Findings Of Fact Respondent Will H. McRaney has been employed by petitioner Bay County School Board at Rutherford High School since 1965. In the past, he has worked as a coach and as a classroom teacher at Rutherford. During the current school year, respondent was job entry coordinator; in this capacity, he had responsibilities in connection with the vocational counseling of Rutherford seniors. Darlene Ann Peeples is an eighteen year old senior at Rutherford High School. In her junior year, she had been a student in a class respondent taught. On January 17, 1977, when she arrived at her fourth period class, friends told her that respondent had come by looking for her and for another student, and wanted to see them in his office. Her friends also told her that the other student summoned by respondent had gone to lunch, so Ms. Peeples went to respondent's office by herself. When she arrived, respondent was seated behind a desk in his office, facing sideways. He invited her in, asked her to close the door behind her, and told her to take the empty seat beside him. Respondent's office at Rutherford High School was small and windowless, except for a window in the door which was covered over from the inside. There were only two chairs in the office on January 17, 1977. The chair to which respondent directed Ms. Peeples was very near his; when she sat down one of her knees touched respondent. She asked why she had been sent for, and respondent mentioned some job possibilities. Conversation turned to the school's Christmas ball, at which Ms. Peeples had been chosen Christmas ball queen. Respondent allowed as how her selection did not surprise him, because she had a nice personality and a nice body. In the course of discussing Ms. Peeples' plans for the future, respondent learned that her family was slated to move to England and offered to let Ms. Peeples live with him in his home, when her family left. Respondent took one of Ms. Peeples' hands in his, and remarked on its warmth. Then he cupped one hand round the back of her head, and drew her head down to the vicinity of her knees, doubling her over. When she succeeded in sitting up straight again, respondent kissed her full on the mouth. Immediately afterwards, he said he was sorry, and he repeated the apology when the interview concluded. Within a half hour of their occurrence, Ms. Peeples gave tearful accounts of these events to her boy friend, and to her fifth period teacher, Mrs. Gail Fischer. In 1975, respondent worked in petitioner's summer recreation program as a swimming instructor at the swimming pool at Mosley High School. Among the children he taught was Macy Ellis, who was born on October 7, 1965. There were from 10 to 25 children in Macy's swimming group. Some 40 other children in other groups and at least two other adults used the swimming pool at the same time respondent taught Macy's group. On July 2, 1975, respondent was supervising an underwater swimming drill. Macy and the other children in her group stood in the water along the edge of the swimming pool; they took turns doing "fish dives" and swimming through respondent's spread legs, while he stood in the middle of the pool in about five feet of water. When Macy went underwater, she noticed that respondent's swimming trunks, although fastened at the waist, were unzipped, and she saw respondent's penis. As she swam face down between respondent's legs, respondent placed his hands on her back to steady her. Otherwise, there was no physical contact between them. Respondent did not intend that any of the children see his genitalia, and it was only by accident that they happened to be visible to Macy Ellis. Statement Required By Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) The first paragraph of petitioner's proposed fact findings has been adopted, in substance. The second paragraph of petitioner's proposed fact findings has been rejected because the only witness whose testimony tended to establish the occurrence, Debbie Holt, was not worthy of belief, in the hearing officer's opinion. She was adamant about such details as the color of respondent's bathing suit, even though her testimony contradicted that of the other witnesses. She and Macy Ellis were playmates who confided in one another and, according to Macy Ellis, it was when Debbie learned what Macy had seen that Debbie made her accusations against respondent. Finally, testimony was adduced to the effect that Debbie Holt's reputation for truth and veracity is not good. The substance of the third paragraph of petitioner's proposed fact findings has been largely adopted, except that the proof failed to establish any intent on respondent's part, and except for the date, which is immaterial. The number of people in the pool area, the size of the pool, the fact that other children were lined up waiting their turns, the fact that Macy told her father that she saw respondent tuck his penis back in his swimming trunks, all persuaded the hearing officer that the incident was accidental.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes (1999) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(4)(a) by advocating religious beliefs to her students. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1999). All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a public school district that receives funding from public tax revenues. Respondent holds a valid Florida Educator's Certificate bearing the number 497238. The certificate entitles Respondent to teach emotionally handicapped education and elementary education in public school through June 30, 2001. During the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent taught at Belcher Elementary School ("Belcher"). Belcher is an English for Speakers of Other Languages ("ESOL") center and receives students from diverse ethnic backgrounds and religious faiths, including non-Catholic Christian faiths and non-Christian faiths such as Muslims and Buddhists. Respondent displayed pictures in her classroom of a woman whom Respondent identified to her students as Saint Philomena. Respondent told her students that Saint Philomena had wanted to marry God and that adults had forgotten Saint Philomena. On October 27, 1999, Respondent invited Ms. Hofstetter, another teacher at Belcher, to bring her class into Respondent's classroom to witness a pumpkin carving. While Ms. Hofstetter and her class were in Respondent's classroom, Ms. Hofstetter observed a picture of Saint Philomena displayed on the front wall of the classroom. The children repeated to Ms. Hofstetter the statements by Respondent that Saint Philomena had wanted to marry God and that adults had forgotten her. Ms. Rosemarie Fernandez was employed as an ESOL aid at Belcher during the 1999-2000 school year and routinely visited Respondent's classroom three times a week for about 45 minutes each time. Respondent mentioned Saint Philomena to Ms. Fernandez one day and explained that people prayed to the Saint when people had problems. Ms. Sandra Nipper had a son in Respondent's class during the 1999-2000 school year. During a parent-teacher conference with Respondent, Respondent encouraged Ms. Nipper to have her son participate in prayer and religious activity. On another occasion, Respondent telephoned Ms. Nipper and asked her if her son had been baptized. Ms. Nipper told Respondent that her son had been baptized, but that it was none of Respondent's business. As a public school teacher, Ms. Nipper was shocked at the questions Respondent asked about religion. Ms. Shirley Garrett was the Assistant Principal at Belcher during the 1999-2000 school year. On October 29, 1999, Ms. Garret observed a table in Respondent's classroom that displayed several religious artifacts, including a statue of Saint Philomena. Ms. Garrett directed Respondent to take down the display and to make sure it was placed where students could not see it. Respondent agreed to comply with that directive. When Ms. Garrett checked later, the display had been taken down, and the objects were out of sight. On the morning of November 1, 2000, Ms. Pat Huffman, the Principal at Belcher, encountered two children from Respondent's class who had arrived early at school. Each student had a set of rosary beads that were labeled "blessed." Each set of rosary beads included a pamphlet that said "pray the rosary daily" and a St. Benedict "Jubilee" medal. Ms. Huffman went to Respondent's classroom and found a similar set of beads at each student's desk. Ms. Huffman collected the beads. While Ms. Huffman was in Respondent's classroom, she also noticed a display on the side of the classroom. The display consisted of the same artifacts Ms. Garrett had previously seen. The artifacts included a statue of Saint. Philomena; a picture of Jesus labeled "Our Lord's Adorable Face;" an icon of St. Paraskey, labeled "saint of vision and your eyes;" and a picture of Saint Mary; and a cross. The objects were displayed on a lace cloth. The cloth depicted a Christmas Nativity scene, with Joseph, Mary, and the infant Jesus; a halo; angels; wise men offering gifts; shepherds with their animals; and the star of Bethlehem. Ms. Huffman took photographs of the display. Ms. Huffman scheduled a meeting with Respondent, a union representative, and Mr. James Barker, an employee of the Pinellas County School Board (the "School Board") personnel department. Mr. Barker was responsible for investigating allegations of employee misconduct. Respondent admitted that she: displayed the icons and religious artifacts; gave out rosary beads as "All Saints' Day" presents; encouraged students to pray to saints for their sick classmates; told students about Saint Philomena; and, upon learning of the meeting, asked her students to pray for her, not to keep her job, but to have God's will done. Respondent explained that she did not seek employment in a parochial school because God wanted her to bring religion to the public school children. After the meeting, Respondent resigned from her teaching position. Respondent has a long history of advocating her religious beliefs in the public school system in Pinellas County. At a faculty meeting at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent brought up the subject of leading or conducting prayers in the classroom. The topic generated some discussion, until Ms. Huffman stated that there would be no prayers conducted in the classrooms. Similar activities during 1997 resulted in a memorandum from the principal of Pinellas Park Elementary School that was issued to Respondent on June 23, 1997. The memorandum cautioned Respondent not to: (1) pray with students; (2) facilitate reverence of any kind with students; (3) refer to saints with students; or (4) initiate any questionable discussions with students or peers as they relate to religion. In 1992, Mr. Steve Crosby was employed by the School Board in the personnel department. Mr. Crosby received a telephone call from a local television station concerning allegations that Respondent had been encouraging the children in her class to pray and that she had led prayer in the classroom. Mr. Crosby investigated the allegation. Respondent admitted that she lead her students in prayer, used a rosary in the prayers, and had her students write notes to Jesus, God, Mary, and the Saints. Mr. Crosby explained to Respondent that such practices would be offensive to children of many Protestant faiths, or at least inconsistent with those faiths, and that as a public school teacher, she could not advocate her religious beliefs in the classroom. Respondent indicated she understood, and would not do continue to advocate her religious beliefs in the classroom. A cautionary memorandum from the Superintendent of Schools for Pinellas County formalized the instructions to Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint and revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Karen Wulf-McHugh 1356 Irving Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 8., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Uncontested Facts by the Parties Respondent holds a valid Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 1046827, covering the area of Biology, which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times pertinent to this matter, Respondent was employed as a Biology teacher at Miami Palmetto Senior High School (“MPHS”) in the Miami-Dade County School District. Respondent knew A.T. was a student at MPHS during the 2015-2016 school year and had tried out for the school’s lacrosse team in late January 2016. Respondent sent a text message to A.T. on December 19, 2016, stating, “How are you?” Respondent sent and exchanged text messages with A.T. in March 2017. Respondent met and engaged in sexual intercourse with A.T. in late March 2017. Respondent resigned from his employment with Miami-Dade County Schools on May 3, 2017, citing “personal reasons.” Additional Findings of Fact Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against individuals who hold Florida educator certificates, and are alleged to have violated provisions of section 1012.795. Respondent is a highly effective educator who, over the course of his ten-year career, has earned the respect of his former principal and science department head, as well as parents and students with whom he has come in contact. The allegations of misconduct in this case have not altered the high professional regard in which Respondent is held by Principal Victoria Dobbs; Science Department Head Pamela Shlachtman; parent and lacrosse team booster club president Nicola Rousseau; and former student, lacrosse player, and the daughter of Nicola Rousseau, Samantha Rousseau. Each of these witnesses testified that their knowledge, observations, and experience working with Respondent led them to believe that he never would have had any type of relationship with a woman he believed to be a high school student. Each of these witnesses testified that, to the best of their knowledge, they had never seen or heard reports of any inappropriate conduct between Respondent and a student. Principal Dobbs bragged in a letter about Respondent and the support of his peers in voting him Science Teacher of the Year. She testified that in her 12 years of service at MPHS, the last three of which she was principal, she had no concerns with Respondent regarding inappropriate relationships with students. To the contrary, she recalled him as a very good teacher, who participated in many school activities and field trips. He also served as coach for the girls’ lacrosse team. Principal Dobbs further testified that she was never informed that Respondent had been accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a student at her school. She was only made aware of a request by the school district for Respondent’s computer. She testified that if she had believed Respondent had an intimate relationship with a high school student, she would not have employed him. Ms. Shlachtman has been employed at MPHS since 2001 and has been a teacher since 1984. She affirmed her previously written statement supporting Respondent, and testified she had participated in the hiring and selection of Respondent ten years previously as a marine biology teacher. She stated that he had “the soul of an educator.” As a member of Ms. Shlachtman’s staff, Respondent had chaperoned multiple field trips, including extended travel with students and staff for the Enviro Team, and to state and national competitions in Montana and Toronto, Canada. Having seen Respondent react with both male and female students on seven- and ten-day trips, she never had a concern or received a complaint. She also knew girls on the lacrosse team and had never heard a concern reported from there. She noted that Respondent had the opportunity to be alone with students on multiple occasions, and no concerns or inappropriate behavior was ever reported. She would rehire Respondent on her staff again, if given the opportunity. Ms. Rousseau, the mother of three daughters who trained with Respondent at his CrossFit gym, also served as president of the girls’ lacrosse team booster club. She affirmed her previous letter of support for Respondent and testified about her commitment to Respondent as a trainer for her three daughters at his gym, which she said would continue. Additionally, Samantha Rousseau, Nicola’s daughter, and a full-time student at the University of Florida, confirmed her support for Respondent. While a student at MPHS, she had served as assistant captain of the girls’ lacrosse team during her senior year (2014), while Respondent was the team coach. She had known Respondent since she was a sophomore student in his Television Production class; she had traveled with Respondent to Los Angeles as part of his class; and had ridden numerous times on the team bus with Respondent. She testified that she believed Respondent would not have been involved with A.T. had he known she was a high school student. Respondent first encountered A.T. during MPHS lacrosse tryouts in late January 2016. A.T. was a junior at that time. Respondent had no further contact with A.T. until he sent her a December 12, 2016, text stating, “Hi! How was your weekend? You missed out on Saturday morning [referring to a workout designed for lacrosse players at CrossFit gym].” A.T., still a student at MPHS at the time of this text message, never replied to it. On March 15, 2017, Respondent sent another text message to A.T., stating, “Hey, what’s up? How have you been?” The remaining text messages sent by Respondent to A.T. were undated, but were sent between March 15 and their sexual encounter in late March. The text messages were sexually graphic. The messages sent by Respondent included explicit photographs, and while those sent by A.T. had explicit photographs, they were removed to protect her privacy. A.T. was a student at MPHS through December 2016. On January 12, 2017, the Miami-Dade School District conducted a conference to formulate an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for A.T. She was placed in a hospital/homebound program at that time and graduated from the virtual school in June 2017. She did not attend college during this time. Respondent never denied the one-time sexual encounter he had with A.T. On the day when the encounter took place, March 19, 2017, A.T. texted Respondent and asked if she could see him that night. A.T. was driven by a friend to Briar Bay Park where she met Respondent, who was already there and waiting for her in his car. She had sexual intercourse with him in his car. After their liaison, Respondent drove her home. A.T. and Respondent had no contact after that time. A great deal of testimony was elicited about whether Respondent texted or phoned A.T. and discussed her status as a student in March 2017. At different times during the investigation into the sexual encounter between A.T. and Respondent, he said he texted, instant messaged, or telephoned A.T. about her school. Respondent believed her to be taking courses at Miami Dade College (“MDC”) during the spring semester of 2017. In fact, she was a student at Brucie Ball Education Center (“Brucie Ball”), a virtual school where she took online courses to complete her high school education, graduating in June 2017. Respondent consistently believed, at the time of his interview by Detective Ochoa, during his deposition, and at hearing, that A.T. was in college and testified he was never told she was at Brucie Ball. A.T.’s memory is less clear. She testified she could not recall telling Respondent she was taking college courses, but there is no doubt she was enrolled at Brucie Ball during her final semester of high school and not at MDC. She remembers that she received a social media invite from Respondent to attend his CrossFit boot camp in December 2016. She recalls communicating back and forth via social media after that time, especially when Respondent texted her about missing her at boot camp. She and Respondent testified to multiple additional conversations via social media or texting, but many of those were not produced as evidence. When a three-month gap between their messaging occurred, Respondent testified that A.T. told him she had been backpacking in Africa with friends and, according to what he recalled she told him, she was taking courses at MDC. She did not recall having told him she was taking courses at MDC, but “guessed he knew” she was still a high school student because the previous year she had been a junior at MPHS. “It never came up,” she testified. While she could not recall having told Respondent she had been to Africa and was taking courses at MDC, A.T. testified she recalled many more text messages between Respondent and her that were not printed from her phone and introduced into evidence at hearing. According to A.T., she had not talked to Respondent about her upcoming 18th birthday on March 2, 2017. Yet, she invited him to the celebration at a club called “Do Not Sit on the Couch.” She also shared with him that she and her friends often visited another club called “Little Hoolies,” and invited Respondent to join them. Both of these clubs serve alcohol and are for adults over 21. Respondent did not join them at either club. A.T. did not recall any of these conversations at hearing. A.T. declined to be interviewed by Petitioner’s Professional Practices Services investigator. At hearing, she could not recall a request to be interviewed. Respondent assumed A.T. was older than 18 when they met at the park for sex, since he believed her to be taking classes at MDC; she hung out with her friends at two adult clubs; and she brought alcohol, a vapor pen, and THC oils with her when they met in the park. He did not believe this to be typical high school behavior. Respondent also believed A.T.’s absence from social media for three months before they had their encounter at the park was explained by her telling him she had been backpacking in Africa where he assumed she did not have readily available access to the Internet. He also believes this supported his understanding that A.T. was in college at that point, since three months of backpacking does not usually occur as part of a high school experience. Respondent consistently testified, from his statements to law enforcement to his appearance at hearing, that had he known A.T. was still a high school student, regardless of whether she was at the school where he taught, he would have never had an intimate relationship with her. Moreover, law enforcement never asked Respondent for his phone at the time of the investigation. After he learned A.T. had been a high school student in March 2017, when they had their one-time sexual relationship, on May 3 of that year he resigned his position as a teacher at MPHS for “personal reasons,” based upon advice he received from union representatives and an investigator, and to spare embarrassment to his school, colleagues, and family. At the time A.T. had entered into an IEP with Miami- Dade, her school was listed as South Miami Senior High School, not MPHS. This explains why Respondent never saw her again at MPHS in her final semester. There was no evidence presented that Respondent knew A.T. had not graduated from MPHS or that she had enrolled in either South Miami High School or Brucie Ball when she did not return to MPHS for the spring semester of 2017. Respondent’s assertion that he was unaware of A.T., an 18-year-old, still being in high school at the time of their March 2017 encounter, along with his cooperation with the investigation and admission at all times pertinent to it that he had a sexual relationship with A.T., renders his testimony more credible than A.T.’s concerning what Respondent knew about her status as a student. No evidence was produced that Respondent ever had an improper relationship with A.T. while she was under the age of 18. A.T.’s lack of candor and lack of cooperation with Detective Ochoa, the investigator on the case, as well as her incomplete memory of the various text messages with Respondent bring into question her truth and veracity when testifying against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 23rd day of May, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Lucille Stuart Foster (Respondent), violated provisions of Florida law governing teachers and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as the Commissioner of Education, is responsible to investigate and prosecute complaints against persons who hold a Florida Educational Certificate, and are alleged to have violated provisions of law related to the education profession in the State of Florida. See §§ 1012.79 and 1012.795, Fla. Stat. (2010). Respondent holds a teaching certificate in Florida, Certificate Number 383630, that covers the areas of reading, mathematics, and music. Respondent's certificate is valid through June 30, 2015. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was employed by the Collier County School District (District) and worked as a music teacher at the elementary school level. Prior to the allegations encompassed within this case, Respondent had not been disciplined by the District. Respondent was employed by the District from 1976 through the 2009-2010 school year. With the exception of one year, Respondent's performance evaluations have been acceptable until the allegations of this matter arose. Prior to the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was assigned to one school on a full-time basis. Beginning in 2008, Respondent was assigned to be an "itinerant" teacher. As such, Respondent was directed to teach at three different elementary schools and to move among the schools during the school week, as her schedule dictated. The three schools were Corkscrew Elementary, Golden Terrace Elementary, and Big Cypress Elementary. An administrator at each of the schools was assigned supervision and evaluation duties for Respondent's job performance. All of the administrators required that Respondent prepare and submit lesson plans for review. All of the administrators observed Respondent in the class setting. All of the administrators found deficiencies in Respondent's job performance. At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, the District returned Respondent from her continuing contract status to an annual contract. More critical to this case, however, is the fact that the District put Respondent on a prescriptive plan for improvement so that she could address the deficiencies in her work performance. The District offered support services to encourage Respondent to make the improvements needed. Respondent did not acknowledge, and does not acknowledge, that her work performance during the 2008-2009 school year was unacceptable. Respondent maintained that one of the administrators harassed her and then wrongly sought to discipline her. When the 2009-2010 school year began, Respondent was directed to complete remediation so that the problem areas of her job performance could improve. Specifically, Respondent was to prepare and timely submit appropriate lesson plans. She was to follow the plans in the teaching of her students. She was to maintain classroom decorum so that students would remain on task and not disrupt or interfere with the learning experience. In recognition of the difficulty of teaching at three different schools, Respondent was allowed to prepare one lesson plan that could be implemented at all three locations. It was expected that music students would prepare for and publicly perform at designated school functions. In the past, Respondent successfully led her students in many performances that demonstrated an appreciation for music and musical achievement. During the 2009-2010 school year, however, Respondent's ability to focus on the improvements sought by her administrators diminished. As her frustration level grew, her civility toward one of the administrators waned. Respondent was convinced that efforts to assist her were not genuine. Principal Lettiere, Respondent's supervisor at Big Cypress Elementary School, identified the following deficiencies in Respondent's job performance: Failure to have lesson plans; Failure to timely submit adequate lesson plans; Insufficient delivery of lesson plans to the class; Failure to tie the lesson plan to the lesson taught; Failure to timely report for work; and Failure to provide an accommodation for a student with disabilities during the music lesson. Principal Lonneman, Respondent's supervisor at Corkscrew Elementary School, identified the following deficiencies in Respondent's job performance: Failure to keep students engaged during class time; Failure to include musical instruments into the music curriculum; Failure to timely prepare lesson plans; and Failure to incorporate the music curriculum within lesson plans. Principal Glennon, Respondent's supervisor at Golden Terrace Elementary School, observed Respondent multiple times during the 2008-2009 school year. Principal Glennon documented the following deficiencies in Respondent's job performance: Failure to keep students on task; Lack of classroom management skills; Failure to have a structured lesson; and Failure to follow adequate lessons. Principal Glennon tried to meet with Respondent to go over the deficiencies, but Respondent did not timely comply with his requests for a conference. Instead, Respondent has steadfastly and resolutely claimed her teaching skills to be adequate, if not superior. In February 2009, Principal Glennon cited Respondent for failure to report to work; failure to provide a classroom management plan, as he had requested; and failure to redirect students who engaged in off-task behaviors. In March 2009, Respondent was advised that she would be returned to annual contract status at the end of the school year. Respondent received a contract for the 2009-2010 school year, but began the year with a plan for her improvement in the classroom. Respondent was afforded 90 days within which to improve her performance. Mr. Glennon hoped that by outlining the areas that needed to be improved, Respondent would soldier on and make the necessary corrections. When Respondent failed to address the concerns outlined by her improvement plan, her school administrators, with the consent and authorization of the District superintendent, removed her from the schools. Respondent was placed in the status of "pool" teacher and completed the 2009- 2010 school year in that assignment with benefits and salary. At the end of the year, Respondent's contract was not renewed. Respondent is a talented musician who played with a local symphony for many years. Early in her career, Respondent was effective as a music teacher. Respondent was praised by former administrators who worked with her during those times. None of the former administrators observed Respondent during the periods of time critical to this case. It is unknown whether during those earlier years the requirements regarding lesson plans, classroom management, and curriculum were the same or similar to the requirements of the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent's teaching certificate be suspended for a period up to one year during which time Respondent be required to successfully complete continuing education courses to address Respondent's deficiencies in classroom management, lesson plans, and professionalism. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter James Caldwell, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster and Gwartney, P.A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for ten days without pay for failing to supervise a third-grade student who left campus alone and walked home during the school day.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a third-grade teacher at NAGE, a public school in Broward County, Florida. Respondent has taught for the School Board for 15 years without receipt of any prior discipline. The proposed discipline is based upon conduct occurring on Thursday, March 4, 2014. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent co-taught a third-grade class with Pelletier. Respondent and Pelletier had adjoining classrooms. Each was assigned approximately 18 students. Respondent taught English and social studies, and Pelletier taught math and science. Their classes switched in the afternoon. At approximately 11:45 a.m. on March 4, 2014, Respondent told her students to clean their desks and line-up for lunch. The students lined up and Respondent opened and stood at the door. The students moved into the hallway in a line where they were instructed to stop. Respondent checked the classroom to see if any students were left behind and saw three students (two girls and a boy, C.S.) completing a social studies test. Respondent instructed the students to finish up and join their classmates in line. A student who was holding the door with Respondent asked to go back in the classroom to get a tissue. While Respondent waited for the remaining students to exit the classroom, the line began to move down the hall toward the stairs to the right of the classroom door. Respondent told the students in line to wait. When she looked back into the classroom, Respondent saw one female student remaining. When that student exited the room, Respondent assumed that all students had gotten in line. Respondent walked her class down the hall on the second floor, down the stairs, and waited at the stairs to watch her students enter the cafeteria for lunch. Unbeknownst to Respondent, C.S. remained in the classroom bathroom and did not exit the classroom with his classmates to go to lunch. Respondent's usual habit was to walk her students all the way to the cafeteria doors; however, on this day, she only walked them to the bottom of the stairs where she had an unobstructed view as she watched them enter the cafeteria. Respondent then went to the main office to pick up some printouts from the office printer. Respondent then returned to the cafeteria to pick up a few of her students who were coming back with her to the classroom to enjoy “lunch bunch” as a reward for good behavior. After lunch, Respondent and/or Pelletier returned to the cafeteria to pick up the students and take them to their designated “specials” classes. Respondent was unaware that C.S. was missing. After Respondent initially left the classroom, but before she returned with the “lunch bunch,” C.S. left the classroom, surreptitiously went down the stairs, ducked under the cameras near the front office, and exited the school property through the car circle. C.S. proceeded to walk 14 blocks home, past a construction site, and near an extremely busy road, and entered the house where he was discovered by his grandmother at approximately 12:20 p.m. C.S. was unharmed on his walk home. C.S.'s grandmother contacted C.S.'s mom, C.C., at work and told her that her son was at the house instead of at school. After going home and checking on C.S.'s safety, C.C. immediately drove to NAGE and asked Shacter if she knew where her son was located. C.C. also checked the sign-out log to see if anyone signed her son out. C.C. informed Shacter that C.S. was at home, had climbed through a window to get inside, and had his backpack with him. C.C. was understandably angry and upset. Shacter called Respondent's classroom but no one was there. Next, she called Guidance Counselor Lamar to stay with C.C. while she went to find Respondent. When Shacter went to Respondent's classroom, she found Respondent, Pelletier, and Pelletier's intern. Shacter asked about C.S., and Respondent said that she took him to the cafeteria for lunch. Shacter directed Respondent to look for the backpack. Respondent went to C.S.'s desk and was surprised that his backpack was gone. Shacter took Respondent to meet with C.C. Respondent also told C.C. that she had taken C.S. to the cafeteria. Because C.C. was so upset, Shacter separated Respondent from C.C. Shacter requested to interview C.S. at home or at school, but C.C. refused. Shacter asked that Lamar go to the house, which would be less threatening for the child, and C.C. allowed Lamar to go to her home and speak with C.S. C.S. reported that he was in the class bathroom just prior to lunch. When he came out of the bathroom, his class was gone. He had a stomach ache so he decided to go home. Video from the school's security camera system shows C.S. leaving the classroom after his class departed for lunch. The video also shows C.S. took several evasive actions to avoid detection, including ducking behind a trashcan and hugging the walls and ducking below the windows to exit without being caught. The classroom teacher is primarily responsible to account for, and supervise, her assigned students while they are at school. At the time of the incident, the School Board and NAGE had no policy, procedure, or protocol for assuring that all students remained within the supervision of their teachers at all times. Prior to this incident, the method of accounting for students throughout the day, particularly when moving from one part of the campus to another, was left to the discretion of each individual teacher by NAGE. As a result of the investigation that followed this incident, the School Board voted to suspend Respondent with pay for ten days. Findings of Ultimate Fact As discussed in greater detail below, the School Board failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent engaged in misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order finding that no “just cause” exists to discipline Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Allan Bonilla, currently Principal of Riviera Junior High School, was one of at least two assistant principals who attempted to work with Venus Tara Rodriguez during her 7th grade experience there in the 1984-1985 regular school year. He has been employed four years at that facility. Immediately prior to the winter vacation (commonly known as the extended Christmas holidays), on December 20, 1984, Venus left the campus without prior permission, this activity resulted in a two-day indoor suspension. In February, 1985, she received a three-day indoor suspension as the result of tardiness which culminated in an outdoor suspension the same month because her behavior at the three-day indoor suspension was so disruptive that it was deemed ineffective for her and the other students. In March, 1985, her rude and disruptive classroom behavior resulted in two indoor suspensions. In April 1985, as a result of her refusal to work during the last indoor suspension, she was assigned an outdoor suspension. Mr. Bonilla did not work with Venus as regularly as another assistant principal who was not available for hearing, but he expressed personal knowledge of the foregoing events and had interacted with Venus on several occasions for being out of class and boisterous. His assessment was that Venus could do the work required of her but that her behavior was so disruptive in the classroom that at the conclusion of the regular 1984-1985 school year she was failing two out of six subjects and was doing approximately "D" work in the rest. He agreed with the decision to assign her to an alternative school program, which decision was made because of Venus' need of individual attention and smaller class due to her habit of "acting out" in large groups. Venus' parents were contacted concerning each suspension. Mr. Bonilla testified that Venus has successfully finished 7th grade during the 1985 summer school session at GRE Lee opportunity School and he has received notice she will be reassigned and enrolled at Riviera Junior High School for the 1985-1986 school year commencing in September 1985.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order returning Venus Tara Rodriguez to Riviera Junior High School. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 29th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Ms. Wilhelmina A. Rodriguez 4110 S. W. 104th Place Miami, Florida 33165 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1510 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
