The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment as a continuing contract teacher should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the public schools within Nassau County, Florida. Respondent graduated from the University of Florida in 1978 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English. She began working for Petitioner in the 1980/1981 school year at Emma Love Hardee Elementary School. That year, Respondent gave Petitioner an out-of-field assignment as a teacher of emotionally handicapped students. Respondent received her Master of Arts degree in Special Education from the University of North Florida in 1985. She began working as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) instructor at Fernandina Beach High School in the 1983/1984 school term. Beginning with the 1999/2000 school year, Respondent's primary teaching assignment was as a performing arts instructor at Fernandina Beach High School. Respondent worked in that capacity until the 2006/2007 school year when she became a full- time English and ESE co-teacher. For the 2007/2008 term, Respondent taught English III and English IV. In 2008/2009, Respondent worked as a regular education English teacher. She also served as an ESE co-teacher for intensive language arts. Jane Arnold began working as Principal at Fernandina Beach High School for the 1998/1999 school term. Ms. Arnold completed a performance appraisal of Respondent in 1999 that resulted in an overall unsatisfactory rating. Of particular concern to Ms. Arnold in the 1998/1999 appraisal was Respondent's problem with completing documentation of lesson plans, including daily instructional strategies as well as specific examples showing how the subject matter would be delivered. The failure to provide proper lesson plans made it difficult to know whether Florida's Sunshine State Standards were being met. Respondent was also having problems with grading students' work and recording the grades. Student work papers were disorganized and some papers were missing. Therefore, it was hard to discern what work was completed and when it was completed. The failure to timely grade and record students' work made it difficult for students to know what they needed to do to improve. Ms. Arnold subsequently placed Respondent on a professional development plan (PDP). The one-page PDP required Respondent to improve three job-service categories. After Respondent satisfactorily completed the PDP within the prescribed 90-day period, Ms. Arnold recommended that Respondent's employment continue. Respondent received a satisfactory or above- satisfactory rating on all of her teacher performance evaluation from the 1999/2000 school year through the 2006/2007 school year. However, Respondent admits that she has had consistent problems with time management and organization throughout her career. In October 2007, Respondent received a mini-grant from the Fernandina Beach High School Foundation. Respondent used the grant to provide her students with novels she used to teach literature. Additionally, in October 2007, Respondent earned continuing education credits toward recertification by attending a conference sponsored by the Florida Association for Theatre Arts. During the conference, Respondent participated in the "In Search of Shakespeare" workshop, which she hoped would prepare her to introduce Shakespeare as part of the British literature curriculum. Respondent's problem with providing focused instruction became critical during the 2007/2008 school year. Students in Respondent's classes were receiving failing grades and did not know why. Respondent made errors when reporting grades and had difficulty submitting them on time. Respondent was easily upset in the classroom. She would become emotional, lose her temper, and say things that were less than professional. Ms. Arnold heard disruptions in Respondent's classroom, which was behind a curtain, behind a stage, and behind double doors. Curtis Gaus was the assistant principal at Fernandina Beach High School from 2004 to 2008. Mr. Gaus also witnessed periods with the level of noise in Respondent's classroom was so loud that it could be heard in the cafeteria during lunchtime. Respondent was frequently tardy. As a result, Mr. Gaus would have to unlock Respondent's room and wait with her students until Respondent arrived. In October 2007, Respondent was required to complete progress monitoring plans and schedule parent conferences. The conferences were scheduled on October 14, 15, and 16, 2007. Petitioner did not turn in the progress monitoring plans until two months after holding the conferences. As observed by Ms. Arnold and Mr. Gaus, Respondent frequently failed to provide her students with any explanation of expectation as to a lesson or any modeling of what it was she expected the student to do. She provided no immediate feedback or clarification for the work they were attempting. In January 2008, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent using instructional time to read questions to students, expecting them to write the questions as she read them. Ms. Arnold advised Respondent that she should not use class time to dictate questions. On January 31, 2008, Ms. Arnold met with Respondent and gave her type-written comments, suggesting areas for Respondent to improve classroom instruction. Mr. Gaus observed teacher classroom at least once a month. Many times Respondent would be unaware that Mr. Gaus was in her classroom. For the majority of Mr. Gaus' visits, Respondent's students were off task. On one occasion, while Respondent was handing out notebooks, the students were playing video games and talking to each other. In February 2008, Respondent's English IV students presented a Renaissance Faire. The students researched and prepared exhibits, presented projects, and competed in a soliloquy contest sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts to earn extra credit toward their semester grade. In support of the Renaissance Faire, Respondent wrote lesson plans, developed a project rubric, implemented classroom assignments and kept a record of student project grades. Respondent invited parents, current and former teachers, as well as community leaders to act as judges for an evening program presented by the students. Respondent took a six-week medical leave effective March 5, 2008. On March 8, 2008, Respondent attended a teacher's conference entitled Super Saturday. As a result of participation at the conference, Respondent earned the points she needed to renew her teaching certificate. Petitioner's Classroom Teacher Assessment Handbook for the 2007/2008 school year states that a continuing contract teacher must receive one formal observation, followed within 10 days by a post-observation conference. During the post- observation conference, a PDP must be developed for teachers receiving unsatisfactory performance appraisal reports. The formal observation must be completed by March 14. Performance appraisals are required to be completed and submitted to the Superintendent no later than April 7. However, Petitioner was on medical leave on these dates. In May 2008, Respondent provided Petitioner with a physician's written recommendation for extension of Respondent's medical leave. Petitioner approved extension of the leave through August 11, 2008. On May 29, 2008, Ms. Arnold wrote a letter to Respondent, who was still on medical leave. A Notification of Less Than Satisfactory Performance was included with the letter. The May 29, 2008, letter reminded Respondent that they needed to arrange a time in July to complete Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal and to discuss the implementation of a PDP for the 2008/2009 school year. The letter refers to written comments that addressed Respondent's performance and that were provided to her earlier in the school year. In July 2008, Petitioner sponsored vertical and horizontal curriculum development workshops for English teachers of advanced placement and honors students. Some English teachers of regular/average students also attended the workshops. Respondent did not receive this training. On July 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent met to discuss Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal and PDP. The evaluation rated Respondent unsatisfactory with a total overall score of four out of a possible 100 points. Respondent's 2007/2008 performance appraisal contained Ms. Arnold's comments in each of the performance categories as follows: Planning/Preparation: Lack of long and short term planning[.] Detailed lesson plans must identify learning objective and the instructional strategies/activities/assessment planned to accomplish the objective. Work should be clear, compelling and engaging and include representative works and genres from the Anglo Saxon period through the present day. Feedback to students should be timely and specific. Documentation should be organized and accessible. Classroom Management: Classroom environment hostile, negative and chaotic. 3-step discipline procedure not documented. Records not accurate or timely. Classroom procedures lack organization. School & Board policies not consistently enforced. Room in disarray with papers, books, and materials in haphazard piles throughout the room. Assessment/Management: Interventions for academic, attendance and behavioral problems lacking. Parent contacts inconsistent and not documented. 3-step discipline procedure not implemented. Effective instructional strategies lacking. Work is frequently not meaningful or relevant to unit of study. Intervention/Direct Services: Teacher read test questions to students, refused to repeat questions, and subtracted points from students who requested additional clarification. Papers are frequently "lost," performance expectations for assignments not clearly defined, and grade information not easily available to students and parents. Technology: Teacher web site/Edline not utilized[.] Frequent errors in grade reporting[.] Difficulty meeting deadlines[.] Collaboration: Frequently alienates students and parents by failing to produce documentation for grades or clarification of assignments[.] Does not follow Board Policies for make-up work, and fails to communicate problems to parents to seek their assistance. Staff Development: While Ms. Autry has participated in numerous professional development activities for effective instruction, the strategies identified and recommended have not been implemented with any consistency in her classroom. Parental Input: Parents express frustration and impatience with the problems encountered by their students in Ms. Autry's class. Clear communication of academic and behavioral expectations needs to be provided to all stakeholders. Complaints about "disparaging comments" made by Ms. Autry about the students in her classes are frequent, both from students and teachers. Professional Responsibilities: Ms. Autry must learn to maintain a professional demeanor at all times in the classroom, and must avoid making negative comments about the students with whom she works. Improvement of instruction must become a priority. Extra-curricular involvement should be limited as it appears to interfere with time that should be devoted to her classes. Deadlines need to be met. Grading and attendance should be timely and accurate. Curriculum deficiencies must be addressed. Interim Student Growth: Academic interventions should be provided and documented for students experiencing difficulty in successfully completing the coursework[.] Parents must be notified and encouraged to participate in the intervention strategies. Grades should be fair, consistent, and easily available to students and parents. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Ms. Arnold's comments on the 2007/2008 performance appraisal accurately summarized Respondent's professional deficiencies. Many of Ms. Arnold's comments show the same types of problems that Respondent has experienced for years. In 1984, Respondent used sarcasm towards students and failed to submit paperwork on time. In 1988, Respondent had problems with organization, submitting timely grades, and completing paperwork accurately and on time. In June 1998, Respondent was disorganized, late to work, and untimely in submitting paperwork. In August 1998, Respondent had trouble with accurate and punctual recordkeeping, using varied and appropriate educational strategies, and demonstrating effective classroom management. In the 2001/2002 school term, Respondent had trouble submitting grades on time. The final comment of Ms. Arnold on the last page of the 2007/2008 performance appraisal, states as follows: As a result of an unexpected medical leave, this evaluation and resulting professional development plan can not be completed until Ms. Autry's return to work. Ms. Arnold and Respondent signed the evaluation on July 21, 2008. Also on July 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent reviewed a 32-page PDP plan. The PDP was designed to meet each area of deficiency on Respondent's 2007-2008 performance appraisal. Respondent did not take advantage of the opportunity to request any specific strategies or otherwise provide input regarding the PDP on July 21, 2008. However, the next day, Respondent sent Ms. Arnold an e-mail, requesting Ms. Arnold to review a folder of documentation to support Respondent's performance in certain areas. Ms. Arnold responded in an e-mail dated July 22, 2008. Ms. Arnold agreed to review the materials provided by Respondent. She also stated that "evaluation specific activities" might help them revise the PDP as needed. Ms. Arnold also invited Respondent to utilize the "Comments of Evaluatee" section of the performance appraisal. In subsequent e-mail, Respondent and Ms. Arnold agreed on a time to meet. Sometime after receiving the 2007/2008 performance appraisal, Respondent performed a self-assessment on all essential performance functions. She gave herself an overall rating of "needing improvement," with 30 of 100 points. For the 2008/2009 school year, Ms. Arnold assigned Respondent to teach four sections of English IV, first through fourth periods. Respondent had some regular education students and some ESE students in these classes. With only one preparation, Respondent did not have and should not have needed a co-teacher to assist her in teaching four classes of English IV. Respondent also was assigned as a co-teacher in two intensive language classes, fifth and sixth period. Anita Bass, a Reading Coach, was primarily responsible for planning and teaching the two intensive-language classes. Respondent, as a co-teacher, was supposed to provide assistance in general and to specifically provide help to ESE students. When Ms. Bass was absent, Respondent would teach the intensive-language class. On one occasion, Respondent taught a lesson on fables. On another occasion, Respondent taught a lesson on neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson. In August 2008, Respondent was assigned a new classroom. She moved her materials from the room behind the cafeteria to a more traditional classroom. On September 12, 2008, Ms. Arnold visited Respondent's classroom for 15 minutes. During that time, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent reading from a text. Only three students had their books open and there was very little student participation. On September 15, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e-mail, advising that her lesson plans and weekly course outline were past due. On September 16, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e-mail regarding her classroom observation on September 12, 2008. The message also requested submission of Respondent's lesson plans and weekly course outline along with a written explanation as to Respondent's reason for not meeting the deadline. On October 13, 2008, Ms. Arnold visited Respondent's classroom. Ms. Arnold found the students talking, sleeping, and watching CNN because the movie described in Respondent's lesson plan was over. None of the students had books or papers on their desks. Respondent stayed behind her desk for approximately ten minutes then handed some graded brochures back to the students. Respondent spoke to her students for about five minutes during the 22 minutes of Ms. Arnold's visit. The students did nothing during that time. In an e-mail written later on October 13, 2008, Ms. Arnold noted that Respondent's weekly syllabus dated October 13, 2008, showed that the students were scheduled to watch a movie then complete a reading guide and a quiz. The e- mail discussed Ms. Arnold's observations earlier in the day and requested revised lesson plans for the week. Referring to the lesson observed that morning, Ms. Arnold also requested an explanation of the learning objectives and teaching strategies employed by Respondent. Ms. Arnold reminded Respondent that required tasks were to be completed in a timely and accurate fashion. A subsequent e-mail dated October 13, 2008, stated that Ms. Arnold had received Respondent's ESE Mainstream Report for four students. According to the message, the reports were given to Respondent on September 29, 2008, were due on October 3, 2008, and not given to the teacher of record until October 7, 2008. Because the Mainstream Reports were incomplete for several students, Mr. Arnold requested Respondent to review her Professional Growth Plan, requiring tasks to be completed in a timely and accurate fashion. Ms. Arnold also requested Respondent to provide the missing information. On October 21, 2008, Ms. Arnold sent Respondent an e- mail, requesting lesson plans that were due on October 17, 2008. Joyce Menz is Petitioner's Director of Staff and Program Development. In November 2008, Ms. Menz provided Respondent with an opportunity to attend a workshop related to classroom management. Petitioner did not attend the workshop. In the fall of 2008, Ms. Menz hired Jimi Buck, a retired language arts resource teacher and reading curriculum specialist, to sit and plan a lesson with Respondent. Ms. Buck then demonstrated instruction of the lesson plan in one of Respondent's classes. Ms. Menz arranged for Respondent to observe Ms. Drake, an English IV teacher at another school. Respondent and Ms. Drake spent some time going over Ms. Drake's yearlong plan of how and what she would be teaching. Ms. Menz hired a substitute for Respondent's classes so that she could consult with Ms. Drake. Ms. Menz hired Ms. Mealing, another consultant, to meet with Respondent and work on a week of lesson plans. During their time together, Respondent and Ms. Mealing viewed and discussed a DVD entitled "Strategies for Secondary English Teachers." Ms. Menz purchased the DVD specifically for the purpose of helping Respondent. Ms. Menz provided a substitute for Respondent's classes while she reviewed the materials with Ms. Mealing. Ms. Arnold made it possible for Respondent to observe Ms. Barlow's classes at Fernandina Beach High School, by hiring a substitute for one-half day. Ms. Barlow taught Advanced Placement and English IV Honors. Ms. Arnold also provided additional help to Respondent when school began in the fall of 2008. First, Ms. Arnold did not assign Respondent as a teacher of record for any ESE students. As a teacher of record, Respondent would have been required to keep track of what was happening with her ESE students. Ms. Arnold also excused Respondent from participating in any extracurricular activities. Ms. Arnold hoped that Respondent would devote all of her energy to improving her instruction. At times, Ms. Arnold would go into Respondent's class to get it under control in response to disruptive behaviors. Ms. Arnold then would make suggestions to Respondent about how to keep control, reminding her of the need to use the three-step discipline procedure. On November 6, 2008, Ms. Arnold and Respondent signed a performance appraisal. Respondent's overall rating on the evaluation was unsatisfactory. Respondent indicated that she thought her overall rating should have been "needs improvement," which would have still required a plan of assistance. Mr. Gaus observed Respondent during the PDP period and completed a performance evaluation. Mr. Gaus found that there was no improvement in keeping students on task. During the post-observation conference with Respondent, she continually acknowledged that she had problems with administrative tasks, lesson plans, submitting grades and managing the behavior of her students. On November 17, 2008, Ms. Menz observed Respondent's classroom. Ms. Menz found that Respondent's overall planning was not based on students' needs and was not clear and engaging. Ms. Menz observed two students who appeared to be sleeping and another texting. While Ms. Menz was in Respondent’s class, six students lost their early-lunch privilege. On the November 17, 2008, performance appraisal prepared by Ms. Menz, Respondent received an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Respondent made a comment on the evaluation form, indicating that she had learned a lot from the post- observation conference with Ms. Menz and looked forward to receiving further assistance. On November 21, 2008, Mr. Gaus, sent Respondent an e- mail. The message advised that Respondent had not posted her grades on Edline since October 21, 2008, and should do so as soon as possible. Edline is the computer program that Petitioner uses to record grades. Despite the PDP, Respondent's deficiencies did not improve. In her semester exam, she used materials that the students had not read. When the students questioned Respondent, she told them, "If you want to read it, look it up on the internet." In response to the PDP, Respondent developed a behavioral incentive plan to implement in the reading classes where she was the co-teacher. Respondent sent a letter to inform parents about the plan. The behavior incentive plan sought to reward positive student behavior with bathroom passes, snacks, and paper money. However, there were school rules against having food in the classroom and allowing bathroom passes except for emergencies. Moreover, the plan was not well received because the students thought Respondent was tallying their actions. As a co-teacher, Respondent was required to help implement a computer-directed reading program. Because Respondent was unable to provide assistance with the program, a third person had to be called in to perform the task for Respondent. An additional concern of Ms. Arnold's was that Respondent continued to ignore Petitioner’s policy regarding makeup work. Ms. Arnold was also concerned that Respondent was losing her temper and taking points from students who asked for clarification on assignments. In January 2008, Ms. Arnold observed Respondent's classroom again. Her comments on the performance appraisal were as follows: Planning/Preparation: Second 9-weeks spent on "Pygmalion" [.] Based on lesson plans, there were no novels, short stories, or poems by British writers included in the material taught (See eval. #1)[.] Classroom activities lack relevance and timeliness. (See eval. #2) Strategies and Objectives listed in lesson plans were not reflected in actual classroom activities. Classroom Management: Inappropriate student behavior during classroom observation was addressed and corrected by instructor. Developed behavioral incentive plan for students in Reading Classes with reward system for positive student behavior and achievement (bathroom passes, snacks, paper money)[.] Assessment/Management: Portions of the semester exam do not correlate to stated learning objectives, learning strategies, or class activities listed in the semester outline, lesson plans, or weekly syllabus. Students have not read "Julius Caesar" or "Heart of Darkness." Neither have they studied the three poems they are to compare. Students were told to "look up" the meaning of the literary terms that they were given to use in analyzing the poems on the exam. Many questions given to student in advance. Intervention/Direct Services: Ms. Autry does not demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the English IV curriculum. Significant works by British writers have not been taught. (See observation #1) Pacing is slow, with 9-weeks spent on "Pygmalion" to the exclusion of British novels, short stories and poems. Activities are not aligned with student needs. In- depth skills development is lacking. Technology: Ms. Autry utilizes technology for administrative and instructional tasks[.] However, on December 16th, Edline grades had not been updated since 10/23[.] Also on that date, the last weekly syllabus posted was for week 11. Collaboration: Ms. Autry's written complaints about ESE co-workers in which she stated the need for colleagues to provide accommodation for her [medical condition] resulted in strained working relationships. Ms. Autry attends department meeting and faculty meetings as outlined in the Plan of Assistance. Staff Development: Completed training in ESE/IEP, Tablet PC, Edline/Grade Quick and ELMO. Received direct training by Ms. Menz, Ms. Mealing & Ms. Buck to address instructional deficiencies. Declined suggested training opportunities in Discipline & Motivation Strategies, Behavior Management Strategies, Classroom Management, Lesson Planning, Parental Input, Classroom Assessment and Professional Responsibilities. (Based on identified needs in PDP and classroom observations.) Parental Input: Edline/Grade Quick posting irregular. Few documented parent contacts. Professional Responsibilities: Ms. Autry is teaching four sections of English IV and is the co-teacher in two sections of Reading taught by the Reading Coach. She in (sic) not the teacher of record for any ESE students. During the 90- day plan of assistance, lesson plans were submitted late 15 out of 18 weeks. Grades were not posted in a timely fashion on Edline. (Ms. Autry was excused from participating in extra curricular activities in order to focus on her plan of assistance. Interim Student Growth: Students who had not passed the FCAT were assigned to the Reading Coach who provided individual/group instruction during the first 9-weeks. 96% of Ms. Autry's students received semester grades of 70% or higher. No other assessments are available at this time. Ms. Autry and Ms. Arnold signed the performance appraisal dated January 7, 2009. Ms. Autry requested that Ms. Arnold attach information about a disability and its accommodations to the evaluation. Ms. Arnold complied with the request. Two weeks before the expiration of the PDP, Respondent requested a two-month extension because she could not comply with the plan. Respondent's request was denied. Petitioner's Superintendent, Dr. John Ruis, placed Respondent on paid suspension when she did not improve. Dr. Ruis then recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay pending termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Respondent Wieland has been employed with the Broward County school system for approximately twenty-three years. In the school year 1973/74, he held the position of Director of Exceptional Child Education. His immediate superior was the Program Director of Educational Services, Mr. Larry I. Walden, a member of the superintendent's staff. Dr. James R. Fisher served as Director of Psychological Services on Dr. Wieland's Exceptional Child Education staff. During the 1973/74 school year, several rather drastic changes were occurring with regard to the administration of the exceptional child education program. This was the year of decentralization in Broward County, where concepts of authority, decision-making, accountability and responsibility were filtering down to the building or school levels through the various principals. Also, the Florida Educational Financial Program began in that year. This program related to state funding for students based upon a particular weight factor assigned for students in different programs. The cost factors for programs for exceptional students is considerably higher than for basic programs. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, the actual responsibility for placement of children and implementation of programs resided with the principals of the individual schools. The role of the Exceptional Child Education staff was then reduced to one of consultation, advice and administration. Prior to decentralization, psychological testing was conducted under the direction or supervision of the Exceptional Student Education Department at the Diagnostic Center. With decentralization, testing psychologists became a part of the staff of the area offices and were answerable to their respective area superintendents. With this change, they were repeatedly instructed that their functions were consultative and that they were simply to test students upon receipt of a request from a school's principal. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, school psychologists, as well as the then Director of Psychological Services, were constantly concerned with the pressures being placed upon them by the school principals and area superintendents to rapidly test and certify students for eligibility in the various exceptional education programs. A count of such eligible students was to be made in October and February of each school year. The results of such counts had a tremendous effect upon the school principal's budget. Many school psychologists felt that students were being placed in programs without sufficient diagnosis or data. This, along with inadequate personnel, was a constant topic of discussion both among school psychologists and at meetings on the staff level. Mr. Walden, respondent's immediate superior, was informed by Dr. Fisher of files containing insufficient data and other procedural irregularities. Mr. Walden also attended some of the staff meetings at which various problems were discussed. No specific problems at Horizon Elementary School were discussed between Fisher and respondent Wieland during the 1973/74 school year. In fact, Dr. Fisher was unaware of any discrepancies or procedural irregularities at Horizon during that year. Conditions did not improve during the 1974/75 school year, according to various school psychologists and the exceptional education staff. They still felt pressure to rapidly identify eligible students for exceptional education programs in order to generate funding and they still felt there was inadequate staffing for psychological services. During this year, Mr. Joel Kieter assumed respondent's position of Director of the Exceptional Education Program and respondent became Coordinator of Special Services, formerly called Psychological Services. Thus, Mr. Kieter was respondent's immediate superior. During this year, Mr. Kieter's office had no direct role in the certification of students for the various exceptional education programs. The 1974 "District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" specifically provided that: "In the process of decentralization the exceptional student personnel at the district level have been relieved of direct responsibility for administration and instruction. The respon- sibilities of such personnel are now consultative and advisory in nature. The primary responsibility for administration and instruction is at the building level." However, Mr. Kieter's staff did attempt to give guidance to school psychologists and administrative personnel regarding the criteria for placement and the required procedures to be followed. Among the duties of respondent Wieland during the 1974/75 school year was direct responsibility for the Diagnostic Center, which was a repository for some 35,000 to 40,000 student files. School psychologists were instructed to obtain a case number from the Diagnostic Center for all new student files and to send a copy of the completed file to the Center. At one time, they were told that they could retain the folders as long as they thought the case was active. Student files were also to be kept at the student's school and in the area superintendents' offices. Inasmuch as the school psychologists were accountable to the area superintendents, the Center and its staff had no authority and could do little more than request them to promptly forward the files to the Center. At times, staff at the Diagnostic Center would return files for parental consent forms. Numerous staff meetings were held by Director Kieter during the 1974/75 school year. During these meetings, the school psychologists complained of their heavy caseload, the lack of secretarial help and other staff, pressures placed upon them by principals and area superintendents to place children in programs, inappropriate testing and lost or misplaced files. These were general discussions and specific incidents were not related. Dr. James Fisher, who was the team leader for psychologists in the North-Central area, had general discussions with both Dr. Wieland, Director Kieter, and even Mr. Walden concerning the pressure he felt with regard to the rapid testing of children and the inadequacy of data in the files of children who had already been placed. Dr. Fisher expressed to them his fear that emphasis was being placed upon the filling of classes, rather than upon the individual students. During the school year 1975/76, respondent again occupied the position of Coordinator of Special Services and Joel Kieter was again the Director of the Exceptional Education Program. The building principal of the referring school or the school enrolling the student was directly responsible for placement in the appropriate exceptional student program. ("1975 District Procedures for providing special Education for Exceptional Students," p. 199, H(2)(c) and p. 3). The exceptional student education staff was responsible for the determination of eligibility of individual students (p. 3 of the 1975 District Procedures). This determination was to be based upon the report of the testing psychologist. In the first portion of the 1975/76 school year, Director Kieter signed the eligibility determination forms (also referred to as the B-1 form). This responsibility was delegated by Mr. Kieter to respondent Wieland in mid- December, 1975. Prior to this delegation, Mr. Kieter occasionally signatured some B-1 forms without having seen the psychological report. This was done because of a backlog in clerical assistance and processing, and to expedite the procedure. Mr. Kieter was assured by the school psychologists that if the B-1 form had been sent to him for execution, proper testing had been completed, the report was in the process of being written and the data was available. Simultaneous with the time that the authority to sign B-1 forms was delegated to Dr. Wieland, Mr. Kieter issued a memorandum to all school psychologists stating that B-1 forms without the completed psychological report attached thereto would no longer be entertained. In the Fall of 1975, Mr. Fisher communicated with Director Kieter concerning the absence of certain psychological data in the files of some ten to twelve students at Horizon Elementary School. Mr. Kieter instructed Mr. Fisher to make up any deficiencies in those folders. Mr. Kieter also discussed the folders with the principal of Horizon, Mr. Wallsworth. Other than this incidence, Director Kieter was not informed of any specific irregularities or abuses in the exceptional education program at Horizon during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. John Georgacopoulos worked in the Diagnostic Center as a psychometrist from 1969 to 1971, and at Horizon Elementary School as a guidance counselor in the school years 1974/75 and 1975/76. As a guidance counselor, he attended "staffings" or meetings with school psychologists pertaining to the placement of students in the various programs. He was also involved with the testing of students at Horizon. In the school year 1974/75 -- his first year at Horizon -- Mr. Georgacopoulos perceived that there were problems in the running of Horizon's exceptional student program. These problems included the misclassification of students, the placing of students into programs without certification and without proper testing, the nonexistence of programs for which children were certified and mimeographed certifications with the students' name placed thereon at a later time. Mr. Georgacopoulos informed Horizon's principal, Mr. Wallsworth, of these irregularities on numerous occasions during the 1974/75 school year. He also states that he discussed these problems with Mr. Fisher, Director Kieter and respondent Wieland. Both Dr. Wieland and Mr. Kieter denied being informed by Mr. Georgacopoulos of any irregularities at Horizon during the 1974/75 school year. According to Mr. Georgacopoulos, problems at Horizon continued in the 1975/76 school year. These included the misplacement of children, improper or inadequate testing of students, nonexistence of programs, inadequate data in student files and the lifting of signatures onto psychological reports. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos obtained from Mr. Wallsworth's office a computer printout of students funded for the various exceptional education programs at Horizon. He then checked the files of these students both at the Diagnostic Center and at Horizon and found that many did not have case numbers assigned to them, that many contained inadequate or no data and that, for some students, files did not exist at all either at the school or the Center. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos went to respondent's office and talked to respondent about the alleged irregularities existing at Horizon. It is difficult to discern from Georgacopoulos' testimony what specifics were related to respondent. It appears that Wieland was informed that children were certified as gifted when no gifted program existed at Horizon, that children were being placed in the wrong programs, that children were being placed without appropriate or adequate testing and that the information in the student files was inadequate. At the time of this discussion, respondent had a difficult time following Georgacopoulos' conversation. He appeared to respondent to ramble and to be upset and confused. Respondent felt that Georgacopoulos simply disagreed with the psychologists' reports as well as the contents of the gifted program. As a result of this conversation, respondent told Georgacopoulos that some information might be in the files at the Diagnostic Center and offered him the opportunity to check these files with the assistance of his staff. Georgacopoulos told respondent that he had discussed these irregularities with Principal Wallsworth. On May 27, 1976, Robert Lieberman, a school psychologist at Horizon, went to respondent's office and told him of irregularities that existed at Horizon. These included the lack of programs for gifted and emotionally disturbed students, the misplacement of certified children, inappropriate "staffing" of children, inappropriate and/or inadequate testing before placement and the pressures placed upon school psychologists to test and place numerous students within a short amount of time. Lieberman was concerned that he would lose his job at Horizon and Respondent told him to try to finish out the school year without sacrificing his professionalism. Dr. Wieland also offered to help him get an interview for a job at the county level. Sometime between May 27th and June 9, 1976, Ms. Queen Sampson, a school psychologist from the area office, talked to respondent and confirmed the statements made by Georgacopoulos and Lieberman. On June 9, 1976, respondent again discussed the irregularities at Horizon with Mr. Georgacopoulos. During this conference, Mr. Georgacopoulos specifically placed the blame upon Principal Wallsworth and he was more emphatic and specific in his allegations concerning the irregularities. He also mentioned the falsification of psychological reports via the "lifting" of signatures, and stated that this had come to his attention in May of 1976. Respondent was aware at this June 9, 1976, meeting that Mr. Georgacopoulos was leaving the Broward County school system. Mr. Georgacopoulos testified that he had discussed specific irregularities at Horizon with Director Joel Kieter during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. Kieter denied that there had been any such discussions and testified that he had never even met Mr. Georgacopoulos prior to June 9, 1976. About an hour after talking to Mr. Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, respondent Wieland went to the office of William T. McFatter, Assistant to the Superintendent. He related that Georgacopoulos had made serious allegations against Mr. Wallsworth and asked for McFatter's advice. Mr. McFatter remembers that respondent mentioned the possibility of double funding and the qualification of students for the gifted program at Horizon. McFatter advised respondent to go straight to superintendent Mauer with the allegations. McFatter and respondent then went to the superintendent's office and a brief ten to fifteen minute meeting ensued. This was the last day of the school year for students and the superintendent was quite busy at this time. The possibility of double funding was an explosive issue to the Superintendent and this is the only irregularity he recalls having been mentioned by respondent on June 9, 1976. The superintendent immediately called a Mr. Cox, who deals with pupil accounting, and related to him his concern with double funding of students in the exceptional education program. Mr. McFatter, Mr. Mauer and respondent then went to the office of Mr. Cox and respondent Wieland was assigned the task of determining the existence or nonexistence of double funding. None was found and respondent so reported to Mr. Mauer. Subsequently, respondent and two other persons were assigned the task of auditing the records of the exceptional student program at Horizon. The auditors were unable to verify either the existence or nonexistence of certain records, forms and psychological reports for many students. It was clear that many files were incomplete and there was no evidence that either the gifted or emotionally disturbed programs existed at Horizon. Respondent Wieland explained the delay between the first March 1976, meeting with Mr. Georgacopoulos and his June 9, 1976, report to Mr. McFatter and the Superintendent as follows. Respondent (as well as others) classified Georgacopoulos as a "child advocate," and respondent felt at the March meeting that Georgacopoulos was merely expressing his disagreement with psychological reports and the contents of certain existing programs. During the March meeting, his allegations were general in nature and his discussion of irregularities appeared to ramble and be confusing. Respondent was more concerned with the demeanor of Georgacopoulos than with what he was saying. When Mr. Lieberman related similar and more specific irregularities, which were thereafter confirmed by Queen Sampson, respondent felt that disclosure of Lieberman's and Sampson's statements would be detrimental to their future employment with the school system. Upon confirming that Georgacopoulos was leaving the school system, respondent felt that the charges could be attributed to Georgacopoulos without injury to Lieberman and Sampson. He therefore had another conference with Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, and decided to seek advice from the Assistant to the Superintendent, Mr. McFatter. Various other events have transpired since June 9, 1976, concerning Horizon Elementary School exceptional education program irregularities. These include a letter from Mr. Georgacopoulos to the Superintendent, which letter appears to have instigated an investigation by the Security Office or the Internal Affairs Division. Such later events are not deemed relevant to the present charges against respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent be immediately reinstated to his former position and that any back salary be paid to him for the reason that the charges against him were not sustained by the evidence. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: School Board of Broward County 1327 S.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida John B. Di Chiara DiGiulian, Spellacy, Bernstein, Lyons and Sanders Suite 1500, One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Robert M. Curtis Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore P.O. Drawer 4078 1750 East Sunrise Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the School Board since August 15, 1995. As a member of the School Board's instructional staff, Respondent's employment is subject to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2008),1 which provides that her employment will not be terminated except for just cause. The School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District. Exceptional Student Education Exceptional Student Education covers a range of students who have individual needs that must be addressed by a specific plan for education, called an Individual Education Plan. The drafting and maintenance of IEPs is governed by federal and state law. The government may complete audits of district ESE records from time to time, although audits are not completed every year. However, the School District self-reports ESE compliance issues to the government. IEPs are valid for one year and must be rewritten annually, although not necessarily coinciding with the beginning of each school year. Generally, a draft form of the IEP is prepared and taken to an IEP meeting to be reviewed by individuals who are involved with the student's education ("IEP team"), including ESE teachers, regular education teachers, guidance counselors, and parents. Although everyone who is directly involved with the student's education is invited to the IEP meeting, it is not necessary that each individual attend for the IEP to be valid. For instance, if parents or service providers do not attend, the IEP is not invalid. All members of the IEP team attending the IEP meeting are required to sign a signature page indicating their attendance. The parents of the students are legally entitled to two notices of the IEP meeting, the first being at least ten days prior to the meeting. The notice can be written or verbal, but should be documented in the ESE file. Parents may waive their right to ten days' notice of the hearing. One person is assigned as the school's Local Education Agency (LEA). An LEA must be present at all IEP meetings which are required to ensure that ESE guidelines are followed. Students are required to be evaluated by service providers, such as speech-language pathologists, psychologists, social workers, and occupational therapists and to be re-evaluated every three years. The re-evaluation must be completed within three years from the calendar date of the earliest testing completed in the previous evaluation or re-evaluation. Each service provider is expected to review the file and to complete a re-evaluation. However, a re-evaluation is not required if the student's IEP team determines that such re-evaluation is not needed. Furthermore, re-evaluations are not required to draft an IEP. Prior to any testing, evaluation or re-evaluation of a student, the consent of the parent must be obtained. The consent forms are valid for one year after the parent's signature is obtained. Each student receiving ESE services should have a file which includes documentation, such as his/her IEP. Students who have more than one exceptionality (such as speech-language) will often have more than one file housed in the ESE office. Also, students who have been receiving ESE services for a long period of time often require more than one file folder to contain all of the documents. The School District obtains funds from the government based upon the ESE status of the students in the district. Students who receive ESE services are given more funding than students in regular classes. The funding is allocated on a per-student basis, and ESE students receive different levels of funding depending on the classification of their disabilities. In order to qualify for the funds, IEP and other relevant documents must be in compliance with certain guidelines referred to as FTE or "full time equivalent." There are two FTE periods during each school year wherein the ESE files must be compliant in order to obtain funds; the first one is in October and the second one is February. Respondent's Employment at Haile Middle School Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a teacher for 13 years. For the past several years, and at all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE teacher at Haile. In 2005-2006, after the preceding ESE department chair was transferred to another school, Janet Kerley, principal at Haile, asked Respondent if she would serve as the ESE department chair. Respondent accepted the job and had served continuously as ESE department chair until early February 2008. While serving as ESE chair, Respondent continued to work as an ESE teacher, and her position was designated as such by the School Board. As ESE department chair at Haile, Respondent received a stipend.2 In 2005-2006, when Respondent first became the ESE department chair, her work day was divided evenly between teaching her scheduled ESE classes and ESE department chair duties. Training for ESE Chair Position No special training was provided for Respondent to serve as ESE department chair. The School District assigned an ESE specialist to each secondary school, including Haile. The ESE specialist's role was to provide support to the ESE department chair. However, ESE specialists had no supervisory responsibilities for the ESE department chair. In the 2006-2007 school year, Emma Mileham, the ESE specialist assigned to Haile that year, gave Respondent a checklist titled, "ESE Department Chair Responsibilities." She also distributed "monthly mind joggers," titled, "ESE Teacher Activities." The checklist of the department chair's responsibilities included reviewing ESE files. During the 2007-2008 school year, Amy Lloyd, the ESE specialist assigned to Haile, interacted with Respondent once a week as part of the school's Child Study Team. However, Lloyd did not provide any list of job responsibilities to Respondent. Kerley evaluated Respondent's work performance in the past and found her work to be satisfactory. Prior to the allegations that gave rise to this action, Kerley never perceived deficiencies in Respondent's ability to maintain the ESE files. During Respondent's 13-year tenure as a teacher in the School District, she has consistently received satisfactory evaluations and has never been the subject of a disciplinary matter. Changes Impacting ESE Department in 2007-2008 Jerry Hernandez was appointed as the assistant principal at Haile for the 2007-2008 school year. Kerley designated Hernandez as the school's ESE administrator. As ESE administrator, Hernandez was responsible for ensuring compliance with FTE requirements, implementation of IEPs, and monitoring the ESE department chair. In the 2007-2008 school year, two changes were implemented which impacted the ESE Department at Haile and those working in that area. First, as part of an overall change implemented by the School District, ESE teachers at Haile were required to use a new computer system for creating ESE documents (i.e., IEPs, notices, consent forms, etc.). Second, there were significant changes in job responsibilities of the ESE department chair at Haile implemented at the school level. Computer System Changes Prior to the 2007-2008 school year, Haile was using a software program called Dynamo to assist in the maintenance of ESE files. Dynamo was primarily based upon the use of "hard copies" of relevant documents and was limited to each user's computer. At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Haile switched from the Dynamo software to a web-based program called the A3 system ("A3"). The main difference between Dynamo and A3 was that A3, as a web-based program, allowed individuals to view relevant documents from any computer by logging into the system. After Haile switched from Dynamo to A3, the teachers and service providers were encouraged to input all previous IEPs drafted in Dynamo into the A3 system. In fact, after the School District switched to the A3 system, there was a "push" by administrators to have all IEPs inputted into A3. To accomplish this, Respondent typed IEPs drafted in Dynamo and those received from other states into the A3 system verbatim, so that teachers and other individuals would have access to the information from their computers. Also, other Haile employees, including ESE teachers Athena Jantzen and Alice Moreland, and speech-language pathologist, Marie Bryant-Jones, input Dynamo IEPs into the A3 system. At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, the speech- language pathologist then assigned to Haile, Bryant-Jones, input goals for each student who received speech services into the A3 system. The next speech-language pathologist was free to revise the goals as she saw fit. The fact that Respondent and ESE teachers were inputting IEPs originally drafted in Dynamo into the A3 system was common knowledge at Haile. The School District provided training in the A3 system for ESE teachers at or near the end of the 2006-2007 school year. Additionally, on March 20, 2007, a district-sponsored one-on-one training was offered to the staff of Haile. Respondent attended that session and the training staff spent that day reviewing and/or explaining the A3 system. The training staff also worked with and helped Respondent input the current IEPs in the A3 system in order "to speed up the process." To start a new IEP in A3, the user is required to click on "Copy IEP" on the computer page. Clicking "Copy IEP" makes an identical copy of the last IEP in the system, including goals and objectives for other information about the student. The dates for the previous IEP remains the same until the user manually changes the date. This copy is a "draft" which becomes the new IEP when the modified or updated information is input into the A3 system. ESE Department Chair Changes in Responsibilities in October 2007 Prior to October 2007, ESE teachers at Haile were responsible for the ESE files of the students they taught, and each ESE teacher drafted the IEPs for their students. In October 2007, Hernandez told Respondent that as the department chair, she was now to assume responsibility for all of the ESE files at Haile. Hernandez explained to Respondent that this change was being made because the ESE teachers had complained to him that they could not, or no longer wanted to, take care of the ESE files and to teach their classes. When Hernandez told Respondent that she was now responsible for maintaining all of the ESE files, Respondent informed Hernandez that she was not happy about that added responsibility. In response, Hernandez told Respondent not to worry about the files, indicating that they (the files) would "take care of themselves." Hernandez than told Respondent that she should concentrate on giving as much support to the teachers as possible. In October 2007, when Hernandez assigned Respondent the responsibility for maintenance of all ESE files, there were approximately 170 ESE files that needed to be maintained in compliance with FTE guidelines. Except for the foregoing, Hernandez never specifically informed Respondent of what her new duties were as ESE department chair. In October 2007, after being given the responsibility for all ESE files, Respondent drafted IEPs into the A3 system for students she did not have in class by getting feedback from the students' teachers and reviewing the students' progress reports. One ESE teacher at Haile, Athena Jantzen, continued to draft some of her own students' IEPs, as Respondent was overloaded with work. Service providers, such as speech-language pathologists and psychologists, were still expected to draft and enter their own goals into the A3 system. If a student received only speech services, the speech-language pathologist was responsible for drafting the student's IEP and maintaining the file. After being assigned the responsibility for all the ESE files, Respondent asked the ESE clerk to print copies of various active IEPs from A3. Respondent requested the copies so that a copy of the student's IEP could be included in each file related to that student. The IEPs and related documents were printed from the A3 system, not photocopied, and reflected a print date of October 17, 2007, on the top of each page. The executed signature pages of the IEP which could not be printed from A3, were not photocopied by the ESE clerk and were not included in each file. After being assigned the responsibility for all the ESE files, Respondent continued to teach her assigned ESE class and perform cafeteria duty on a daily basis. Respondent was also pulled almost weekly from her department chair responsibilities to cover additional classes. Responsibilities Related to ESE Compliance Issues As chairperson for the ESE Department, Respondent was charged with the maintenance and oversight of IEPs. At Haile, the guidance counselor is designated as the school's LEA. At Haile, the registrar was designated by the school administration to set up IEP and revision meetings. The ESE clerk, who worked at Haile one day a week, was assigned to mail out the notices of meetings to the parents. When students enrolled at Haile from another school, the registrar or guidance counselor would inform Respondent if the child required ESE services. Error Reports Respondent received an "error report" from the school's registrar almost weekly. The error report identified potential compliance issues with the ESE files, but did not represent a completely accurate accounting of the files. For example, it would not identify compliance issues, such as a missing signature page for an otherwise valid IEP. Respondent used the error report to ensure that IEPs were timely updated and reviews for re-evaluations were timely initiated. Hernandez, as ESE administrator, received an "error report" about three times a year. Error reports were available to service providers who requested them. These error reports were obtained and used by some service providers to determine when the re-evaluations for which they were responsible were due. Systems to Notify Service Providers of Re-Evaluation Dates While ESE department chair, Respondent used the following three different systems to notify and/or remind service providers when students needed to be re-evaluated: (1) the "white board" system; (2) the "file drawer" system; and (3) the "binder" system. At some point prior to the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent used the "white board" system. Under that system, Respondent listed the names of students whose re-evaluation date was approaching and the due date of the re-evaluation on a "white board" that was located in the ESE office. Respondent updated the "white board" monthly. In the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent used the "file drawer" and "binder" systems to notify service providers of upcoming re-evaluation dates. The "file drawer" system consisted of placing all files that needed to be reviewed and/or files of students who were ready for testing in a file drawer designated and labeled for that specific category. In the case of a file review, Respondent would initiate the file review and then put the ESE file in a drawer labeled, "File Review." The service providers would simply go to the drawer and pull out student files to complete their review. Once the file review was completed and the student was ready for testing, the ESE file would be placed in the re-evaluation and/or evaluation drawer. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent informed all of the service providers assigned to Haile of the "file drawer" system. Among the service providers Respondent informed about the "file drawer" system were Krista Cournoyer, a school psychologist, and Julia Caldwell, a speech- language pathologist. Respondent specifically explained the use of the file drawers to them, because this was their first year working at Haile. The "file drawer" system is a typical system used by schools in the School District, but schools are not required to use that system. Instead, schools have the option of developing and using any system they choose. Early in the 2007-2008 school year and at all times relevant to this proceeding, the "binder" system was initiated at Haile.3 Under that system, the names of students who required testing and re-evaluations were placed in a binder (notebook) in the ESE office. Respondent and Karen Ciemniecki, the ESE evaluator assigned to Haile, updated the information in the binder. The various service providers could utilize the information in the binder to determine which students they needed to test and/or re-evaluate. Service providers were free to use either the "file drawer" or "binder" system to determine when they were to review a file and re-evaluate a student. In addition to utilizing those systems, the service providers could also obtain an error report which would provide information concerning re-evaluations which were due the following month. Both the "file drawer" and the "binder" systems provided the service providers the means to determine when a review and re-evaluation was due, without the direct assistance of Respondent. During the 2007-2008 school year, several service providers, including Ciemniecki and Caldwell, used the "file drawer" and/or "binder" systems to determine when student file reviews, testing and re-evaluations were to be done. In addition to using the established systems, both Ciemniecki and Caldwell obtained error reports from either Respondent or Haile's registrar. Cournoyer, like the other service providers, was aware of the "file drawer" and "binder" systems and knew how to use them. Nonetheless, Cournoyer believed that the systems were inadequate and did not ensure that she would consistently know when the re-evaluations for which she was responsible were due. Although the systems in place were not perfect, if utilized, they provided a reasonable means to determine when reviews and re-evaluations were due. Moreover, the error reports, if obtained and used, provided an additional source by which service providers could determine about a month in advance when re-evaluations were due. There were times when there were files in the designated file drawer that Cournoyer needed to review. In those instances, Respondent removed those files from the drawer and handed them to Cournoyer, indicating that they needed to be reviewed. Events Leading to Investigation In January 2008, Cournoyer believed that it appeared that she was not completing re-evaluations in a timely manner. Cournoyer also believed that the reason for any delays in completing the re-evaluations was that she did not get all the requisite forms for those re-evaluations until they were overdue. On or about January 31, 2008, Cournoyer was conducting a file review for Student E.A. While reviewing the file, she noticed that an IEP meeting was conducted for this student on January 8, 2008. Upon reviewing the file, Cournoyer had two concerns. First, she had not been invited to that IEP meeting. Second, the documentation in the file indicated that the meeting occurred three weeks before Cournoyer was notified of the need to conduct a file review for this particular student. While reviewing the file of E.A., Cournoyer noticed that the student was receiving services from Caldwell, the speech-language pathologist. She then gave the file to Caldwell who, upon review of the file, noticed that the speech goals were already written on the student's active IEP. Caldwell was concerned that she had not written those goals, as it had been her intent to dismiss the student from speech-language services, and that she had not been invited to the IEP meeting. Caldwell discussed her concerns about the speech goals for E.A. with Respondent, who instructed her to set up a meeting to revise the IEP. Cournoyer shared her concerns about "overdue" re-evaluations in an email to Respondent, but disagreed that there was a system in place that addressed her concerns. Dissatisfied with Respondent's response to her email, Cournoyer then sent an email to members of Haile's Child Study Team, including Lloyd, the ESE specialist. After receiving a response from Lloyd, Cournoyer sent an email about her concerns to the Haile administrators, including Hernandez, and ESE staff on or about February 1, 2008. After receiving Cournoyer's email, Hernandez requested that she provide additional information about her allegations and concerns. In response to that request, Cournoyer provided Hernandez with a list of students and dates of re-evaluations that were overdue. On Sunday, February 3, 2008, Hernandez and Cournoyer met at Haile and reviewed the ESE files. During that review, they found some files that were missing signature pages and that one IEP appeared to have an altered date on a consent form. After conducting a preliminary investigation, Hernandez reported his findings to Principal Kerley who, in turn, contacted the School District's Office of Professional Standards ("OPS"). OPS then initiated an investigation of Respondent and the maintenance and formulation of the ESE files at Haile. Respondent was placed on administrative leave on February 5, 2008, before the February 2008 FTE cut-off date. During that leave, Respondent was prohibited from communicating with School District employees or entering the premises of Haile. Prior to being placed on administrative leave, Respondent was not informed of the allegations against her. The matter was assigned to Debra Horne, a specialist with OPS. After reviewing an email about the case from Hernandez, Horne decided to allow the ESE department to review the ESE files at Haile.4 On February 6, 2008, the ESE team, consisting of all the secondary ESE specialists and the ESE coordinator, Joe Roberts, conducted a preliminary review of the ESE files at Haile for compliance issues. That same day, Roberts memorialized the review team's preliminary findings in an email to the ESE director, Ron Russell. According to the email, the ESE team conducted a two-hour review of the ESE files and found about ten files with problems (i.e., missing signature pages, what appeared to be an altered consent form, and IEPs which appeared to be copied from previous year's IEPs). The email memorializing the findings noted that the ESE office was not organized and that "many folders and confidential information were spread out in varying locations of the office, not in a secured fashion." The email also noted that the team looked for "numerous folders [files] and could not locate them in the filing system."5 On February 29, 2009, Horne met with Roberts and Lloyd to review the ESE files and the ESE team's preliminary findings. Based on the review of the files, the OPS determined that 15 ESE files were non-compliant for FTE (funding) purposes and that another five ESE files had compliance issues that did not affect funding. On March 13, 2008, Horne interviewed Respondent about the findings of the ESE review team. The purpose of the interview, which lasted most of the day, was to allow Dozier the opportunity to offer an explanation of the alleged compliance issues concerning specific ESE files.6 Prior to the March 13, 2008, interview, school officials did not notify Respondent of the allegations or allow her to respond to those changes. After completing the investigation and interviewing Respondent, Horne published her findings in an investigative report. The findings in the OPS investigative report and which are the bases of the charges against Respondent in this case involve the non-compliant ESE files referenced above. Specifically, the investigative report found and determined that: (1) 15 ESE files were non-compliant for FTE or funding purposes; and (2) five ESE files had compliance issues that did not affect funding. As a result of the 15 non-compliant ESE files, the affected students were returned to basic funding, causing a decrease in the overall funds available to the School District. Nevertheless, those identified students were provided with services in accordance with their IEPs. Non-Compliant ESE Files Resulting in Loss of Funds Student A.C. The investigative report found that there was no signature page in the ESE file of A.C. for the April 10, 2007, IEP. Without a properly-executed signature page, the IEP is invalid. Respondent testified credibly that she did not know if she conducted the IEP meeting when the April 10, 2007, IEP was developed, but believed that A.C. may have had more than one file. This belief was based on the fact that A.C.'s primary disability was "language impairment," and A.C. received speech services. Typically, such students had two ESE files, one of which was kept by the speech-language pathologist. The April 10, 2007, IEP meeting was conducted during the previous school year and before Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Respondent further testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page before the FTE window closed. Student J.B. The investigative report found that the ESE file of J.B. did not contain a signature page for the November 6, 2006, IEP. Without a properly executed signature page, the IEP is invalid. The November 6, 2006, IEP meeting was conducted during the previous school year and before Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Moreover, there is no evidence that Respondent conducted or was present at this IEP meeting. Respondent testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page for the November 6, 2006, IEP before the FTE window closed. The investigative report found that a second IEP for J.B. indicated that it was drafted on January 25, 2008, but the registrar was informed it was drafted on October 23, 2007. However, there is nothing in the record to establish that the registrar made such a statement. Student Z.L. The investigative report found that the ESE file of Z.L. did not contain a signature page for the March 19, 2007, IEP. The IEP for Z.L. dated March 19, 2007, was drafted while Z.L. was attending Freedom Elementary School ("Freedom"), and, thus, was drafted by employees of Freedom. This IEP was valid through March 18, 2008. Freedom is a school in the School District, and the IEP developed at that school was apparently put in the A3 system. The March 19, 2007, IEP was printed on October 19, 2007, and was a copy of the IEP from Freedom dated March 19, 2007. Because the IEP printed in October 2007 was a copy of a valid IEP, no signature page was required. No determination was made as to whether the original March 19, 2007, IEP, with the fully executed signature page, was ever sent by Freedom to Haile. The signature page could not be printed from the A3 system. Therefore, unless the original or a photocopy of the fully executed signature page of the March 19, 2007, IEP had been sent to Haile, the school would not have the signature page. Student A.L. The investigative report found that there was no temporary IEP written for A.L. after the student transferred to the School District in September 4, 2007, from an out-of-state school. In September 2007, when A.L. enrolled at Haile, the student had a valid IEP from the out-of-state school district. The out-of-state IEP was for the period March 7, 2007, through March 6, 2008, if the student had remained in that state. Once the student was enrolled, the School District had six months from the student's enrollment date to develop a temporary IEP. Accordingly, a temporary IEP should have been developed on or before March 4, 2008. A temporary IEP was not developed for A.L. prior to or by March 4, 2008, or as of March 13, 2008, when Respondent was interviewed by Ms. Horne. Although the temporary IEP had not been developed prior to Respondent's being placed on leave, steps were being taken to develop the IEP prior to Respondent's being placed on leave. For example, Ciemniecki administered achievement tests to A.L. in late September 2007. Also, Cournoyer was reviewing the student's file and also testing the student. Respondent was placed on leave February 5, 2008, about one month before the temporary IEP was required to be developed. Thus, no conclusion can be reached as to whether Respondent would have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the temporary IEP was developed by March 4, 2008. On the other hand, it is equally apparent that after being placed on leave, Respondent was prevented from and could not take any steps to ensure that a temporary IEP was developed for A.L. Therefore, it can not be concluded that Respondent is responsible for the failure to timely develop a temporary IEP. The credible testimony of Respondent was that she intended to take steps to ensure that an IEP was drafted within six months of A.L.'s enrolling in the School District. An issue was raised regarding what appeared to be inconsistent dates on the Informed Notice and Consent for Evaluation/Re-evaluation ("Informed Notice and Consent") form. That form included spaces in which the following was to be provided: (1) the referral date; (2) the parent's signature, either giving or denying consent for the evaluation; and (3) the date of the signature. The referral date printed or typed on the form is February 26, 2006. The parent's signature, giving consent for the evaluation, was dated September 24, 2007. The concern expressed was that the date of the referral, February 26, 2006, was more than a year and a half prior to A.L. enrolling in the School District. This discrepancy was explained by the credible testimony of Respondent. According to that testimony, the above-referenced consent form was from the Dynamo computer system and had been used to make copies of blank forms to be used. However, the "referral date," February 26, 2006, had been printed or typed on the original form, and that date had been inadvertently left on the form prior to copies of the form being made. Student S.H. The investigative report concluded that S.H.'s IEP dated April 26, 2007, was invalid because it was created at Haile four or five months prior to the student's enrolling in the School District on September 5, 2007.7 The ESE file of S.H. contained a valid IEP dated April 26, 2007, that was drafted while the student was living out-of-state and enrolled in an out-of-state school. That IEP would have been valid through April 25, 2008, had the student remained in the out-of-state school district. In addition to the out-of-state IEP, the ESE file of S.H. also contained another IEP dated April 26, 2007, which indicated that, as of that date, the student was attending Haile. There was also a fully executed signature page for this April 26, 2007, IEP, which had been signed by the parent, Respondent, and six other individuals. In addition to the parent and Respondent, six others signed the signature page of that IEP. Contrary to the allegations, the IEP for S.H. created at Haile was not created on April 26, 2007, four months before the student enrolled in the School District. Respondent testified credibly that she input the data from the out-of-state IEP into the A3 system. However, while inputting information in A3 for the student's new IEP, she neglected to change the IEP plan date from April 26, 2007, to the new IEP plan date. The testimony of Respondent is supported by a careful review of contents of the IEP. For example, the IEP clearly indicates that the student is now enrolled at Haile as a "transfer [student] from out of state."8 The signature page of the Haile IEP also mistakenly shows that the IEP was developed on April 26, 2007. However, the upper right corner of that signature page indicates that the signature page form for S.H.'s Haile IEP was printed from the A3 system at 7:18 a.m., on October 29, 2007, almost two months after S.H. enrolled in the School District. As noted above, only blank signature page forms can be printed from A3. Therefore, the signatures had to be placed on the signature page some time after the form was printed. Respondent's failure to change the plan date of the student's out-of-state IEP to the plan date of the new IEP created at Haile, was due to human error. Student S.R. The investigative report found that S.R.'s ESE file did not contain an IEP, a notice of IEP meeting, or signature page. S.R.'s ESE file contained a valid IEP dated February 8, 2007, drafted while the student was at Gene Witt Elementary ("Witt"), a school in the School District. The IEP was drafted by employees at Witt and was valid through February 7, 2008. The file also contained an IEP with a plan date of February 7, 2008 (the same as the Witt IEP), indicating that the student was attending Haile at the time of the IEP. Respondent testified credibly that she typed the data contained in the Witt IEP, which was in the Dynamo System, into the A3 system so that the data would be available to other teachers. Respondent testified credibly that she had no intent to make it appear that S.R. was attending Haile in February 2007. Respondent further testified credibly that when an individual inputs data into the A3 system, the school that the individual is assigned to automatically "pop[s] up" in A3 as the student's school. The document included in the investigative report that is the basis for discipline against Respondent is a copy of S.R.'s IEP that was created at Witt dated February 8, 2007. That IEP was printed from A3 on October 19, 2007. Because the IEP is a copy of a valid IEP, no signature page was required. Likewise, no notice of the IEP meeting was required. No evidence was presented to establish that the notice and fully executed signature page of the subject IEP were ever received by Haile. Student E.M. The investigative report found that the ESE file of E.M. did not contain a signature page for the April 11, 2007, IEP, and, thus, the IEP was invalid. E.M.'s April 11, 2007, IEP notes that the student's primary exceptionality is "language impaired." During the March 2008 interview, Respondent informed the OPS investigator that she believed E.M., as a language-impaired student, had two ESE files, one of which was maintained by the speech-language pathologist.9 Respondent testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page or schedule another IEP meeting before the FTE window closed. The April 11, 2007, IEP was drafted during the previous school year and prior to Respondent becoming responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Student M.D. The investigative report found that the ESE file of M.D. did not contain a valid IEP. According to the report, Respondent gave a plan date of November 2, 2007, to the registrar, but failed to create an IEP on that date. On November 2, 2007, a parent conference was called and conducted by Ms. Moreland, a teacher at Haile. Respondent did not attend the parent conference, but about mid-meeting, Moreland went to Respondent's office. Moreland then told Respondent that the team originally intended to remove M.D. from mainstream classes, but during the parent conference decided against it. The November 2, 2007, date may have been incorrectly given to the registrar as the IEP plan date.10 However, the meeting conducted on that date was a parent conference, and unlike IEP plan dates, are not reported to the registrar. It is alleged that the report of the conference and IEP revision sheets were incomplete. However, as a result of the team's decision that M.D. services remain the same (he would remain in mainstream classes), there was no need for the partially completed revision form to be included in M.D.'s ESE file. Thus, Moreland should have discarded that form. M.D.'s ESE file included a valid IEP dated February 8, 2007. This IEP was valid through February 7, 2008. The short-term objectives from M.D.'s 2007 and 2008 IEPs were identical. The latter IEP was dated March 6, 2008, after Respondent was on administrative leave and Jantzen was interim department chair. Student E.R. The investigation found that E.R.'s sixth-grade IEP appeared to be copied "exactly" from the student's fifth-grade IEP. The concern was that the information copied from the fifth-grade IEP to the sixth-grade IEP did not accurately reflect an appropriate measurable annual goal in the area of math. The annual measurable goal on E.R.'s fifth-grade IEP and copied on the student's sixth-grade IEP was that the student "will satisfy fifth grade math requirements." However, during the investigation, it was established that the student was performing above the fifth-grade level in math at Haile. Thus, that previous math goal should have been changed.11 The fifth-grade IEP was developed on December 7, 2006, when E.R. was enrolled at Freedom Elementary School ("Freedom") and remained effective through December 6, 2007. E.R. was enrolled as a sixth-grader at Haile in the 2007-2008 school year. Therefore, the fifth-grade IEP was effective the first few months of E.R.'s sixth-grade year at Haile. Pursuant to the administration's instructions, after E.R. enrolled at Haile, Respondent input the information from the December 2006 IEP into A3.12 Although E.R. was in the sixth grade, the IEP was effective until December 6, 2007. The December 7, 2006, IEP, upon which the OPS refers, was printed on October 19, 2007, and is a copy of the IEP developed at Freedom, except that E.R.'s school and grade had been changed. The student's school was changed from "Freedom" to "Haile" and the current grade was changed from fifth to sixth.13 Respondent testified credibly that she did not know who changed the grade and school on E.R.'s December 2006 IEP. Moreover, no evidence was presented as to who made those changes. However, undoubtedly, on October 19, 2007, E.R. was enrolled at Haile and was in the sixth grade. Respondent testified credibly that in inputting E.R.'s December 7, 2006, IEP, developed at Freedom, into the A3 system, she did not intend to make it appear that E.R.'s December 7, 2006, IEP was developed at Haile. Student C.D. The investigative report found that Respondent gave the registrar an IEP plan date on January 30, 2008, but A3 indicated the meeting was held the following day. Having the IEP meeting on the following day would not necessarily be a violation.14 However, C.D.'s ESE file did not contain a notice of a January 30 or 31, 2008, IEP meeting, an IEP, or a signature page for either of those dates. If a meeting were held on either of those days, a notice of the meeting and a signature page should be in the file. C.D.'s ESE file contained a valid IEP dated February 5, 2007, that was valid through February 4, 2008. Respondent testified that she intended to draft another IEP and hold a meeting before the deadline, which would have brought the file into compliance with the FTE requirements. Notwithstanding Respondent's testimony, there was no indication that an IEP plan meeting had been scheduled on or before February 4, 2008, and that notices of such meeting had been sent to parents and other appropriate individuals. Unless an IEP plan meeting had been scheduled and properly noticed, regardless of Respondent's intent, an IEP could not have been developed on or before the February 5, 2007, IEP expired. Student J.D. The investigative report found that the goals from J.D.'s 2008 IEP are identical to the student's 2007 IEP, which was effective from January 26, 2007, through January 25, 2008, unless and until a new IEP was developed. A new IEP ("2008 IEP") was developed for J.D. on January 14, 2008, and was effective from that date until January 13, 2009. During her March 2008 interview with OPS, Respondent informed Horne that she was taught that the goals of a student who was not meeting with success could be carried over to the next year. Other district employees confirmed that it was common practice to carry over goals from one year to the next. J.D.'s 2007 IEP indicates that Jantzen was the contact person for the IEP and that Respondent was not invited to the IEP meeting. J.D.'s 2008 IEP indicates that Respondent was not invited to the IEP meeting. Jantzen signed the signature page of this IEP as the ESE teacher, and Nosal, Moreland, Edmonson, and J.D.'s parent also signed the page. Jantzen, the current ESE department chair at Haile, testified credibly that a student's goals could be carried over to the next year, if deemed appropriate. According to Jantzen, it would be proper to include a note on the IEP regarding the reason(s) why the goals were carried over. However, there is no indication that Jantzen did so in J.D.'s file. Student M.M. The investigative report found that M.M.'s IEP dated April 4, 2007, did not include an LEA signature. Respondent informed OPS that it was probably an oversight that the LEA failed to sign the signature page. Respondent testified credibly that she would not have held a meeting if an LEA was not present, and it was likely that she anticipated an LEA coming or that the LEA was in attendance, but failed to sign the sheet. Typically, in the School District, the ESE department chair is the designated LEA at his/her respective school. However, at Haile, the school's guidance counselor, not the ESE department chair, is the designated LEA. If and when the guidance counselor at Haile is unavailable to serve as LEA, other individuals at the school, including Respondent, as the ESE department chair, were authorized to act as LEA. The failure to obtain the signature of an LEA at the April 4, 2007, IEP meeting was an oversight. Respondent was at that meeting and signed the signature page as the ESE teacher/evaluator. In the absence of the guidance counselor or another person designated as LEA, Respondent could have signed as LEA in addition to signing as ESE teacher/evaluator. Respondent was not aware that the LEA had not signed the form until she (Respondent) was interviewed by OPS. If Respondent had become aware of the problem prior to being placed on administrative leave, she could have taken one of two steps to correct the situation before the FTE window closed. To correct the omission of the LEA signature, Respondent could have scheduled another IEP meeting if no LEA was present. According to Hernandez, corrective action could have been taken by having the LEA sign off after the meeting, if that person had attended the meeting, but forgot to sign.15 Due to her oversight, Respondent took no corrective action to obtain the signature of an LEA on M.M.'s IEP dated April 4, 2007. As a result of this oversight, the IEP was not compliant for the October 2007 or the February 2008 cut-off date. Student B.R.H. The investigative report found that B.R.H.'s IEP dated March 6, 2007, did not include an LEA signature. The effective period of that IEP was March 6, 2007, through March 5, 2008. Respondent signed the signature page of the March 6, 2007, IEP as the ESE teacher/evaluator. In addition to signing the signature page as the ESE teacher/evaluator, Respondent, as ESE department chair, also could have signed as LEA if the primary LEA representative was not at the meeting. The corrective action discussed in paragraph 148 could also have been taken if the LEA representative attended the meeting, but left without signing the signature page. Respondent was not aware of the omission of the LEA signature until it was called to her attention during the March 13, 2008, OPS interview. Had Respondent been aware of that omission prior to that time, she could have taken appropriate corrective action. Because Respondent was unaware of the situation prior to that time, no corrective action was taken prior to the October 2007 FTE cut-off date. Student J.G. The investigative report determined that the ESE file of J.G. could not be found. Despite that determination, it was not established when this student enrolled at Haile and/or if that student's ESE file was ever delivered to Haile. Moreover, at this proceeding no testimony or evidence was presented as to whether the ESE file was found after Respondent was placed on administrative leave. As ESE department chair, Respondent was responsible for maintaining the ESE files. However, in this instance, it is unknown when, and if, J.G. enrolled in Haile and/or if the student's file was ever delivered to the school. Assuming, though not finding it, that J.G's ESE file was at Haile, no evidence was presented that Respondent intentionally or otherwise concealed the file.16 The credible testimony of Respondent was that she did not conceal J.G.'s ESE file. Student B.M. The investigative report found that B.M.'s ESE file could not be found. It was not established that B.M. was a student at Haile, whether the student enrolled at Haile, or if B.M.'s ESE file was ever delivered to Haile. Also, no evidence was presented at the hearing as to whether the file was found since Respondent was placed on administrative leave. During the March 13, 2008, OPS interview, Respondent informed Horne that she did not know B.M. Also, Respondent testified credibly that she did not know B.M. and never saw B.M.'s ESE file. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent intentionally concealed the ESE file of B.M. or that the file was ever at Haile. Alleged Deficiencies Not Resulting in Loss of Funds Student E.A. The investigative report found that Respondent falsified an Informed Notice and Consent form for E.A. This finding was based on a comparison of two Informed Notice and Consent forms for E.A. Informed Notice and Consent forms: (1) advise parents that their child has been recommended for an evaluation, re-evaluation and/or file review; (2) indicate the types of assessments that may be used; (3) provide parents the option to either give or deny consent for the evaluation; and (4) provide a signature and date line for parents to complete. Informed Notice and Consent forms also provide spaces for information, such as the student's name, address, school, grade, and teacher's name ("identifying information"). On both of the Informed Notice and Consent forms for E.A., the identifying information had been written in the appropriate spaces, and the parent had signed and indicated that consent was given for the proposed evaluation. The two Informed Notice and Consent forms were different in several ways as set forth below. On the first Informed Notice and Consent form, someone had written in the student's grade as "6." The middle portion of the form, which describes the student's proposal for evaluation, was not completed. Finally, the parent's signature was on the form, but the "date" line next to his/her signature was not completed. On the second Informed Notice and Consent form: in the space for the student's grade, the number "8" was written over what appeared to be a "6," indicating that the student was in eighth grade, not sixth grade; (2) the middle portion relating to the proposal for evaluation had been completed; and (3) the date, April 23, 2007, previously not on the form, was written next to the parent's signature. The finding in the investigative report assumes that the first Informed Notice and Consent form (which was incomplete) was prepared and signed by the parent when E.A. was in the sixth grade, and the form was copied and modified when the student was in eighth grade. Those alleged modifications included changing the student's grade and inserting a date next to the parent's signature. Respondent testified that she may have changed the grade from "6" to "8" on the second form and did not know if she had added the date next to the parent's signature. While Respondent is not sure how the foregoing occurred or who did it, she explained that, with respect to the grade, it was possible that she wrote the "8" over the "6," because the grade had been initially entered incorrectly.17 According to the OPS report, during the March interview, Respondent advised the investigator that the file she (Respondent) was given to review was E.A.'s speech file and not the student's ESE file. Respondent told Horne during that interview that she was "almost certain that there was another consent form." At hearing, Respondent testified credibly that she believed that there was another consent form elsewhere.18 Based on the record, no determination can be made as to when the date next to the parent's signature was written on the Informed Notice and Consent form or who wrote that date.19 Based on the record, no determination can be made as to who or when E.A.'s grade level was changed from "6" to "8" or whether that change was made to correct an error.20 Student L.H. The investigative report found that the Informed Notice and Consent form for L.H. was falsified by Respondent. On the student's Informed Notice of Consent form, the date next to the parent's signature was January 25, 2008. The date of the parents' signature on that form appeared to have been changed to January 25, 2007. The investigative report found that the "8" in the year 2008 appeared to have been written over what seemed to have been a "7" in the year 2007. No evidence was presented to establish who wrote an "8" on the form, indicating that the form was signed by the parents on January 25, 2008. No evidence was presented as to when the parents actually signed the Informed Notice and Consent form. The credible testimony of Respondent was that she did not change the date on the consent form and did not know who had done so. Student B.H. It is alleged that the ESE file of B.H. did not contain a notice of an IEP meeting and should have since the student's current IEP was to expire on February 6, 2008. No evidence was presented to establish that Respondent directed or instructed the ESE assistant or registrar to send out notices of an IEP meeting for B.H. or that the notices were sent out. Respondent testified that she intended to make the file compliant by sending a notice to the parents before the deadline. Despite Respondent's intentions, unless a notice had been sent out prior to February 5, 2008, and unless she took extraordinary measures, the IEP plan meeting could not be convened and no IEP was developed for B.H. on or before February 6, 2008, when the student's IEP expired.21 Student A.T. The investigative report determined that the IEP for A.T. dated October 4, 2007, did not include a signature page. According to the investigative report, during the March 2008, interview with Respondent, the investigator "reviewed the concern for A.T." (no signature page for the October 2007 IEP). The investigator then advised Respondent that the School District could have lost funding, but the problem was caught in time, and an IEP meeting was held to obtain the signatures. Finally, the investigator told Respondent, "Please explain." Respondent answered by telling the investigator that she could not remember. The investigative report makes no mention of Horne providing any file of A.T.'s to Respondent during the above- described discussion. After the allegation related to the missing signature page was made and Respondent was placed on leave, a signature page for A.T.'s October 4, 2007, IEP, which included Respondent's signature, was found.22 Apparently, before the signature page for the October 4, 2007, IEP referenced in paragraph 189 was located and after Respondent was placed on leave, school officials completed two signature pages for that IEP. These signature pages were backdated to correct the "missing signature page" issue. Ultimate Findings The School Board lost funding due to 15 ESE files being non-compliant with applicable statutes and regulations. However, those non-compliant issues were the result of human errors, mistakes, omissions and oversights of those responsible for the files, including, but not limited to, Respondent. The record is void of any evidence that the ESE files' non-compliance issues were the result of Respondent’s committing intentional acts to falsify the ESE records and/or to misrepresent the facts relative to the ESE students. Finally, there is no evidence that the errors, mistakes, and omissions attributed to Respondent resulted from her intentionally or deliberately neglecting her duties and/or refusing to adhere to the directives of supervisors and/or applicable laws, regulations, and School Board policies.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order: Finding Respondent, Annette D. Dozier, not guilty of the charges alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Reinstating Respondent with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 December, 2009.
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.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding Florida Educator’s Certificate 958493, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Autism Spectrum Disorders, valid through June 30, 2014. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Bay County School District as an ESE teacher at Margaret K. Lewis Center (MKL Center). This is a second career for Respondent. She left a business and technology career to pursue a career in education, specifically working with students with special needs. Respondent obtained her Master’s degree and a special designation to work with special needs students. Respondent was motivated to pursue teaching special education students because she had an aunt with Down’s syndrome who had limited educational opportunities. Respondent taught at Oscar Patterson Elementary for the 2006-2007 school year, and then transferred to MKL Center beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. After Respondent received her state educational certification in autism spectrum disorders, she requested to be assigned to teach an ESE class beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. That year, she was voted as “Teacher of the Year” by her peers. The class to which Respondent was assigned was a challenging class. It was not unusual for students in this classroom to bite, kick, hit, pinch, and trip staff. During the 2010-2011 school year, the number of students was reduced from eight to four, and the number of paraprofessionals was increased from two to three. During the 2011-2012 school year, there were four students in her classroom: C.B., J.B., K.M., and D.C. One paraprofessional, Patricia Lewis, was assigned specifically to D.C. The other two paraprofessionals, Jennifer Shea Saulmon and Nancy Davis, worked with all of the children, and when able to, Patricia Lewis did as well. Ms. Davis, Ms. Saulmon, and Ms. Lewis have seven, fourteen and twenty-seven years of experience, respectively. C.B. had a severe mental disability with a limited ability to comprehend verbal communications and a limited ability to communicate. C.B.’s communication involved single words, sounds, and gestures. He could discern the speaker’s mood, but might not fully understand the content of what was said. For example, C.B. might not understand that someone was saying hello, but would understand that the speaker was friendly towards him. C.B. also had problematic behaviors including biting, pinching, scratching, and hitting. C.B. had an awkward gait and wore ankle orthotics (AFO’s), a type of plastic brace, over his shoe and lower leg to provide stability from the foot to the leg, and to assist in improving his ability to walk. C.B. was ten years old. J.B. was approximately 11 years old in January 2012, and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He also had a limited ability to communicate using single words, sounds and utterances, and gestures. J.B. also used an iPad to communicate. Over time, someone working with J.B. would develop a greater ability to understand and communicate with him. J.B.’s difficult behaviors included spitting, hitting, kicking, and pinching. K.M. was 11 in January 2012. K.M. was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, and had previously suffered a stroke which limited her use of one arm. She also had significant intellectual limitations. However, K.M.’s ability to communicate was greater than the other members of the class, and she could understand verbal communications. In addition, K.M. was more independent than her classmates, and was a risk for elopement from both the classroom and the campus. As stated by one of the paraprofessionals, K.M. “was a runner.” By all accounts, K.M.’s behaviors were consistently disruptive, and managing her in a classroom took a significant effort. D.C. was also 11 in January 2012. D.C. was diagnosed as autistic and engaged in repeated self-injurious behaviors. When upset, D.C. would repeatedly strike himself in the head and face, and he often wore a football helmet as a protective measure. D.C. was very strong, and attempts to prevent him from hurting himself could often result in staff members being hurt. There was testimony at hearing that his behavior plan addressed how many he times he was allowed to hit himself or how long he was allowed to hit himself without intervention. However, the behavior plan for D.C. was not in evidence. A portion of the classroom was designed specifically for D.C., with padded walls and a padded floor, in light of D.C.’s tendency to hit his head against hard surfaces as well. He had some beads that he played with that sometimes calmed him. At some point during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to show signs that the stresses of her very challenging classroom were having an effect on her. After the Christmas break, her stress seemed to have intensified. Respondent was having trouble sleeping, suffered from high blood pressure and pain from injuries sustained in the classroom, and was experiencing some depression. Respondent began to “self- medicate” with alcohol at night. There was no credible evidence that Respondent ever drank during the day or was under the influence of alcohol during work hours. At the end of the school day on January 30, 2012, Ms. Lewis approached assistant principal Elizabeth Swedlund to voice some concerns about Respondent’s behavior in the classroom. Ms. Lewis related some events that had occurred in the classroom that day, as well as some general concerns regarding treatment of the students in the classroom. She voiced the following concerns: that Respondent took away D.C.’s beads and would allow him to hit himself for a period of time longer than allowed by his treatment plan; that she made statements to K.M. such as “I could kill you” or “go play in the street”; and that she hit C.B. with a closed hand and kicked him while working in “circle time.” On January 31, 2012, Ms. Swedlund notified her principal, Britt Smith, of the conversation with Ms. Lewis. She decided to speak with the other paraprofessionals in the classroom and after doing so, to report the information to the abuse registry. Principal Smith notified Sharon Michalik, the District’s Executive Director of Human Resources, of the issue with respect to Respondent. As a result, Mike Jones, Chief of Safety, initiated an investigation. Mike Jones visited the campus the following day. All three paraprofessionals were interviewed and asked to provide written statements. He took Respondent for a drug and urine test, which came back negative. On Friday, February 3, 2012, Respondent was notified to meet with Ms. Michalik and other administrators to review the allegations. After this meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay, and the School District planned to proceed with a recommendation for termination. However, instead the parties entered an agreement executed on March 30, 2012, through which Respondent would take a medical leave of absence and would only be allowed to return to a position with the School District if she was found fit for duty. If she returned, she would be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. On March 30, 2012, the Department of Children and Families issued a letter to Respondent stating that it found no indicators of physical injury and no indicators of bizarre punishment. On April 27, 2012, Respondent was evaluated by psychologist David J. Smith who opined that at that time, she was not fit for duty. She was re-evaluated on July 26, 2012, and cleared to return to work. At that time, she was assigned to a different school. One of the issues raised by Ms. Lewis was that Respondent permitted D.C. to hit himself more frequently than allowed by his behavior plan. The Administrative Complaint specifically charges that she allowed D.C. to hit himself repeatedly for up to ten minutes, while his behavior plan indicated that he should be allowed to hit himself up to three times. The behavior plan was not entered into evidence. The evidence was unclear as to what the plan actually required, and it was equally unclear exactly what Respondent was doing. For example, there was testimony that she would attempt to redirect him once he started hitting himself, but did not physically intervene for ten minutes. There was other testimony that there was never a time when he was allowed to simply hit himself with no one doing anything. Without being able to examine the behavior plan, and without being able to specify the exact incident or incidents at issue, it is not possible to determine whether Respondent was varying from the requirements of the behavior plan, or if any variation was significant. Ms. Davis reported to Ms. Swedlund that on or about Friday, January 27, 2012, J.B. was in time-out because of bad behaviors. While he was in time-out, he was sitting behind a rolling partition, and Respondent was holding the partition in place so that J.B. would have to remain in place. J.B. spat at Respondent, which is something he did often. Ms. Davis reported that while holding the partition Respondent spat back at him, an action that shocked Ms. Davis. Respondent denies ever spitting on J.B. She testified via deposition that J.B. was spitting while in time-out, and she was holding the barrier while talking to him. She responded to his behavior by saying “you do not spit.” Respondent testified that it was possible that some spittle may have fallen on J.B., but that she never intentionally spit on him. The only person who testified regarding the spitting was Ms. Davis. While she was a very credible witness, there was no testimony regarding how close she was to Ms. Henson or to J.B., or that J.B. reacted in any way. Neither of the other paraprofessionals in the room testified that they saw or heard about the incident, and it is implausible to think that such behavior would go without comment. It is conceivable that in saying, “you do not spit,” that spittle would result. Given the high burden of proof for this proceeding, the allegation has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. As previously stated, K.M. presented a classroom management problem. She had a tendency to run around the classroom, take her clothes off, or run out of the classroom and sometimes out of the building. She also would tear up items in the classroom and could be very disruptive. Ms. Lewis felt that Respondent had a hard time getting past her dislike of the child. She had heard her say things like, “I could just kill you right now,” and “go ahead and go into the street.” While Ms. Lewis believed K.M. could understand such statements, she did not react to them, except perhaps to run faster. Ms. Lewis did not believe that Ms. Henson was serious when she made the statements, but more likely made them when frustrated by K.M.’s behavior. Respondent did not recall ever making such statements. Neither Ms. Lewis nor the Administrative Complaint identified exactly when Respondent was to have made these statements, although Ms. Lewis specified that they were statements made at different times. While Ms. Lewis testified that she believed Respondent did not like K.M., it is just as likely that she did not dislike the child, but was extremely frustrated by her behavior. All of the paraprofessionals testified that Respondent truly loved the children she worked with, but that she was frustrated and overwhelmed in the very challenging classroom in which she taught. While the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent made the statements, even Ms. Lewis testified that she did not believe Respondent was serious when she made them. Regardless, the statements were not appropriate statements to make to a child, especially a child with limited intellectual abilities that might not be able to discern whether Respondent was serious. They are, by their nature, disparaging statements. Finally, the incident which caused Ms. Lewis to approach Ms. Swedlund about Respondent involved Respondent’s reactions to C.B. C.B. liked to work on the computer. He would play computer games, such as Dora the Explorer, and was rewarded with computer time for good behavior and finishing all of his assigned work. On Friday, January 27, 2012, C.B. had a rough day, and had been hitting, pinching, and kicking staff. Respondent had spoken with his mother about his behaviors to see if there had been any changes at home that might have contributed to his aggressive behavior. Respondent had told C.B.’s mother that they would have to try some different methods to get C.B. to comply, and that his playing on the computer all day would have to stop. The paraprofessionals testified that on Monday, January 30, 2012, Respondent seemed agitated all day. One said she seemed to carry the frustrations of Friday into Monday. That morning Jennifer Shea Saulmon went to the cafeteria to pick up C.B., who had walked from the parent pickup area without incident, and seemed to be in a good mood. When they reached the classroom, C.B. went straight to the computers. Respondent immediately told him that he could not have computer time. Ms. Saulmon was upset by this, because C.B. had not misbehaved that morning. She questioned Ms. Henson’s decision, and Respondent responded that he could not play on the computer all the time. He then completed his morning work without any disruption, and then walked over to the computers. Ms. Saulmon told him he could not play on the computer at that time. At about 9:15 a.m., the class began “circle time.” During this time, the students sit on the outside of a u-shaped table while Respondent sits on the inside of the “u.” C.B. did not like circle time. On this particular day, he was sitting at the end of the u-shaped table, to Respondent’s left. He began, as he often did, to hit and bite. According to Ms. Saulmon, this behavior usually subsides after about five minutes. This day, however, it did not. C.B. continued to pinch and hit Respondent. In response, Respondent put her arm up with a closed hand (so that the child could not pull and bend back a finger) in a blocking motion, as the teachers and paraprofessionals had been taught to do in order to protect themselves. She said out loud, “I’m blocking, I’m blocking.” However, rather than simply holding her arm up to block against any blows, she would swing her arm toward him to stop the blow, and in doing so, made contact with his arm. Although to Ms. Davis it looked like Respondent was hitting him, she never thought Respondent was trying to hurt C.B. Each time Respondent blocked C.B., he pinched her again, and she blocked him again, which made him angrier. He then started kicking her, and Ms. Davis and Ms. Saulmon believed she kicked him back. However, neither paraprofessional could say that Respondent actually made contact with C.B. They were pretty certain that C.B. was kicking Respondent, and they could see movement toward him by Respondent, and C.B. responded angrily by squealing as he usually did when frustrated or angry. It is just as likely that Respondent was using her leg or foot to try to block C.B.’s kicks, as she stated in her deposition, and that C.B. was angry because she was blocking him. Nonetheless, Respondent’s clear agitation in the classroom that day led to Ms. Lewis’ conversation with Ms. Swedlund about Respondent’s behavior. While all of the paraprofessionals stated concerns about Ms. Henson’s ability to handle that particular class, all were very supportive of her continuing to teach in the special education area. All three seemed to think that the environment of that particular class, which by any measure would be extremely challenging, is one that overwhelmed Respondent, and that she had been in that setting too long. When Respondent returned to work at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, she was transferred to Beach Elementary School. The principal at the new school is Glenda Nouskhajian. Ms. Nouskhajian considers Respondent to be one of her lead teachers in the ESE department, and has no performance- related concerns about her. The only issue Respondent has had since coming to Beach Elementary was a minor paper-work issue related to transferring schools within the district. Respondent is not working in a stand-alone classroom like she was before. She is what Ms. Nouskhajian referred to as a “push-in,” meaning that she goes into other teachers’ classrooms and works with students in small groups in an inclusion setting. She works with the lowest quartile of students, and helps with all of these students’ interventions. Ms. Nouskhajian testified that the students with whom Respondent works are making “great strides,” and Respondent is an educator she would “absolutely” seek to retain. Ms. Nouskhajian knew that there was an issue at Respondent’s prior school, but did not investigate the details. She stated that Respondent had been placed at Beach Elementary by Sharon Michalik, and “I knew that if she was a danger to students, Sharon Michalik would not have placed her at my school . . . . That she went through the counseling and everything she had to do so when she came to my school it was a total fresh start.” Since coming to Beach Elementary, Respondent’s evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was overall effective, with all categories rated as effective or highly effective. In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made inappropriate remarks to student K.M. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent spat on J.B., or that she hit or kicked C.B. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that she varied significantly from D.C.’s behavioral plan or acted in a way that allowed him to hurt himself. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was frustrated and overwhelmed in the autistic classroom and, despite having asked for the assignment, had been teaching in that environment for too long to be effective, given the violent tendencies of the children in that setting. There is clear and convincing evidence that she took a leave of absence in lieu of termination and could only return to the classroom after an evaluation found her fit for duty. A change of setting was needed and has served to re-invigorate 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 finding that Respondent has violated rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission in its discretion may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 24th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder PA 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed with DOAH on March 21, 2012, and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Monroe County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been an ESE teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract. Prior to the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, Respondent has not received any disciplinary action. Respondent has been an ESE teacher employed by Petitioner since 2005. The 2011-12 school year was her first year working with kindergarten through second grade students. Respondent worked with ESE students both in the regular classroom setting, where she works one-on-one with a student, and in situations where she removes students from the regular classroom and works with one or more students in a separate classroom. Charity King (Ms. King) is a kindergarten teacher in one of Petitioner's elementary schools (the subject school). Respondent was assigned to the subject school for the 2011-12 school year, which was her second year as a teacher. Ms. King's class consists of 16 kindergarten students, one of whom is the Student. The Student is a five-year-old female with special needs. The Student has been diagnosed with a form of autism known as Pervasive Developmental Disability Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. The Student is high functioning intellectually, but she has trouble verbalizing and is easily distracted. She sometimes screams, pushes others (including her teacher), and becomes defiant. Periodically, she has tantrums. The Student's father is a school psychologist employed by Petitioner. The Student's mother is an ESE staffing specialist in the subject school. Both the father and the mother are very involved with their daughter's education. Respondent testified, credibly, that she communicated daily with the Student's parents and that she had developed a good rapport with the Student. Respondent also testified, credibly, that she is philosophically opposed to becoming physical with any student. Ms. Rollason has worked with Respondent on a daily basis since August of 2006. During that time, Ms. Rollason has never seen Respondent be physically inappropriate with a child, Respondent lose her temper with a child, or do anything inappropriate with a child.2/ On December 7, 2012, Respondent provided one-on-one services to the Student in Ms. King's classroom. Ms. King taught her other students during that day. On December 16, Ms. King reported to Ms. Diaz, the assistant principal at the subject school, that on December 7 she had witnessed Respondent spank the Student on one occasion, at which time she administered two blows.3/ Ms. King testified that on a scale ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 10, each of the two blows administered to the Student would have been a 7. Ms. King testified at the formal hearing that she first discussed the spanking incident with Respondent on December 15. Ms. King testified that during that conversation, Respondent tacitly admitted spanking the Student by nodding her head and making a spanking motion. Respondent testified that she met with Ms. King to discuss target groups, which included a general discussion about the Student. Respondent denied that the subject of spanking was discussed, and she denied making any spanking motion Ms. King testified that other than the conversation she had with Respondent, she did not discuss the alleged spanking incident with anyone at the school, including the Student's mother, until December 16, when she talked to Ms. Diaz. Ms. King did not confront Respondent on the day of the alleged incident. Ms. King does not know the approximate time of day the alleged spanking occurred, does not know what she was doing when the alleged spanking occurred, does not know where she was in the classroom, does not know where in the classroom Respondent and the Student were, and does not recall whether the Student cried or had any other reaction to the alleged spanking. Ms. King did not talk to the Student about the alleged spanking, and she did not check to see if the Student was hurt. Ms. King also testified that prior to December 7, she had seen Respondent mishandle the Student. Ms. King did not identify the time, date, or place of this alleged mishandling. Ms. King did not describe the acts that constituted the mishandling. Respondent testified, credibly, that she never mishandled the Student and did not know what Ms. King was referencing. On either December 17 or 18, Respondent was first notified of the allegation that she had spanked the Student. Respondent was totally surprised by the allegation. She had no idea what Ms. King was talking about. Over the course of the following days and weeks, Respondent tried to reconstruct the events of December 7. She could not recall any incident, and nothing in her notes from that day referenced any issue. Mr. Russell interviewed the other students in Ms. King's class on December 22. None of those students reported witnessing anything inappropriate on December 7. The Student's parents were not informed of the alleged incident until January, after the holiday break. Consequently, they were unable to discuss the incident with their daughter right after the alleged incident occurred. Since the first time she was confronted with the allegations, Respondent has maintained she did not hit, spank, or strike the Student on December 7. Respondent has also maintained that she never handled the Student in a rough manner. There is no basis in this case to credit Ms. King's testimony over that of the Respondent. While the undersigned finds Ms. King to be a sincere witness, her vague, uncorroborated testimony is insufficient to support a finding of guilt in this proceeding. Mr. Russell recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. When he made that recommendation, he was unaware of Petitioner's progressive discipline policy. There was no other evidence that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system had been impaired by the alleged incidents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Monroe County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Janet Faber not guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and reinstate her employment with back pay and appropriate benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida, including Carol City Senior High School (Carol City). At all times material to the instant case, Mary Henry has been the principal of Carol City and James Meehan has been an assistant principal at the school. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was a language arts teacher at Carol City holding an annual contract. Respondent began teaching at Carol City in September of 1997. She remained at the school until February of 2000. In accordance with the School Board's Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS), which it developed in concert with the United Teachers of Dade, the collective bargaining representative of the School Board's teachers, school principals and their designees have the authority to formally observe and evaluate teachers at their school and to prescribe required remedial activities designed to improve the teacher's performance. The categories of classroom performance that are assessed are "preparation and planning," "knowledge of subject matter," "classroom management," "techniques of instruction," "teacher-student relationships," and "assessment techniques." Under TADS, a teacher is also rated in a seventh area, that of professional responsibility, which encompasses matters that go beyond the teacher's performance in the classroom. TADS was modified following the 1997 session of the Florida Legislature to provide for a 90-day "performance probation period" for annual contract and professional service contract teachers determined to be performing unsatisfactorily. The modification was set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Upon identification of any deficiency, either through the observation/assessment process OR a Category VII infraction, the PRINCIPAL MUST, within 10 days conduct a conference-for-the-record which address: results of the observation/assessment, or Category VII infraction, stipulations of the Performance Probation (90 calendar days, excluding school holidays and vacations), which begins upon the employee's receipt of the written plan of assistance (prescription), the plan of assistance and professional development opportunities to help correct documented deficiencies within a specified period of time, future required observations/assessments, and possible employment actions. A minimum of two observations/assessments must be conducted subsequent to the completion of the initial prescriptive timelines and during the Performance Probation. The annual evaluation decision will be based upon the result of the last observation/assessment . . . . Within 14 calendar days after the close of the Performance Probation, the evaluator (principal) must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the Superintendent.- Within 14 calendar days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the Superintendent must notify the employee in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the Superintendent will recommend that the School Board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the Superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 calendar days after receipt of the Superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. . . . On October 21, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by James Meehan, an assistant principal at Carol City and a certified TADS observer. Mr. Meehan rated Respondent deficient in "preparation and planning" (Category I.B.2.); "knowledge of subject matter" (Category II.A.2.); "classroom management" (Categories III. B.2. and 4. and III.C.1. and 4.); and "techniques of instruction" (Categories IV.H.1. and 2.). These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Following Mr. Meehan's October 21, 1999, observation, he completed a "record of observed deficiencies/prescription for performance improvement" (First Report). The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category I.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The lesson plan prepared by the instructor was not followed. The stated objective in the lesson plan was: "Student will demonstrate test taking skills and ability to visualize descriptive language; FCAT worksheet (reading comprehension)." The activities used to accomplish these objectives were stated as follows: "Test on literature; pictures of a descriptive passage with language being discussed included; reading comprehension worksheets." The actual lesson consisted of: (1) quiz on run-on sentences; (2) the introduction of the elements of a short story by the instructor; (3) the reading of an essay which the instructor mistakenly identified as a short story; and (4) students' written responses to "Questions for Study and Discussion," after the reading of the essay. There was no demonstration by students of their ability to visualize descriptive language, no FCAT reading comprehension worksheet, and no literature test." PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will prepare a set of detailed lesson plans, on the form designated by the assessor, and submit a copy to Ms. Ann Howard, Language Arts Chairman, on each Friday, for review and discussion prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category I.B.2. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category II.A.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructor attempted to teach the elements of a short story by applying them to a work by Maya Angelou which is described in the handout given to students, as a "self-contained section from her first autobiography," and later on as an "essay" in the "Questions for Study and Discussion." The instructor continuously referred to this literary work as a short story; however, it is a work of non-fiction. The instructor erroneously applied the elements of a short story such as exposition complication, conflict, climax, and denouement to this non- fiction literature. This work was an example of a descriptive essay, not a short story. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will prepare a set of detailed lesson plans, on the form designated by the assessor, and submit a copy to Ms. Ann Howard, Language Arts Chairperson, on each Friday, for review and discussion, prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category II.A.2. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not utilize non-verbal techniques to redirect off-task learners. Off-task behavior was frequent and persistent throughout the class period. Of the 30 students present, 20 were off-task for significant period[s] of time. Students in A1, B1, C2, C4, D1, D2, G1, and G4 slept some 20 minutes or more. The students in F1 and F2 continuously passed notes to one another while the student in E4 read a sports catalog for at least 30 minutes. At one point, the students in A4 and G3 walked to the front of the room in back of the instructor, exchanged notes, and returned to their seats. The student in B5 combed the hair of the student in B4 and afterwards massaged his hands. The student in A1, when not sleeping, played with her hair. Other students stared into space or otherwise wasted time. The instructor never attempted to use non-verbal techniques such as eye contact, silence, clapping, or proximity to redirect these off-task behaviors. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview one English instructor, designated by the assessor, to record how he/she has successfully used non-verbal techniques to deal with off-task student behavior. The instructor will type a summary of the interview and develop a plan, incorporating some of the suggestions, to reduce the frequency of off-task behavior in her classes. The instructor will submit the material to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan and Julia Fehr, a language arts teacher at Carol City, were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.B.2. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.B.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not use techniques to maintain the attention of learners who have been redirected. Often times during the period, 50 to 70 percent of the students were off-task. Students were engaged in activities not associated with the lesson. They daydreamed, drew pictures, wrote notes, slept, or were distracted in other ways. The instructor made an attempt to verbally redirect some students who were off-task; however, they were not revisited and the off-task behavior continued when the instructor directed her attention elsewhere. The student in E4 was told to put his catalog away. He then put his head down on his desk instead. He was not revisited. The students in A1 and F1 were told to do their work and move their desks closer to the front of the room. When they did so, they continued their off-task behavior, F1 by throwing papers across the room into the garbage pail and gyrating to imaginary music, A1 by continuously getting up from her desk and fiddling with her hair. Neither student was revisited. Verbal and non- verbal techniques to maintain the attention of redirected learners were not employed by this instructor. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview one English instructor, chosen by the assessor, to record how he/she has successfully use[d] verbal and non- verbal techniques to maintain the attention of redirected learners. The instructor will type a summary of this interview and develop a plan, incorporating some of the suggestions presented, to reduce the frequency of recurring off-task behavior in her classes. The instructor will submit the material to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.B.4. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably resigned to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Students exhibited persistent inappropriate behavior during the lesson such that it was obvious that expectations about behavior had not been established or were not clear to learners. Of the 30 students present, 14 arrived late. None of these students was asked for an explanation. The only reaction from the instructor was, "Do you see how aggravating this is?" When students had to sharpen pencils, they left their seats and walked across the room. Four students were observed leaving their seats to sharpen pencils while the instructor was lecturing or reading to the class. When disposing of garbage, several students threw their papers across the room. The student in F1 and another student in row G played basketball with balled up paper and the trash can. When responding to questions, students would blurt out answers. There was no systematic method established for asking or answering questions. At the end of the period, before the bell, 11 students left their seats and began walking around the room. One student left his seat and walked across desks to get to the side of the room. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview one English instructor, chosen by the assessor, for suggestions on how to deal with inappropriate student behavior during class. She will type a summary of each interview. The material will be submitted to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Pamela Salkey, a language arts teacher at Carol City, were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.1. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Learners who acted inappropriately or otherwise interfered with the work of others were not identified and dealt with quickly or appropriately by this instructor. During the quiz, students in A3, A4, and F1 continuously looked at other students' papers, while students in A5 and B4 conversed. These behaviors continued without the instructor identifying or responding to the students involved. At another point during the lesson, the student in B5 yelled, "I don't give a fuck," loud enough to be heard across the room. There was no response from the instructor. The magnitude and frequency of talking that occurred during the lesson made it extremely difficult for students to hear what the teacher was saying and for students to complete their assignments. During the last 35 minutes of the class when students were assigned to respond to 4 questions dealing with the reading selection, only 8 of 30 students completed the assignment, 12 handed in no paper at all, while 7 did 1 or 2 of the questions. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will design an assertive discipline plan that includes suitable rules and appropriate consequences for students who misbehave in class. The plan will also include a reward system to promote and maintain appropriate student behavior in class. The instructor will submit the plan to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan, Ms. Howard, and Ms. Theodora Woltch, a language arts teacher at Carol City, were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.4. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.H.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Areas of confusion were not identified before learners asked questions. During the quiz on run-on sentences, students were confused as to what to do. Many students were puzzled as to why they could not use coordinating conjunctions or another method of connecting run-on sentences, rather than being restricted to writing two separate sentences as instructed by the teacher. Confusion was exacerbated by an explanation on the reverse side of the test which stated, "In fact, it is often better to join them than to put them into separate sentences." When students asked if they could use another method, the instructor said they could not, but would not be incorrect if they did. Students remained puzzled as to what was acceptable. These potential areas of confusion with the run-on sentence should have been anticipated by the instructor, but were not. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will construct detailed lesson plans each week and discuss potential areas of confusion with her department chairperson on the Friday prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.H.1. The First Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.H.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by November 22, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help Respondent improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION When students were assigned to write the answers to "Questions for Study and Discussion," several students asked if they could work in groups. The instructor responded that they could work in pairs. She then changed her mind and said they had to work individually. Afterwards, she again said they could work in pairs. Students were puzzled as to what to do. Students were further confused by what question they were assigned. Initially, the instructor assigned question 1, then 2 through 5, and later on told a student, "Do number 2 and I'll be happy." Again, many students were confused. When the instructor assigned students to grade each other's quiz papers, students did not understand what was correct, what was minus 5, and what was minus 10. The student in F3 stated that he was confused and the student in E3 claimed, "I don't understand." The instructor made no attempt to clarify these misunderstandings. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview one English instructor chosen by the assessor, regarding how he/she approaches the organization [of] his/her lessons on a daily, weekly, and long term basis. The instructor will type a summary of this interview and present it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the First Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.H.2. On October 28, 1999, Ms. Henry held a conference- for-the-record with Respondent to discuss the contents of the First Report, a copy of which was provided to Respondent. Also present were Mr. Meehan and United Teachers of Dade representatives. An explanation of the deficiencies found by Mr. Meehan was given. In addition, Respondent was advised of the commencement (that day, October 28, 1999) of the 90-day "performance probation period" and warned that "failure to demonstrate remediation of [her] deficiencies may result in termination of [her] employment contract" and that failure to complete "prescription plan activities" by the November 22, 1999, deadline would "result in an unacceptable rating on the Professional Responsibilities Component of TADS." On November 17, 1999, Ms. Henry held another conference-for-the-record with Respondent. Also present were United Teachers of Dade representatives. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Ms. Henry's findings concerning an incident that had occurred in Respondent's classroom during her fifth period class on October 5, 1999. Ms. Henry had determined, based upon statements from students, that Respondent, during this fifth period class, had "inappropriately disciplined a student by grabbing her by the arm to remove her from the classroom." 1/ At the conference, Ms. Henry advised Respondent of the determination she had made and admonished Respondent accordingly. Among other things, she told Respondent that she should seek the assistance of an administrator or security monitor if she had a disruptive student in her classroom. The following day, November 18, 1999, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from Ms. Henry, which read as follows: On October 5, 1999, you inappropriately disciplined a student while instructing your language arts class. You violated Rule 6Gx12-5D-1.07- Corporal Punishment and 6Gx13-5D-1.08- Maintenance of Appropriate Student Behavior. It is your responsibility as a classroom teacher to maintain control and discipline of students. However, it is imperative that you follow school and Miami-Dade County School Board rules in doing so. Rules governing student discipline are outlined in the Code of Student Conduct, Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 and the Faculty Handbook- Item 9 - Classroom Management, Item 16- Corporal Punishment Policy, and Item 85- Supervision of Students. You are immediately directed to refrain from using any physical means to manage student behavior. Your are also immediately directed to implement the appropriate procedures for dealing with inappropriate student behavior as stipulated in the above documents. The infraction, Case Number E-02750, was substantiated by students' statements. You are hereby officially reprimanded for violating your professional contractual responsibilities in that you grabbed the student's arm to remove her from class. You are directed to refrain from using inappropriate procedures in the performance of your assigned duties. You are hereby directed to implement approved procedures in the performance of your assigned duties. Any recurrences of the above infraction will result in further disciplinary action. The reprimand was signed and dated (November 18, 1999) by Respondent. Respondent failed to complete the "prescription plan activities" set forth in the First Report by the November 22, 1999, deadline. On December 8, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Ms. Henry, who, like Mr. Meehan, is a certified TADS observer. Ms. Henry rated Respondent deficient in "knowledge of subject matter" (Categories II.B.2. and 3.); "classroom management" (Categories III.A.3., B.2. and 4., and C.1.,3., and 4.); "techniques of instruction" (Categories IV.A.2. and 3. and F.1. and 3.); and "assessment techniques" (Categories VI.A.2., 3., and 4. and B.2. and 3.). These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Following Ms. Henry's December 8, 1999, observation, she completed a "record of observed deficiencies/prescription for performance improvement" (Second Report), a copy of which was provided to Respondent. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category II.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 5, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The sequence of information presented was not logical. The teacher's lesson for the entire two hour block involved a test on vocabulary words, a bell shaped curve drawn on the chalkboard with the words "exposition," "climax" and "resatution (resolution)" around it, and an FCAT assignment for students to answer questions from pages 48, 49, and 50. Before one activity was completed, the teacher moved on to the next and then back again. This vacillation between activities was continuous throughout the lesson. At no point did the teacher attempt to establish a connection between elements of the lesson. There was no meaningful framework established by the teacher in which students could relate one component of the lesson with another. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will observe Ms Hayes' class during period 4 and summarize the instructional activities, techniques and strategies used by the teacher. The teacher must submit her observation in typed form to Ms. Henry, the principal. Elois Hayes, a language arts instructor at Carol City, and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to help to improve her performance in Category II.B.2. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category II.B.3, and directed Respondent to engage in and complete, "weekly on Fridays," from December 17, 1999, through January 19, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher failed to select or incorporate important dimensions and applications of the subject to make the lesson meaningful to learners. Without preparation or warning the teacher began to call loudly four words to students to write down. After much student confusion about the vocabulary words, the teacher then drew a bell shaped curve on the board and asked students to read a story and write down the exposition, climax, and resolution. Shortly after assigning this activity, the teacher wrote another assignment on the board and instructed students to answer questions from the assigned pages. The classroom activities required only copying answers and writing responses to questions on paper. At no time did the teacher provide examples or explanations nor did she attempt to engage the students in any meaningful or relevant activities. The lesson presented by the teacher demonstrates limited knowledge by the teacher in selecting activities that required higher order thinking skills such as reasoning, synthesis, comparison, or evaluation. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher must plan and present lessons on different cognitive levels beginning with information that is knowledge based and extends to the highest level which is evaluation. All lessons should be introduced, presented on two or more cognitive levels and summarized by the teacher. The teacher must prepare appropriate lesson plans which must be submitted and discussed with Ms. Henry, the principal. Ms. Henry was listed in the Second Report as a "recommended resource" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category II.B.3. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category II.B.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete, "weekly on Fridays," from December 17, 1999, through January 19, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Subject matter was not presented at more than one cognitive level. The entire lesson was presented on the knowledge level. The instructional activities were limited to copying from the chalkboard. To entice students to copy or write assignment, the teacher instructed the class that each student would get three A's for the assignments. There were no other techniques used to encourage higher order thinking skills. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher must meet with her department chairperson and media specialist to review lesson plan objectives, activities and supplemental materials that incorporate higher levels of reasoning in her lesson plans. The teacher must submit and discuss her lesson plans with Ms. Henry on a weekly basis. Ms. Henry, Ms. Howard, and Elaine VanNostrand, a media specialist at Carol City, were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category II.B.4. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.A.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 6, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION There were constant unnecessary delays and disorderly behavior by both the teacher and students. The teacher began class by calling out vocabulary words during which time she stopped several times to threaten students about their behavior and about not taking the vocabulary test. She repeatedly told students, "Go to the office and get your class changed, if you don't want to be in here." Students talked loudly, moved freely around the classroom and yelled out answers to the vocabulary test. Approximately 9 to 12 students refused to do anything. Confusion resulted from the lack of clear directives being provided by the teacher. Time was wasted when the teacher argued with students, repeatedly yelled out the same vocabulary words to students, and passed out literature books to individual students who asked in confusion, "What words? What page? What are we doing? What story are we supposed to read? I don't know what you are talking about." So much time was wasted that the entire class became chaotic and neither teaching nor learning occurred. Approximately 65 to 75 minutes of instructional time was lost to unnecessary delays. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will invite her department chairperson to observe her class. During that time the visitor is to record the time the instructor spends on various activities while in class. Using the data, the instructor will then analyze her instruction on the basis of how much time she spends on instructional versus noninstructional activities. Once that information is known, the instructor will develop strategies to reduce her percentage of noninstructional time while in class. The instructor will type a summary of the results of this exercise. She will submit the material to Ms. Henry for review and discussion. Ms. Howard and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.A.2. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.A.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 5, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Instructional activities did not continue until the end of the allocated time period. The lesson attempted by the teacher ended at 1:40 p.m. while the students continued to do whatever they chose to do until 2:30 p.m., which was the time the class was scheduled to end. There was drumming and dancing, students playing church, students walking and socializing individually and in groups, hair combing, 4 to 5 students sleeping at various times and students who just took a break from misbehaving. Their teacher made no attempt to regain control of the classroom or to continue with the instructional activities. Instruction stopped 40 minutes before the scheduled end of the class. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher must develop a seating chart for each class and use the seating chart to help maintain classroom management. The teacher must also make parental contacts and keep a log of all contacts made or attempted. The seating chart and parent contact log must be submitted to Ms. Henry for review and discussion. "Seating Chart," "Parental Contact Log," Student Service Staff," and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.A.3. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 8, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not use non-verbal techniques to redirect off-task learners. Twenty-three students were present during the lesson. Of that number, 19 students in the classroom exhibited constant off-task behavior that lasted throughout the class period. Students were constantly observed walking around the classroom, drumming on desks, combing their hair, playing with the television, yelling, singing and dancing. The entire class was in a state of frenzy. The teacher did not use non-verbal techniques such as proximity, clapping or facial expressions, to redirect students to the lesson. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will prepare a seating chart for each class. Using the charts, the teacher will record the number of times she identifies and responds to off-task behavior. The teacher will also analyze her instruction and lesson plans to devise a strategy to significantly reduce the frequency of off-task behavior observed in her classroom. The teacher will submit her seating charts and strategy to Ms. Henry for review and discussion prior to implementation. "Textbook resource materials," Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.B.2. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.B.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 4, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not use techniques to maintain the attention of learners who have been redirected. Constant and persistent off-task behavior was noted in this teacher's classroom. Students were observed talking, walking around the room, sleeping, singing, drumming on desks, dancing and playing with the television. Although the teacher yelled our commands and threats for behavior to cease, the behavior reappeared quickly once the teacher's attention was redirected to someone or something else. At 1:40 p.m. the teacher seemed defeated. She sat at her desk and attempted to address the assignments with students who were standing around her desk amidst total confusion. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will prepare a seating chart for each class. Using the charts, the teacher will record instances when students misbehave or otherwise interfere with the work of other students and the consequences imposed as a result of the behavior. The teacher will submit the seating charts with the recorded instances of misbehavior to Ms. Henry for review and discussion. "Textbook resource materials," Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.B.4. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 13, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Students exhibited persistent inappropriate behavior during the lesson such that it was obvious that expectations about behavior were not established or clear to the students. Throughout the class period, 80% of the class were talking, walking around the room, yelling at other students or the teacher, singing, drumming on desks, dancing, combing hair, or turning on the television. The noise level was so high that the teacher had to yell to make a point. At one time the teacher walked over to the observer and said, "I guess you are happy. This is what happens when you bribe students in order to fire me." The teacher also advised students by stating, "Find a spot on the wall and talk to it and don't ask me anything." Other than yelling out commands to sit down, be quiet or threats to get out of the class, recurrent inappropriate behaviors were allowed to occur without consequences. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will design an assertive discipline plan that includes suitable rules and appropriate consequences for students who misbehave in class. The plan will also include a suitable reward system to promote and maintain appropriate student behavior in class. The assertive discipline plan will be submitted to Ms. Henry for review and discussion prior to implementation. Ms. Henry and Ms. Howard were listed as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.1. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 10, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Learners who acted inappropriately or otherwise interfered with the work of others were not identified and dealt with quickly by this teacher. Students were observed in various acts of off- task behaviors. The behaviors would sometimes persist until students became tired of that misbehavior and moved to another inappropriate behavior. The teacher appeared angry and overwhelmed with students' misbehavior. Off-task behavior was not dealt with quickly. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will prepare a seating chart for each class. Using the charts, the teacher will record instances when students misbehave and the resulting consequences imposed by the teacher. The teacher will analyze her instruction to determine which techniques are most effective in dealing with inappropriate behavior. The charts and the resulting analysis will be submitted to Ms. Henry for review and discussion. "Textbook resource materials," Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.3. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 7, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Learners who acted inappropriately or otherwise interfered with the work of others were not dealt with appropriately or with suitable consequences by this teacher. Students were observed throughout the class period engaging in inappropriate behaviors. In certain instances, the teacher responded in anger yelling out a command to sit down or stop talking. As soon as the teacher's attention was diverted to another off-task behavior or question, the behavior challenged earlier would return. No consequences were ever imposed by the teacher when she addressed any particular behavior. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES Using outside resources, the teacher will identify and describe, at least two additional behavior management techniques which have been shown to be effective in the classroom. Using the information obtained, the teacher will devise a written plan to significantly reduce the frequency of inappropriate behavior in [her] classes. The teacher will submit this information to Ms. Henry for review and discussion prior to implementation. "Textbook resource materials," Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.4. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.A.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by December 17, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructional methods employed by this teacher were not appropriate for the needs and abilities of the learners in the classroom. The teacher began the class by saying, "You are going to have a vocabulary test." Students were confused as to what vocabulary test they were to take, while some students stated that, "You never assigned us any words to study." After much confusion, the teacher yelled out four vocabulary words for students to write down. While students were copying vocabulary words from each other, the teacher hurriedly drew a bell curve on the chalkboard, wrote three words around the bell curve and asked students to find a sentence in the story that related to each of these words. Again, students informed the teacher that the class had not read the story. The teacher continued with this assignment by asking students to get a literature book. The teacher then began to vacillate between the vocabulary words and the bell curve relating to the story. Later, in the class period, the teacher wrote another assignment on the chalkboard which required students to answer question from the FCAT booklet. Students became frustrated, inattentive and disengaged with the lesson. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The lesson plans will reflect at least (3) different methods of delivering each lesson. The teacher will review the plans and methods with Mrs. Howard and Ms. Henry prior to their delivery. Ms. Henry and Ms. Howard were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.A.2. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.A.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 3, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The only materials used by the teacher were the chalkboard, textbook and FCAT workbooks. Supplemental materials such as handouts, computer assisted instruction, textbook glossary of words or dictionary and/or sticky notes were not employed to bring variety to the lesson and stimulate students' interest. The off-task behaviors manifested by students were the consequences of the teacher's failure to use a variety of materials. The instructor's limited use of basic curriculum materials was not appropriate for the needs and abilities of the learners in this class. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will meet with her department chairperson and the director of the Media Center in order to obtain assistance in finding supplementary materials that may assist her in her endeavors to instruct her English classes. The instructor will list the materials available and develop a plan to utilize some of these materials in her classes. The instructor will submit a copy of the list and the plan to Ms. Henry. The instructor will discuss the plan with Ms. Henry prior to implementation. Brenda Harrell, a media specialist at Carol City, Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.A.3. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.F.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by December 17, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not establish the necessary background for the lesson. She began the lesson by calling out vocabulary words. A majority of the students informed the teacher that they had not been assigned any vocabulary words for study. The next assignment required students to use a short story to respond in writing to the three words (exposition, climax and resolution) written around the bell shaped curve on the chalkboard. The teacher insisted the students had read the story. Students likewise indicated that they had not read the story because of an incident relating to the teacher's stolen purse on the day they should have read the story. Next, the teacher placed another assignment on the chalkboard from the FCAT booklet. It was apparent from the students' responses that there was no background or prerequisites for the lesson nor did the teacher facilitate students' understanding of the lesson. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher must prepare lesson plans that require more than student centered activities involving reading, writing, and copying answers from a textbook. The teacher must prepare lesson plans that are teacher/student centered and provide for the various levels of cognitive learning. She must also include activities that will motivate students to participate in the lesson. The lesson plans must be submitted to Ms. Henry prior to their implementation. "Lesson Plans," Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.F.1 The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.F.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by December 17, 1999, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher presented three different lesson components which were not appropriately sequenced during the class period. She began the lesson with four vocabulary words which [were] not related to any lesson. It appeared that the sole purpose of this exercise was to give the students a test. The next assignment was for students to find a sentence in the story that related to words written around a bell curve. Several students asked, "What story?" Other students informed the teacher that they never got to read the story because of her stolen purse. The teacher ignored the students' comments and proceeded with the assignment amidst confusion. In the last assignment, students were instructed to answer questions on certain pages from the FCAT booklet. Because of the lack of appropriate sequencing in the lesson components, students were unable to understand the lesson presented. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will include in her lesson plans the sequence in which the components of the lesson will be presented. The teacher will also include in her lesson plans at least three (3) different methods of delivering each lesson. The lesson plans will be submitted to Ms. Henry for review and discussion prior to implementation. "Lesson Plans" and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.F.3. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.A.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 3, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not solicit responses or demonstrations from students. Students were asked only to write their responses to vocabulary words, to write sentences [with] words listed on the bell shape[d] curve and to write answers to question[s] from the FCAT booklet. At no time did the instructor ask students for a verbal response nor did she ask them if they understood the lesson. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will solicit informal responses from individual students as well as assessing students in a group. The teacher must also assess student demonstrations of the instructional objectives. This assessment must be properly labeled and dated in the gradebook. A weekly review will be made by Ms. Henry. The "Handbook for Educators on Authentic Assessment Techniques" and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.A.2. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.A.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 3, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Multiple levels of learning were not monitored. The teacher did not appear to monitor any level of learning. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will include at least two (2) class activities each week that require[] multiple levels of assessment of students' performance. The teacher will present the completed evaluations to Ms. Henry each Friday. "Students' Assessment Papers" and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.A.3. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.A.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 3, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION A review of the teachers' gradebook and students' folders revealed only two to five teacher graded assignments. There was no documented nor observed activities in which students evaluated their own or each others' performance. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will include at least one (1) class activity each week that requires students to assess their own classwork or the classwork of another student. The teacher will present the completed evaluations to Ms. Henry each Friday. "Students' Assessment Papers," Ms. Henry, and Ms. Howard were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.A.4. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by January 3, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The teacher did not use a variety of assessment techniques to assess students' performance. A review of the gradebook revealed that only two to four grades had been recorded since the beginning of the school year. A review of students' folders revealed only two to three papers filed with dates [of] September, 1999. During the observation period, students were only required by the teacher to provide written responses to assignments. Most students did not complete the assignments. Of the 23 students present only 3 submitted papers for the FCAT assignment while 6 did so for the reading assignment and 17 for the vocabulary quiz. The teacher made no attempt to assess students' progress other than collecting papers at the end of the class. There was no evidence in the gradebook or student folders of unit tests, projects, homework, etc. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will present to Ms. Henry on a weekly basis her gradebook and sampling of students' folders showing classwork and the teacher's assessment of that classwork. The teacher must also properly label grades in the gradebook according to the assignment and date. "Lesson Plans" and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.B.2. The Second Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.B.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete "weekly on Friday," from January 3, 2000, through January 19, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION There were no summative assessments reflected in students' folders nor in the teacher's gradebook for the period of August 31 through December 8, 1999. There were only two to four grades recorded for her five classes during the above period. There were no unit test[s] with a variety of test items. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will prepare a unit test which will include the following: 20 multiple choice question[s] 10 matching items 5 fill in the blank items 2 essay questions Submit to principal for review prior to testing of students. The "Handbook for Educators on Authentic Assessment Techniques" and Ms. Henry were listed in the Second Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.B.3. Respondent failed to timely complete the "prescription plan activities" set forth in the Second Report. On January 19, 2000, Ms. Henry presented Respondent with a memorandum advising Respondent that she was being "granted 24 hours to complete" these activities and that "[f]ailure to comply w[ould] result in disciplinary action." On January 25, 2000, Respondent was again formally observed in her classroom by Mr. Meehan. Mr. Meehan rated Respondent deficient in "preparation and planning" (Categories I.A.1. and 2. and B.1. and 2.); "classroom management" (Categories III.A.3., B.2. and 4., and C.1. and 4.); "techniques of instruction" (Categories IV.B.1.,2., and 3.); and "assessment techniques" (Categories VI.A.1., 2., and 4 and B.2. and 3.). These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Following Mr. Meehan's January 25, 2000, observation, he completed a "record of observed deficiencies/prescription for performance improvement" (Third Report). The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category I.A.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructor did not have written lesson plans for the lesson presented. She did not have a stated objective, a homework assignment, activities or a means of monitoring student progress. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will develop weekly lesson plans containing objectives, activities, homework, and a means of monitoring student progress. She will submit the plans to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion on each Friday prior to their implementation. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category I.A.1. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category I.A.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The objectives of the lesson were not based on nor did they go beyond the Competency Based Curriculum or the Sunshine State Standards. Since there was no written lesson plan and learning outcomes were not communicated to students, it was difficult to decipher what the instructor was attempting to accomplish. When preparing to distribute a handout to students at the beginning of the period, she stated, "These are the wrong ones." She distributed them anyway. Since there weren't enough copies, she said, "You'll just have to share. Students worked on these handouts for approximately one hour. She then sent two students to leave the room to get workbooks. Without explanation, she assigned page forty-one. Students worked on this assignment for approximately thirty minutes. Neither of these assignments was reviewed nor evaluated. Students were given free time for the remainder of the period. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will prepare detailed lesson plans with objectives based on the Competency Curriculum and the Sunshine State Standards. She will review these plans with Ms. Howard, Language Arts Chairperson, on the Friday prior to their implementation. Ms. Howard was listed in the Third Report as a "recommended resource" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category I.A.2. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category I.B.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The lesson presented by the instructor did not fill the allotted time with prepared content and instructional activities related to objectives. The first hour of the period was consumed on a vocabulary puzzle. The next thirty minutes were spent on a spontaneous assignment given from page forty-one of a workbook. Neither assignment was reviewed. The remainder of the period was given as free time. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES When preparing her weekly lesson plans, the instructor will divide the time allotted for each period into thirty minute intervals. She will them state the specific activities that will take place within each of these intervals. She will discuss these timelines with Ms. Ann Howard on the Friday prior to their implementation. Ms. Howard was listed in the Third Report as a "recommended resource" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category I.B.1. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category I.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION In the absence of a lesson plan, the instructor distributed puzzles and gave an assignment from a workbook. The remaining portion of the class was assigned as free time. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Ann Howard, regarding how to best utilize the time allotted in block scheduling to plan her classes. She will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Ms. Howard was listed in the Third Report as a "recommended resource" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category I.B.2. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.A.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Instructional activities did not continue until the end of the class period. The instructor stated that she wanted to close the period by allowing students to watch thirty minutes of television but could not because Mr. Meehan was in the room. She assigned free time instead. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Theodora Woltch regarding how to utilize the final thirty minutes of a two hour block to enhance student learning. The instructor will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Ms. Woltch was listed in the Third Report as a "recommended resource" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.A.3. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructor did not use non-verbal techniques to correct off-task behavior that was evident throughout the class period. Many of the twenty-eight students in attendance were off-task for significant periods of time. During the portion of the class when students were given classwork, three students in rows B and C read Spider Man comics, while the two students in the front of row A worked on unrelated assignments. Two students in the last seats of the middle rows of the classroom slept in each other's arms. A student in front of them drew on the arms of the student next to him. Another student in the middle of row B slept and one in the front of row C played the drums on his desk. During the entire two hour block, students left their seats to walk around the room, talk, and play. The off-task behavior was so extensive that the instructor accused the observer of collaborating with students to cause distractions. A student named Torrey stated, "Mr. Meehan, Ms. Abril thinks we're down." The student in front of row A told the instructor, "They don't do that." The instructor never attempted to return students to task by the use of non-verbal techniques such as eye contact, clapping, silence or proximity. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will observe Ms. Julie Fehr's class to see how she uses non- verbal techniques to deal with off-task behavior in her classes. She will then discuss with Ms. Fehr the techniques observed. The instructor will type a summary of her discussion and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Fehr were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.B.2. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.B.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructor did not use techniques to maintain the attention of learners who were redirected. At times during the period more than thirty-three percent of the students were off-task. Students were engaged in activities not associated with the lesson. They talked, sang, slept, and worked on unrelated assignments. The instructor attempted to verbally redirect some students, but their off-task behavior was not revisited and therefore resumed when the instructor turned her attention elsewhere. One young man in row B was corrected for using a Game Boy. He began to read a comic instead. His off-task behavior was not revisited and continued uninterrupted. He proceeded to share his comics with those around him. A young man named Torrey was told to get back to his seat after walking to the side of the room to see his reflection in a mirror. When he returned to his seat, he began to sing. His off-task behavior was never revisited. Verbal and non-verbal techniques to maintain the attention of redirected learners were not evident in this instructor's classroom. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will observe Ms. Theodora Woltch's class to observe how she deals with off-task student behavior. The instructor will prepare a typed summary of this observation and develop a plan to incorporate some of the strategies she learned to reduce the frequency of off-task behavior in her classes. The instructor will submit the material to Mr. Meehan for review prior to implementation. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Woltch were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.B.4. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The inappropriate behavior manifested by students throughout the class period indicated that expectations about behavior were not made clear to learners. When seeking clarification about the puzzle assignments, students repeatedly blurted out questions without raising their hands. No standardized procedures were established for students to turn in their assignments. Some walked to the front of the room while others passed their papers to students in front of them or beside them. Students left their seats at will to walk around the room or open the classroom doors. With five minutes remaining in the period all of the students, except one, left their seats to go to the door. Some pushed the door open while others tried to close it. These inappropriate behaviors indicated that expectations about behavior had not been communicated previously. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will establish a set o[f] rules regarding appropriate student behavior and classroom procedures. She will type these rules and discuss them with Mr. Meehan before posting them around her classroom. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.1. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category III.C.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Students who acted inappropriately or otherwise interfered with the work of others were not dealt with appropriately or with suitable consequences by this instructor. Of the twenty-eight students present in the classroom more than 50 percent walked in late, thereby disturbing students attempting to do the puzzle assignment. Nothing was said by the instructor. Neither the students in rows B and C who began singing, "I'm a Soul Man," nor the students in row A who began singing an unidentified song, were given consequences as a result of their misbehavior. The instructor made no attempt to subdue or control the constant buzz created by students talking and yelling to each other across the room. Most of the students present contributed to this noise which lasted the entire two hour period. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The teacher will design an assertive discipline plan that includes suitable rules and appropriate consequences for students who misbehave in class. The plan will also include a suitable reward system to promote and maintain appropriate student behavior in class. In addition, the teacher will prepare a seating chart for each class. Using the charts, the teacher will record instances when students misbehave or otherwise interfere with the work of other students and the consequences imposed as a result of the behavior. The teacher will analyze her instruction to determine which techniques are most effective in dealing with inappropriate behavior. The teacher will submit this information to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. The "Assertive Discipline Handbook" and Mr. Meehan were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category III.C.4. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.B.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Feedback was not provided to students about weaknesses in their performance. The assignments for the class period were a puzzle and page forty-one of the "Buckle Down" workbook. These assignments were neither reviewed nor corrected during the class period. Since the instructor failed to monitor the performance of students as a group or individually, she was not able to provide feedback regarding inadequacies in their work. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Ann Howard regarding practical methods that can be utilized during class to monitor the performance of students and provide feedback regarding their inadequacies. She will type a summary of the interview and present it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.B.1. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Feedback was not provided to students about strengths in their performance. The instructor failed to monitor the performance of the students on any of the assignments during this class period. She was therefore unable to acknowledge good work and adequate performance. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Ann Howard regarding practical methods that can be utilized during class to monitor the performance of students and provide feedback about their good work. The instructor will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.B.2. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category IV.B.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION No suggestions for improving student performance were made by the instructor during the class period. The instructor neither orally reviewed the answers to the assignments nor individually corrected student work. Consequently, she could not make suggestions for improving student performance and an opportunity for enhancing student learning was lost. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Ann Howard about how learning is enhanced when suggestions for improvement are specific to the learner and the learning task, and when they are communicated in a way that encourages continued effort. She will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category IV.B.3. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.A.1., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION During this two hour class period there was no formal or informal examination of pupil work by the instructor. She made no attempt to periodically assess student progress by moving about the room making appropriate observations and asking pertinent questions. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Theodora Woltch regarding making informal assessments of student work by moving about the room and asking probing questions. She will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Woltch were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.A.1. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.A.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructor did not solicit responses or demonstrations from pupils relative to instructional objectives. She did not ask questions that reflected lesson content nor did she require students to demonstrate what they learned. There were no informal assessment techniques used by the instructor during this class period. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Theodora Woltch regarding various ways to informally assess student work by having them demonstrate what they have learned during the class period. The instructor will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Woltch were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.A.2. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.A.4., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The instructor did not have students evaluate their own and/or each other's performance. She did not request that learner's work together on checking each other's work or that pupils check their own responses against answers in the book or on the chalkboard. There was no assessment of student learning and progress made during this lesson. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will discuss with Ms. Ann Howard, Language Arts Chairperson, the advantages of having students grade their own work or each other's assignments during a class period. The instructor will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Howard were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.A.4. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.B.2., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION An examination of student folders revealed no evidence that more than one kind of assessment was made during the second quarter. Formative assessments such as a library classwork assignment and one quiz were found in some folders but there was no indication that any summative assessment was made during the second nine week grading period. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will read an article from an educational textbook or journal regarding formative and summative assessments. She will type a summary of this article and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Harrell were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.B.2. The Third Report contained the following accurate "summary/description" of Respondent's deficiency in Category VI.B.3., and directed Respondent to engage in and complete by February 16, 2000, the following "prescription plan activities" that were reasonably designed to help her improve her performance in this category: DEFICIENCY SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Student folders did not indicate that adequate and sufficient summative assessments were made by the instructor during the second nine week grading period. There was no evidence of a summative assessment that included essay questions or performance tasks which are required of students to pass the FCAT examination. PRESCRIPTION PLAN ACTIVITIES The instructor will interview Ms. Julie Fehr regarding types of essay questions and performance tasks that should be included in ninth grade English assessments. She will type a summary of this interview and submit it to Mr. Meehan for review and discussion. Mr. Meehan and Ms. Fehr were listed in the Third Report as "recommended resources" Respondent could draw upon to improve her performance in Category VI.B.3. On January 27, 2000, Ms. Henry held a conference- for-the-record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's failure to complete the "prescription plan activities" set forth in the First and Second Reports. Also present were Craig Speziale, an assistant principal at Carol City, and United Teachers of Dade representatives. At the conference, Ms. Henry reviewed the First and Second Reports with Respondent and admonished her for not completing the "prescription plan activities" set forth in these reports, which, she informed Respondent, she considered to constitute insubordination for which Respondent would receive an unsatisfactory rating in the seventh TADS category, professional responsibility. Ms. Henry subsequently completed a "record of observed deficiencies/prescription for performance improvement" (Fourth Report), in which she rated Respondent deficient in Category VII.B. based upon her "fail[ure] to comply with prescriptive activities and timeliness as outlined in the [First and Second Reports]" and directed her to complete all of these "prescriptive activities" no later than February 16, 2000. A copy of the Fourth Report was provided to Respondent on January 31, 2000. On that same day, January 31, 2000, Mr. Meehan directed Respondent to report for a "post-observation conference" to discuss the Third Report. Respondent refused to go. Respondent was formally observed in her classroom for a final time on February 18, 2000. This observation was conducted by Ms. Henry. Ms. Henry justifiably found Respondent to be deficient in "preparation and planning," "knowledge of subject matter," "classroom management," "techniques of instruction," and "assessment techniques." Because Respondent's 90-day "performance probation period" had expired without Respondent having corrected her performance deficiencies, and Ms. Henry therefore intended to recommend Respondent's termination, the report that Ms. Henry completed following the observation (Final Report) did not contain any additional "prescription plan activities" for Respondent to complete. The "prescription plan activities" described in the First, Second, and Third Reports were not completed by Respondent. On February 19, 2000, the day following Ms. Henry's formal observation of Respondent, Respondent was absent from school. Respondent telephoned the school to notify the administration of her absence, stating that she had injured her ankle and foot on February 17, 2000, and that she did not intend to return to work until after she had been seen by a doctor. Respondent never returned to work. (She did go to Carol City, however, on February 25, 2000, to pick up her pay check. During this visit, Respondent was asked to sign the Final Report, as well as a written recommendation for her termination that Ms. Henry had prepared and sent to the regional and district offices on or about February 22, 2000. Respondent refused to sign these documents.) By letter dated February 24, 2000, the Superintendent of Schools advised Petitioner that, pursuant to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, he was recommending that the School Board, at its March 15, 2000, meeting "terminate her employment contract as a teacher, effective at the close of the workday, March 15, 2000 . . . because [she had] failed to satisfactorily correct identified performance deficiencies during [her] 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation and [because of her] gross insubordination." In his letter, the Superintendent further informed Respondent that she could contest his recommendation by requesting, within 15 days of her receipt of the notice, a hearing on the matter. Respondent requested such a hearing. Respondent was suspended without pay pending the outcome of the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment on the ground set forth in Count I of the Notice of Specific Charges ("Unsatisfactory Performance"). DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 8th day of September, 2000.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher, for alleged violations of various School Board rules and policies, as outlined in the Superintendent’s letter to Respondent, dated June 15, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of Sarasota County, the entity responsible for operating, monitoring, staffing, and maintaining the public schools within Sarasota County, in accordance with Part II, Chapter 1001, Florida Statutes (2009). The School is a middle school operated by Petitioner. Petitioner employed Respondent, Brian Berry, as a teacher at the School for several years. Respondent taught students with ESE designation. Respondent is an “instructional employee” under the Instructional Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association (“Union”), and Petitioner (July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2009, for the 2008-2009 year)(the “Collective Bargaining Agreement”). Article XXV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement governs disciplinary actions against teachers, including Respondent. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires there to be just cause for any discipline. Normally, the following progressive discipline steps are administered: (1) verbal reprimand; (2) written reprimand; (3) suspension and, (4) termination. Following progressive discipline is not required “in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or other flagrant violations.” During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent’s classroom was one of four classrooms arranged in a quadrant fashion around a center internal office that connects the four classrooms to each other. Respondent’s room was in the southwest quadrant. Holmes had the room in the northwest quadrant. Brooks had the room in the southeast quadrant. Like Respondent, Holmes and Brooks taught ESE students. Brooks and Respondent shared a paraprofessional, Collins. Bazenas became the School’s principal in April 2006, and has been its principal since that time. Before resorting to the progressive discipline system, School administration routinely counsel employees on an informal basis when there is a concern. Generally, the counseling occurs as a conversation between the administrator and instructor. This informal counseling is non-punitive. Administrators also use Memorandums of Instruction to clarify expectations. A Memorandum of Instruction is also non-punitive in nature; however, failing to abide by the expectation contained in a Memorandum of Instruction could warrant discipline. Respondent’s prior disciplinary history includes: Verbal Reprimand, dated December 17, 2007, for failing to monitor students. Verbal Reprimand, dated January 19, 2009, for failing to submit student attendance on 39 occasions during the 2008- 2009 school year through January 6, 2009. Written Reprimand, dated January 20, 2009, for failing to follow three separate Memorandums of Instruction concerning posting student attendance and for failing to report student attendance on January 7, 2009. Individual Education Plans During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was the case manager responsible for drafting Individual Education Plans (“IEPs”) for several of his students. Under federal law, IEPs must be updated at least once each year. Failing to update an IEP by the time the prior IEP becomes out of date means such IEP is out of compliance. This jeopardizes ESE funding, which comes from state and federal sources. During the 2008-2009 school year, there was an ESE liaison (Cindy Lowery) at the School who routinely and timely reminded case managers, including Respondent, of their IEP responsibilities, important deadlines, and steps necessary to be taken by the case manager. At the beginning of the school year, Lowery explained the procedures to case managers, including Respondent. Respondent received numerous reminders prior to the expiration of each IEP for which he was responsible. The expectations relating to IEP completion were clear and known to case managers, including Respondent, at all relevant times. At all times during the 2008-2009 school year prior to his being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent had the ability to complete in a timely manner each IEP for which he was responsible. He also had access to all materials and assistance necessary to timely complete each of the IEPs. During school year 2008-2009, Respondent was the case manager and responsible for the IEPs of students A.M. (due 11/27/08; completed 12/1/08); J.G. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); U.S. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); J.C. (due 2/20/09; completed 2/25/09); N.C. (due 3/3/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009); B.B. (due 3/11/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009). Reporting Attendance Teachers are required to take classroom attendance each period and timely post that attendance into the School’s computer program that tracks attendance. This expectation is contained in the School’s staff handbook, which is developed and reviewed annually by a shared-decision making team, composed of administrators, teachers, and community members. Reporting attendance each period is a safety and security matter. Reporting attendance also assists with accountability for funding purposes. During the 2008-2009 school year prior to being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent failed to report attendance in at least one period on: August 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29; September 3, 4, 9 - 12, 15, 16, 22, 26, 30; October 1, 3, 7 - 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29; November 6, 7, 12, 18, 20, 21, 25; December 4, 5, 10; January 6, 7; February 19, 24; and March 3, 4, 10, 13, and 16. In all but six of those dates, Respondent failed to report attendance for multiple periods. On October 20, 2008, November 24, 2008, and January 7, 2009, administrators at the School provided Respondent with Memorandums of Instruction reminding Respondent of the need to submit attendance electronically each period. FCAT Proctoring On March 10 and 11, 2009, the FCAT was administered at the School. Respondent was assigned to proctor students who were permitted testing accommodations. Some permitted accommodations included extended testing time and having proctors read questions. Testing of these students occurred in the School’s media center. Another ESE teacher, Aisha Holmes, was also assigned to proctor similar students. Proctors were instructed that they needed to sign-in and sign-out upon entering and leaving the media center; that they could not engage in personal reading; and that they needed to actively supervise the students at all times. A preponderance of evidence supports the finding that Respondent engaged in the following activities contrary to his duties as proctor: Over the two-day proctoring session, Respondent failed to sign-in and sign-out every time that he took a break. Respondent engaged in personal reading and other non-proctoring activities when he was required to be actively proctoring the FCAT. Respondent stood over student S.L.’s shoulder for a time period exceeding two minutes. While Respondent contends that he was trying to determine if S.L. had finished, S.L. had not finished. Respondent’s actions were intimidating to S.L. On the second testing day, Respondent fell asleep on a couch in the media center for a period of time when he should have been actively proctoring. Respondent snored, causing a disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. While the length of time Respondent slept was in dispute, the evidence demonstrates that it was considerably longer than a brief moment as advanced by Respondent. On the second day of testing, a student spilled juice on that student’s reference sheet. Respondent placed the reference sheet in the microwave but did not monitor the drying process. The microwave scorched the reference sheet, resulting in a burnt smell invading the testing area and causing another disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. Use of Video with No Learning Objective in Place In February 2009, Respondent showed the movie “Happy Feet” to his class. He concedes that he had no learning objective in mind in showing this video. Although Respondent explained that in his opinion, no learning could be accomplished that day due to the death of a co-teacher’s fiancé, Respondent conceded that he requested no assistance in addressing this situation despite such assistance being available to him. Lesson Plans Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans at least one week in advance. Teachers are also required to have the lesson plan on their desk and available for review. The lesson plan expectations are contained in the School’s staff handbook. The lesson plans are the guiding document for instruction, which requires teachers to give forethought as to the content of their lessons. It is used by teachers to focus their lessons, by administrators to ensure content aligns with teaching objectives, and by substitutes in the absence of the teacher. It is undisputed that the School’s administration repeatedly counseled Respondent to create and have lesson plans available. Respondent failed to have lesson plans completed and available for the week of October 6, November 17, and December 15, 2008, and January 5, January 20 and February 2, 2009. February 3, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On February 3, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for Students J.G. and U.S. That meeting also addressed Respondent’s continued failure to comply with school policy on maintaining lesson plans. It is undisputed that Respondent failed to timely complete the IEPs for students J.G. and U.S., and that he failed to comply with the lesson plan requirement. March 16, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On the afternoon of Monday, March 16, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent and others met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss: (1) Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. prior to their IEPs becoming out of compliance; (2) the FCAT proctoring matters; (3) use of the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective; (4) continued failure to comply with the lesson plan expectation; (5) tardiness on March 9, and March 10, 2009; and (6) use of the girls’ restroom.1 It is undisputed that Respondent failed to complete the IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. in a timely manner, and that he used the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective in place. During the meeting, Bazenas presented Respondent with the summary of Holmes’ observations of Respondent’s conduct while proctoring the FCAT. Respondent conceded that he was inattentive at times during FCAT proctoring and did fall asleep for some period of time during the FCAT, although he disputes it was for 45 minutes. March 17, 2009, Confrontation On the morning of Tuesday, March 17, 2009, Respondent entered Holmes’ classroom to “discuss” Holmes’ summary of her observations of Respondent during the FCAT. A student, whom Holmes was tutoring, was present in Holmes’ room at the time. Holmes was uncomfortable with Respondent’s insistence on discussing the FCAT matter at that time in front of the student. Holmes advised Respondent that she would talk to him later. Respondent, however, persisted in continuing his challenge to Holmes’ FCAT proctoring observations in front of the student. At that point, Bazenas entered Holmes’s room. Bazenas observed that the situation was “tense” and that Holmes was backed into a corner of the room. Bazenas also observed that the student that was present looked very uncomfortable. At that point, Bazenas, in a reasonable voice, requested that Respondent return to his own classroom to supervise his students. Respondent immediately became upset and began yelling at Bazenas, telling Bazenas not to interrupt him. Respondent approached him and pointed his finger in Bazenas’ face. At that time, Collins was in Brooks’ room. Collins heard shouting coming from the direction of Holmes’ room. Collins proceeded into the center office of the quad. She observed Respondent shouting at Bazenas that he was a “liar” and that Respondent would see Bazenas “in court.” Collins did not hear Bazenas raise his voice. Collins was fearful of Respondent; she had never seen Respondent act in that way. She also testified that Bazenas looked fearful of Respondent. Respondent then proceeded into his classroom and Bazenas followed Respondent into the classroom. He put himself between Respondent and his students, permitting Collins to remove the students from Respondent’s classroom, taking them into Brooks’ classroom. Respondent continued with his emotional outburst during this time. When Bazenas requested that Respondent leave campus immediately, Respondent threatened Bazenas. Bazenas subjectively believed that Respondent’s agitated behavior and his statement to be a threat of violence. Respondent also directed inappropriate comments to his students about Bazenas during his outburst. As Collins brought Respondent’s students into Brooks’ classroom, Collins was shaking and looked very fearful. After all of Respondent’s students were in Brooks’ classroom, Brooks locked the doors. Locking the doors is an unusual occurrence; however, Respondent did leave campus voluntarily. Respondent was immediately placed on administrative leave. Shortly thereafter, a police officer went to Respondent’s house to advise Respondent to stay away from campus. Respondent complied with the request. Respondent’s outburst on March 17, 2009, constituted a real and immediate threat to the School administration, teachers and students and was a flagrant violation of school policies and the State Principles of Professional Conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent from the date Respondent was placed on unpaid leave of absence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of January, 2010.
The Issue Should Respondent be discharged or otherwise disciplined for violations of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (11941), as amended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sydria Carter holds Florida Educator's Certificate number 403413, valid through June 30, 2002, which authorizes her to teach early childhood education and elementary education. She holds a bachelor's degree and a master's degree from Jacksonville University. Ms. Carter was employed by the Duval County School Board as a tenured teacher during all times pertinent. She has been a teacher for about 24 years. Since the 1997-98 school year, she has taught pre-kindergarten at Wesconnett Elementary School. Her pre-kindergarten class for the 2000-01 school year was populated by 20 students. Michael Fleck (Michael), on August 15, 2000, was a four-year-old-boy. August 15, 2000, was Michael's first day in school. He was assigned to Ms. Carter's class at Wesconnett. Michael is the son of Teresa Fleck. On August 15, 2000, she and Michael went together to orientation in the school cafeteria. When orientation was completed, Michael and the other children in his class departed the cafeteria with Ms. Carter and Ms. Fleck. At the end of the school day when Ms. Fleck retrieved Michael, she believed that he was stressed, but after conversations with him, she concluded that he seemed fine. The second day of school, August 16, 2000, Ms. Fleck again took Michael to the Wesconnett cafeteria. Michael expressed a desire to return home, but Ms. Fleck left him there and he proceeded to his class with Ms. Carter. Ms. Carter's class is conducted in a portable classroom. Entrance to the portable classroom is obtained via a ramp. During the lunch period of the second day of school, around 12:30 p.m., Michael was present at the midpoint of the ramp and screaming, "I want my Mommy." He was attempting to flee. Ms. Carter was struggling with Michael in an effort to prevent him from running away. The struggle continued for about one minute. She managed at one point to get her arms under his arms in a manner that Ms. Carter described as the "Heimlich Maneuver," and dragged him toward the door of the portable classroom. As she approached the door she slapped Michael on the back of the head. This was observed by Nickie Gunnoe, a first grade teacher with eight years of experience. Ms. Gunnoe had a clear view of the events which occurred on the ramp leading to the door of Ms. Carter's classroom. Ms. Gunnoe believed that excessive force was used by Ms. Carter with regard to Michael. Because of this she reported the incident to the principal of Wesconnett, Michael Akers. This report was made on the following day, August 17, 2000. When Ms. Fleck arrived at Wesconnett on August 16, 2000, to pick up Michael, she observed the children exit the classroom with Ms. Carter and saw that Michael was in the rear. He was crying. Michael said he wanted to take his candy home. He continued crying as Ms. Fleck escorted him toward her vehicle. Michael said that Ms. Carter had been mad at him three times. En route to her vehicle Ms. Fleck approached Ms. Carter and a brief discussion ensued with regard to Michael. Ms. Carter told Ms. Fleck that Michael was going to have to "adjust." When Ms. Fleck arrived at her vehicle she attempted to secure Michael into the seat. He continued to cry hysterically. Ms. Fleck discovered red marks under his arm and then proceeded with Michael directly to the Principal's office. At the Principal's office Ms. Fleck had a discussion with Principal Akers. Law enforcement officers were called and joined in the discussion. Ms. Carter also entered the office. Photographs of Michael's underarms were taken by police officers. The photographs depict a bright red mark under the left armpit. Ms. Fleck observed indentations consistent with fingernail impressions in the reddened area. These indentations could not be detected in the photographs. However, the angle from which the photographs were taken were not conducive to depicting the type of indentations which were described. At the principal's office, when Ms. Carter appeared on the scene, Michael asserted that she was the person who had perpetrated the injuries which resulted in his acquisition of the red marks. Ms. Carter, at that time, as well as at the time of the hearing, had long fingernails. The actions of Ms. Carter in forcefully grabbing Michael were entirely consistent with her duty to protect the child from running away from school and exposing himself to serious harm from traffic or other hazards. To the extent Michael suffered abrasions, they were the natural and probable consequences of his escape attempt. The slap administered to Michael's head, however, was in excess of the action necessary to protect Michael, and was a battery. The next day, August 18, 2001, Michael told his mother that Ms. Carter had grabbed his hair and, "throwed him on the nappy mat," because he didn't have a blanket. As a result of this statement Ms. Fleck called the Principal which precipitated the arrival of a police evidence technician at her house. Photographs were taken of Michael's head by the police evidence technician. The photographs were entirely consistent with the thesis that his scalp had been pierced by long fingernails when his head had been grasped. The wounds appeared in the photograph to be recently incurred. Ms. Fleck had not observed any marks on Michael's body prior to August 16, 2001. It is apparent that the marks resulted from Ms. Carter's forcefully, and inexcusably, grabbing Michael's head. Subsequent to the events of August 16, 2000, Michael did not attend school because he was traumatized by his experience with his first teacher, Ms. Carter. During the 1996-97 school year, and again the following year, the Principal of Wesconnett, Mr. Akers, counseled Ms. Carter concerning the excessive use of force with children. In 1996 he specifically counseled her to avoid putting her hands on a child except in an emergency situation, when the child was in danger, or when the child was endangering others. Ms. Carter's personnel record reflects a satisfactory performance while employed at Wesconnett. Ms. Carter's explanations of the events giving rise to Michael's injuries, to a substantial extent, did not comport with the other evidence adduced at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Finding that Ms. Carter violated Article 1, Section 4 of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act by refusing to obey the laws of the State of Florida or regulations adopted by authority of law, specifically, Rule 6B-1.006(3)(f), Florida Administrative Code, by intentionally denying a student's right to be free from being battered by his teacher. Suspending Ms. Carter without pay for a period of one school year beginning on August 15, 2000, in lieu of discharge, and requiring as a condition of reinstatement, the completion of such anger management training as the Duval County Public Schools may deem appropriate, prior to the beginning of the 2001-02 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 15th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ernst D. Mueller, Esquire Office of the General Counsel City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 John C. Freyer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2115 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
