The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to dismiss a paraprofessional for just cause based principally upon the allegation that she struck a disabled student on the head with her elbows.
Findings Of Fact Background The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Cynthia Thompson ("Thompson") had worked in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for approximately 16 years. From August 2002 forward, and at all times relevant to this case, Thompson was employed as an education paraprofessional at Neva King Cooper Education Center, where she provided educational services to students having severe developmental disabilities. The alleged events giving rise to this case allegedly occurred on January 6, 2006. The School Board alleges that on that date, in the cafeteria at around 9:00 a.m., as a breakfast session was winding down, Thompson used her elbows to strike one of the students in her charge, a profoundly mentally handicapped, 15-year-old female named K. P., on the head. This allegation is based on the account of a single eyewitness—— Latanya Stephenson, the school's assistant registrar.1 Thompson consistently has maintained her innocence, denying that she hit K. P. as charged. She claims——and testified at hearing——that she merely used her arms to prevent K. P. from getting up to rummage through the garbage can in search of food and things to put in her mouth. This, then, is a "she said——she said" case that boils down to a credibility contest between Thompson and Ms. Stephenson. If Ms. Stephenson's account is truthful and accurate, then Thompson is guilty of at least one of the charges against her. On the other hand, if Thompson's account is believed, then she is not guilty of misconduct. Given that the credibility determination drives the outcome, the undersigned will first, as a predicate to evaluating the evidence, set forth the two material witness's respective accounts of the incident in question, and then make determinations, to the extent possible, as to what might have happened. It is important to note, however, that the findings in the next two sections merely report what each witness said occurred; these do not necessarily correspond to the undersigned's findings about what likely took place in the cafeteria at Neva King Cooper Education Center on January 6, 2006. Stephenson's Story Ms. Stephenson recounts that on the morning in question, while on break, she went to the cafeteria to get a snack. She went through the line, bought a cookie, and, before leaving the building, stopped to chat with two custodians who were sitting in a closet that holds supplies. As she leaned against a wall, listening to the custodians' conversation, Ms. Stephenson looked back into the cafeteria and, at a distance of about 10 to 12 feet, saw Thompson interact with K. P. K. P. was sitting at a table, her chair pushed in close, hands in her lap. Thompson, whose hands were clasped in front of her body, approached K. P. from behind and——after "scanning" the room——struck her twice in the head, first with her right elbow and then, rotating her body, with her left elbow. Ms. Stephenson heard the blows, saw K. P.'s head move, and heard K. P. moan. Ms. Stephenson called out Thompson's name, and Thompson, apologizing, explained that K. P. repeatedly had tried to pick through the garbage can in search of things to eat. Thompson told Ms. Stephenson that she would not hit K. P. again, but that striking the student was an effective means of getting her to stay put. Ms. Stephenson did not check on K. P. to see if she were injured or in need of assistance. According to Ms. Stephenson, there were about 40 to 50 students in the cafeteria at the time, ranging in age from three to 22 years. There were also approximately 12 to 15 members of the instructional staff (i.e. teachers and paraprofessionals) present, meaning that, besides Thompson and Ms. Stephenson, about a dozen responsible adults were on hand at the time of the incident in dispute. Ms. Stephenson did not bring the incident to the attention of any of the teachers or paralegals who were in the cafeteria at the time. Thompson's Testimony Thompson was responsible for three students at breakfast that morning. The teacher under whose supervision she worked, Mr. Ibarra, was watching the other five students in the class. Mr. Ibarra was on one side of the table, Thompson the other. Thompson was feeding one of her students, "R.", while watching K. P. and a third student. R. did not want to eat, so to coax him into opening his mouth, Thompson was playing an "airplane game" with him, trying to make the feeding fun. Thompson had a plastic utensil in her right hand, with which she was feeding R. some applesauce (or similar food); in her left hand was a toy. At the time of the alleged incident, some students had finished breakfast and been brought back to their classrooms. Still, there were quite a few people in the cafeteria, 60 to 80 by Thompson's reckoning, including adults.2 K. P. was sitting at the table, behind Thompson; they had their backs to one another. Consequently, while feeding R., Thompson needed to look over her shoulder to keep an eye on K. P. Suddenly, Thompson noticed K. P. starting to rise from her chair. (K. P. has a history of darting to the garbage can, grabbing food and trash, and putting these things in her mouth to eat.) Thompson reached back with her right arm and, placing her elbow on K. P.'s left shoulder, prevented the child from getting up. K. P. then tried slipping out to her (K. P.'s) right, whereupon Thompson swung around and, with her left arm, blocked K. P.'s escape. Right after this happened, Ms. Stephenson spoke to Thompson, criticizing her handling of K. P. Thompson explained to Ms. Stephenson (who, as an assistant registrar, does not work directly with the children) that she simply had prevented K. P. from getting into the trash can. Ms. Stephenson walked away. Soon thereafter, Mr. Ibarra said, "Let's go." The children were escorted back to the classroom. Resolutions of Evidential Conflict The competing accounts of what occurred are sufficiently in conflict as to the crucial points that both cannot simultaneously be considered fully accurate. The fact- finder's dilemma is that either of the two material witnesses possibly might have reported the incident faithfully to the truth, for neither witness's testimony is inherently incredible, impossible, or patently a fabrication. Having observed both witnesses on the stand, moreover, the undersigned discerned no telltale signs of deception in the demeanor of either witness. In short, neither of the competing accounts can be readily dismissed as false. Of course, it is not the School Board's burden to prove to a certainty that its allegations are true, but only that its allegations are most likely true. As the fact-finder, the undersigned therefore must consider how likely it is that the incident took place as described by the respective witnesses. In her testimony, Ms. Stephenson told of an unprovoked battery on a defenseless disabled person. It is an arresting story, shocking if true. Ms. Stephenson appeared to possess a clear memory of the event, and she spoke with confidence about it. Nothing in the evidence suggests that Ms. Stephenson had any reason to make up the testimony she has given against Thompson. Nevertheless, some aspects of Ms. Stephenson's testimony give the undersigned pause. There is, to start, the matter of the large number of persons——including at least a dozen responsible adults, not to mention about 50 students——who were on hand as potential witnesses to the alleged misdeed. The undersigned hesitates to believe that Thompson would attack a child in plain view of so many others, particularly in the absence of any provocation that might have caused her suddenly to snap.3 The cafeteria would not likely have afforded Thompson a favorable opportunity for hitting K. P., were she inclined to do so. Next, it puzzles the undersigned that Ms. Stephenson did not immediately signal to someone——anyone——in the cafeteria for help. The undersigned expects that a school employee witnessing the beating of a disabled child under the circumstances described by Ms. Stephenson would promptly enlist the aid of other responsible persons nearby. Indeed, the undersigned can think of no reason (none was given) for Ms. Stephenson's rather tepid response to a violent, despicable deed——other than that it did not happen exactly the way she described it. Finally, Ms. Stephenson's incuriosity about K. P.'s condition after the alleged beating is curious. Having, she says, witnessed Thompson twice strike K. P. in the head with enough force that the blows could be heard over the din of dozens of children, and having heard K. P. moan, presumably in pain, Ms. Stephenson by her own admission made no attempt to ascertain whether the child was hurt or in need of attention. This indifference to the welfare of the alleged victim strikes the undersigned as inconsistent with Ms. Stephenson's testimony that Thompson attacked the child. Turning to Thompson's testimony, she, like Ms. Stephenson, has not been shown to have a motive for lying about the incident in question——assuming she is innocent of the charges, which the undersigned must do unless and until the greater weight of the evidence proves otherwise. Thompson is, however, a convicted felon, which is a chink in her credibility's armor. That said, there is nothing obviously discordant about her account of the relevant events. Her testimony regarding K. P.'s proclivity for diving into trashcans is corroborated by other evidence in the record, and the undersigned accepts it as the truth. Her testimony about the feeding of R. was not rebutted and therefore is credited. Her explanation for having used her arms and elbows (while her hands were full) to block K. P. from racing to the garbage is believable.4 If there is anything eyebrow-raising about Thompson's testimony, it is that the blocking maneuver she described, quickly twisting her body around from right to left, elbows and arms in motion, seemingly posed the nontrivial risk of accidentally hitting the child, possibly in the head. One is tempted to speculate that Thompson unintentionally might have struck K. P. in the course of attempting to keep her from engaging in a potentially harmful behavior, namely eating refuse from the garbage can.5 The undersigned does not, however, think or find that this happened, more likely than not, because of the "dog that didn't bark"6——or, more particularly, the teachers and paraprofessionals who never spoke up. Most likely, if Thompson had struck K. P. in the manner that Ms. Stephenson described, then the noise and commotion would have attracted the attention of someone besides Ms. Stephenson. There were, after all, approximately 12 other members of the instructional staff nearby in the cafeteria when this alleged incident occurred. Yet, no one in a position to have witnessed the alleged attack——except Ms. Stephenson——has accused Thompson of wrongdoing, nor has anyone come forward to corroborate the testimony of Ms. Stephenson. This suggests that nothing occurred which the instructional personnel, who (unlike Ms. Stephenson) regularly work directly with this special student population, considered unusual or abnormal. Taken as a whole, the evidence is insufficient to establish that, more likely than not, Thompson struck K. P. as alleged. Based on the evidence, the undersigned believes that, as between the two scenarios presented, the incident more likely occurred as Thompson described it; in other words, relative to Stephenson's account, Thompson's is more likely true. Accordingly, the undersigned accepts and adopts, as findings of historical fact, the statements made in paragraphs 6 and 9-15 above. The upshot is that the School Board failed to carry its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Thompson committed a disciplinable offense. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Thompson is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Thompson is guilty of the offense of gross insubordination. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Thompson is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's corporal punishment policy. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Thompson is guilty of the offense of unseemly conduct. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Thompson is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's policy against violence in the workplace.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Thompson of all charges brought against her in this proceeding; (b) providing that Thompson be reinstated to the position from which she was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Thompson back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a classroom teacher for the conduct alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Both West Hialeah and Aventura are public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2011-12 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher assigned to West Hialeah. Respondent's teaching assignment during the 2014-2015 school year was as a teacher at Aventura. Respondent's employment is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"), Florida Statutes, the regulations issued by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and the School Board's policies and procedures. Respondent's Prior Discipline During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was investigated for hitting an exceptional student education (ESE) student at West Hialeah. The investigation concluded that there was probable cause to charge Respondent with violating School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. As a result, a conference-for- the-record (CFR) was held on December 15, 2011, wherein OPS District Director, Dr. Brown, issued Respondent directives to: adhere to all School Board policies, specifically 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 3210.01, the Code of Ethics; and 5630, Corporal Punishment and the Use of Reasonable Force; refrain from contacting in person or by any other means any of the parties involved in the investigation; refrain from using physical means as a form of discipline; and [] conduct [herself], both in [her] employment and in the community, in a manner that reflects credit upon [herself] and the district. Respondent signed on January 3, 2012, that she was in receipt of these directives. Although the charges against Respondent relating to physical aggression against a student merited a recommendation from the School Board that Respondent be terminated, the School Board took into consideration Respondent's length of service with the School Board and the fact that she had not received any prior discipline. As such, it was recommended that Respondent be suspended for 25 workdays without pay. Respondent contested this recommendation. Following a final hearing on September 24, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Stuart M. Lerner found that Respondent used physical aggression toward an ESE student and recommended that the School Board uphold Respondent's 25-workday suspension. Ultimately, Respondent was suspended for 25 workdays without pay. The September 2011 incident was reported to the Florida Department of Education (Florida DOE), and a hearing was held on October 15, 2014, to determine whether any disciplinary measures should be taken on Respondent's educator certificate. Following that hearing, conducted by the undersigned, it was recommended to the Florida DOE that "Respondent be placed on probation for 90 days with a letter or reprimand to be placed in her certification file." The Recommended Order provided that, "[t]his penalty takes into account that Respondent's conduct, in striking the student, was inappropriate under any circumstances, but also places the conduct in perspective in relation to Respondent's otherwise incident-free teaching career." The September 17, 2014, Incident Respondent later began working as a teacher with ESE students at Aventura beginning in the 2012-2013 school year. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent worked as an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) teacher. M.C., who suffers from ASD, was a student in Respondent's class during the 2014-2015 school year. M.C. and his family are from Argentina and the 2014-2015 school year was the first year M.C. attended a public school in the United States. Initially, M.C. could not take instruction in class. Respondent worked with him to develop the skills to take instruction by demonstrating actions, repeating instruction and praising the student for doing things correctly. Respondent taught M.C. how to write his name, catch a ball, and hold a pencil. Respondent shared a classroom with fellow teacher, Ms. Stubbs. Ms. Stubbs had her own set of students with varying exceptionalities. Ms. Stubbs had six middle school students and Respondent had six elementary school students. Ms. Pollard acted as Respondent's paraprofessional, helping Respondent with her students. Additionally, Ms. Charles would assist Respondent with M.C. for a few hours each day. Respondent's planning period was during the time her students went to art once a week on Wednesday. Respondent voluntarily gave up her planning period to assist the art teacher, Ms. Garcia, with the students. Ms. Garcia worked as an art teacher at Aventura for six (6) years. On September 17, 2014, Ms. Garcia was teaching art to Respondent's students. After Ms. Garcia had provided instructions for the class, she began walking around the room while the students worked on their assignment. M.C. was seated at his desk coloring with crayons. M.C. began throwing crayons on the floor and Respondent, who had been standing behind M.C. with her hands on his shoulders, grabbed M.C.'s hands and wrists and pulled him down to the floor, causing M.C. to fall down to his knees. Respondent told M.C. to pick up the crayons in a loud tone that conveyed she was annoyed. Once Respondent had M.C. on the floor, she held M.C.'s wrists, forcing him to pick up the crayons off the floor. All the while, M.C., who is non-verbal, was making noises like he was not happy. Ms. Garcia tried to help, but Respondent did not allow her, insisting that M.C. had to clean up by himself. M.C. eventually returned to his seat and then began spitting on the floor. Once again, Respondent pulled M.C. to the floor by his wrists, causing him to land on his knees. Respondent again appeared annoyed as she was forcing M.C. to wipe up the spit. Ms. Garcia attempted once more to assist in the clean-up, but Respondent did not allow her, stating that M.C. had to clean up his own mess. Although Ms. Garcia has seen other ESE students being restrained, she has never seen a teacher treat a student like Respondent treated M.C. by forcefully pulling him to the floor. There was no indication that M.C. was going to hurt himself or other students. Although Ms. Pollard did not see the interaction between Respondent and M.C., because she was busy helping the students with their assignment, she did hear Respondent yell, "Pick it up!" in a tone loud enough to be heard over the noise of the classroom. At the end of the art class, M.C. pinched another student with ASD, K., in front of Respondent. Respondent responded by instructing K. to pinch M.C. back. Ms. Garcia was only three feet away from Respondent when she heard Respondent say this. K. is a very obedient student. When Respondent told him to pinch M.C. back, K. looked confused, shrugged his shoulders and reluctantly pinched M.C. back. Ms. Garcia was shocked by what she witnessed. She verbally intervened by telling Respondent that she would not tolerate Respondent's behavior in her classroom. Ms. Garcia admonished Respondent that the students should not be taught to retaliate against each other. Respondent just stood silent and stunned during the confrontation. Meanwhile, M.C., upset at K.'s retaliation, ran off and pinched another student, R., who retaliated by repeatedly hitting M.C. back. The situation Respondent created was total chaos. Two children, K. and R., who are otherwise well-behaved, were acting aggressively towards each other. Ms. Garcia then had to physically intervene by separating the fighting children because Respondent just stood by. Ms. Pollard, who had been outside Ms. Garcia's classroom with the rest of the class, began to wonder what was taking the other students so long. When Ms. Pollard peered back into the classroom, the expression on Ms. Garcia's face startled her. Ms. Pollard asked Ms. Garcia what was wrong, to which Ms. Garcia responded, "Do you believe she [Respondent] told K. to hit M.C.?!" Ms. Pollard looked over to Respondent, but Respondent remained silent. Ms. Garcia informed Principal Bello that she witnessed Respondent handle M.C. in an inappropriate manner and that Respondent instructed another student to pinch M.C. in retaliation. Respondent denied these allegations. Ms. Garcia did not have any issues with Respondent prior to Ms. Garcia reporting the incident to Principal Bello. After the incident, Respondent stopped coming into Ms. Garcia's classroom with her students. Respondent's Post-Incident Conduct On September 29, 2014, Mr. Bello issued Respondent a letter, directing her to refrain "from contacting any complainant(s) and/or witnesses, with the intent to interfere with the investigation of the above listed allegation." In November of 2014, M.C.'s mother, S.C., received a telephone call from Respondent on a Saturday night at around 8:00 p.m. Respondent proceeded to tell S.C. that she was going to lose her job and teaching license because of S.C.'s son, M.C. Respondent asked S.C. to have her ex-husband, M.C.'s father, write a letter and backdate it to the first day of school in August 2014. Respondent's call made S.C. feel "extremely horrible" and "guilty." S.C. did not want anyone losing their job because of her son. Subsequently, Respondent repeatedly took advantage of the fact that S.C. picked up M.C. in the classroom to talk to S.C. about the allegations. Respondent cried to S.C., telling her that M.C. had behaved well on the last day of school before the Thanksgiving break because M.C. must have known it would be Respondent's last day as his teacher. Respondent's words and actions towards S.C. made S.C. question why the school was investigating or targeting Respondent and she wanted to ask the school to stop their investigation. The effect that Respondent's words and actions had on S.C. is precisely what Petitioner tries to avoid by issuing standard directives that employees being investigated may not contact witnesses with the intent to interfere with the investigation.1/ Respondent was afforded her employee and due process rights, including the opportunity to file exceptions to the investigative report and request a superintendent's review. At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 10, 2014, the Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay and initiated dismissal proceedings against her. Respondent claims that allegations against her are falsified, that Ms. Garcia was "coached" for reasons Respondent could not articulate, and that her co-teacher, Ms. Stubbs, is out to get her. She also believes "the principal and his agents" conspired against her. Notably, Ms. Stubbs was not the individual who reported the incident. She did not provide a statement in support of the allegations nor did she testify at the final hearing. Respondent could not identify the alleged agents of the principal. Respondent's denial of the allegations and conspiracy theory are identical to the defenses she asserted in response to her prior incident of inappropriately touching a child for which she received a 25-day suspension and probation.2/ Respondent presented no credible evidence in support of these defenses. Respondent also claims that M.C.'s father gave her verbal permission at the beginning of the school year to teach his son "life skills" and put physical limits on his son. The father did not testify, there was no corroboration, and it was denied by S.C. Even assuming this was true, it is implausible that M.C.'s father, or any parent, would envision a scenario in which his child would be pulled to the ground forcibly by his teacher, or another student would be encouraged by a teacher to physically retaliate against his child, to teach "life skills." Findings of Ultimate Fact As discussed in greater detail below, Petitioner proved Respondent engaged in misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violated School Board rules 3210 and 3213.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including Respondent's prior 25-day suspension for similar conduct (inappropriate physical contact with a student) and the seriousness of these violations, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, Dr. Eric J. Smith, as Commissioner of Education, against the Respondent, Kenneth Griffin, are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate No. 963010, covering the areas of educational leadership, middle grades integrated curriculum, reading, and exceptional student education, valid through June 30, 2012. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed as a reading teacher at Plant City High School (PCHS), a unit of the Hillsborough County School District. On January 28, 2010, the Respondent engaged in an online conversation ("chat") on the "MySpace" social networking Internet site, with a 15-year-old high school student. At the time of the chat, the student was enrolled at another unit of the Hillsborough County School District. The Respondent and student were acquainted because the student had previously been enrolled at PCHS and had participated in the PCHS cross-country track team, and the Respondent had been the team's coach. During the chat with the student, the Respondent made reference to the student's physical appearance, to masturbation and the size of the student's penis, and to the student's girlfriend. According to the log of the chat, the Respondent directed the student to clear the chat screen when the chat was completed. The student's mother was able to monitor her son's online activities from her computer. After the chat was completed, the student's mother reviewed the interaction between her son and the Respondent and printed the chat log screens. She immediately sent a MySpace message to the Respondent and voiced her displeasure with the nature of the interaction, but said she was not contacting school officials because she was concerned about her son being "humiliated" by the interaction. She told the Respondent to "leave my son alone!" Upon his return from a social event later that evening, the Respondent received the mother's message. Shortly before 1:00 a.m., on January 29, 2010, the Respondent sent an email to the PCHS principal advising that he had received a message from an upset parent related to his chat with the student. He wrote "this has happened in the past, and I have changed my password a few times but hackers continue to hack my account." The Respondent denied that there had been anything "out of line" about the chat with the student. A few hours later, the Respondent came to the PCHS principal's office upon his own volition and again advised the principal that a parent was upset about the chat, but, at that time, the Respondent claimed that the chat had actually been conducted between the student and an acquaintance of the Respondent. The principal contacted a Hillsborough County School Board (School Board) official and advised of the situation. The School Board initiated a review of the matter and obtained the printed chat logs from the student's mother. On February 1, 2010, after meeting with School Board investigators, the Respondent resigned from his employment with the Hillsborough County School District. The Respondent asserted that he resigned because he was advised that the matter would become public if the School Board initiated disciplinary action and that he was further advised that he could resume his teaching career elsewhere. The Respondent has acknowledged conducting a chat with the student, but has denied participating in any impropriety during the chat. The Respondent has asserted that an individual known only as "R.J." was in the Respondent's apartment and using the Respondent's computer during the time of the chat. According to the Respondent, the Respondent ran into R.J. who was hanging around the common area at the Respondent's apartment complex. The Respondent asserted that R.J. asked to use the Respondent's computer, that the Respondent allowed R.J. into the Respondent's apartment, and that the Respondent left R.J. at the computer while the Respondent went into his bedroom to dress for a social event. The Respondent testified that the student thereafter initiated the chat, that R.J. relayed the student's messages to the Respondent, and that the Respondent dictated responses to R.J. According to the Respondent, R.J. embellished the Respondent's dictated responses with the inappropriate remarks, unbeknownst to the Respondent. There is no credible evidence that anyone other than the Respondent participated in the chat with the student. The nature of the chat was a matter of embarrassment for the student. At the hearing, the student testified that he previously regarded the Respondent as a mentor and that he felt "betrayed" by the chat. The student's father testified that he no longer trusted, and was uncomfortable with, the Respondent after the chat occurred. Officials from PCHS and the Respondent testified that the incident caused a loss of trust in the Respondent. The PCHS principal testified that the inappropriate interaction with the student caused her to doubt the Respondent's judgment, and she observed that such incidents damage the reputation of the school and cause a general loss of respect for the school and for other teachers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order revoking the Florida Educator's Certificate held by the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 8th day of September, 2011.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to accommodate exceptional education students, directed derogatory comments to students, and disclosed test grades in class in violation of Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e); and, if so, whether the proposed penalty is reasonable. (Statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000). References to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in 2000.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is authorized to teach physical education in Florida pursuant to Florida Educator's Certificate Number 666407. The Certificate is valid through June 30, 2007. The Pinellas County School District (the District) employed Respondent as a physical education teacher at Gibbs High School (Gibbs) during the 2000-2001 school year (the school year). Respondent's students included students in the exceptional student education program at Gibbs (ESE students). Faculty and staff at Gibbs had tested ESE students in Respondent's classes, identified them as disabled, developed an individual education plan (IEP) for each student, and placed each student in a special education program. The IEPs for some students allowed the students to leave the classroom during testing for a learning lab or other supervised environment. Respondent refused to allow several ESE students to leave the classroom during testing. The students are identified in the record as A.A., A.S., J.T., and J.F. in order to protect their confidentiality. Respondent sometimes afforded ESE students an opportunity to hear their tests read to them at the front of the class. That opportunity violated each student's IEP. Respondent did not have discretion to deviate from an IEP. Some ESE students transferred from Respondent's class. Other ESE students refused to enroll in Respondent's class because of Respondent's reputation among ESE students for refusing to accommodate ESE students during testing. A number of parents complained to school officials about Respondent's failure to accommodate ESE students. Faculty and staff attempted to correct Respondent's behavior through informal conferences. A varying exceptionalities specialist, a teacher assistant, and an administrator with the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) each met with Respondent. Respondent answered an allegation and complaint from one parent by stating to a Gibbs administrator that the student was not an honor roll student, so Respondent's refusal to accommodate the student did not make a difference. Respondent complained to an assistant principal at Gibbs that, "They are ESE students. What are they doing here [in Respondent's class]? They shouldn't be here anyway." Respondent made derogatory comments to students during the school year. The derogatory comments included terms such as: fat, little slacker, stupid, sorry bunch of kids, Gomer Pyle, and Dutch Boy. Respondent asked one of her students, "What's a black boy doing with a Dutch last name?" Respondent asked another student if the student was tired from walking the streets at night and called her "sleeping booty." Respondent directed derogatory comments to students identified in the record as D.V., M.F., J.I., and A.W. Respondent referred to D.V., an African-American, as Dutch Boy because D.V.'s last name sounded Dutch to Respondent. Respondent suggested that D.V. should change names with a white student having a last name that Respondent believed was more appropriate for an African-American. Respondent used the terms "fat" and "stupid" when referring to M.F. and other students in M.F.'s class. Respondent used the term Gomer Pyle to refer to J.I. because J.I. was in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. (ROTC) program at Gibbs. Respondent told A.W. that larger people don't belong in the physical education class. The derogatory comments degraded students, embarrassed them, were inflammatory to some students, and violated District policy. Respondent violated the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Processional Conduct for Educators by making embarrassing or disparaging remarks and by failing to make reasonable efforts to protect students from mental harm. Respondent has made derogatory comments to students in previous school years. During the 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 school years, an assistant principal received complaints from students about Respondent's use of derogatory comments toward students. The assistant principal held a conference with Respondent on September 15, 1997, and completed a Conference Summary that instructed Respondent to use better communication with students and parents; and to be more professional in addressing students. The complaints against Respondent continued. On September 30, 1997, an assistant principal held a formal conference with Respondent to discuss Respondent's use of derogatory comments to students. The assistant principal again instructed Respondent to refer to students only by their given name and use more professionalism in addressing students. An assistant principal met with Respondent on October 1 and 7, 1997; and on February 13, April 1, and May 4, 1998. In addition to several "walk-throughs," the assistant principal visited Respondent's classroom for an evaluation on March 31, 1998. The annual evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year rated Respondent's judgment as an "I," meaning that improvement was expected in addressing students. The "I" on Respondent's annual evaluation required school administrators to prepare a "Success Plan" to help Respondent address the issues that resulted in the "I" rating. The Success Plan that Respondent signed required Respondent to use positive comments that enhance the self worth of students. Respondent's use of derogatory comments toward students continued during the 1998-1999 school year. An assistant principal held conferences with Respondent on: October 12, 26, and 27, 1998; November 11, 1998; and January 28, March 11, Aril 15, May 3, and May 4, 1999. The assistant principal visited Respondent's classroom on: November 3, 1998; and January 28, March 1, March 11, and April 7 and 15, 1999. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1998-1999 school year contained more "Is" than the previous evaluation. Respondent received an "I" rating for: (1) Instructional Strategies Conducive to Learning and Critical Thinking; (2) Assessment of Students; and (3) Judgment and Professional Ethics. During the school year at issue, the OPS administrator and Respondent discussed a letter from a parent regarding Respondent's use of derogatory comments. The parent complained that Respondent asked H.T., the parent's daughter, if H.T. was going to be a dentist. H.T.'s last name is related to a dental term. Respondent denied she ever made the comment and then told the OPS administrator, "I can look at her mouth and tell you no." Respondent subsequently told H.T. not to go running to H.T.'s mom if H.T. had a problem with Respondent. Respondent read student grades aloud in class without the permission of the affected student in violation of District policy. Respondent also read the names of students receiving a grade of "A," "B," or "C" thereby disclosing the names of students with lower grades. Disclosing the grades of students in class without the permission of the student invades the privacy of the student and exposes the student to embarrassment. Respondent has a history of disclosing student grades in class. On May 17, 2000, the OPS administrator issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent for disclosing student grades during the 1999-2000 school year. In relevant part, the letter of reprimand stated: I advised you that one concern was related to your announcing student grades of students in front of the entire class. You said that the Governor had given schools grades and that you could tell students their grades. I advised you that was not so; that student information was protected and confidential and I directed you to refrain from the practice. You said that you didn't read all of the grades. I noted that students said you read grades of students who had A's, B's, and C's. I said that some students who had lower grades were embarrassed. I again reiterated that you should cease reading the grades. Respondent continued to disclose student grades during the school year at issue. Respondent read to the class the grades of A.A., A.S., A.W., C.A., and M.F. Each had failing grades. Respondent passed a test completed by A.S. down a row of students so that each student could see the test score on the front of the test and stated audibly that the only thing A.S. "got right" on the test was the date. The comment embarrassed, upset, and humiliated A.S. The District placed Respondent on administrative leave in October 2000. After Respondent returned from her administrative leave, the OPS administrator received more complaints about Respondent's behavior, and issued another letter of reprimand to Respondent on April 27, 2001. Respondent wrote the following message on the letter prior to returning the signed copy to the OPS administrator: "This is BS. Thank you [OPS administrator]." The District transferred Respondent from Gibbs to a school where Respondent works with another teacher. The transfer shows that Respondent had lost her effectiveness at Gibbs, but not as an employee. The District had a lot of complaints at Gibbs about Respondent. There were issues with Respondent's effectiveness at the school. The District determined that a transfer to another school might help Respondent "get a new start."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(c) and (f); guilty of violating Subsection 1012.795(1)(i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e); suspending Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate during the summer session after the current school year; and, on the date of the Final Order, placing Respondent on probation for two consecutive years, including the period of suspension, subject to the conditions prescribed in Petitioner's PRO. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Post Office Box 3310 Tampa, Florida 33602-3310 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly & McKee 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
