The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Lee County School Board, may terminate Respondent's employment as an instructional employee based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by the School Board as an instructional employee since August 21, 1998. He is a member of the Teachers Association of Lee County ("TALC"), the collective bargaining unit for instructional personnel, is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and TALC, and holds a professional service contract with the School Board At the time of his hiring, Respondent was assigned to the dropout prevention program at Academy High School, where he taught for one year. On August 17, 1999, Respondent began teaching at High Tech Central, a vocational/technical school. High Tech Central's student body includes both high school students and adults seeking to obtain job skills. A large percentage of the adults attending High Tech Central receive assistance from the Pell grant program, a need-based undergraduate financial aid program funded by the federal government. During the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years, Respondent taught the second semester of the personal computer ("PC") support services class, sharing a large classroom with Beth Ames, the teacher who taught the first semester of the same class. During the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent taught a web design class. During the 2002-2003 school year, Respondent taught CET in a co-teaching arrangement with Jeff Ledger, who had taught the CET class for the previous six years. At the end of that school year, Mr. Ledger moved to Ohio. From the 2003-2004 school year until the time of his suspension, Respondent alone taught the CET class. Throughout his period of employment with the School Board, Respondent also taught computer, business, and accounting courses as an adjunct professor at Edison College in Fort Myers. Until the 2003-2004 school year, Respondent received nothing less than satisfactory performance assessments. For the 1998-1999 school year, his performance was graded as satisfactory in each of the twelve criteria listed on the performance assessment form.2 His assessor at Academy High School wrote in the comment section of the assessment that "Mr. Nevins is well versed in technology and vocational skills," and commented favorably on Respondent's flexibility and cooperativeness in meeting the needs of students. For the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent's performance in teaching the PC support services class at High Tech Central was graded as exceeding expectations in five of the twelve criteria listed in the performance assessment form and as meeting expectations in the remaining seven criteria. High Tech Central's assistant director Susan Cooley prepared the assessment and wrote that Respondent "has done an outstanding job with collaboration with teachers and staff here at [High Tech Central]. He is very creative and strives to produce projects and alternative techniques for student achievement." For the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent's performance was graded as exceeding expectations in five of the twelve criteria and as meeting expectations in the remaining seven criteria. Ronald Pentiuk, the director of High Tech Central, prepared the assessment and offered no written comments. For the 2001-2002 school year, when Respondent moved from PC support services to web design, Respondent's performance was graded as exceeding expectations in three of the twelve criteria, and as "meets expectations" in the remaining nine criteria. Mr. Pentiuk commented that "Mr. Nevins has performed in an outstanding manner-- really super job in preparing the new CET lab." For the 2002-2003 school year, when Respondent moved from web design to co-teaching the CET class with Mr. Ledger, Respondent's performance was graded as exceeding expectations in three of the twelve criteria and as meeting expectations in the remaining nine criteria. Mr. Pentiuk performed this assessment and offered no additional written comments. For the 2003-2004 school year, when Respondent began to teach the CET class alone, Respondent received a grade of meeting expectations in eight criteria. In the criteria titled "Planning for Student Achievement" and "Subject Matter," Respondent received a grade of "exceeds expectations." In the criteria titled "Assessment of Student Achievement" and "State, School & District Requirements," Respondent received a grade of "below expectations," meaning that his performance was unsatisfactory. Mr. Pentiuk performed this assessment and offered no additional written comments. The record established at the hearing shows that High Tech Central's administrators expressed concern about Respondent's teaching and record keeping practices as early as May 2002. Ms. Cooley testified that, at the conclusion of the 1999-2000 school year, Ms. Ames had approached her with a request that she be permitted to teach both sections of the PC support services class alone, rather than splitting the course with Respondent. Ms. Ames stated that she was doing all the work anyway and felt it would be better for the students if she handled the class without Respondent. Ms. Cooley left matters as they were for the 2000-2001 school year, but then moved Respondent into the web design class for the 2001-2002 school year. As the 2001-2002 school year progressed, Ms. Cooley became concerned that Respondent was not properly tracking the progress of his students. She recognized that this was the first time that High Tech Central had offered a web design course and there would be a "learning curve" for everyone involved, including the instructor. Thus, the school's administration gave Respondent time over the course of the school year to work out the problems. In particular, Ms. Cooley was concerned that Respondent was not using lesson plans or a "career map" in his class. Each technical program at High Tech Central consists of a progression of competencies. To complete the program, or to pass from one phase of the program to the next, a student must demonstrate mastery of a certain set of competencies. An "occupational completion point" ("OCP") is a cluster of related competencies that a student is able to demonstrate and perform. A career map is a written chart completed by the instructor and used by the student to track the student's progress through the OCPs of a given program. Ms. Cooley testified that during the spring of 2002, three or four students in Respondent's class came to her to complain that there were no lectures or structured class work in the web design class and that the students in the class were left to do whatever they wanted. In early May 2002, a substitute teacher in Respondent's class came to Ms. Cooley to complain that Respondent left no lesson plan, despite the fact that his absence had been scheduled. The substitute teacher told Ms Cooley that the web design students appeared to be doing as they pleased in the class, including playing games on their computers. On May 5, 2002, Ms. Cooley and Mr. McCormick had a meeting with Respondent to discuss the lack of structure, discipline, and record keeping in Respondent's class. Ms. Cooley stated that every time she talked with him, Respondent would say he was going to do things better. Her concern was that she never saw any evidence of Respondent's performance matching his words. When queried as to the positive performance assessment authored by Mr. Pentiuk for the 2001-2002 school year, Ms. Cooley testified that she and Mr. Pentiuk had "agreed to disagree" about Respondent. Mr. Pentiuk was a "very, very accommodating" and "very, very patient" administrator who believed that Respondent was trying to do things the right way.3 Ms. Cooley had many conversations with Mr. Pentiuk about Respondent, but Mr. Pentiuk's philosophy was to give Respondent time, talk to him, and let him try to turn things around. Mr. Pentiuk also believed that Respondent's contacts in the business community were an asset to his students. Mr. Pentiuk testified that, due to lack of enrollment in the web design class, Respondent was moved into the CET class with Mr. Ledger for the 2002-2003 school year. Ms. Cooley testified that the administration believed that Respondent and Mr. Ledger could share each other's expertise in the same class for one year, then the CET program could be expanded by splitting it into two classes. The Department of Education standards state that the purpose of the CET program is to prepare students for employment or advanced training in the computer electronics industry. The Department's curriculum framework set forth the program structure as follows: This program is a planned sequence of instruction consisting of five occupational completion points as follows: (1) End User Support Technician, Level I Support Technician, Help Desk Specialist; (2) PC Electronics Installer; (3) PC Technician, Field Technician, Level II Support Technician; (4) Computer Support Specialist, Level I LAN Technician, Field Service Technician; (5) PC/Network Technician (Digital Electronics Repairer, proposed name change for 2005). When the recommended sequence is followed, the structure will allow students to complete specified portions of the program for employment or to remain for advanced training. A student who completes the applicable competencies at any occupational completion point may either continue with the training or become an occupational completer. The courses [sic] content includes, but is not limited to, installation, programming, operation, maintenance and servicing of computer systems; and diagnosis and correction of operational problems in computers arising from mechanical, electrical or electronics, hardware, and software malfunctions. The course content includes, but is not limited to, communication, leadership skills, human relations, and employability skills; and safe, efficient work practices.4 Respondent testified that things went well with Mr. Ledger because their skills complemented each other. Mr. Pentiuk testified that Respondent told him that Mr. Ledger provided most of the computer training in the CET class, and Respondent mostly taught employability skills, such things as the ability to get and keep a job, communication skills, and getting along with co-workers. Respondent agreed that he taught these employability skills, but emphasized that he also taught operating systems, and other software, whereas Mr. Ledger was a "hardware guru." At the end of the 2002-2003 school year, Mr. Ledger resigned his position and moved to Ohio, leaving Respondent as the sole instructor in the CET program. Upon learning that he would be teaching the class alone, Respondent told Mr. Pentiuk that he would require a new co-teacher or at least an assistant for the class and that he would need help in "getting up to speed with the gap" in his teaching knowledge of computer hardware. Mr. Pentiuk testified that Respondent also expressed insecurity about the returning students. Respondent feared they would be loyal to Mr. Ledger and would not accept Respondent as their sole teacher. In light of Respondent's expressed uncertainty about teaching the CET class alone, Mr. Pentiuk had discussions with Respondent in June 2003 regarding Respondent's teaching alternatives for the upcoming 2003-2004 school year. Mr. Pentiuk was interested in starting a business management and supervision program and moving Respondent into a teaching position in that program. However, this placement would have required Respondent to obtain state certification in business education at his own expense, and Respondent told Mr. Pentiuk he could not afford it because he was paying for a daughter to attend an Ivy League college. Mr. Pentiuk sought the advice of Mr. McCormick regarding Respondent's situation. In an e-mail to Mr. Pentiuk dated July 8, 2003, Mr. McCormick wrote, in relevant part: The tone of what [Respondent] is saying here [in an e-mail exchange with Mr. Pentiuk] indicates to me that giving him the CET class would be a recipe for disaster, especially given its current size. He is apparently looking for a way to continue doing not much of anything. For whatever reason, he does not believe he can handle the class or the curriculum by himself, even though that is what his current certification is in. I'm not sure about hiring him an assistant . . . even though Darryl is a good guy and I am sure he would be great with the students, I don't believe he has the technical background in networking that would be required. Any assistant teamed with Barry is going to end up doing the lion's share of the work, and I think that would be wrong-- especially if the assistant is not certified and qualified in this highly technical field. I think the bottom line is that Barry only wants to teach the soft "business employability skills," and really has no interest in CET. If he wants to teach the business curriculums, he needs to get off the dime and get certified! That is his responsibility, not ours. The fact [that] he feels that "it is really not the right time" and that he "really can't afford it right now" is his concern, not ours. There has been, and continues to be plenty of opportunity for him to do this. It would seem to me that with his future employability in the balance, he would not be fighting us on this issue. I don't know what else we can do to accommodate this teacher. If he is "uncomfortable" with either of the two options you presented to him, then perhaps we should try to find a teacher elsewhere who can meet our needs. I know this sounds cold, but after all, the goal is to provide our students with the best possible instruction . . . not make sure that our teachers don't feel "uncomfortable." This guy needs to get real. We have gone way beyond what is fair in offering him these options. He needs to decide if he wants to work here or not. My suggestion would be to place him in the business class this year, with the understanding that in order to maintain his teaching position, he must get certified in business, or at least be well on the way to getting certified, by next summer. In the meantime, we could advertise for a CET instructor who would be willing to take on the entire curriculum, not just the "employability skills." [ellipses in original] Mr. Pentiuk replied to Mr. McCormick that he shared many of the same feelings. At the hearing, Mr. Pentiuk testified that his reply did not mean that he agreed Respondent was not "doing much of anything," but that he did have concerns about Respondent's ability to pick up the CET class and teach it alone. Mr. Pentiuk ultimately did not follow Mr. McCormick's suggestion that Respondent be placed in the business class for the 2003-2004 school year, in part because the business class had not been advertised and the CET program had an ongoing enrollment. Mr. Pentiuk placed Respondent in the CET class, hoping that the training he had obtained in working with Mr. Ledger, along with formal training at the Cisco Systems Networking Academy program in the fall of 2003, would enable Respondent to handle the program. The School Board paid for Respondent to obtain Cisco training in Tampa and arranged for substitute teachers to take over the CET class on those days Respondent was in Tampa for training. Respondent completed the Cisco Certified Network Associate 1 ("CCNA"), Networking Basics, course of the Cisco Networking Academy Program on October 31, 2003. Respondent completed the CCNA 2, Routers and Routing Basics, course on December 9, 2003. Two more courses were required to obtain CCNA certification. Respondent testified that School Board policy required an instructor to take the first two courses then teach that material for a year before taking the second two courses and that he was never given the opportunity to complete the CCNA program. Mr. Pentiuk testified that problems began in Respondent's class at the outset of the 2003-2004 school year. Several students approached Mr. Pentiuk with complaints about the quality of Respondent's teaching. One irate adult student told Mr. Pentiuk that he intended to leave the CET program because he was not getting his money's worth.5 Late in the fall of 2003, near the Christmas break, Mr. Pentiuk contacted Georgianna McDaniel, the School Board's director of personnel services, to express his concerns that Respondent was not turning in his attendance records in a timely fashion, that Respondent did not have control of the students in his class, and that Respondent was not following the school's standard practices in preparing grades and documentation of his students' progress in the CET program. Ms. McDaniel directed Mr. Pentiuk to follow up on these matters and to note them on Respondent's final performance assessment for the school year. Respondent conceded that during the 2003-2004 school year, he was getting up to speed on the technology that he was supposed to be teaching to the students and often had to write down their questions so that he could research them and come in with answers the next day. In early 2004, the High Tech Central administration began to conduct informal observations of Respondent's class and to meet with him about his procedures, particularly as to taking attendance. Tracking attendance was a critical matter at High Tech Central because of the high percentage of its students who received Pell grants. Pell grants are calculated based on how many hours a student is in class, not merely on the number of days the student is present. Thus, teachers at High Tech Central were required not only to take attendance at the beginning of their classes, but to have students sign in and out of the classrooms in order to track their activities throughout the day.6 On the morning of February 19, 2004, Ms. Cooley was working in the front office when Respondent phoned in to say that he was running late. Ms. Cooley said that she would open Respondent's classroom and substitute until Respondent arrived. In a statement dated November 30, 2004,7 Ms. Cooley described her experience in Respondent's class as follows, in relevant part: While I was subbing in Barry Nevins' class one morning last year, as he was late coming to school, I noticed students were not focused on any assignments. I felt there was very little productive work being accomplished. One student pulled up the Internet and was reading current events; another one was checking the weather. I circulated to every student and simply asked what they were working on. Most students would responded [sic] they were working on projects. I asked if I could see the project information sheet, assignment sheet, project criteria sheet or rubric for the projects. None of the students had any written project direction sheets. I could not find any lesson plans or grade book. Two students walked in after 8 a.m. I asked if they would go to the office for a tardy slip. They responded that Mr. Nevins gives them extra time to start class.[8] I noticed the lab was full of pop bottles, food wrappers, and trash. While circulating, I asked each student if they had a career map or competency sheet. Not one student had a career map, assignment sheet, list of assignments, or any other tracking system. Students were not aware the program was divided into occupational completion points. As I approached two high school students sitting in the back room, I asked what they were working on. I noticed a small book placed inside the large textbook. I asked to see the book, and it was a hackers handbook.[9] One student in particular stood up-- in my face-- and yelled at me. I felt threatened; I felt he was rude and disrespectful. I radioed for the Student Affairs Specialist to discipline the student. Soon after the Student Affairs Specialist and this high school student left the room, Mr. Nevins arrived. I was scheduled to give an Employability Seminar to another group of students across campus, so I was in a hurry to leave Mr. Nevins' room. I thought he would have called me later in the day to find out what happened. He never talked to me until days later. He stated the students were upset and wanted to come talk to me. I told him I would be happy to schedule appointments for each one. He said they wanted to come as a class. I responded I felt it would be better to have a conversation with each student-- one on one; but, I never heard from Mr. Nevins about the students. I never received a copy of the letter until Ms. Garlock allowed me to read it last week.[10] * * * After this visit, I became very concerned about the lack of educational focus in the classroom. I visited his classroom a couple of weeks later, and I saw the same types of things happening. This time I asked Mr. Nevins about my concerns, and his responses made me question classroom management skills, paperwork, curriculum, lesson plans, etc. Every instructor has a student tracking system they use to maintain the data on each student. Whether they use competency lists, career maps, list of class assignments, etc. Every teacher does it a little bit differently. I do become concerned when a teacher does not have a tracking system or it is not consistent for every student in the class . . . . In a memorandum to Respondent dated February 26, 2004, titled "Classroom Management/Record Keeping Concerns," Ms. Cooley wrote as follows, in relevant part: The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize our conference held at 3:00 p.m. on February 20th, 2004 concerning issues related to your classroom management and basic record keeping practices. As you recall, Mr. Ronald Pentiuk, Director, High Tech Central, and Mr. Bill McCormick, Assistant Director, Operation, High Tech Central, also attended this meeting. During the conference, the following conduct was discussed: Improper attendance documentation on student tardies and early releases. Lack of up-to-date and complete career map documentation on each student. Lack of complete and accurate lesson plans. Lack of on task work demonstrated by students. Non-enforcement of school policies evidenced by not beginning class on time and allowing students to arrive late without proper sign-in documentation. I have reviewed your conduct as it relates to the established expectations as provided by our school's faculty handbook, our standard operating policies, and The School District of Lee County student attendance policies. This information was provided to you during new teacher orientation and training, standard in-service session, and at the beginning of each academic year during the pre-school sessions. I informed you that your conduct negatively impacted your students and our school in as much as inaccurate or incomplete recordkeeping and attendance documentation jeopardizes our ability to maintain federal Pell financial aid. This conduct also exposes the school to many unforeseen liabilities when we are unable to produce accurate student attendance records. And finally, non-enforcement of school policies on your part undermines the maintaining of good order and discipline throughout our campus by breeding contempt and noncompliance with school rules. During the conference, I provided you with the following directive(s) and assistance to take effect on or before Monday, February 23rd, 2004 and to continue throughout the remainder of the school year. Use/set up a teacher hard-copy grade book using the materials given to you 3 weeks ago. Keep accurate track of all tardies and early dismissals by documenting exact arrival and departure times. Print out all daily lesson plans. Update and maintain daily career maps for all students. Monitor students for on task behavior and use of proper classroom materials. I also informed you that your failure to comply with any of the above directives will result in another formal counseling meeting and letter, as well as placement on intensive assistance. In March 2004, the school's attendance secretary complained to Mr. McCormick that Respondent was not following the school's prescribed attendance procedure. On March 26, 2004, Mr. McCormick sent Respondent an e-mail reminding him of the correct procedure and directing him to follow it. On March 30, 2004, the attendance secretary complained to Mr. McCormick that Respondent had not turned in his attendance sheets by 9:00 a.m., as required by school procedure. Mr. McCormick sent an e-mail to Respondent, who wrote back to apologize, stating that he "got busy teaching a lesson and dealing with some interesting problems" and forgot to turn in his attendance. On April 14, 2004, Mr. McCormick observed Respondent's class. The CET lab was a large L-shaped room, approximately 800 to 900 square feet. There was a central open area with computer tables and computers and four auxiliary rooms each sectioned off by a solid half-wall from the floor up to about waist-level and a chain link fence from the top of the half-wall to the ceiling. These auxiliary rooms were generally referred to as "cages." The CET class was conducted for five hours each weekday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., with a half-hour lunch break. The students were required to remain in the classroom at all times, except during the lunch recess. There were rest rooms and a water fountain inside the CET classroom, and the school's administration expected that any short breaks from class work should take place inside the classroom. After his observation, Mr. McCormick sent an e-mail to Respondent with the following "feedback": As I arrived at about 8:30, you were obviously involved in taking care of a student issue in your back cage. However, the majority of the remainder of the class did not appear to be actively engaged in much useful learning activity. A group of 5 students were huddled up to the front right of the class visiting with each other. 4 other students were on their computers. At least two of them did appear to be viewing the online Cisco curriculum, the other 2 seemed to be surfing the web. 2 other students were setting up one of the back cages that had been disturbed by the maintenance men who are fixing your counter tops. At about 8:35 you assembled a group of students to the white board and began a discussion presentation on the different types of business models such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc. . . . You tried to engage the students in a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each. It did not appear to me that the students had any prior background prep on this subject such as a reading assignment. Although it could be argued that some knowledge of this topic might be useful to your students, I question the immediate relevancy of it given the wealth of more concrete and practical technical material available in the CET curriculum. I do commend you on getting the most out of what appeared to me to be a group of disinterested and unengaged students. You did your best to try to keep their focus. While you engaged these students in your discussion, two other students continued to work independently on their computers. I assume on the online curriculum. You also gave instructions to two other students to continue setting up the back cage. The two students in the back cage did not continue to set up the cage as you had instructed, but instead sat down in the back corner by a computer. They positioned a CPU so that it hid the monitor from my view. It was obvious to me that they did not want me to see what they were doing, although mainly what they were doing was visiting. Shortly before I left, I walked back unexpectedly to them, and saw that the one on the keyboard was attempting to log into the computer as an "administrator" but apparently did not know the correct password. They said they were attempting to get the computer connected to a nearby switch or server. Was this correct? I concluded my observation of your class at about 9:15. A few suggestions: Prior to a discussion presentation, make sure to give a prior preparation assignment so that the students can participate more fully in the discussion. If you are going to give a presentation on such a broad-based general knowledge topic such as the different types of business models, involve everyone in your class, regardless of their current place in the curriculum. There is no reason why the four other students should have been excluded from your discussion, even if they were not in the curriculum group you had assembled. Do not allow students to reposition computer equipment so as to mask observation of the monitors. Even if they were not up to anything inappropriate, it sure looked like it. Give desk work requiring a written assignment when you are tied up with a student issue in your office-- or at any other time you want to refocus their attention. Something as simple as completing the questions at the back of chapter xxx in their textbook would at least keep them somewhat focused on something other than visiting with each other. Focus your discussion presentations on the concrete technical material more directly relevant to the CET curriculum. Although what you covered does have some use and interest as background information, your time with the students in actual presentation should be devoted to your core curriculum material. I know it is sometimes difficult and frustrating to have someone come into your class for 45 minutes and make a few critical comments and suggestions based on that brief visit. Please take them in the [spirit] they are intended... as observations and suggestions. Later that day, Respondent sent the following response to Mr. McCormick's e-mail: Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the time and effort you put into this. The student issue was quite urgent and unexpected. I had the class together and ready to go when [J.] showed up and we had to have the talk right away. It threw us off considerably as did the fact that . . . we weren't sure whether the counter-top guys were coming back today or tomorrow. Obviously the equipment they usually have to work with wasn't available. I purposely had a non-technical topic picked because I didn't know if I would have access to hardware for demonstration or practice. Also, business ownership is part of our curriculum (16.06)[11] and a very important part. I like your idea of a reading assignment to go along with it. I'll have to find something at the right level. The two students in the back were setting up the Cisco equipment (yes-- that involves connecting to the switches and routers) and were having some password issues with the computers (nothing major-- just a bit confusing). They would have been administrators on those computers. By the way, the computers in the cages don't go to the network or the Internet so they are "relatively" low risk. I also purposely wanted those low powered computers for this because they also won't run any popular games. Not much harm they can do in there. Interesting note-- I always tell them that hiding monitors is the quickest way to get me to come over. They sort of have the idea it doesn't work. The five students "visiting" in front would probably have been working with equipment in the cages under normal circumstances but knowing those guys I'm 99% sure they were talking about computers anyway. Lastly, this topic was covered by last year's students so there was no need for them to go through it again. When I do the A+ materials,[12] everybody participates because the advanced students need the review. The Cisco stuff can't be done by the beginners because they aren't ready so I give them something to read, review, research, etc. Quite a juggling act. Thanks again. It's great to have constructive feedback. On May 6, 2004, the day before he signed Respondent's 2003-2004 performance assessment, Mr. Pentiuk wrote a letter to Ms. McDaniel requesting that Respondent be placed on "performance probation." The letter noted that Respondent would receive "below expectations" ratings in "Assessment of Student Achievement" and "State, School and District Requirements," then stated: During this school year, Mr. Nevins has meet [sic] with me, Sue Cooley, Assistant Director for Curriculum, or Bill McCormick, Assistant Director for Operations, on numerous occasions and discussed the concerns relating to the above mentioned Accomplished Practices. The dates of these meetings, as well as observations were, January 13, 2004, February 20, 2004, March 24 and 26, 2004, March 30, 2004, April 15, 2004, April 2, 2004, and May 5, 2004. Administration has offered a myriad of suggestions and support to assist Mr. Nevins in improving his classroom environment, teaching techniques, teacher duties, and student assessment responsibilities. Attached is correspondence that has been conducted to show a flow of conversations reaping no positive changes in performance. In fact, unfortunately, there have been excuses and rebuttals, but performance has not changed. Ms. Cooley testified that Mr. Pentiuk consulted with Mr. McCormick and her when considering the request for performance probation. Ms. Cooley further testified that she and Mr. McCormick concurred with Mr. Pentiuk that Respondent needed to be placed on probation because Respondent continued to get the same things wrong and his performance was not improving. After receiving his performance assessment, Respondent contacted Donna Mutzenard, the president of the Teachers Association of Lee County to act as his union representative in a meeting with Mr. Pentiuk and Ms. Cooley about the assessment. Shortly after this meeting, Respondent learned of Mr. Pentiuk's letter to Ms. McDaniel requesting performance probation, which would include the initiation of the School Board's "intensive assistance program." The intensive assistance program ("IAP") is designed to rehabilitate poorly performing teachers. When the principal of a school determines that a teacher is experiencing difficulty in some area of performance, the principal must inform the teacher of these performance problems and provide assistance in the area of deficiency. Frequent feedback, peer coaching, and opportunities for training and development, such as peer observation and outside training courses, are among the items of assistance the principal is expected to provide and document. If assistance at the school level does not solve the problem, then the superintendent of schools authorizes Ms. McDaniel to appoint an IAP team, which includes the teacher's immediate supervisor and other persons with knowledge of the curriculum and of the teacher's deficiencies. Ms. McDaniel testified that she also tries to appoint one person without personal knowledge of the teacher. The IAP team's first task is to meet with the teacher in order to review: the nature of the program; the teacher's job expectations and performance standards; past performance assessments and other documentation of performance concerns and assistance; and the teacher's experience, certifications, and current assignment. The team also schedules individual diagnostic performance observations and conferences with the teacher followed by meetings of the entire team. At the conclusion of the IAP team's eighth meeting,13 the team makes a recommendation for action to the superintendent of schools, who must decide whether the teacher has raised his performance to standards, requires continued assistance, should be reassigned to a more appropriate position, or be dismissed from employment with the School Board. Ms. Mutzenard discussed the matter with Ms. McDaniel, arguing that there was insufficient documentation to justify appointment of an IAP team for Respondent. Ms. Mutzenard felt that one final performance assessment with two grades of "below expectations" did not meet the criteria for the IAP. Ms. McDaniel consulted with the superintendent of schools, reviewed the record, and ultimately agreed with Ms. Mutzenard. By letter to Mr. Pentiuk dated June 10, 2004, Ms. McDaniel denied the request for performance probation. The letter stated, in relevant part: It is clear by the documentation you presented that there are performance issues regarding Mr. Nevins' deficiencies in Accomplished Practice Indicators 2 and 12 (Assessment of Student Achievement and State, School & District Requirements) as indicated by the Below Expectations ratings he received on this year's Final Performance Assessment. It is also noted that the school could receive audit findings in the accreditation process for the incomplete Career Maps and attendance records. As Mr. Nevins has been put on notice regarding his need for improvement in these areas, it is my recommendation that you give him every opportunity to correct these deficiencies for the first quarter of the 2004-05 school year. Please continue to monitor and document his performance on a regular basis. If there is not a complete turnaround in the fulfillment of professional obligations expected of Barry, he will be placed on performance probation in the second quarter. Despite his belief that Respondent needed the assistance of the IAP immediately, Mr. Pentiuk accepted Ms. McDaniel's decision and set out to help Respondent at the school level during the first semester of the 2004-2005 school year. Mr. Pentiuk discussed matters with Respondent, whom Mr. Pentiuk described as "always [having] an answer for everything," meaning glib excuses for poor performance and a refusal to accept fault in his performance. Mr. Pentiuk advised Respondent to "buckle down and do your job" during the upcoming semester. Mr. Pentiuk assigned Ms. Cooley and Mr. McCormick to advise, assist, and observe Respondent. All three administrators conducted observations of Respondent's class and met with him to share their observations. Ms. Cooley worked with Respondent on his career maps and his overall assessments of student performance. In his observations, Mr. Pentiuk was disturbed by the fact that Respondent's students, though they always appeared to be working on projects, never seemed to know where they were on their career maps. Some students were not even aware that they had career maps. Mr. Pentiuk also observed a student sleeping in Respondent's class. Respondent was not aware of the sleeping student until Mr. Pentiuk pointed him out. Mr. Pentiuk's overall impression was that "not a lot of structured instruction is taking place" in Respondent's class. These incidents and observations further convinced Mr. Pentiuk that Respondent required more help than could be provided at the school level. During the first semester of the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Cooley continued to work with Respondent to assist his job performance. She lent Respondent an instructional videotape keyed to the Florida Performance Measurement System's "summative observation instrument," a chart used by classroom observers in the Lee County school system to chart instances of positive and negative teacher performance. The tape discussed the document step by step, showing examples of an effective teacher at work in the classroom. Ms. Cooley described it as a "wonderful, wonderful tape" to show a teacher the right way to run a class. Ms. Cooley told Respondent to watch the tape, then to sit down with her and talk about it. Five days later, Ms. Cooley needed the tape to show to a group of beginning teachers. She went to Respondent's classroom to retrieve the tape and asked him if he had watched it. Respondent told her that he "never got to it." On October 6, 2004, Ms. Cooley conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom. She entered the class at 12:15 p.m. and stayed for about 30 minutes. Ms. Cooley's notes of the observation read as follows, in relevant part: Upon entering, I noticed one student reading the "Life Styles" section of the newspaper. Mr. Nevins quickly got up from his lap top and told me he was helping the student find a job. Mr. Nevins stated he was preparing this student's resume. When I questioned why Mr. Nevins was writing the resume, Mr. Nevins stated the student needed a job as he had been in this program a short time. When I approached another student and asked what he was working on, he stated he was waiting until 1:30 p.m. I found out he was not a current student in class without the proper visitor's pass. When asked, none of the students saw their career maps. Some have been in the program for two semesters. Chips, muffins, gatoraide [sic] bottles were at the computer stations and throughout the lab. When I asked students what they were working on, all the responses were the same. They all responded by telling me they were working on projects. I asked Mr. Nevins about the various projects. I asked for a copy of the project assignment sheets, criteria sheets, or rubrics. Mr. Nevins replied that the students were developing their own projects. My observation was the students were doing whatever they wanted and were given no direction or instruction. Checkmarks in grade book were used for attendance, but no tardies or leave earlies were noted . . . I am concerned the students lack direction, instruction, and detailed curriculum assignments. In late October 2004, Ms. Cooley contacted Bob Gent, the CET program teacher at High Tech North, another Lee County school, and asked him to visit and observe Respondent's class. Ms. Cooley thought it would help Respondent to discuss his class with a successful teacher whose program mirrored his own. Arrangements were made for Mr. Gent to visit Respondent's class on November 3, 2004. On November 2, 2004, less than 24 hours before Mr. Gent's scheduled visit, Respondent e-mailed Ms. Cooley with the following message: "I've rethought the situation and I'd rather not go through with this tomorrow. I will let you know if I decide to reschedule." Ms. Cooley testified that Respondent never provided a real explanation for his sudden cancellation of Mr. Gent's visit. On November 3, 2004, Cathy Race, High Tech Central's information technology specialist, sent an informational e-mail to all personnel of the school regarding several computer- related issues. Ms. Race reminded the school's staff that they should not bring in personally owned computers for use on the school's network because of the risk of viruses, nor should they allow non-district computers belonging to contractors, vendors, auditors, or partnering agencies onto the network before Ms. Race verified that the computer has modern, updated anti- virus software and up-to-date patch levels. The next day, November 4, 2004, Respondent allowed a student to connect his personal computer to the district network, resulting in the importation of a virus into the network. Mr. McCormick sent an e-mail to Respondent about the incident that concluded: "This incident reflects poorly on our school and your ability to adequately control and monitor your classroom, or at the very least, your inability to understand the District computer use policy. Please provide an explanation as to why you allowed this to occur and how you intend to prevent it in the future." Later on November 4, 2004, Respondent sent the following answer to Mr. McCormick: I have already talked to Cathy Race about how this has happened. A student brought in a computer of his own to work on and another student was helping him fix it. A part of this problem was that drivers had to be located. The student, against the policy, but with good intentions got online and located the drivers but apparently got more than he bargained for. I talked with Cathy Race about setting up a meeting with [district director of information technology support] Dwayne Alton about the difficulties the computer use policies are causing in running my program. My policy at the beginning of last year was to not allow students to bring in computers to work on. You changed it after a student came to see you and complained. I wouldn't have had this problem if we kept my original policy. "your ability to adequately control and monitor your classroom, or at the very least, your inability to understand the District computer use policy?" Do you really think that every time there is a computer use problem that this is what it means? You were at a meeting last year where Dwayne Alton said that we were not considered a real problem for the district. Put a bunch of computer geeks together and some "challenges" are inevitable. Ask any computer teacher in the district. I find the whole statement-- but especially the "your inability to understand" line very insulting and disrespectful. Expect to be hearing more about that sort of usage and tone very soon. If we were so inclined there were two commands we could have used to release the IP address and you never would have found the computer in here. The students and I took immediate responsibility for what happened. I bring that up because I'm not so sure that taking responsibility for unfortunate events that take place under you is very popular around here. Mr. McCormick testified that he did not know what to make of Respondent's statement that he should expect to hear more about his usage and tone, and that it was not his intent to insult Respondent. Later on November 4, 2004, Mr. McCormick responded to Respondent as follows: Was the student aware of the policy at the time, and is he/her now? If the student was aware of the policy, but choose [sic] to ignore it, I would expect some sort of discipline action or referral. If the student was not aware of the policy, I would want to know why. I understand the unique challenges faced by your class, however I don't know how much clearer the district policy could be with regards to connecting "guest computers" to the network. The resulting manhours and resources needed to remedy these types of problems leave us no choice but to treat them serious [sic]. If you feel that you are unable to [adequately] monitor your students when they are working on their computers they have brought in, I certainy [sic] agree that we should revisit the policy of allowing them to do so. I'll let you make that call and will support you if you decide against it. Respondent did not directly respond to the questions raised by Mr. McCormick's second November 4, 2004, e-mail. However, on November 8, 2004, Respondent filed with the School Board an equity complaint, alleging that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his religion and his sex.14 In the narrative portion of the complaint, Respondent recited his work history at High Tech Central, including the allegation that except for the Cisco training, he had received "no support or encouragement from the administration" upon taking over the CET program after Mr. Ledger's departure. The following excerpt from the complaint set forth Respondent's essential allegations: The problems developed last year when [Ms. Cooley] had to watch my class for thirty minutes one morning and she did not do a very good job (see attachment).[15] I have been an express target of Administration's negative attention since then. They are often very confrontational and negative toward me and completely ignore points I make to show my efforts. My lessons and class work in [CET] fully correlate to the State Standards for my course. Administration has received lesson plans, unit planning documents, and assessment information to support this. My grading and progress reports are up to date. Furthermore, several of my students have been placed in industry related employment which is the ultimate goal and stated mission of the school. This information has not showed up in any documentation I have received from administration. Administration has gone to great lengths to reprimand me for not utilizing career maps (a particular tracking device) on a day to day basis in my class. I update them periodically based on unit completion but do not place a strong day to day focus on them because students are more interested and motivated by Industry Certification requirements which also very strongly relate to the career map's requirements. Students are made aware of the link. The case has been made by Administration that because I do not utilize and emphasize these career maps my teaching is unstructured and of low quality. A particular technique that has been used to evaluate my job performance is for an Administrator to come in to my classroom, seek out a student who may be having a bad day, may have just gotten reprimanded, may be somewhat overwhelmed by a particular section of material, etc. and badgering that student for negative information about me and the class. I don't think the proper way to judge our Administrators would be to go to a Faculty meeting and seek out the teachers who are rolling their eyes and snickering. I have been told that I am being judged on this "measure of satisfaction." Besides being a contract violation the selection and measurement technique used is highly subjective and arbitrary. Again, the case has been made, without logical connection, by Administration that because I do not meet these satisfaction standards my teaching is unstructured and of low quality. In my Department (Business Technology) the Department Chair and two other teachers who are National Board Certified (all three with twenty plus years of experience-- and all female) have not been required to work with the career maps. They have not been using them for at least the last several years and they have not received any type of reprimand. They use "competency sheets" which is quite similar to the system I use (and I also utilize the periodically updated career maps). In addition, these teachers are not subject to the same degree of scrutiny, evaluation, and criticism as has been shown in my case. Students are not encouraged to "snitch" and basically proper procedure is followed. The Administrators have little trouble in treating these other teachers with respect. Therefore I am asserting that Mrs. Cooley has selected me for "attention" based on my being male and Mr. Pentiuk and Mr. McCormick has [sic] been supportive of her. I do not rule out that my being Jewish, a New Yorker, and a Union Rep had an effect on their decision making. Administration has used this as the cornerstone of an overall effort to undermine and discredit my teaching efforts and abilities. The remainder of the complaint catalogued the negative effects "this situation" has had on Respondent, including stress and being treated as "a slacker and unprofessional." Respondent also discussed the "highly insulting and disrespectful" e-mail exchange of November 4, 2004, with Mr. McCormick. At the request of Becky Garlock, a School Board investigator, Mr. Pentiuk, Mr. McCormick, and Ms. Cooley prepared written statements in answer to Respondent's allegations.16 Mr. Pentiuk's statement was as follows, in full: This letter is in reference to the equity complaint filed by Barry Nevins. I regret that Mr. Nevins has these strong feelings about being picked on. The administration at High Tech Central is concerned about the structure of his program and his delivery relating to the competencies and Career Map for the [CET] program. We have recommended that Mr. Nevins be placed in the intensive assistance program and feel that he has the ability to become an effective teacher. We have also asked for a fellow [CET] instructor from High Tech North to come, and Mr. Nevins felt that it was not a good time. We are ready for Mr. Nevins to find the time to become a good teacher. I feel that these allegations are with no credibility and I wish that Mr. Nevins would exert the energy toward his program that he has toward this complaint. Mr. McCormick's statement discussed Respondent's problems in complying with attendance reporting policies, and further discussed the November 4, 2004, e-mail exchange regarding Respondent's student introducing a virus into the computer network. As to Respondent's main point, that his class was being unfairly singled out for administrative attention, Mr. McCormick wrote: As I recall, the administrative team began looking more closely at the CET program during the 2nd semester of the 03/04 school year when an adult student withdrew from the program and made some disturbing statements concerning the quality of the instruction and classroom management practices of the instructor. The student was being given a withdrawal interview by Ms. Soto, one of our guidance counselors. Because of the veracity of the comments made by the student, she referred the student to me. I interviewed the student and determined that he should make his comments known to Mr. Pentiuk, which he immediately did. Mr. Nevins was informed of the statements and given a chance to respond. He immediately dismissed the student as being unreliable and not trustworthy. His comment was "students will say anything." Nonetheless, the student appeared to be credible and this was our first real indication that the CET program may need some monitoring. Further discussions with the guidance department revealed other students had in recent months been dissatisfied in much the same way. On another front, Mr. King, the Student Affairs Specialist had also been indicating problems with attendance not being accurately recorded in CET. For example, he indicated that tardies and absences were not being recorded when necessary. This was confirmed with the attendance secretary. These indicators pointed to the fact that the quality of instruction and classroom management practices warranted some attention on the part of the administration. Upon some cursory reviewing of Mr. Nevins' academic and attendance records, it was apparent that he was in need of some assistance. Any inference that Mr. Nevins is being singled out for unwarranted attention by the administration of this school for any other reason but for legitimate concerns about classroom management practice and the quality of the instruction, is completely false. This administration wants Mr. Nevins to be successful, and we have demonstrated that through our actions. Most of Ms. Cooley's statement was devoted to explaining the events of February 19, 2004. Besides her version of those events, detailed at Finding of Fact 32 above, Ms. Cooley made the following general statements about Respondent and the school's administrators: Administration has supported Mr. Nevins in numerous ways. Thousands of dollars went into his lab for new desks and equipment. It was a state of the art lab. In fact, he even mentioned it was better than Edison College's computer lab. Administration sent Mr. Nevins to Cisco training (in Tampa, I think). This training took weeks and was very expensive. The school paid for his travel, food, lodging (if needed) and his class in order to help support him in his teaching efforts. Mr. Nevins even commented that some of the students would be upset with his teaching methods when the other teacher moved away. Mr. Pentiuk was extremely understanding, patient, and supportive of Mr. Nevins. * * * This is my 29th year in education. I have never had a teacher file a grievance. I feel my role is that of a support system for the instructors in my school. I share with the instructors when they are doing a good job and I remiss [sic] in my duty if I did not share my concerns. I believe Mr. Nevins is a very intelligent man. I believe he is very knowledgeable about computers. My objective is to help him be successful in the classroom, so he can help students be successful in the workforce. At the hearing, Respondent at least implied that the decision to recommend that he be placed in an IAP, and the ultimate decision to recommend his dismissal, was in retaliation for his filing an equity complaint against the three named High Tech Central administrators. The evidence does not support such a suggestion. Mr. Pentiuk, who in any event retired before the completion of the IAP process, had only a vague recollection of the complaint's allegations. Mr. McCormick never saw the equity complaint before he testified in this proceeding and knew none of its details, or even whether he was named in the complaint. His statement, described at Finding of Fact 64, was written at Ms. Garlock's request and was not based on Mr. MCormick's having read the complaint. Ms. Cooley was "shocked" by the equity complaint because she believed that her actions toward Respondent, while sometimes critical, had always been professional. Respondent's allegation of retaliatory intent on the part of anyone in the administration of High Tech Central is not credible. By letter to Ms. McDaniel dated November 15, 2004, Mr. Pentiuk renewed his request that Respondent be placed on performance probation. The letter reviewed the administration's efforts to assist Respondent during the first semester of the 2004-2005 school year, including Respondent's refusal to cooperate in Mr. Gent's visit to his class. By letter dated December 16, 2004, Superintendent James Browder informed Respondent that, pursuant to the recommendation of Mr. Pentiuk and Ms. McDaniel, Respondent would be placed on a plan of assistance. Mr. Browder wrote that he would appoint an assistance team to work with Respondent during the second semester of the 2004-2005 school year. Mr. Browder informed Respondent that the first meeting would take place in early January 2005, and that he could name a representative to attend the meetings on his behalf. On the same date, Ms. McDaniel hand-delivered the superintendent's letter to Respondent in Mr. Pentiuk's office. The superintendent delegated to Ms. McDaniel the task of choosing the members of the IAP team. She selected Mr. McCormick and Ms. Cooley, because they were Respondent's direct supervisors at High Tech Central and were aware of the curriculum and Respondent's deficiencies. Ms. McDaniel testified that she had appointed six IAP teams before this one and that her standard procedure was to appoint both assistant directors of the school. Ms. McDaniel also chose Suzanne Roshon, the School Board's coordinator for technical and career education, as an objective outsider without prior knowledge of Respondent, or his classroom setting. Ms. McDaniel acted as coordinator and facilitator for the IAP team meetings. Ms. Mutzenard was an observer at the IAP team meetings as Respondent's representative.17 The IAP team held its organizational meeting on January 13, 2005. Respondent and Ms. Mutzenard were present. In her role as coordinator, Ms. McDaniel chaired the meeting, explaining the steps in the IAP process. There would be seven weeks of observations in Respondent's class with three observations taking place each week. The observations would be unannounced. Not more than one observation could take place in a single day. The observers were not to talk to Respondent or the students during the observations, and Respondent was to act as though the observer were not present. The observers were not to discuss their observations with each other prior to the weekly team meetings. Respondent was directed to turn in his lesson plans each week so that the observers would know what to expect when they came into the classroom. Ms. McDaniel's role was to determine whether the observers had common concerns about Respondent's classroom methods, and to ensure those common concerns received emphasis at the team meetings. Ms. McDaniel testified that, at this initial meeting, it was clear that Respondent was not happy to be involved in the IAP process. He believed that he could document his program's success and that he should not be there.18 Ms. McDaniel emphasized the need to maintain a "positive attitude in a positive learning environment" because it was clear to her that Respondent did not have a positive attitude about the scrutiny he was receiving. Ms. Cooley conducted the first recorded observation, on January 21, 2005, at 12:30 p.m. As she entered the classroom, Ms. Cooley noted that two students were sitting at picnic tables outside the classroom and that Respondent walked to the door and told them to return to class. One student left the classroom carrying a length of cable then returned for a bowl of water and left again. A second student walked in and took another bowl of water out of the classroom. Ms. Cooley testified that the students had caught a stray dog on campus. They used the cable to tie the dog to a tree until school was out. Respondent knew what was going on with the dog and was not requiring the students to sign in and out of the class. Ten students were watching a video about the founder of Apple computers and events in the industry during the 1980s. Two students were working on a computer in the back of the room and another was working in one of the cages. Later, one of the two students in the back put his head down on the desk. After the video, Respondent asked the students what had changed over the years. Students shouted out answers, and Respondent corrected them for talking all at once. Respondent then asked another question. One student, Keith McNeil, dominated the discussion. One student received a call on his cell phone and walked out of the classroom. Another student was using his Palm Pilot and another was reading a book. Though the class would not be dismissed until 1:30 p.m., Respondent stopped teaching and ordered the students to clean up the classroom at 1:05 p.m. Ms. Cooley was surprised that Respondent had not prepared his class to be on its best behavior given that he knew there would be three observations that week. In her follow-up notations and recommendations to Respondent, Ms. Cooley observed that there were too many distractions in the classroom, that not all the students were focused on the video, that the video itself was too long and too old for meaningful use in the CET program, that a couple of questions were insufficient after spending over 30 minutes watching the video, and that 25 minutes was too much time for classroom clean-up. Ms. Cooley later testified that a computer class is a clean environment that should take only a few minutes to clean up at the end of the class session. Mr. McCormick conducted his first observation on January 24, 2005, at 8:00 a.m. He noted that only ten out of the fifteen students present had signed in on the attendance log. Respondent divided the class into three groups. While Respondent worked with one group, the students in the other two groups had no direction. One student took a phone call during classroom instructional time. While Respondent was reviewing material with one group, some students in that group were surfing the Internet.19 There were vending machines just outside Respondent's classroom door, and students from the class were going out to buy food and drink from the machines. Respondent had complained about the location of the machines, and they were later moved a bit farther away from the classroom door. Mr. McCormick conceded that the machines were too close to the classroom, that they were a temptation to Respondent's students and that they were a distraction to the class when anyone used them. However, Respondent was nonetheless remiss in allowing students to freely go in and out of the classroom except during the lunch break. Ms. Roshon made her first observation at noon on January 26, 2005. Ms. Roshon disclaimed any expertise in the CET program, but testified that she has observed the classes at both the High Tech Central and High Tech North campuses and was familiar with the CET performance standards. When she entered the classroom, Ms. Roshon saw no structured activities taking place. Several students were sitting around talking in the middle of the room and others were in two of the cages. Shortly thereafter, Respondent walked over to the group in the middle of the room and told them they were going to discuss Chapter 13, which caused some grumbling among the students. Respondent began his lecture with ten students, one of whom was reading a book and one of whom was writing. Ms. Roshon observed that no one was taking notes on Respondent's lecture. Respondent asked questions in an effort to engage the class, and there was some give and take among Respondent and two or three of the students. Several times during his lecture and PowerPoint presentation, Respondent told the class, "You won't need to know this" or "This isn't important." Ms. Roshon questioned why Respondent would teach material that was not important. One of the students asked a question. Respondent suggested that the student do some research on the topic. The student got up to go to a computer. Respondent asked him to do the research later, but the student ignored this instruction and went to the computer. He looked up and printed some information, then handed the printout to Respondent, who thanked him. Ms. Roshon observed one student sleeping during the lecture. Respondent made no effort to wake up the student. Several students were wearing hats, which is forbidden by School Board policy. Several students had sodas in the class. High Tech Central has a policy prohibiting food and drink (except for bottled water) in the classroom.20 Students seemed to come and go as they pleased during the lecture, without signing in or out of the classroom. The students in one of the cages were talking, laughing, and walking around throughout Ms. Roshon's observation, leading her to wonder if they were engaged in any sort of educational activity. One of the students in the cage laughed loudly after looking at someone else's computer screen. On February 1, 2005, at 8:30 a.m., Ms. Cooley conducted her next observation. There were fifteen students in the class, one of whom remained in one of the cages throughout the observation. As Ms. Cooley entered, she observed that Respondent was just starting a PowerPoint presentation on "Objectives, Attitude, Generic Troubleshooting," comprising issues such as not overlooking the obvious, performing research, checking simple things, and writing things down. Respondent read the PowerPoint slides to the students and asked questions such as, "Why would you need to write things down?" Respondent was still going through the PowerPoint presentation when Ms. Cooley left the classroom at 9:10 a.m. In her written report, Ms. Cooley noted that one student had his shoes off and another yawned very loudly during Respondent's presentation. Ms. Cooley recommended that Respondent reduce the time he spends on PowerPoint and get the students actively engaged in the class. She expressed a concern that everything she observed in the class was "generic, low level, basic material . . . I have not observed a lesson on A+, Cisco, or any specific networking material." She observed that the PowerPoint material was far below the level of the majority of the class who were returning students and that nothing she witnessed in the class corresponded to the lesson plan filed by Respondent. 85. On February 3, 2005, from 12:50 to 1:30 p.m., Ms. Roshon conducted her next observation. When she entered the classroom, Ms. Roshon noted that the students were sitting in groups talking, but not about anything related to their class work. Respondent was in one of the cages, but came out into the classroom when he saw Ms. Roshon. Respondent directed one group of five students to work on their class work, which they did. Respondent answered some of their questions. Ms. Roshon observed that students in the back cage became very loud. One student walked out of the classroom, bought a candy bar, then walked back in without asking Respondent's permission, or signing the attendance log. Students were eating and drinking at their computer stations. At 1:15 p.m., Respondent told the class to begin cleaning up. The clean-up was finished by 1:20, and the students spent the remaining ten minutes standing around talking about extraneous matters. Ms. Roshon observed that there was very little structure in the classroom, and students did not appear to know what they were supposed to be working on. She suggested that Respondent require the students to keep a daily journal of what they did in the class, and that Respondent should regularly check the journals and provide feedback to the students. Respondent did not implement this suggestion. 88. On February 4, 2005, from 9:20 to 10:00 a.m., Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation. Mr. McCormick initially criticized Respondent's weekly lesson plan as simply a list of topics with no detail as to how Respondent intended to teach those topics. Mr. McCormick noted that thirteen students were present, but that he could not determine whether they had signed in because Respondent had no sign-in sheet posted at the classroom door. For security purposes, High Tech Central required all staff, faculty, and students to wear photo identification badges around their necks or clipped to their clothing. During Mr. McCormick's observation, a school security guard entered the classroom to check the identification badges. Of the thirteen students present, five did not have their badges, leading Mr. McCormick to conclude that Respondent had not checked the students' identification at the beginning of class as required by school policy.21 Mr. McCormick noted that three students were working independently on computers in the main part of the lab, and that each student was on a different web site. One of the students was looking at telephones on Best Buy's web site, which Mr. McCormick believed could have been related to a class assignment. However, another of the students was looking at a "Twilight Zone" web site, clearly unrelated to the CET class. One of the three students left the classroom for ten minutes without signing out or obtaining a pass from Respondent. Another group of three students was working in the right-side cage. Two were on web sites and one was working on a curriculum test program. One of these students left class for twenty minutes without signing out or obtaining a pass. The remainder of the class was in the left-side cage, engaged in a group discussion. Mr. McCormick described it as follows: I was unable to determine the subject of discussion as it was unfocused and was not being led in any discernable or deliberate way. Students wandered in and out of the cage at random during the discussion. Overall impression of this activity was that it was unfocused and random. Students did not appear engaged in any meaningful way. At about 9:40 a.m., Respondent asked the group of students in the lab to "come up with some good scenarios and good stuff for the students in the cage." Mr. McCormick assumed that Respondent wanted to give some direction to the discussion going on in the cage and was relying on other students to supply the scenario. Mr. McCormick testified that he thought it showed poor preparation for Respondent to ask students to make up scenarios on the spot for a class discussion. Mr. McCormick noted that students were still making frequent trips outside to the vending machines and that Respondent allowed food and drink in the classroom. Mr. McCormick testified that the prohibition on food and drink is in the faculty handbook, and that the administration "harp[ed] on it" at every faculty meeting. Besides the potential for spilling food or drink on the computers, food and drink created a sanitation and pest control problem. In his written observation report, Mr. McCormick concluded that Respondent's classroom "presents a very unprofessional appearance." At the hearing, Mr. McCormick called the classroom "a mess." It was disorganized, strewn with snacks and drinks and littered with computer parts. On February 7, 2005, the IAP team met with Respondent, Ms. McDaniel and Ms. Mutzenard to review the observations made by the team members up to that point. The team members shared their observations with Respondent, including positive feedback and suggestions for improvement. Ms. McDaniel summarized the suggestions as follows: Lesson Plans need to be detailed so an observer or substitute can clearly determine who does what when. Classroom Rules need to be addressed and maintained including sign in/sign out, food and drink not allowed, students focused on time on task, cell phone use, students walking in and out of classroom for snacks, etc. in order to assist with classroom management strategies. Organizational tool to be created/maintained for student progress-- career map. Mrs. McDaniel will email Mr. Nevins a template of a lesson plan. Mr. Nevins can take advantage of other options; such options might include Mr. Nevins observing other instructors at other schools teaching similar programs or someone observing Mr. Nevins. At the hearing, Ms. McDaniel testified that Respondent was very defensive about the observations. He was argumentative and disagreed with what the observers said they saw in his classroom. Respondent refused to sign the summary minutes of the IAP team meeting. Rather, he requested an opportunity to respond to the minutes with additional information. Ms. McDaniel could not recall that Respondent ever followed up with any additional information. On February 9, 2005, at 12:55 p.m., Ms. Cooley conducted her next observation. As she entered the classroom, Ms. Cooley saw a student talking on a cell phone. Respondent called out to the students to be seated so that he could go over their test answers. Of the eleven students present, two remained in the back cage area. Respondent read out the first test question and several students called out answers. Respondent asked them not to shout out the answers. He read the next question, and several students called out answers. This time, Respondent did not correct the students, nor did he correct them when they shouted out answers to the next five questions. Finally, Respondent said, "Guys, one at a time." A student yelled out, "Clean up." Respondent continued talking, but students talked over him. Some students began standing around, waiting for class to end. In her comments, Ms. Cooley wrote that Respondent "needs to be consistent with his classroom policies and procedures." She noted that the seven minutes allotted for end-of-class cleanup was more appropriate for a computer class than the fifteen minutes she noted in an earlier observation. On February 10, 2005, from noon to 12:40 p.m., Ms. Roshon conducted her next observation. Respondent called the class to attention to hear a lecture by a fellow student, Keith McNeil, on the Linux operating system.22 Ms. Roshon acknowledged that the student appeared to be very knowledgeable, but she was uncomfortable with his "lording it over" the other students that he knew this material and they did not. She also wondered if all the students were required to give such lectures, or if this student was lecturing for some particular reason. Ms. Roshon noted that Respondent's questions made it apparent that he did not know the software or the material the student was presenting. She was concerned that this made it appear to the class that Respondent knew less about the class subject matter than did the student. She was more concerned that Respondent had not reviewed the software for appropriateness before he allowed the student to teach it to the class. Ms. Roshon noted that the student giving the lecture was drinking from a bottle of soda in front of the group. She commented that if Respondent was going to give students leadership opportunities, he should require them to act as role models. She also noted that students "still get up, move around, use the rest room, etc. at random. Seem to come and go as they please." In her written report of the observation, Ms. Roshon stated to Respondent: "You are very fortunate to have a student with so much knowledge and what appears to be a good rapport with your class. BUT, this student was doing EXACTLY what I have been waiting to see YOU do-- TEACH." Ms. Roshon saw Respondent go around the classroom and speak to individual students, but did not observe Respondent teaching the class as a whole. 104. On February 11, 2005, from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m., Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation of Respondent's class. When Mr. McCormick arrived in the class, Respondent was grading tests that the students had just taken. Mr. McCormick noted that the students appeared "unengaged" in any activity related to the CET curriculum. One student was talking on the phone to a Staples store, with a sales brochure in front of him, and three other students were playing "Doom 2" on an old Macintosh computer. Respondent returned the tests to one group of students then commenced an oral review of the questions and answers. Mr. McCormick noted that Respondent conducted the review in distracting proximity to another group of students. Mr. McCormick also noted with disapproval that Respondent referred to the multiple choice test as "multiple guess." One student left the class early without signing out. Another student had a two-liter bottle of soda on his desk, which Respondent eventually asked the student to remove. Clean-up activity began at 1:16 p.m., fourteen minutes before the end of class. The clean-up consisted of about one minute of straightening chairs, after which the students were unengaged until 1:30 p.m. Earlier in the day, Mr. McCormick had received a report that someone in Respondent's class had visited a pornographic web site. Mr. McCormick decided to investigate the matter because the school district's firewall filter should have prevented such activity. After the class was dismissed, Mr. McCormick asked a student in Respondent's class to show him the web site. The student did so and arrived at a site displaying what Mr. McCormick described as pornographic photos. Mr. McCormick realized the site was available because the web address did not contain the key words that the district's firewall is set up to block. At the hearing, Mr. McCormick emphasized that he did not believe Respondent would knowingly allow his students to access pornographic web sites. Mr. McCormick's criticism was that Respondent did not know, which was emblematic of Respondent's inability to maintain control of and know what was going on inside his classroom. Mr. McCormick suggested that Respondent position the computer monitors in the class to give himself maximum observation ability from a central position. Mr. McCormick testified that many students would position themselves so that their monitors could not be seen unless an observer was standing directly behind them. On February 16, 2005, the IAP team met with Respondent, Ms. McDaniel, and Ms. Mutzenard. At the outset, Respondent stated that he would submit his written responses from the previous team meeting at the next team meeting on February 28, 2005. As Ms. McDaniel testified, no such written responses were ever supplied by Respondent. Ms. Roshon then gave a summary of her February 10, observation and also stated that she had observed the CET teacher at High Tech North. Based on these observations, she had the following suggestions for Respondent: require students to prepare a notebook based on the chapter notes and software the students use on a daily basis, which could be used as a trouble-shooting reference; require students to sign in and out for bathroom breaks; and require students to keep a daily log of their work, upon which Respondent could check and comment. Respondent defended himself regarding some aspects of Ms. Roshon's observation. Mr. McNeil, the student who gave the Linux lecture, was fighting a sore throat and had asked Respondent for permission to drink a soda during his talk. Respondent also stated that he trusted the student not to do anything inappropriate and, thus, felt no need to preview the software prior to the student's lecture. Mr. McCormick then described his observation of February 11, 2005. He agreed with Ms. Roshon that a daily log would be helpful for Respondent to keep track of his students' progress. Mr. McCormick also agreed with Ms. Roshon's suggestions that students be required to sign in and out for restroom breaks and that they be required to keep trouble-shooting notebooks. Respondent disagreed with requiring students to keep a notebook. Ms. Cooley described her observation of February 9, 2005, and made a particular point of her concern that Respondent was inconsistent on the matter of allowing students to shout out answers. Ms. McDaniel summarized the deficiencies in Respondent's performance as noted by the IAP team, including: lack of consistency with rules and procedures; lack of consistency with students signing in and out; removal of all games from classroom computers; and arranging the classroom computers for maximum viewing capability by Respondent. Mr. McCormick stated that there were students still in the CET program who had completed all their occupational completion points and a lengthy discussion ensued regarding Respondent's tracking of students' progress. Ms. Cooley stated that Respondent had not turned in revisions to a Council on Occupational Education program reports that were due during the previous school year.23 Respondent promised to turn in the revisions on February 22, 2005. Respondent also promised to bring to the next IAP team meeting his grade book and all the career maps, or other tracking devices for his CET class, neither of which the IAP team had seen at this point. He also committed to removing all games from the computers in his classroom. Ms. McDaniel testified that by the time of the February 14, 2005, meeting, she perceived that Respondent was angry about the IAP process. It appeared to Ms. McDaniel that Respondent did not believe that he or his students needed to follow the rules and procedures established by the School Board or High Tech Central. Mr. McCormick testified that by this time he was "astounded" that the IAP team's observations and comments were the same every week. Respondent was not correcting the items noted by the team and was very defensive in the team meetings. 117. On February 22, 2005, from 8:15 to 8:45 a.m., Ms. Cooley conducted her next observation of Respondent's classroom. Respondent was working on computer assembly with five students in one of the back cages. Three students were in the other back cage. One of these students was looking up computer parts prices on the Internet and told Ms. Cooley he was seeing where the market was going. Thirteen students were present in the class, but only eleven had signed in. Two of the eleven had not indicated the time they arrived. No students were wearing identification badges. Six students were in the main computer lab. Two of them were reading the novel Great Expectations for another class and continued reading throughout Ms. Cooley's observation. Ms. Cooley asked them about their career maps. They replied that they knew nothing about career maps. When Ms. Cooley asked them how they knew which competencies they were working on, they told her they went "chapter by chapter." Ms. Cooley tried to redirect the students who were doing outside work. Respondent was so focused on the group he was working with that he did not notice what the other students were doing. Ms. Cooley noted that, based on Respondent's lesson plans, she could not tell one group of students from another. Not one student was working on assignments identified in the lesson plan. She concluded that the students "are not on task, not on track." 121. On February 23, 2005, from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m., Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation. A music video, bearing no apparent relationship to CET class work, played over and over again on a classroom projector throughout the observation period. Three students were on shopping web sites and one was on E-Bay. Respondent had assigned them to learn how to acquire computer parts and build the best computer possible for $1,500. Mr. McCormick noted that this was legitimate CET class work. Respondent was circulating through the room. Mr. McCormick observed that it was still difficult to see the computer monitors in the back cages from the main part of the classroom. One student was reading a booklet that was not related to the CET program. A two-liter bottle of soda was on the classroom floor and an open bottle of soda was on a student's desk. Once more, all work stopped at 1:15 p.m. for clean-up activity that took about one minute. In the follow-up remarks to his written observation report, Mr. McCormick noted the unprofessional appearance and distracting effect of playing music videos in the classroom. He again suggested that Respondent stop wasting the last fifteen minutes of class and plan activities to keep the students busy until the dismissal bell. Mr. McCormick again told Respondent that he must enforce the rules against food and drink in the classroom. 125. On March 2, 2005, from 10:10 to 10:50 a.m., Ms. Roshon conducted her next observation of Respondent's class. When she walked into the classroom, Ms. Roshon noted that Respondent was sitting and talking with a group of four students. The conversation was apparently not related to class work because Respondent jumped up when he saw Ms. Roshon. He told her that half the class was "missing," without explaining where the students were, and that two of his students had placed in the "Skills USA" competition.24 Respondent announced that it was time to go over the test. Some students asked, "What test?" It transpired that not all of the students present had taken the test. Respondent spent eight minutes looking for the test. The group who had been talking with Respondent when Ms. Roshon entered continued their conversation about the relative merits of "a small house" versus "a condo." Three other students were working in the back cage, and Ms. Roshon noted that she still could not see their monitors from the classroom. When she approached the students, one of them turned off his monitor. Ms. Roshon also noted that the sign-in sheet was still not being used. Respondent gathered two students to go over their tests. They discussed the questions and answers aloud although another group of students was still taking the test. Ms. Roshon noted that Respondent told a student who was withdrawing from the class to take the test "for old times sake." Respondent then had this student correct his own test and those of the other students. Ms. Roshon observed that the student made some critical remarks about his classmates' performance on the test. Ms. Roshon positively noted that, when one student was confused about an issue, Respondent had the students go on their computers to find the answer. However, she also noted that one student appeared to become bored with the test review, rolled his chair away from the group, and turned on his MP3 player with earphones. The student even played "air guitar" near the group reviewing the test, and Respondent said nothing. In her written comments to Respondent, Ms. Roshon wrote, in relevant part: One big concern I have with the structure of today's activity is that you have this huge classroom and yet all of your students were packed into one small area at the back of the room. It would have made more sense to me that you would have taken the students you were going over the test with to an area of the classroom that would have been quieter and would have caused less distraction to other students. It was also a VERY relaxed atmosphere and not as conducive to feedback and interaction from students as it could have been. * * * I did have trouble following your lesson plan . . . . Once again, I don't know how the students know what they are to be doing. I didn't see any evidence of log books or checklists. * * * My concerns still are: How do students know what to work on. Class activity seems to start AFTER I walk into the room. Students seem to wander around however they feel like. On March 3, 2005, at 8:15 a.m., Ms. Cooley performed her next observation of Respondent's class. When she arrived, a film on PC navigation and commands was being shown. One student was working on his laptop computer. One student was reading sports web pages on his computer, while another surfed web pages on computer parts. A group of students worked in the back cage. Respondent's lesson plan stated only "lab work," which was so vague that Ms. Cooley could not tell one group from another. Respondent showed the film throughout Ms. Cooley's observation, which prompted her to suggest that Respondent show films in shorter segments and get the class actively engaged sooner. Also on March 3, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., Ms. Cooley attended an "attendance hearing" for one of Respondent's adult students. High Tech Central policy regarding adult attendance provides that after four absences, the student is to be advised that his absences jeopardize his financial aid. After five absences, the teacher is to have a conference with the student. After eight absences, the teacher is to advise the student that two more absences will result in an administrative review and possible withdrawal until the start of the next semester. After ten absences, the teacher is to complete an attendance documentation form and give it to the school's student affairs specialist, who then schedules an administrative review, or "attendance hearing." An adult student with ten accumulated absences may be withdrawn and lose credit for that semester, depending on the outcome of the attendance hearing and the reasons established for the absences. Dan King, the student affairs specialist, convened the hearing with an adult CET student who had 16 absences since January. Respondent was not present at the hearing, but sent to Mr. King the student's career map and an adult attendance documentation form. Mr. King asked the student why he had missed so many days, noting that the student was on kidney dialysis. The student stated that he goes to dialysis before and after school and that Respondent never asked for notes regarding his absences or even asked why he was absent so frequently. Mr. King directed the student to go back and retrace his steps regarding the dates he had missed because many of those absences could have been excused because of illness. Ms. Cooley criticized Respondent for his failure to hold the required conferences with the student, or to make the required referral to Mr. King after the tenth absence. At the attendance hearing, the student told Mr. King that the CET class was completely different when an observer was in the classroom. Mr. King showed the student his career map. The student stated that he had seen the blank career map back in August when he started the CET program and that this was just the second time he had seen it. The student stated that Respondent had never reviewed it with him, although Respondent had checked off many competencies as completed. The student was surprised to see everything he had accomplished. Ms. Cooley noted that the career map is supposed to be a motivator for students to show their accomplishments and track their competency completions and that it was improper for Respondent not to review the career map with the student. 135. On March 4, 2005, from 12:50 to 1:30 p.m., Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation of Respondent's class. He saw four students grouped together in the front of the class. One was working on a laptop computer, one was working on class-related questions, one was using a cell phone, and the fourth was playing with a portable CD player in his lap.25 Some students were working in the back cage on projects though it was still difficult to observe their monitors from the classroom. Respondent was circulating around the classroom. Mr. McCormick observed five cups and soda bottles throughout the classroom, including one on Respondent's desk. One student had an entire fast food meal of a sandwich, French fries, and a soft drink spread out at his computer workstation. The student ate and drank throughout Mr. McCormick's observation. Mr. McCormick observed one student get Respondent's attention by calling out, "Nevins!" After discovering they had mistakenly printed a document to another teacher's printer, two students left the CET classroom to "apologize" to the other teacher. These students did not sign out or inform Respondent that they were leaving. Work stopped and "clean up" commenced at 1:00 p.m., a full half-hour before the end of class. Mr. McCormick's written comments on this observation were as follows: Mr. Nevins must design teaching activities so that students are engaged in learning activities throughout the day. No visible order to the way the material is presented. Much too much wandering, visiting and playing has been observed in this classroom. Suggest planning activities that will keep students busy until dismissal bell. Clean- up in this class only takes about 1 minute (as it is now structured), so save this until a few minutes before 1:30. Mr. Nevins must enforce classroom rules about food and drink-- but apparently is unable or unwilling to do so. Mr. Nevins must also enforce school District policy on using portable music devices on campus, especially during class. Mr. Nevins must never allow students to address him by his last name only. This shows a complete lack of respect for the status of the teacher in the classroom. At the hearing, Mr. McCormick testified that he was "incredulous" that the problems with food and drink were still going on. The problem was so easily corrected that he had to conclude Respondent could not, or would not enforce the rule. Mr. McCormick believed that such simple classroom management issues were the last thing that should be dominating discussion in the IAP team meetings, but that the IAP team could never get past enforcement of the most basic classroom rules and employment of the most basic classroom management skills in attempting to assist Respondent. The IAP team met on March 7, 2005, to review the team's observations since the last meeting and to offer recommendations to Respondent. Ms. McDaniel and Ms. Mutzenard were present. Mr. McCormick, Ms. Cooley, and Ms. Roshon each gave an oral report of the observations described above. After Mr. McCormick described the playing of music videos in the class, Respondent stated that the music was "something different" for the students in the afternoon and that it was not distracting. He cited "brain based research" to the effect that music helps set the tone for the class and assists in learning. Ms. McDaniel pointed out that there is a difference between music and music videos and that the latter are not to be played in the classroom. Respondent also stated that he felt he was being picked on about the question of sodas in the classroom. Mr. McCormick stated that it was simply a question of school policies that Respondent must enforce, and that Respondent's classroom was so relaxed and uncontrolled that Respondent had difficulty maintaining order and focus. Respondent acknowledged that bending the rules causes problems, but also contended that students sometimes learn more in his relaxed environment. Respondent was once again asked to bring his grade book and career maps, or other student tracking system to the next IAP team meeting. He had been asked to bring these items to the March 7, 2005, meeting but failed to do so. At the hearing, Ms. McDaniel testified that after the March 7, 2005, IAP team meeting, she continued to feel that Respondent did not have a positive outlook on the process. Of greater concern was her growing conviction that Respondent was deliberately not following the instructions and recommendations of the IAP team. She did not share this conviction with the IAP team because she did not wish to influence the objectivity of their observations. Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation on March 10, 2005, between 12:40 and 1:30 p.m. Twelve students were present in the classroom. Five students were working on computers in the main lab, three students were working on projects on the back cage, and two were working with Respondent in a side cage. Two students were asleep in the front of the classroom with their textbooks open and their heads down on their desks. Mr. McCormick testified that the students woke up at some point during his observation. When Respondent saw Mr. McCormick enter the classroom, he left the cage and came out into the main lab and began circulating among the students. Mr. McCormick noted that the monitors in the back cage were still positioned to make observation difficult from the main lab. He also noted that the "Doom 2" game was still loaded on the old Macintosh computer in the classroom. Student Keith McNeil approached Mr. McCormick and was "very forceful" in trying to determine why Respondent was being observed. Mr. McNeil explained at length that MP3 players were integral to the CET program and could be used as data storage devices. Mr. McCormick noted that every student he had observed using an MP3 player in Respondent's class was listening to music. Mr. McCormick also observed that Mr. McNeil was a very bright student and that Respondent seemed to employ him as an informal teacher's aide, helping Respondent to run the CET program. Mr. McCormick's written comments on this observation were as follows: No visible order to the way material is presented. Too much wandering, visiting, and playing going on in this classroom. Students don't seem to ever be on task at anything for more than a few moments. Mr. Nevins must also enforce school District policy on using portable music devices on campus, especially during class. On March 11, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., Ms. Cooley attended an attendance hearing for another of Respondent's CET students. This student had 14 absences. Respondent did not attend the meeting, but provided the student's career map and certificates of completion to Mr. King before the meeting. As did the student at the previous attendance hearing, this student told Mr. King that he had not seen his career map since Respondent showed him a blank one at the beginning of the course. The student stated that Respondent never reviewed his progress with him. He had never received any certificates of completion, although the career map submitted by Respondent showed that the student had completed three occupational completion points meaning that he should have had three certificates. The student felt unmotivated. He believed he was wasting his time and not accomplishing anything in Respondent's class. He told Mr. King that he might have felt more motivation had he known his progress in the program. The student told Mr. King that he wanted to make up some of the time he had missed, but that he could never get Respondent to commit to a specific date and time. After a while, the student became discouraged and stopped asking Respondent about making up the time. Ms. Cooley testified that by now she had conducted five observations and attended two attendance hearings, and she was frustrate d because the same things cropped up at every observation: food and drink, name badges for students, the failure to keep career maps, or some other tracking device for student progress. Ms. Cooley performed her next observation of Respondent's class on March 22, 2005, at 8:45 a.m. She noted that while Respondent lectured on how to set up a parts table on Microsoft Access, one student was typing, one student was sleeping, two were looking at a computer board, and one was playing with his cell phone. Students were calling out numbers and items to place in the Access spreadsheet. Food wrappers were on the desks. Respondent was wearing an MP3 player around his neck. He told the students to get started on their assignment, but they walked to the back cages and did not work on the assignment. Mr. McCormick observed Respondent's class on March 23, 2005, between 9:15 and 10:00 a.m. Twelve students were present in the class. Three students were working on projects in the cages. The other nine students were clustered around six computers. Mr. McCormick noted that there were plenty of computers in the classroom and that each student should be assigned his own computer. He observed that when students gather around a few computers some are just watching rather than actively participating in the class activity. In this instance, only two of the nine students appeared to be on task. The others were talking and "wandering around." Mr. McCormick noted that students were leaving the CET classroom to attend other classes, but were not signing out on the classroom attendance log. He checked the log and found that it had not been used since March 14, 2005. Mr. McCormick noted that at 9:30 a.m., a student walked into the classroom with a bag of chips and began eating them while working with another student. Respondent did nothing, although he did later pick up a soda bottle from a workstation and dispose of it. Another student listened to an MP3 player during the entirety of the observation. Mr. McCormick did note that all the old Apple computers had been disconnected thus, disposing of the "Doom 2" game problem. In his written comments to this observation, Mr. McCormick yet again stated that Respondent must enforce School Board policies on food and drink in class, the use of portable music devices in class, and the use of the attendance log. The IAP team convened its next meeting on March 24, 2005.26 Also present were Ms. McDaniel and Ms. Mutzenard. As in the other meetings, the three IAP team members reviewed their observations and made comments and suggestions to Respondent for improving his performance. As in the other meetings, Respondent reacted defensively. When Mr. McCormick commented that there was too much "wandering, visiting, and playing" going on in the classroom, Respondent asked Mr. McCormick not to say that his students did not appear to be learning because there was no data to prove that assertion. The lack of structure in Respondent's classroom was a common criticism. Ms. McDaniel attempted to explain to Respondent the need to draft and use coherent, detailed lesson plans, if only for the eventuality that a substitute would need such a plan in Respondent's absence. Ms. McDaniel told Respondent that a substitute would be "clueless" if forced to use Respondent's lesson plans.27 Using Respondent's method of teaching Microsoft Access as a point of discussion, the team attempted to make Respondent understand the need for some tangible artifact to demonstrate that the students have mastered a given OCP. Respondent answered that the majority of students were pleased with his methods. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. McDaniel once again reminded Respondent to bring his grade book, career maps and tracking sheets to the next meeting. Ms. McDaniel testified that at every meeting, Respondent had an excuse for not bringing these materials. He would say that the files were at his home, or back in his classroom. On April 4, 2005, at 12:20 p.m., Ms. Roshon conducted her last observation of Respondent's class. She observed six students in the main lab, one of whom was sleeping. Respondent walked over to the sleeping student and woke him. Three students in the back cage were talking about "witnesses" and "getting caught." Respondent approached Ms. Roshon and explained what each group was doing. She noted several soda bottles, cups, and chips around the room. Ms. Roshon observed a student go to the back cage to get Mr. McNeil to come out and assist him. She thought this remarkable because Respondent was circulating through the classroom and would logically have been the person to approach. Ms. Roshon later concluded that Mr. McNeil's assistance was needed because the question had to do with the Linux system, about which he had lectured during Ms. Roshon's February 10, 2005, observation. Ms. Roshon observed a conversation among several students regarding the capacity of an iPod to download the music on the computer. She noted that a student had his iPod plugged into the computer leading her to conclude the student was downloading music during class. One student did not seem involved in the class. Respondent engaged this student by demonstrating how to share files between computers. Ms. Roshon was favorably impressed by Respondent's method in this instance. Some students knocked at the locked back door of the classroom and were let in by students inside. The students did not sign in, which led Ms. Roshon to wonder whether the attendance log was being used at all. She checked and saw that the sign-in sheet had not been used since March 14, 2005. Mr. McNeil approached Ms. Roshon and attempted to discuss a letter he had sent to the school district's administrators in defense of Respondent. Ms. Roshon told him that she was not at liberty to discuss the matter.28 Mr. McNeil then proceeded to complain about the "new rules and regulations" in the class, by which he meant the long-standing but seldom enforced prohibition on food and drink in the classroom. On April 5, 2005, Mr. McCormick conducted his last observation of Respondent's class. Mr. McNeil approached Mr. McCormick and attempted to question him about his situation with Mr. Wiseman, as described in footnote 28 above. Mr. McCormick told Mr. McNeil that he was there to observe the class and would speak to Mr. McNeil at another time. Though he still noted sodas and a bag of chips in the classroom, Mr. McCormick observed that the activity for the day seemed to be well planned and that the students appeared to be actively engaged and on task. One student was working on an assignment for another class that was related to his high school graduation requirement. Ms. Cooley conducted her last observation on April 6, 2005. She noted soda bottles and drinks in the class and saw one student drinking a soda. Mr. McNeil was teaching the class along with Respondent. On April 6, 2005, at 1:45 p.m., the last IAP team meeting was convened. Ms. McDaniel and Ms. Mutzenard were present. This meeting was held in the CET lab, so that Respondent would have no excuse for failing to produce his grade book and career maps. After the observations were reviewed with Respondent, Ms. McDaniel asked Respondent to show the team his career maps, grade book, and tracking sheets. One member of the team asked Respondent how often he went over the career maps, and he stated that he did so every two weeks. Ms. Cooley asked Respondent why neither student at the two attendance hearings had ever received or reviewed a career map in Respondent's class. Respondent stated that every student had the opportunity to ask him for a copy, but that he did not give them out to everyone. Ms. McDaniel expressed concern that the Council on Occupational Education would review the school in November and would have to be shown these career maps and this grade book. The school's accreditation and its Pell grants would be placed at risk if it could not document what is being taught in the classroom. Ms. McDaniel noted that all the career maps were written in the same color ink. She testified that the maps looked as though they had all been completed at the same time, rather than at different points during the semester as students completed their various OCPs. The minutes of the meeting indicate the concerns raised as the team reviewed Respondent's materials: Mrs. McDaniel made numerous attempts to see if the career map matched and aligned with the gradebook and tracking sheets. Mrs. Roshon and Mr. McCormick would check the gradebook while Mrs. McDaniel would check the career maps. OCP completions were not recorded in gradebook. Quarter grades were missing. No actual dates were written in the career maps. Dates did not aligned [sic] in gradebook with career maps. Yellow attendance sheets were not found.29 Some tests did not have a grade on them. Only chapter test grades were recorded in gradebook. No lab work grades were recorded. No rubrics were used to grade projects. There were numerous questions on the correlation of grades. Mrs. McDaniel stated the career maps should prove the competency completed; but these competencies recorded with a month and year did not align with the gradebook. Some career maps were missing. Mr. Nevins stated he might have left them at home. The gradebook did not reflect what was in the student folders and career maps. . . . Ms. McDaniel testified that it was not possible to look at Respondent's grade book and correlate the numbers therein with any OCP. There were test grades, but no indication of what test was given. The tests in the student folders did not align with anything in the grade book. Ms. McDaniel concluded the meeting and stated that the team would schedule a meeting to make a recommendation to the superintendent as to Respondent's status. In fact, the team met with Ms. McDaniel and the school's new director, Robert Durham, in the administrative offices of High Tech Central immediately after their meeting with Respondent and unanimously recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. As to her recommendation, Ms. Roshon testified that she told Respondent "that if I were a teacher and I knew I was being observed and that I had an opportunity to make . . . some pretty simple changes to my classroom and what went on in it, that I would have made every effort possible to do that, and that I felt like Mr. Nevins hadn't done that." At the final meeting, Ms. McDaniel presented the option of extending the IAP process, but Ms. Roshon did not believe that more time would make any difference in Respondent's classroom. The IAP process had already lasted for eight weeks, and Ms. Roshon had seen no difference "in classroom management, in teaching style, in anything within the classroom." She believed that Respondent had been given a full and fair opportunity to make significant changes and either chose not to make those changes, or was unable to change. In any event, she believed that Respondent was not an effective teacher. Mr. McCormick testified that Respondent is a very intelligent man, understood the purpose of the IAP process, and further understood the criticisms and advice he was receiving from the observers. However, Respondent did not accept the legitimacy of the criticism, or the need to change his classroom methods. Mr. McCormick recommended termination because he believed that Respondent's classroom shortcomings were very serious, and he did not see any evidence of improvement during the IAP process nor any willingness to make changes in the classroom. Mr. McCormick agreed with Ms. Roshon that extending the IAP process would be extremely unlikely to make any difference in Respondent's job performance. Ms. Cooley recommended termination and testified that she "felt bad about it, because I felt that I honestly tried to help change the situation by the many attempts of telling him what I saw and what I observed." She believed that Respondent is a very intelligent man, but not a teacher. By letter dated April 11, 2005, Mr. Browder notified Respondent that he was being suspended with pay and benefits, effective immediately, pending the outcome of a School Board investigation.30 A predetermination conference was held on April 28, 2005, to give Respondent an opportunity to respond to the IAP team's concerns regarding his competency to teach. Present at the conference were: Respondent and his legal counsel, Robert Coleman; Cynthia Phillips-Luster, the School Board's director of professional standards, equity, and recruitment administrator; and Paul Carland, then the School Board's attorney. By letter dated May 3, 2005, Mr. Carland notified Mr. Coleman that the School Board had found probable cause to terminate Respondent's employment. In his defense, Respondent raised several issues, both substantive and procedural. Respondent alleged in his equity complaint that he had been "an express target" of negative attention since Ms. Cooley substituted in his class on February 19, 2004. At the hearing in the instant case, Charlotte Rae Nicely, the former financial aid administrator at High Tech Central, testified that Ms. Cooley was "very vengeful" and "had it in" for Respondent. However, Ms. Nicely had been reassigned to a teaching position following the federal audit of the school's Pell grant program and believed she had been made a scapegoat by the High Tech Central administration. Ms. Nicely did not believe that Ms. Cooley was a good administrator and alleged that she carried grudges against other teachers. Though she claimed she had "chosen to forgive" the High Tech Central administration for its treatment of her, Ms. Nicely was a less than credible witness, not only because of her personal feelings about Ms. Cooley, but because of her limited knowledge of Respondent's teaching practices. The evidence did not establish that any administrator at High Tech Central, or the School Board had any personal animus against Respondent for his union activities, his religion, his place of origin, or any other reason. The school's administrators were concerned about Respondent's performance well before Ms. Cooley's experience substituting in Respondent's class, and the evidence was persuasive that Respondent was in no way "singled out" for any reason other than his job performance.31 Respondent contended that the process did not give him adequate notice of the areas of his performance requiring improvement or correction that there were no "uniform scoring criteria" used by the IAP team to evaluate Respondent's performance. This contention is without merit. While the observers used different instruments to record their observations, and their observations varied in some particulars simply because the observers came into the class on different days, there was a remarkable overall consistency in the observations and recommendations. Respondent did not enforce classroom discipline regarding such matters as food and drink and MP3 players. He did not follow proper administrative procedures in monitoring attendance. He did not file proper lesson plans. If he did track his students' progress and performance, he did not do so in an intelligible, coherent fashion, and he did not keep his students aware of their progress in any consistent way. Too often, no teaching appeared to be taking place at all in Respondent's classroom. Students appeared to be doing as they pleased. Any claim that Respondent did not know what was required to improve his performance is disingenuous and cannot be credited.32 Respondent notes that Subsection 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes,33 provides that a teacher holding a professional service contract who is charged with unsatisfactory performance must be notified he is being placed on performance probation for the following 90 calendar days during which he is expected to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are expressly excluded from the 90-day period. Throughout the 90-day period, the teacher must be evaluated periodically and apprised of the progress achieved, and provided assistance and in-service training opportunities to help correct the performance deficiencies. Respondent further notes that, at the initial IAP meeting, Ms. McDaniel stated that Respondent would be the subject of observations for seven weeks, that there would be three observations per week, and that the observations would be 30 to 45 minutes in length. She also told Respondent that the IAP team would meet weekly and he would receive a signed copy of the minutes of the meeting. Respondent states that the IAP process lasted only 84 calendar days, from January 13 to April 6, 2005, and that nine of those days were school holidays. The IAP team met only six times, on January 13, February 7, February 16, March 7, March 24, and April 6, 2005. The IAP team failed to conduct three observations each week and at least two of the observations exceeded 45 minutes in length. The IAP team did not meet with Respondent every week of the process, and Respondent did not receive signed minutes of the meetings every week. Respondent claims that the School Board's failure to comply with the legal requirements for termination of a teacher on a professional service contract were not followed and failure to follow its own IAP procedures necessitate dismissal of the Petition. In fact, Respondent was provided notice that he was being placed on performance probation via Dr. Browder's letter dated December 16, 2004. Thus, the period of evaluation lasted a period of 93 calendar days, from December 16, 2004 to April 6, 2005, excluding 18 days for winter break, Martin Luther King Day, Presidents' Day, and spring break. The School Board complied with the express requirements of Subsection 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The School Board also substantially complied with the procedures described by Ms. McDaniel at the first IAP meeting and set forth in its written IAP materials. The IAP team members conducted a total of 20 observations (not counting Ms. Cooley's attendance at two student attendance hearings), rather than the 21 observations promised by Ms. McDaniel. This was due to the fact that Ms. Roshon broke her arm and missed one week's observation. The IAP team met only six times because Respondent called in sick on March 16, 2005, forcing the cancellation and rescheduling of one meeting. Neither of these minor deviations from the schedule of events had a substantial impact on the IAP process. Neither Respondent nor his representative, Ms. Mutzenard, lodged a contemporaneous protest regarding these alleged procedural failings. In fact, they agreed to combine two weeks of observations into one IAP meeting in order to make up for the cancelled meeting. Ms. Mutzenard, who has represented union members in at least ten IAPs, testified that, although seven weeks of observations with three observations per week is the officially stated practice, this practice "has not always worked. Because of scheduling conflicts with the teacher and with other members of the team and myself and with meetings and conferences and all of that type of thing, there is [sic] some weeks we just can't schedule something." The process is sometimes extended to accommodate schedules. Ms. Mutzenard testified that the 45-minute limit on observations is simply a time management issue: if one person conducts a two-hour observation, another observer could be hampered from coming into the classroom. Ms. Mutzenard was positive about the flexibility of the process. She testified that scheduling was freely discussed at the meetings and that neither she nor Respondent objected to the dates of the meetings or the number of observations. Ms. Mutzenard testified that the IAP process is usually successful so long as the teacher follows the IAP team's suggestions. She has been involved in other IAPs that resulted in transfers and terminations, but stated that in the case of termination recommendations, the teacher usually resigns. Ms. Mutzenard believed that the IAP process would be extended for another eight weeks after April 6, 2005, to give Respondent more time to work on "a few minor things" such as the food and drink problem and to correct his record keeping. Her view was that, aside from being disorganized as to paperwork, Respondent presented no insurmountable problems and should have been given more time in the IAP process.34 Ms. Mutzenard stated that record keeping is unrelated to a teacher's competence and that Respondent's students were doing well in obtaining jobs. However, she conceded that she had seen no objective data regarding the employment rate of Respondent's students and that Respondent himself was her source of information.35 Ms. Mutzenard also conceded that Respondent did not really believe he should have to stop his students from bringing food and drink into the classroom. She discussed the issue with Respondent and he agreed that he should follow the school policy though the testimony from the IAP team members makes it clear that Respondent never seriously enforced the prohibition on food and drink.36 Respondent presented the testimony of several witnesses besides Ms. Mutzenard and Ms. Nicely. Richard Kennedy, now retired, was a School Board employee for 29 years and ran a special needs exploratory after school program at High Tech Central. This program brought students identified as high drop-out risks to High Tech Central to explore the option of vocational education. The population in the program consisted mostly of middle school special education students ranging from educable mentally handicapped to intellectually above average. Respondent was a paid volunteer in the program for about five years, teaching a web design class. Mr. Kennedy conducted no formal observations of the class, but did drop in on the class frequently. Mr. Kennedy testified that Respondent was a good teacher and was popular with the students. However, Mr. Kennedy conceded that his special needs program was very different from the regular day programs such as CET and that he had very little knowledge of why Respondent was suspended or of the IAP process in which Respondent was involved. Dennette Foy is the district coordinator for business and technology programs at Edison College and is responsible for hiring adjunct instructors such as Respondent. She is Respondent's immediate supervisor at Edison College, in charge of assessing his performance and offering him contracts for successive semesters. She opined that Respondent is a "very adequate teacher." Greg Meisel is a technology teacher for the School Board and runs a computer lab supporting the instructors at Edison College. Mr. Meisel was Respondent's lab assistant at Edison College. Mr. Meisel believed that Respondent was a competent, effective teacher. Respondent's delivery was good and he respected and cared about his students. Mr. Meisel's only knowledge of Respondent was in a college setting. He was not aware of Respondent's classroom management skills at High Tech Central, how Respondent tracked attendance in his classes, or whether Respondent enforced School Board policies in his classroom at High Tech Central. Ms. Foy's and Mr. Meisel's testimony is of limited use because of the differences between teaching at the college and high school level, particularly in a vocational education program such as the CET class. Ms. Cooley pointed out that many of the students at High Tech Central could never meet the academic requirements to be admitted to college, and have in fact been unsuccessful in a traditional high school setting. Students in a college classroom are self-selecting, highly motivated, independent thinkers, whereas students at High Tech Central tend to require greater supervision, discipline, and one-on-one assistance. The same teacher may be highly successful at the college level and be unfit to teach vocational educational classes. Richard Oglesby was a student in Respondent's CET class during the 2004-2005 school year. At the time of the hearing, he worked in the television department at CompUSA and credited Respondent with telling him about the job opening and for giving him the skills necessary to obtain the job. While a student in the CET class, Mr. Oglesby competed in the Skills USA competition and made it past the regional to the state level. He testified that he considered Respondent a friend and had recently attended a movie with Respondent. Mr. Oglesby called Respondent a very good instructor, who followed the textbook, gave tests, kept the students apprised of their academic progress, and managed the class well. Mr. Oglesby testified that Respondent made some attempts to forbid students from listening to MP3 players, or having food or drink in the class. However, he also admitted that students in fact brought MP3 players and food and drink into the class with virtual impunity, and that he never saw Respondent discipline a student for these violations. Mr. Oglesby stated that he always signed in and out of class, but could not say whether other students did. He could not remember seeing anyone sleeping in the class. Keith McNeil, as noted above, was a student in Respondent's CET class during the 2004-2005 school year. At the time of the hearing, Mr. McNeil was the head of the software and video game department at CompUSA. Respondent helped Mr. McNeil obtain his job. Mr. McNeil's loyalty to Respondent was evidenced by the fact that three days after Respondent was suspended, Mr. McNeil received a two-day out-of-school suspension for spinning a glass table 180 degrees and chipping it after Respondent's replacement asked Mr. McNeil to stop sitting on the side of his desk. Mr. McNeil attributed this outburst to the tension and frustration he and the rest of the class felt after Respondent left. During the 2005-2006 school year, Mr. McNeil was officially disciplined twice for insubordinate, disrespectful behavior toward Respondent's successor. Mr. McNeil testified that Respondent was the best teacher he ever had. He described Respondent's technique as nontraditional and "rather lenient." Respondent told the students not to bring food and drink into the class, but the students ignored this admonition and brought the food and drink into the class anyway. Respondent would "chastise" the students, but did not otherwise discipline them. Similarly, Respondent told students not to use cell phones in the class, but students would take calls and walk out of the room to speak. Mr. McNeil testified that students would work on material for other classes in Respondent's class. Some people listened to MP3 players. Students would play computer games during class. Respondent would not discipline these students beyond turning off their computers. Mr. McNeil testified that Respondent "made a big point" of having students sign in and out of the class, which directly contradicts the observations and testimony of every member of the IAP team. Mr. McNeil denied that he ever took on the role of teacher in the class, or that Respondent allowed him to take over the class. People "flocked" to him to ask questions because of his greater knowledge: And so a lot of times I would come up with something, I would realize something; and in the time when, you know, if somebody was done with their work and Barry wasn't giving any form of instruction or anything, then I would say, "Oh, hey, check this out or check this out," and then sometimes like two or three other guys would comment and listen and we'd talk and stuff. * * * It wasn't that frequent. It was just, you know, sometimes like-- sometimes like, you know, we'd finish up and then we'd have like an hour or so or sometimes we might only have a couple minutes or something like that. It wasn't like I would be able to give keynote speeches. (emphasis added) While Mr. McNeil was conducting these sessions, Respondent would be doing "paperwork or something off to himself," or perhaps circulating among the students. In summary, Respondent would forego "an hour or so" of teaching time to allow the students to do as they pleased. This testimony confirms the observations of the IAP team regarding the rudderless appearance of Respondent's classroom. Both Mr. Oglesby and Mr. McNeil appeared to be highly motivated students who succeeded in spite of Respondent's lack of effort in the classroom. They liked the very aspects of the class that the IAP team found most problematic such as the lack of discipline and structure. While such a free-form atmosphere might not prove detrimental to bright, self-motivated students such as Mr. Oglesby and Mr. McNeil, the evidence established that the majority of students in the CET program required a structured classroom that Respondent was unable or unwilling to provide. Respondent testified on his own behalf, recounting his educational experience, employment history, and his certifications. He reviewed his evaluations and described the CET class. However, Respondent was silent as to the IAP process, leaving unrefuted the testimony of Ms. McDaniel, Mr. Pentiuk, Ms. Cooley, Mr. McCormick, and Ms. Roshon. In summary, the School Board established that Respondent was unable or unwilling, when charged with running a classroom unassisted, to maintain student discipline, enforce well-established School Board and High Tech Central rules, teach in a coherent, organized fashion, or perform the administrative duties required of faculty at High Tech Central.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order upholding the suspension of Respondent and terminating Respondent from his position as a teacher with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 August, 2006.
The Issue Respondent is charged in a five-count Administrative Complaint with violations of Subsection 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes (gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude); Subsection 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes (personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board); Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes (violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as prescribed by the State Board of Education); Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code (failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical safety), and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code (intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement).
Findings Of Fact Respondent has continuously held Florida Educator's Certificate 734274, covering the area of English, since 1996. It is valid through June 30, 2006. Respondent was first employed by the Holmes County School District in November 2000 and served as a language arts teacher for seventh and eighth grades at Poplar Springs School for the remainder of the 2000-2001 School Year. During the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent disciplined students in her seventh and eighth grade language arts (English) classes as more specifically described below. All instances of Respondent's discipline were employed in response to male students talking inappropriately or "cutting up" in her classroom so as to detract from the educational process. On one occasion, Respondent placed two pieces of masking tape over the mouth of student C.R. because he was talking in class. C.R. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period (approximately fifteen to twenty minutes). A science teacher saw C.R. in the hall, en route to his next class, and told him to take the tape off his mouth. Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student J.F. when he laughed out loud after being warned not to continue talking in class. J.F. had the tape over his mouth for approximately twenty minutes, until the bell rang to go to his next class. Respondent directed student T.J. to place tape on his own mouth after he had talked in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or for approximately fifteen minutes. Respondent placed tape over the mouth of student W.W. because he was talking in class. W.W. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period, which ended approximately thirty minutes later. W.W. experienced difficulty breathing with the tape over his mouth, because he had a cold at the time and was having trouble breathing through his nose. Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student C.B. for talking in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or approximately thirty minutes. All of the foregoing five students admitted that Respondent had warned them at least once not to continue talking, before she resorted to taping their mouths, but each of these students also was embarrassed as a result of sitting through the remainder of the class, surrounded by other students, while their mouths were taped. Also during the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent required student C.R. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of three or four heavy dictionaries for approximately fifteen minutes. This method of punishment caused C.R. to experience physical distress in his back. Respondent also required student J.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of seven or eight heavy dictionaries, stacked to his chin, for approximately twenty minutes. This method of punishment caused J.C. to experience physical distress. His knees were buckling, and he was slumping against the wall. Respondent initially required student L.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of twelve dictionaries. However, because the books were stacked almost two feet higher than L.C.'s head, Respondent removed four of them from his arms. L.C. was then required to hold the remaining eight dictionaries for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Respondent also required student J.H. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries stacked up to his eyes, for approximately twenty minutes. Respondent required student E.M., who had talked out of turn early in the class period, to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. At one point during this ordeal, Respondent came out of the classroom and felt E.M.'s forehead to see if he were sweating. When she found that he was not sweating, she returned to her classroom, leaving E.M. outside, still holding the dictionaries. Most students who testified indicated they were disciplined toward the end of a class period, and accordingly, their discipline was automatically ended by the change of classes' bell. However, the foregoing incident, when E.M. was disciplined with books, suggests that Respondent's theory concerning that type of discipline was that once a misbehaving student began to sweat, he had experienced enough punishment. A teacher saw E.M. in the hallway and went to fetch the Principal, Jerry Dixon. Mr. Dixon observed E.M. to be "in a strain," tired, and drooping. When Mr. Dixon discovered what was going on, he told E.M. to go back into Respondent's classroom and take the books with him. Each of the five students disciplined with books was embarrassed by the process, and the posture of holding the dictionaries caused most of them discomfort. After the incident with E.M., Mr. Dixon counseled with Respondent. He advised her that disciplining students as E.M. had been disciplined with the dictionaries was unacceptable and that if she felt future situations were bad enough to warrant punishment, she should send the misbehaving child to his office for him to administer appropriate discipline. In early April 2001, Respondent approached student T.W. at his desk, got down "in his face," and told him that if he did not behave, she would paddle him as hard as she had paddled student C.R., and that was "pretty damn hard." C.R. testified that Respondent had, in fact, actually paddled him, but apparently he was not intimidated or concerned over the paddling. Also, T.W. was not intimidated by Respondent's threat, because he smiled and laughed. However, T.W. was so concerned about Respondent's use of profanity that he approached Principal Dixon in the cafeteria that day and asked the principal if it were "right" for a teacher to curse at a student. Subsequently, in the principal's office, T.W. explained to Mr. Dixon the situation concerning Respondent's use of profanity. Principal Dixon also then learned for the first time that Respondent had been taping her students' mouths as a form of discipline. Mr. Dixon investigated further by talking with other students who verified all or some of T.W.'s account. Mr. Dixon testified that he also believed the incident of Respondent disciplining J.C. with dictionaries in the hallway (see Finding of Fact 11) had occurred after he had told Respondent not to use that procedure. On April 5, 2001, Mr. Dixon met with Respondent to discuss the allegations. In their meeting, Respondent admitted placing tape over students' mouths. She also admitted cursing at T.W. She told Mr. Dixon she had been mad and upset at the time. On April 10, 2001, Mr. Dixon issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for her conduct. In this letter he reminded her that he had, at the time of E.M.'s discipline, told her she was supposed to send students to the office for discipline, not undertake it herself. On June 6, 2001, Mr. Dixon notified Respondent that he would not recommend her reappointment for the 2001-2002 School Year. His decision to not recommend Respondent's appointment was based, at least in part, upon Respondent's admitted inappropriate discipline and use of profanity. There is no evidence Respondent's disciplinary method of causing students to hold heavy books while excluded from the classroom learning environment was effective in improving their behavior in the classroom. There is no evidence this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, Principal Dixon, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, it was not sanctioned, and it is certain that the boys being disciplined were not being taught any curriculum while they were in the hallway. There is no evidence Respondent's method of taping her students' mouths shut and deliberately embarrassing them in the classroom before their peers was effective in teaching them to be quiet in class. There also is no evidence that this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, the principal, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, the evidence is contrary. The disciplinary methods employed by Respondent were not approved or condoned by the Holmes County School Board or by the Poplar Springs School Administration. Her methods were inappropriate. Her inappropriate discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students exposed them to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement at a time in their development when they were particularly emotionally vulnerable. Her methods of discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Holmes County School Board. Respondent failed to take reasonable efforts to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental health and/or physical safety by employing these inappropriate methods of discipline.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order which: Finds Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 231.2615(1)(f)and (i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code; Suspends Respondent's Educator's Certificate for a period of one year; Requires that, as a condition precedent to Respondent's re-employment as an educator in Florida following the suspension, Respondent submit to a psychological evaluation by a qualified provider as required by the Recovery Network Program; Requires that Respondent follow the recommended course of treatment, if any, resulting from her evaluation and that she provide written verification to the Department of her successful completion of the evaluation and/or treatment; and Provides that if Respondent is reemployed as an educator in Florida, she be placed on three years' probation, upon such terms as the Education Practices Commission deems appropriate, including but not limited to successful completion of a college level course in the area of classroom management. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 12th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Crawford Post Office Box 573 Ashford, Alabama 36312-0573 J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has demonstrated that Respondent should be suspended and terminated from employment with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, for failure to correct performance deficiencies; and whether Petitioner should be terminated for just cause, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes, for incompetency due to inefficiency.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Background Petitioner 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, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed with the Miami-Dade County Public School District (?District?) as a teacher of Emotional/Behavioral Disabled (?EBD?) students since 2001. He initially was a part-time teacher, substituting for a teacher on maternity leave. He became a full-time teacher with the District in the 2002-2003 timeframe. At the time of the events that gave rise to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a full-time teacher at Pine Villa Elementary School (?Pine Villa?), pursuant to a professional services contract. At all times material, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining between Miami-Dade Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (?UTD?), Petitioner’s rules, and Florida law. The 2009-2010 School Year In the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent taught second grade and third grade EBD students. EBD students are disabled due to persistent emotional or behavioral responses that may interfere with their learning ability. It is common for EBD students to academically perform below grade level; accordingly, they need to be in a smaller class with a more structured learning environment. Renny Neyra became the Pine Villa Principal at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, and held the position through the 2010-2011 school year. According to Ms. Neyra, Respondent had difficulty teaching his class, and the test data for his students showed no improvement in their performance. Ms. Neyra requested and received assistance for Respondent from the District, consisting of expert personnel on special assignment to assist in areas in which Respondent’s performance was perceived to be lacking. Ms. Neyra did not place Respondent on 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34 during the 2009-2010 school year because she felt it would be unfair to do so. She testified that she wanted to afford Respondent the opportunity to obtain professional performance assistance so that he could improve his teaching skills, which, in turn, would help his students. The 2010-2011 School Year Because of Respondent’s perceived difficulties in planning for and teaching students of different grade levels during the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Neyra decided to assign Respondent only third grade EBD students for the 2010-2011 school year. In the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent’s class consisted of 11 students. This is slightly smaller than the typical third grade EBD class in the District, which generally consists of 16 to 17 students. For the 2010-2011 school year, an interventionist, curriculum specialist, and full-time paraprofessional were assigned to assist Respondent in his classroom.2/ Ms. Neyra testified that it was unlikely an interventionist or curriculum specialist would have been assigned to Respondent’s classroom, had he been performing well. IPEGS Evaluations of Respondent Teachers employed by the District are evaluated pursuant to the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (?IPEGS?). IPEGS entails assessor observation of, and provision of written comments on, teacher classroom performance. Five separate IPEGS evaluations of Respondent were conducted in the 2010-2011 school year, on September 23, 2010; October 25, 2010; December 7, 2010; January 26, 2011; and February 28, 2011. In the September 23, 2010, evaluation, Ms. Neyra observed that Respondent had incomplete lesson plans; failed to provide clear, specific, and sequential directions and guidance; did not use teaching strategies that engaged the students; and did not clarify the lesson for the students. The specific IPEGS Performance Standards (?Standards?) in which Ms. Neyra determined Respondent deficient were Standards 2 - Knowledge of Learners; 3 – Instructional Planning; and 4 – Instructional Delivery and Engagement. Respondent was informed of the observed deficiencies and placed on Support Dialogue for a 21-day period. Support Dialogue entails the provision of mutually-determined support strategies designed to remedy the deficiencies identified in the evaluation. Ms. Neyra conducted a second evaluation of Respondent’s teaching on October 25, 2010, and observed the same deficiencies. She also observed deficiencies in Respondent’s performance with respect to Standard 8 – Learning Environment. Following this evaluation, a Conference-for-the-Record (?CFR?) was held to inform Respondent that he was being placed on 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34(3), and to obtain Respondent’s and UTD’s input regarding measures to address Respondent’s performance deficiencies. As a result of the CFR, Respondent was provided an Improvement Plan containing specific direction regarding correction of his performance deficiencies. Assistant Principal Dorothy Pinkston evaluated Respondent’s classroom teaching performance on December 7, 2010, after which another Improvement Plan was provided to Respondent.3/ Ms. Neyra conducted another evaluation of Respondent’s classroom teaching performance on January 26, 2011, and found Respondent deficient in Standards 2, 3, 4, and 8. According to Ms. Neyra, Respondent did not attend to students’ needs and did not provide teacher-directed instruction. As a result of the January 26, 2011, evaluation, Respondent was provided another Improvement Plan. Ms. Neyra conducted a fifth evaluation, termed a ?confirmatory observation,? of Respondent’s classroom teaching performance on February 28, 2011. She again determined that he had not corrected the previously identified performance deficiencies. Respondent’s Students’ Performance on Objective Assessments Ms. Neyra testified that in addition to the IPEGS evaluations, Respondent’s students’ performance on interim assessments in math and reading and the Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (?FAIR?), administered by the District, played a role in her decision to terminate Respondent’s employment. Student performance assessments, termed ?benchmark assessments,? for math and reading are administered by the District at the beginning of the school year. ?Interim assessments? for math and reading are administered in the fall and winter of the school year. These assessments are used to measure student performance prior to taking the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (?FCAT?) later in the school year. Where performance deficiencies are identified, students can be provided remedial instruction to better prepare them to take the FCAT. Petitioner presented documentary evidence regarding Respondent’s students’ performance on the interim assessments for math and reading in the 2010-2011 school year. This evidence compared Respondent’s students’ performance to that of all third grade students in the District, and to that of third grade ?disabled students? throughout the District. Petitioner did not present any evidence comparing Respondent’s students’ interim assessments scores to those of other EBD third grade students in the District. Petitioner’s documentary evidence was not supported by testimony of any witnesses qualified and competent to analyze the scores or to explain what the scores demonstrate or mean,4/ or by any other competent evidence. Without such testimony or other competent evidence, meaningful determinations Respondent’s students’ scores and their use in evaluating Respondent’s performance pursuant to section 1012.34(3) cannot be made. Moreover, Petitioner’s documentary evidence did not provide information that could be used to accurately compare Respondent’s students’ scores to those of other similarly situated students. The uncontroverted evidence established that EBD students generally perform below grade level in their school work and on objective assessment measures; accordingly, Respondent’s students’ interim assessment scores cannot be meaningfully compared to those of all other third grade students in the District. Although Petitioner’s evidence did compare Respondent’s students’ scores to those of third grade disabled students, the ?disabled students? category includes students with all types of disabilities, not only emotional and behavioral disabilities. Petitioner provided no evidence to support its contention that EBD students perform comparably to all other disabled students on the interim assessments. Absent evidence specifically comparing Respondent’s students’ interim assessment scores with those for comparable students——i.e., other third grade EBD students in the District——it cannot be determined whether Respondent’s students’ performance is attributable to teaching deficiencies on his part, or to their emotional and behavioral disabilities. Petitioner also provided documentary evidence, supported by the testimony of reading coach Eida Herrera, regarding Respondent’s students’ performance on the FAIR assessments. However, again, no evidence was presented specifically comparing Respondent’s students’ performance on the FAIR assessments to other third grade EBD students’ scores, so there is no context in which to meaningfully evaluate Respondent’s students’ FAIR assessment results for purposes of assessing his teaching performance pursuant to section 1012.34. Respondent’s students’ scores for the FCAT were not reported until after Respondent was suspended and action was taken to terminate his employment. Accordingly, the FCAT scores did not, and could not, play a role in Ms. Neyra’s decision to terminate Respondent.5/ Ms. Neyra testified that once Respondent’s students’ FCAT scores were received, she compared them to the District- wide scores for EBD third grade students, and that Respondent’s students did not perform well when compared with other EBD third grade students in the District. She testified that this information confirmed the correctness of her decision to terminate Respondent’s employment. However, as with the interim assessment scores, absent competent testimony by qualified persons or other competent evidence regarding FCAT scores and their analysis and use, accurate determinations regarding Respondent’s students’ FCAT scores and their meaning and use in assessing his classroom teaching performance pursuant to section 1012.34 cannot be made. In any event, Ms. Neyra testified that the primary reason she decided to terminate Respondent was that he did not remediate the performance deficiencies she had observed in the IPEGS evaluations. Ms. Neyra testified regarding the need for three other professionals to assist Respondent in his classroom, and the expense involved in providing this support. However, Petitioner did not present any expert testimony addressing incompetency relative to Respondent’s specific circumstances. Respondent testified on his own behalf. He has a master’s degree in exceptional student education, varying exceptionalities, and ten years’ experience as a teacher of EBD students. Respondent credibly testified that he has had positive evaluations throughout his teaching career and has not previously had problems with any other principals with whom he has worked. Respondent’s testimony established that he is intimately familiar with each of his students’ specific academic and personal issues. He credibly testified, in substantial detail, regarding the instructional and behavioral management measures in which he engaged, on an individual student basis, to address each student’s specific academic and personal issues,6/ and to try to help each student learn. Respondent also credibly testified regarding the challenges involved in teaching his students——many of whom had significant behavioral and emotional issues and came from severely socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds—— while at the same time keeping order in his classroom.
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 rescinding the action taken to suspend and terminate Respondent from his employment and paying Respondent’s back salary and any other benefits owed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2011.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should terminate Respondent's professional service contract for his failure to correct his performance deficiencies within his 90-calendar-day probation period.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jose L. Rojas, has been employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, as a teacher pursuant to a professional service contract. During the 2004-2005 school year, he taught regular sixth-grade math classes at Redland Middle School. Teachers employed by the School Board, including Respondent, are evaluated pursuant to the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System, known as PACES. PACES was collectively bargained with the teachers' union and approved by the Florida Department of Education in 2001 as being in statutory compliance for teacher evaluations in Petitioner's school district. PACES focuses on student learning and teacher professional development, as well as on teaching behaviors. In PACES, there are seven domains: six are to be observed during a classroom observation, and the seventh domain deals with professional responsibilities demonstrated outside the classroom observation. The domains reflect the required statutory competencies of Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Each domain has teaching and learning components, and each component has indicators, 44 of which are required to meet standards under PACES. The 44 indicators are fundamental units of observation that are used to make professional judgments about the quality of learning and teaching. They represent the basic level of teaching to be demonstrated by all teachers in Petitioner's school district, i.e., the minimum requirements. They are the objective standards described in the PACES manual. Teachers have PACES manuals and access to the PACES Internet website. The standards are also repeated in any professional improvement plan, known as a PIP. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for a domain to be rated below performance standards. One below-standard domain indicates a teacher's non-compliance with statutorily- required competencies. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) measures student performance on the State's objectives for Florida's required curriculum, the Sunshine State Standards. While Petitioner's school district, as a whole, must utilize the FCAT data and indicators of student performance, there is no similar requirement for evaluating teachers by the results of the performance of their students on the FCAT (or other local assessments for subject matters not covered by the FCAT). Individual evaluations of teachers, however, must address student performance. PACES addresses student performance in every domain. What is assessed is whether the teacher is monitoring and gauging student progress in the classroom, making sure that the students are mastering the required curriculum. Teachers are expected to use their students' FCAT scores from the prior year for planning, pursuant to PACES domain I, to meet the students' deficiencies. Redland utilizes FCAT results in this manner. Further, a teacher's teaching strategies and activities are required to address FCAT expectations. At the beginning of the school year, teachers at Redland receive copies of the scope and sequence for what the students are to learn during the school year. The teachers develop the curriculum and timelines for meeting benchmarks to be covered during the school year. PACES domain II, as another example, deals with the teacher's management of the learning environment. If time is not managed and is, instead, wasted, the students' achievement of the Sunshine State Standards will be impacted, which will affect FCAT scores. PACES domain IV, as yet another example, requires teachers to informally assess the students' engagement in learning to assess their performance to ascertain whether the students are mastering the Sunshine State Standards. All of the administrators who were PACES observers in this case have had extensive training in the standards to be observed and evaluated in teacher performance and student learning and are, therefore, authorized to perform PACES observations, which are based upon what the observer objectively observes while in the classroom. The performance probation process in Petitioner's school district, like the PACES teacher evaluation process, was collectively bargained with the teachers' union. The process is as follows: if there is an observation conducted by an administrator that indicates a teacher is performing below standards, it becomes the "initial observation not of record." The administrator meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, makes suggestions for improvement, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed again in approximately three weeks. The administrator offers the teacher the assistance of a professional growth team (PGT). Use of a PGT is voluntary on the part of the teacher at this point. The PGT is part of the professional development aspect of PACES. PGTs are composed of experienced peer teachers who are extensively trained in PACES and are authorized to give support and assistance to teachers to improve classroom instruction. The same administrator who conducted the "initial observation not of record" must conduct the next observation, the "kick-off observation," which is the first observation of record in that school year. If this observation reveals below- standards performance, a conference-for-the-record (CFR) is held. A PGT and a PIP are provided to the teacher. The performance probation period begins the day after a PIP is given to the teacher. The teachers' union and Petitioner then mutually agree on the calendar for counting the 90 days. There must be two official observations during the performance probation period. The teacher must meet all 44 required indicators in order to meet performance standards during the teacher's performance probation. If any indicators are below performance standards, PIPs are again given. There are four levels of PIP activities, which are progressively more complex. A "confirmatory observation" takes place after the 90th day to determine whether the teacher has corrected his or her deficiencies. The "confirmatory observation" must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the performance probation, and the evaluator must forward a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools. Within 14 days of receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the Superintendent must notify the teacher whether he will recommend to the school board that the teacher's employment be continued or terminated. It is not sufficient for the teacher to improve on only some of the deficient indicators. It has been the custom and practice under the collective bargaining agreement that remediation occurs only when the teacher meets standards in all of the required indicators. Respondent's initial observation was conducted by Assistant Principal Fahringer on September 23, 2004. Respondent was teaching a class of 20-23 students. Respondent told the students to take out their agenda books which contained their homework. As Respondent went around the classroom checking each student's homework, the remainder of the students just sat and talked, waiting for a lesson to begin. They were not working on math. Out of the two-hour block of class time, the class was off-task about 25 percent of the time. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components and indicators of domain II, managing the learning environment, and domain IV, enhancing and enabling learning. Pursuant to the agreed-upon procedures, the observation became "not of record." Assistant Principal Fahringer met with Respondent September 28, 2004, went over the evaluation, and explained why Respondent had not met performance standards. Fahringer gave Respondent suggestions for improvement and advised him that she would return to do a follow-up observation. She offered Respondent a PGT, which he accepted. On October 19, 2004, Fahringer performed Respondent's first observation of record, the "kick-off observation." Respondent was giving a lesson on fractions, decimals, and percentages to 32 students using cups of M&Ms and a chart. Respondent told the students to divide into groups of four. There followed much noise and confusion. As Respondent went from group to group, he did not monitor the other seven groups. Students threw M&Ms and paper wads. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components and indicators of domains II and IV. He did not meet standards in domain II because the learning did not begin promptly. After a five-minute delay, another five minutes were wasted while Respondent counted out the M&Ms. Ten minutes wasted at the beginning of the class is a significant amount of time since time spent on-task improves achievement. There were delays in the organizational and teaching/learning activities. When Respondent told the students to divide into groups of four, some students appeared uncertain as to what group they were in and, instead, milled around talking noisily. Some students remained off-task throughout the lesson. Respondent did not address the off-task behavior because he did not appear to even notice it while he focused on one group at a time. Students came to Respondent with their agenda books, "visiting" other students and talking with them on the way. Eight students were distracted, noisy, and off-task, but Respondent failed to redirect them. Respondent's expectations about acceptable behavior had apparently not been made clear to the students. Although he told them to raise their hands and not to talk, they continued to talk noisily to each other for 50 minutes. Respondent failed to effectively monitor the class throughout the lesson. When he was with one group, he did not use management techniques to diffuse the unacceptable off-task behavior of the other groups. The remaining seven groups did not work (no learning took place) while they waited for Respondent to come to them. Respondent did not meet standards in domain IV because he did not introduce the purpose of the lesson. The students were told how to count the M&Ms and complete a chart, but there was no explanation as to what they were to learn. The students did not understand that they were learning the relationship among fractions, decimals, and percentages. Respondent did not give clear and complete directions. He told the students that they were going to "integrate" decimals, percents, and fractions, a meaningless word choice. The directions did not include any explanation of content or integration of mathematical concepts. Respondent did not demonstrate accurate content knowledge. He gave inaccurate and unclear information to the students. He counted the various colored M&Ms and put the numbers on the chart. On the chart, he explained that the decimals--.35, .10, .25, .17, .03, and .71--equal one, when in fact they equal 1.61. Also on the chart, Respondent explained that the percentages--35%, 10%, 25%, 17%, 3%, and 71%--equal 100%, when in fact they equal 161%. The students accepted the inaccurate information. On the line of the chart indicating the fractions, Respondent reduced some of the fractions leaving different denominators, which made the addition of those fractions difficult. On October 29, 2004, Principal DePriest and Assistant Principal Fahringer held a CFR with Respondent to address Respondent's sub-standard performance, his performance probation, recommendations for improving the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner. Respondent's input was sought, and he was formally assigned a PGT. Respondent was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP on November 1, 2004. The PIP required him to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manual by November 22, 2004. Respondent's performance probation period began November 2, 2004, the day after he received the PIP. He was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed time. Respondent's PGT provided assistance to him throughout his performance probation. Respondent failed to complete his PIP activities by the November 22 deadline. On December 2 he was given another 24 hours to comply, which he did. On November 24, 2004, Respondent was formally observed in his classroom by Principal DePriest. Respondent was presenting a lesson to 19 students, but the classroom was too chaotic for learning to take place. Respondent again did not meet performance standards in domain II. Learning did not begin promptly. Respondent wasted 12 minutes reprimanding students, taking roll, and answering his personal cell phone while the students were not engaged in learning. There were also inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. The students went to the board, one by one, to solve math problems. Respondent spent approximately five minutes with each student at the board while the rest of the class became noisy, walked around, or slept. Respondent failed to monitor off-task behavior or the behavior of the entire class. As Respondent focused on the one student at the board, the other students were off-task for up to five minutes at a time throughout the lesson, talking, putting their heads down, tapping their pencils, and making inappropriate comments such as "Can someone choke me?", "Can someone kill me?", and "Can I die now?". One student simply played with her hair for six minutes. Essentially, everyone was talking, and no one was listening to Respondent. Yet, Respondent did nothing to redirect the students. He did not appear to have classroom conduct rules in place. Thus, Respondent failed to make his expectations about behavior clear to the students. He instructed them not to talk without raising their hands. Nevertheless, eight of the students talked out-of-turn for 20 minutes without raising their hands. DePriest met with Respondent on December 2, 2004, to review the observation. DePriest provided assistance through a PIP to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes on the PACES Internet website. Respondent was to maintain a log and discuss techniques and strategies with DePriest. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 6, 2005. On January 10, 2005, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Janice Farrell. Respondent was presenting a lesson on perimeters and surface areas to 22 students. The lesson was disorganized, and there was an "air of confusion" in the class. Many students were being unruly and exhibiting off-task behavior. Therefore, not much learning was taking place. Respondent still did not meet performance standards in domains II and IV that had been previously identified. He also failed to meet performance standards in components and indicators not identified in the kick-off observation of October 19, 2004, and, therefore, not the subject of Respondent's 90-day performance probation or this Recommended Order. Respondent caused inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. The learners were instructed to complete a "bellringer" activity, i.e., an activity that is used at the beginning of the class period to engage the students in learning as soon as they enter the room. Although they were instructed to complete it, eight of the 22 students did not receive a bellringer worksheet. Students were asking for materials and attempting the activity unsuccessfully on their own. Respondent appeared unaware of the problem Respondent failed to monitor off-task behavior and disengagement from learning throughout the lesson. One student continuously called out Respondent's name, louder and louder, for five minutes. Students talked and copied each other's answers. While a student walked around stamping the other students' agenda books, they became off-task. A group of three students at a back table remained off-task throughout the lesson, talking, copying each other's answers, and throwing papers. Respondent did not redirect any of these students until the last five minutes of the class. Respondent failed to monitor the whole class effectively. When he went to the back of the room to address a tardy student without a pass, he turned his back on the other 21 students who changed seats, threw papers at each other, and hit each other with rulers. Respondent did nothing to redirect his students. He failed to make the purpose or importance of the learning tasks clear to the students. He did not give a rationale for the bellringer activity, which consisted of answering questions about perimeters and areas of geometric shapes. He also gave the students inaccurate information. He incorrectly calculated the perimeter of a square as 3+3+3+3=15. DePriest and Farrell met with Respondent to review the observation. Farrell made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent's PIP required him to complete self- assessment activities through the PACES website. He was to watch vignettes provided by the website in order to understand what the PACES indicators required of him. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 11, 2005. Because Respondent's second observation within the performance probation period was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether Respondent had corrected his deficiencies. Principal DePriest performed that observation on February 22, 2005. On that day, management of the learning environment and classroom discipline were non-existent. Respondent was presenting a lesson on geometric shapes to 18 students. While he did have instructions written on the board, there were still the same kinds of delays seen previously, and the students were still not engaged in learning. Overall, the class environment was chaotic. One-third to one- half of the class was off-task at any given time. The class was completely disorganized; the students were not engaged; the students did not pay any attention to Respondent, and very little learning took place. Each time supplies were distributed, commotion resulted. When colored paper was distributed so that the students could trace the shapes, they got into arguments over the different colors, negotiated the trading of colors, and asked Respondent for different colors. When rulers were passed out, the students were not instructed to use them to draw the geometric shapes. Some had already drawn the shapes freehand. Others were dueling with the rulers. Some tore the shapes, rather than waiting until they received scissors. Respondent again did not meet performance standards in domain II as identified in the kick-off observation. Learning did not begin promptly. Respondent spent 10-11 minutes taking roll and reprimanding tardy students. There were inefficient delays in organizational and teaching/learning activities. Respondent allowed students to talk and distract others. Students were not paying attention. Respondent accepted a phone call and made a phone call during the class. He failed to monitor the off-task behavior caused by the manner in which supplies were distributed and failed to redirect the students, including while they argued about paper, scissors, and rulers. DePriest notified Respondent on February 23, 2005, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected noted performance deficiencies during his performance probation period and that DePriest would recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent's employment be terminated. On that same day, DePriest transmitted such a memorandum. On March 9, the Superintendent notified Respondent that the Superintendent would recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract for Respondent's failure to correct his noted performance deficiencies during his performance probation. Petitioner has met all procedural requirements and statutory time frames. The FCAT was administered to Florida students in late- February to early-March, 2005. Petitioner received Respondent's students' scores on May 17 and the district-wide FCAT results on May 19, 2005, the day before the final hearing in this cause. The district as a whole showed "tremendous" progress over the prior year. Even though Redland is a "low-performing" school, it likewise showed progress over the prior year in reading and mathematics. Respondent's students, however, failed to follow this trend. Petitioner does not use a teacher's current students' FCAT scores in assessing a teacher's performance because the scores are released too late in the school year. PACES, however, addresses student performance, as statutorily required. Where a teacher's students are observed as being noisy throughout lessons, being confused, not paying attention, and being given erroneous lesson content, there is a clear lack of student performance, and they are not engaged in learning.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent failed to correct his performance deficiencies and terminating Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 13, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 29th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Honorable John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Rudolph F. Crew, Ed.D, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies, thereby justifying termination of her employment as a teacher pursuant to section 1012.34; and (2) whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner 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, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School District pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been a teacher for approximately 14 years. She began teaching full-time at Gulfstream in the 2004- 2005 school year. During her years at Gulfstream, she taught fifth, third, and second grades, and in the 2010-2011 school year she was a co-teacher assigned to assist other teachers in instructing their students. In the 2011-2012 school year, and in the 2012-2013 school year until she was suspended pending the outcome of this proceeding, Respondent was a first grade teacher at Gulfstream. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was governed by Florida law, Petitioner's policies and procedures, and the collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade. The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Section 1012.34(3), Florida Statutes, mandates that instructional personnel, including classroom teachers, be evaluated for performance at least once a year. Pursuant to section 1012.34(3), the performance evaluation consists of two components: a student performance component and an instructional practice component. The former is based on student scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"), or, for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT, on school district assessments as provided in section 1008.22(8). The latter is based on instructional performance indicators that are evaluated based in part on classroom teaching observations. 2011-2012 School Year March 27, 2012 Evaluation In the 2011-2012 school year, approximately 17 students were assigned to Respondent's first grade class. Pursuant to section 1012.34(3)(a)2., in connection with Respondent's annual evaluation, Gulfstream Principal Concepcion Santana conducted a formal observation of Respondent's instructional practices in her classroom on March 27, 2012, as she taught reading/language arts. She observed Respondent for 40 minutes. In evaluating Respondent, Santana followed the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System ("IPEGS"), the system used throughout the Miami-Dade County Public School District to evaluate instructional personnel. IPEGS consists of eight performance standards that constitute the minimum standards a teacher must meet in classroom instruction. These standards are based on the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices adopted by the State Board of Education, as required by section 1012.34(3)(a)2. Four of the IPEGS performance standards are observable during the classroom instruction portion of the evaluation. The other four are "not observable," meaning that they target performance standards that may not necessarily be observed at the time of the classroom instruction performance evaluation.1/ Santana found that Respondent's instructional practices were deficient with respect to the four observable performance standards ("PS"): Knowledge of Learners (PS 2), Instructional Planning (PS 3), Instructional Delivery and Engagement (PS 4), and Learning Environment (PS 8). PS 2 requires the teacher to identify and address the needs of learners by demonstrating respect for individual differences, cultures, backgrounds, and learning styles. Santana observed that Respondent failed to meet PS 2. Specifically, Respondent did not tailor her teaching to address the various learning styles and levels of the students in her classroom; rather, she presented the lesson in a manner that addressed only one learning level, so that some of the students were not learning. PS 3 requires the teacher to use appropriate curricula, instructional strategies, and resources to develop lesson plans that include goals and/or objectives, learning activities, assessment of student learning, and home learning in order to address the diverse needs of students. Respondent failed to meet PS 3. The activities she conducted did not directly conform to her written lesson plan. Specifically, the students were reading a story that was not identified on the lesson plan, and completing workbook pages that were not identified in the lesson plan while skipping others that were identified in the plan. As a result, the focus and purpose of the lesson being taught was not addressed in the lesson plan. Additionally, the lesson plan did not incorporate multiple instructional strategies to meet the learning needs of all of the students. Respondent failed to use a variety of resources and questioning techniques to cater to the range of learning styles and levels of her students and encourage higher level thinking; rather, the instruction presented that day catered to rote learning. PS 4 requires the teacher to promote learning by demonstrating accurate content knowledge and by addressing academic needs through a variety of appropriate instructional strategies and technologies that engage learners. Respondent also failed to meet PS 4. She did not deliver the instruction at a pace appropriate to engage all students. Additionally, her instructional delivery failed to incorporate a range of strategies so that again, not all students were engaged in the lesson. As a result, many students were off-task, and frequent interruptions distracted students who otherwise were on-task. PS 8 requires the teacher to create and maintain a safe learning environment while encouraging fairness, respect, and enthusiasm. Respondent failed to meet PS 8. Santana noted that there appeared to be little evidence of specified classroom procedures that the students understood and followed, so as to create an environment conducive to learning. As a result, students were up out of their seats, asking to go to the restroom, and fiddling with their papers and pencils. Following the observation, Santana documented her observations on a form titled "IPEGS Observation Standards Form- Teacher" ("IPEGS Form"). In compliance with section 1012.34(3)(c), Santana notified Respondent in writing of a scheduled support dialogue meeting. The purpose of the support dialogue meeting was to provide feedback regarding the classroom observation and to discuss strategies and supportive actions that could be provided to Respondent to assist her in remediating her deficiencies and improving her instructional performance. Santana's support dialogue meeting with Respondent took place on March 29, 2012. Present at the meeting, in addition to Santana and Respondent were a UTD representative; a reading coach, Mariela Rapp; and an assistant principal. Santana provided the completed IPEGS form for the March 27 classroom observation to Respondent and discussed with her the observed deficiencies, including instructional strategies that she could have incorporated into the lesson to make it more effective. Rapp and another reading coach, Lynn Carrier, were assigned to provide support to Respondent, and strategies to assist her were devised. Respondent was informed that she had 21 days in which to implement the actions prescribed in the support dialogue meeting, and that at the end of that period, Santana would conduct another classroom observation. April 25, 2012 Evaluation Santana conducted another formal classroom observation of Respondent's teaching on April 25, 2012. This time, she observed Respondent for the entire reading/language arts instructional block lasting two hours. Respondent did not meet PS 2. Again, she did not incorporate instructional strategies to cater to the learning styles and levels of all students in her class. Santana noted that Respondent's instructional performance on this standard was very similar to that she had observed on March 27, 2012. Respondent also failed to meet PS 3. Specifically, she did not incorporate a variety of instructional strategies in her lesson plans to meet the varied needs of the students in the class. As a result, she failed to address the diverse learning needs of her students as required by PS 3. Similarly, Respondent failed to meet PS 4. Once again, Respondent's instructional delivery and engagement techniques failed to keep many students on-task. Santana attributed that to Respondent's failure to adequately pace the lesson or to effectively provide differentiated learning experiences to meet the students' varied learning styles and levels. Santana further noted that the lesson was disorganized. Respondent created differentiated learning centers at which the students would engage in various learning activities; however, she provided no guidance, so the students were unable to effectively engage in the activities for which the centers were prepared. Specifically, at the computer-based learning center, the computers were not prepared for the instructional activity, so time was wasted logging onto the computers; consequently, the students had little time to work on the activity. At another learning center involving a device called "Leap Pad," the books and accompanying cassette cartridges were not grouped together, so the students spent time trying to find the matching books and cartridges and, as a result, wasted what was supposed to be instructional time. Because of these problems, students repeatedly interrupted the teacher-led instructional center, interfering with learning at that center. Respondent again failed to meet PS 8. Respondent's failure to establish classroom procedures for the various learning centers and her lack of success in redirecting off-task students to reengage in the assigned learning activities created a disruptive environment that did not promote student learning. Following the April 25, 2012, observation, Santana completed another IPEGS Form. Because Respondent showed no improvement from the March 27, 2012, observation, Santana scheduled a conference for the record ("CFR"). A CFR is a formal meeting to discuss a teacher's performance deficiencies and develop a plan to remediate those deficiencies. Respondent was notified in writing of the CFR, which was rescheduled per Respondent's request. Respondent attended the meeting with two UTD representatives; also attending were Rapp and an assistant principal. By written notice and at the CFR, Respondent was informed that she was being placed on 90-day performance probation, pursuant to section 1012.34(4), as of the date of the CFR. An IPEGS Improvement Plan ("IP") was developed to assist Respondent in remediating her instructional performance deficiencies. An IP is a written document that discusses each performance deficiency; identifies specific resources available to assist the teacher in remediating each specific deficiency; sets forth remedial activities specific to each deficiency in which the teacher and assisting persons are to engage; and establishes deadlines for completing the specified activities. In the IP, Respondent and reading coaches Rapp and Carrier were directed to work collaboratively to improve Respondent's instructional techniques and pacing so as to engage all students in the lessons. To this end, Rapp and Carrier were to assist Respondent in developing lesson plans and identifying instructional strategies and activities to meet the learning needs of all of her students. Additionally, Respondent was given the opportunity to engage in collaborative planning with her peer professionals (i.e., other first grade teachers) and with the reading coaches. She also was provided access to a nationally board certified teacher at Gulfstream who assists teachers in improving their teaching performance. The IP further directed the reading coaches and peer professionals to observe Respondent and provide constructive feedback and assistance to Respondent as she attempted to implement instructional techniques and strategies. The IP also identified Common Core Standards, reading/language arts pacing guides, and reading/language arts planners as resources available to assist her in developing appropriate planning objectives, appropriately pacing her lessons to address her students' needs, and developing her lesson plans. As part of the IP, Santana directed Respondent to prepare a written plan addressing how she would tailor her instruction to address student learning styles; use appropriate instructional materials and techniques; and use differentiated instructional groups and learning centers. The written plan was to be submitted to Santana by May 29, 2012. Respondent was further directed to develop lesson plans to improve her instructional delivery strategies. Those plans were to be submitted to the assistant principal. The IP directed Respondent to read the book "How to be an Effective Teacher: The First Five Days of School" and to submit to an assistant principal a reflective summary discussing effective strategies for addressing inappropriate student behavior and managing the learning environment. Respondent also was directed to consult with the reading coaches and peers to develop effective strategies for redirecting inappropriate student behavior. To assist Respondent in implementing her IP, Santana prepared a support calendar that detailed, on a weekly basis for a 21-day period, the activities in which Respondent was to engage. The support calendar specifically identified the reading coaches, peers, and other professionals responsible for working with Respondent as she performed the assigned activities. During the first week of the IP implementation period, Rapp provided assistance to Respondent in planning for the reading/language arts instructional block that would be conducted the following week. Respondent worked with Rapp to interpret current Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading ("FAIR") testing data and use the data to effectively plan for differentiated instruction. Also during the first week, Respondent observed reading/language arts instruction in a peer's classroom and participated in a debriefing session with Rapp and Carrier after the peer teaching observation. The following week, Respondent participated in an activity cycle during which she collaboratively planned with reading coaches Rapp and Carrier; observed peers teaching reading/language arts; observed Rapp modeling effective reading/language arts teaching strategies and techniques; co- taught reading/language arts with Rapp to practice these strategies and techniques; and taught the reading/language arts block while being observed by Rapp and Carrier. This same activity cycle, consisting of collaborative planning,2/ reading coach and peer modeling and observation, co- teaching, and teaching by Respondent, was repeated in the final week of the IP implementation period. Collectively, these activities were designed to assist Respondent in planning for the use of content and instructional techniques and strategies appropriate for her students. They also demonstrated to Respondent how to identify and implement effective instructional techniques and strategies, provided assistance as she learned to implement these techniques and strategies, and afforded the opportunity for Respondent to benefit from constructive feedback regarding her efforts to utilize these techniques and strategies. On May 16 and May 24, 2012, Rapp and Carrier observed Respondent as she taught a reading/arts lesson. In the lesson, she was to employ the instructional techniques and strategies that had been provided and presented to her by the reading coaches, peer professionals, and reference resources during the implementation of her IP. According to Carrier, Respondent did not adhere to the prepared lesson plan and did not incorporate the techniques and strategies that had been provided to her by the reading coaches and peer teachers through her IP.3/ Shortly after Respondent completed the activities set forth in the IP, the 2011-2012 school year ended. Condition of Respondent's Classroom in 2011-2012 At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent had been assigned to a free-standing portable classroom not located in the main building at Gulfstream. In late September or early October 2011, Respondent complained to Santana about the air quality in her classroom—— specifically, that there was musty smell that made it difficult for her to breathe and aggravated her allergies. Santana contacted Mr. Cruz-Munoz of the Miami-Dade Public Schools asbestos management division to inspect Respondent's classroom. Within a couple of days, Cruz-Munoz conducted the inspection and found no visible mold or mildew. He noted that the musty smell was typical of portables, like Respondent's classroom, that were older and had wood paneling. He noted that although the room generally was clean, it contained many boxes and a large amount of clutter, both of which may attract dust. He recommended that the boxes and clutter be kept to a minimum to prevent dust collection. Within a week, Respondent's classroom was thoroughly cleaned by a maintenance crew. After the classroom was cleaned, Respondent complained to Santana that she noticed a cleaner smell. Santana contacted Cruz-Munoz, who assured her that the cleaners were water-based and did not contain allergens. Santana informed Respondent of this and suggested that the cleaner smell would dissipate over time. In January 2012, Respondent again complained to Santana about the smell of the classroom and that it was aggravating her allergies. Santana again contacted Cruz-Munoz, who arranged another inspection of the classroom. The inspector again reported that the classroom generally was clean and free of visible mold and mildew but contained many boxes; again, the importance of minimizing the number of boxes and clutter so as to avoid collecting dust was stressed. At that point, Santana referred Respondent to workers' compensation so that she could obtain medical attention to address her health issues. At some point in January 2012, Respondent contacted Robert Kalinsky, a regional director with the Miami-Dade Public School system, regarding the air quality and odors in her classroom. Kalinsky was one of Santana's supervisors at the time. Kalinsky notified Santana that Respondent had contacted him and that he also had received a call about about the condition of the classroom from a member of the Miami-Dade County School Board. As a result, Kalinsky paid a visit to Gulfstream. On February 7, 2012, Santana met with Respondent and an assistant principal regarding a number of issues, including the condition of Respondent's classroom. At that meeting, Santana noted that during the recent visit by Kalinsky and personnel who inspected the classroom, the room was observed cluttered with piles of paper on the desk and many other areas, and that there numerous boxes. At the meeting, Santana reminded Respondent regarding many other issues, including those related to classroom and school library procedures and instructional delivery. Effective February 7, 2012, Santana reassigned Respondent to a different classroom that was located in the main building at Gulfstream. Thereafter, Respondent did not have any complaints about the air quality or odors in the classroom to which she had been assigned. She did continue to complain about the odor of air fresheners and scented candles used throughout the school. Santana noted that she regularly dealt with issues similar to those raised by Respondent because she received frequent complaints from teachers regarding the air quality, mold, and odors at Gulfstream due to the school building's advanced age. Santana credibly testified that she never, at any point, became angry with Respondent regarding her concerns about the air quality and odor in the portable classroom, or any actions Respondent that had taken to address those concerns. 2012-2013 School Year Pursuant to section 1012.34(4)(b)1., school vacation periods are not counted as part of the 90-day performance probation period. Accordingly, Respondent's probation period carried over from the end of the 2011-2012 school year to the 2012-2013 school year. When the 2012-2013 school year commenced, her 90-day probation period continued. September 12, 2012 Evaluation On September 12, 2012, Santana formally observed Respondent's classroom teaching for the third time. She observed Respondent for the full duration of the reading/language arts block, approximately two hours. Respondent again failed to meet PS 2. Her instruction did not incorporate techniques and strategies to address the various learning styles and levels of the students in her class. As a result, many students were bored; one student was observed with his head on his desk. Other students attempted, unsuccessfully, to get Respondent's attention to answer questions they had. Respondent was unsuccessful in explaining the small group activities so that several students were off- task. By the time Respondent redirected the off-task students, little time was left for them to engage in the planned activities. Santana observed no improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard when compared to the two previous observations. Likewise, Respondent failed to meet PS 3. She did not develop or present a lesson that addressed logical, sequential goals and objectives and she did not cover the material identified in the lesson plan. Once again, she failed to use differentiated instructional techniques and strategies to address the students' individual learning styles. The lesson was directed only at one skill level and one learning style. Worksheet activities were completed by the entire class, with some students calling out the answers while the others copied those answers on the worksheet. The partner reading portion of the exercise was disorganized and the students were not given adequate direction, so that many students did not understand how the activity was to be conducted. Santana did not observe any improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard. Respondent also failed to meet PS 4. Her teaching did not include activities directed at eliciting higher order thinking, so did not engage all of the students. Several students were overheard saying they were bored, had already read the material, or already knew the concepts being presented. Other students were off-task, reading stories that had not been assigned. When students were assigned to small groups, insufficient direction was given so that many students did not understand what they were to be doing. In particular, the lack of organization with respect to the computer-based portion of the lesson resulted in students wasting a substantial amount of time before being re-directed to the assigned task. Santana did not observe any improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard. Respondent again failed to meet PS 8. Santana noted that the learning environment and activities were not academically challenging and did not engage all of the students. Students were not given adequate instruction on the activities in which they were to be participating. In particular, the partner reading portion of the exercise was disorganized and many students did not understand how the activity was to be conducted. Santana did not observe any improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard. Following the September 12 evaluation, Santana completed the IPEGS Form, conducted another performance review with Respondent, and issued another IP for her on September 18, 2012. Once again, the reading coaches and peer professionals were made available to assist Respondent in implementing the IP. The Common Core Standards, reading/language arts pacing guides, and reading/language arts planners also were resources to which Respondent was referred. The activities in which Respondent was directed to engage to correct her performance deficiencies for PS 2 and PS 3 were very similar to those identified her May 7, 2012 IP. With the new school year, Respondent had a new class of students, and Santana emphasized the importance of Respondent being able to assess those students' learning styles and levels and to plan how she would assign them to instructional groups. Respondent was directed to prepare and submit to the assistant principal weekly lesson plans containing goals, objectives, activities, and strategies to provide instruction aimed at the her students' diverse learning styles and levels. To help Respondent correct her PS 4 deficiencies, the IP emphasized that Respondent was to observe the reading coach (Carrier) and her peers as they modeled effective instructional techniques and activities designed to reach diverse student learning styles and levels. To correct her PS 8 performance deficiencies, Respondent was directed to work with the reading coach and peers to establish a plan for effective classroom procedures, to prepare a written summary of the plan, and to provide the summary to the assistant principal. Additionally, Respondent was directed to observe peer professionals as they taught; to prepare and provide to the assistant principal a list of the effective teaching techniques she observed; and to incorporate three of those techniques into her classroom teaching. She also was directed to maintain a log of teaching techniques she used in her class, with discussion of which techniques were effective or ineffective and why. The log was to be provided to and discussed with Carrier, so that Carrier could assist Respondent in developing and implementing successful classroom techniques and procedures. Again to ensure that everyone involved in implementing Respondent's IP understood their roles and responsibilities, Santana established another 21-day support calendar detailing the specific activities to be conducted on specific days. The activities entailed collaborative planning with Respondent, Carrier, and grade level peers; Respondent working with Carrier and peers to develop small group and differentiated instructional teaching techniques; Respondent's observation of grade level peer teaching and post-observation debriefing regarding instructional best practices; and Respondent's implementation of those best practices in her teaching, to be observed by Carrier, with feedback provided. Respondent engaged in all scheduled activities and timely completed the September 18, 2013, IP. October 11, 2012 Evaluation On October 11, 2012, a fourth formal classroom observation of Respondent was conducted, this time by assistant principal Marybel Baldessari. Baldessari observed Respondent teaching reading/language arts for an hour and a half. Once again Respondent failed to meet PS 2, 3, 4, and 8. With respect to PS 2, Respondent again failed to present differentiated instruction that targeted individual student learning styles and levels; as before, her instruction was aimed only at one learning style and level. With respect to PS 3, Respondent did not ensure that materials were properly organized to accommodate assistance by an interventionist who was working with her that day. As a result, the lesson was disorganized and the lesson was not presented in a logical, sequential manner. With respect to PS 4, again Respondent's instruction was not tailored to meet the students' individual learning styles and levels. Respondent did not appropriately pace the lesson and did not employ teaching techniques, such as appropriate questioning, to encourage students' critical thinking. Respondent again failed to meet PS 8. Students were off-task; in particular, one was off-task for the entire observation period without ever being redirected to the assigned activity. Respondent also had implemented a behavior plan in the classroom involving colored cards, so that when a student was disciplined, he or she was sent to a "behavior wall" to turn over a card on the behavior chart. On this day, a student who was sent to the behavior chart found his card already turned over from the previous day. This evidenced Respondent's lack of attention to detail in maintaining a classroom environment conducive to appropriate student behavior. Baldessari documented Respondent's deficiencies from the October 11, 2012, observation on the IPEGS Form. Santana scheduled a meeting with Respondent on October 17, 2012, to discuss Baldessari's observations. At the meeting, Respondent was given yet another IP. With respect to remedying Respondent's PS 2 performance deficiencies, Respondent was given the same support resources. Respondent was again directed to meet with Carrier and grade level peer professionals to develop differentiated instructional activities and techniques, to incorporate those activities and techniques into lesson plans, and to provide those lesson plans to Baldessari. Respondent also was directed to meet with Carrier and peers to analyze test and observational data, and to use the information gleaned from that data to plan for differentiated instruction based on individual student learning styles and levels. To remedy her PS 3 deficiencies, Respondent was again referred to Carrier and peer professionals, the Common Core Standards, reading/language arts pacing guides, and reading/language arts reading planners. She was again directed to work with Carrier to develop appropriate lesson plans incorporating appropriate instructional strategies. These plans were to identify appropriate goals, objectives, activities, and instructional strategies and were to be provided to Baldessari. Respondent was assigned to read the book, "Understanding Common Core Standards," and to discuss those standards with Carrier and provide a written summary to Baldessari. With respect to PS 4, Respondent was referred to the same remedial resources as for PS 3. Respondent was directed to work with Carrier and selected peer professionals, who would assist her with planning and developing instructional techniques and strategies to appropriately pace lessons and engage all students. With respect to PS 8, Respondent was directed to work with a special education program ("SPED") specialist to develop effective classroom management procedures. She was assigned to prepare and submit a written summary of these procedures to Baldessari. She also was directed to observe peers, identify effective teaching techniques they used to maintain an academically stimulating and challenging environment, submit a list of those techniques to Baldessari, and incorporate three of those techniques into her teaching. Once again, she was directed to maintain a log listing instructional techniques she used, with discussion of which were effective or ineffective and why. The log was to be provided to and discussed with the Carrier so that she could assist Respondent in developing successful classroom techniques and procedures. Those techniques were to be implemented in Respondent's classroom teaching. Santana developed another support calendar to implement Respondent's latest IP. The support calendar identified activities in which Respondent was to engage with Carrier and the SPED specialist; scheduled time for Respondent to observe and discuss peer teaching techniques; and scheduled collaborative planning sessions in which Respondent, Carrier, and grade level peers were to address the development of differentiated instructional strategies. Carrier worked closely with Respondent to implement the October 17, 2012, IP. In doing so, Carrier demonstrated to Respondent how to incorporate certain instructional techniques into her teaching to better engage the students and enhance their learning experience.4/ Carrier stressed the importance of organization and preparation before the lesson in order for the instructional techniques to be effective. Carrier and Respondent also practiced the use of the instructional techniques. However, when it was time for Respondent to teach the lesson, she was disorganized and unprepared, resulting in a substantial amount of time being wasted on logistical matters, such as having essential materials on hand and ready for use, that should have been addressed before the lesson commenced.5/ Carrier also discussed with Respondent the importance of moving around the classroom to keep students focused and on- task. Nonetheless, Carrier observed that Respondent spent most of her time sitting in a chair in front of the classroom. The chair did have wheels, so occasionally Respondent would roll down the center isle of the classroom.6/ During her time in working with Respondent, Carrier observed that Respondent's classroom was messy and disorganized. Books and clutter were all over the place, so that it was difficult to locate resources that were needed to conduct the lessons. Carrier also observed that there were many pieces of information written on the board in an unstructured, disorganized manner, including information from lessons days ago and random vocabulary words, so that it was very difficult to decipher the information Respondent was attempting to convey in using the board. Carrier further noted that words frequently were misspelled and that there were grammatical errors in the information Respondent wrote on the board. Respondent timely completed the activities set forth in the October 17, 2012, IP. November 19, 2012 Evaluation On November 19, 2012, Santana conducted a fifth formal observation of Respondent's classroom teaching. She observed Respondent teaching reading/language arts for an hour and five minutes. Respondent again failed to meet PS 2. Once again, Respondent's instruction provided only one level of complexity and did not cater to the students' different learning styles and levels. The students were reading a story, and instead of incorporating instructional strategies aimed at meeting all students' learning abilities——such as instructing the high level students to write a paragraph, the grade level students to write a sentence, and the lower level students to draw a picture, about the story——she merely had all of them fill in the same workbook page. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to meeting PS 2. Respondent also failed to meet PS 3. Her lesson plans were not aligned to the instructional pacing guide and did not incorporate strategies to address the students' diverse learning styles and levels. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to PS 3. Respondent again failed to meet PS 4. Her instructional delivery did not actively engage the students and did not address their individual learning styles and needs. Because her instruction addressed only one level of complexity, she lost the high functioning and low functioning students. As a result, there were frequent interruptions that interfered with the pace of the instruction and caused students to engage in off-task behavior. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to PS 4. Respondent also failed to meet PS 8. The learning environment was neither challenging nor stimulating. Although the students were working in small groups presumably established according to learning style and level, they nonetheless were reading the same story and answering the same questions. That, and Respondent's continued failure to establish clear classroom procedures and expectations, resulted in frequent interruptions and distractions. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to PS 8. Recommendation to Terminate Respondent's Employment A post-observation meeting was held on November 29, 2012, and Respondent was properly notified of this meeting. At the meeting, Santana informed Respondent that she had failed to remediate her classroom performance deficiencies within the 90- day probation period, so that she (Santana) was recommending that Respondent's employment contract be terminated. Santana prepared a memorandum to the Miami-Dade Public Schools South Regional Director dated November 29, 2012, detailing Respondent's repeated failure to meet PS 2, PS 3, PS 4, and PS 8. The memorandum also stated: "Data indicate that this employee has not demonstrated corrective action." The memorandum recommended termination of Respondent's employment contract. Petitioner presented evidence, consisting of a summary exhibit and testimony from Gisela Field, the administrative director of the Office of Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis for Miami-Dade Public Schools, that Respondent's students' median percentile scores on the 2012 Stanford Achievement Test ("SAT")7/ for Grade 1 for both language arts and mathematics were below those for first grade students at Gulfstream as a whole, and for first grade students in the Miami-Dade County Public School District.8/ Santana did not testify that Respondent's students' SAT median percentile scores were considered in her evaluation of Respondent, or that they constituted a basis for her decision to recommend that Respondent be terminated. Petitioner asserts that the "data" to which Santana's November 29, 2012, memorandum refers are Respondent's students' SAT median percentile scores, evidencing that Santana did consider these scores in evaluating Respondent, and that they were one of the bases for her recommendation that Respondent be terminated.9/ Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding the relative weight given to Respondent's students' scores in conducting her performance evaluation. Respondent's Defenses Respondent began teaching in the Miami-Dade County Public School system in 1989. Thereafter, she took some time off to have children. As previously noted, she resumed fulltime teaching in the 2004-2005 school year. For the period commencing with the 2004-2005 school year, through the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent always received satisfactory classroom performance evaluations.10/ At the final hearing in this proceeding, Respondent testified that she was knowledgeable in preparing lesson plans; adhered to Miami-Dade County Public School District instructional pacing guidelines; engaged in collaborative planning with her colleagues and exchanged ideas regarding making the lessons exciting, fun, and interesting; used objectives, visual aids, posters, computers, books, and hands-on materials to engage students; and employed instructional techniques to address students' diverse learning styles and levels. She further testified that she closely observed her students and obtained feedback from them throughout the instructional day. Respondent also testified that she engaged her students in activities designed to get to know them, that she was sensitive to her students' experiences, that she attempted to make them feel comfortable and safe and to provide a warm and loving environment, and that she knew how to communicate with them and manage their classroom behavior. With respect to specific performance deficiencies identified over the course of the classroom observations conducted by Santana and Baldessari, Respondent asserted that some of the issues with instruction using computers stemmed from technical issues with the computers. In those instances, Respondent would have the students engage in reading activities using books until it was time for them to rotate to another learning center. Respondent believes she was a better teacher in 2011 than she was in 2004 when she re-entered the teaching field fulltime. In her view, this is due to her having participated in personal development workshops, receiving one-on-one instruction, and adapting her teaching style to new curriculum and materials. Respondent asserts that she did not teach any differently in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years than she had in the 2004-2005 school year or any other school year. Respondent contended that she is, and always has been, a very competent teacher, and that the negative performance evaluations she received during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years were unfair and illegitimate. Regarding the condition of the portable classroom to which she was assigned in the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to complain to Santana about the room's odor shortly after the beginning of the school year. In January 2012, she did contact Santana's supervisor Robert Kalinsky to express her concerns. Ultimately, she filed a worker's compensation claim. Once she moved to a different classroom in February 2012, she no longer experienced problems with odors in her classroom. She did continue to have problems with the use of air fresheners and scented candles in other parts of the school building. Respondent noted that only after she complained about the odor and air quality in the portable classroom did she begin receiving negative classroom performance evaluations. She contends that she received negative evaluations for having complained——particularly to Kalinsky and the School Board member——about the condition of the portable. Toward the end of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent applied for a transfer from her instructional position at Gulfstream to another instructional position at another school in the Miami-Dade County Public School District. Both Santana and the Executive Director approved the transfer. Respondent found an instructional position in another school in the Miami-Dade County Public School District, but did not follow through with the transfer. The school was farther from her home than was Gulfstream, so teaching there would entail longer driving time and would add wear and tear to her older vehicle.11/ Findings of Ultimate Fact In this proceeding, Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment for failure to correct performance deficiencies pursuant to section 1012.34, and for "just cause"——specifically, for incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to section 1012.33 and rule 6A-5.056. As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show that Respondent committed the violations of section 1012.34 and 1012.33 and rule 6A-5.056 alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Failure to Correct Performance Deficiencies With respect to the charge that Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies under section 1012.34, the evidence establishes that Respondent consistently engaged in poor and ineffective classroom instructional practices and that she repeatedly failed to correct these instructional practice deficiencies, notwithstanding the very substantial effort that Santana, reading coaches Rapp and Carrier, and Respondent's peers devoted to assisting her in improving her teaching performance. Specifically, the evidence showed that Respondent was consistently ineffective at addressing the individual learning needs, styles, and levels of her students; that she failed to employ appropriate instructional strategies and resources to develop lesson plans that include goals, objectives, and activities to address her students' diverse needs; that she did not address her students' academic needs through a variety of appropriate instructional strategies and techniques that engage them in the learning process; and that she was ineffective in creating and maintaining a classroom environment conducive to learning. The credible evidence does not show that Respondent received negative instructional practice evaluations in retaliation for having complained about the condition of her classroom in the 2011-2012 school year. Rather, the persuasive evidence——which includes corroborative testimony and an IPEGS observation by Baldessari and testimony by Carrier——shows that Respondent received negative performance evaluations because she failed to meet the IPEGS performance standards. However, the evidence failed to adequately address the student performance component of Respondent's performance evaluation pursuant to section 1012.34(3)(a)1.a. As discussed in greater detail below, section 1012.34(3)(a) places great emphasis on student performance on student learning growth assessments——specifically, the FCAT or school district assessments——in evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. Indeed, the statute mandates that at least 50 percent of a performance evaluation be based on data and indicators of student of student learning growth as assessed annually by the FCAT or by school district assessments. Only where (as here) less than three years of data for student learning growth assessments (i.e., FCAT or school district test scores) are available can the percentage of the teacher's performance evaluation based on student learning growth be reduced to less than 50 percent——and even then, it cannot be reduced to less than 40 percent. Here, Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding the relative weight that Santana assigned to Respondent's students' 2012 SAT median percentile scores for language arts and mathematics in evaluating Respondent under section 1012.34. Accordingly, it cannot be determined whether the required relative weight of at least 40 percent was given to the scores in evaluating Respondent, and, ultimately, in recommending that she be terminated. For this reason, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies pursuant to section 1012.34 such that her employment should be terminated. Incompetency Due to Inefficiency As previously noted above, the evidence showed that Respondent consistently and repeatedly was ineffective at addressing the individual learning needs, styles, and levels of her students.12/ She repeatedly failed to employ appropriate instructional strategies and resources to develop lesson plans that include goals, objectives, and activities to address her students' diverse needs. She failed to address her students' academic needs through employing a variety of appropriate instructional strategies and techniques to engage them in the learning process. She consistently used the same instructional materials and techniques to teach students of varying learning styles and levels and did not adequately pace the lessons. She also failed, on a consistent basis, to create and maintain a classroom environment conducive to learning. Her room was disorganized and cluttered, with misspelled words and grammatical errors written on the blackboard. She often was unprepared, so did not efficiently conduct the lessons. She did not establish consistent classroom procedures to address student behavioral issues and keep students on task. As such, Respondent consistently and repeatedly failed to effectively communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that the students were deprived of minimum educational experience. Due to her inefficiency, she was neither able nor fit to discharge her required duties as a teacher.13/ Moreover, the evidence establishes that Respondent failed to perform duties prescribed by law.14/ Section 1012.53(1) provides in pertinent part that the primary duty of instructional personnel is to work diligently and faithfully to help students meet or exceed annual learning goals and to meet state and local achievement requirements. The evidence establishes that due to Respondent's serious, repeated performance deficiencies previously described herein, she did not work diligently and faithfully to, and did not succeed in, helping her students meet or exceed the annual learning goals they were supposed to meet as prescribed by curriculum and lesson plans. Nor did she work diligently and faithfully to help them meet state and local achievement requirements. In fact, Respondent's students' 2012 SAT median percentile scores—— particularly for mathematics, which shows their achievement as much as 34.5 percentile points lower than all first graders in the Miami-Dade County Public School District——stand as strong evidence to this point.15/ The evidence also established that Respondent's teaching practices and classroom were so disorganized that the welfare of her students was diminished.16/ Her lack of organization in teaching caused confusion on the part of her students and instructional time often was wasted. Further, the disorganization and clutter in her classroom made it difficult to locate resources for the lessons. It was apparent at the final hearing that Respondent cares about her students and believes that she is a good teacher. However, Respondent's personal feelings and beliefs do not overcome the strong evidence presented in this case showing that she is not a competent teacher. Petitioner proved that, for the reasons set forth herein, Respondent is incompetent due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056.17/ Accordingly, Petitioner proved that just cause exists under section 1012.33 to terminate Respondent's professional services contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order terminating Respondent's professional services employment contract on the basis of just cause under section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 7th day of January, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Richard L. Gryte holds Florida Teacher's Certificate Number 323641, issued on January 4, 1983, covering the areas of elementary education, early childhood education, emotionally disturbed education and Junior College. Until his resignation on March 13, 1984, Gryte was employed by the Seminole County School Board as a teacher of emotionally handicapped students at the Milwee Middle School located in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. Gryte was initially hired by Douglas Smith, assistant principal at Milwee, in the summer of 1981, to serve as an emotionally handicapped (herein referred to as EH) resource teacher. This was based on Gryte's prior work history, as well as his educational background; including a master's degree in exceptional education. As a resource teacher, Gryte did not have academic responsibilities, but was used as a counselor who would work with students for a period during the day. These students would be assigned to the resource room by their regular classroom teachers, primarily if they had problems regarding behavior. As a teacher involved with emotionally handicapped students, it was necessary for Gryte to prepare forms known as Individual Educational Plans (hereinafter referred to as IEP's). The IEP's were required by Federal and State law and were necessary in order for the school district to obtain funding. From the beginning of his employment and assignment at Milwee Middle School, Gryte had difficulty performing administrative duties regarding documentation and other paperwork. Gryte recognizes that correct documentation is the responsibility of a good teacher, but also acknowledges his weakness in that area. When this problem was brought to the attention of Douglas Smith, assistant principal, he immediately sent memos and spoke with Gryte regarding the problem. During the 1981-82 year, out of the 22 IEP's necessary for Gryte to complete, at least 12 were incomplete or not done. The IEP's that were done were incomplete in that they lacked objectives, goals and other qualitative methods by which to determine the progress of the child. Even as a resource teacher, Gryte failed to prepare lesson plans which were required of all teachers. In fact, Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans for the entire 1981-82 school term, despite being counseled and informed about the necessity of preparing and submitting lesson plans. Overall, Gryte's teaching performance for the 1981-82 school term was not in keeping with minimum standards required of his profession. In addition to the paperwork and other administrative tasks, Gryte had a problem maintaining classroom discipline and control and would violate school rules by leaving the class unattended. During the 1982-83 school term, Mr. Willie G. Holt became the principal at the school. He first became concerned regarding Gryte's performance because of safety concerns he had for student's in Gryte's resource class. Due to the nature of these children and their behavioral problems, it was a policy of the school that children would not be left alone and unattended. Gryte knew of this policy. During the 1982-83 school year, Gryte would periodically leave his class unattended. On two occasions in the spring of 1983, a female student was involved with and performed sexual acts including masturbation and oral sex in the presence of two male students. These acts occurred when Gryte left his class unattended. Gryte recognized that it was wrong to leave the class unattended, but felt he could trust the boys involved and was only gone for a brief period of time. Due to concern for the safety and welfare of the students entrusted to Gryte and because of a need to relieve the previous self-contained teacher, Mr. Holt, school principal, and Mr. Smith, assistant principal in charge of the exceptional education program, decided to place Gryte in the self-contained EH class for the 1983-84 school year. This was thought to be appropriate since the self-contained class had a full-time aide, Betty Manly, who would always be present in the event Gryte would leave the class unattended. Gryte objected to this assignment, but based on his certification and education, he was qualified to be in the self- contained classroom and he was so assigned. Gryte's teaching performance in the self-contained classroom during the 1983-1984 school term was extremely unsatisfactory in all aspects. As in previous years, Gryte was required to submit weekly lesson plans. This was a requirement of all teachers. As in prior years, Gryte was derelict in preparing his lesson plans. From the beginning of the school term until January, 1984, he submitted lesson plans for the first five weeks, but failed to submit any lesson plans thereafter. He next submitted lesson plans for two weeks during the weeks of January 20 and 27, 1984. Thereafter, he did not submit any additional lesson plans until the date of his resignation in March, 1984. The assistant principals, Gordon Hathaway and Douglas Smith, repeatedly instructed Gryte to submit lesson plans timely, but he failed to do so. Even the lesson plans which were submitted were not proper in that they were too generalized and did not serve the proper function. In addition, for the 1983-84 school term, Gryte still had problems completing his IEP's timely and in a proper manner. It was a concern of the school officials that if they were ever audited, they would lose funding. Gryte was counseled by Dr. Daniel Scinto and Dr. Robert Carlton regarding the preparation of IEP's, as well as class management, but little improvement occurred. Gryte's classroom was extremely noisy, unruly and out of control. Dr. Carlton worked with Gryte on several occasions regarding implementation of behavioral management techniques. However, no improvement was noted. The excessive noise from Gryte's classroom was disturbing to the adjoining classes. Mr. Holt started receiving complaints from other teachers. Mrs. Poole indicated that students in her classroom actually complained about the noise from Respondent's class, as did she. The teacher's aide, Betty Manly, observed that Gryte did not assert control. He allowed the students to do as they pleased and demonstrated an apparent lack of classroom control. Gryte himself recognized that there was an excessive amount of noise in his class which was disturbing to other teachers. Some of the noise was due to Gryte's policy of allowing students to use curse words and engage in verbal altercations, which at times led to physical violence. He would permit the students to use "damn", "hell", and other similar curse words. On occasion, fights would break out among the students because Gryte would allow an argument to become too heated and would not assert control. He thought it was necessary for the children to have the freedom to release their anger in this manner. He ultimately hoped to be able to work with the students and this was part of his counseling therapy. Gryte often imposed corporal punishment as a means of discipline with the students. However, he frequently imposed the punishment in violation of State law and School Board policy. The School Board policy, as set forth in the student disciplinary code, requires that all corporal punishment be administered in the presence of another adult and not administered in the presence of other students. On numerous occasions, Gryte paddled a student in the classroom without the presence of another teacher or administrator as a witness and also while in the presence of other students. This practice was against direct orders of the principal. In addition, students were embarrassed by punishment being administered in front of other children. Further, the practice is not appropriate when dealing with any student, but even less so when dealing with emotionally handicapped students. On one occasion, Gryte lined the entire class up for "licks." The noise of the paddling and the student's yelling brought an adjoining teacher to see what had occurred. When she arrived, a student was lying on the floor and his leg was shaking and the student was grimacing and in pain. The teacher advised Gryte not to administer any more punishment, because it was in violation of the school policy. During the first nine weeks of the 1983-84 school year, Gryte failed to provide grades for the students in his class. He was unable to give grades because students had not performed a sufficient amount of work in order for Gryte to evaluate their progress and to assign a competent grade. This was in violation of the school policy as well as the State law, and was upsetting to the administration. The school was required to send blank report cards, with the exception of P.E. grades. Gryte was told to produce his grade book and test papers which had been performed by the students. A review of the grade book showed tests and work had not been required or performed or recorded in order to evaluate the students. What papers were produced by Gryte were not of sufficient quality or quantity to effectively grade the students. The policy of the school was to assign enough work each week to allow the students to receive periodic grades. Gryte recognizes his duty to maintain paperwork and other documentation. He understands this is part of being a competent and effective teacher, even though he would place greater emphasis on the students. Jeanette Burgess was a female student in Gryte's self- contained classroom his last year at Milwee. Gryte had a propensity to touch Jeanette in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner. He would periodically touch her on her face, ears and buttocks. This was embarrassing to Jeanette. On one evening, Gryte called Jeanette's home to speak with her. Her mother, Diana Oliver, answered the phone and inquired as to the nature of the call. Gryte indicated it was a private matter and he needed to speak with Jeanette personally. This offended the mother and she refused to allow him to speak with her daughter and advised him that any matters pertaining to Jeanette in school should be discussed with her. In addition, in the mother's opinion, Gryte had been drinking. She formed this opinion based on slurred speech and other mannerisms. On another occasion, Betty Manly entered the classroom and discovered Gryte standing extremely close to Jeanette and, in Ms. Manly's opinion, touching Jeanette inappropriately. Jeanette was forced back against Ms. Manly's desk and was obviously embarrassed by the situation. Gryte had dismissed the other students to attend P.E. class and was left in the room alone with Jeanette. The situation was upsetting to Jeanette, because she dropped her head and started crying when she was questioned about what had occurred between Gryte and her. Following the telephone incident, Gryte, the principal, and Jeanette's mother had a conference and Gryte was directed not to administer corporal punishment or otherwise touch Jeanette for any reason. Gryte violated this direct order in that he did subsequently administer corporal punishment to Jeanette. Another student in Gryte's self-contained class was a child by the name of Kelly Owens who had self-destructive tendencies and frequently would injure herself. On one occasion, Gryte sent her to the office alone and on the way, she took a piece of glass and cut her wrist and neck, not severely enough to cause death, but enough to result in extensive bleeding. Gryte had been specifically advised not to leave this child unattended. On one occasion, he gave her a pass to leave the school and go to an area known as the "swamp". This is an area off campus where students gather to smoke marijuana and allegedly participate in other similar activities. This occurred after a conference with the child's parents which Gryte attended and in which it was emphasized that the child needed close supervision. On another occasion, Gryte actually left the child in the classroom asleep. This was at the end of the school day. Another teacher came by and found the child sleeping in the class by herself. Gryte indicated he was unaware that Kelly was still in the classroom. In addition to the incident involving the telephone conversation with Jeanette Burgess' mother, Gryte appeared at an open house held on the school campus in the beginning of the 1983-84 school term. It was apparent that Gryte had been drinking. Those teachers present were definitely under the·impression that he had been drinking too much due to his slurred speech and demeanor. When confronted by Mr. Holt, Gryte admitted he had been drinking, but stated he only had one drink prior to the meeting. Based on Gryte's conduct and performance at Milwee, the principal and assistant principal felt he was neither effective nor competent and would not employ Respondent in a teaching position. Respondent recognizes he is not qualified and competent to teach certain areas of his certification. He basically desires to be a counselor and not a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order revoking the teaching certificate of Richard L. Gryte for a period of three years, subject to reinstatement thereafter pursuant to Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: L.Haldane Taylor, Esquire 331 East Union Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard L. Gryte 7703 Meadowglen Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Marlene Greenfield, Administrator Professional Practice Service 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes any specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Petitioner Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-31 are all adopted in substance. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Respondent Respondent filed no Proposed Findings of Fact.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, specifically Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him pursuant to Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Chavero holds a Florida Educator's Certificate that is currently valid. Chavero was employed as a public school teacher in the Dade County School District at all times pertinent to this proceeding. In the 1999-2000 school year, Chavero taught English and math at Braddock. All of his students were enrolled in an Alternative Education Program known as the STARS Program. The STARS Program is offered as a last resort to students who, because of bad behavior, poor grades, or other problems, need extra assistance and attention to remain in school. If a student in the STARS Program fails to perform satisfactorily, he or she may be expelled. Chavero believed that student misconduct and a general lack of discipline at Braddock (and other schools) were preventing pupils from learning and teachers from teaching. Consistent with his pedagogic philosophy, Chavero aspired to teach his students not only the content of a course but also such social skills as proper behavior, dress, and manners. Braddock's Principal, Dr. Donald Hoecherl, disagreed with Chavero's view that behavior and social skills should be taught in the classroom. Principal Hoecherl told Chavero not to teach his students how to conduct themselves in socially acceptable ways. Apparently, the principal's admonition reflected the administration's sensitivity to the perceived "low self-esteem" of students in the STARS Program. Chavero was expected to be flexible and to refrain from confronting students or "coming on too strong" with them. This type of teaching was completely out of character for Chavero. Predictably, he was not able to abandon the authoritarian style that suited his personality and beliefs. As a result, Chavero developed a reputation as a strict disciplinarian — but "nothing out of the ordinary," in the words of V. D., a former student who testified against him at hearing. Transcript ("T-") 49. Indeed, according to this same student, Chavero's classroom rules were "pretty much the same" as other teachers'. T-49. Students began to complain, however, that Chavero was making too frequent use of a form of punishment called an “exclusion.” An exclusion is a temporary in-school suspension that the teacher may impose when a student is disrupting the class. Upon being excluded, the misbehaving student must leave the classroom and spend the remainder of the period in detention at another location. Assistant Principal Jane Garraux investigated the student complaints and concluded that Chavero’s use of the exclusion was excessive. She also determined that most of Chavero’s students (as many as 70 percent) were failing his classes. By comparison, other teachers in the STARS Program were giving passing grades to between 80 and 95 percent of their students. Following her investigation, the assistant principal initiated an evaluation of Chavero in November 1999 that led to the identification of performance deficiencies in the area of classroom control. He was placed on a 90-day performance probation and, as a result, needed to correct the identified deficiencies within that period or face termination of employment. See Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. While on performance probation, Chavero was observed and evaluated several times. In the opinion of his assessors, Chavero’s performance continued to be unsatisfactory. In February 2000, he resigned. 2/ The Commissioner sought to prove that, in the months leading to his resignation, Chavero: (a) refused, on occasion, to answer students’ questions about lessons and assignments; (b) used the exclusion tool excessively, in relation to other teachers in the STARS Program; (c) demanded more from his students in terms of academic performance and classroom decorum than his colleagues were requiring; and (d) became angry and raised his voice in class at times. This is not a proceeding to terminate Chavero’s employment, however, and poor performance does not constitute a basis for discipline under Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes — not, at least, without more than has been shown here. 3/ Therefore, even if all the general deficiencies in Chavero’s performance that the Commissioner attempted to prove at hearing were found to have existed, none amounts to a violation either of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) or of Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. There were, however, two specific occasions on which Chavero allegedly lost his temper and threatened the physical safety of a student or students. Together, these particular instances are the heart of the Commissioner’s case against Chavero and therefore require closer scrutiny. The First Period Incident On January 27, 2000, Chavero gave his first period class a mid-term examination. Near the end of the period, Chavero allowed the students who had completed the test to talk quietly, provided they would not bother the few who were still working. V. D. and J. A., who were sitting together in the back of the room, began conversing with one another. The class soon began to get loud, and Chavero told the students to be quiet. He held up V. D. and J. A. as an example of how he would like the class to behave, saying: "Why can't you guys whisper like J. A. and V. D." The class momentarily calmed down but quickly became noisy again. Chavero began to get angry. He told the students to lower their voices. V. D. continued to talk, and Chavero yelled at her to be quiet. Instead of obeying, V. D. denied that she had been talking loudly, which caused Chavero to yell at her some more. V. D. asked Chavero not to scream at her; he did not stop. At some point during this exchange, V. D. said to Chavero: “What the f*** is your problem?” Enraged, Chavero slammed his fist on a desk and moved quickly toward V. D. Some students, including V. D. and J. A., recall that as Chavero approached V. D., he raised his open hand, palm facing forward, as if to strike her. A number of other students, however, in written statements prepared on January 27, 2000, made no mention of the teacher’s raised hand. For his part, Chavero adamantly denied having raised his hand against V. D. V. D.’s immediate reaction suggests that she was not intimidated or frightened by Chavero’s rapid approach, regardless where his hand was. V. D. testified that she “lost [her] temper,” “got up and . . . exchanged a few words” with Chavero. T-55. More important, it is undisputed that Chavero did not touch V. D. Rather, he returned to his desk at the front of the class to write a “referral” — that is, a written account of V. D.’s misconduct that would be provided to the assistant principal for further handling. V. D. gathered her belongings and left the room. The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chavero intended either to hit V. D. or to cause her unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; that V. D. suffered any physical or emotional injury or felt embarrassed or degraded; or that V. D. was in danger of likely being harmed in Chavero’s classroom on January 27, 2000. As a result, it cannot be said without hesitancy that the conditions in Chavero's classroom that day were harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health or safety. The Third Period Incident R. G. was a student in Chavero’s third period math class. R. G.’s academic performance was extremely poor, and he frequently was excluded for bad behavior. He was defiant and aggressive, openly challenged Chavero’s authority, and, on at least one occasion, threw staples at the teacher. One day — the precise date of this event is not clear, but it apparently occured after January 27, 2000 — R. G. was in Chavero’s class, sitting in the back, not doing his assignment. Because R. G. was refusing to do his schoolwork, Chavero wrote a referral to send him to the assistant principal. R. G. testified that before Chavero wrote the referral, he had insulted R. G. by saying that his (R. G.’s) mother was raising an animal. However, another of Chavero’s former students named F. V., who witnessed this particular incident and testified at hearing on the Commissioner’s behalf, did not hear Chavero make this remark to R. G. Indeed, F. V. testified that he had never heard Chavero make rude or disrespectful comments to his students, nor had he observed Chavero become angry with the class. Chavero denied having insulted R. G., and the evidence supports his denial. After Chavero had filled out the referral, R. G. rose from his seat and approached Chavero’s desk. R. G. reached out to snatch the referral from Chavero’s hand in a manner that, according to F. V., was apparently intended “just to . . . annoy” Chavero. T-93. Specifically, as R. G. grabbed for the referral, he made a feint toward Chavero’s grade book. As F. V. explained, it was well known that Chavero “didn’t like it when people touched [his] grade book.” T-93. In the process, R. G. may have hit Chavero’s hand, although he denied having done so. Reacting to R. G.’s provocative act, Chavero slapped R. G.’s hand away. R. G. was neither injured nor embarrassed by this. Rather, he became angry and began yelling and cursing at Chavero, insulting him. Both R. G. and F. V. recalled that Chavero then said to R. G., “Oh, hit me if you’re a man,” or words to that effect. Chavero, however, testified that his exact statement to R. G. was: “[I]f you try to be physical you’ll get in trouble.” T-124. Chavero was the most credible witness of the three. After Chavero warned R. G. not to become physical, R. G. left the classroom. The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chavero intended either to harm R. G. or to cause him unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; that R. G. suffered any physical or emotional injury or felt embarrassed or degraded; or that R. G. was in danger of likely being hurt in Chavero’s classroom on the day of the third period incident. To the contrary, it appears that R. G.’s aggressive and provocative behavior may have threatened Chavero’s physical safety. Consequently, it cannot be said without hesitancy that the conditions in Chavero's classroom that day were harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health or safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent Armando M. Chavero. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 2001.
