Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue presented for determination is whether the proposed high school attendance zone plan, Z2, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: This rule challenge to a proposed rule is a result of proposed changes to school attendance zones in Seminole County, Florida, which would result in students attending different schools than they presently attend. Hagerty High School (Hagerty) is a newly constructed Seminole County school. The opening of this new high school in August 2005 was the catalyst for the county-wide rezoning. Incidental to rezoning to accomplish populating the new high school, adjustments in student populations were made in an attempt to create appropriately balanced racial and ethnic student populations and to alleviate school over-crowding. Since 1970, schools in Seminole County have been subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government regarding desegregation of the public schools. This continuing jurisdiction is the subject of "Consent Decrees" between the United States of America and Respondent in Case No. 70-152, ORL CIV (M.D. Fla. August 19, 1975). In particular, adjustments in school attendance zones have been the subject of the scrutiny of the Federal government. Several members of the current School Board were on the School Board when a rezoning plan was rejected by the Federal government. Since early in the 1990's, the School Board and school administration have aggressively pursued the goal of a "unitary" school system, i.e., a system that has accomplished a myriad of goals which equate to a system wherein any student, regardless of race and ethnicity, has an equal opportunity for a quality education. Once the status of a "unitary school district" is accomplished, direct Federal supervision will cease. In 2002, preparing for the day when "unitary" status would be achieved, the School Board developed an extensive post-unitary status policy. The Parties Petitioner, Jennifer Finch, is the mother of Christopher Brady; she and Christopher reside in Seminole County, in the residential community known as Sable Point. Christopher is currently in the sixth grade. The Finch residence is in Cell 27A; a "cell" is a geographic area created by the Core Committee when it divided the county into numerically identified “cells” for purposes of considering rezoning alternatives. The Finch residence is currently zoned for Lake Brantley High School. As a result of the proposed rezoning, children (with the exception of "grandfathered in" children) residing in Cell 27A will be zoned to attend Lyman High School. Lake Brantley High School is "over-crowded." The facility is designed to accommodate 3,000 students; it has a current student population of approximately 3,650. Because of Lake Brantley High School's over-crowding, its principal regularly audits the student population, using unique and creative methods, in an effort to assure that each of the students attending Lake Brantley High School is zoned to attend Lake Brantley High School. Petitioner, SC. Read, Inc., is a Florida corporation. Members of SC. Read, Inc., live in Cell 27A, and several of its members have children who are currently enrolled in the public schools of Seminole County. Intervenor, Tuscawilla Home Owners’ Association, Inc., is a Florida corporation. Part of Cell 10, and all of Cell 11, are within the area of subdivisions represented by Intervenor. Intervenor has 2,109 member households; 734 member households are in Cells 10 and 11. The homes in Cells 10 and 11 are single-family residences with many children who attend Seminole County public schools. The proposed rezoning contemplates students living in Cells 10 and 11, who are not specifically "grandfathered in," attending Oviedo High School instead of Winter Springs High School where they are currently zoned. One of the specific functions of Intervenor is to engage in efforts to secure educational opportunities and a stable educational environment for its members. It has historically worked with the schools to provide increased educational and extracurricular activities for its constituent members. The School Board is the governmental entity responsible for the operation, supervision, and control of public schools in Seminole County, Florida, including establishing attendance zones, determining the educational capacity of schools and assigning students to schools. The Rezoning Process Rezoning is a thankless responsibility; whenever the lives of children are disrupted, parents are unhappy. Moving a student from one school to another, places unanticipated demands on both parents and students. In January 2000, the School Board adopted a policy entitled “Revision of School Attendance Zones” (hereinafter referred to as “Policy J”). Section III of Policy J, entitled Process for Revision, at Step One provides, in relevant part: The Board establishes a Core Committee including, but not limited to district representatives . . . , affected school administrators, a representative from the affected School Advisory Councils, and a PTA representative from the affected schools to solicit public input, develop and evaluate alternative plans, and keep the local community informed of the progress . . . . The role of the Core Committee in the rezoning process is advisory. Its responsibilities, as enumerated in Policy J, are to serve as a conduit for public communication, receive demographic data, create "cells" to be considered in attendance zone shifts, consider public input, and create rezoning plans to be considered by the School Board. Policy J provides definitions of certain "words of art" used in the rezoning process, for example, "Over- enrolled/under-enrolled": an over-enrolled school has an enrollment that exceeds its permanent design capacity, and an under-enrolled school has an enrollment less than its design capacity -- both are identified on an annual basis, and "Design capacity": the permanent capacity of a school as calculated by the Department of Education. Portables are not included in the design capacity of a school. The calculation variables include class size, classroom program types, and scheduling. Based on appropriate definitions and criteria, Lake Brantley High School is "over-enrolled" and Lyman High School is "under-enrolled." In addition, Policy J specifies specific parameters that "current and proposed attendance zone plans will be measured against." The parameter having the highest priority according to this policy is: "[T]he plan is consistent with the district Consent Decrees as long as the decrees remain in effect." In April 2004, in anticipation of the August 2005 opening of Hagerty, the rezoning process was initiated. Because rezoning was county-wide and affected numerous schools, the Core Committee consisted of 54 people. The following schedule was established: Organizational Meeting June 15 Core Committee will identify "cells" Core Committee (CC) August 19 CC will use cell data to develop plan options Core Committee Sept. 2 CC will choose plans for public input Public Input Sept. 20 Lyman High 7:00 PM Public Input Sept. 23 Winter Springs High 7:00 PM Core Committee Sept. 30 CC uses public input to develop final drafts School Board Public Input Oct. 26 Educational Support Center 6:00 PM Final Adoption Nov. 9 This schedule outlined in paragraph 17, supra, was essentially followed. However, one meeting was cancelled and one shortened because of hurricanes. The Core Committee meetings, while they took place in public facilities, did not lend themselves to ongoing public input due to the nature of the work that was to be accomplished by the committee members. As would be expected, the committee members relied heavily on school administrators, Deputy Superintendent of Operations Dianne L. Kramer, in particular, who was the facilitator and contact between the committee and school administration, for information necessary for their consideration of student demographics, school populations, and other pertinent data for high schools and middle schools. Geographic enrollment numbers (all potential students living in a geographic area) were used, which is appropriate for rezoning planning. In addition to the information provided directly and electronically to the Core Committee members, which was more than adequate and conforming to Policy J requirements, the School Board made this information available to the interested public directly and electronically. Nothing in this record indicates that any Core Committee member was denied any needed information. Policy J charges the Core Committee with the responsibility "to solicit public input, develop and evaluate alternative plans, and keep the local community informed of the progress." This was accomplished. Because the Core Committee is composed of members of the Parent-Teacher Associations and School Advisory Councils from each affected school, parents were involved and made aware of the Core Committee activities. The Core Committee and the School Board meetings were advertised as required. There was a great deal of public awareness of the rezoning process. For example, it was estimated that 1,600 people attended the two scheduled "public input" sessions, and the School Board meeting and workshop where the plans were presented took more than seven hours. At the conclusion of the Core Committee's consideration of many alternatives, some of which were submitted by the public, three rezoning plans were advanced by the committee. These plans were identified as W, Z, and Z1. Plan Z1 was a plan modified by Deputy Superintendent Kramer at the direction of the committee. These plans were then published on the School Board web-site and made available to the School Board members. Policy J and the Core Committee's stated involvement and participation in the "process for revision," was substantially complied with and any deviation from Policy J or the Core Committee's purpose was insignificant and did not negatively affect the rezoning process. On October 19, 2005, the School Board members took an informational bus trip during which they traveled proposed bus routes for the rezoning plan alternatives. The School Board members are generally familiar with routes to and from the various schools in Seminole County. Seminole County, like most of Central Florida, has experienced dynamic growth in the past decades. This growth has burdened the infrastructure of all communities. As a result, not only are new schools needed, but roads must be constructed and improved. Traffic congestion, whether occasioned by too many vehicles, new construction or for whatever reason, is a daily challenge to central Floridians. Regardless of the particular school a student attends, buses transporting students will be a part of the traffic with which all motorists, including the bus drivers, must contend. Student transportation is a consideration in rezoning, but is not significant or controlling. The School Board has a safety advisory committee whose membership includes police officials and traffic safety personnel from the various governmental entities in Seminole County. As safety or traffic issues arise, this committee provides recommendations regarding those issues. As the need arises, bus routes can be adjusted to accommodate optimum travel time and safety. Subsequent to the publication of the Core Committee Plans W, Z, and Z1, several of the School Board members approached Superintendent Bill Vogel and indicated that they did not feel that any of the Core Committee plans would be acceptable to the Federal government. The School Board members are regularly informed of student demographics, school populations, over/under-crowding, and myriad other statistics which help them make informed judgments in their roles as School Board members. On each school day, every Seminole County school electronically provides the School Board administration with data, including attendance information, to assist in school governance. During the rezoning process, each School Board member was provided timely updates on the Core Committee's activities and had numerous contacts with the general public regarding concerns associated with rezoning. Perhaps, the School Board members who had previously seen a rezoning plan rejected by the Federal government were overly concerned; perhaps, in order to achieve "unitary" status, they wanted to see racial and ethnic ratios adjusted to meet county averages; or perhaps, they were concerned about under/over-crowding. For whatever reason, the School Board members directed Superintendent Vogel to create additional rezoning plans which would address over-crowding at Lake Brantley High School and student enrollment at Lyman High School that included disproportionately high percentages of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches. As a result, Superintendent Vogel directed Deputy Superintendent Kramer to prepare modified plans addressing the deficiencies in Plans W, Z, and Z1: that enrollment at Lake Brantley High School had not been reduced in the plans presented by the Core Committee to the extent that it needed to be and that the percentage of students receiving free and reduced-price lunches at Lyman High School was too high in each of the plans presented by the Core Committee. In addition, Superintendent Vogel believed a greater number of the district's high schools could be closer in enrollment percentages to the county-wide averages for black students, Hispanic students, and students receiving free and reduced-price lunches. This planning direction is one of the fundamental considerations of Policy J. Using essentially the same data and cells identified by the Core Committee, Deputy Superintendent Kramer developed Plans Z2 and Z3 in response to the Superintendent's directive. Plan Z2 incorporates the essential components of the plans advanced by the Core Committee with modification of the attendance zones for specific cells. The primary modification in Plan Z2 is moving Cell 27A from the Lake Brantley High School attendance zone to the Lyman High School attendance zone. Cells 10 and 11, which are included in the Intervenor's area of interest, were recommended for transfer from Winter Springs High School in Plan Z as well as Plans Z1 and Z2. Plans Z1 and Z2 were forwarded to the School Board and the Core Committee members electronically upon development. On October 26, 2004, after being appropriately advertised, all five rezoning plan alternatives were presented at an eight-hour public meeting of the School Board held at the School Board's administration building, at which time the public addressed the School Board on the subject rezoning plans. At the close of the public input, Superintendent Vogel recommended Plan Z2 to the School Board. During the presentation in which Plan Z2 was recommended, Superintendent Vogel presented an assessment of each of the five rezoning plan alternatives and how each impacted each Seminole County high school, including the new high school, Hagerty. This assessment included the current student enrollment, with black students, Hispanic students, and students receiving free or reduced-price lunches noted by percentage, current numeric enrollment, and target numeric enrollment. The assessment specifically addressed the effect of each rezoning plan alternative on these critical areas and demonstrated how each plan alternative measured against each critical area. Superintendent Vogel's recommendation reflects consideration of the criteria and process outlined in Policy J, as well as considerations fundamental to the basic objectives articulated by the School Board's commitment to becoming a "unified" school district. Members of the School Board were not bound by Superintendent Vogel's assessment; each had a worksheet by which each individual School Board member could render his or her own assessment. In addition, several of the School Board members had over 14 years of Board experience being first elected in 1990. These experienced members had participated in previous rezonings and had a wealth of experience and knowledge of critical information needed to make informed decisions with or without Superintendent Vogel's assessment of the various plans. The totality of the evidence presented revealed that each of the School Board members was well-informed on all significant data needed to make an informed decision. At the close of the October 26, 2004, meeting, the School Board unanimously voted to accept Superintendent Vogel's recommendation of Plan Z2 with certain modifications.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent had good cause to reject the then Lake County Schools’ Superintendent’s nomination of Petitioner, Dennis Teasley, to be Assistant Principal I of Eustis High School for the 2008-2009 School year.
Findings Of Fact From 1987 until 2006, Dennis Teasley was employed by the Broward County School System. During those years, he served the school system in a number of capacities, including: dropout prevention teacher from 1987-1988; middle school science teacher from 1988-1999; Assistant Principal of Pines Lakes Elementary from 1999-2004; Intern Principal from 2002-2004; and Principal of Pines Lakes Elementary from 2004-2006. The Intern Principal title was used by Broward County School System to designate an assistant principal as a “principle-in-training.” The designation provided an assistant principal with additional opportunities to become involved on a larger scale with the administrative responsibilities of the school. Mr. Teasley’s performance appraisals from Broward County consistently rated him as “Effective” or “Highly Effective” in all the criteria assessed. Additionally, Mr. Teasley received or was nominated for numerous awards based on his performance or the performance of the schools under his charge. For the school year 2003-2004, when Mr. Teasley served as assistant and intern principal, Pines Lakes Elementary earned an “A” rating. For the school years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, when Mr. Teasley was principal of Pines Lakes Elementary in Broward County, the school earned grades of “B” and “A,” respectively, and achieved AYP each year. “AYP” refers to Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. To achieve AYP, a certain percentage of students from each population demographic represented at the school must achieve a Level 3 or higher in reading and mathematics, as measured by Florida’s “A-Plus” program. Sometime during the summer of 2006, Mr. Teasley either relocated or intended to relocate to the Lake County area. He applied for a position with the Lake County school system. Eventually, he was hired as a principal by Lake County Schools sometime in July, 2006, just prior to the beginning of the 2006- 2007 school year. Mr. Teasley was assigned to Beverly Shores Elementary School. Beverly Shores has a large population of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as a large population of students requiring Exceptional Student Education (ESE). The ESE population includes students designated as Emotionally Handicapped (EH), and Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH). Indeed, 68 percent of the students at Beverly Shores in 2006- 2007 came from economically disadvantaged homes and 11 percent of the students were classified as ESE. The environment of the school was described by most of the witnesses as being a tough environment with a variety of discipline problems. Prior to Mr. Teasley’s appointment as principal, 447 students were suspended from Beverly Shores during the 2005-2006 school year, with 422 students suspended out-of-school (OSS) and 25 students given in-school suspensions (ISS). Eighty of the students given OSS were kindergartners. The principal for that year was described by the Superintendent as being burned-out and needing a respite from such a tough environment. Mr. Teasley entered this environment with insufficient time to familiarize himself with staff and/or review procedures and policies that were in place. He had one Assistant Principal (AP) to support him. Mr. Teasley’s two goals for the 2006-2007 school year were: 1) improving the academic standing of the school, by raising FCAT scores in mathematics and in the lowest performing quartile of students, all without a reduction in the scores for reading and writing; and 2) reducing the rate of serious discipline incidents by 50 percent. Mr. Teasley wanted to redraft the prior year’s disciplinary policy. There was some lack of communication on the status of the redrafted policy between teachers and Mr. Teasley and lack of activity by the committee responsible for the redraft. Eventually, some teachers felt that Mr. Teasley did not support them when it came to disciplinary matters and that Mr. Teasley allowed the students to get out of control. In September or October of 2006, a first-grade student brought a cellophane baggie containing a white powder to school. The police were called to confirm that the substance was cocaine. After confirmation, the child was removed from the custody of his mother, and immediately suspended from school. There was no evidence to suggest that the discipline imposed for this incident was inappropriate. In early September, Mr. Teasley placed an ESE/EH student in a non-ESE class. The student in question had been “retained” (or “held-back”) twice. As a consequence, the student was a seventh-grade-age student in a classroom of third- grade-age children. Mr. Teasley thought that the student’s development would be better met in middle school with similarly aged peers. He, therefore, hoped to have the student reassigned to middle school. While waiting to hear if the reassignment would happen, Mr. Teasley placed him/her in a non-ESE fifth- grade class under the supervision of a teacher with whom he had a good rapport. The decision to place the student in the non- ESE classroom was predicated on a number of factors, including Mr. Teasley’s desire to put the child in an environment where he/she could be successful, as well as, safety concerns regarding significantly younger ESE students being in the same class as the ESE student. Unfortunately, the student was not reassigned to the middle school and Mr. Teasley transferred him back to his original class. After the ESE/EH student was returned to his/her original class, the student “jumped” another student after school was dismissed, breaking the other student’s wrist. The ESE student was immediately given an out-of-school suspension (OSS). However, because the child was an EH student, he/she could only be suspended for a cumulative maximum of ten days, without convening a special ESE disciplinary staffing. Since the student had already been suspended for five days earlier in the year, his/her suspension was limited to five days. After this incident, the student’s parent consented to placement in an alternative school and the student was transferred to the Lifestream school. Again, there was no evidence that Mr. Teasley’s method of handling this student’s behavior problems was inappropriate given the fact that this student was a special education student and special disciplinary procedures applied to such students. Additionally, during the first semester, there was an on-going concern with a second-grade EH student who was “stalking” a female student. Mr. Teasley attempted to have the EH student assigned to the alternative school. However, the student’s mother was “dead-set” against the assignment and the student remained at Beverly Shores. At the same time, Mr. Teasley immediately informed the mother of the child being stalked of what was going on, as well as the steps that were being taken for the girl’s safety. Mr. Teasley assigned an adult to escort the EH student everywhere he/she went on campus. He also rearranged the lunch schedule for the student’s entire class to ensure that the student was not in the cafeteria at the same time as the girl. Again, there was no evidence that demonstrated the steps taken by Mr. Teasley in regard to this EH student were inappropriate given the fact that the student’s mother refused alternative placement and the student was an EH student. Ms. Jule Hand, a kindergarten teacher at Beverly Shores, provided the only direct testimony regarding Mr. Teasley’s perceived lack of support for the faculty. Specifically, she recounted incidents in which she personally sent referrals to the administration and was disappointed when a referral was not addressed on the same day it was written, or when the consequences were not, in her opinion, suitable for the incident. Ms. Hand testified regarding one incident where a student, with a history of significant disciplinary problems and multiple suspensions, pushed two students in her classroom and then threw down all the chairs around the classroom. In the process of throwing chairs, the child hit her and was physically and verbally abusive to her senior volunteer. Ms. Hand called the office for assistance in removing the child from the classroom. The child was removed and received a verbal reprimand with a warning to discontinue the behavior or harsher consequences would follow. To Ms. Hand’s dismay, the student was returned to the classroom. Ms. Hand went on to detail further incidents of misbehavior by this particular child, such as hitting the physical education teacher, spitting in another child’s face, throwing food, grabbing a child from behind, verbal defiance, swinging a metal pipe, and hitting another student with his/her shoulder hard enough to almost knock her over. During this time, the student’s parent was contacted on numerous occasions by both faculty and administrative personnel. Additionally, the student had been suspended twice during the course of these incidents. However, even with these suspensions, the student continued to have disciplinary problems. Mr. Teasley did not want to expel the student and recommended that Ms. Hand contact a social worker and counselor so that the student could be referred to ITOS, a behavioral- intervention study. Eventually, the student left Beverly Shores to attend the study. However, the year following Mr. Teasley’s term as principal, the student returned to Beverly Shores and continued to have behavioral problems. Again, the evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Teasley’s handling of this matter was inappropriate, given Mr. Teasley’s desire not to expel the student. Ms. Karen Seltzer also testified at hearing about her impressions of the discipline problems at Beverly Shores under Mr. Teasley. Some of her testimony involved the EH student referenced above who again began stalking during the second half of the school year. Ms. Seltzer’s testimony was quite confusing and based on hearsay she had gathered from discussions with other teachers who did not testify at hearing. Furthermore, she also testified that she was unaware of the actions taken by Mr. Teasley in response to the incidents she related. The Assistant Superintendent, Mr. Cunningham, observed the students and environment of Beverly Shores during his visits in the first semester of the school year. The visits were prompted by complaints he or the Superintendent had received about the lack of discipline at Beverly Shores. During his visits to Beverly Shores, Mr. Cunningham observed behaviors that he reported to Mr. Teasley as situations that should be addressed from a discipline and control standpoint. He witnessed students traveling about the campus unsupervised by adults, as well as various unsafe behaviors such as running and jumping. There was some testimony from staff that indicated Mr. Cunningham’s observations regarding unsupervised students were not isolated incidents. Mr. Cunningham also saw classrooms that were cut-off from casual observation (e.g., the blinds were drawn). He also testified that at the beginning and the end of the day, when the entire student body was on the move, he observed that teachers were not “on duty” supervising the movement of students. He instructed Mr. Teasley that during those times it was especially important that teachers be in “supervisory mode.” Mr. Cunningham did not return to Beverly Shores until just before the end of the school year. At some point around March 2007, a parent named Ms. Burry contacted Mr. Teasley about obtaining a Sheriff’s Resource Officer (SRO) for Beverly Shores. Ms. Burry thought a uniformed officer on campus would help with student discipline. Even though a SRO is not involved with student discipline, Mr. Teasley felt that a uniformed officer on campus would serve as a positive role model at Beverly Shores. In support of Ms. Burry, Mr. Teasley attended a March 12, 2007, Leesburg City Commission meeting in which parents and teachers sought funding for an SRO at Beverly Shores. He spoke in favor of the idea. The City Commission referred the request back to the Board. At that point, Mr. Teasley felt that the SRO issue was “out of his hands.” Ms. Burry began to contact the Board and Superintendent about her desire for an SRO on campus and the need for greater discipline in the school. Around March or April 2007, Mr. Cunningham was again contacted by parents who were concerned about safety at Beverly Shores. At about the same time, a representative from the teacher’s union had come to him with concerns about the administration at Beverly Shores and “suggested pretty strongly that they might file a grievance” regarding Mr. Teasley’s performance. Mr. Cunningham did not identify which or how many parents voiced concerns to him. Likewise, he did not identify which or how many teacher complaints created the impetus for the union to consider filing a grievance. None of the parents testified at the hearing. On April 30, 2007, Mr. Teasley sent a letter to Assistant Superintendent Cunningham requesting that an additional assistant principal be assigned to Beverly Shores. As indicated earlier, Beverly Shores operated with one AP in 2006-2007. The letter, in part recognized there was a significant disciplinary problem at Beverly Shores and that the school did not have adequate administrative staff to handle the number of disciplinary referrals. Mr. Teasley made the request based on the approximately 1,200 disciplinary referrals the administration had processed through April 19th of the school year and the amount of time spent on processing those referrals. Mr. Teasley stated that the time spent processing those referrals reduced the time administrators were able to spend in classrooms or on campus. The number of disciplinary referrals was due, in part, to Mr. Teasley’s philosophy of using OSS as a disciplinary tool of last resort. In his view, a child cannot be educated if they are not in school. At some point, the Superintendent became aware of the complaints and problems at Beverly Shores and decided to meet with the staff and faculty to assess the situation at the school. In May of 2007, the Superintendent held two meetings with some teachers and staff of Beverly Shores. Ms. Rhonda Lynn attended those meetings. Her interpretation of the tone of the first meeting was that some members of the faculty and staff were frustrated and searching for leadership and that such leadership should have been provided by the principal and his administration. Some teachers and staff in attendance voiced complaints about Mr. Teasley’s lack of discipline and control of the student population. The Superintendent indicated such complaints would remain confidential. At the second meeting with the Superintendent, Mr. Teasley was present and either various complaints were mentioned by the Superintendent in Mr. Teasley’s presence or he was clearly aware of the complaints that had been made in the first meeting. Ms. Lynn’s interpretation of the tone of the second meeting was that the Superintendent had breached the confidentiality promised the staff in the first meeting regarding complaints about Mr. Teasley and that the staff was very upset over that breach. Ms. Lynn admitted that she could not speak for how every teacher at Beverly Shores felt about Mr. Teasley. Ms. Lynn stated that she never had any discussions with Mr. Teasley regarding an explicit philosophy for dealing with students who had received multiple referrals. She also testified that she had no responsibilities for the processing of disciplinary referrals. Throughout the time period outlined above, Mr. Teasley was formally evaluated by the School District. Originally, Mr. Cunningham would have been assigned to perform Mr. Teasley’s evaluation. However, at the time he would have performed the evaluation, Mr. Cunningham was assigned other duties within the District. Therefore, Ms. Pat Nave, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, K-12, completed Mr. Teasley’s evaluation. In the course of performing her evaluation of Mr. Teasley, Ms. Nave made four separate visits to the Beverly Shores’ campus. During those visits, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley would discuss a number of different topics regarding the operation of the school. Specifically, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley discussed his policies for monitoring faculty and student conduct. One such tool for monitoring the campus was a structured system for scheduling the weekly classroom walk-through assignments by members of the school’s leadership team. Based on the reports Mr. Teasley would receive as a result of these walkthroughs, Mr. Teasley would follow up with individual teachers regarding their performance. Additionally, during the evaluation visits, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley would discuss the goals that Mr. Teasley had established at the beginning of the year to gauge the school’s progress in the areas he had identified as needing improvement. As noted earlier, those goals were: 1) improving the academic standing of the school, by raising FCAT scores in mathematics and in the lowest performing quartile of students, all without a reduction in the scores for reading and writing; and 2) reducing the rate of serious discipline incidents by 50 percent. Ms. Nave concluded that all of the strategies that had been outlined for reaching those two goals had been, or were being, implemented. With regards to discipline, she specifically noted that referrals had decreased. Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that out-of-school suspensions decreased from 422 the previous year to 221 for the current year and that on-going concerns were being addressed through the safety and discipline committee Mr. Teasley had established, even though the evidence at the hearing showed that this committee was not very active. Additionally, there was some suggestion at the hearing that disciplinary referrals may have been down because Mr. Teasley was not processing such referrals. There was no competent evidence to support such a conclusion. Evidence did demonstrate that Mr. Teasley preferred ISS to OSS. Toward that end, the ISS procedure was altered from the way it had been operated in the years prior to his tenure at Beverly Shores. During the course of the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Teasley hired a teacher to monitor the ISS room and provide instruction when necessary, eliminated the practice of sending children to the ISS room as a “time-out” by requiring administrator approval, and required teachers to supply the child’s lessons for the periods that the child was in ISS so that the student could keep up with his or her classes. Finally, Ms. Nave discussed the School Advisory Council’s (SAC) performance rating of Mr. Teasley. SAC had given Mr. Teasley a mixed satisfaction rating at one of its meetings. At that meeting, eight members of SAC were present. Four of those members voted that Mr. Teasley was doing a satisfactory job. Four voted that Mr. Teasley was doing an unsatisfactory job. Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley, nonetheless, discussed the issue of the need to foster a productive working relationship with SAC. After the discussion, Ms. Nave was satisfied that Mr. Teasley was taking appropriate actions to continue working with SAC members to implement changes at Beverly Shores. As a result of this performance review, Mr. Teasley received the maximum amount of points on his evaluation and met the performance criteria of that evaluation. After the evaluation and three weeks before the end of the school year, a fifth-grade student at Beverly Shores wrapped the leather portion of his belt around his hand and began to swing the belt, striking students and adults with the metal buckle. Mr. Teasley and AP Jeff Williams were called to the classroom to assist with restraining and removing the student. Once they got the student to the office, Mr. Teasley immediately notified the police that a battery had occurred, suspended the student for the ten-day maximum suspension period, and began the expulsion process. The student did not return to school that year. No suggestion was made that Mr. Teasley’s response to this event was inappropriate. The belt incident garnered media attention. Shortly after the incident, the Superintendent went to the Beverly Shores campus, but could not locate Mr. Teasley in his office or on campus. She, therefore, sent Mr. Cunningham to the school. Eventually, she assigned Mr. Cunningham, along with Messrs. Mitchell and Habring, to Beverly Shores for the remainder of the school year. The Board also authorized the placement of an SRO at Beverly Shores. Mr. Cunningham testified that within a few days of the assignment of the extra personnel, the discipline situation began to improve and the school began to operate in an orderly way. Mr. Cunningham stated that he started to do the things that he had told Mr. Teasley needed to be done earlier in the year. The actions of Mr. Cunningham included administrative staff becoming more visible on campus while students were in transit from one place to another and dealing with each and every referral on the day in which it was written. Importantly, these actions were accomplished with a significant increase in administrative personnel. From an academic standpoint, there can be no question that Beverly Shores made significant improvements under Mr. Teasley’s direction. Evidence admitted at hearing showed that the school grades from the Department of Education (DOE) based on the students’ FCAT performance for Beverly Shores for the six school years prior to Mr. Teasley’s tenure (i.e., 2000- 2001 through 2005-2006) were “C”, “B”, “B”, “B”, “C” and “C”, respectively. During Mr. Teasley’s time as principal, Beverly Shores earned a grade of “A.” Beverly Shores also achieved AYP. Additionally, Beverly Shores had increases in the percentage of students meeting high standards in mathematics, as well as an increase in the percentage of students in the lower-quartile who made learning gains. The school’s grades did not decrease in the areas of reading and writing. These improvements show that the school was successful in achieving the academic goals that Mr. Teasley had identified at the beginning of the year. It should also be noted that such improvements were also due to the efforts of teachers and other staff at the school. Due to this achievement, Mr. Teasley was one of only 92 principals in the state to receive recognition as a “Turn- Around” Principal in 2006-2007. The “Turn-Around” award recognizes the principal of a school which improves by at least two letter-grades in one academic year. In 2007-2008, the year after Mr. Teasley’s tenure, Beverly Shores’ grade fell back to a “C” and the school failed to make AYP. The evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Teasley had more discipline problems at his school than in prior years. There was some evidence to demonstrate that there may have been some student control problems related to monitoring the passageways of the school. Those problems were in part due to a lack of sufficient administrative staff to patrol the school. There was also some evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Teasley had lost the support of some of the faculty because he would return students to the teacher’s classroom or not assess a harsher penalty for misbehavior. However, there was only one teacher who testified to support that conclusion. Other staff testimony regarding lack of support and lack of discipline was based on hearsay. Just as Beverly Shore’s grade was not dependent on one person, Beverly Shores alleged discipline and student control problems cannot be attributed to one person. One teacher’s testimony coupled with hearsay and vague testimony is insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Teasley was no longer professionally qualified to perform in some capacity within the School District. At a May 21, 2007 Board meeting, Mr. Cunningham gave a report of the actions that had been taken at Beverly Shores to deal with discipline during the time he was assigned there. He also made suggestions for improving the discipline situation at the school going forward. Some of the suggestions involved actions previously sought by Mr. Teasley. At about the same time, the 2006-2007 school year came to a close. The Superintendent began to finalize the academic teams she would recommend to the Board for the 2007-2008 school year. In fact, for the next year, 2007-2008, the Superintendent and the Board recognized the need for additional supervisory staff at Beverly Shores and appointed two APs and a behavioral specialist to the school. The Superintendent was mindful of the events at Beverly Shores and the fact that some of the faculty and staff had lost confidence in Mr. Teasley’s ability to lead the school as principal. She decided not to recommend Mr. Teasley for principal at Beverly Shores. However, she did not want to lose Mr. Teasley’s skills as an administrator and recommended him for a district level administrative position for the 2007-2008 school year. The Superintendent’s recommendation was accepted by the Board and Mr. Teasley fulfilled the duties of that position during the 2007-2008 school year. At the close of the 2007-2008 school year, the Superintendent again created staffing recommendations for the 2008-2009 school year. Toward that end, the Superintendent created staffing recommendations to the Board that considered many factors. The most important factor was the creation of administrative teams for each school that would serve as that school’s “instructional leaders.” Similarly, it was very important that at least one member of an administrative team be well-versed in making learning-gains, raising student achievement and school grades. Mr. Teasley was clearly well- versed and well-qualified in such areas. The Superintendent recognized that since the 1998-1999 school year, Eustis High School had earned a grade of “C”, except for the year 2006-2007, when the school’s grade was “D.” Because of the high school’s performance, the Superintendent intended to make changes at Eustis High School to attempt to address the academic problems and raise the school’s academic performance. Additionally, the school was not known for having any extraordinary disciplinary issues. Mr. Larry was the principal of Eustis High School. He had been appointed the principal of the school because of his success in implementing advanced programs as a principal at the middle-school level. Mr. Larry was also very strong on discipline, had 4 other APs and did not require additional help in the area of discipline. Therefore, the Superintendent was not worried about discipline-related issues at Eustis High School. In putting together an educational team for the school, the Superintendent wanted to place a person who had demonstrated their ability to raise a school’s academic achievement and performance. As indicated, the Superintendent did not want to place Mr. Teasley back at Beverly Shores because that educational team had not been successful. However, Mr. Teasley had skills in school improvement that were very useful to the District. She recommended Mr. Teasley for appointment as one of Eustis High School’s five APs. Her recommendation was based on Mr. Teasley’s proven ability in achieving AYP, his ability to analyze the raw performance data for AYP and to work with teachers to raise the test scores which form the basis of a school’s grade. Indeed, the Superintendent felt that Mr. Teasley was one of the strongest individuals she could recommend to Eustis High School to work with the current administration and to help improve the school’s academic performance. Mr. Larry indicated to the Superintendent that he could work with Mr. Teasley. There was no direct testimony given at the hearing of how Mr. Larry wanted to use Mr. Teasley at Eustis High School, although there was some hearsay testimony that Mr. Teasley would be placed at the Curtright Center, a separate ninth grade center that is approximately 1.5 miles from the main high school campus. The Superintendent recommended Mr. Teasley for the position of AP-1 at Eustis High School. Ultimately, the Board rejected the Superintendent’s recommendation. The testimony at hearing and the evidence admitted shows that the primary reason that the Board rejected the Superintendent’s nomination was because of the Board’s lack of confidence in Mr. Teasley’s ability to maintain discipline and control at Eustis High School. Mr. Cunningham, Assistant Superintendent for Administration and Safety, testified that he did not believe that Mr. Teasley was qualified to serve as an AP-1 at Eustis High School. He based that opinion on his observations at Beverly Shores during the 2006-2007 school year and his opinion that if one loses his administrative authority at an elementary school, that person has “no business” as an administrator of a high school. Mr. Cunningham did not offer an opinion on the academic-improvement functions the Superintendent intended Mr. Teasley perform in the academic team to which she assigned him. In addition, the individual members of the Board testified regarding their reasons for rejecting the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Strong testified that his basis for rejecting the Superintendent’s recommendation related to the situation at Beverly Shores during the 2006-2007 school year; particularly, the perceived lack of administrative discipline that created a disorderly educational environment, and the Board’s decision in May of 2007 to place an SRO at the school. He also stated that his vote was influenced by the public input of Ms. Pam Burtnett, president of the Lake County Education Association (“LCEA”), received by the Board at the June 23, 2008 meeting, and by his conversations in the spring of 2007 with one parent and one teacher from Beverly Shores, Ms. Denise Burry and Ms. Bordenkircher, respectively. Ms. Burtnett was not a teacher at Beverly Shores. Neither Ms. Burry nor Ms. Bordenkircher testified at hearing. However, Mr. Strong also testified that prior to the School Board meeting on May 7, 2007, no one had previously raised the issue of discipline at Beverly Shores at any previous Board meeting, and that he never personally witnessed any discipline problems at Beverly Shores. Ms. Kyleen Fischer testified that she had visited the Beverly Shores campus while it was under the direction of Mr. Teasley. Specifically, she testified that she observed that Beverly Shores’ students were not under control and that they were disrespectful. Based on her observations, she felt that the appointment of Mr. Teasley to Eustis High School would create a safety issue. Ms. Cindy Barrow testified that she did not believe Mr. Teasley possessed the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to serve as a high school AP-1. She based her belief on information gathered from many different sources, including reports such as the 2006-2007 climate survey, conversations with Mr. Cunningham and Ms. Burry, reports given orally to the Board at the May 21, 2007 and June 23, 2008, Board meetings, and the fact that 22 teachers and one guidance counselor left the school during or after the 2006-2007 school year. However, she did not speak to any of the departing personnel regarding their reasons for leaving, nor did she testify as to any of the specifics regarding the above. Ms. Barrow’s belief was that Mr. Teasley had not been able to maintain order or deal with behavioral problems at Beverly Shores and, therefore, he would not be successful at dealing with behavioral problems at Eustis High School. However, Ms. Barrow admitted that she had never been to Beverly Shores. She believes that a primary duty of any high school AP-1 is to handle disciplinary issues. However, she also testified that she had no specific conversations with Mr. Larry or the Superintendent about how either planned to use Mr. Teasley as AP-1 at Eustis High School. Mr. Metz, who testified that he had never visited Beverly Shores during its hours of operation prior to May of 2007, stated that his decision to vote against the Superintendent’s recommendation was based on the situation at Beverly Shores in the Spring of 2007, his written and verbal communications with concerned parties, and Ms. Burtnett’s presentation to the Board in June of 2008. The Board re-reviewed the issues the Superintendent had already considered in creating her educational teams at the various schools and in making her recommendations to the Board. The Board concluded that Mr. Teasley was not qualified to serve as an AP-1 at Eustis High School based on very broad generalizations about appropriate discipline. The Board’s action was not based on any knowledge regarding the role Mr. Teasley would play in the Eustis administration. As indicated, the Superintendent, as is her authority, considered all of the issues surrounding Mr. Teasley’s tenure at Beverly Shores. She also recognized the successes in academic improvement achieved during Mr. Teasley’s tenure and that those skills were needed at Eustis High School. The Superintendent assembled an administrative team after discussing the team members with the principal of the High School and assuring as much as possible that Mr. Teasley could function within that team. The evidence did not demonstrate that the Board’s assessment should trump the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding Mr. Teasley, especially given the fact that Mr. Teasley had many years of good performance evaluations as an AP in Broward County and a good performance evaluation in Lake County. As a consequence, the Board has failed to carry its burden of showing “good cause” to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation and the Superintendent’s recommendation should be accepted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Board enter a Final Order reversing its earlier decision and accepting the nomination of the Superintendent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Moxley, Ed.D. Superintendent School District of Lake County, Florida 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778 Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire McLin & Burnsed Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, should be terminated from her employment as an instructional employee with the Broward County school system.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By its six count Petition for Dismissal, Petitioner, through the person of its Superintendent of Schools, William T. McFatter, seeks to uphold its recommendation that Respondent, Alfreda Grady, be dismissed from employment in the Broward County school system. Respondent, Alfreda Grady, was an instructional employee at the School Board of Broward County until she was suspended with pay from her duties at the close of the workday on January 27, 1983. Respondent holds a continuing contract of employment and holds teaching certificates in both guidance and elementary education. During the course of the 1982-83 school year, Respondent was assigned to the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. This assignment was made by Mr. Thomas Wilson, Assistant to the south area Superintendent of the Broward County School Board. Ms. Grady was later assigned to teach sixth grade orientation and social studies. On January 27, 1983, Respondent was placed on emergency suspension and a PETITION FOR DISMISSAL from the Broward County school system was filed based on charges of incompetency, misconduct in office, immorality and gross insubordination. A request was made for a formal evidentiary hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was thereafter assigned to the undersigned hearing officer to conduct the instant hearing. On August 19, 1982, Respondent was assigned the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. Prior to this assignment, the position of guidance counselor had been assigned to Ms. Ricci Mandell, a teacher previously employed at Attucks. This assignment was made by Taft Green, principal at Attucks Middle School. Both Ms. Grady and Ms. Mandell were retained in the Guidance Department. Approximately two weeks into the school year, Respondent was assigned to teach one sixth grade orientation class. It is not unusual for a teacher to be assigned teaching duties in more than one subject area. (TR Volume 1, p. 193) By letter dated September 1, 1982, Mr. Green informed Respondent that she would begin teaching the orientation class on September 7, 1982. Respondent was also informed by Mr. Green that Ms. Friedman, a reading teacher at Attucks, would supply the necessary material and a course syllabus. Ms. Friedman had previously taught the orientation course during the 1981-82 school year. Respondent was advised that principal Green and the other instructional employees were available to assist her, as needed. Although Respondent never contacted Ms. Friedman for either assistance or to obtain the material, Ms. Friedman supplied the Respondent with a variety of materials to be used in teaching the orientation course including the course guide for middle school orientation and two instructional television books. (TR Volume 1, p. 166) Respondent refused to teach the orientation course. The class was used as either a study hall or the students watched programs such as "The Today Show" and "Good Morning America." On September 15, 1982, Respondent was assigned to teach two sixth grade social studies classes. A memo reflecting this assignment was sent both to Respondent and Ms. Mandell, dividing the guidance position between them and assigning them each three classes. (Petitioner's Exhibit P) Mr. Green divided the counselor duties between Respondent and Ms. Mandell based on budgetary considerations. That is, Attucks could not afford three guidance counselors and instead of terminating one instructional employee, the guidance counselor assignments were divided. (TP Volume 1, pp. 204 - 205) On November 3, 1982, Mr. Green began, via a memo, to change Respondent from a guidance position to a teaching position reciting in the memo that the change was based on a report from Rod Sasse, an educational guidance specialist for the Petitioner. Mr. Sasse conducted a study of the Attucks Guidance Department and determined that the Department needed to be restructured. He determined that two full-time counselors were more effective than one full-time and two part- time guidance counselors. Thus, Respondent was assigned a teaching position without any counseling duties. Respondent has refused to perform her assigned duties by Mr. Taft Green citing, inter alia, that the course materials provided her were inadequate or incomplete; that she was not educationally trained and therefore unqualified to teach the assigned duties; that she received no help or assistance from other instructional employees at Attucks and that she was not interested in taking the needed steps to either become qualified or otherwise competent to teach the assigned social studies and orientation classes. Prior to her November 10, 1982 assignment by principal Taft Green, Respondent was afforded one (1) week to prepare for the assigned classes. Additionally, she was given two TDA's (temporary duty assignments) to prepare for the social studies classes. Additionally, Respondent received a course syllabus and other material from other faculty and staff and offers of help from supervisory employees. (Testimony of Green; Carole Fischer, Social Studies Department Head; Mark Thomas, author of the course guide for middle school orientation and Dr. Benjamin Stephenson, Associate Superintendent for Personnel) Respondent made repeated statements, oral and written, to students, other instructional employees, supervisors, principal Green and the press evidencing her lack of interest in performing the assigned duties of teaching social studies and/or orientation. Respondent also cited as one of the reasons of her inability to teach the assigned classes was due to the fact that her students were not functioning at the same level of achievement and therefore it was impossible for her to teach students who are functioning at different progress levels. It is hereby found that it is indeed normal for students to function at varying progress levels and that teachers who are at all interested in performing the duties of an instructional employee, readily adjust to the varying progress levels of students and welcome the challenge of such an adjustment. As stated, Respondent repeatedly refused to perform her assigned duties as an instructional employee for the orientation and social studies classes. Based on this refusal to teach, Respondent assigned 148 out of 150 students a grade of incomplete or "I." Respondent was repeatedly directed to provide grades for her students by principal Green including written demands on January 19, 20, 21 and 25, 1983. On the last two demands on January 21 and 25, 1983, Respondent was further advised that her failure to assign grades to students would be regarded as gross insubordination. Respondent would not and, in fact, refused to teach her students any of the subject areas to which she was assigned by principal Taft Green. A typical day spent in the Respondent's classroom consisted primarily of the students either performing independent work which usually was in the form of preparing for other classes or doing homework which was assigned by other instructional staff or in the case of the orientation class, students would watch programs such as "Good Morning America" and "The Today Show." Respondent performed some minimal teaching including map and globe assignments. However, in the normal day, Respondent would permit students to perform either independent work or repeatedly view film strips. As a result of such repetition, students became bored. A number of Respondent's students expressed a desire to learn skills in the social studies classes which they were attending. It is also found that the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been severely damaged due to the wide notoriety that this case has received, the public statements and/or admissions by the Respondent denoting her lack of interest in teaching the assigned classes and the expressed concern of other staff and parents concerned about entrusting their children to Respondent's class in view of her admitted lack of care and disregard for the educational and social welfare of the students in her class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Broward County, enter a Final Order dismissing the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, from employment with the Broward County school system. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1983.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates, as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2017). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2017). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 880641, covering the areas of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2022. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at GHS in the Alachua County School District. Respondent began his teaching career at GHS in 2002 teaching ESE classes. The incident that forms the basis for this proceeding occurred on May 12, 2016, during the 2015-2016 school year. Teachers employed by the Alachua County School Board are subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Alachua County School Board and the Alachua County Education Association, the local teachers’ union. Article IX, Section 21(a), of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which was in effect during the 2015-2016 school year, provides that: Subject to the approval of the principal or his designee, a teacher may leave the campus of his particular school if appropriate arrangements are made to insure that students are not left unsupervised. Approval is required for each circumstance or situation. The principal or his designee will not unreasonably deny such a request. A teacher will use this privilege only in unusual circumstances. At the beginning of each school year, before students report, a faculty pre-planning meeting is held at GHS to go over information provided by the school district. Supervision of students is among the topics of discussion, and teachers are advised that they are not to leave students unsupervised in their classrooms. The reason for the instruction is obvious -- GHS, being responsible for the safety of its students, should take all reasonable measures to ensure their safety on campus. In addition to the instruction provided at the pre- planning meeting, GHS sent periodic emails to teachers throughout the year reiterating that students were not to be left unsupervised in classrooms. On April 5, 2016, an email was sent directed to the general problem of unsupervised students “walking around A, B, and C hallways” during the lunch periods. The email noted that some teachers allowed students to come to their classrooms during the lunch period for mentoring, which was recognized as a laudable activity. One teacher responded the next day expressing appreciation for the reminder, noting that “[t]here are students all over upstairs in A & B wings. They also hang out in the stairwells, especially on the West end.” On April 7, 2016, Mr. Shelnutt sent an email to all teachers reiterating that it was “fantastic” that teachers allowed students in their classrooms during the lunch period, but that students were not to be “roaming around.” The email emphasized that “if you chose to allow students in your classroom during your lunch, you are assuming responsibility for supervising them.”2/ During the lunch shifts, school employees were routinely stationed in areas where general education students were allowed to eat lunch in order to provide adult supervision while their teachers took their 30-minute lunch break. As will be described herein, ESE students were subject to a different lunchtime regimen. During the 2015–16 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach a self-contained class of 4 to 7 students with intellectual disabilities. The “self-contained” setting means that students generally remained in the Gaines building on the GHS campus with other students with disabilities. Respondent’s students were intellectually disabled, but functioned at a higher level than their ESE peers in other classrooms, who had more severe disabilities. Respondent’s students identified more with general education students, and were much more likely to interact with general education students than with those in the other ESE classrooms.3/ The Gaines building was a “community of classrooms,” in that a teacher could request and receive assistance from teachers or paraprofessionals in the other two classrooms in the building. The ESE classrooms surround a small courtyard at the Gaines building. The courtyard has a table and seating, and students would most often sit there to eat their lunch. One of the three ESE teachers usually oversaw the courtyard, and the courtyard could be seen from the ESE classroom windows. There is also a basketball court and track behind the Gaines building, which were occasionally used by ESE students before and after school, and during lunch period. The school day at GHS has six periods. Respondent taught ESE students for five of the six daily periods. During the period when Respondent’s ESE students were at their P.E. class, Respondent was assigned to teach a general education history class. Mr. Shelnutt indicated that “[e]very teacher [at GHS] should have a 30-minute duty free lunch in addition to a planning period.” Mr. DeLucas testified that Respondent was in “a very unique situation. The other self-contained rooms had multiple paraprofessionals. He did not have multiple paraprofessionals.”4/ Consequently, Respondent was the only teacher in his classroom and was assigned students every period of the school day with no planning period. Because of the circumstances, if it became necessary for Respondent to leave the classroom, he would ask one of the teachers or paraprofessionals from the other ESE classrooms to watch his class. Unlike the situation that was the subject of the April 5, 2017 and April 7, 2017, emails referenced above, which appears to describe a general education student lunch period, ESE “self-contained” students were allowed to get their lunches and then return to their classrooms, to avoid the crowds and the lines. It was apparently not uncommon for special needs students to go to the cafeteria during the 20-minute break between the end of A-Lunch at around 11:55 a.m. and the beginning of B-Lunch at 12:15 p.m. when there is not a standard lunch shift. Respondent’s only break in the school day was during his students’ lunch period, from 12:15 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. Since ESE students typically had lunch in the Gaines building courtyard or their classrooms, even Respondent’s “duty free lunch” was not free of duties. On May 12, 2016, Respondent released his students -- which on that day were only B.S., B.H., and N.C. -- around 12:05 p.m. to get lunch from the cafeteria. Respondent’s students had been watching a movie, and wanted to finish the movie during the lunch period. Respondent agreed to let the students return to his classroom to finish watching the movie. Before the students returned to the classroom, Respondent received a telephone call from the baseball booster club president regarding an upcoming banquet. When the students returned to the classroom, Respondent continued the telephone call outside. When Respondent ended the telephone call, he realized that the lunch period was “counting down.” Respondent left the Gaines Building, with the students unattended in his classroom, and drove to a sandwich shop several blocks away. There was no explanation as to why Respondent did not ask one of the other ESE teachers or paraprofessionals to watch his classroom. During Respondent’s absence from the classroom, another of Respondent’s students, J.H., entered the classroom and saw male ESE student, B.S., emerging from a storage closet in Respondent’s classroom, and thereafter discovered female ESE student, B.H., in the closet crying. J.H. went to the office and told Ms. Conyers what he had seen. Ms. Conyers radioed for a dean or an administrator to report to Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Gantt and Mr. Bauer arrived at the classroom at about the same time. Ms. Gantt questioned B.H. as to what had happened, and Mr. Bauer went to the nearby basketball court where B.S. had been reported to have gone. B.H. and B.S. were taken to the Dean’s office for questioning. At some point after Ms. Gantt and Mr. Bauer arrived at Respondent’s classroom, and approximately 15 minutes after his departure from campus, Respondent returned from the sandwich shop. There was considerable evidence devoted to the events that occurred in Respondent’s classroom closet during his absence. All of the evidence was hearsay. However, what was established (and agreed upon) is this: On May 12, 2016, while Respondent was absent from his classroom, during which time students were left unsupervised in the classroom, an event occurred that was of sufficient severity that the police were called in, that the police conducted an investigation, and that the police ultimately completed a sworn complaint charging B.S. with lewd and lascivious molestation of B.H. Alachua County Public Schools charged Respondent with violating school board policies regarding student supervision, specifically a policy that required teachers to obtain the permission of the school principal before leaving school campus, and recommended his termination from employment. Respondent contested the recommendation of termination. On February 16, 2017, the Alachua County School Board, the Alachua County Education Association, and Respondent executed a settlement agreement, providing that: (1) the superintendent would rescind the recommendation for Respondent’s termination; (2) Respondent would take an unpaid leave of absence beginning March 1, 2017, until June 6, 2017; Respondent would agree to complete Safe Schools online training regarding classroom supervision and school safety; and upon completion of the Safe Schools training, Respondent would be returned to paid status as an employee of Alachua County Schools. Respondent fulfilled the terms of the settlement agreement and, with regard to the Safe Schools training, exceeded the required courses. For the 2017–2018 school year, Respondent has been assigned as a P.E. teacher at the Sidney Lanier Center, a K-12 public school in Alachua County. Sidney Lanier is a specialized school for ESE students. The principal of Sidney Lanier was aware of the events of May 12, 2016, when Respondent was assigned. It should be acknowledged that Respondent taught ESE classes at GHS for 14 years without incident. He had no prior discipline and received uniformly good evaluations. He was well regarded as a teacher and a coach, and was generally acknowledged to have had a positive impact on students’ lives. Respondent expressed genuine remorse about leaving students unattended in his classroom, and credibly testified that he would never again do so. The incident did not involve Respondent denigrating or disparaging students, or improperly or abusively making physical contact with students. Nonetheless, Respondent violated a clear and direct requirement that he not leave students unattended. Although he believed his students would not engage in the activity described, such action on the part of a high school student was certainly not unforeseeable. There was conflicting evidence as to whether B.H.’s mental health was actually affected by the incident. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that it had some negative effect. However, rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [a student]'s health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; Fla. EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, though without specific intent or malice, failed to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to their mental or physical health, or safety, pursuant to rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent’s educator’s certificate be suspended for a period of 30 days, that he be issued a letter of reprimand, and that he be placed on probation for a period of two years following his suspension, which penalty is within the range of penalties established in rule 6B-11.007(2). DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School- North, an alternative school, on December 16, 1982, because of his unacceptable conduct in Grade 9 at North Miami Junior High School. Petitioner presented evidence of 16 incidents of conduct by Respondent which required disciplinary action in the year preceding his reassignment to the alternative education program. Additionally, his grades in all courses were unsatisfactory at the time of reassignment. Respondent did not accept the alternative school assignment and instead obtained employment at a restaurant. He is now living with his grandmother, Mrs. Helen Wood, who seeks his return to a regular junior high school program. She has discussed this proposal with the principal of Thomas Jefferson Junior High School and he apparently agrees with her. Respondent's evidence established that his family life was difficult and disruptive during the period of his misconduct. His situation has now stabilized and he is responsive to his grandmother's supervision. He should, therefore, be given an opportunity to return to the regular academic program (Grade 9) at Thomas Jefferson Junior High School.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order classifying Respondent as a disruptive student, but permitting him to attend the Thomas Jefferson Junior High School in a probationary status. ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, at Tallahassee Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Helen Ward 1000 Northwest 153rd Street Miami, Florida 33169 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the two Respondents, or either of them, should be assigned to the Petitioner's school program.
Findings Of Fact During the 1989/90 school year, Michel Alvarez and his brother, Maikel Alvarez, were both students at American Senior High School in Dade County, Florida. Michel was in the ninth grade and Maikel was in the tenth grade. During the 1989/90 school year, Michel and Maikel Alvarez were students in the industrial arts class of a teacher named Morton Bernstein. On May 1, 1990, during the change of classes after second period, Michel Alvarez approached another student in his second period industrial arts class, Benny Rodriguez, and asked why the latter had been pointing at him. A verbal dispute ensued as to whether there had been any pointing and, if so, what anyone was going to do about it. Thereupon, Michel tackled Benny around the waist with enough force to knock Benny to the floor. Both boys fell to the floor, Benny beneath on his back, Michel above, facing Benny and holding onto him. They struggled on the ground. As they struggled, a large crowd of other students quickly gathered. During the course of the struggle, Benny Rodriguez was kicked or stomped several times. As a result of the blows he received during the struggle, Benny Rodriguez suffered a broken nose and several bruised ribs. 1/ Maikel Alvarez was nearby when he was informed that his brother was in trouble. Maikel pushed his way through the crowd and worked his way towards the middle. Maikel pulled his brother off of Benny Rodriguez and Maikel and Michel Alvarez moved away from the crowd of students. Maikel and Michel Alvarez both went to their respective third period classes. During third period, both of them were called to the Principal's office. At about the same time that Maikel Alvarez went to help his brother, a teacher named Morton Bernstein became aware of the crowd and the struggle and went to break it up. When Bernstein got to the scene of the fracas, the struggle was over and Benny Rodriguez was on the floor, obviously injured. Bernstein assisted Benny and called the school security office. A school security officer accompanied Benny to the main office. Donald Hoecherl, an assistant principal, was present when the security officer brought Benny to the office. Hoecherl put Benny in a room and asked if he was okay. Benny was still bleeding but was coherent. Hoecherl questioned Benny to find out what happened. He then summoned Michel and Maikel to the office where he questioned them. He also called the parents of the students involved, the police, and the school's special investigative unit. Hoecherl had the students write down what happened after they had given him a verbal account. Benny was released to his parent. He was taken to his doctor who then sent him to the hospital. He remained hospitalized for two days and had an operation for the fracture to his nose. Mrs. Alvarez arrived and Hoecherl explained, through an interpreter, what had happened based on the account he had gotten from Bernstein and the students. During the discussion with Mrs. Alvarez and her sons, Maikel appeared to have a poor attitude and he did not appear to be taking what had happened seriously. Mrs. Alvarez told Maikel to straighten up in his chair. She then slapped him. Maikel pushed his mother against the wall. Hoecherl and the police officer who had been called to the school had to restrain Maikel from further physical confrontation toward his mother. Maikel was placed in handcuffs. Hoecherl told Mrs. Alvarez that he was suspending both Michel and Maikel for ten days and recommending an expulsion with a waiver to opportunity school. He made certain that School Board rules and procedures for according the Alvarezes their due process rights were followed. Hoecherl prepared and mailed home the Notice of Suspension forms for Maikel and Michel which narrated the reasons for the disciplinary actions and the right to a school level hearing. Michel's Notice of Suspension form indicated that the suspension was for battery and kicking another student. Maikel's Notice of Suspension form indicated that the action was being taken for battery on a student and parent. Both forms indicated that these rule infractions were Group III violations. The School District's Code of Student Conduct provides that Group III violations warrant expulsion from school. Bernstein had both Michel and Maikel as students in his industrial arts classes. Michel required more attention than the rest of the students. Bernstein described Michel's behavior as disruptive of the regular program and also indicated that Michel's behavior created safety concerns because of the use of power tools in his class. Michel was not passing Bernstein's course because of excessive absences and poor effort. Maikel did little or no work in Bernstein's class. He sat around and talked to friends and did not complete projects. His absences were excessive and he was not passing. Carol McKenny taught Michel math. Michel was disruptive, absent excessively, and was making no effort. He required more attention than her other students, which made it difficult to teach. She talked to Michel and to Mrs. Alvarez about her concerns in an attempt to help him, yet this produced no noticeable improvements in his behavior, attendance, or effort. James McKiernan taught Maikel biology. Maikel was failing this subject because he was making no effort and was frequently absent. McKiernan spoke with Maikel and Mrs Alvarez, but Maikel did not improve. Henry Adams was Michel's and Maikel's guidance counselor. He talked to both students during the year in an attempt to help them. He discussed their chronic absences which were in excess of the state mandatory attendance requirements. He discussed the relationship of attendance to grades. He discussed their behavior in class. He talked to Mrs. Alvarez about their absences and poor progress in school. Adams, who is knowledgeable of the programs offered by the district's opportunity schools, is of the opinion that both students would benefit from such placement because of the smaller class sizes, more structured environment, and increased counseling services. Hoecherl conducted a review of both students' school records files prior to making his final recommendation to the Assistant Superintendent for Alternative Education. His review included grade reports, ability test scores, discipline reports, and attendance information. Michel has average ability and was capable of making B's and C's; however, he failed six of eight courses during the year. Even had he not been suspended on May 1, 1990, he would not have been academically successful because of his grades prior to the last marking period. Maikel has average to slightly below average ability, but was capable of average work in the courses he was taking; however, he failed seven of nine courses during the year. Even had he not been suspended on May 1, 1990, he would not have been academically successful because of his grades prior to the last marking period. Maikel had previously been suspended for five days for fighting. This was a Group III expellable offense. Maikel also had been assigned to several Saturday schools in an attempt to help him remediate the work he had missed when he cut classes on approximately 20 occasions. Saturday school is a District- approved method for helping a student improve his academic performance through a tutorial program. American High School had provided both Michel and Maikel with a variety of student services, including counseling by Adams, Saturday school for Maikel, teacher conferences, and parental contact by the administration. Despite the school's efforts, both students were not successful in the regular program at American High School. An opportunity school assignment would assist Michel and Maikel because it would provide greater structure, smaller class sizes and increased student services. This educational alternative program would afford both students an opportunity to become more successful in school. Maikel is currently enrolled in the opportunity school. He is doing well in his classes and has improved his attendance.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter a Final Order in these consolidated cases concluding that Michel Alvarez and Maikel Alvarez are properly assigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior School-North, an opportunity school located in Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County Florida, this 11th day of December, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 11th day of December, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be transferred from Glades Middle School to an opportunity school.
Findings Of Fact For the 1989-90 school year John Sarmiento was enrolled in the Dade County public school system and he was assigned to the eighth grade at Giades Middle School. On November 27, 1989, Petitioner administratively transferred him from Glades Middle School to J.R.E. Lee, an opportunity school. The stated basis for the transfer was the student's disruptive behavior and his failure to adjust to the regular school. As an opportunity school, J.R.E. Lee has a more structured program than a traditional school, such as Glades Middle School, and is designed to assist students with discipline problems. While attending Glades Middle School, John Sarmiento repeatedly engaged in disruptive conduct that interfered with his own learning and with the learning of others in his classes. This conduct resulted in his being referred to the assistant principal's office between five and ten times per week. On one occasion the student, while in class, threw a piece of chalk at another student. On another occasion, the student engaged in an argument with another student that almost resulted in a fight during class. On an almost daily basis, the student would wander around the class while making loud, boisterous comments. This student's misconduct would have merited his suspension according to the district code of student conduct. Instead of suspending this student, the school officials worked with him and with his parents in an effort to improve his behavior. Unfortunately the considerable efforts of the personnel at Glades Middle School to serve the student's educational needs did not succeed. The student needs the structured environment that the opportunity school can provide, and his educational needs will best be served by his transfer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which approves John Sarmiento's assignment to the J.R.E. Lee opportunity school. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 3rd day of April 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 2780 Galloway Road, Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami, Florida 33165 Maria Ruiz de la Torre, Esquire 7111 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite Three Miami, Florida 33138 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Paul W. Bell Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
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.
