondent's classroom contact with students, Miss Young observed that Respondent opened the class by calling the class roll and thereafter, he had no structured format to conduct his class. Miss Young observed Respondent criticizing a student, Darlene Mickens' dress complaining that "she should not wear tennis shoes because she was black and further that because she was black, she need not look bad". In Miss Young's opinion, the student was neat and appropriately dressed. Finally, she testified that she never observed Respondent doing anything productive during her observation of him during his classes. Dora Whitaker Wright, an instructor employed by the Dade County School Board for approximately 21 years and presently the Assistant Principal and teacher at Richmond Heights in charge of guidance, testified that she has known the Respondent for approximately two years. During this period, she visited Respondent's classroom to observe on one occasion, and she also noted that his classroom was unsupervised on approximately three occasions. She further testified that the Respondent failed to report for duty when scheduled. On the three occasions in which Respondent left his class unsupervised, she remained with the students for approximately 15 minutes on the first occasion; approximately 20 minutes on the second occasion; and on the third occasion, the students were left unsupervised and roamed the halls without a pass. She examined Respondent's lesson plans and noted that they contained little, if any, guidance in which to advise emergency substitute teachers or administrators what the teacher (Respondent) was teaching his students. She, thereafter, gave the Respondent sample lesson plans that were submitted by other instructors as a guide to prepare his lesson plans. When Mrs. Wright advised Respondent that he would be held accountable for the return of the classroom books, he rebelled in front of students complaining that it was not his responsibility to account for books given to students. He also contested Mrs. Wright's authority stating that he, like Mrs. Wright, had a Master's degree and had taught as much as she. He further remarked that he had more teaching experience than anyone presently teaching in that school. Among other things, Mrs. Wright's duties include the proper classification and testing of "trainable students" and to ascertain that the instructors are utilizing proper teaching methods. When she discussed the "core" lesson plans systems with Respondent and the teaching guidelines that were published and approved by the school district, the Respondent objected to the use of such plans. Additionally, she testified that he refused to accept the textbooks for each student based on his position that he would not be held accountable for the textbooks under any circumstances. She testified that the School Board, although desirous of giving each student an individual textbook, instructional level, lacked the funds for such an expenditure. Respondent threatened to hurt a student (Lorenzo Richardson) if he was not removed from his class. When cautioned that the supervisor would be visiting his classroom on various days, Mrs. Wright testified that the Respondent rebelled, stating that "he would teach things the way he wanted". Respondent advised Mrs. Wright that he was hit with a soda can while he was laying his head down on his desk. She testified that during her observance of the Respondent, she noticed him playing checkers with students and offered them one dollar if they beat him in a game of checkers. Helen Gentile, the curriculum secretary, who is responsible for calling substitutes, maintaining inventory records, ordering materials and maintaining emergency lesson plans, testified that she received two complaints from substitute teachers regarding the failure of Respondent to provide adequate emergency lesson plans. She examined the Respondent's lesson plans and the only thing contained therein was "personal philosophies of what Respondent noted about each student, with no direction for course structure for students". She recalled Respondent being tardy on at least three occasions and that he failed to call to advise that he would be late. She testified that from time to time, it was necessary that she call upon instructors to cover for classes during the "free period" but that when she would ask Respondent to do this, he yelled at her, stating that it was not his responsibility to cover classes. She did, however, testify that after Respondent shouted to her, he later apologized. Zackery Lee Hagen, a 14-year-old student of Respondent for approximately two years, testified that he was struck by a desk that was pushed by Respondent. Hagan recalled incidents in which the Respondent slept in class and recalled one instance in which he awakened the Respondent by banking on his desk. He also recalled the Respondent using profanity, such as "damn" in class. Hagen testified that his reading skill level had improved under the Respondent's teaching. Jane Boyer, secretary to the principal, Lonnie Coleman, testified that the Respondent failed to follow the established policy of the School Board. Specifically, she testified that he would not timely call to advise of his absence which created hardships in locating substitute teachers. She recalled instances in which students were locked out of their classrooms and were sitting in the hall approximately eight to ten times. On the other hand, she testified that when Respondent wanted requests, he wanted an answer the very instant in which the request was made. Mrs. Boyer observed the Respondent using profanity on at least two occasions. On one occasion, she recalled the Respondent using profanity while escorting a student to Mr. Coleman's office, and the second occasion occurred during a telephone conversation with a parent. She testified that the Respondent, on the second occasion, was talking to a neighbor of a parent and wanted the neighbor to summon the student home "before he killed him". She testified that the Respondent indicated to her that the student had struck the Respondent with a book, whereupon the Respondent called the student a "little bastard". Cynthia Grace, a 13-year-old student of Respondent, also recalled instances in which the Respondent used profane language when the class was unruly. Students, Charles Gardner and Oscar Bryant, also recalled the Respondent using profanity during his teaching. Gardner also confirmed earlier testimony that the Respondent was asleep when he was struck on the head by a coca-cola can. Mitchell Watson, a student, also recalled an instance in which the Respondent fell asleep in class. He testified that the Respondent observed a fight between two students and made no attempt to control the situation or to halt the fight. Clarence H. Gilliard, an instructor and department chairman for special education at Richmond Heights, explained his difficulty in receiving emergency lesson plans and Respondent's failure to accept responsibility for textbooks. He also testified that the Respondent continuously balked when requested to follow established procedures set forth by the school board. Donald Helip, an Assistant Principal at Richmond Heights Junior High School, was called upon to try to resolve the differences which Respondent was having in following procedures. He testified that in so doing, he observed the Respondent's classroom; and on several occasions, the students were left unsupervised. When he cautioned Respondent regarding this problem, the Respondent balked. He testified that after repeated requests, Respondent ultimately turned in emergency lesson plans which were inadequate inasmuch as they only contained "philosophical statements", as opposed to directives that substitute teachers could follow during the Respondent's absence. He recalled one instance in which the Respondent reported late for work and his students had to be reassigned to another instructor. Immediately thereafter, he passed the teacher's lounge and the Respondent was there talking to another instructor. Mr. Helip counselled the Respondent about this problem whereupon the Respondent advised that "he was new and a nice guy and that he should not be used by the system". He further cautioned Mr. Helip that he should not "cross him or if he did, he would be crushed". Mr. Helip perceived these remarks as a threat. Finally, the Respondent advised Mr. Helip that he should advise what kind of flowers he liked so that he would receive them if he, in fact, got hurt. Mr. Helip also voiced his opinion that the Respondent was not an effective school board employee inasmuch as he (1) failed to report timely for work, (2) enjoyed a poor relationship with students, including sleeping while on duty, and (3) based upon his failure to follow established procedures. Lonnie C. Coleman, the principal of Richmond Heights Junior High School for approximately three years, testified that the Respondent was assigned to his school as an itinerant school teacher (surplus) during the past school year. During October, he was assigned classes. Coleman testified that Respondent repeatedly balked at assignments and due to his repeated protests, he removed him from the class due to the number and magnitude of problems he encountered from Respondent. Specifically, he testified that the Respondent averaged two to three disciplinary referrals to him daily and Respondent continuously ejected students from his class because they did not have writing paper. He testified that when this problem increased, he had to issue a directive to Respondent that students were to be kept in class despite the fact that they did not have writing paper. He testified as to the inadequacy of the Respondent's emergency lesson plans which were submitted only due to repeated requests from his department head. He testified that when the Respondent was provided a sample lesson plan as a directive in preparing his plans, the Respondent refused and based on the repeated problems from Respondent, he requested and was granted permission to remove him from the classroom. He termed the Respondent's attendance as being "spotty" and recalled an instance in which the Respondent attended a meeting away from his assigned area without permission. Based thereon, in his opinion, the Respondent's effectiveness had been reduced and should not be permitted to remain an instructor in the Dade County School System. He denied that he and respondent had any personal problems or personality clashes and, in fact, testified that when he confronted the Respondent with procedural problems and afforded the Respondent an opportunity to correct such, the Respondent failed to take any corrective action. Wylamere Marshall, area director and coordinator for the Guidance Division, testified that she offered Respondent a position in order that the could tap his resources as an employability skills teacher to work with special education students. Initially, she assigned the Respondent as an itinerant teacher and experienced problems with him reporting to duty as assigned. She indicated that the Respondent was generally irresponsible and repeatedly slept on the job. She testified that the Respondent requested and was, in fact, granted a transfer during 1975-76 to Richmond Heights Junior High School. She testified that some of the deficiencies in the Respondent's performance included his failure to plan or supervise class activities. He also permitted students to randomly select class assignments. She testified that although the Respondent had numerous shortcoming as a teacher-educator, she felt that he was an able administrator. As to her opinion of Respondent as a teacher, she testified that he was totally inefficient and was not an effective teacher in the educable mentally-retarded program (special education). Bennie Pollock, a Social Studies teacher at Richmond Heights Junior High School during the school year 1975-76 and the beginning of the school year 1976-77 and presently employed as a bargaining agent representative for United Teachers of Dade, testified that he met Respondent during his tenure at Richmond Heights Junior High School. He testified that during the fall of 1976, while the Respondent was serving as a surplus teacher, he had a conversation with Lonnie Coleman regarding the Respondent. He had been approached by the United Teachers of Dade to accept a position which he ultimately accepted around October 13, 1976. He testified that Coleman told him "Bennie, I've got a problem, they want me to take Ralphu (Respondent) in another teacher's place, who had recently resigned (Diana Hunt). I don't want the man. I am going to do everything I can to get rid of him if they make me take him." Pollock responded "We have a contract; it's not a buffet table. There are ways of doing things." He testified that Coleman indicated to him that "We might have to clash on this", whereupon Mr. Pollock replied "Make sure you've got yourself right and do it because if, you know, I'll go by the contract 100 percent." The Respondent expressed his opinion that he was not an administrator but was, rather, a teacher, a profession which motivates him. He recalled that one instructor, Diana Hunt, also had no teaching plans. He testified that, initially, he conducts an orientation in his class to determine the category in which students should be placed. He prefers individual assignments for each student, as opposed to the "core" system, wherein all students are taught around the "core". While he agreed that students are permitted to come in class a certain way, for example, wearing jeans, sneakers, etc., he wanted students to come to school looking and smelling clean before he could teach them. He also indicated that he wanted three or four instructional level texts for each student, whereas the county only gave one book to each student. He expressed his opinion that this thwarted growth and did nothing to stimulate students to read. He expressed the belief that he was being singled out because he was called in without exception to report his lateness. He recalled only one instance in which he was "tied up" and, therefore, called in late. He testified that during school year 1976-77, while assigned teaching duties, he was absent approximately four days. Respondent voiced the opinion that there was no difference in the emergency lesson plan submitted by him as compared to that of instructor Gilliard, who is also an instructor at Richmond Heights Junior High School (Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3). Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Coleman for the school year 1975-76, at which time he received an average score of 3.8 out of a possible 5.0. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 1). Based upon the evidence adduced herein, including the conflicting testimony of the various witnesses, I find that there is sufficient substantial and competent evidence to conclude that the Respondent, on numerous occasions, failed to follow established guidelines and, therefore, ran afoul of the dictates of Chapters 232.27 and 231.09(2), (3), (4), and (6), Florida Statutes. Additionally, by striking the student with the desk, he ran afoul of Chapter 232.27, Florida Statutes, respecting corporal punishment, and he failed to follow Chapter 231.28, Florida Statutes, by his failure to follow State Board of Education Rules contained in Chapter 6B-5, which are entitled "Standards for Competent Professional Performance". Numerous witnesses testified that the Respondent was asleep in his classroom on various occasions. Chapter 231.28, Florida Statutes, provides that an educator's certificate may be revoked or suspended on several different grounds. The evidence here reveals that the Respondent repeatedly refused to follow written directives from administrators regarding corporal punishment, the filing of lesson plans, his use of abusive language during his classroom instruction, the use of threatening language to other instructors and/or administrators, and the striking of another student, apparently innocent, with a desk, and his eviction of students from his classroom constitute conduct from which sanctions should flow based on the department's rules. It is true that almost all of the student witnesses who testified indicated that their reading level had improved under the Respondent's instructions. They all consistently testified that he used abusive and profane language during class time and fell asleep during class periods. I have also considered the Respondent's contention that he is a victim of a disparity of treatment in that other teachers file similar lesson plans without criticism by administrators. However, in proving a case of disparity, it must be shown that other instructors were permitted to file plans and that they were not counselled and failed to take other corrective steps to remedy the stated deficiencies. In this regard, no such showing has been made and, therefore, the proof falls short. I shall, therefore, recommend that the Respondent be found guilty of unprofessional and unethical acts and conduct based upon testimony which revealed that he pushed and hit a student in an effort to evict a student from his classroom in violation of Subsection 232.27, Florida Statutes, and 6B5.07.1 and (4) of the Rules of the Board of Education. I shall further recommend that the Respondent be found guilty of using abusive, inappropriate, profane and threatening language, as set forth in detail above, in violation of Chapter 239.09(2), (3), (4) and (6), Florida Statutes, based on conduct set forth in detail above. In consideration of the Respondent's total dedication to the teaching profession and his educational pursuits, I shall only recommend that his teacher's certificate be suspended for a period of two years.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I hereby recommend: That the Respondent's teacher's certificate be suspended for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 E. College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida Elizabeth J. DuFresne, Esquire 1809 Brickell Ave., Ste. 208 Miami, Florida Honorable Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Tom Benton Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Betty P. Tidwell, has been a teacher for 29 years, the last 11 at Padgett Elementary School in Polk County. On May 7, 1985, Tidwell appeared for work to perform her job of teaching children with learning disabilities. Tidwell's day at work on May 7, 1985, began in the teacher's lounge where she prepared for the day's teaching between approximately 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. At approximately 8:15 a.m., Tidwell's volunteer aide, Terry Jones, mother of one of Tidwell's pupils, joined Tidwell in the lounge. At approximately 8:30 a.m., Tidwell and Jones left the lounge and began the school day by walking from regular class to regular class to pick up the children in her SLD class and bring them to her classroom, which was located in one half of a portable building. During the morning, Tidwell and Jones went about their normal teaching activities. At some point in the morning, Tidwell received word that two boxes of high interest, low reading skill level books she had ordered for her personal library in her classroom for use by her pupils had arrived and were in the administrative offices. Tidwell and one of her pupils walked to the office, picked up the two boxes of books, and carried them back to her classroom. At lunch time at approximately noon, Tidwell and Jones walked to the school cafeteria to buy their lunches and bring them back to her classroom, as they usually do. Tidwell sat at her desk, and Jones sat at a round table in front of Tidwell's desk. While Tidwell ate she began unpacking, separating and numbering the new books so that they would be ready for her pupils to check out and use by the end of Tidwell's 30-minute lunch break. Rushing to get the job done while she ate, Tidwell stood up and turned to shelve some of the books. She tripped over a yardstick that had fallen to the floor and become lodged between Tidwell's file cabinet near her desk and the bookcase. As she fell, Tidwell reached for a book cart, which began to roll away from her. Tidwell sharply twisted her back as fell to the floor in a sitting position, back to the bookcase. Tidwell was in a great deal of pain as a result of the fall. Jones helped her to her feet and back into the seat at Tidwell's desk. Tidwell sat in pain for a few minutes, her head on her desk. She then concluded that her lower back pain was getting worse and that she needed medical attention. Jones helped Tidwell to the school health clinic, where Joseph Gillen, the principal of the school, saw Tidwell's condition and called an ambulance to take Tidwell to the hospital. At the hospital, Tidwell was treated for lower back injury from the fall. Tidwell's doctor prescribed medication, bed rest and heat therapy. Tidwell was out of work for two weeks. Tidwell filed a worker's compensation claim for medical expenses and lost wages resulting from the fall in her classroom. The claim was not fraudulent. Shortly after the fall, Terry Jones told school officials that Tidwell had told her and another woman, Cheryl Stephenson, the morning of May 7, 1985, in the teacher's lounge that she had hurt her back in a motorcycle accident when the bike turned over while Tidwell was turning a corner. She also testified that Tidwell told her that she (Tidwell) planned to lie to school officials for insurance purposes that she hurt her back in the classroom. Finally, she told the school officials that she did not witness the fall in the classroom which injured Tidwell's back. Cheryl Stephenson related that she noticed Tidwell walking slowly and carefully in the teacher's lounge on the morning of May 7, 1985. Asked if she was alright, Tidwell told Stephenson within hearing range of Jones something to the effect that her back was sore from riding her motorcycle the day before (actually, two days before on Sunday, May 5, 1985). Tidwell joked that at her age she finally got a motorcycle and the first thing she does is turn it over. Stephenson interpreted Tidwell's statements to mean Tidwell had an accident on the motorcycle and hurt her back, and she told this to school officials. As a result of Jones' and Stephensons' statements, the School Board opposed Tidwell's worker's compensation claim. Also, on June 10, 1986, the School Board approved the School Superintendent's recommendation that Tidwell be terminated as a teacher for "misconduct in office, i.e., claiming an injury on the job when she was actually injured away from the job." Tidwell denied the charge and initiated this proceeding. In fact, Tidwell did not have a motorcycle accident on May 6 or May 5, 1985, or any other time. She was riding her motorcycle with friends the weekend of May 5, 1985, and her shoulders and upper back were tired and sore from it on May 6 and 7, 1985. Tidwell is prone to sore shoulders and upper back from physical activity for several reasons. First, Tidwell is a 55 year old woman of slight build. Second, Tidwell underwent a radical mastectomy (including removal of muscle tissue) for cancer in 1971. Third, Tidwell underwent surgery for a hiatal hernia in 1981. When Tidwell told Stephenson and Jones on May 7, 1985, that her back hurt and that she was sore from riding her motorcycle she was referring to the soreness in her shoulders and upper back that was causing her to walk slowly and carefully in the teacher's lounge. While uncomfortable, the pain was not enough to prevent Tidwell from going about her normal activities that morning, much less enough to hospitalize her. However, on Sunday, May 5, 1985, Tidwell was involved in an incident with her bike which explains Stephenson's testimony. While walking her bike from its parking place at a Lakeland area park before getting on it or even starting the engine, Tidwell lost her balance and let the bike fall to the ground. A male companion picked the bike up for her. This incident did not result in any injury to Tidwell's back but did result in the story Tidwell tried to tell Stephenson, who misunderstood and thought Tidwell was saying that the bike turned over while Tidwell was riding it. Tidwell's relating of the May 5, 1985, incident to Stephenson within earshot of Jones could have explained Jones' testimony which Stephenson corroborated except that Jones went on to also testify that Tidwell confided to her Tidwell's alleged plan to defraud the School Board and that Tidwell's fall in the classroom never took place. The latter two parts of Jones' testimony directly contradict Tidwell, requiring a direct decision who is telling the truth, Jones or Tidwell. It is recognized that, on the face of it, Tidwell had an obvious motive to testify as she did, even if untruthful: to win this case and keep her job. But Tidwell gave the impression that she was more concerned with defending her personal integrity, which had come under attack, than with winning the case per se. And she seemed more concerned with being able to get back into the classroom to teach children, a job that gives her enjoyment and fulfillment, than with the "job," per se, and the financial remuneration that goes with it. It actually is harder to determine Jones' motivation for being untruthful. The evidence suggested, however, that Jones might have harbored personal animosity against Tidwell. Jones refused to answer questions on cross- examination asking whether she was romantically involved with one of the men teaching Tidwell to ride a motorcycle. If she was romantically involved with the man, she may have been jealous and angry at Tidwell for Tidwell's relationship with the man. The evidence also suggested that Jones believed she could manage to accuse Tidwell without having to confront Tidwell face to face and without having to submit to a hearing process that would determine who was telling the truth. More important to the resolution of the factual dispute in this case are extrinsic facts over which neither Tidwell nor Jones have control. According to Jones, Tidwell never fell and hurt her lower back in the classroom. Jones' testimony is inconsistent with the facts: (1) the medical evidence was that Tidwell did in fact suffer from a muscle contusion of the lower back; and (2) Tidwell was able to function normally (albeit with some discomfort in her shoulders and upper back) on the morning of May 7, 1985, but was hospitalized in the afternoon, was bedridden for a week and unable to work for two weeks. Jones' testimony that Tidwell actually fell off her bike while negotiating a turn also does not square with the medical evidence. Medical examination of Tidwell disclosed none of the surface cuts, abrasions and bruises one would expect to see in a patient involved in a motorcycle accident of that sort. Also, at one point in Jones' testimony, she says Tidwell was alone when the alleged accident happened; at another point, she says "somebody helped her get her bike back up." It is improbable that Tidwell would be discussing an away-from-work motorcycle accident with Jones and Stephenson or anyone else in the teachers' lounge on May 7, 1985, if she were planning to defraud the School Board that day by fabricating an on-the-job injury and filing a fraudulent worker's compensation claim for injuries actually arising out of the motorcycle accident. It is even less probable that Tidwell would disclose her alleged fraudulent scheme to anyone, much less to Jones, much less within earshot of Stephenson. Finally, if Tidwell were planning to attempt to defraud the School Board, as Jones says, there would be no reason to first tell a lie to Jones and Stephenson that the away-from-the-job accident was more serious than it really was. For these reasons and others, including the apparent candor and demeanor of the witnesses, Tidwell's testimony is accepted as truthful and Jones' testimony is rejected as untruthful. There was evidence that the charges, if true, would impair Tidwell's effectiveness in the school system. If not true, the charges theoretically could impair Tidwell's effectiveness, but the evidence was that they probably would not. Tidwell continued to work effectively for the remainder of the 1984/1985 school year, had her contract renewed for the 1985/1986 school year, worked effectively for the entire 1985/1986 school year and was recommended for renewal of her contract for the 1986/1987 school year before she was terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, School Board of Polk County, enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent, Betty P. Tidwell, and reinstating the previous renewal of her contract for the 1986-1987 school year. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3033 These rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact are made to comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Although neither party numbered the paragraphs of their proposed findings of fact (labeled "Findings Of Fact" and "Factual Conclusion") the paragraphs will be assigned consecutive numbers for purposes of these rulings. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1.-3. Subordinate and unnecessary. 4. Accepted and incorporated, along with additional findings. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate. 8. Accepted and incorporated in part; rejected in part as contrary to facts found. 9.-10. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate to facts found. 13.-14. Unnecessary. 15. The "Factual Conclusion" is rejected as contrary to facts found. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. Unnecessary. 6. Accepted and incorporated. 7.-29. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 30. Respondent's "Factual Conclusion" is accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Boswell, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1578 Bartow, Florida 33830-1578 Ronald N. Toward, Esquire Post Office Box 226 Bartow, Florida 33830 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John A. Stewart Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue Whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations of Petitioner Castor's Administrative Complaint executed on May 26, 1988. Whether Respondent's continuing contract with the Collier County School Board should be terminated based upon the allegations set forth in the Notice of Intent to Take Action dated June 10, 1988. Whether the School Board properly suspended the Respondent without pay.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate #117082. During the August 1987-June 1988 school year, the Respondent was employed as a second grade teacher at Highlands Elementary school by the School Board of Collier County. The Respondent had continuing contract status which she had received prior to July 1, 1984. The Respondent was suspended as an employee with pay effective January 1, 1988. The reason for this suspension by the School Board was the pending investigation by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services regarding alleged child abuse to a child in the Respondent's classroom. A second suspension without pay for which no reasons were given occurred on September 1, 1988, and was made retroactive to August 16, 1988. The Respondent was not given prior notice the School Board's plan to consider her employment status during a meeting in September 1988. She was notified after the fact, by letter dated September 2, 1988. On November 17, 1987, the principal asked to see the Respondent's grade book. The grade book, as reviewed by the principal on November 17, 1987, contained very few recorded grades for the initial marking period and the portion of the second quarter which had already passed. After the grade book was returned on November 17, 1987, the Respondent made additional entries for the second marking period. The principal reviewed the grade book again on November 18, 1987. Shortly thereafter, when the principal asked the Respondent to demonstrate that the new entries were related to exams or class work evaluated by her, the Respondent was unable to do so. During the administrative hearing, no evidence was presented which would justify the assigned grades on the report cards or in the grade book. It was not demonstrated that there was a correlation between the marks given and the level of skills demonstrated by students on either exams or seatwork for the dates recorded. The Respondent did not administer corporal punishment to any second grade students during the 1987-1988 school year. The Respondent did pinch the child Lucretio Gutierrez on his outer lower left thigh while he was seated in a reading group session on December 7, 1987. The general location where the child was touched was the outer seam of his long dungarees. The Respondent did not slap this child on the arm on another occasion during the 1987-1988 school year. The pinching of the child Lucretio Guiterrez did not occur in a setting where the child was being punished. The child was reading out loud for the teacher. During the performance, the Respondent reached over and squeezed his leg in a manner the child described as a "pinch." The incident did not rise to the level of child abuse, either physical or mental, as defined by Florida Statutes. No physical or mental harm occurred to the child as a result of the incident. No other children were inappropriately touched or pinched by the Respondent in the 1987-1988 school year. The Respondent did not make inappropriate and profane comments to students in her second grade classroom. She did not tell the students they would "go to hell" if they did not complete their reading assignments. She did not tell the students that they would "go to hell and burn forever, but their souls would never die" if they did not abide by the rules. The children were not told that they would "go to hell" if they did not complete their reading assignments. The Respondent did not describe a lurid tatoo to the students, nor did she state that she was going to have a similar tatoo place upon her "titty." When a student note was confiscated by the Respondent which included the sentence "I like your dick," the Respondent did not make comments to the class such as, "This is not something you should do now, but its okay when you get older." She did not explain that "it gets better as you get older." The Respondent did not mentally abuse, as defined by Florida statutes, any of the children in her classroom.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause for Palm Beach County School Board to suspend Deborah Stark for 10 days without pay based upon the allegations made in its Administrative Complaint filed on November 8, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the Palm Beach County Public School System. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Stark was hired by the School Board in 2005. She is employed pursuant to a professional services contract with Petitioner. At all relevant times to this case, Stark was a teacher at Diamond View. She taught second grade. One of Stark's teaching responsibilities was to provide student information to the School Based Team ("SBT") such as conference/staffing notes,1 to assist the SBT in determining how best to support students who were having challenges or difficulties with reading. During Stark's last several school years with the School Board, Stark engaged in a pattern of misconduct. On June 1, 2015, Stark received, by hand delivery, her first written reprimand. She was disciplined for falsifying three memos by inappropriately using the School Board's letterhead and creating misleading and false documents under co-workers' names without permission. One problem area Respondent had was that she failed to keep her classroom organized and neat. Because of the disorganized book area and unkempt cluttered classroom, Respondent's classroom failed to be an environment conducive to learning and impacted the students' morale negatively. On September 30, 2015, Principal Seal, by memorandum, addressed two of Stark's work deficiencies. Seal pointed out to Stark that her classroom management did not correspond with the School Wide Positive Behavior Support Plan and that Stark's 2014-2015 Reading Running Records ("RRR")2 were not accurately and properly administered. Seal instructed Stark to sign up for a classroom management course through eLearning within a week and notify Seal of the enrollment. Seal even specifically suggested a two- day course that started on October 6, 2015, at the Pew Center. Seal also outlined Stark's RRR inaccuracies and deficiencies in the September memo, which included Stark's failure to provide an accurate report on September 25th for a student during a scheduled SBT meeting, improper use of school materials as a benchmark, and writing in the teacher materials with student's information inappropriately. As a result of Stark's RRR shortcomings, Seal directed Stark to sign up for the next RRR training available on either October 13, 14, 23, or 24, 2015, through eLearning and instructed Stark to verify the RRR training enrollment. The memo ended with the following: "Failure to comply with these directives will be considered insubordination and may result [in] disciplinary action to include up to suspension or termination of employment." On November 10, 2015, Seal specifically directed Stark to clean up her classroom and update her students' progress on the class bulletin board. Stark was provided a deadline of on or before November 24, 2015, to correct the performance deficiencies. Stark did not do so. In December 2015, Stark still had student work posted from August and her classroom was not up to date. On December 18, 2015, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held. In that meeting, Stark informed Seal that she went to training, but admitted that she did not provide the required documentation of attendance. Stark's performance with RRR had not improved. By February 2016, Respondent had failed to comply with Seal's directives of November 10, 2015. Stark's classroom was unacceptable and had not been cleaned up, updated, organized as directed. The closet was cluttered from the floor to the ceiling with boxes, papers, and books. Additionally, Stark's student work bulletin board still was not changed and up to date. On February 12, 2016, Seal met with Stark to address the issues and gave Stark a verbal reprimand with written notation. The verbal reprimand with written notation memo stated that Respondent was insubordinate for fail[ing] to comply with "directives given to her in the memorandums dated September 30, 2015, and November 10, 2015." On May 24, 2016, a pre-determination meeting was held with Stark and she acknowledged that she had fallen behind in the RRR and math/reading assessments but planned to catch up by the end of the year. On June 2, 2016, Seal held another disciplinary conference with Stark. Seal provided Stark a written reprimand by memo detailing that Stark exhibited: poor judgement, lack of follow up, inappropriate supervision of students, excessive absence without pay, failure to properly and accurately administer and record Reading Running Records as well as Math and Reading assessments, during the school year 2015/2016 with fidelity and insubordination. Seal also instructed Stark in the memo: Effective immediately, you are directed to provide the appropriate level of supervision to your students, follow your academic schedule, meet deadlines with respect to inputting reading and math date into EDW, accurately complete Running Reading Records, cease from taking unpaid time and follow all School Board Policies and State Statutes. Finally, pursuant to the CTA contract, I am directing you to provide a doctor's note for any absences going forward. This requirement will be in effect until December 22, 2016. Respondent failed to follow the leave directive of the written reprimand of June 2, 2016. Stark's duty day started at 7:50 a.m. On October 14, 2016, Stark notified Diamond View at 8:26 a.m. that she would not report to work because she had a ride to an appointment. On November 29, 2016, Stark notified the school at 7:40 a.m. by stating, "I have a meeting boo," as she took the full day off. On December 16, 2016, she notified the school at 6:24 a.m. that her husband requested a shopping day and family activities for the day. On February 10, 2017, Stark notified the school at 7:38 a.m., "I am going to a friend's house today to help them." On March 2, 2017, she notified the school at 7:14 a.m. that "I am finalizing a college class today." On March 7, 2017, Stark notified the school at 6:18 a.m. that Nationals verses Boston were at the new park and she would not be in to work. On April 5, 2017, Stark notified the school at 7:34 a.m. that she had a meeting and missed half the school day. Stark's absences of September 21, September 23, October 14, November 29, and December 16, 2016, were unauthorized leave and her leave of March 2, March 7, April 5, and February 10, 2017, were days without pay. Stark's excessive absenteeism disrupted the learning environment for her students and caused Respondent to miss out on valuable School Board resources she needed to perform her job duties and correct her work performance deficiencies. By missing work, Stark was neither able to obtain the needed available professional development nor obtain support from the Literacy Staff Developer. Stark's ineptness continued throughout the 2016-2017 school year. Stark failed to provide requested student information needed to assist in creating report cards for several former students, which adversely impacted the school and the students because, among other things, the school was not able to provide the students' new teachers with accurate data for placement. Stark was offered coaching services to improve her work performance through Peer Assistance Review ("PAR"). Stark failed to show up and meet with the trainers assigned to provide her support on January 20, February 1, and March 7, 2017. Stark failed to submit the required SBT documentation for five students timely. Stark's duties included meeting with the parents of each student to communicate the students' academic concerns. Stark did not meet with the parents. Instead, Stark submitted five untimely falsified student records indicating parent meetings that did not take place. She also forged translator Torres-Vega signature like she was present at the meetings, when Torres-Vega had not participated. On or about April 24, 2017, an investigation report was completed detailing Stark's misconduct for the 2016-2017 school year. The investigative summary concluded Stark failed to comply with numerous directives given by the principal and vice principal. Stark failed to complete and submit SBT documentation for five students who could have benefited from additional supportive services. Respondent falsified student records indicating she contacted and conferenced with the parents for each student. She also falsified that a translator had participated in the parent conferences. At the same time, Stark sent last minute notification emails to the principal as to why she would not be reporting to work, failed to notify Seal in a timely manner when she would not be reporting to work, and did not prepare substitute lesson plans. Stark's unexcused absences totaled approximately 40 hours without pay within a five month period and did not adhere to the 24 hour advanced notice requirement of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Respondent's absences from work also caused her to miss valuable School Board training and support. Ultimate Findings of Fact Stark failed to fulfill the responsibilities of a teacher by not preparing and submitting the documents to the SBT so that the students could qualify for the support and services after multiple follow-ups and reminders by her supervisors. Stark's actions of falsifying the five students' records with Torres-Vega's signature and indicating that she met with the parents when she did not was ethical misconduct, failure to exercise best professional judgment, failure to provide for accurate or timely record keeping, and falsifying records. Stark misused her time and attendance when she had exhausted her paid time, but continued to use leave without pay when her work was not up to date and after she had been reprimanded and warned regarding absences by Seal. Stark's explanation of her absences failed to fall in the category for extenuating circumstances and her absences disrupted the learning environment. Stark was insubordinate and also failed to follow procedures, policies, and directives of the Diamond View principal and vice principal. Stark never cleaned up her classroom and failed to protect the learning environment. She also did not update her RRRs as instructed by Seal. On February 1, 2017, Vice Principal Diaz had also instructed Stark to always follow and adhere to an academic schedule with the students in order to provide structured learning. Instead, Stark continued to constantly allow the students to walk around the classroom, draw and eat snacks, without an academic schedule. By letter dated September 19, 2017, Respondent was notified that the School Board was recommending she receive a 10 day suspension without pay because of her misconduct. On or about October 4, 2017, the School Board took action by voting to suspend Respondent for 10 days without pay. Petitioner ultimately filed charges against Stark by Administrative Complaint dated November 8, 2018, that alleged Stark violated the following School Board policies: Failure to Fulfil the Responsibilities of a Teacher pursuant to School Board Policy 1.013(4), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff; School Board Policy 2.34, Records and Reports; Collective Bargaining Agreement with CTA, Article II, Section U, Lesson Plans Failure to Protect the Learning Environment pursuant to School Board Policy 0.01(2)(3), Commitment to the Student, Principle I-(formally 0.01(2)(c); 6A- 10.081(2)(a)(1), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession Misuse of Time/Attendance pursuant to School Board Policies 3.80(2)(c), Leave of Absence; Collective Bargaining Agreement with CTA, Article V, Leaves, Section B Ethical Misconduct pursuant to School Board Policy 3.02(4)(b), (4)(d), (4)(f), (4)(h), and (4)(j), Code of Ethics; School Board Policy 3.02(5)(c)(iii), Code of Ethics; 6A-10.081(1)(c) and (2)(c)(1), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida Failure to Exercise Best Professional Judgment pursuant to School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), Code of Ethics; 6A-10-081(1)(b), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida Insubordination: Failure to Follow Policy, Rules, Directive, or Statute pursuant to School Board Policy 3.10(6), Conditions of Employment with the District; School Board Policy 1.013(1), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff. Respondent contested the reasons for suspension.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order: Finding Deborah Stark in violation of all six violations in the Administrative Complaint; and Upholding Deborah Stark's 10-day suspension without pay for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2018.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's professional service contract should be renewed as provided in Subsection 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes. This requires a determination of whether the Petitioner provided sufficient assistance and in-service training opportunities and evaluated Respondent periodically to apprise him of his progress, and whether Respondent corrected certain noted performance deficiencies.
Findings Of Fact At the time that he was recommended for non-renewal, Respondent, James A. Conner, had been employed by the School Board of Seminole County (Board) as a graphic arts teacher at Sanford Middle School for approximately seventeen years. Daniel Pelham has been principal at Sanford Middle School for the past twenty-three years. On March 26, 1991, Pelham advised Conner, in writing, that he was being recommended for return to annual contract status for the 1991-92 contract year, based on unsatisfactory performance in the following areas: Deficient Classroom Management Failure to maintain established procedures. Failure to maintain appropriate and consistent disciplinary procedures. Failure to use clearly defined classroom procedures. Failure to utilize time efficiently. Deficient Teaching Skills Failure to promote effective classroom interaction. Failure to exhibit rapport and understanding with students. (Petitioner's Exhibit #4) The deficiencies noted by Pelham had been developing over a period of approximately four or five years and were pointed out on prior evaluation forms. In particular, Pelham was concerned that there were an inordinate number of student discipline referrals being made by Conner. Pelham also personally observed problems in classroom management in visits he made to Conner's classes. Conner's classes in the vocational program were typically smaller than those in the academic programs. Over a school day of five periods, he had a total of sixty to seventy-five students, and some of his classes contained only nine or ten students. As a result of proceedings not relevant to this case, the parties entered a stipulation that the March 26, 1991 recommendation would be considered a notice of unsatisfactory performance required to terminate a professional service contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1991). The effect of the stipulation was to provide Conner with an opportunity to remedy his deficiencies as provided in a new law governing employment rights of classroom teachers. By the time Pelham's recommendation was made, he felt that Conner had the capacity to improve, but the principal was not optimistic that the improvements would be made. As required by law, an assistance plan was developed to assist James Conner in correcting the deficiencies provided in the notice described above. Daniel Pelham assigned Roger Gardner, his assistant principal, to be a mentor to Conner; and he removed Gardner from any supervisory role in an attempt to make the relationship more helpful. The assistance team was comprised of Dan Pelham; Roger Gardner; John Reichert, the Board's Director of Personnel; Cliff Duncan, Director of Staff Development; and Betty Hogle, Director of Vocational Education. The plan was provided to James Conner in September 1991. Helene Samango was Conner's representative from the Seminole Education Association, the teachers union. She elicited the assistance of Linda Cronin- Jones, Ph.D., an associate professor of instruction and curriculum at the University of Florida College of Education, to review the performance assistance plan. Dr. Cronin-Jones provided a critique of the plan, with suggestions that were, in turn, provided to Mr. Reichert the second week of December 1991. Dr. Cronin-Jones' suggestions were incorporated in the plan at the next meeting of the assistance team on January 13, 1992. The additions to the plan included a peer teacher selected by Mr. Conner, in addition to the one already identified in the plan, and included videotaping Conner's class sessions to be used as a tool for Conner and his peers to critique his work and to make suggestions for further improvement. The content of the assessment documents used to evaluate Conner's performance was established by statute. The assessment plan itself was developed four or five years ago by a committee of school board staff, including teachers, principals and union representatives. The plan has been approved by the State Department of Education every year thereafter. The performance assistance plan developed for James Conner was adequate and appropriate to address the specific deficiencies previously noted in his performance. He took advantage of the required activities, including review of in-service training material. He was not, however, responsive to the guidance attempts by Roger Gardner, whose task, having known Conner for many years, was to help him with specific strategies to reach the goals set up in the plan. For example, Gardner gave Conner a few articles to read that supported some of the things he was being asked to do. The articles related to specific problems of middle school children and ways of dealing with their discipline needs. Conner was to respond back to Gardner after reading the articles. He apparently read them, but did not respond as asked. Another assignment to Conner was to draft his classroom management plan. He and Gardner met on preliminary drafts several times, but it was not finally completed until December 19, 1991. The meetings were scheduled by Gardner, and Conner simply did not take the initiative that would have reflected an effort to cooperate. James Conner was observed or formally assessed on several occasions over the remedial year. Bettie Hogle, Director of Vocational and Technical Education for the School Board, observed him from the beginning of the first period until 10:35 a.m. on October 28, 1991. She noted the following: There was no clear focus on the day's learning activities at the beginning of class. Student behavior was poor. One student was sent to the office for discipline at the start of class. I was not sure why he was singled out when others were misbehaving as well. Equipment and materials were stacked around the lab. This cluttered atmosphere is not conducive to student learning. On the positive side, Mr. Conner exhibited good questioning techniques in teaching the lesson. He complimented the students on the good behavior they demonstrated in groups earlier in the week. After students began working on projects, he circulated around the room and provided individual assistance. (Petitioner's Exhibit #11) Daniel Pelham observed Conner's seventh grade class for thirty-five minutes on November 11, 1991. There were five students in the class. The assessment form notes unsatisfactory ratings in six areas of classroom management and teaching skills. Two students were observed talking during most of the observation, without intervention by the teacher. The form also noted "not much change here" under the category, "Exhibits rapport and understanding with students", with the comment, "very high discipline referral. To date 11/11, total of 46". (Petitioner's Exhibit #12) On December 9, 1991, Pelham sent Conner a memorandum regarding the continued clutter in his classroom, storage room and office, and directed him to remove the items not in use in his program and to get the items off the floors. A follow-up memorandum was given to Conner on January 22, 1992, noting that the papers and boxes were still scattered on the floor of his office and storage room. The memorandum also noted a positive improvement in classroom management observed on January 9, 1992. The nine students observed that period were on task and behaved. Pelham's next assessment is dated March 24, 1992 and reflects a thirty-five minute observation of Conner's seventh grade graphic arts class on March 18, 1992. There were ten students present. Five areas under classroom management and teaching skills were found unsatisfactory. No significant change in management style was found. Students spent a lot of time just sitting. One student completed his project and sat for 30 minutes. The students were told "just follow directions". (Petitioner's Exhibit #8) Pelham's annual assessment of Conner is dated April 24, 1992 and finds him unsatisfactory in these four areas under classroom management and teaching skills: "Uses clearly defined classroom procedures"; "Disciplinary procedures established and used"; "Promotes effective classroom interaction"; and "Exhibits rapport and understanding with students". Four or more unsatisfactory ratings constitute an unsatisfactory evaluation according to the instructional personnel plan. (Petitioner's Exhibit #6) The areas found unsatisfactory are critical to the effective functioning of a teacher. The deficiencies noted in the above-described assessments or evaluations are evident in the videotapes of Conner's classes, recorded in December 1991 and March 1992. Those sessions are typical examples of Conner's performance at the time that they were taped; they reflect the methodologies and strategies he was using and attempting to implement from the assistance plan. The December session shows constant talking by the students, with Conner lecturing and attempting to demonstrate over the low din. The class was small, approximately ten students, but they were notably disengaged, except during brief periods when the equipment was plotting designs. Conner ignored the talking and forged on with the lesson. The March sessions were also small classes and the students were not as disruptive. Explanations and demonstrations of equipment were made with the teacher's back to the students. Again, the students were primarily disengaged, some with their heads on the tables. Several times, Conner urged them, "you might want to write this down", but not the first student picked up a pencil, and some seemed not to have pencils or materials on their tables. A child with his hand up was not recognized for an extended period and eventually Conner's response to his question was a flippant, "Because it's there". There was some attempt to engage the students in discussion about what was learned in other classes or about trips to Epcot or Busch Gardens, and there was some attempt to compliment students with, "Congratulations and a warm fuzzy to the stars who made 100"; but in spite of the size of the class, there was very little individual interaction. Students were rarely addressed by name or called to respond individually. For the most part, the students appeared unchallenged or simply bored. The Board's expert witness described the classroom style as lack of "with-it-ness". Although Conner was friendly or kind, class time was wasted and the students' education was not advanced. Over the 1991-92 school year, James Conner issued approximately 110 student discipline referrals, exhibiting some improvement over prior years, but still an excessive amount based on the number of his students, and reflective of a failure of classroom management and poor rapport with the students. His explanation that his students were particularly disruptive and he had to be strict to keep them from hurting themselves on the dangerous equipment, is not substantiated by the observations of the principal or by the compelling evidence of the videotaped sessions. The classroom unrest was more apparently the painful consequence of student boredom and failure of the teacher to engage his enviably small classes in the subject matter. Conner's theory that his principal gave up on him too early and failed to provide the equipment he needed, or had a personality conflict, was not developed with competent, credible evidence. The assistance plan, the suggestions and guidance offered by Roger Gardner, and the peer assistance of two outstanding teachers were appropriate and adequate. Daniel Pelham did not recommend Conner's transfer to another school because he properly wanted to avoid passing on a problem to someone else. James Conner did improve his performance over the remedial year. Six unsatisfactory charges were reduced to four. It is impossible to determine whether more improvement would have been made with more time. He was, however, given the time required by law, and was given the assistance required to make improvements. The principal's assessment was valid and the superintendent's recommendation that he not be issued a new professional service contract was timely and is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Seminole County enter its Final Order denying renewal of James Conner's professional service contract. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3012 The following constitute rulings made on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted substantially in paragraph 1. Respondent testified that he was employed 17 years (transcript, p.304). Included in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 17. Included in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Rejected as unnecessary. 9-10. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. (Second numbered paragraph 12) Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraphs 17 and 26. Adopted in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 12-16. Rejected as substantially unsupported by the evidence. He did make some effort and was moderately, but insufficiently, successful. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in paragraph 1. Adopted in part in paragraph 2. The proposed finding of personality conflict is rejected as unsubstantiated by competent, credible evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 4. Adopted in part in paragraph 5. The ultimate conclusion that he had "given up" is rejected as an overstatement of the substance of Pelham's testimony. 5-7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substantive part in paragraph 25. Adopted in paragraph 6. 10-12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 15-17. Substantially rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 18-22. Rejected as unnecessary. The testimony of the peer teachers neither supports nor rejects the position of Respondent. It is credible, but essentially neutral. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. The referrals played some part in the unsatisfactory assessments, but so also did Pelham's classroom observations. Rejected as unnecessary. The basic premise is accepted, but this was not the reason Respondent had problems with referrals. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 26-27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 18. 29-31. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Both parties' experts were impressive and credible. In her assessment of Respondent's performance, Dr. Cronin- Jones understandably concentrated on the positive aspects, which aspects were nonetheless outweighed by the negative overall lack of effective connection between teacher and his students. The marked efforts to "relate" are rote, and in some cases (the trips), detract from the learning process. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire STENSTROM, MCINTOSH, ET AL. Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848 Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire MEYER AND BROOKS, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771
