The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with the Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. Respondent began her teaching career with the Broward County School District in or around January 2002, at which time she was assigned to South Broward High School ("South Broward").2/ In or around 2006, Petitioner introduced a program known as "Post-Graduate Alternatives for Secondary Students" ("PASS program") to most of its high schools, including South Broward. As explained by various witnesses during the final hearing, the PASS program is designed to assist students with moderate to significant learning disabilities——all of whom are between the ages of 18 to 21 and have already received special high school diplomas——attain the highest possible level of independence. This is achieved by placing students in a variety of work experience sites (simulated at first in the classroom and later at actual work locations), providing instruction related to community living tasks (e.g., use of money, transportation, shopping), and working to improve the students' behavior and communication skills. Following its district-wide introduction in 2006, the PASS program underwent various refinements, which included the development of clear, well-defined "steps" for instructors to follow in their implementation of the program. "Step 1," for instance, requires a PASS teacher, who is supported by two classroom paraprofessionals, to create a minimum of five stations (or, in Petitioner's terminology, "zones") within the classroom, with each zone consisting of multiple tasks. Such stations can run the gamut from a "restaurant zone," where students learn, for example, to sort silverware, to a "laundry zone," where students are taught to fold and hang clothing. Among other things, the PASS steps also require the teacher to: create specialized zone instructions for each of the approximately 10-12 students to which the PASS instructor is assigned; create schedules to govern the rotation of students from zone to zone; and collect data that tracks each student's performance on every assigned task, which is later used for "job matching" and to determine if the students are meeting the goals in their Transition Individualized Education Plans ("TIEPs"). As will be seen shortly, Respondent demonstrated a substantial lack of compliance with several of the PASS steps during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, most notably in the area of data collection; it is upon that particular failing that the ensuing factual recitation will largely focus. 2010-2011 School Year Prior to the start of the 2010-2011 academic year, Respondent was provided with a document titled, "PASS Process Implementation Steps & Expectations," which plainly instructed, inter alia, that PASS teachers record data (at least one time per week) for each student and for every task to which the student was assigned. The document read: STEP 1: IDENTIFY ZONES Arrange furniture/physical space for zones All zones clearly defined and labeled Minimum of 5 zones/areas 1:1 zone/area defined STEP 2: DETERMINE TASKS PER ZONE At least 3-5 tasks in each zone to start; increase number of tasks as they are mastered Construct tasks for the zones – both high and low level Age appropriate materials must be used; nothing that's typically seen in elementary classrooms Variety of instructional methods used STEP 3: DEVELOP THE MASTER SCHEDULE Implement the Master Schedule Master Schedule/zone assignments are based on [each students' transition individualized education plan or "TIEP"] STEP 4: DEVELOP THE ZONE PROFILES Post a Zone Profile in every zone; zone profile shows, at a glance, which student should be in the zone at what particular time. STEP 5: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT STAFF SCHEDULES Teacher and paraprofessional schedules are complete Schedule shows coverage for each zone STEP 6: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT ZONE BINDERS WITH TASK INSTRUCTIONS Individualized task instructions for every task and every student in every zone (includes written instructions for readers/visual instructions for nonreaders) STEP 7: DEVELOP INDIVIDUAL DAILY STUDENTS SCHEDULES Create master individual schedules for students Implement Daily Independent Individual Student Schedule; student is following their individual schedule and going to zone that is stated on their schedule at their own individual pace Students rotating from zone to zone independently by following their individual daily schedule Students do schedule review at the end of the day for the next day; teacher/para checks for accuracy Students meaningfully engaged in zones STEP 8: COMPLETE STUDENT ASSESSMENTS Complete comprehensive vocational assessment(s) Complete specific behavior assessments (each task, for each student, for each zone, each week) Evidence of data collection Evidence of individual student binders to contain record keeping Evidence that staff is implementing students' TIEP STEP 9: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT [Community Based Instruction "CBI"] PROCESS Sites based on TIEP and student assessments Classroom zones based on CBI/Community sites Individualized student schedules created for each CBI site Preparation of students before CBI Follow-up CBI's CBI schedule posted 3-4 students maximum at any given site (emphasis added). As established during the final hearing, the school district did not simply disseminate the foregoing steps to Respondent and leave her to her own devices. On the contrary, Respondent——who previously received formal PASS training from the school district——was provided with significant support throughout the 2010-2011 school year from Ms. Wendy Barnes, a PASS program transition instructor. Nevertheless, evidence of Respondent's noncompliance with the PASS steps was evident by early October 2010. Indeed, a classroom observation on October 5, 2010, by Ms. Barnes and Deborah Kearns (an assistant principal at South Broward and Respondent's immediate supervisor) revealed no evidence of data collection, contrary to Step Eight of the PASS program. In addition, the observers discovered a more fundamental problem in that the zone instruction binders were incomplete and not individualized for the students. Subsequently, on October 14, 2010, a conference was held with Respondent to discuss her noncompliance with the PASS program and to develop a plan to correct the shortcomings. At the conclusion of the meeting, Respondent was: advised that she was being placed on a cycle of assistance, whereby she would be provided with written directives on a weekly basis by Ms. Kearns; informed that she would continue to receive support from Ms. Barnes, who would assist her in complying with the directives; and provided with a memorandum from Ms. Kearns, which emphasized, among other things, that her "failure to implement and demonstrate improvements throughout this cycle of assistance may result in [her] placement on a Professional Development Plan." Owing perhaps to the sheer impracticability of ordering Respondent to bring all PASS steps into immediate compliance, Ms. Barnes instead directed, in a memorandum dated October 20, 2010, that Respondent correct Step Two (and only Step Two) within the next six days. In relevant part, the memorandum read: On 10/19/10, Ms. Barnes assisted you with regard to Step 2 of the PASS process Implementation Expectations. As discussed at that time, PASS Step 2 requires that zone binders and individual zone tasks reflect the following: Students must be assigned at least 3-5 activities per zone. Students must be assigned an amount and level of zone activities to maintain engagement during the period scheduled within each zone. Students must be assigned zone tasks that are [] varied by level and challenging based upon individual student ability and need. Students must be assigned zone tasks that are appropriate . . . . You are directed to bring these aspects of Step 2 of the PASS program into compliance by October 26, 2010. Unfortunately, Respondent failed to satisfy this reasonable——and modest——directive, as Ms. Kearns and Ms. Barnes discovered during an observation of Respondent's classroom on October 26, 2010. In response, Ms. Barnes issued a memorandum to Respondent the following day, wherein she directed Respondent to bring "item three" of Step Two (i.e., assign zone tasks of varying difficulty based upon student ability), as well as Steps Three and Four, into compliance by November 2, 2010. Ms. Barnes' ample and appropriate support efforts notwithstanding, Respondent brought only one of the PASS steps (Step One) into compliance by mid-December, a fact that was confirmed during a classroom observation on December 14, 2010. Ms. Kearns discussed this issue with Respondent during a pre- disciplinary conference held the following day, at which time Respondent admitted that she had "muddled" the implementation of the PASS steps. Two days later, on December 17, 2010, Ms. Kearns warned Respondent in writing that her continued failure to implement the PASS steps might result in further disciplinary action. As the 2010-2011 school year progressed, Respondent's failure to implement the PASS steps——particularly the step related to data3/ collection——continued in spite of frequent classroom visits, numerous memoranda4/ and emails, and regular meetings5/ with Ms. Kearns, Ms. Barnes, and Ms. Aldridge. Ultimately, on April 5, 2011, Ms. Kearns provided written notification to Respondent that she was being placed on a 90-day Performance Development Plan ("PDP") due to deficiencies in the areas of lesson management, lesson presentation, and student performance evaluation (i.e., assessments and data collection). The PDP, which was drafted during a meeting held the same date (attended by Ms. Kearns, Respondent, the school principal, and a union representative), articulated the corrections Respondent was required to make, various strategies for improvement, and the assistance with which Respondent would be provided. With respect to the issue of data collection, for example, the PDP contemplated that by September 19, 2011, Respondent would be required to demonstrate mastery of the requirement that she "collect and record quantitative data for each task in each zone for each student on a weekly basis." The PDP further provided that Ms. Barnes and/or Ms. Aldridge would work with Respondent to improve her data collection methods. (At Respondent's request, this portion of the PDP was amended on May 31, 2011, to read that only "District Personnel and/or Shalita Aldridge" would assist her.) On April 11, 2011, less than one week after the creation of the PDP, Ms. Barnes met with Respondent (for one hour) to review and discuss proper data collection methods. Despite this meeting and the subsequent provision of ample support, Respondent's failure to collect proper data——and comply with numerous other PASS steps——persisted: on April 27, 2011, Ms. Kearns noticed during a classroom observation that Respondent was still not collecting weekly data for each task and, further, that the data she had collected was not measureable; on May 3, 2011, Ms. Barnes and Ms. Kearns examined a sample of recent data sheets, which revealed that Respondent's data entries were vague and not recorded separately by task type; on May 16, 2012, during a classroom visit by Alan Strauss (South Broward's principal) and Louis Ruccolo (a transition supervisor with the district), it was observed that six PASS steps were out of compliance, including data collection; and, on May 19, 2011, a one-hour classroom observation by Ms. Kearns uncovered myriad data collection issues, which included, with respect to one particular student, zero "office zone" data entries during the preceding six weeks. Respondent's continued noncompliance resulted, not surprisingly, in the issuance of several reprimands by Ms. Kearns. The first, provided to Respondent in writing on May 12, 2011, was based upon her repeated failure to comply with time- bound directives; the second, issued in early June of 2011, disciplined Respondent for her lack of adherence to "directives relative to student supervision." On or about June 10, 2011, Ms. Kearns issued a memorandum to Respondent that discussed, in painstaking detail, what would be expected of her during the following school year. Among other things, the memorandum advised Respondent that she would be required, effective August 22, 2011, to "utilize the specific data collection tools that are named in [her] PDP," including but not limited to weekly zone task data. Respondent was further informed, accurately as it turns out, that "District support will continue to be provided . . . during the school year and will begin the week of August 15, 2011." 2011-2012 School Year At the outset of the 2011-2012 school year, Mr. Strauss provided Respondent with two memoranda. The first, dated August 16, 2012, recounted Respondent's shortcomings during the preceding academic year, which included her failure to "collect and maintain consistent and quantitative data through specific zone task data collection." The second, which Respondent received on August 22, 2011, reminded her that her PDP (initiated on April 1, 2011) had carried over from the previous year and would expire on September 13, 2011; Respondent was further advised that the performance evaluation to be conducted upon the expiration of her PDP would be drafted under the assessment system in effect during the 2010-2011 school year. Pursuant to the School Board's evaluation system (known as the Instructional Personnel Assessment System or "IPAS"), teachers are rated (satisfactory, in need of improvement, or unsatisfactory) in ten areas: instructional planning; lesson management; lesson presentation; communication; classroom management; behavior management; records management; subject matter knowledge; "other professional competencies"; and student performance evaluation. On September 19, 2011, Ms. Khandia Pinkney——an assistant principal at South Broward, who assumed the duties of Ms. Kearns——issued Respondent's evaluation for the 2010-2011 school year. In the evaluation, Ms. Pinkney awarded Respondent satisfactory ratings in seven of the performance areas, while the remaining three (lesson management, lesson presentation, and student performance evaluation) were deemed unsatisfactory. In light of her failure to achieve satisfactory ratings in all ten performance areas, Respondent was issued an overall performance rating of unsatisfactory. Although Respondent's poor evaluation could have resulted in the initiation of termination proceedings, Mr. Strauss and Ms. Pinkney elected instead to place Respondent on a new, 90-day PDP. The second PDP, which was drafted with Respondent's collaboration on September 19, 2011, listed 14 specific deficiencies (e.g., "collect and record quantitative data for every task in each zone for each student on a weekly basis") that Respondent was required to correct by January 10, 2012. In accordance with the terms of the second PDP, Respondent received considerable support and supervision as the school year progressed. Such support included twice-weekly visits by Ms. Shaneka President (a district-level transition teacher) to Respondent's classroom, as well as weekly follow-up e-mails that emphasized, among various issues, the necessity of proper data collection.6/ Respondent's data collection issues persisted; in light of this continued failing, as well as several other concerns, Ms. Pinkney drafted a written recommendation, dated October 17, 2011, that Respondent be suspended from work for three days.7/ In pertinent part, the recommendation read: On 10/13/2010 you received a summary memo, on 12/17/2010 you received a written warning, on 3/01/2011 you received a verbal reprimand, and on 5/12/2011 and 6/10/2011 you received written reprimands. All notifications were regarding the concern with your failure to follow directives. You have failed to meet the performance standards required of your position as a teacher. Specifically, you have failed to follow directives relative to leaving campus without administrative approval, following time-bound directives, directives relative to student supervision by failing to properly supervise you SVE students, utilizing instructional time for personal activities such as smoking and personal phone calls, and not following procedural directives. . . . Your repeated failure to follow directives is a serious breach of conduct that cannot be tolerated. Therefore, I am recommending that your name be sent before the School Board . . . for a 3-day suspension. Petitioner's receipt of the foregoing memorandum did not spur her into compliance: two days later, on October 19, 2011, Mr. Ruccolo and Ms. Pinkney conducted an observation of Petitioner's classroom, during which they noticed——among other deficiencies——instances of incomplete8/ and/or inaccurate data.9/ The observed deficiencies were discussed with Respondent during a meeting with Ms. Pinkney on October 25, 2011, and further outlined in a memorandum issued to Respondent two days later. During the ensuing four weeks, Ms. President continued to remind Respondent, in writing and on no fewer than four occasions, of the requirement to record data "for every task for every student in every zone on a weekly basis."10/ Respondent, however, failed to heed this guidance——as Mr. Strauss learned during a classroom observation of Respondent's classroom on December 1, 2011. On that occasion, Mr. Strauss and an intern principal (Ms. Cherie Hodgson-Toeller) uncovered numerous data collection issues, each of which was discussed with Respondent during a meeting on December 5, 2011, as well as detailed in a memorandum provided to Respondent the following week. The memorandum read, in relevant part: We also pointed out that [student "Sa."] had no data in her binder with respect to her performance in the Office zone. We discussed that no data was reflected in the binders for the current week and commented that the data recorded in the binders was lacking uniformity and data recorded did not provide[] comparison details to determine the students['] current percentage of correct completions while performing the task or indicate whether or not they are making adequate progress. . . . It was also discussed that we witnessed a lot of confusion in the classroom and inconsistencies in monitoring, scheduling, and tracking of data continue to exist. (emphasis added). Over the next four weeks, Respondent's issues with data collection persisted, and, in at least one regard, worsened. During an observation of Respondent's class on January 3, 2012, Ms. Pinkney discovered that no data had been recorded for one particular student in the "restaurant zone"; with respect to another student, Ms. Pinkney noted, troublingly, that "restaurant zone" data had been recorded for a date (December 15, 2011) that the student had been absent. The cause of the latter discrepancy, as established by Ms. Riley's credible testimony, was a directive to Ms. Riley from Respondent to manufacture data entries (after the fact) to create the appearance of proper data collection. As Ms. Riley explained during the final hearing: There were times [when] I was uncomfortable. Ms. Liquori would say, well, Ms. Presidente [sic] and them are coming on Monday, or, they are coming this and such date, so you need to go ahead and put your data in. And there was a time where she asked me to put in data for a student that had not been in school for three weeks. And I told her, I said, I don't think that we are supposed to be doing that. I know that's not right for us to do that. But because you are my supervisor and teacher, then I have to follow orders from my supervising teacher. Q. So, if I understand correctly then, Ms. Liquori instructed you to put in data on a student that wasn't present. A. That is correct. Q. And that was false data. A. Right. And there was [sic] times where we would have to put down a student mastered a task when we know that the student had not mastered that task. Q. Why would Ms. Liquori make you do that? A. Because data needs to be put in before Ms. Presidente [sic] and them would come in. Because when they come in they did the observations. (emphasis added). A meeting was thereafter scheduled for January 12, 2012, during which Ms. Pinkney intended to close Respondent's PDP and draft an unfavorable performance evaluation. From what can be gleaned from the record, however, the meeting was postponed by virtue of Respondent's placement on medical leave. The meeting was ultimately convened on April 26, 2012, at which time Ms. Pinkney issued a written performance evaluation that rated Respondent unsatisfactory in three performance areas (lesson management, lesson presentation, and student performance evaluation——the same categories that were rated unsatisfactory during the previous evaluation), satisfactory in the other seven areas, and unsatisfactory overall. Petitioner has demonstrated by a greater weight of the evidence that Respondent's failure to collect appropriate PASS data, a deficiency that persisted for more than one and one-half school years, constituted a willful neglect of her duties. In so finding, it is notable: that the data collection tasks Respondent was directed to perform were uncomplicated and reasonable in nature; that Respondent received adequate training concerning the PASS program prior to the 2010-2011 school year, as well as substantial levels of support and guidance during each school year at issue; and that Respondent never indicated, at any point during the 2010-2011 or 2011-2012 school years, that she did not understand her obligations or was unable to perform them.11/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board 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 terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 February, 2013.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether there exists "just cause" within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, to terminate the professional services contract between the School Board of Gadsden County, Florida, and John C. Buckley. The School Board seeks such a termination on the basis of allegations that John C. Buckley engaged in various forms of inappropriate conduct during the course of a science fair trip. Briefly summarized, the allegations are that John C. Buckley (a) permitted students to smoke cigarettes, (b) purchased alcoholic beverages in the presence of a student, (c) consumed alcoholic beverages in the presence of students, (d) provided alcoholic beverages to students and permitted them to consume such beverages, and (e) inappropriately touched one or more female students. At the hearing, the parties presented the testimony of several witnesses, including the testimony of Respondent. Following the hearing, a transcript of the proceedings was filed and all parties thereafter filed timely proposed recommended orders. The parties' proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. All findings of fact prepared by the parties are specifically addressed in the appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing and the admissions of the Respondent, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material, the Respondent, John C. Buckley, was employed as a science teacher at the James A. Shanks High School in Gadsden County, Florida. At all times material, the Respondent was employed under a professional service contract as defined in Section 231.36(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). The Respondent accompanied a group of Gadsden County high school students to Jacksonville to attend a science fair on April 13, 1988, through April 16, 1988. There were three other adults present during the trip; Oscar Rogers, a school bus driver employed by the Gadsden County School Board, Cynthia B. Clark, a science teacher from Carter Parramore Middle School, and Betty Williams, a chaperon. On the way to Jacksonville, the following three female students rode with the Respondent in his personal car: Ginger Godwin (10th grade), Twanna Scott (12th grade), and Yvonne Dunson (12th grade). The other students and adults rode in a school bus. During the drive to Jacksonville, two of the students in Respondent's car were smoking cigarettes. The Respondent knew these two students intended to smoke in his car and he did not prohibit either student from smoking in his car. During the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent drove in his car to a liquor store in Jacksonville, where he purchased some beer, some bottled wine coolers, and a small bottle of bourbon. Twanna Scott, a student, rode in Respondent's car to and from the liquor store, but she did not get out of the car when the Respondent went into the liquor store. During the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent consumed several beers, probably three or four. Some of the Respondent's consumption of beer took place in the presence of some of the students, specifically at a time when the students and the adults on the trip were eating pizza for their evening meal. The Respondent did not, on April 13, 1988, or any other time, provide any alcoholic beverages to any of the students, nor did he permit any of the students to consume alcohol. Later, on the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent entered the motel room in which Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, Yvonne Dunson, and Precious Anderson were staying. At the time the Respondent entered the room, Godwin, Scott, and Dunson, and several other people were also in the room. During the time the Respondent was in the room a door that connected to the next room was open. The next room was the room in which Cynthia B. Clark, a teacher, was staying with two other female students. While the Respondent was in the room, Twanna Scott complained of a stiff back and the Respondent sat on the edge of the bed and gave Twanna Scott a brief back rub. At the time of the back rub, the only other people in the room were Ginger Godwin and Yvonne Dunson. Following the back rub, the Respondent left the room. The Respondent did not touch any part of Twanna Scott's body other than her back. The Respondent did not touch either of the other female students who were in the room. On the evening of April 14, 1988, while the Respondent was away from the motel with some of the students, Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, and Yvonne Dunson told Cynthia B. Clark, one of the teachers, that they wanted to spend some time watching television in the motel room of some insurance salesmen they had recently met at the motel. Mrs. Clark agreed to let them do so, subject to some ground rules which included: the door to the salesmen's motel room had to remain open, the curtains had to remain open, and the girls had to check with Mrs. Clark every 30 minutes or so. At about 9:45 p.m. during the evening of April 14, 1988, Mrs. Clark walked by the salesmen's room and observed Ginger Godwin drinking a beer. Mrs. Clark told Ginger Godwin that she did not approve of such conduct and Ginger Godwin acted indifferent to the disapproval. Mrs. Clark told the girls that they needed to be back in their own rooms by 10:30 p.m. Sometime between 10:30 and 10:45 p.m., Mrs. Clark returned to the salesmen's room and tried to get the three girls to return to their own room. They essentially ignored her and remained in the salesmen's room. The Respondent returned to the motel sometime shortly after 11:00 p.m., at which time Mrs. Clark told him about the three girls in the insurance salesmen's room. Mrs. Clark and the Respondent then went to the salesmen's room and the Respondent told the girls they had to return to their own room. After some argument, the three girls eventually complied. Later in the evening the salesmen were down tapping on the window of the girls' motel room and the girls were talking to the salesmen through an open window. When this was brought to the Respondent's attention, he went to the girls' room, told them they should go to bed and tried to get the salesmen to leave. The three girls and the insurance salesmen all rebuffed the Respondent's efforts, and the Respondent ultimately had to call the motel security guard. At about that time, Ginger Godwin got into a heated argument with the Respondent, during the course of which there was some yelling and shouting back and forth. Apparently there were further heated arguments the next day about the salesmen. At some point in the arguments, Ginger Godwin threatened to retaliate against the Respondent as a result of his interference with the relationship between the three girls and the insurance salesmen. The threats made to the Respondent included statements such as, "I know how to get you," "I'm going to take care of your job Monday," and "I'll get even with you and I'll take care of you Monday when I get back." Upon returning home, Ginger Godwin, Yvonne Dunson, and Twanna Scott reported to school authorities that the Respondent had engaged in improper conduct during the science fair trip. They accused the Respondent of, among other things, improper sexual touching of Dunson and Scott. The allegations of improper sexual touching were false. School rules prohibit the use of tobacco substances at school campuses, activities, or field trips. School rules prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on School Board premises, at school activities, and on school field trips. School rules prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages by teachers in the presence of students, during school field trips. When supervising field trips, teachers have 24-hour supervisory responsibility over the students on the field trip. The Respondent had been previously warned to curtail his smoking in front of students by Janey DuPont, an Administrator employed by the Petitioner. Respondent had also been specifically warned by Janey DuPont not to consume alcoholic beverages in the presence of students. The Respondent knew or should have known that he was not supposed to be drinking alcoholic beverages in the presence of students under his supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the administrative charges against the Respondent Buckley be dismissed and that the Respondent be reinstated as a professional service contract teacher with full back pay. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of November, 1988. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following are my specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties to this case. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted Paragraphs 2 and 3: Rejected as unnecessary recitation of procedural details. (Findings have been made incorporating the substance of the conduct admitted by the Respondent.) Paragraphs 4 and 5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17; Accepted. Paragraphs 18 and 19: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23: Accepted, with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Covered in preliminary statement. Paragraph 29: Accepted. Paragraphs 30 and 31: Rejected because there is no clear and convincing evidence that any inappropriate touching of female students occurred on this occasion and, absent any inappropriate touching, the proposed details are subordinate and unnecessary. Specifically, there is no persuasive evidence that the Respondent made several attempts to bite Twanna Scott on her ear. Ms. Scott's testimony to that effort is unconvincing. The Respondent's denial is accepted. Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, and 35: Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. I reject as unworthy of belief the testimony that the Respondent provided alcoholic beverages to three students. I accept the Respondent's denial that he provided alcoholic beverages to any student. Paragraph 36: Rejected as irrelevant because the Respondent has not been charged with this conduct and, in any event, there is no evidence that Respondent consumed sufficient alcohol to impair his ability to drive safely. Paragraph 37: First fourteen words rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; I have rejected the testimony that Respondent provided alcoholic beverages to any students. Next seven words rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary because there has been no showing that the Respondent consumed sufficient alcoholic beverages to impair his judgment. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 38: First sentence rejected as vague and inaccurate; the subject student was wearing a robe and was on the bed watching television. Second sentence accepted in substance with a few clarifying details. Paragraphs 39, 40, and 41: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. In view of all the circumstances, the Respondent's denials and the Respondent's version of what occurred is more believable than the testimony of Yvonne Dunson, Twanna Scott, and Ginger Godwin. Yvonne Dunson, Twanna Scott, and Ginger Godwin are not credible witnesses. Paragraph 42: Rejected as inaccurate; the girls made a report when they returned, but it was a false report. Findings proposed by the Respondent Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 7 and 8: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, the subject matter of these paragraphs is irrelevant because in the hand holding in the car is not the "inappropriate" touching with which the Respondent has been charged. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, and 14: I have not made any findings on the subject matter addressed by these paragraphs because there is no clear and convincing evidence that any inappropriate touching of female students occurred on this occasion and, absent any inappropriate touching, the proposed details are subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 15: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 16: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 17 and 18: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. On this subject, I have found that the greater weight of the evidence is consistent with the Respondent's denial. Paragraph 19: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 20, 21, and 22: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. (The summarized testimony has not been credited.) Paragraph 23: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive evidence; I seriously doubt that Ginger Godwin told the other two girls anything about any "incidents" on Wednesday night. I believe the three girls (Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, and Yvonne Dunson) fabricated their stories at a later date. Paragraph 24: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. I have, however, made findings of fact consistent with the Respondent's version of this incident. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 26: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE RUDEN, BARNETT, MCCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. 101 NORTH MONROE STREET MONROE-PARK TOWER, SUITE 1010 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 PHILIP J. PADOVANO, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 873 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 ROBERT H. BRYANT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SCHOOL BOARD OF GADSDEN COUNTY POST OFFICE BOX 818 QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351
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 Petitioner, Duval County School Board, had just cause to suspend Respondent without pay for seven days for the reasons specified in the agency action letter.
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction Petitioner, Duval County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Duval County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Mr. Sawdy was employed as a teacher at Lake Shore in Duval County, Florida, from 2011 through June 2018. During the 2016-2017 school year, Mr. Sawdy taught civics to seventh grade students. During the time he was a teacher at Lake Shore, Mr. Sawdy received an effective or highly effective rating on his performance evaluations. Mr. Sawdy has never received discipline during his tenure as a teacher. Specifically, during the time that he had worked at Lake Shore, he was never disciplined for failure to adequately supervise students. After the 2017-2018 school year, Mr. Sawdy relocated to North Carolina and is serving as a teacher there. Background The incident that served as the basis for this proceeding occurred on May 2, 2017. Mr. Sawdy’s classroom was located in a portable unit with windows at Lake Shore. Generally, Mr. Sawdy would have a structured lesson for the class period. However, on this day the students in the class returned from a field trip in the middle of the third period at approximately 1:30 p.m. The students were instructed to go to their designated class and remain there until the fourth class period. The field trip was to the Diamond D Ranch, a farm in Jacksonville, Florida. There were approximately 20 students who went to Mr. Sawdy’s classroom after the field trip. As was the typical case when students returned from a field trip, the students were described as rowdy. As a result, Mr. Sawdy permitted the students to work on note cards and listen to music. The music was from Hamilton, the musical, which was used to teach the students about the historical figure, Alexander Hamilton. Although music was playing, the students could hear each other. The lights were off, but you could see in the room because the windows allowed sufficient ambient light. The School Board alleged that Mr. Sawdy allowed a group of students in his class to participate in an inappropriate game. One of the students from the group included R.G. The group was located at the back of the classroom. The testimony from various witnesses about what happened in the classroom on May 2, 2017, varied in several areas. Student Testimony Student C.A. C.A. testified that when the class returned to the classroom, Mr. Sawdy did not have a specific lesson. He played music and allowed students to move freely. According to the diagram of the room, C.A. was sitting near R.G., with one chair between them, in the group. C.A. testified that he witnessed R.G. lift her shirt, exposing her breasts. C.A. described the event as “flashing” that happened quickly. C.A. testified that Mr. Sawdy was sitting at his desk at the front of the room when R.G. lifted her shirt, which was farther away from R.G. than was C.A. C.A. credibly testified that Mr. Sawdy was strict regarding discipline for inappropriate behavior. If Mr. Sawdy had seen R.G.’s conduct, he would have called her parents or referred her to the principal. C.A. testified that he did not see anyone kissing or touching private parts. At some point during the class, C.A. slapped D.B. on the back of her thigh. C.A. testified that Mr. Sawdy took him outside the classroom to discipline him for hitting D.B., which redirected his behavior. Student D.B. D.B. testified that Mr. Sawdy’s class is usually laid back and there is even less structure after a field trip. After the field trip, Mr. Sawdy instructed students to work on note cards. While music was playing, they could hear each other. While the lights were off, they could see each other because of the lights from the windows. Turning off the lights was a common practice of other teachers at Lake Shore as well. D.B. was sitting at a desk on the opposite side of the group from R.G. D.B. recalled that Mr. Sawdy was at his desk working on his computer. There were students sitting between R.G. and Mr. Sawdy. D.B. testified that she saw K.2/ lick R.G.’s breast, which happened within two seconds. D.B. credibly testified that she did not see anyone else expose their breasts or kiss anyone. Student H.P. H.P. was sitting near the group. She testified that although music was playing, it was not so loud that she could not hear. She testified that she was aware that a game was taking place. However, she did not see anyone kiss anyone, or engage in any inappropriate activity. H.P. testified that Mr. Sawdy was doing paperwork, and she did not see him walk around during class. However, H.P. credibly testified that Respondent would discipline students if he aware that they misbehaved. Student K.M. K.M. was sitting at the same table as H.P., near the group. In fact, she was sitting closer to R.G. than H.P. K.M. testified that Mr. Sawdy was sitting at his desk working on his laptop. However, she saw him walk around the classroom “one or two times.” K.M. testified that Mr. Sawdy instructed students that it would be a free day because they had returned from the field trip. During the class, Mr. Sawdy turned on music from Hamilton. K.M. stated that she witnessed C.A. slap D.B.’s thigh and saw Mr. Sawdy remove C.A. from the classroom to discipline him for his actions. Despite her close proximity to the group, K.M. did not see anyone kiss anyone, lift their shirt, or lick anyone. K.M. traveled to Europe for a field trip chaperoned by Mr. Sawdy in June 2018. She testified that he did well as a chaperone. Student C.W. C.W. testified that Mr. Sawdy permitted students to listen to music and hang out after the field trip. C.W. was sitting near the windows, near the corner of the class, but closer to the group than Mr. Sawdy. She characterized the group as “troublemakers.” She stated that Mr. Sawdy warned the group to settle down several times. Despite her criticism of the group, C.W. did not see anyone kiss or lick anyone, or otherwise engage in inappropriate activity. Student J.B. J.B. testified that after the field trip, Mr. Sawdy turned on a video of Bill Nye, “the science guy,” on the television. Since students were not watching the video, Mr. Sawdy turned on music. At some point, Mr. Sawdy told the group of students to quiet down because they were being loud. J.B. testified that Mr. Sawdy would discipline students who misbehaved by talking to them or issuing a referral to the principal’s office. J.B. stated that he was not aware of a game of truth or dare being played at the time. He also credibly testified that he did not see anyone kiss anyone, lift up his or her shirt, or see anyone do anything inappropriate. Student F.G. When F.G. and the other students returned to class, Mr. Sawdy instructed them to watch the Bill Nye video and work on note cards. Music from the musical Hamilton was playing toward the end of class, but it was not too loud. F.G. testified that Mr. Sawdy was sitting at his desk during class, but he walked around a few times. Although F.G. was sitting close to the group, she did not know that any inappropriate activity occurred until a few weeks later. F.G. credibly testified that she did not see anyone dancing, kissing, or engaging in inappropriate touching. F.G. also confirmed the testimony of C.A. and D.B. that Mr. Sawdy would discipline students who misbehaved, beginning with a warning outside the classroom, followed by a phone call to their parents and then, a referral to the principal. None of the students who testified stated that they had concerns for their safety or the safety of other students in the class. Although subpoenaed, the complaining student, K.A.M. did not appear at the final hearing.3/ Mr. Sawdy’s Testimony Mr. Sawdy also testified at the final hearing. He stated that he chaperoned a group of students on a field trip to Diamond D Ranch. When the students returned from the trip, they were instructed to go to his classroom. No other teachers or teaching professionals were in the classroom at that time. Mr. Sawdy testified that students are usually more relaxed after field trips and would benefit from a less restrictive teaching class period. As a result, Mr. Sawdy played music from Hamilton and instructed the students to work on note cards. The lights were off, but you could see because of ambient light. Mr. Sawdy credibly testified that he had no knowledge of any inappropriate conduct in his classroom on May 2, 2017, until Mr. Gottberg told him about the complaint regarding inappropriate activity in his classroom. If he had seen anything inappropriate, he would have addressed the actors accordingly. He described the instance where he counseled C.A. Mr. Sawdy’s testimony was consistent with that of C.A. and D.B., when he testified that he heard a slap, turned in the direction that he heard it and saw C.A. looking strange. He took C.A. outside the classroom and counseled him for hitting D.B. Subsequent to May 2, 2017, Mr. Sawdy planned and chaperoned a field trip to Europe with 10 middle school students, which took place in June 2018. The principal of each student’s school approved the trip to Europe without objection. Furthermore, there were no parents that objected to Mr. Sawdy chaperoning the students on the trip. Specifically, students M.W. (who did not testify at hearing) and K.M. were in the class on the date in question and still attended the trip to Europe without objection from their parents. There is no reason to believe or evidence to support that Mr. Sawdy would not have disciplined the students engaging in the activity alleged if he had knowledge of their conduct. Moreover, based on his experience with the class, there was no indication to Mr. Sawdy that the students would have the propensity to engage in the alleged conduct. The evidence demonstrates that the incident was, at most, a matter of two students surreptitiously engaging in unexpected inappropriate activity. There was no evidence offered to demonstrate that the alleged student conduct harmed the health or safety of the students in the class. Even if it is determined that the allegations on their face would demonstrate actual harm, rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect students from such harm. Gerald Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2102; EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Investigation Mr. Gottberg was the principal at Lake Shore during the 2016-2017 school year. He testified that there was an expectation that teachers would maintain a safe environment for students through classroom management and disciplinary action when necessary. There was also an expectation, but not a requirement, that classroom instruction would take place from beginning of class until the end of class (bell-to-bell instruction). On May 3, 2017, Mr. Gottberg’s assistant informed him that there was a parent and student that had a complaint about inappropriate student activity in Mr. Sawdy’s classroom that had occurred on May 2, 2017. Mr. Gottberg briefly interviewed the student and ultimately, referred the complaint to the Office of Professional Standards. The student resource officer, Mary Alice Knouse, interviewed three of the 22 students who were in the class on May 2, 2017. Based on her interview of the students, she determined that other than K.A.M. and K.M., no students witnessed any inappropriate conduct. The investigator assigned to investigate the complaint, James Gregory, also interviewed students. He interviewed students involved in the alleged conduct events and randomly selected other students. He did not interview all the students in the classroom on May 2, 2017. Mr. Gottberg was instructed to prepare a report regarding the complaint, and he complied. At the direction of the Office or Professional Standards, but before the student interviews were completed, he recommended that Mr. Sawdy receive Step III or Step IV progressive disciplinary action. Mr. Gottberg described Mr. Sawdy as one of the best teachers at Lake Shore. While Mr. Gottberg was principal, he even approved the 10-day field trip to Europe, which was scheduled to take place after the incident on May 2, 2017. Allegations Not Pled in Notice The School Board made much of the lights being turned off in the room and the music playing. These allegations were not pled in the charges and, thus, may not be relied upon as a basis for the School Board’s action. Even if the School Board had pled allegations regarding the lights and music, the School Board failed to prove that these factors proved that Mr. Sawdy inadequately supervised the students in his classroom. At least five witnesses testified that although the lights were off, there was sufficient light from the windows to see in the classroom. Mr. Gottberg sent an email to the Lake Shore teachers the day following the incident directing them to keep the lights on in the classrooms. However, no witness testified that there was a rule or policy regarding keeping the lights on during classroom instruction prior to the incident. In addition, teachers and students testified that it was a common practice for the lights to be off in the classrooms because sufficient light was available by window. Several witnesses also testified that the music was not so loud that you could not hear. Mr. Sawdy’s Reputation Respondent has a good reputation with other educators and is known to be an effective teacher. Several of those teachers testified at hearing about their experience working with Mr. Sawdy. Zandra Bryant worked on the same team with Mr. Sawdy at Lake Shore for approximately four years. She testified that she had worked at Lake Shore for eight years. She described Mr. Sawdy as “wonderful teacher” who was very organized and attentive. She was also a chaperone for the field trip to Diamond D Ranch and characterized the students as being rowdy when they returned from the field trip. She confirmed Mr. Sawdy’s testimony that it would not be a good time to begin a structured lesson. Mallory Layton also worked with Mr. Sawdy. She described him as role model, attentive to students, including administering discipline when necessary. Similar to Ms. Bryant, she also testified that after a field trip, it is good practice to engage the students in a relaxed activity. Melissa Cash and Kasey Winter testified that Mr. Sawdy was a good teacher who had a respectful relationship with students. Ultimate Findings of Fact There is no question that the allegations were of a sensitive nature. The testimony varied in material aspects, and was not of such weight (preponderance of evidence) that it produced a firm belief that Mr. Sawdy failed to reasonably protect the safety of the students in his classroom. The allegations that students engaged in exposure and licking of private body parts was supported by a preponderance of evidence. However, even though the evidence supports a finding, by a slim margin, that students engaged in inappropriate conduct, it must also be determined whether Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect students from harm. The testimony varied regarding where Mr. Sawdy was located when the student conduct occurred. The testimony was clear and consistent that Mr. Sawdy was in the classroom. D.B., J.B., and H.P. testified that Mr. Sawdy was sitting at his desk doing work. F.G. testified that Mr. Sawdy was at his desk during the class, but walked around a few times. K.M. testified that Mr. Sawdy walked around the room one to two times. The totality of the evidence supports a finding that Mr. Sawdy was at his desk at the front of the room during the class period, but he left his desk and walked around a few times. At the final hearing, six witnesses credibly testified that they never saw anyone kiss, lick, or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct in Mr. Sawdy’s classroom on May 2, 2017. The evidence also supports that these students were sitting closer to the group and arguably, were in a better position to see the group’s activity. There is no dispute that Mr. Sawdy was not aware that a group of students had engaged in inappropriate conduct in his classroom on May 2, 2017. Based on the evidence presented at hearing, Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Sawdy inadequately supervised students in his classroom on May 2, 2017. Mr. Sawdy walked around the classroom and interacted with students. He had control of students to the extent that he even disciplined a student for playfully hitting another student. The evidence reflects that the alleged student conduct was an isolated event that happened, at most, within one to two seconds. The conduct was quite unusual and could not be reasonably anticipated. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Sawdy failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the students from harm. There was no evidence offered to support a finding by a preponderance of evidence that the student conduct was harmful to any student’s learning, or that the events adversely affected any student’s mental or physical health, or safety. Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that there is just cause to suspend Mr. Sawdy without pay for seven days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Duval County School Board: dismiss the charges against Respondent; dismiss the notice of recommendation of issuing a reprimand and suspension without pay for seven days; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or the Collective Bargaining Agreement authorize back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful suspension without pay; Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 9th day of January, 2019.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Diane Velez, violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the testimony given, and the documentary evidence received, the following Findings of Fact are made. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 789520, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages, (ESOL), and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at Stillwell Middle School (Stillwell) in the Duval County School District. She has been teaching for approximately 20 years, with no prior discipline. Respondent teaches in a wing at Stillwell that is referred to as the SLA Unit, which stands for Supported Level Academics. The students in the SLA Unit are cognitively delayed and have all of their classes in this self- contained unit. The SLA Unit is located in a wing at the back of the school, near the bus loop. If someone is looking down the hall from the doors closest to the rest of the school, there are female and male bathrooms for students to the left and right, respectively, closest to those doors. From those bathrooms, there are five classrooms on each side of the hall. Ms. Velez’s classroom is the third classroom on the right-hand side of the hallway. There are additional restrooms in the wing, all congregated in the area between the third and fourth classrooms on the left hand side of the hallway. At least one of those bathrooms is entered from within a classroom. Stillwell had a policy that if a student was given permission to leave the classroom, the student should not be gone for more than eight to ten minutes without the teacher calling for assistance to locate the student. Teachers could call for assistance from Ronald Messick, the lead ESE teacher; send a paraprofessional to look for the student; or call the front office or a resource officer. The eight-to-ten minute window was not a written policy, but was discussed during pre-planning meetings at the beginning of the year, as well as at faculty meetings. While attendance logs from pre-planning and faculty meetings were not introduced to establish that Respondent was present during faculty meetings or pre-planning meetings, no evidence was presented to indicate that she was absent. In addition, the 2017-2018 Faculty Handbook (Handbook) for Stillwell had more than one section that addressed supervision of students. For example, under the caption “Supervision of Students,” beginning on page 12 of the Handbook, it states:1 It is the responsibility of the school to provide supervision for students in attendance. It is the teacher’s responsibility to make sure that students in his/her charge are supervised at all times. Teachers should be aware of the legal and progressive discipline aspects of failure to provide adequate supervision. Students should always have adult supervision. Under the caption “Hall Passes,” on page 16 of the Handbook, it states: Hall passes are to be used for emergencies only. In an effort to reduce the number of students out of class during instructional time, each classroom will have either a lime/orange vest or a Colored clipboard. Students needing to leave the classroom are required to wear the vest or carry the clipboard. Please make sure students continue to sign-out when leaving/returning to your classroom so if the vest/clipboard disappears, you will know who was in possession of it last. Only one student per class may be on a hall pass at any given time. If it is necessary that a student leave your classroom to go to an Administrative Office and your vest/clipboard is already being used, security will need to escort student(s) to and from the classroom. While it is our desire that no student be in the halls during instructional time, there are absolutely NO hall passes for any reason during the first/last 30 minutes of each class and NO hall passes during 2nd block each day unless called by an Administrator. Students who are found out of class during the first/last 30 minutes of the block will have the vest or clipboard taken and given to the Assistant Principal for you to retrieve. Students who are out of class, unaccompanied by security, and do not have a vest/clipboard will be 1 All italics, underlining, and bold used in the quoted material is as it appears in the Handbook. considered skipping and appropriate consequences will be assigned. The teacher will also be held accountable if not following school procedure. Finally, under the heading “Hall and Campus Monitoring,” it states in all capitals and bold letters, “STUDENTS SHOULD NEVER WALK BY THEMSELVES.” On or about January 11, 2018, J.L. was an 11-year-old female student in the sixth grade. J.L. was assigned to Respondent’s classroom, and has an Individual Education Plan (IEP). J.L. was a student in a class containing students who functioned cognitively at the lowest level for students at Stillwell. While those who testified could not state definitively what the IQ level was for the class, it was generally around 67-70. Ms. Velez described the class as one for which there was “a need to have eyes on them.” J.L. was new to the school during the 2017-2018 school year. On August 22, 2017, Ronald Messick sent an email to J.L.’s teachers, including Respondent, stating that J.L. could not be left alone and that she would “leave with a complete stranger.” He advised that when J.L. uses the restroom, she likes to play in it, and directed that the teacher who has J.L. the last period of the day needed to make sure she used the restroom. J.L.’s mother had called Mr. Messick the first week of school with concerns that J.L. had been unsupervised in the bus pick-up area. Her mother explained her concerns to Mr. Messick regarding J.L.’s need for constant supervision. The email referenced making sure that J.L. went to the bathroom before boarding the bus simply because she would have a long ride home from school. An IEP meeting was conducted for J.L. on October 12, 2017. Mr. Messick was present as the LEA (lead educational agency) representative, along with Ms. Velez, who wrote the IEP, and three others. J.L.’s IEP states that “[s]he has Williams Syndrome which is a developmental disorder that affects many parts of her body.” The IEP also states that J.L. “is a very trusting child and will walk away with a stranger. She does not distinguish friend from stranger and this causes danger to her safety,” and that J.L. “needs increased supervision to ensure her safety.” The statement that J.L. needs increased supervision to insure her safety is included in two separate sections of her IEP. Respondent was J.L.’s case manager. As her case manager, Respondent reviews, completes entries, and inputs other appropriate data in J.L.’s IEP. She was aware of the information contained in J.L.’s IEP. On January 11, 2018, J.L. was present in Ms. Velez’s classroom during the last period of the day. At approximately 2:05, she asked for, and received, permission to go to the bathroom. Ms. Velez allowed J.L. to go by herself. No adult or other student accompanied her. Allowing J.L. to go the restroom alone was not permitted by her IEP. Further, it appears to violate the policies outlined in the Handbook, which prohibits allowing hall passes for the first 30 minutes of each class. The final class of the day began at 2:05.2 It also runs afoul of the email sent by Mr. Messick at the beginning of the school year, which specifically directed that J.L. not be left alone. After J.L. was permitted to leave the classroom, T.B., a male student in Respondent’s class, also asked to go the bathroom, and was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez did not check to see where J.L. was before letting T.B. leave the classroom. T.B. was also unaccompanied. J.L. was absent from the classroom for approximately 24 minutes. There are no credible circumstances presented at hearing by which a student should be absent from the classroom for that length of time, regardless of 2 The Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with violating this policy, and no discipline is recommended for apparently doing so. It is included simply to show that there were multiple guidelines in place to prohibit allowing J.L. outside of the classroom alone. their mental capacity, the policy contained in the Handbook, or any policy discussed at faculty meetings. T.B. returned to the classroom before J.L. After he entered Ms. Velez’s classroom, T.B. apparently told Ms. Velez that J.L. was in the boys’ bathroom. Ms. Velez testified that she was about to look for her when J.L. returned to the classroom. Ms. Velez testified that she noticed J.L. had “a lot of energy,” and was breathing hard and her hands were shaking. Ms. Velez asked J.L. if she had been in the boys’ bathroom, and testified at hearing that J.L. responded that she did not want to get in trouble. J.L. became upset and asked to speak with the school nurse. Ms. Velez allowed her to go to the nurse’s office, this time accompanied by an eighth grade girl. While Ms. Velez described the child who accompanied J.L. as “very responsible,” it is noted that she was also a child in this classroom of children who represented the lowest functioning students at Stillwell. Lana Austin was the school nurse at Stillwell, and her office was down the hall from Ms. Velez’s room in the SLA wing. She testified T.B. was in her office when J.L. arrived. It was not explained at hearing whether T.B. had also asked Ms. Velez to go to the nurse’s office or just how he came to be there. When she arrived at the nurse’s office, J.L. was crying and somewhat distraught, and T.B. was also getting upset. Ms. Austin tried to get J.L. to tell her what was wrong, and J.L. kept saying they were trying to get her in trouble. J.L. wanted to call her mother, and Ms. Austin let her do so, because she believed it would calm her down. A paraprofessional came into Ms. Austin’s office while J.L. was on the phone with her mother. So while the paraprofessional was in the office with the students, Ms. Austin contacted Ms. Raulerson, the principal at Stillwell, and notified her there might be a problem so that someone could look at the hallway video and find out if anything happened. Ms. Austin knew that J.L. was a student who needed to be escorted. She was always brought to the nurse’s office by an adult. On this occasion, there was no adult. Jennifer Raulerson was the principal at Stillwell during the 2017-2018 school year. She is now the executive director for middle schools in Duval County. Ms. Raulerson testified that J.L.’s father came to the school immediately after J.L.’s telephone call home, and started asking questions. Because of the nature of his questions, consistent with school protocols, Ms. Raulerson contacted Stillwell’s school resource officer (SRO), Officer Tuten, as well as Mr. Messick and Ms. Hodges, who was the dean of students, to discuss with J.L.’s father what needed to be done to investigate what actually happened.3 The following morning, Ms. Raulerson, Ms. Hodges, and Mr. Messick spoke to J.L., T.B., and M.N., another student in the hallway, about what happened the day before. Based on their answers, Ms. Raulerson gave Ms. Hodges a basic timeframe, and asked her to check the cameras to see if she saw anything that would indicate that something happened involving J.L. and T.B. Ms. Hodges testified that a person can type in a date and time on the computer and look at a specific timeframe on the video, which is what she did. Once she viewed the video and realized how long a student had been out of the classroom, she went to Ms. Raulerson and they looked at the video again. Mr. Messick also watched the video with them. Administrators at the school could access the surveillance video on their computers. The surveillance video software has dates and times from which you can retrieve a time period to watch. However, when you download 3 Although they were under subpoena, neither J.L. nor J.L.’s father appeared to testify at hearing. Any statements attributed to them cannot support a finding of fact for the truth of the matter asserted. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Statements by J.L. that are included in this Recommended Order are not intended to establish the truth of her statements, but rather, to explain why teachers and administrators took the actions they did in response to the situation. a section of the surveillance video, the downloaded portion does not include the timestamp. When Ms. Raulerson viewed the surveillance video on the computer screen, she could see the time stamp. While the video in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E does not contain the time stamp, Ms. Raulerson credibly testified that it is the same video she and the others viewed to determine whether J.L. and T.B. were out of the classroom and how long they were out of the classroom. Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E is a type of evidence commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their responsibilities as a school administrator. There is no evidence that the tape itself has been altered, edited, or tampered with in any way. The lack of a time stamp is not all that important. What is important is not so much the time of day when J.L. and T.B. were absent from Respondent’s classroom, but the length of time that they were absent.4 Ms. Velez admits that she allowed both students to leave her classroom on January 11. She simply disputes how long J.L. was gone. The surveillance video is 39 minutes and 53 seconds long. The times given in the summary of the video activity below are based on the times recorded on the video, as opposed to the time of day. A comparison of those timeframes with the timeline made by Ms. Austin and Mr. Messick shows that the timelines are essentially the same. The video shows the following: 4 Respondent claims she is prejudiced by the admission of the video, because she was not able to view it with the time-stamps to verify that it was, in fact, the video for January 11, 2018. It is noted that Respondent initiated no discovery in this case. Petitioner filed an exhibit list that included a reference to a video as early as July 24, 2020, some three weeks before hearing. Moreover, the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions specifically requires not only a list of all exhibits to be offered at hearing, but also any objections to those exhibits and the grounds for each objection. Respondent did not note any objection in the Second Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Statement to the admission of any of the videos admitted as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17. At eight minutes, 17 seconds, J.L. leaves Ms. Velez’s classroom and heads down toward the girls’ bathroom at the end of the hall.5 She is wearing an over-sized jacket, but is not wearing a vest or carrying a clipboard. At nine minutes, 15 seconds, she comes out of the girls’ bathroom and speaks to an adult in the hallway, and then heads back to the bathroom. At the 13-minute, 4-second mark, T.B. walks down the hall from Ms. Velez’s classroom and, curiously, walks over toward the girls’ bathroom before going over to the boys’ bathroom. At 14 minutes, 39 seconds, T.B. comes out of the boys’ bathroom and walks over toward the girls’ bathroom a second time. After approximately ten seconds, he exits the area near the girls’ bathroom and heads back to the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 15 minutes into the video, and almost seven minutes after leaving Ms. Velez’s classroom, J.L. comes out of the girls’ bathroom, peers down the hallway in both directions, and goes over to the boys’ bathroom. At this point, she is still wearing her jacket. At approximately 18 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, a second male student, later identified as M.N., walks down the hall. M.N. is not in Ms. Velez’s class during this class period. He also goes toward the girls’ bathroom first, and then stands in the hallway outside the boys’ bathroom. After approximately 30 seconds, he walks down the hall and back, before going toward the boys’ bathroom and out of sight at 19 minutes and 40 seconds. At 20 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, other students start lining up in the hallway. Approximately four classes line up in the hallway, with no one coming out of the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 29 minutes, 5 Respondent established at hearing that one cannot actually see students enter and exit the bathrooms from the surveillance video. The sight line for the video stops just short of the doors to the two bathrooms. However, the only other alternative to going in the bathrooms would be for students to exit the SLA unit through the doors near the bathrooms. If that were the case, J.L. would be subject to harm as well, given that the doors lead to the rest of the school and the bus loading zone. 26 seconds, girls in line outside the bathroom are seen looking toward the boys’ bathroom and appear to be laughing. J.L. comes out of the boys’ bathroom at the 29-minute, 53-second mark, followed by T.B. J.L. is not wearing her jacket, and her belt is undone. T.B. throws J.L.’s jacket on the floor and walks down the hallway with his hands up in the air. Both J.L. and T.B. walk down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s room, and then turn around and return to their respective bathrooms. At the 31-minute, 53-second mark, J.L. comes out of the bathroom with her shirt tucked in and her belt fastened. She is still not wearing her jacket, a small portion of which can be seen on the floor of the hallway. She does not pick it up, but stays in the hallway until T.B. comes out of the bathroom, then both go down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s class, with T.B. running and J.L. walking. J.L. re-enters Ms. Velez’s classroom at 32 minutes, 21 seconds into the video. Finally, at 32 minutes, 30 seconds, M.N. comes out of the boys’ room, picks up J.L.’s jacket and heads down the hall. Based on the surveillance video, J.L.was out of the classroom for slightly over 24 minutes. T.B. was absent from the classroom for over 18 minutes. Ms. Velez is never seen in the hallway. There is no admissible evidence to demonstrate what actually occurred during the time that J.L. appeared to be in the boys’ restroom. Regardless of what actually happened, no female student should be in the boys’ bathroom, and a female student already identified as needing increased supervision should not be allowed to be unsupervised outside of her classroom at all, much less for such a lengthy period of time. The potential for harm was more than foreseeable, it was inevitable. Ms. Velez did not go in the hallway or send Ms. Kirkland, the paraprofessional present in her classroom that day, to check on J.L. or T.B. She did not call the SRO, the front office, or Mr. Messick to ask for assistance in locating either child. She also did not contact Ms. Raulerson, Mr. Messick, or J.L.’s parents after T.B. told her that J.L. had been in the boys’ restroom. She testified that, while J.L. certainly should not be in the boys’ restroom, there was nothing that led her to believe or suspect that there could be neglect or abuse. Ms. Velez acknowledged that she allowed J.L. to go to the bathroom unsupervised, and stated that she was training J.L. to go to the bathroom by herself. If that was the case, doing so was directly contrary to Mr. Messick’s email of August 22, 2017, and to the requirements of J.L.’s IEP. Ms. Velez had approximately 18 students in her classroom. Her focus, according to her, was on providing instruction to the students in her class. She denied losing track of time, but stated that once the students were engaged, she took her time with the lesson, which “led me to not noticing what time it was as normally as I should,” and she “possibly got distracted.” She did not take any responsibility for her actions. Instead, she blamed the situation on the fact that, at the time of the incident, she did not have a full- time paraprofessional assigned to her classroom. While the paraprofessional position for her class was not filled at the time of this incident, Ms. Kirkland traveled with the class and was present in Ms. Velez’s class when J.L. was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez also appeared to minimize the importance of providing increased supervision for J.L., and claimed that she was training her to go to the bathroom by herself. Yet, she described the class as a whole as one that needed “eyes on them” at all times. Further, J.L.’s parents clearly felt the increased supervision was crucial, and called early in the school year to make sure that staff knew J.L. was not to be left alone. Ms. Velez gave no explanation as to why she would “train” J.L. to leave the room unsupervised (and one wonders what training could be taking place, if the child is allowed to go alone outside the classroom), when she knew that to do so was clearly contrary to J.L.’s parents’ wishes. On January 22, 2018, the Duval County School District (the District) began an investigation into the incident concerning J.L. that occurred on January 11, 2018. During the District investigation, Ms. Raulerson notified the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and law enforcement of the incident. Both entities conducted investigations. The results of those investigations are not part of this record. On March 16, 2018, the District reprimanded Respondent and suspended her for 30 days for failing to provide adequate supervision of her students. The School Board’s approval of the suspension and the basis for it was reported in the press.
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 violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent pay a fine of $750, and that her certificate be suspended for a period of one year, followed by two years of probation, with terms and conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, 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 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Stephanie Marisa Schaap, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the letter from the Petitioner dated January 16, 2003, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed February 27, 2003, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2002).3 At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz taught emotionally handicapped and seriously emotionally disturbed students in North Miami Beach High's Bertha Abbess exceptional student education program. He has been employed by the School Board since 1993, and is currently employed under a professional services contract. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz and at least one other person were making a music video for a course they were taking at Florida International University. Alvarro Gutierrez was working with Mr. Lefkowitz on the video, and Mr. Gutierrez had chosen the girl who would sing and would choreograph the dances for the video. Mr. Gutierrez did not, however, have any dancers, and Mr. Lefkowitz told Mr. Gutierrez that he knew some girls "from school" who were dancers and that he would ask them if they wanted to dance in the video. J.D. was, at the times material to his proceeding, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, although she was not a student of Mr. Lefkowitz. Rather, J.D. met Mr. Lefkowitz in a school hallway, while she was selling candy for her French class, and they apparently had several conversations during school hours. In one of these conversations, Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned that he was filming a music video for a college class. J.D. asked if she could be in the video, and Mr. Lefkowitz agreed and asked J.D. if she had any friends who could also dance in the video. J.D. introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to her friend N.F. N.F. was, at the time, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, but she did not know Mr. Lefkowitz until J.D. introduced them. Mr. Lefkowitz did not know at the time he met her that N.F. was a student at North Miami Beach High. J.D. also introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to Glamour Legros, whom she knew because she and Ms. Legros attended the same church. Prior to introducing Mr. Lefkowitz to Ms. Legros, J.D. had told him on a number of occasions how much Ms. Legros wanted to meet him.4 Ms. Legros and N.F. shared an apartment. Ms. Legros was not a student at the times material to this proceeding, and she was older than N.F. and J.D. J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros agreed to dance in the music video and went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment several times to discuss, rehearse, and shoot the video. Mr. Lefkowitz picked up J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros and drove them to his apartment on the occasions when they were working on the video. Mr. Lefkowitz also took J.D. and her friends home on these occasions. M.D., J.D.'s brother and a student at North Miami Beach High at the time, went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment once, and H.D., another student at North Miami Beach High, was at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment on at least one occasion, when she danced for the music video. These two students also rode with Mr. Lefkowitz in his car on at least one occasion. In addition to her visits to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment and her rides in his car, J.D. spoke with Mr. Lefkowitz numerous times on the telephone. When working on the video, J.D. went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment with her friends. She was alone with Mr. Lefkowitz once, after her friends left Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment; Mr. Lefkowitz took her home after about an hour. Mr. Gutierrez did not observe Mr. Lefkowitz engage in any improper behavior with J.D. or her friends at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment during the time they were discussing, rehearsing, and shooting the music video. On April 21, 2003, Ms. Legros called the police and she and N.F. reported that Mr. Lefkowitz had come to their apartment, beat on the door, and threatened them verbally. According to the police incident report, the police were dispatched at 10:09 p.m. and arrived at Ms. Legros's and N.F.'s apartment at 10:12 p.m. Mr. Lefkowitz had outpatient surgery on April 18, 2002. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother was with him at his apartment from April 18 through the morning of April 22, 2002, the day he returned to work. According to Ms. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz was in bed, asleep, on the night of April 21, 2002. On April 22, 2002, Raymond Fontana, the principal of North Miami Beach High, received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself to Mr. Fontana's secretary as J.D.'s aunt and who told Mr. Fontana that an exceptional student education teacher named "Neil" was having a relationship with J.D., a student at North Miami Beach High; the caller also reported that the teacher had been involved in an "incident" that had been reported to the police. Ms. Legros was the person who called Mr. Fontana.5 Mr. Fontana called Allyn Bernstein, an assistant principal at North Miami Beach High, into his office and asked her to look into the allegations made by the caller. Dr. Bernstein called Mr. Lefkowitz into her office and, before she could say anything, Mr. Lefkowitz told her that he knew why she had summoned him, that an ex-girlfriend had threatened to make trouble for him because he wouldn't give her money. When Dr. Bernstein questioned Mr. Lefkowitz about his relationship with the student J.D., Mr. Lefkowitz denied knowing her. Dr. Bernstein also called J.D. into her office. In response to Dr. Bernstein's questions, J.D. denied knowing Mr. Lefkowitz. She stated that she did not have a social relationship with any teacher outside of school and that she had never met any staff member outside school. After Dr. Bernstein reported to Mr. Fontana that she believed that there might be "something there,"6 Mr. Fontana reported the matter to the school district personnel, who referred the matter to the Miami-Dade School Police Department, and an investigation was initiated. Once the investigation was initiated, Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on alternate assignment at his home effective May 3, 2002. The investigator, Detective Victor Hernandez, interviewed N.F., Ms. Legros, J.D., H.D., M.D., and Mr. Lefkowitz. During the course of his investigation, Detective Hernandez was told that Mr. Lefkowitz and N.F. had dated and that they had had sexual intercourse. When Detective Hernandez interviewed Mr. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz denied that he knew either J.D. or N.F. In a report dated September 2, 2002, Detective Hernandez described his investigation and set forth the substance of the statements given by the witnesses. Detective Hernandez concluded that the charges that Mr. Lefkowitz had violated Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.109 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21 were substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on October 2, 2002, with Paul Greenfield, District Director, presiding. Mr. Lefkowitz attended the Conference-for-the-Record, together with the School Board's Director of Region II and Mr. Fontana. Mr. Lefkowitz requested that his attorney be allowed to attend, but this request was denied.7 Mr. Greenfield reviewed Mr. Lefkowitz's history with the Miami-Dade County public school system and presented the results of the investigation. Mr. Lefkowitz denied having met J.D. and N.F. and denied that they were ever in his apartment. After the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Fontana recommended to the Superintendent of Region II that Mr. Lefkowitz's employment be terminated. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein, to Detective Hernandez, and to the participants in the Conference-for-the- Record about his relationships with J.D. and N.F. because he knew it was improper for the students to be in his apartment and for him to associate with students outside of school. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed remorse at his behavior and acknowledged that his conduct was not appropriate. J.D. testified that she and Mr. Lefkowitz never dated or had sexual intercourse. Ms. Legros testified that she did not know whether Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. had had sexual intercourse. She claimed, however, to have observed Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and acting like "boyfriend and girlfriend to me."8 Ms. Legros has no personal knowledge that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual relations with N.F., but testified that N.F. told Ms. Legros that she had had a relationship with Mr. Lefkowitz. An 11th-grade student testified at the hearing that he considered Mr. Lefkowitz to be a good teacher, a role model, and a teacher that he would remember after high school. Mr. Fontana testified that he thought Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired because of the "manner in which he dealt with students, having students come to his apartment, dealing with students that are out of the realm of his teaching responsibilities." Mr. Fontana observed that "once you breach that student/teacher relationship and you lose that professionalism I don't think you can ever go back and have the same degree of effectiveness as a teacher."9 In making his decision to recommend that Mr. Lefkowitz be terminated from his employment as a teacher, Mr. Fontana considered Mr. Lefkowitz's employment history with the Miami- Dade County public school system. Mr. Lefkowitz was twice referred for evaluation as to his medical fitness to perform his duties as a teacher and was twice found fit to perform these duties. Mr. Lefkowitz was the subject of three allegations of battery on a student, one in February 1995, one in February 1999, and one in March 1999; the February 1995 charge was substantiated,10 and Mr. Lefkowitz was given a verbal warning; the remaining two charges were unsubstantiated. Finally, in August 1995, Mr. Lefkowitz had an unacceptable annual evaluation, was given a TADS Category VII prescription in the area of Professional Responsibility, and successfully completed the prescription within the specified time. Summary The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is insufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz dated either J.D. or N.F. or that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual intercourse with N.F. The School Board presented no direct evidence establishing that J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a romantic relationship or that N.F. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a sexual relationship. The School Board relied exclusively on Ms. Legros's testimony to establish that these relationships existed,11 and most of her testimony was based on hearsay, not personal knowledge. Ms. Legros had no personal knowledge that N.F. had sexual relations with Mr. Lefkowitz, and the only behavior that Ms. Legros testified that she personally observed was Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. in Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and, in Ms. Legros's estimation, acting like boyfriend and girlfriend. Ms. Legros is found not to be a particularly credible witness, and her uncorroborated testimony is not sufficiently persuasive to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. more likely than not were dating or that the hugging and kissing, if she indeed observed such behavior, was sexual in nature. Both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz denied having a romantic relationship, but it is difficult to credit fully their testimony, given that both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about knowing one another and that Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about being acquainted with N.F. However, on reflection and after a careful review of the evidence, the testimony of J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros. The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. on April 21, 2002, and threatened her or that he went to the apartment shared by Ms. Legros and N.F. on the night of April 21, 2002, and made threats to harm them. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother testified unequivocally that she was with Mr. Lefkowitz from April 19 through the morning of April 22, 2002, and that he was recovering from surgery and sleeping on the night of April 21, 2002. The School Board presented no evidence that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. and threatened her, and Ms. Legros was the only witness to testify that Mr. Lefkowitz came to her apartment and made threats. The testimony of Mrs. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros.12 The evidence presented in this case is sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz failed to exercise the best professional judgment, failed to maintain the highest ethical standards, and used his position as a teacher to his personal advantage by recruiting young women students to perform as dancers in the music video he was filming as part of a college assignment. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct: He had had a personal relationship outside of school with both J.D. and N.F.; J.D. and N.F. danced in a music video he made for a college project; J.D. and N.F. were in his apartment several times; and he drove J.D. and N.F. in his car to and from his apartment. The contents and tone of the written statement Mr. Lefkowitz adopted as his testimony supports an inference that he was on very familiar terms with both J.D. and N.F., and with Ms. Legros as well.13 Mr. Lefkowitz's poor judgment in developing significant social relationships outside of school with two female students at North Miami Beach High and his inappropriate behavior in having these students as guests in his car and in his apartment reflect poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. Mr. Lefkowitz also failed to exercise the best professional judgment and to maintain the highest ethical standards with respect to his dealings with the School Board during the investigation of his conduct. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein and Detective Hernandez and at the October 2, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record when he said he did not know J.D. or N.F., and he admitted at the final hearing that he lied because he knew that he should never have involved these students in making the music video, should never have given these students rides in his car, and should never have invited the students to his apartment. Mr. Lefkowitz's lack of truthfulness reflects poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz engaged in one instance of inappropriate behavior involving students M.D. and H.D. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that, on one occasion, he picked up these two students in his car and drove them to his apartment, where H.D. danced in the music video and M.D. observed Mr. Lefkowitz and cohorts filming the music video. Mr. Lefkowitz did not have repeated out-of-school contacts with these two students, as he did with J.D. and N.F., but his behavior with M.D. and H.D. reflected poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board, which consisted only of Mr. Fontana's conclusory and general statements, is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County public school system. The evidence presented by the School Board is, however, sufficient to permit an inference that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher was impaired. Mr. Lefkowitz encouraged students to develop personal relationships with him and to spend significant amounts of time with him in his apartment. Even though J.D., the young woman with whom he was primarily involved, was not a student in his class, his willingness to become involved with this student and her friends brings his personal and professional judgment into question and necessarily affects the school administration's assessment of his fitness for supervising high school students. It may also be inferred that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board was also impaired because he lied to the principal and assistant principal of his school and to the regional superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system about even knowing J.D. By not being truthful with the school system administrators, Mr. Lefkowitz diminished his credibility as a professional educator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order; Finding that Neil D. Lefkowitz is guilty of having committed misconduct in office and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.09 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21; Suspending Mr. Lefkowitz without pay for a period of 24 months, retroactive to the date on which the School Board suspended him from his employment without pay; and Imposing such conditions on Mr. Lefkowitz upon his return to employment as the School Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 31th day of July, 2003.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Mary Chung ("Respondent"), committed the alleged conduct and, if so, whether Petitioner, Lee County School Board ("School Board"), has just cause to terminate her employment as a food service worker.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a food service worker at Lehigh Senior High School ("Lehigh") in Lehigh Acres, Lee County, Florida. She was employed in this capacity for the 2003/2004 school year. Respondent was present for work at Lehigh on May 21, 2004. Respondent was scheduled to work from 6:15 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. on this date. This had been her work schedule all year. On May 21, 2004, Respondent reported for work at least 10 minutes late. She arrived at work at approximately 6:25 a.m. Respondent had not called in to notify anyone that she would be late to work that morning and did not advise or explain to her supervisor the reason for her tardiness. Accordingly, Respondent's tardiness on the morning of May 21, 2004, was not excused by her supervisor, Carol Lewis ("Lewis"), who was the food service manager at Lehigh. Respondent and the other employees in the kitchen are given rotating assignments. They rotate to new assignments every two weeks. During the time period which included May 21, 2004, one of Respondent's responsibilities was to open cans of fruit. In accordance with her assigned duties, upon Respondent's arrival in the kitchen on May 21, 2004, Respondent began opening cans of fruit. Lewis approached Respondent while she was opening the cans and directed her to take two coffee pots to the school's media center for a staff appreciation breakfast. It was not unusual for Lewis to direct workers to stop the tasks they were working on to attend to other tasks that needed to be done. In fact, other food service workers in the kitchen that morning were helping with preparations for the staff breakfast in addition to their other assigned tasks. Respondent first ignored Lewis's request, and when directed again by Lewis to move the coffee pots, Respondent told a fellow employee, Lucy Roan ("Roan"), to move them. Lewis overheard Respondent's remark to Roan and corrected her by saying that she wanted Respondent to move the pots. Respondent then proceeded to where the pots were located and indicated to Lewis that she could not lift them onto the cart that she was to use to take them to the media center. According to Respondent, the reason she could not lift the coffee pots and place them on the cart was because of a problem with her foot. Lewis then put the coffee pots on the cart for Respondent and, again, directed Respondent to take them to the media center. When Lewis came back by the area a few minutes later, Respondent had still not taken the coffee pots to the media center. Lewis then directed Respondent to leave the school and said Respondent was fired. Lewis reported the incident to Ronald E. Davis ("Davis"), the principal of Lehigh during the 2003-2004 school year and at the time of the incident. Davis met with Respondent about the incident and gave her a written reprimand dated May 26, 2004. The reprimand was delivered to her on May 28, 2004. The reprimand indicated that Davis was also recommending that Respondent be dismissed. Davis contacted Georgianna W. McDaniel, director, Personnel Services ("McDaniel"), regarding the May 21, 2004, incident. McDaniel advised the principal to forward documentation regarding the incident to Personnel Services. McDaniel has certain responsibilities with regard to employee discipline. She counsels supervisors and administrators regarding appropriate disciplinary action; she suspends employees (with pay) when recommended by the superintendent; and she acts as the predetermination conference administrator. On or about June 1, 2004, Davis forwarded the May 26, 2004, letter of reprimand that had been given to Respondent to the School District's Personnel Services office. He also sent four written statements from the food service manager and three food service workers who were present in the kitchen when the incident involving Respondent occurred. These statements were written at Davis' direction A predetermination conference was scheduled for July 2, 2004, to give Respondent an opportunity to respond to Davis' recommendation for her dismissal based upon the incident on May 21, 2004. Respondent was notified of the conference by McDaniel by certified letter dated June 23, 2004. Respondent attended the predetermination conference and was given an opportunity to address the complaint filed by Davis. However, the matter was not resolved, and the School District superintendent recommended that Respondent's employment as a food service worker be terminated. The School Board met on August 12, 2004, to consider the Petition. At that meeting, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay and benefits pending receipt of the recommended order of the Administrative Law Judge. Prior to the May 21, 2004, incident, Respondent had experienced work-related problems and/or areas of concern while working as a food service worker. These problems had been discussed with Respondent and documented in her record. On May 9, 2002, Respondent was put on Procedures for Improvement by her then assistant principal, James Buchanan. Procedures for Improvement is a tool used by the School District to notify employees of unacceptable conduct and to give them an opportunity to correct their behavior and desist in any further conduct of that nature. In Respondent's case, the May 9, 2002, Procedures for Improvement noted the following specific deficiencies in Respondent's behavior: "Employee refused to leave area to discuss a problem/situation with the supervisor." The desired improvement in her behavior was: "1) Employee will interact appropriate [sic] with supervisor; 2) Employee when asked to go to an area by a supervisor will go, and follow any other directives by a supervisor; [and] 3) Employee will conduct herself properly with co-workers." Respondent was advised she could achieve this desired result as follows: "Employee will do what is told of her to do by a supervisor. Do the work that is assigned to her and complete it in a timely manner." Her success in reaching the desired result would be judged as follows: "No further incidents of refusing to go to a private area to talk out differences. Employee will have no other incidents with co-workers and supervisors." Respondent was also notified in her 2003-2004 Performance Assessment that she was deficient in certain areas and that she needed to "focus" on the following areas in the future: "6) Is punctual in attendance; 8) Exhibits dependability; 11) Exhibits positive attitude; 14) Has good rapport with others; and 15) Accepts criticism constructively." Her supervisor also noted in the comments section that she: "Calls in sick or late too much. Not dependable at all — Gripes about others or duties." She also noted that as of the date of the Performance Assessment (March 2004), Respondent had been absent for 231 hours (or 33 days) and tardy 15 times. Lewis prepared Respondent's 2003/2004 Performance Assessment. It was her responsibility as the food service manager to prepare an annual Performance Assessment for all the food service workers. Lewis prepared the Performance Assessment on March 24, 2004, and reviewed it with Respondent on March 30, 2004, the same date that Respondent signed the Performance Assessment. As a food service worker, Respondent was considered a "10-month employee." She did not work during the summer months. Her last day of work for the 2003-2004 school year was Friday, May 28, 2004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a food service worker with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2004, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Mary Chung 2147 Gulfside Village Drive Lehigh Acres, Florida 33972 Dr. James W. Browder, III Superintendent of Schools Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent should be terminated from her employment with the Miami-Dade County School District.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is responsible for the operation and control of all public schools within the Miami-Dade County School District. As such, it is authorized to employ the personnel necessary to instruct the school district's students. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as an annual contract teacher at Miami Springs Middle School. Respondent was born in Africa and received college degrees from the Sorbonne University in Paris, France. Respondent holds a bachelor's degree in American Literature and Civilization, a master of arts degree in English Literature, a master of arts in International Relations, and a doctorate in American Civilization and Third World Literature. Prior to emigrating to the United States in 1989, Respondent had approximately three years of teaching experience. She taught secondary students for one year in England and France, and for an unknown time in the English Department at Cheikh Anta Diop University in West Africa. After coming to the United States, Respondent taught at Michigan State University for one semester, then at Vassar for one year, at Miami-Dade Community College during a two-year span, at Nova University for one semester, at Jones College in 1994, and at the Florida International University in 1995. In these instances, Respondent's teaching experience was limited to college-age students. Additionally, the number of terms or courses taught in the various settings is unknown. Respondent is certified by the Florida Department of Education in language arts. Pursuant to this certification she may teach middle school students. Respondent began her career with Petitioner as a substitute teacher. Respondent was hired for a full-time teaching position at Miami Springs Middle School for the 1996/97 school year. The transition from college-age students to middle school students proved difficult for Respondent. The students' lack of respect, discipline, and interest in education were new to Respondent. During her first year at Miami Springs, Respondent was assigned a "peer teacher." This individual, Caridad Hildago, was to assist Respondent to overcome beginning teacher problems. In this regard, over the course of the year Ms. Hildago gave Respondent numerous suggestions to help her keep students on task, to maintain control, and to promote interaction between teacher and students in the class. Although she received an acceptable evaluation for this first year at Miami Springs, Respondent exhibited problems with student management. Security monitors were sent to Respondent's classroom on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, because she made progress in the first year, Respondent was expected to become an adequate teacher and was retained for the 1997/98 school year. During Respondent's second year at Miami Springs, the 1997/1998 school year, Dr. Senita became the principal. In October 1997, Dr. Senita informally met with Respondent and told her that students had complained that Respondent had pushed them or handled them roughly. Dr. Senita reminded Respondent that such behavior was not appropriate and that she should keep her hands off the students. Teachers employed by the School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). TADS has been approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). At all times material to this case, TADS was employed to evaluate Respondent's performance. The same TADS documents are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and all teachers. TADS objectively measures 68 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. TADS' observers are trained and certified. The observer records deficiencies which are observed during the observation period and provides a prescription (a plan) for performance improvement when needed. During the 1997 legislative session, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 1997, to provide for a 90-calendar-day performance probation for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. Because the statutory amendment impacted how TADS would be used in the future, Petitioner and the union began collective bargaining to revise performance review procedures. In the midst of these negotiations, on October 1, 1997, Respondent was formally observed in her 4th period creative writing class by Mr. Scriven, assistant principal. She was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent was unsatisfactory in classroom management because the students were off task throughout the lesson and Respondent did nothing to redirect them. Two students had their heads down and/or slept during the class. By Mr. Scriven's count, ten students never participated. Additionally, Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because during sustained silent reading, Respondent continually interrupted the students. Respondent also failed to give instructions prior to beginning the lesson. Respondent did not make adjustments when the students' performance warranted it. When students did not understand the assignment, Respondent did not clarify areas of confusion by giving examples or re-explaining. During the post observation conference with Respondent on October 6, 1997, Mr. Scriven made recommendations to correct the areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance to help Respondent understand the deficiencies. Suggestions included observing a lesson taught by a fellow teacher and listing the non-verbal techniques used by that teacher to redirect off task learners. Mr. Scriven also directed Respondent to read specific pages from the TADS prescription manual and to complete the activities. Respondent was directed to list areas where she would expect student confusion and to discuss strategies with another teacher to address that confusion. On November 25, 1997, Respondent was formally observed in her 5th period creative writing class by Dr. Senita. Respondent had no lesson plan and her performance was marginal. Normally, the absence of a lesson plan would automatically render the observation unsatisfactory. The union asked Dr. Senita to work with Respondent while the Respondent attempted a transfer. To accommodate this request, Respondent was rated satisfactory. On December 5, 1997, Respondent was formally observed in her 4th period creative writing class by Dr. Senita and was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter and classroom management. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because the sequence of information she presented was illogical and she failed to include important dimensions in her instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because there was too much wasted time with no instruction. Additionally, off-task students were not redirected. One student colored with markers for twenty-five minutes and then began bouncing a ball. Some students participated in a conversation about a sports figure and others talked about a girl's boyfriend. Many students chewed gum. Respondent failed to redirect any of these students. Dr. Senita made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance to help Respondent correct her deficiencies. These included observing a lesson taught by a fellow teacher and noting the strategies that teacher used to deal with students who were interacting inappropriately. Respondent was also directed to list three topics and to outline their components to ensure that the sequence would be logical. She was to list the important dimensions of each and state how they would be incorporated into the lesson. She was to estimate the amount of time each activity would take. She was to review her lesson plan with the principal. On December 10, 1997, Dr. Senita held a conference for the record with Respondent to address her unsatisfactory performance, to provide recommendations to improve the specific areas of her unsatisfactory performance, and to discuss her future employment status with the school district. Respondent was placed on a Performance Probation in accordance with Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and was provided assistance to help her correct her deficiencies within the prescribed time frame. Meanwhile, bargaining on the changes to TADS between the School Board and the Union culminated in a Memorandum of Understanding which was executed by the parties on December 9, 1997. On January 20, 1998, Respondent was formally observed in her 5th period creative writing class by Ms. Bell, assistant principal, and was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because her instructional activities did not fill the allotted time. Again, there was wasted time. There were instances of prolonged off-task behavior which Respondent did not address. Respondent was unable to keep students quiet. Ms. Bell made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance to help Respondent correct her deficiencies. These included having Respondent observe a demonstration lesson in the same class. Ms. Bell also prescribed activities from the TADS prescription manual. On January 28, 1998, pursuant to Respondent's prescription, Ethel Dickens, a reading specialist with Petitioner's language arts department, presented a demonstration lesson utilizing the reciprocal teaching method to teach The Red Badge of Courage in Respondent's class. Respondent was already familiar with the technique of reciprocal teaching because she had learned it in a workshop during the summer of 1997. Prior to the start of the class, Ms. Dickens attempted to meet with Dr. Senita and Respondent. Because Respondent would not meet with Dr. Senita, Ms. Dickens met with Respondent in the teacher's lounge. At the start of the class, Ms. Dickens observed Respondent handling her class for about 15 minutes. The students did not appear to have a routine. Lack of routine constitutes poor classroom management. In contrast, Ms. Dickens began her instruction with class rules. Ms. Dickens introduced the students to unfamiliar vocabulary prior to reading the book. The lesson was very productive. Ms. Dickens had no discipline problems while she taught the class. On March 2, 1998, Respondent was formally observed in her 4th period creative writing class by Dr. Senita and was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and classroom management. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she had no lesson plan. Respondent's class was in the library and Respondent requested that the principal not observe her in the library. Dr. Senita requested Respondent's lesson plan but Respondent refused to give one to her. The lesson plan is a contractual requirement. It guides what goes on in the class for the day. Respondent was required to allow Dr. Senita to review the lesson plan. An administrator has the right to observe any class at any time. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because she did not start her lesson for twenty-five minutes while she was on the telephone attempting to call different people to have the principal not observe her. Students reported late to class. Some students chewed gum. One student yelled an obscenity and another barked like a dog. Respondent did not correct the misbehavior. Dr. Senita made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance to help Respondent correct her deficiencies. These included completing activities from the TADS prescription manual and reading portions of a book entitled Learning to Teach. Respondent was also required to submit her lesson plans on the Friday prior to the week she would teach from them. On March 25, 1998, Dr. Senita formally observed Respondent in her 2nd period creative writing class and rated her unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. As this was the confirmatory observation, a prescription was not issued. The lesson was disjointed and did not extend for the allotted time. The students were again off task. As a result of the observation on March 25, 1998, Dr. Senita notified the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected her performance deficiencies during the Performance Probation and recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. The assistance provided to Respondent through her prescriptions was appropriate to remedy her deficiencies. Respondent completed all of her prescriptions. Nevertheless, Respondent continued to fail to plan for and manage her students. Respondent failed to improve her performance such that the students' instructional needs were not met. On April 2, 1998, the Superintendent of Schools timely notified Respondent that he was going to recommend that the School Board terminate her employment contract because she had failed to satisfactorily correct her performance deficiencies during her Performance Probation. On April 15, 1998, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Respondent's employment contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the action to terminate Respondent's annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade Legal Department 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 195597 covering the area of industrial arts. During the school years of 1973-1974 to 1983-1984, Respondent had no persistent pattern involving professional incompetency or unprofessional conduct. The Respondent was employed as a teacher of industrial arts at Vero Beach Junior High School in the Indian River County School District during the 1983-1984, 1984-1985, and the first three weeks of the 1985-1986 school years, until his suspension effective September 16, 1985. During 1983-1984, he also apparently taught mathematics. At various times, the classes Respondent taught at Vero Beach Junior High School included some classes directed to regular students and others directed to exceptional students, including the educable mentally handicapped (EMH). EMH students have intelligence quotients (IQs) of less than 70. At all times, all of the industrial arts classes taught by Respondent were elective. THE 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Mr. Marion Bass was the Respondent's supervising principal at all times material to the administrative complaint. As the Respondent's supervising principal, Mr. Bass observed and evaluated the Respondent's teaching performance. Prior to evaluating the Respondent's teaching performance, Principal Bass received formal training in the evaluation of teachers and had 12 to 13 years of practical experience in conducting teacher evaluations. Principal Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance informally on two or three occasions during the 1983- 1984 school year and twice formally at the end of that school year. In his observations and evaluation of Respondent, Bass found the Respondent's performance to be unsatisfactory. Specifically, Bass observed that the Respondent did not satisfactorily control students in his classroom, his planning was not as complete as it should be, implementation of his lesson plans was not acceptable, and Respondent's "voice procedures" (i.e., diction and volume) were unsatisfactory. Bass opined that the Respondent did not have a specific structure to his industrial arts class. Even if students were knowledgeable of their assigned task on a given day, the students were not always on-task. Instead, they would be out of their seats, moving around the room and discussing topics unrelated to class work. In Bass' view, Respondent failed to provide proper supervision of the students, and as a result, the students did not appear to respect the Respondent's instructions. Bass observed that students ignored Respondent's instructions to sit down and be quiet. On other occasions, he observed that the Respondent ignored some students' off-task behavior while he was involved with others. However, none of Bass' observations in the 1983- 1984 school year were reduced to writing nor formally discussed with Respondent, and the formal year-end evaluation of Respondent of March 16, 1984, by Laurent Smith, Assistant Principal, rated Respondent as overall satisfactory and his contract was subsequently renewed for the 1984-1985 school year. On or about May 15, 1984, Bass inadvertently discovered that the Respondent was not knowledgeable of his mathematics students' progress in their skills continuum. This was particularly disturbing to Bass in that each student is required by the Indian River County School Board to accomplish at least 70 percent proficiency in state-mandated skills in order to be promoted to the next higher grade. Thereafter, Bass made an attempt to ascertain the level of skills accomplishment by the students in Respondent's classes. While doing so, Bass questioned Respondent about the matter. The Respondent indicated that certain students were in the Compensatory Education Program. Bass subsequently learned that those students were not compensatory education students but were Level Two students. It alarmed Bass to discover that the Respondent did not even know what level of students he had been teaching for seven months. THE 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR On September 17, 1984, Bass prepared a memorandum to Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel for the School Board. In that memorandum, Bass outlined his concerns regarding Respondent's teaching performance. The memorandum addressed seven general areas of deficiency: failure to control students' behavior; failure to provide meaningful structure and direction and failure to support an enthusiasm for learning; failure to demonstrate the ability to plan a course of study with overall goals and objectives providing direction and continuity in the subject matter; difficulty in implementing what lesson plans the Respondent did develop; addressing only a small percentage of the students in his class when presenting a lesson; difficulty with proper grammar and diction; and a demonstrated lack of understanding for the basic academic and social skill needs of his students. Following preparation of his September 17, 1984 memorandum, Bass continued to make observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance on October 15, 1984 and completed a Classroom Observation Instrument containing his notes of that observation which rated the Respondent's performance in the classroom as "extremely poor, one of great concern." The notations on the Classroom Observation Instrument itself indicate that the Respondent gave directions to a limited number of students, assisted only a small number of students, engaged in very little class communication, did not enunciate well, used poor diction, utilized "very poor" classroom management, and failed to keep the students on task. Following Bass' observation of the Respondent on October 15, 1984, he prepared a written memorandum of his concerns and his suggestions for improvement. He met with the Respondent and discussed both his concerns and suggestions for improvement. The Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. During this conference, Bass told the Respondent that he was there to help him in any way that he knew how to help. Bass expressed similar sentiments in other conferences with Respondent regarding Respondent's teaching performance and offered to allow Respondent to visit other schools and other teachers both in and out of the school district in an effort to help Respondent remediate his observed deficiencies. On September 13, 1984, Theresa Wagner, chairperson of the vocational department of Vero Beach Junior High School, sent all teachers within that department a memorandum establishing dates for computer usage. One of the components of the Respondent's industrial arts curriculum was demonstration of computer literacy. Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. On October 15, 1984, the first day of the Respondent's assigned time block for use of the computers, the Respondent advised Ms. Wagner that his class was not ready to use the computers and would probably not be ready the following week. However, until that date, Respondent had expressed no problem with the time block assigned to him and had requested no assistance in preparing for this new function of the curriculum. When Ms. Wagner reminded him that computer skills were a part of his required curriculum at that time, Respondent replied that he could not understand why he had to teach something he did not know anything about. Further, he stated that he could not learn it. Respondent apparently made two attempts to learn the computer and gave up. Respondent's failure to adapt himself to the new computer programming time blocks inconvenienced Ms. Wagner and others who were required to share the single computer during the finite time available in a school day/school year. At hearing, Respondent advanced the theory that because his major was in TIE (Trade Industrial Education), he ought not to be required to adapt to teaching manufacturing, woodworking, and computer literacy, which are outside of his expressed field of interest, but which apparently are very much contemplated within the general field of industrial arts. Additionally, he felt he certainly should not be required to adapt to teaching all these "new" areas at one time. However, it appears he had been teaching woodworking for some period of time anyway. Overall, Respondent made it clear he did not want to teach the curriculum assigned to him. As a part of her assigned responsibilities as department chairperson, Ms. Wagner was required to observe each of the teachers within the vocational department. On October 10, 1984, she observed the Respondent. Her memorandum to the Respondent dated October 10, 1984, outlined her observations as well as her suggestions for his improvement. Ms. Wagner had difficulty understanding the Respondent when he was teaching. She suggested that he talk louder and make a special effort to enunciate clearly. She observed that the Respondent failed to provide a handout for one girl in the class. The girl raised her hand and had it up for five minutes before the Respondent noticed the student and gave her the handout. Ms. Wagner observed a lot of non-essential, non-productive movement of students in the classroom. Finally, she noted among other things that the last lesson plans which the Respondent turned in were for the week of September 17, 1984, although he was on notice that he was supposed to turn in lesson plans weekly. Ms. Wagner observed little, if any, instruction being provided by the Respondent. The students failed to respond to the Respondent's directions and did not pay attention to him or obey his directions. In fact, the majority of the students ignored the Respondent during this observation by Ms. Wagner. Lesson plans were an on-going problem between Ms. Wagner and Respondent. Only when Ms. Wagner specifically asked the Respondent for lesson plans did she receive them. Those which she did receive from the Respondent were not satisfactory. In her opinion, any substitute teacher would have had a very difficult time teaching effectively based upon the plans which Respondent did submit to her. Although other departmental personnel sometimes missed turning in lesson plans timely, everyone except the Respondent eventually "caught up" with their lesson plans. Ms. Wagner later observed Respondent on several other occasions. Those observations of the Respondent's teaching performance were consistent with her observations on October 10, 1984. On September 14, 1984, Richard Thomas, Vero Beach Junior High School Dean and Assistant Principal, observed the Respondent's classroom performance. Mr. Thomas is trained for such evaluations. Using the teacher evaluation form containing 39 observable "behaviors," Thomas rated the Respondent as "needs improvement" in 14 of the 39 categories based upon his observations on September 14, 1984. Thomas categorized the Respondent's performance on that date as incompetent. On September 20, 1984, Thomas became aware that the Respondent was sending a large number of student referrals to the Guidance Department for the purpose of having the students seek reassignments from his classes to other classes. Respondent's action was creating problems for the Guidance Department, the students, and the Respondent himself because by that point in the school year, a change of classes under the circumstances was impossible. Thomas prepared a letter dated September 20, 1984 to Respondent requesting that he refrain from such conduct. In the letter, Thomas offered to discuss the matter with the Respondent. Respondent's reasons for his acceleration of referrals was never made entirely clear. However, one explanation offered by the Respondent at formal hearing was that when he had behavioral problems with students in his classes and was not permitted to lock them out of the class (see findings of fact 21, 32, and 33 infra.) and was not otherwise "backed up" by Principal Bass and Assistant Principal Thomas, Respondent felt justified, as a strict disciplinarian, in referring those students whom he viewed as troublemakers to the Guidance Department either to be dealt with by Thomas or for reassignment elsewhere. Under the circumstances, this explanation by Respondent of strict discipline is flawed and unreasonable and evidences lack of classroom control. At hearing, Respondent expressed his objection to having exceptional and special education students in his classes due to their low IQs, even though he admittedly had taken courses in this area. Although all school and School Board personnel assumed Respondent was certified for EMH students, Respondent was not specifically so-certified. He maintained that because of their low IQs, EMH students created special discipline problems, which fact was confirmed by Mr. LaPointe and Mr. Bass. However, Mr. LaPointe, a specialist in the field, also opined that an industrial arts certificate should qualify Respondent to teach industrial arts to EMH students. Respondent attributed much of his professional troubles to the inability of the exceptional education students to learn as opposed to his own inability to teach. At first, Respondent further suggested Bass and Thomas had also assigned students with disciplinary problems to both his regular and exceptional classes. However, he could not substantiate this premise in light of the elective nature of all industrial arts classes. Overall, Respondent only made it clear that he did not want to teach the students assigned to him. On October 17, 1984, as a follow-up to his September 14, 1984 visit, Thomas observed Respondent teaching and prepared a Classroom Observation Instrument. He concluded that the Respondent's "with-it-ness" was poor because Respondent was oblivious to a fight which was about to break out between students in the back of his classroom and because a student had to approach the Respondent and almost physically pull on the Respondent's arm to get his attention. Thomas observed that the Respondent was not in control of his class and that he failed to maintain the attention of all students. Thomas observed no improvement in Respondent's performance on his October 17, 1984 return, except that on that particular date, the Respondent did attempt to implement some organizational structure through the use of an overhead projection covering four items. On November 9, 1984, Thomas wrote the Respondent a letter in regard to the manufacture of weapons by students in the Respondent's manufacturing class. Prior to that date, Thomas had verbally cautioned the Respondent about the manufacture of weapons by students in his class. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports a finding of fact that "weapons" per se were in fact created in Respondent's class with his knowledge. It was, however, demonstrated that various lathe-produced wooden objects, possibly intended by Respondent for use as chair legs, were smuggled out of his class by students. Although Respondent denied certain items described as "swords" and "paddles" were weapons and even that some of the "chair legs" were made in his class, the fact that he admitted that a paddle and certain "chair legs" could have been smuggled out by students indicates an appalling nonchalance for his duties of supervision of young people. It was further demonstrated that a sign bearing the expression "I LOVE SEX" and that a paddle bearing the expression "DUCK BUT!" [sic] were manufactured in Respondent's class without his disapproval. On October 16, 1984, Jean Carter, the Director of Vocational Adult and Community Education for the Indian River County School District, observed the Respondent's second period class. Ms. Carter is a qualified observer with the Florida Performance Measurement System. During her observation on October 16, 1984, Ms. Carter noted that the Respondent did not begin his class promptly. Students talked in loud voices and milled around the room. The Respondent had difficulty communicating with his students. Most of his comments were inaudible. The Respondent turned his back on some students when he spoke to other students. Few students attempted to write the notes shown on the overhead projector as the Respondent ordered. Other students never faced the projector, and the Respondent seemed to be unaware that they were not taking notes. Ms. Carter observed several students off task. Four or five students were throwing paper and spitballs around the room. The word "important" was misspelled on the transparency. Respondent exhibited no enthusiasm for the subject matter, never praised the students, spoke positively, or smiled. He did not appear to enjoy teaching. In November 1984, a request was made to the Florida Department of Education to provide an assistance review of the Respondent's teaching performance. The purpose of the assistance review was to provide the Respondent with assistance in becoming a more proficient teacher. Following the assistance review, a very lengthy, detailed report was prepared by the reviewer and submitted to the Indian River County School District. On February 7, 1985, a conference was held involving Superintendent Burns; Principal Bass; Dr. Eddie Hudson, Personnel Coordinator; Mrs. Shirley Hanawait, Assistant Superintendent; Ms. Carolyn Sheppard, CEA President; Jean Carter, Director of Vocational Education; Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel; and the Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review the report prepared by the Department of Education assistance reviewer and to make arrangements to provide Respondent with additional help and assistance as needed. In that conference, Respondent's supervisors made arrangements to correct, repair, or adjust equipment in Respondent's classroom; to have another industrial arts teacher assist Respondent; to provide Respondent with relief time to observe other professional teachers in the same vocational area; to send the Respondent to two professional conferences; to provide Respondent with professional journals; to provide Respondent with assistance through the department head; and to provide assistance from Mr. Bass in the areas of grading, lesson plans, supervision, management, and organization. Mr. Bass, Superintendent Burns, and Dr. King emphasized to Respondent that he must begin to show improvement in his performance immediately. Respondent was advised that if no improvement were demonstrated immediately, Respondent could be removed from continuing contract status or dismissed altogether. The Respondent received a copy of the conference summary prepared by Dr. King as a reminder of the action Respondent was expected to take to improve his classroom performance. Ms. Carter participated in the conference held with the Respondent on February 7, 1985, to review the assistance review report and to provide the Respondent with help. Her purpose in attending the conference was to provide the Respondent with assistance in any way possible to improve his performance. Ms. Carter later made sure that all of the Respondent's equipment was in proper working order, that he had copies of the performance standards mandated for the courses he taught, that he received professional journals, and that he was authorized to attend two conferences relating to his subject matter area. Respondent did not, however, attend either conference. Subsequent to the February 7, 1985 conference, Bass conducted five classroom observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. On each occasion, Bass completed a Classroom Observation Instrument. On March 8, 1985, Bass observed the Respondent's class and found that no valid learning activity was going on in the classroom. On March 12, 1985 at 7:35 a.m., Bass observed the Respondent's industrial arts class for exceptional education students. There were seven or eight students in the class. Bass observed that the Respondent gave the students approximately 15 vocabulary words to look up while the Respondent straightened up the classroom. In Bass' opinion, such an assignment for exceptional education students was inappropriate due to their limited intelligence, attention span, and the purpose for which such students were enrolled in the course. Mr. Bass characterized Respondent's performance on that date as poor. Subsequently, on the same date, Bass observed the Respondent teaching manufacturing to a regular class of about 17 students. Although Bass characterized Respondent's performance in this class as better, he still gave it an overall score of poor because Respondent's presentation lacked continuity and his discourse was "disjointed." Bass continued to note that the Respondent had difficulty with grammar, enunciation, and projection of an enthusiasm for the subject matter. On March 18, 1985, Bass again observed Respondent's manufacturing class for exceptional students. Although Bass also termed this observation better than those he had made of Respondent in the past, he still considered it a below average observation. On the observation instrument itself, Bass noted that the Respondent was late to class, wasted time by marching the students to a film which was set up in a classroom in a separate building, provided no orientation or preview prior to showing the film, and conducted no discussion of the film after it had been shown. He further noted that the Respondent performed much of the project work himself, thereby limiting the hands-on experience that the students were in the class to receive. That same day, Bass observed the Respondent's manufacturing class for regular students, which viewed the same film as had been shown to the exceptional education students. The content of the film would have been acceptably pitched for both types of classes if Respondent had appropriately introduced the film and had led post-film discussions appropriate to each level, which he did not. Bass felt that once again a lot of time was wasted, there was scant review of the film's content, and there existed the same problems with diction and discourse by the Respondent. Bass concluded that the Respondent's teaching performance remained virtually unchanged from what it had been prior to the assistance review. Bass' March 27, 1985 Annual Teacher Evaluation for Respondent's 1984- 1985 school year resulted in a rating of "needs improvement" in 23 of the 39 "behaviors" evaluated on the form. Bass met with Respondent on March 28, 1985 to review the evaluation and discuss it with him. Before Bass could begin discussion of the evaluation, Respondent stated, "Let me make a long story short, Mr. Bass, I am not going to sign my evaluation even if we talk all week. You're 100 percent right on what you wrote, but I'm still not signing it." On more than six occasions, Thomas found the Respondent's students out of class when they were supposed to be in his room. On certain occasions Respondent locked them out. When the Respondent locked students out of his classroom, those students were free to roam the halls with the excuse that they had been locked out of their classroom. On one occasion, school staff members caught one of the Respondent's students committing a theft at a time when he was supposed to be in Respondent's class. Although the theft incident was not conclusively tied to a date Respondent locked students out of his classroom, Respondent was still responsible for indicating to the administration that the student was "cutting" and had not done so. On June 4, 1985, Bass learned that the Respondent was locking his students out of his classroom. Final examinations were being conducted at the time. The Respondent told Bass that he could not make the students stay in class without this procedure, which he had designed to catch students when a student still in the classroom tried to let those who had left the classroom back into the classroom from the outside. Respondent also told Bass he could not give an examination and control the students if the door were not locked. Respondent repeated this explanation from the stand at formal hearing as if his plan were designed to catch those who "cut" class, but Respondent also maintained it was a method of timing the number of minutes students remained out of class so that Respondent could tell their parents why he would not permit them ever to leave the room again, apparently even for reasons as mundane and urgent as using the bathroom. Such reasoning process is flawed and unreasonable, if not downright silly. The Respondent refused to sign the incident report resulting from this incident and further refused to discuss the incident report with Mr. Bass. As a vocational education teacher, Respondent was required to submit end of the year reports to Ms. Carter as a part of state and federal funding requirements. Ms. Carter had informed Respondent of the requirement that he prepare and submit the reports prior to leaving school. Respondent testified he submitted the required reports at the end of the 1984-1985 school year by placing them in the school office mail box of Ms. Wagner. Ms. Carter testified that she did not receive them. The problem with transmittal of the reports appears to be one that could have been resolved by Ms. Wagner or someone notifying the Respondent immediately by telephone that they had not been received. This was not done, although Ms. Carter and Dr. King followed up with written reproofs. Such an infraction under these circumstances will not support discipline of Respondent. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year, dated March 27, 1985 and referenced above, was not satisfactory, but Respondent's contract was subsequently renewed for the 1985-1986 year. THE 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On September 3, 1985, Howard LaPointe, then a staff associate in the Exceptional Education Program of the Indian River County School District, observed Respondent teaching exceptional students in his manufacturing class. Although school had begun on August 17, 1985, Respondent took his class on a tour of the other building on September 3, 1985. Mr. LaPointe observed numerous deficiencies during his observation and noted that the Respondent needed assistance in the areas of classroom management, instructional materials, orientation to class work, utilization of student notebooks, and competency based upon the curriculum guide. On September 13, 1985, the Respondent met in Principal Bass' office with Bass, LaPointe, Carolyn Sheppard (president of the teachers' union) and Dr. King to review LaPointe's observation conducted on September 3, 1985 and to discuss suggestions for Respondent's professional improvement. As Mr. LaPointe began to present his plan for providing assistance to the Respondent, Respondent became angry and upset. After a sharp exchange between LaPointe and Respondent, wherein LaPointe asked Respondent "What the hell do you expect the children to do?" or some similarly-phrased question, Respondent left the meeting and did not return. Bass and Dr. King walked down to the Respondent's office, a glass- enclosed room. They could see Respondent was in a highly emotional, agitated state. The Respondent had knocked his personal television set onto the floor. It was not demonstrated that Respondent damaged a projector or any other school property or that two obscenities uttered by Respondent were heard by anyone other than a fellow teacher, Mr. Humphrey, who had entered the enclosed room as a friend to calm down the Respondent. Had Bass and King not followed Respondent to his own office they would not have even observed his agitated state. Respondent was excused for the remainder of the school day after Mr. Humphrey calmed him down. Later that day, Superintendent Burns suspended the Respondent without pay. Respondent was subsequently terminated by the School Board for incompetence, misconduct, and gross insubordination. On December 12, 1985, Dr. King notified the Florida Department of Education that the Respondent had been dismissed from his position of employment. Dr. King recommended that the Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. Based upon Bass' observations and evaluations of the Respondent's teaching performance over a period of more than two years, Bass holds the professional opinion that the Respondent is an incompetent teacher. Bass would not recommend the Respondent for employment in Indian River County or any other school district. In Bass' professional opinion, students in the Respondent's regular classroom did not receive even a minimal educational experience and the exceptional students received only a minimal educational experience. No evidence whatsoever supporting the allegations of unprofessional conduct at Clemans Elementary School was offered and no such unprofessional conduct is found. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports the allegation that Respondent used profanity in the presence of students and no such conduct is found. Respondent's pre-1983-1984 school year evaluations are technically irrelevant to the charges at bar but were admitted to give Respondent every opportunity to "prove up" his allegations that his current problems arose from personal or personality conflicts with Bass and Thomas. Unfortunately for Respondent, these exhibits show some of his deficiencies are long-standing but were sporadic as opposed to forming a consistent pattern early on. Otherwise, these exhibits are too remote in time to have great weight. Respondent also defended, pursuant to Rule 6B-4.08(2), Florida Administrative Code, upon the premise that after a bombardment of evaluations and conferences he felt he was being harassed rather than given corrective assistance and that he was given too little time in which to make the adjustments required. Rule 613-4.08(2) requires Respondent's immediate supervisor to make all efforts possible to aid Respondent to correct the matter which caused his dismissal. Although this is a questionable defense when, as here, Petitioner and the School Board are not one and the same entity, some of Respondent's allegations have a mitigating effect. There is some merit to his allegations with regard to the timeframe and limited assistance provided but none as to the allegation of harassment. Respondent did unsuccessfully apply for transfer and volunteer to accept a custodial job at the same pay in order to avoid his problems with Bass and Thomas, but he could not demonstrate at formal hearing any reason other than his own attitude and teaching performance for Bass' and Thomas' poor evaluations and refusal to transfer him. Moreover, the consistency of the other observers' analyses belies any conspiracy or vendetta against Respondent on the part of Bass and Thomas. There is some evidence that Respondent made some minimal improvements in technique after assistance was provided by the professional reviewer, which assistance Mr. Bass characterized as the only significant remediation provided the Respondent. Upon his superiors' advice, Respondent also conferred with at least one other teacher in his field who came to his school. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent was authorized to attend two professional conferences and he did not, in fact, attend, but it is unclear from her testimony and the supporting documentary evidence whether federal grant monies were ever authorized for Respondent's attendance at either of these conferences. Mr. LaPointe's evidence that special assistance with regard to exceptional students was offered by him but rebuffed by Respondent is indicative of Respondent's poor attitude. There is evidence that equipment was repaired for Respondent and although not stated by any one witness in so many words, it may be inferred from the collective testimony of several witnesses that Respondent could have requested time off to observe other industrial arts classes and confer with other industrial arts teachers outside his own school but failed to do so. In light of Respondent's satisfactory rating in the 1983-1984 school year, the fact that significant efforts to assist Respondent did not commence until November 1984 (reviewer visit) and that internal assistance did not begin in earnest until the February 7, 1985 conference, I find Respondent had really only from February to March 1985 to avoid an initial unfavorable annual evaluation. From March 1985 to school's closing in June and part of August and September in the 1985-1986 school year was all the time permitted Respondent for remediation because he was dismissed in mid-September 1985. Even so, he showed some minimal improvement which has been considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be suspended for three years with provision for reinstatement as provided by statute. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4101 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed FOF: Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 3. Covered in FOF 5. 4-5 Covered in FOF 6. 6-8 Covered in FOF 7 but amplified to conform to the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 8. Covered in FOF 9. Accepted that there were such reports but rejected as set forth in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. 14-15. Covered in FOF 12 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. 18-19. Covered in FOF 27. 20. Covered in FOF 29. 21-23. Covered and amplified in FOF 30 to conform to the record, but eliminating the legal argument from proposal 23. 24. Covered in FOF 31. The commentary about the presence of a secretary and Respondent's mood are rejected as immaterial in light of no charges of insubordination. Further, mild anger in the presence of the Principal's secretary is hardly likely to impair Respondent's effectiveness. 25-26. Covered, modified and amplified as necessary in FOF 33 to convey the full scope of the material facts of record. That which is cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary has been rejected. 27. Covered in FOF 36; what is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. 28-29. Covered in FOF 39; what is rejected is cumulative. 30-31. Covered in FOF 13-14 and amplified to more accurately convey the evidence of record as a whole. Covered in FOF 16 but modified for clarity. Covered in FOF 18. Except for elimination of the cumulative, covered in FOF 17. Except as cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 19. 37-38. Covered and amplified in FOF 20 to more accurately reflect the evidence of record as a whole. 39-42. Except as cumulative, subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 22. 43-46, and 49 Rejected as not supported by the direct, credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole. 47-48. Accepted that reports were written but rejected on the basis of uncorroborated hearsay, unsupported by direct credible competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole as covered in FOF 41. 50. Covered and amplified to more accurately reflect the record evidence as a whole in FOF 32. See also FOF 33. 51-53. Except for the cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 28 and 42. Rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. All witnesses are entirely credible on this point and Respondent's testimony is not truly contrary to other testimony. The benefit of the doubt must be resolved in his favor in this penal procedure. 56-58. Rejected as stated as not supported by the credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole which is set out in FOF 37. 59. Covered in FOF 38. 60-61. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as covered in FOF 38. 62. Covered in FOF 38. 63-65. Rejected as irrelevant except as covered in FOF 42. Rejected as cumulative. See FOF 20, 21, 32 and 33. Accepted but covered as set forth in FOF 23 since the proposal does not constitute an ultimate, material fact. Rejected as legal argument except to the extent it is peripherally covered in FOF 42. Respondent's Proposed FOF: 1-3. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. 4. Rejected as stated in that it constitutes argument but the topic is covered in FOF 7, 21 and 42, as supported by the record as a whole. 5-8. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. This proposal is not a sentence and is therefore rejected. Accepted that Respondent had the feelings and made the statement but rejected as stated as misleading of the record as a whole. See FOF 37. Except as covered in FOF 4, rejected as irrelevant, although true. Accepted but this goes to Respondent's overall incompetency and is not an ultimate material fact and therefore not adopted. See FOF 21. Rejected as some of these were not admitted in evidence and those in evidence do not support the proposal, neither does the record evidence as a whole. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles L. Hendley, Esquire 1500 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
