The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked for conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail which is allegedly violative of Sections 231.09 and 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rules 6A-4.37 and 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the argeements of counsel, the stipulation of the parties entered on June 7, 1979, and the entire record compiled herein, the following facts are found. The Florida Professional Practices Council (sometimes referred to as "Petitioner") received a report from the Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools on October 24, 1977, indicating that the district had reason to believe that there might be probable cause for revocation of the teaching certificate of John A. Lettelleir, Respondent. Pursuant to this report, and under the authority contained in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, Petitioner's staff conducted a professional inquiry into the matter and on January 9, 1978, made its report to the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council. The Executive Committee recommended that the Commissioner of Education find that probable cause exists to believe that Respondent is guilty of acts which provide grounds for the revocation of his Florida teacher's certificate. The Commissioner of Education found probable cause and directed the filing of a Petition on January 9, 1978, pursuant to the authority vested under Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education, and Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. In conclusionary allegations, the Petition cites that the Respondent engaged in acts which are "immoral, seriously reduced his effectiveness as a School Board employee and was not a proper example or model for students and not in the best interests of the health and safety of students" contra to Section 231.09; 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6A-4.37 and 6B-1, Rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent currently holds a Post-graduate, Rank II, Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 347804, covering elementary education, early childhood and junior college, which is valid through June 30, 1985. Respondent was employed in the Public Schools of Pinellas County as a teacher at Maximo Elementary School during the 1976-77 school year. Respondent resigned from his teaching position in the Pinellas County School System in October, 1977. Respondent chaperoned a three day Easter trip for male and female school children from Maximo Elementary School in April of 1976. The trip required three nights away from home for these children. On two of these nights, Respondent shared a sleeping bag with one of his male students. On both nights, Respondent improperly touched the student. During the fall of 1976, three male school children from Maximo Elementary School spent the night at Respondent`s home. The boys slept in Respondent's bedroom. Respondent slept in a double bed with one of the three students and improperly touched the student. Sandra McMichael and Louanne Crawford, teachers in the Pinellas County School System, appeared and testified respecting their relationship with the Respondent. Ms. McMichael and Ms. Crawford both related their professional involvement with Respondent and it suffices to say, in summary fashion, that they considered the Respondent a person of unquestionable character. (TR 20-57 of Joint Exhibit 2.) During the hearing, Respondent testified respecting the agony which the subject incident has brought to his family. Among other things, he stated that he only stipulated to the facts contained in Joint Exhibit 1 based on counsel's advice and their considered joint opinion that without regard to the outcome of his proof or innocence by a contested hearing in this matter, that ultimately he would have gained nothing based on the wide publicity which attaches to such hearings involving public figures. Therefore, Respondent, while maintaining his innocence of the material accusations against him, reluctantly entered into the stipulation which admits improper touching of a male student, in order to satisfy the apparent interpretation of Rule 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education during a prior hearing in this matter on August 15, 1979. Such an interpretation requires an admission of wrongdoing as a predicate to surrender of a teacher's certificate for less than permanent revocation. Based on the foregoing and the parties' joint stipulation for less than permanent revocation, i.e., five years, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that sufficient basis exists to support a favorable recommendation to the Board of Education for a five (5) year revocation with the running of the revocation period commencing in October, 1977, the date of Respondent's resignation from the Pinellas County School System. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's teacher's certificate, No. 347804, be revoked for a period of five (5) years with entry of the revocation period commencing on October, 1977, the date of Respondent's resignation from the Pinellas County School System. ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Allan Bonilla, currently Principal of Riviera Junior High School, was one of at least two assistant principals who attempted to work with Venus Tara Rodriguez during her 7th grade experience there in the 1984-1985 regular school year. He has been employed four years at that facility. Immediately prior to the winter vacation (commonly known as the extended Christmas holidays), on December 20, 1984, Venus left the campus without prior permission, this activity resulted in a two-day indoor suspension. In February, 1985, she received a three-day indoor suspension as the result of tardiness which culminated in an outdoor suspension the same month because her behavior at the three-day indoor suspension was so disruptive that it was deemed ineffective for her and the other students. In March, 1985, her rude and disruptive classroom behavior resulted in two indoor suspensions. In April 1985, as a result of her refusal to work during the last indoor suspension, she was assigned an outdoor suspension. Mr. Bonilla did not work with Venus as regularly as another assistant principal who was not available for hearing, but he expressed personal knowledge of the foregoing events and had interacted with Venus on several occasions for being out of class and boisterous. His assessment was that Venus could do the work required of her but that her behavior was so disruptive in the classroom that at the conclusion of the regular 1984-1985 school year she was failing two out of six subjects and was doing approximately "D" work in the rest. He agreed with the decision to assign her to an alternative school program, which decision was made because of Venus' need of individual attention and smaller class due to her habit of "acting out" in large groups. Venus' parents were contacted concerning each suspension. Mr. Bonilla testified that Venus has successfully finished 7th grade during the 1985 summer school session at GRE Lee opportunity School and he has received notice she will be reassigned and enrolled at Riviera Junior High School for the 1985-1986 school year commencing in September 1985.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order returning Venus Tara Rodriguez to Riviera Junior High School. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Ms. Wilhelmina A. Rodriguez 4110 S. W. 104th Place Miami, Florida 33165 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1510 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether or not on or about January 26, 1976, the Respondent, Alberta Quarterman, did physically and verbally attack Mrs. Bettie Shelor, Dean of Girls at the Largo Middle School, Largo, Florida, and whether the Respondent, Alberta Quarterman, should be dismissed from the public schools of Pinellas County, Florida for those alleged acts, which are regulated under Chapter 230.33(8)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On January 26, 1976, an eighth grade assembly was being held in the Largo Middle School, Largo, Florida. Alberta Quarterman was in the assembly area, which is the gymnasium of that school, and was seen by Mrs. Bettie Shelor, the Dean of Girls, to be without her shoes and blouse. In addition, the Respondent was not with her assigned class group and was jumping up and down on the bleachers in the gymnasium. Mrs. Shelor approached Alberta Quarterman and asked her to put on her blouse and shoes and told Miss Quarterman she would not be allowed to stay in the assembly if she did not comply. Alberta Quarterman did not adequately comply with the request, and was asked by Mrs. Shelor to return to the administration offices for the duration of the assembly period. It was the intention of Mrs. Shelor, to have the Respondent stay in the so called "time out room", for the duration of the assembly period. The "time out room" is a room in which students being disciplined are asked to stay for disciplinary purposes. Mrs. Shelor returned to her office after leaving Alberta Quarterman in the "time out room". Alberta Quarterman then came into Mrs. Shelor's office, unannounced, and sat down and attempted a confrontation about the matters that had transpired in the assembly room. At the time the Respondent was in Mrs. Shelor's office, she spoke in these terms, "I don't care about shit", "You're a bitch", "Damn", "Hell", etc. Mrs. Shelor attempted to escort Alberta Quarterman from her office by placing her hand on Miss Quarterman's arm to assist her from the chair. This movement was not with force. At that time Alberta Quarterman stood up and hit Mrs. Shelor with her fist on Mrs. Shelor's upper left arm. The Respondent then ran from the room and was gone for a period of about 10 minutes. The Respondent returned to the administration offices and went directly into Mrs. Shelor's office at the moment of the second encounter. After attempting to engage in conversation with Mrs. Shelor, Alberta Quarterman jumped out of the chair she was seated in and started knocking Mrs. Shelor about the room with her fists, in the area of Mrs. Shelor's arms and chest. Five or six blows of this nature were administered to Mrs. Shelor. While this action was taking place Mrs. Shelor called for assistance from a Mr. Jack Ellott, the campus security officer, who was in the outer office. At this point Alberta Quarterman picked up a chair and raised it over her head and attempted to strike Mrs. Shelor with the chair. Mrs. Shelor blocked the blow from the chair. At this moment, Martha Matthews, secretary for the Dean of Girls entered the room, and pushed a chair between Alberta Quarterman and Mrs. Shelor. Alberta Quarterman jumped over the barrier and tried to reach Mrs. Shelor again but was unsuccessful. The security officer, Jack Ellott, entered the room and stopped the Respondent from further action. There was no further encounter between Mrs. Shelor and the Respondent. The above findings of fact were testified about and agreed to by Mrs. Bettie Shelor, Mrs. Martha Matthews and the Respondent, with the exception that the Respondent denied raising the chair against Mrs. Shelor. Since September, 1974, when the Respondent became a student at Largo Middle School, she has been referred for discipline approximately 34 times while in the seventh grade; for physical violence, violation of school rules, defiance of teachers, and verbal abuse. This same course of conduct has occurred approximately 23 times while the Respondent has been in the eighth grade at Largo Middle School. Many of these circumstances have led to the student's suspension, both from the school grounds and on-campus suspensions. The testimony of these statistics was offered by Mrs. Bettie Shelor, the custodian of these records and the Dean of Girls, for the Largo Middle School. Eight suspensions, according to Mrs. Shelor, for a total of 29-1/2 days in the course of the two years were out-of-school suspensions. According to Mrs. Shelor, the student has problems following instructions and participating in a structured environment, to the extent that the student will not remain seated while class is in session and on many occasions has walked out of class. The school has tried to help the Respondent by providing individual attention and counseling, such as affording the Respondent individual responsibility for maintaining a garden located on the school grounds. The Respondent has been counseled by the school's social worker and school staff psychologist. Linda C. Rubin, of the Pinellas County School System, Pinellas County, Florida, took the stand. Ms. Rubin has a Masters Degree in school psychology and while she was working at the Largo Middle School was involved in counseling and testing the Respondent. She testified that the Respondent lacks academic achievement and evidences disruptive behavior. In addition, she has learning problems and an auditory memory problem, observations born out by certain tests. Moreover, the Respondent was involved in a number of instances which were attributable to a short attention span and a short temper. The Respondent had lost her parents several years ago and the witness felt that this contributed to the Respondent's adjustment problem. To the witness's knowledge, no psychologist is working with the Respondent at this time, in the form of an in- school staff psychologist.
Recommendation It is recommended: If a program is available to handle students with Alberta Quarterman's background, within the public school system of Pinellas County, Florida, then the Respondent should be tried in such a program. Should no such program be available within the Pinellas County School System, it is recommended that the Respondent, Albert Quarterman, be dismissed from the Pinellas County School System for the balance and duration of the 1975-76 school year. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: George M. Osborne, Esquire 55 Fifth Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Mrs. Nancy Roberts 2054 119th Street, North Largo, Florida 33540 B. Edwin Johnson, General Counsel School Board of Pinellas County Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Linda C. Rubin 1895 Golf to Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida Alberta Quarterman 2054 119th Street, North Largo, Florida 33540
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against holders of Florida Educator Certificates who are accused of violating section 1012.795 and related rules. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent held Florida Educator’s Certificate 701877. The certificate covered the areas of elementary education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), and world language- Spanish. The certificate was valid through June 30, 2015. Respondent has been a teacher for over 20 years. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Osceola County School District (OCSD) as a teacher at Michigan Avenue Elementary School (Elementary School). The allegations against Respondent arise from Respondent transporting an Elementary School student home after school one day. Tammy Cope-Otterson is the chief human resource officer for the OCSD. OCSD has a policy that requires school personnel to have approval from the principal before transporting a student. OCSD has a rule that requires written consent from a parent before a student can be transported in a private vehicle. Respondent admitted that he was aware that it was against school district rule to transport students in a personal vehicle without permission from the school district or the student’s parents. During the 2008-2009 school year, K.N. was a student in Respondent’s second-grade class at the Elementary School. While K.N. was in Respondent’s class, M.N. (K.N.’s mother) expressed that she was not fond of Respondent’s teaching methods. During the 2010-2011 school year, K.N. was ten years old and in fourth grade at the Elementary School. Following the completion of the 2010-2011 regular school year, K.N. enrolled in the Elementary School summer enrichment program, called the Spirit Program. Respondent served as a physical education instructor for the Spirit Program. When M.N.’s work hours changed, she and K.N. walked to and from the Elementary School to establish K.N.’s daily route. K.N. was allowed to walk or ride her bike to the Elementary School. M.N and K.N. lived on 10th Street, approximately 15 blocks from the Elementary School. On July 6, 2011, K.N. started to ride her bike to the Elementary School. During the ride, she noticed that a tire was becoming flat. K.N. stopped at a local convenience store and attempted to put air in the tire, to no avail. She walked the rest of the way to the Elementary School, parked her bike in the bike rack, and left a voice message for M.N. that she had arrived at the Elementary School. After the Spirit Program ended for the day on July 6, K.N. left her bike at school and started walking home via the established route. K.N. walked to the corner of Michigan and 10th Street and crossed over Michigan to be on the south side of 10th Street. Because it was a hot day, K.N. rested in some shade, a little south of the corner. Respondent stopped his car close to K.N. Respondent used his authoritative teacher voice and told K.N. to get in the car. K.N. got into Respondent’s car. Respondent admitted that K.N. got into his private car. He then drove a block south on Michigan Avenue, turned west on 11th Street, drove two blocks, turned right on Indiana Avenue, drove two blocks, turned east on 9th Street, drove one block, turned south on Illinois Avenue and stopped at the corner of Illinois Avenue and 10th Street. K.N. got out of Respondent’s car and walked to her home on 10th Street. Respondent testified that he wanted to let K.N. out on her home’s (north) side of the street so she could use the sidewalk to safely get home. There was no sidewalk on the north side of 10th street. K.N. credibly testified that as Respondent was driving her around, he placed his hand on her left thigh and rubbed it. K.N. was “upset,” “very uncomfortable,” and “wanted to crawl out of [her] own skin.” K.N. also credibly testified that Respondent asked if she wanted to go for ice cream, which she declined. Later that same day, Respondent was questioned about whether he had any interaction with K.N. after school on July 6. Initially Respondent denied any interaction with K.N., but later admitted that he had picked K.N. up and taken her home. Respondent did not take K.N. home, but merely dropped her off down the street from her home. Respondent’s selective memory about the events of July 6 lessens his credibility and his testimony is deemed unreliable. Respondent was arrested and criminally charged. While he awaited his court date, OCSD initially suspended and later terminated Respondent’s employment. There was extensive media coverage. Respondent was acquitted or found not guilty in the criminal matters. PRIOR CONDUCT On November 10, 2000, a Final Order was entered by the Education Practices Commission of the State of Florida (EPC) involving Respondent. Respondent was alleged to have allowed an ineligible player to participate in a soccer game. Respondent did not contest the allegations and entered a Settlement Agreement that was accepted by the EPC. Respondent agreed to be reprimanded, placed on probation for one year, refrain from violating any laws, fully comply with all district school board regulations, rules and State Board of Education rule 6B-1.006, pay $150 to defray the costs of his monitoring while on probation, and satisfactorily perform his assigned duties. The allegations in the 2000 matter are not similar to the allegations in the instant case, were resolved in 2000, and Respondent successfully completed his probation.
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 sections 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), and rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), and that he did not violate section 1012.795(1)(d), and rule 6A-10.081(3)(e). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission suspend Respondent’s educator certificate for five years, followed by five years of probation. The Education Practices Commission shall establish the terms and conditions of Respondent’s suspension and probation, which may include the cost of monitoring the suspension and probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 17th day of December,2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has good cause to suspend Respondent, an assistant principal, for ten days, without pay, for misconduct and unprofessional conduct in reporting student enrollments at her school.
Findings Of Fact At the time in question, Respondent was an assistant principal at Independence Middle School (IMS). She has been an assistant principal in Petitioner's school district for ten years and has been the assistant principal at IMS since 2003. Toward the end of each school year, Petitioner plans for the assignment of its approximately 170,000 students to schools for the following school year. Assuming that each student will be promoted and, where necessary, transferred to the appropriate middle- or high-school, the planning exercise initiates the process that culminates, during the summer, in the creation of a school-specific class schedule for each student. Based on these class schedules, each school circulates among the teacher, during the ensuing school year, a biweekly attendance sheet, so that each teacher may take attendance by class. The biweekly attendance sheet contains bubbles to be filled in by the teacher, so an automated scanner can transfer the information from the sheet to a computer file. In accordance with the practices of Petitioner, a classroom teacher is not to mark a student as "absent" until he first attends the class and then misses the class. A student who has not yet attended a class is classified as a "no-show." However, the biweekly attendance sheet lacks a bubble to indicate "no show," so classroom teachers typically handwrite the information on the sheet after the first two weeks of school. At the time in question, a student assistant collected the biweekly attendance sheets and fed them into the scanner, and the handwritten information contained on the sheet could easily be lost. Enrollment data are kept on Petitioner's TERMS program, which contains a wide range of information relevant to Petitioner's operations. In the main office of each school, a staffperson enters and updates enrollment data in TERMS. The staffperson removes a student from a school's enrollment by entering into TERMS the name of the new school that the student is attending or by entering "DNE," meaning "did not enter," if the student is a no-show, but the staffperson does not know what school the student is attending. Until the staffperson enters DNE, though, a no-show student--meaning a student who has never appeared in his assigned classroom--would continue to be shown as enrolled at the school to which he has been assigned the previous summer. During the fall of the 2007-08 school year, each school in the Palm Beach County School District performed two student counts. Mandated by Petitioner, the 11-day count, which took place on September 7, 2007, allowed Petitioner, early in the school year, to reallocate teachers and administers, among individual schools within the district, based on enrollments. Mandated by state law, the fall FTE count, which took place in October 2007, allowed the Florida Department of Education (DOE) to allocate funds, for the first half of the school year, among the various school districts within the state. By bulletin dated August 23, 2007, to all principals and approved by the Superintendent, Petitioner's Chief Academic Officer and Chief Operating Officer stated that DOE was conducting a survey count on August 31 for enrollment. The bulletin states: "Therefore, on Monday, August 27, 2007, any student not in attendance from the first day of school, at least one period, must be withdrawn. It is imperative that all schools adhere to this directive. An accurate assessment of student enrollment across the state may help mitigate budget reductions." The bulletin reminds the principals: "a DNE should be entered into [TERMS] for students whose current school location is unknown. For students transferring out of state, to another Florida school district, or private school, please enter the appropriate withdrawn (WD) code." By bulletin dated August 31, 2007, to all principals and approved by the Superintendent, the Chief Academic Officer and Chief Operating Officer stated that "Count Day" was September 7, 2007, and the data was to have been taken "directly from . . . TERMS" without any "self-reporting by schools." The bulletin advises that personnel assignments within the district would be made based on this information obtained from the September 7 count. The bulletin notes that all student enrollments and class schedules "must be accurately reported in . . . TERMS." The bulletin discloses that, on September 14, area superintendents would notify individual schools of personnel adjustments based on the information obtained from the September 7 count. At IMS, for the 2007-08 school year, the principal was Dr. Gwendolyn Johnson and the staffperson assigned the job of entering enrollment data in TERMS was Angela Jones. Respondent was one of three assistant principals at IMS. Among her other duties, Respondent was responsible for creating student class schedules during the preceding summer, ensuring that all class conflicts were resolved at least one week prior to the start of the school year, and distributing the schedules on the day prior to the start of school. At the start of the 2007-08 school year, Dr. Johnson assigned to Respondent the responsibility for the 11-day count. Due to the challenges of the task, eventually, Dr. Johnson and two other assistant principals helped Respondent collect the relevant data from different teachers. These four administrators brought all of the data to Respondent's office where they compiled the data. The enrollment data from the 11-day count revealed 26 fewer students at IMS than were shown in TERMS. After the fall FTE count noted below, an audit revealed that the actual discrepancy was 24 students: 23 no-shows and one who had withdrawn prior to the eleventh day of the school year. Respondent reported this discrepancy to Dr. Johnson and stated that it needed to be rectified. At this point, Respondent fully discharged the responsibilities that Dr. Johnson had placed on her, and this was the last involvement of Respondent in the reporting of enrollment information to the district office or DOE. The 11-day count was correct, at least after the minor correction required after the audit, and the TERMS data were inflated. After learning of the discrepancy and despite the August 23 and 31 bulletins that had been sent to her, Dr. Johnson failed to take any action to correct the over- enrollment contained in TERMS. Exacerbating the situation, the subsequent audit revealed that someone at IMS "updated" TERMS for 17 of the students shown in the computer as enrolled, but never attending IMS, with inaccurate withdrawal dates after the 11-day count, implying, incorrectly, that the students actually had been in attendance on the date of the 11-day count. In the presence of Respondent, after the 11-day count, Dr. Johnson directed Ms. Jones not to enter DNEs for no-show students until Ms. Jones learned where the students were attending school during the 2007-08 school year. The effect of this directive from Dr. Johnson, which ignored the instructions that she had received from the district office, was to maintain inflated enrollment figures for IMS for an extended period of time after the 11-day count. The practical effect of Dr. Johnson's directive was to preserve an assistant principal position that had been provisionally assigned to IMS and to obtain an additional teaching position for IMS. After Dr. Johnson instructed Ms. Jones to delay updating TERMS, in the manner described in the preceding paragraph, Respondent later repeated this directive of Dr. Johnson to Ms. Jones. But no evidence suggests that Respondent played any role in the formation of this IMS policy. The fall FTE survey took place from October 8-12, 2007. The fall FTE survey numbers for Petitioner were drawn from the TERMS data, which were inflated for IMS. The subsequent audit revealed that, due to Dr. Johnson's directive to delay updating TERMS, the student count at IMS was inflated by 23 students: 21 no-shows and two who had withdrawn prior to the FTE survey week. As the first grading period approached, toward the end of October, IMS teachers began to question what they were to do about the 24 no-shows who were still shown as enrolled on TERMS, but had never attended one day of school. Some of the teachers settled on assigning Fs to the no-show students. This raised a problem with the IMS policy to send a letter home to every student who received an F in any course. When the guidance counselor approached Respondent and asked whether the teachers should send letters to the homes of the no-show students receiving Fs, Respondent told her not to, but to talk to the data-processing staffperson to see how this issue could be resolved. The guidance counselor, who was not alleged to have been involved with the scheme to inflate enrollments at IMS, believed that Respondent's advice not to mail the letters was proper to avoid "looking stupid." On October 26, 2007, the data processing staffperson sent an email to the teachers and administrators acknowledging that TERMS would not accept an input to show an incomplete or missing grade. In another email on the same date, the data processor advised the teachers to give the no-show students a C and to assign them a conduct score as well, although an F was also "acceptable." Fortunately, Petitioner learned that the TERMS enrollment numbers were inflated in time to correct the FTE data without incurring a financial penalty from DOE. Charging misconduct in connection with the misrepresentations and fraudulent statements that maintained inflated enrollment numbers in TERMS for IMS, Petitioner proposed a 20-day suspension without pay for Dr. Johnson and a five-day suspension without pay for Ms. Jones. Petitioner later dropped the charges against Ms. Jones, but the charges against Dr. Johnson resulted in a formal administrative hearing in DOAH Case No. 08-3986, after which Petitioner issued a final order on June 3, 2009, finding her guilty and sustaining the penalty, although this case is now on appeal. Based on similar charges in this case, Petitioner has proposed a 10-day suspension without pay for Respondent. In contrast to the case against Dr. Johnson, this case does not involve the person responsible for implementing district policy, as set forth in the two bulletins, or the person who decided to ignore this district policy. As IMS principal, Dr. Johnson ordered her subordinates, including Ms. Jones and Respondent, to implement her policy, which was to ignore district policy to maintain an inflated enrollment at IMS. Repeating the policy, as Respondent did to Ms. Jones, and helping to solve one of the problems that this unsustainable policy presented, as Respondent did when she told the guidance counselor not to send letters home to the no-show students who received Fs, do not so much represent marked departures from the honesty demanded of educational professionals, as they represent the behavior expected of subordinates to the principal. The administration of a middle school requires strong leadership, which is vested in the principal. Insubordinate staff undermine this leadership and risk adverse job action for their dissent. The facts of this case do not approach the point at which the demands of professional honesty imposed on Respondent override her obligation to conform to the directives of her principal, who was placed in this position of authority by Petitioner or the Superintendent. Respondent honestly discharged her duties in connection with the 11-day count and mentioned the enrollment discrepancies to Dr. Johnson, who misled Petitioner and DOE by maintaining the inflated enrollment numbers, even though she did not personally enter the data in TERMS or solve every problem, such as letters to the homes of phantom students, that her wrongful policy created.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 14th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Arthur C. Johnson, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3310 Forest Hill Boulevard, C316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sonia Elizabeth Hill-Howard, Esquire Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302 Post Office Box 19239 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Stuart Kaplan, Esquire Kramer, Ali, Fleck, Hughes, Gelb Kaplan & Bornstein 6650 West Indiantown Road, Suite 200 Jupiter, Florida 33458
The Issue The issues for determination at the final hearing were: 1) whether the Respondent should be dismissed from employment due to incompetency; and 2) whether the conflict in the statute cited in the Notice of Charges dated November 18, 1982, and the Notice of Hearing dated June 18, 1983, constitute inadequate notice to the Respondent Muina of the charges against him. At the final hearing, Marsha Gams, a learning disability teacher at Carol City Junior High School, Rosetta Vickers, Director of Exceptional Student Education, Dade County School Board, Carol Cortes, principal at Carol City Junior High School, Karen Layland, department chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., Executive Director of Personnel, Dade County School Board, testified for the Petitioner School Board. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-13 were offered and admitted into evidence. Yvonne Perez, Bargaining Agent Representative, United Teachers of Dade, Alexander Muina and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., testified for the Respondent. Respondent's Exhibits 1-5 were offered and admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the hearing, the Respondent requested via telephone conference call, that Respondent's Exhibit 6, the published contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, be admitted into evidence as a late-filed exhibit. The contract was admitted over Petitioner's objection. Proposed Recommended Orders containing findings of fact have been submitted by the parties and considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. When the parties' findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence introduced at final hearing, they were adopted and are reflected in this Recommended Order. To the extent that the findings were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been either rejected, or when possible, modified to conform to the evidence. Additionally, proposed findings which were subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary have not been adopted. On July 11, 1983, the Petitioner filed objections to the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Penalty. Certain of the Petitioner's objections were subsequently stipulated to by the Respondent and are not in issue in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Alexander Muina has been employed by the Dade County School System for approximately nine years. He initially worked with regular students, then worked as an assistant teacher with profoundly mentally handicapped students. During the 1979-80 school year, the Respondent became a permanent substitute in a class for the trainable mentally handicapped. He held this position for approximately two months and during that period received a satisfactory annual evaluation. During the 1980-81 school year the Respondent was assigned to the "ESOL" Program which is an acronym for English for Speakers of Other Languages. During this period, the Respondent taught as an itinerant teacher at three different schools each week. One of the schools the Respondent was assigned was Carol City Junior High School, where he taught on Thursdays and Fridays, as part of the Entrant Program. This was a program which was established for the approximately 13,000 children who had entered the Dade County School System during the Mariel boat lift. Mrs. Carol Cortes, principal at Carol City Junior High School, compiled the Respondent's annual evaluation for 1980-81 after consulting with the two other principals to whose schools Respondent was also assigned. At that time, Respondent received an acceptable annual evaluation from Cortes; however, Cortes had not continually observed the Respondent or had continuous direct contact with him since he was only at the school two days a week. At the close of the 1980-81 school year, the Respondent asked Cortes if there was an opening in exceptional education in which he could be placed. Toward the end of the summer a position became available in varying exceptionalities, an area in which the Respondent is certified by the State of Florida, and he accepted this position. A varying exceptionality class includes students who have three types of learning disabilities or exceptional problems, including the educable mentally handicapped, the learning disabled, and the emotionally handicapped. Although the Respondent is certified by the State of Florida to teach varying exceptionalities, during his first year instructing the class the Respondent experienced significant problems which are reflected in his evaluations of November, January and March of the 1981-82 school year. The first observation of Respondent as a varying exceptionalities teacher was done on November 5, 1981, by Carol Cortes, principal. The Respondent's overall summary rating was unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning and classroom management. Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for each of the students were not being followed. The Respondent was not using the IEPs to develop activities for the students which would meet the goals of providing "diagnostic prescriptive teaching." Using the IEPs and the diagnostic prescriptive teaching techniques is crucial to the success of exceptional educational students. The students were not being taught according to their individual abilities, but rather were doing similar classroom work. Additionally, classroom management was lacking in that the Respondent did not formulate adequate behavior modification plans for the students who were observed talking and milling about the classroom. Following her first observation, Cortes offered assistance to Respondent, including changing his physical classroom layout and placing him with the department chairperson. This was done so that the chairperson could assist in developing the activities and plans necessary for the students and could also provide support in developing behavior modification plans. Cortes also asked the school psychologist to work with the Respondent in establishing such plans. Dr. Gorman, the assistant principal, had frequent informal observations of the Respondent in an attempt to help him with his classroom difficulties. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Cortes on January 20, 1983, and the overall summary rating was again unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the Respondent was still not following the student's IEPs. He continued to assign the same general activities to all students regardless of individual differences. His class was confused regarding their goals. Because the Respondent was not teaching toward the objectives set forth in the IEPs, the children were not achieving a minimum education experience. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because he did not have adequate control over the students. Students were walking around the class and the class was generally noisy The work that the Respondent did with individual students was in the nature of giving directions rather than actually teaching. In order to teach it is necessary to provide students with new concepts and provide teacher input rather than simply monitor students. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because his lesson planning was deficient. He spent the majority of time in the classroom attempting to discipline students. His grade book was kept in an inappropriate manner and the students were frustrated. As a result of these problems, Cortes requested that the Respondent visit a program at Madison Junior High School which had an acceptable behavior modification program in place. The Respondent visited the program on January 26, 1982; however, no substantial improvement after the Respondent's visit was noted. The Respondent also took a reading course in late January, 1982. No significant improvement was noted following completion of that course. In January of 1982, a social studies position at Carol City Junior High School became available. Cortes offered that position to the Respondent and he could have transferred into the social studies department if he had so desired. The Respondent, however, elected to remain in the field of exceptional student instruction. At that time, Cortes felt that the Respondent was attempting to deal with his deficiencies and he should be given the opportunity to correct the problems with his class. Mrs. Vickers, Director of Exceptional Student Education for Dade County Schools, made a routine visit to Carol City Junior High School on January 27, 1982. She had heard from one of her education specialists that there were difficulties in classroom management in the Respondent's classroom. She observed that many of the students were not on task in that they walked around the classroom, talked out loud, and called the Respondent "pops". A few of the students tried to work, but the noise level in the class was so high it was disruptive. Vickers chose not to do a formal observation at that time, because she felt that there were many areas that she could not have marked acceptable. Instead, Vickers chose to do a planning session with Respondent on that same date. At the planning session, Vickers discussed with Respondent such topics as getting the students on task, bringing supplies and materials, completing assignments and doing homework. She discussed IEPs with the Respondent and the minimal skills tests that the children are administered in grades 5, 8 and 11. She explained to the Respondent how to use a grade book and examined the student's work folders. Although the folders contained significant amounts of work, the work did not correlate with the objectives on the children's IEPs. Vickers was also concerned that the Respondent was monitoring the class rather than directly instructing the students on specific skills. He did not pull individual students or groups aside for direct instruction. Vickers returned to the Respondent's classroom on February 25, 1982, in order to conduct a formal observation. At that time, Vickers gave the Respondent an unacceptable overall summary rating. She found him deficient in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, student-teacher relationships, and acceptable in the category of preparation and planning. She rated the Respondent unacceptable in classroom management because a serious problem existed with the management of his students who were not on task. The students were not working in an orderly fashion and the class was so loud that it distracted the class on the other side of the room. When Vickers tried to speak with the teacher in the adjoining room, the noise level in the Respondent's class prevented a successful conversation between them. Due to these problems, the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience. Children with learning disabilities are easily distracted by visual or auditory interference; this problem was occurring in Respondent's class. Vickers rated the Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction since he was not using the diagnostic prescriptive teaching method that is required in the Dade County School System. Respondent was not utilizing small groups to give specific help with skills, but was instead, monitoring. Vickers also rated the Respondent unacceptable in assessment techniques. Exceptional education teachers are required to do a profile on each student showing the skills that the student has met and the skills that the student needs to improve. The Respondent did not meet this requirement. Finally, Vickers found the Respondent unacceptable in student-teacher relationships since she observed that the students showed an unacceptable level of respect for the Respondent. Vickers suggested that the Respondent visit three other exceptional education teachers along with regular teachers in school. She also scheduled an assertive discipline workshop for exceptional education teachers and asked that Respondent attend. The Respondent however, did not attend the workshop. On March 25, 1982, Cortes completed Respondent's annual evaluation for 1981-82 and recommended nonreappointment. This annual evaluation took into consideration all of the observations done by administrators in the building. She found the Respondent unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Cortes next observed the Respondent on May 17, 1982, and again gave him an overall summary rating of unacceptable. She found him unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning and classroom management. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the Respondent was not following the IEPs for the students. Cortes observed that the Respondent misspelled a word on the black board and the students copied his misspelling. Classroom management remained unacceptable because most of the class was not working. The Respondent continued to have difficulties controlling his students who continued to address him inappropriately by calling him "pops". As the Respondent moved from student to student, the remainder of the class was either talking or milling about the room. Respondent did not have understandable classroom rules and resultant consequences for breaking such rules. Rather than institute positive rewards for students who met the classroom criteria, his emphasis was on negative reinforcement. Following Cortes' discussion with the Respondent as to these deficiencies, she continued to see minimal improvement. It was also recommended that the Respondent visit Mrs. Layland, the department chairperson, to observe her classroom management techniques. Layland had a behavior modification plan in place and was able to work individually with each student while other students remained on task. The Respondent did visit Mrs. Layland's class but there was no significant improvement following that visit. On May 24, 1982, Cortes performed a second annual evaluation on the Respondent in which she found him unacceptable in one category, preparation and planning and acceptable in the remaining categories, but did not recommend him for reemployment. The second annual evaluation had only one unacceptable category, preparation and planning, and overall Respondent was rated unacceptable. However, the area in which the Respondent was rated unacceptable is especially important in the context of exceptional education. Preparation and planning is an important aspect of this field since planning for exceptional education students must be done on an individual basis. Additionally, the teacher has to plan what each student will be learning over a given period of time, and such planning is necessary in order to successfully instruct these students. Notwithstanding the Respondent's improvement, Cortes moved for his nonreappointment at the conclusion of the 1981-82 school year. The Respondent, however, was reappointed for the 1982-83 school year, when it was determined that the documentation upon which the nonreappointment was to be based was insufficient due to noncompliance with the existing union contract. Prior to the completion of the 1981-82 school year, the Respondent, through his area representative, Yvonne Perez, requested a transfer back into a regular classroom where the Respondent could teach Spanish or Social Studies. This was based on the Respondent's recognition that he was encountering extreme difficulties in teaching varying exceptionalities. Patrick Gray, Personnel Director for the Dade County School System, was aware of the request for a transfer on behalf of the Respondent and agreed to consider it. Gray subsequently determined not to transfer the Respondent, and reassigned him to his existing position. Following his assignment back to Carol City Junior High School, Cortes began to formally observe the Respondent. The first such observation of the 1982-83 school year occurred on September 13, 1982, less than one month after teachers had returned to school. Cortes observed the Respondent and documented an observation sheet with five attached papers. Observations performed the previous year had included only one statement. Approximately one month later, Cortes conducted another observation with four detailed attachments. The documentation provided to the Respondent in September and October of 1982 was accumulated to verify or affirm the decision which was made by Cortes in May of the prior year, to terminate the Respondent. Based on Cortes' observations of the Respondent while he was employed at Carol City Junior High School, she would not recommend him for a teaching position in any other field. According to Cortes, the Respondent is lacking the basic skills necessary to be a successful teacher. Marsha Gams, chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School during the 1981-82 school year and Respondent's supervisor, met with the Respondent on numerous occasions during the course of his assignment to Carol City Junior High School. Although Gams saw improvement on Respondent's part during the period that she observed him, the improvement was not significant. Based on Gams' observation of the Respondent's class, she felt that the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience since the Respondent did not have an adequate grasp of the curriculum and materials required for the learning disabled and educable mentally handicapped students. The Respondent's class eventually affected Gams' students due to the noise level which came from his adjoining class. Karen Layland, chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School during the 1982-83 school year, also worked with the Respondent. They had joint planning periods and spent a number of afternoons reviewing lesson plans, methods, curriculum, and matching materials to IEP objectives. According to Layland, the Respondent's basic problem was that he did not clearly understand the requirements of teaching varying exceptionalities Layland did not observe significant academic progress in the Respondent's class. The Respondent's grade book was disorganized and the materials contained in the student's folders were not appropriate for the particular students. Moreover, there was a lack of organization in his classroom in that students left class without permission. Although Layland felt that the Respondent was well intentioned, he did not have an adequate grasp of the curriculum, teaching management and behavior management that are necessary in an exceptional education setting. Even if Layland had been allowed to continue to work with the Respondent for the remainder of the school year, she did not feel that he could have been brought up to a competent level to teach varying exceptionalities during that period of time. Based on her observations, Layland believed that the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience due to the Respondent's lack of definite knowledge of methods in instructional techniques for varying exceptional students. By November, 1982, the School Board had made a determination that the school system had exhausted its remedies to raise the Respondent's performance to an acceptable level. Although the Respondent had obtained an acceptable rating from Cortes at the end of the 1982 school year, even this evaluation demonstrated a serious deficiency on Respondent's part. Additionally, during the 1981-82 school year the Respondent encountered numerous significant problems which had not been adequately remediated in order to permit him to continue teaching varying exceptionality students. The school board administration declined Perez' request that the Respondent be transferred into a regular class on the belief that the Respondent was incompetent in basic classroom instruction. However, based on the Respondent's teaching record prior to his employment at Carol City Junior High School, the Respondent encountered difficulties only when he was teaching varying exceptionalities, and in other fields, his basic skills were documented as acceptable. At all material times, the Respondent was employed as an annual contract teacher and did not hold a professional service contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Dade County School Board affirming the dismissal of the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1983.
