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.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert L. Collins has been employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida as a teacher for the last twenty-four years and is on continuing contract. For approximately the last seven of those years, Respondent has been teaching Industrial Arts at Miami Killian Senior High School. Between late September 1983, and November 23, 1983, Jonathan Wright was a student in Respondent's Plastics class. On November 23, 1983, Wright came into Respondent's Plastics class wearing a hat, which is against school rules. Respondent directed Wright to remove his hat which he did. Later in that same class Respondent saw Wright sitting by the engraver again wearing that hat. Respondent removed the hat from Wright's head and advised Wright that if he put the hat on another time Respondent would send him to the principal's office. At approximately 5 minutes before the end of the class period, Respondent instructed the students that it was time to clean up the shop area. Wright and some of the other students began gathering at the door. Respondent motioned to those students to come back into the classroom and away from the door, which some of them did. Wright, however, did not. Respondent then specifically directed Wright to get away from the door. Instead of obeying, Wright put up a hand and a foot in a karate type posture but clearly in a playful manner. As a normal reaction in the context of the situation, Respondent did likewise. Respondent then turned back toward the class at which time Wright grabbed him by the legs and pulled him down to the floor. Respondent and Wright were rolling around on the floor in a small alcove area, and Respondent was unable to get loose from Wright's grip. Respondent was afraid that he, Wright, or the other students might be severely injured in the small alcove by the door or on some of the machinery located in the Plastics shop classroom. Unable to free himself, Respondent bit Wright on the back. Wright released Respondent and got up off the floor. After the bell rang, Wright left the classroom. Wright was transferred to the Plastics class of teacher Gerald Krotenberg where he remained for the rest of the school year. On several occasions Krotenberg was required to admonish Wright because Wright often resorted to "horse play" with other students. On occasion Wright would come into the classroom and would "bear hug" the girls, "jostle" the boys, and be disruptive so that Krotenberg could not take attendance or conduct the class. Although Krotenberg followed his normal technique of chastising the student in public, and then chastising the student in private, those techniques did not work and Krotenberg was required to exclude Wright from class on probably two occasions, for two days each, due to Wright's inappropriate behavior with other students. During the two months that Wright was in Respondent's class, Wright had come up behind Respondent on one or two occasions and lightly put his arms around Respondent in the nature of a bear hug. Respondent counseled Wright that that was not appropriate behavior. The only touching of Wright that was initiated by Respondent himself occurred in the form of Respondent placing his hand on Wright's shoulder while discussing a project being worked on at the moment or perhaps a light slap on the back in the nature of encouragement or praise for a job well done. Not all teachers, however, agree that it is appropriate to occasionally give a student an encouraging pat on the back. Although Wright had on one or two occasions given Respondent a playful hug and although Respondent had on several occasions given Wright an encouraging pat on the back or touch on his shoulder, no physical combat ever occurred between them. Although Wright often engaged in "horse play" with other students, no "horse play" occurred between Wright and Respondent. None of Respondent's annual evaluations during the years he has been teaching in the Dade County public School, including the annual evaluation for the the 1983-1984 school year, indicates that Respondent has had any problems with either maintaining good discipline in his classes or that Respondent is anything other than acceptable in the area of classroom management.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reversing Respondent's suspension, reinstating him if necessary, and reimbursing him for back pay-if he was suspended without pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Robertson, Esquire 111 SW Third Street Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Michael D. Ray, Esquire 7630 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 202 Miami, Florida 33138 Phyllis 0. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
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 The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's certification as a teacher in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner was the official responsible for the certification of teachers and educational professionals in this state. The Respondent was certified as a teacher in Florida by certificate No. 615085, covering the areas of guidance, physical education and health education, and which is valid through June 30, 1993. During the 1990 - 1991 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher of exceptional education math and social studies at Charles R. Drew Middle School, a school under the administration of the School Board of Dade County. Respondent has taught for between 11 and 12 years and took the course in crisis prevention and intervention offered by the National Crisis Preventon Institute in 1988. In September, October and November, 1991, Respondent was teacing exceptional math and social science to classes of between 4 and 7 students, all of whom were classified as either educable mentally handicapped, learning disabled, or emotionally handicapped. He had neither teaching aides nor assistants. In order to keep the class size small, the instructors in these classes were required to forego their planning period and spend that period in the classroom setting. On or about September 26, 1991, between the 4th and 5th class periods, Respondent was standing out in the hallway of the school, positioned in such a way that he could monitor the students' behavior in the hall as well as in his classroom. He heard a confrontation arise between K.G., a minor male student, and M.B., a minor female student. He went into the room and saw the two students screaming at and hitting each other. Though he told them to quiet down, they did not do so and he stepped in and broke up the fight, sending each student to his/her respective seat. Since their seats were near to each other in the back of the room, he removed K.G. to the front to the room to put as much distance between them as was possible. The two students still continued their verbal assaults on each other regardless of his efforts so he again stepped in and settled them down. Having determined that the argument arose out of M.B.'s accidentally stepping on K.G.'s sore foot, he advised K.G. that hitting was no basis for settling any dispute. K.G. allegedly responded that he hit anyone he wanted at any time. As Respondent subsequently crossed the room, he accidentally bumped K.G's foot which, he claims, K.G. shoved out in front of him. When he did, K.G. came out of his chair, struck Respondent twice in the stomach, and kicked him in the shin. K.G., who was not present to testify, claimed that Respondent intentionally stepped on his foot. This evidence is hearsay and no other direct evidence on the matter was offered. It is found, therefore, that if Respondent did come in contact with K.G.'s foot, the contact was accidental and not intentional. Regardless of the prompting, there is little question that K.G. struck the Respondent in the stomach and when he did, Respondent, applying the techniques for crisis prevention and intervention he had been taught, took K.G. to the floor with his arm behind him and sent another student for security. As a result of this altercation, K.G. was not injured at all but Respondent had to see a doctor for the blows to the stomach and the kick to the shins. He was given two days off from work to recuperate and offered more if he needed it. From that point on, K.G., who within two weeks of the incident, handed Respondent a letter of apology, was one of the best behaved students in the class. In addition, he was one of the two students who gave Respondent a Christmas present that year. He was subsequently removed from Respondent's class and from the school, but that departure was voluntary and had nothing to do with the altercation described above. When the matter was reported to Ms. Annunziata, the school board's Director of Professional Standards, she decided that an administrative review of the incident was sufficient action. The memorandum of understanding between Respondent and the school principal, Ms. Grimsley, regarding the incident, referred him to procedures for handling student discipline and commented on the need to use sound judgement and call school security before a situation escalated into a physical confrontation between the teacher and a student. Less than a month later, on October 15, 1991, Respondent was putting some information on the blackboard during class when another student, A.C. came up and stood beside him close enough to interfere with his work. He moved to another section of the board, and noting that A.C. had a toothpick in his mouth, directed him to resume his seat and remove the toothpick. A.C. did as he was told, but immediately came back up and stood beside the Respondent with another toothpick in his mouth. Again Respondent directed the student to sit down and take the toothpick out of his mouth, and the student did as told. However, he shortly again came up to stand near Respondent at the board with a toothpick in his mouth, so close as to cause concern in Respondent for the safety of his eye. Having already told the student to sit down and remove the toothpick twice without lasting success, Respondent reached over and took the tooth pick out of the student's mouth. A.C. claims that in doing so, Respondent grabbed his lips, but this is doubtful. The other student called to testify about this incident was not clear on details and it is found that while Respondent removed the toothpick from A.C.'s mouth, he did not grab the student's lips. In any case, however, the student reacted violently. Respondent again told the student to sit down but he refused and shouted he was leaving. Respondent asked another student to go for security since there was neither an intercom system nor a workable phone in the room, but no one did. A.C. started out of the room and on his way, veered over to where the Respondent stood and struck him in the rib cage with his elbow. At this Respondent, again using the CPI techniques he had been taught, took A.C. down to the floor and, holding the student's arms behind his back, opened the door and called for help. A teacher from another classroom came into the room and took A.C. to the school office. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Grimsley, the Principal, heard a teacher trying to calm A.C. down after what she was told was an incident with the Respondent. In her discussion with the student he told her that Respondent had hit him in the mouth, thrown him to the floor, and pulled his arm up behind his back. An investigation into this incident was reportedly conducted by the school administration. Thereafter, a conference was held in the Dade County Schools' Office of Professional Standards, attended by Respondent; Ms. Grimsley; Ms. Menendez, Coordinating Principal; the Union representative; and Ms. Annunziata, Director of the Office of Professional Standards, to discuss, inter alia, this alleged battery and Board policies and rules regarding discipline. A copy of the report was given the Respondent and he was afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations. He denied using intentional restraint on A.C., and when asked why he had not called security, pointed out that all prior efforts to seek security assistance were met with no response. Thereafter, on February 26, 1991, he was administered a letter of reprimand by Ms. Grimsley. This reprimand indicated he had violated the provisions of the teacher contract as well as the School Board Rules and that he was being rated as unacceptable in Category VII, Professional Responsibilities, of the TADS. Neither the memo of the conference nor the letter of reprimand reflect any specific findings of fact regarding the incident. Only the conclusion that Respondent inappropriately disciplined a student is listed as a reason for the reprimand. Respondent accepted the Reprimand on March 1, 1991 without exception. A.C.'s disciplinary record for the months of the pertinent school year prior to the incident in question, maintained by school authorities, reflects that on September 5, 1990, he was the subject of a parent conference because of his general disruptive conduct and his defiance of school authority. On September 19, 1990 he was found guilty of fighting; on October 11, 1990, reprimanded for general disruptive conduct; on October 23, 1990, reprimanded for defiance of school authority; and on October 30, 1990, suspended for the use of provocative language. This is not the picture of a young man who would reasonably feel mistreated by a teacher who stood up to him. Respondent continuously maintains he did not initiate any physical contact with the student nor did he intend to use physical restraint. He made that clear at the conference in early February. Yet he was apparently not believed though the student's disciplinary record would tend to support Respondent's recollection of the incident. Dade County Schools prohibit the use of corporal punishment and allows restraint only for the protection of students or teachers. The application of these guidelines must be effected with common sense and a recognition of the empirics of the situation, however. Under the circumstances Respondent's actions do not appear inappropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter be dismissed. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of June, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0176 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. First two sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence rejected as not supported by competent evidence of record. 7. Rejected as argument and contra to the weight of the evidence. 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence. In an interview with Mr. Kerr after this incident, as per her testimony at hearing, Ms. Grimsley related that he indicated he asked K.G. what he would do if he, Kerr, stepped on K.G.'s foot. When she indicated she thought to challenge a student like that was an error in judgement, he agreed, but at no time did he indicate he had stepped on K.G.'s foot. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein except that the incident was repeated three times before Mr. Kerr removed the toothpick from A.C.'s mouth. Accepted and incorporated herein with the modification that A.C. was standing very close to Respondent at the time the toothpick was removed and was not in his seat. & 18. Accepted in part. The better evidence indicates that A.C. left the room only after assaulting Mr. Kerr by hitting him in the stomach. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted in part. An inquiry was made, but only the ultimate conclusion was presented to the Hearing Officer. Neither the report of investigation nor specific findings of fact were presented. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as Ms. Annunziata's opinion. The policy was not introduced into evidence. All cases of physical contact might well not constitute a violation. Accepted. This was not found to have happened, however. For the Respondent: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but what was in the Respondent's mind - his purpose - is unknown. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. A.C.'s partial disciplinary record has been incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Du Fresne, Esquire 2929 SW Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 George A. Bowen, Acting Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following pertinent facts are found: Respondent Wieland has been employed with the Broward County school system for approximately twenty-three years. In the school year 1973/74, he held the position of Director of Exceptional Child Education. His immediate superior was the Program Director of Educational Services, Mr. Larry I. Walden, a member of the superintendent's staff. Dr. James R. Fisher served as Director of Psychological Services on Dr. Wieland's Exceptional Child Education staff. During the 1973/74 school year, several rather drastic changes were occurring with regard to the administration of the exceptional child education program. This was the year of decentralization in Broward County, where concepts of authority, decision-making, accountability and responsibility were filtering down to the building or school levels through the various principals. Also, the Florida Educational Financial Program began in that year. This program related to state funding for students based upon a particular weight factor assigned for students in different programs. The cost factors for programs for exceptional students is considerably higher than for basic programs. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, the actual responsibility for placement of children and implementation of programs resided with the principals of the individual schools. The role of the Exceptional Child Education staff was then reduced to one of consultation, advice and administration. Prior to decentralization, psychological testing was conducted under the direction or supervision of the Exceptional Student Education Department at the Diagnostic Center. With decentralization, testing psychologists became a part of the staff of the area offices and were answerable to their respective area superintendents. With this change, they were repeatedly instructed that their functions were consultative and that they were simply to test students upon receipt of a request from a school's principal. Beginning with the 1973/74 school year, school psychologists, as well as the then Director of Psychological Services, were constantly concerned with the pressures being placed upon them by the school principals and area superintendents to rapidly test and certify students for eligibility in the various exceptional education programs. A count of such eligible students was to be made in October and February of each school year. The results of such counts had a tremendous effect upon the school principal's budget. Many school psychologists felt that students were being placed in programs without sufficient diagnosis or data. This, along with inadequate personnel, was a constant topic of discussion both among school psychologists and at meetings on the staff level. Mr. Walden, respondent's immediate superior, was informed by Dr. Fisher of files containing insufficient data and other procedural irregularities. Mr. Walden also attended some of the staff meetings at which various problems were discussed. No specific problems at Horizon Elementary School were discussed between Fisher and respondent Wieland during the 1973/74 school year. In fact, Dr. Fisher was unaware of any discrepancies or procedural irregularities at Horizon during that year. Conditions did not improve during the 1974/75 school year, according to various school psychologists and the exceptional education staff. They still felt pressure to rapidly identify eligible students for exceptional education programs in order to generate funding and they still felt there was inadequate staffing for psychological services. During this year, Mr. Joel Kieter assumed respondent's position of Director of the Exceptional Education Program and respondent became Coordinator of Special Services, formerly called Psychological Services. Thus, Mr. Kieter was respondent's immediate superior. During this year, Mr. Kieter's office had no direct role in the certification of students for the various exceptional education programs. The 1974 "District Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students" specifically provided that: "In the process of decentralization the exceptional student personnel at the district level have been relieved of direct responsibility for administration and instruction. The respon- sibilities of such personnel are now consultative and advisory in nature. The primary responsibility for administration and instruction is at the building level." However, Mr. Kieter's staff did attempt to give guidance to school psychologists and administrative personnel regarding the criteria for placement and the required procedures to be followed. Among the duties of respondent Wieland during the 1974/75 school year was direct responsibility for the Diagnostic Center, which was a repository for some 35,000 to 40,000 student files. School psychologists were instructed to obtain a case number from the Diagnostic Center for all new student files and to send a copy of the completed file to the Center. At one time, they were told that they could retain the folders as long as they thought the case was active. Student files were also to be kept at the student's school and in the area superintendents' offices. Inasmuch as the school psychologists were accountable to the area superintendents, the Center and its staff had no authority and could do little more than request them to promptly forward the files to the Center. At times, staff at the Diagnostic Center would return files for parental consent forms. Numerous staff meetings were held by Director Kieter during the 1974/75 school year. During these meetings, the school psychologists complained of their heavy caseload, the lack of secretarial help and other staff, pressures placed upon them by principals and area superintendents to place children in programs, inappropriate testing and lost or misplaced files. These were general discussions and specific incidents were not related. Dr. James Fisher, who was the team leader for psychologists in the North-Central area, had general discussions with both Dr. Wieland, Director Kieter, and even Mr. Walden concerning the pressure he felt with regard to the rapid testing of children and the inadequacy of data in the files of children who had already been placed. Dr. Fisher expressed to them his fear that emphasis was being placed upon the filling of classes, rather than upon the individual students. During the school year 1975/76, respondent again occupied the position of Coordinator of Special Services and Joel Kieter was again the Director of the Exceptional Education Program. The building principal of the referring school or the school enrolling the student was directly responsible for placement in the appropriate exceptional student program. ("1975 District Procedures for providing special Education for Exceptional Students," p. 199, H(2)(c) and p. 3). The exceptional student education staff was responsible for the determination of eligibility of individual students (p. 3 of the 1975 District Procedures). This determination was to be based upon the report of the testing psychologist. In the first portion of the 1975/76 school year, Director Kieter signed the eligibility determination forms (also referred to as the B-1 form). This responsibility was delegated by Mr. Kieter to respondent Wieland in mid- December, 1975. Prior to this delegation, Mr. Kieter occasionally signatured some B-1 forms without having seen the psychological report. This was done because of a backlog in clerical assistance and processing, and to expedite the procedure. Mr. Kieter was assured by the school psychologists that if the B-1 form had been sent to him for execution, proper testing had been completed, the report was in the process of being written and the data was available. Simultaneous with the time that the authority to sign B-1 forms was delegated to Dr. Wieland, Mr. Kieter issued a memorandum to all school psychologists stating that B-1 forms without the completed psychological report attached thereto would no longer be entertained. In the Fall of 1975, Mr. Fisher communicated with Director Kieter concerning the absence of certain psychological data in the files of some ten to twelve students at Horizon Elementary School. Mr. Kieter instructed Mr. Fisher to make up any deficiencies in those folders. Mr. Kieter also discussed the folders with the principal of Horizon, Mr. Wallsworth. Other than this incidence, Director Kieter was not informed of any specific irregularities or abuses in the exceptional education program at Horizon during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. John Georgacopoulos worked in the Diagnostic Center as a psychometrist from 1969 to 1971, and at Horizon Elementary School as a guidance counselor in the school years 1974/75 and 1975/76. As a guidance counselor, he attended "staffings" or meetings with school psychologists pertaining to the placement of students in the various programs. He was also involved with the testing of students at Horizon. In the school year 1974/75 -- his first year at Horizon -- Mr. Georgacopoulos perceived that there were problems in the running of Horizon's exceptional student program. These problems included the misclassification of students, the placing of students into programs without certification and without proper testing, the nonexistence of programs for which children were certified and mimeographed certifications with the students' name placed thereon at a later time. Mr. Georgacopoulos informed Horizon's principal, Mr. Wallsworth, of these irregularities on numerous occasions during the 1974/75 school year. He also states that he discussed these problems with Mr. Fisher, Director Kieter and respondent Wieland. Both Dr. Wieland and Mr. Kieter denied being informed by Mr. Georgacopoulos of any irregularities at Horizon during the 1974/75 school year. According to Mr. Georgacopoulos, problems at Horizon continued in the 1975/76 school year. These included the misplacement of children, improper or inadequate testing of students, nonexistence of programs, inadequate data in student files and the lifting of signatures onto psychological reports. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos obtained from Mr. Wallsworth's office a computer printout of students funded for the various exceptional education programs at Horizon. He then checked the files of these students both at the Diagnostic Center and at Horizon and found that many did not have case numbers assigned to them, that many contained inadequate or no data and that, for some students, files did not exist at all either at the school or the Center. In March of 1976, Georgacopoulos went to respondent's office and talked to respondent about the alleged irregularities existing at Horizon. It is difficult to discern from Georgacopoulos' testimony what specifics were related to respondent. It appears that Wieland was informed that children were certified as gifted when no gifted program existed at Horizon, that children were being placed in the wrong programs, that children were being placed without appropriate or adequate testing and that the information in the student files was inadequate. At the time of this discussion, respondent had a difficult time following Georgacopoulos' conversation. He appeared to respondent to ramble and to be upset and confused. Respondent felt that Georgacopoulos simply disagreed with the psychologists' reports as well as the contents of the gifted program. As a result of this conversation, respondent told Georgacopoulos that some information might be in the files at the Diagnostic Center and offered him the opportunity to check these files with the assistance of his staff. Georgacopoulos told respondent that he had discussed these irregularities with Principal Wallsworth. On May 27, 1976, Robert Lieberman, a school psychologist at Horizon, went to respondent's office and told him of irregularities that existed at Horizon. These included the lack of programs for gifted and emotionally disturbed students, the misplacement of certified children, inappropriate "staffing" of children, inappropriate and/or inadequate testing before placement and the pressures placed upon school psychologists to test and place numerous students within a short amount of time. Lieberman was concerned that he would lose his job at Horizon and Respondent told him to try to finish out the school year without sacrificing his professionalism. Dr. Wieland also offered to help him get an interview for a job at the county level. Sometime between May 27th and June 9, 1976, Ms. Queen Sampson, a school psychologist from the area office, talked to respondent and confirmed the statements made by Georgacopoulos and Lieberman. On June 9, 1976, respondent again discussed the irregularities at Horizon with Mr. Georgacopoulos. During this conference, Mr. Georgacopoulos specifically placed the blame upon Principal Wallsworth and he was more emphatic and specific in his allegations concerning the irregularities. He also mentioned the falsification of psychological reports via the "lifting" of signatures, and stated that this had come to his attention in May of 1976. Respondent was aware at this June 9, 1976, meeting that Mr. Georgacopoulos was leaving the Broward County school system. Mr. Georgacopoulos testified that he had discussed specific irregularities at Horizon with Director Joel Kieter during the 1975/76 school year. Mr. Kieter denied that there had been any such discussions and testified that he had never even met Mr. Georgacopoulos prior to June 9, 1976. About an hour after talking to Mr. Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, respondent Wieland went to the office of William T. McFatter, Assistant to the Superintendent. He related that Georgacopoulos had made serious allegations against Mr. Wallsworth and asked for McFatter's advice. Mr. McFatter remembers that respondent mentioned the possibility of double funding and the qualification of students for the gifted program at Horizon. McFatter advised respondent to go straight to superintendent Mauer with the allegations. McFatter and respondent then went to the superintendent's office and a brief ten to fifteen minute meeting ensued. This was the last day of the school year for students and the superintendent was quite busy at this time. The possibility of double funding was an explosive issue to the Superintendent and this is the only irregularity he recalls having been mentioned by respondent on June 9, 1976. The superintendent immediately called a Mr. Cox, who deals with pupil accounting, and related to him his concern with double funding of students in the exceptional education program. Mr. McFatter, Mr. Mauer and respondent then went to the office of Mr. Cox and respondent Wieland was assigned the task of determining the existence or nonexistence of double funding. None was found and respondent so reported to Mr. Mauer. Subsequently, respondent and two other persons were assigned the task of auditing the records of the exceptional student program at Horizon. The auditors were unable to verify either the existence or nonexistence of certain records, forms and psychological reports for many students. It was clear that many files were incomplete and there was no evidence that either the gifted or emotionally disturbed programs existed at Horizon. Respondent Wieland explained the delay between the first March 1976, meeting with Mr. Georgacopoulos and his June 9, 1976, report to Mr. McFatter and the Superintendent as follows. Respondent (as well as others) classified Georgacopoulos as a "child advocate," and respondent felt at the March meeting that Georgacopoulos was merely expressing his disagreement with psychological reports and the contents of certain existing programs. During the March meeting, his allegations were general in nature and his discussion of irregularities appeared to ramble and be confusing. Respondent was more concerned with the demeanor of Georgacopoulos than with what he was saying. When Mr. Lieberman related similar and more specific irregularities, which were thereafter confirmed by Queen Sampson, respondent felt that disclosure of Lieberman's and Sampson's statements would be detrimental to their future employment with the school system. Upon confirming that Georgacopoulos was leaving the school system, respondent felt that the charges could be attributed to Georgacopoulos without injury to Lieberman and Sampson. He therefore had another conference with Georgacopoulos on June 9, 1976, and decided to seek advice from the Assistant to the Superintendent, Mr. McFatter. Various other events have transpired since June 9, 1976, concerning Horizon Elementary School exceptional education program irregularities. These include a letter from Mr. Georgacopoulos to the Superintendent, which letter appears to have instigated an investigation by the Security Office or the Internal Affairs Division. Such later events are not deemed relevant to the present charges against respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent be immediately reinstated to his former position and that any back salary be paid to him for the reason that the charges against him were not sustained by the evidence. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: School Board of Broward County 1327 S.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida John B. Di Chiara DiGiulian, Spellacy, Bernstein, Lyons and Sanders Suite 1500, One Financial Plaza Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Robert M. Curtis Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore P.O. Drawer 4078 1750 East Sunrise Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338
The Issue The issue presented is whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At the time the Administrative Complaint was filed in this case, Mr. Tullos held Florida teaching certificate number 165642, covering the areas of administration and physical education, which was to expire in June 1995. 2/ At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Tullos was employed as an assistant principal of student services at Glades Central High School ("Glades Central") in the Palm Beach County School District. He was employed pursuant to a three-year contract commencing in July 1990 and terminating in July 1993. 3/ Mr. Tullos has been employed since 1965 at what is now known as Glades Central, where he served as dean of boys until the title was changed to assistant principal some twelve years ago. He received appreciation awards for his work with students at Glades Central every year from 1987 through May 1991. Mr. Tullos has had regular contact with female students for many years in his positions as dean of boys and assistant principal of student services. In September 1991, Calvin Taylor issued a "Warning Letter" to Mr. Tullos expressing concerns about his behavior with students. At the time, Mr. Taylor was assistant superintendent for personnel relations with the Palm Beach County School Board. The letter was issued following an informal hearing regarding complaints from several students. These complaints were basically the same as those which are the subject of the instant proceeding. Mr. Taylor's role was to hear the evidence and determine what type of discipline to recommend to the school superintendent. Upon consideration of the evidence presented by the school board investigator and by Mr. Tullos, Mr. Taylor recommended that the appropriate discipline was the issuance of the "Warning Letter." In the letter, Mr. Tullos was admonished to "[b]e very careful about the manner in which you touch and associate with students." In May 1992, Mr. Tullos received an "At Expectation" performance evaluation from Dr. Effie C. Grear, principal of Glades Central. During the 1992-1993 school year, Mr. Tullos was one of three assistant principals at Glades Central and was assigned to work with all ninth-grade students. Lois Lewis and Willie McDonald, the other two assistant principals, were assigned to work with all tenth-grade and one-half of the eleventh-grade students and with all twelfth-grade and one-half of the eleventh-grade students, respectively. Mr. Tullos's duties included student discipline, monitoring the halls and cafeterias, loading and unloading students on the school buses, issuing passes, making arrangements for medical care for students injured on campus and contacting the parents, making arrangements to have unruly students removed from campus, and performing teacher evaluations. Each school day, Mr. Tullos monitored the cafeteria during breakfast. When the bell rang for first period, he, Ms. Lewis, and another school administrator monitored the halls and wrote late passes for students who were tardy. Mr. Tullos wrote a pass for any student who approached him, regardless of grade level. Once the halls cleared, Mr. Tullos usually returned to his office, where he wrote passes for other late students who came to his office and worked on discipline referrals. Mr. Tullos and Ms. Lewis also monitored the cafeteria during the two lunch periods. For most of his work day, Mr. Tullos worked in his office on student discipline referrals, averaging fifty to sixty per week. Discipline referrals are made by teachers, who complete a form giving an explanation of the disciplinary problem with a particular student; the form is normally given to the student who is the subject of the referral, who must take it to the assistant principal assigned to work with the students of his or her grade. Sometimes, teachers ask a student to take a discipline referral form to the office even though that student is not the subject of the referral. Mr. Tullos conducted a conference with the students and/or parents for all referrals within his jurisdiction. Student W. K. 4/ W. K. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. She was often in trouble at school during that year and had many discipline referrals. Since she was in the ninth grade, she took the referrals to Mr. Tullos, so she came into frequent contact with him. One day, after she had been repeatedly late to one particular class, she and another student, S. S., were sent to Mr. Tullos's office with discipline referrals. When W. K. was alone with Mr. Tullos in his office, he commented on her legs, saying something to the effect that she had "fine" legs or that her "fine" legs could carry her to class on time, and he told her that she shouldn't be late to class. She thought nothing of the remark about her legs because she had known Mr. Tullos in the community since she was a child and had known him as a nice man. On two other occasions when she was in his office with discipline referrals, Mr. Tullos told her that he would "smooch" her if she got another referral. She understood this to mean that he would kiss her, but, again, she thought nothing of the remark because she did not take it in a negative way. She thought that being kissed by Mr. Tullos would be disgusting and that he was threatening to kiss her so she would not get into trouble again. W. K. had heard other girls talk about Tullos but she never saw him do the things they described. She also heard around school that girls who took discipline referrals to Tullos wouldn't get in trouble. W. K. did not take offense at Mr. Tullos's comment about her legs or his threats to smooch her, but she did think that this behavior was not appropriate for a school administrator. Although she talked about the incidents to all her friends at school, she did not go to anyone in authority to complain. At some point during the 1992-1993 school year, Ms. Lewis, the assistant principal in charge of the tenth- and part of the eleventh-grade students, called her in and asked her about the incidents with Mr. Tullos and asked if she knew any other students who had similar experiences. Shortly after she spoke with Ms. Lewis, she was called into the office of LaVoise Smith, the guidance coordinator at Glades Central, where she told Ms. Smith about the incidents. Student S. S. S. S. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. She now attends the Choice school, which is in the Palm Beach County School District. As noted in paragraph 11 above, S. S. was the student who was sent with W. K. to Mr. Tullos's office with discipline referrals for being repeatedly late to one class. According to S. S., when she and W. K. were both in Mr. Tullos's office, he told them that they had pretty legs and were pretty girls. She could not, however, remember his exact words. She felt uncomfortable when he commented on her legs because she had heard other girls talk about Mr. Tullos and the things he would say to them. On another occasion, a teacher asked S. S. to take a discipline referral on another student to Mr. Tullos's office. When she entered his office, he glanced at the form in her hand and told her that, if the referral was for her, he would have to "smooch" her to make her do better. As S. S. was leaving Mr. Tullos's office, Mr. Tullos was leaving as well. S. S. went out of the door first, and Mr. Tullos stopped her by touching the top of her shoulder. When she turned around, his hand dropped to brush the top of her breast. She is not certain that he deliberately dropped his hand from her shoulder. Several times when Mr. Tullos saw S. S. with her boyfriend, he would tell the boyfriend to "leave that girl alone" or something to that effect. Even though he made these remarks in a joking manner, S. S. felt uncomfortable. In fact, she felt uncomfortable "every time he said something." In yet another incident, S. S. and Mr. Tullos were standing in the hallway outside his office when Mr. Tullos told her that her boyfriend was no good for her and that she should give all her "good loving" to him. After this last incident, S. S. and some of her friends discussed their experiences with Mr. Tullos. They decided that someone had to go to the office and report Mr. Tullos's behavior. Shortly after one of the girls reported Mr. Tullos to Ms. Smith, S. S. was called into Ms. Smith's office and interviewed. Student Y. J. Y. J. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. Sometime around Christmas, Y. J. was in the cafeteria at lunchtime and asked Mr. Tullos for a quarter. He responded by asking what she would give him in return. She did not know what he meant by this remark, but it made her feel uncomfortable. On another occasion, Mr. Tullos had scheduled a conference with Y. J.'s mother to discuss a discipline referral. Y. J. forgot to tell her mother about the conference, and she used the telephone in Mr. Tullos's office to call her. Y. J. was wearing a low-cut v-necked shirt and a necklace which hung in the cleavage of her breasts. While she was on the telephone, Mr. Tullos commented that the necklace was "a pretty charm," and he reached over and picked the necklace up. As he did so, his hand "slightly" brushed her breast. She was alone with Mr. Tullos in his office, and he was sitting behind the desk while she was standing on the side of the desk. Y. J. does not know if he touched her breast intentionally, and she did not report the incident to school authorities. Sometime around Easter, Y. J. took a discipline referral to Mr. Tullos. They were alone in his office. He asked her when she was going stop giving her "loving to the guys and give him some." This made Y. J. so uncomfortable that she reported the incident to Ms. Lewis either the same day or the next day. After this last incident, but before she went to Ms. Lewis, she talked with a group of her friends about Mr. Tullos's behavior. Several of the girls claimed to have had similar experiences with Mr. Tullos, and some of them said that they blackmailed Mr. Tullos into giving them what they wanted by threatening to tell the administration about his behavior. Up until this time, however, none of the girls had reported Mr. Tullos. When Y. J. said she was going to go to Ms. Lewis to complain, several of the other girls said they would complain also. Y. J. spoke with Ms. Lewis, who sent her to Ms. Smith, the school's guidance coordinator. Y. J. gave Ms. Smith the names of the other girls she knew who had encounters with Mr. Tullos, and they were called in to talk with Ms. Smith. Student T. S. T. S. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. She knew Mr. Tullos because teachers would ask her to take discipline referrals regarding other students to him and because she would ask him for a late pass if he was the first dean she saw in the hall. On several occasions during the 1992-1993 school year, when T. S. approached Mr. Tullos in the hall to obtain a late pass, Mr. Tullos made her wait until last, when there were not many people in the hallways. He then made remarks to her which made her feel uncomfortable, such as telling her after spring break that he missed her, telling her that he was jealous because he saw her hugging a boy (her cousin) in the hall, and telling her that she had to give him a kiss in order to get a late pass. She did not think he was joking about giving him a kiss because he said it on several different occasions. These remarks made her feel very uncomfortable. On "about" four occasions, when she approached him in the hall to obtain a late pass and he made her wait until last, Mr. Tullos hugged her. She felt very uncomfortable because these were not "ordinary" hugs like other teachers gave; rather, "[w]hen he grabbed me he just rubbed." On yet another occasion, a teacher asked T. S. to take a discipline referral regarding another student to Mr. Tullos. She took the referral to his office, and he told her to close the door. She felt that this was not necessary, and she gave him the referral and left his office. T. S. did not discuss her experiences with Mr. Tullos with her girl friends at school, nor did she personally report him. She eventually told her mother, who called the school to report Mr. Tullos's behavior. Student N. B. N. B. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. Sometime during that year, N. B. went to Mr. Tullos's office with a discipline referral. She has a lot of jewelry and was wearing several necklaces on that day. He was sitting behind his desk, and she was standing across from him, in front of the desk. Mr. Tullos asked N. B. to give him one of her necklaces, and she told him no. He then asked if she would give him "something else," and reached over the desk as if to grab one of the necklaces. N. B. had heard that Mr. Tullos got "fresh" with girls, and she stepped back and left his office. N. B. went directly to Ms. Lewis's office and told her about this last incident. Afterwards, she talked with Ms. Smith. N. B. did not discuss the incident with her girl friends until after she had spoken with Ms. Lewis. Student T. F. T. F. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. Sometime during that school year, T. F. had a "stop order" issued against her because she had missed detention. In order to go back to class, she had to obtain a pass from Mr. Tullos, which she would take to each of her teachers. She went to Mr. Tullos's office, and, when she asked for the pass, he asked her what she would give him. T. F. took this as a "sexual gesture" because of the way he said it and the way he looked at her; she did not respond. Mr. Tullos then called her aunt for an explanation of why she missed detention and gave her the pass. During the incident, she and Mr. Tullos were alone in his office. On another occasion, Mr. Tullos caught N. B. cutting into the lunch line. He pulled her out of the line and took her ten to twenty feet away from the line. He remarked that her boyfriend must be teaching her to do "stuff like that" and told her that she wasn't supposed to have any boyfriend but him. He also asked if she would go out to dinner with him and if she was ashamed to ride in his truck. He did not specify a date or time for dinner but asked if she liked Red Lobster. She turned down the invitation and walked away. During this exchange, T. F. and Mr. Tullos were standing in the cafeteria, which was packed at the time with students eating lunch. Although Mr. Tullos was not whispering to her, he was not talking loudly, either. On another occasion, she and a girl friend were in the hall, and they asked Mr. Tullos for a quarter so they could use the telephone. He responded by asking what they were going to give him in return. They told him to keep his quarter and borrowed a quarter from a friend. T. F. had heard from other students about Mr. Tullos's behavior, but she decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. A few weeks after the incident involving T. F. related in paragraph 39 above, the incident described in paragraph 26 above occurred between her friend, Y. J., and Mr. Tullos. After she heard about this, T. F. told her aunt and Y. J. about her encounters with Mr. Tullos. She and Y. J. talked it over and decided to talk with Ms. Lewis. Student M. R. M. R. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. M. R. was late for class many times. On one occasion during the second half of the school year, she approached Mr. Tullos for a late pass. He told her that he would give her an "unexcused" pass but that, if she gave him a hug, he would give her an "excused" pass. She refused to give him a hug, and he gave her an "unexcused" pass. She did not think anything of this incident; she just took her pass and went to class. 5/ M. R. did not report the incident, but, at some point, she spoke to Ms. Smith about it. Ms. Smith has been employed as guidance coordinator at Glades Central for the past nine years. One of her duties is to work with female students who have problems. On May 3, 1993, Y. J., S. S., and T. F. came to Ms. Smith complaining that Mr. Tullos had made improper comments to them and/or had touched them in a way that they thought was inappropriate and that made them uncomfortable. When she asked if there were any other students who had similar experiences with Mr. Tullos, she was given several names. She called these students to her office and, from them, got the names of still other students. She spent the day interviewing all of the students whose names she had been given, and she took statements from ten students who she thought had complaints which should be further investigated. At the end of the day, she telephoned the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the school board's security office to report the complaints. She also talked with Dr. Grear, the principal of Glades Central, and gave her the statements she had obtained. Dr. Grear handled the investigation from this point forward. In a performance evaluation dated May 28, 1993, Dr. Grear rated Mr. Tullos "At Expectation," commenting that he "works well with other members of the administrative staff and faculty." Mr. Tullos's behavior toward the seven students who testified at the hearing was unprofessional and inappropriate. The evidence is clear and convincing that his conduct seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. He repeatedly committed serious offenses against students who had been given into his care, and he exposed himself to the derision of the students who had been the objects of his indecent remarks and touches. His behavior was the subject of discussion among students, and some students even claimed to have gotten special treatment because they threatened to report him. The evidence is also clear and convincing that he harassed the seven students who testified at the hearing on the basis of their sex. He made remarks to them which were explicitly or implicitly sexual in nature, and he touched several of them in ways which were improper and offensive. 6/ Mr. Tullos's conduct made several of the seven students who testified at the hearing uncomfortable and/or angry, but others either did not take him seriously or were not bothered by his behavior. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the students' scholastic endeavors were affected or that they suffered any mental or physical harm as a result of his actions. The lack of mental harm was also apparent from the demeanor of the students as they testified at the hearing. Likewise, there is no clear and convincing evidence that any of the students were exposed to embarrassment or disparagement as a result of Mr. Tullos's actions; in fact, most of the students testifying at the hearing willingly and openly discussed their experiences with their friends at school. And, while he may have tried to exploit his relationship with the seven students as the assistant principal in charge of their grade, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Tullos obtained any personal gain or advantage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Virgil Wayne Tullos guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board of Palm Beach County, in violation of section 231.28(1)(f), and of harassing students W. K, S. S., Y. J., S., N. B., T. F., and M. R. on the basis of sex, in violation of rule 6B- 1.006(3)(g) and, therefore, of section 231.28(1)(i). It is further RECOMMENDED that the following administrative sanctions be imposed: Suspension of Mr. Tullos's teaching certificate for a period of one (1) year; and, Upon reinstatement of his teaching certificate, placement of Mr. Tullos on probation for a period of three (3) years, with Mr. Tullos being required, as a condition of probation, to submit to psychological examination and to any recommended treatment through the recovery network program established in section 231.263, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1996.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Eric Delucia (Respondent or Mr. Delucia) violated sections 1012.795(1)(c), (g), or (j), Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state agent responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Delucia held Florida Educator's Certificate 915677, covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages, Business Education, and Marketing, which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all times relevant to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Delucia was employed as a language arts teacher in the Broward County School District. Mr. Delucia stored the documents listed in Petitioner's Exhibit P-2 on his computer, as stipulated by the parties. Mr. Delucia was employed at Cooper City High School during the 2011/2012 school year. Ms. Doll was the principal. Principal Doll testified that Mr. Delucia was in the initial stages of a cycle of assistance during that year. He received a memo outlining expectations and concerns, and was observed by several people. Principal Doll indicated she believed that he had deficiencies in instructional planning, classroom management, lesson plan presentation, and lesson plan delivery. However, Principal Doll confirmed that Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score was a 2.954 for the period January 2012 through May 2012 at Cooper City High School, which was within the "effective" range. Principal Doll stated that there were concerns about his performance based on observations that were done earlier that warranted an outside observer, but those observations were not used for the evaluation. He was never placed on a Professional Development Plan while at Cooper City High School. Respondent requested a hardship transfer and was moved to Ramblewood for the following school year. On January 1, 2013, Mr. Delucia was admitted to the hospital following a series of strokes. Respondent received "effective" scores in both the Student Growth and Instructional Practice components, as well as his overall Final Evaluation for the 2012/2013 school year at Ramblewood. Respondent was subsequently on medical leave of absence during the 2013/2014 school year. On July 1, 2014, Ms. Smith became the principal at Ramblewood. On August 11, 2014, Mr. Delucia returned to Ramblewood from medical leave. On August 14, 2014, Principal Smith was inspecting all of the classrooms at Ramblewood to ensure that they were prepared for the first day of school. She felt that Mr. Delucia's classroom was not ready for students, because it needed a little bit of "warmth." On August 28, 2014, Principal Smith conducted a formal evaluation in Mr. Delucia's classroom. She concluded that the lesson had no clear focus and that it was not on the appropriate grade level for the students he was teaching. In early September, there was a complaint that Mr. Delucia was putting up students' grades on a board in his room. However, Mr. Delucia testified that he posted the grades only by student number, not by name. There was no competent evidence to the contrary. On October 30, 2014, in introducing the genre of mythology to his students, Mr. Delucia made the comment that "[t]he gods viewed humans as pets or sexual toys." While not an appropriate comment for middle school students, there was no suggestion that Mr. Delucia elaborated or pursued this statement further, and this incident did not constitute ineffective teaching. There was no evidence that it caused students embarrassment or harmed students' mental health. There was testimony that on October 30, 2014, Mr. Delucia also spent class time explaining that the fact that a Star Wars' character had no father would have been taboo in 1976 and discussing that the episodes of that movie series were released out of the chronological order of the story. While the discussion may have gotten a bit off track, it was not clearly shown that discussion of fiction was unrelated to the concept of mythology, might not have enhanced students' understanding of the topic, or was ineffective teaching. While it was clearly shown that Mr. Delucia made the statement, "These kids have the memories of gnats," it was clear that this was said when no students were present and in defense of his actions in discussing fantasy and fables. On December 2, 2014, Respondent said to a student in an angry and loud voice, "Don't you even piss me off." This warning, given in response to the student's statement that the student did not understand something, was inappropriate in language and tone, harmful to learning, and harmful to the student's mental health. Mr. Delucia's statement that he was not visibly angry or speaking in a loud voice on this occasion is not credited. On December 8, 2014, Mr. Delucia met with Ms. Poindexter, his new peer reviewer. At one point in their conversation, he talked about his former principal, Ms. Doll, referring to her battle with cancer. He stated, "She will kick the bucket soon because she has cancer and no one will care when she is gone." He stated, "She's the devil." Mr. Delucia also referred to his current principal, Ms. Smith, as "the devil." He stated, "My motivation is to destroy her with everything I have" and that he "wished the ground would open up and swallow her." Mr. Delucia also referred to the administrative staff as "assholes" and used multiple profanities, stating, "They do not know who they are messing with, but they will find out soon." Student A.F. testified that he heard Mr. Delucia tell Student C.D. that he should jump off of a bridge with a bungee cord wrapped around his neck; tell Student C.D. that if he was a speed bump, he (Mr. Delucia) would run over him; and tell Student C.D. to kill himself a couple of times. However, Student A.F. provided no detail or context for these alleged statements, some of which seemed to involve an incident involving an entirely different student who he testified was not even in his class. He was not a credible witness. On January 8, 2015, Ms. Sheffield observed Mr. Delucia using a four-page packet to teach punctuation to his seventh- grade language arts class. Ms. Sheffield told Mr. Delucia that this was not really part of the seventh-grade curriculum. Mr. Delucia made a statement to the effect of "these students don't know anything, not even the basics, so we have to start somewhere." There was no allegation that this comment was made in front of the students. From the period August 21, 2014, through December 3, 2014, Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score was 1.916, and he was placed on a 90-day Professional Development Plan. Numerous observations by Dr. Jones and Principal Smith followed through the remainder of the school year. Mr. Delucia's Instructional Practice Score improved slightly, but was still less than effective. On January 12, 2015, Ms. Sheffield noticed that one of the vocabulary words written on Mr. Delucia's board for his students was "retard." Ms. Sheffield said she assumed that Mr. Delucia meant the slang term sometimes used as a noun to refer to persons with mental disabilities. Such use of the term, as a shortened form of the word "retarded," would be offensive and disparaging. Ms. Sheffield said that they talked about the fact that it is not appropriate to use the word "retard" as a noun as a reference to the disabled. She testified that he did not respond. At hearing, Mr. Delucia admitted using "retard" as a vocabulary word, but testified that he included the word as a verb, meaning to slow down or delay. Ms. Sheffield testified she did not hear him speak the term, or say anything about it, and there was no other testimony regarding this event. Mr. Delucia admitted that he often said, "If your writing looks like garbage and smells like garbage, then it is garbage." Ms. Sheffield stated that she told Mr. Delucia he might try to find another way to encourage students to write neatly in their journals that was a more positive comment or allowed students to take pride in their writing. On January 26, 2015, Ms. Sheffield testified that when a student returned late from lunch, Mr. Delucia and the student began arguing. Ms. Sheffield credibly testified that Mr. Delucia screamed at the student, "This isn't going to end up good for you. Just shut up." On February 4, 2015, Student A.W. had come in late to Mr. Delucia's class and was acting out in the back of the classroom. When asked why, her response was that other people also did it. Mr. Delucia responded, "If other people jump off of a bridge, would you jump off a bridge, too?" Student A.W., after a moment of silence, retorted, "Yeah, if you give me a bungee cord." Mr. Delucia replied, "If there is a bungee cord, you should wrap it around your neck before you jump." The class started laughing. Student A.W. replied, "You just told me to kill myself, I am telling the office." Mr. Delucia then asked Student A.W. to leave the classroom. While Student A.W. had a disrespectful attitude, Respondent's caustic comments to her were intentionally made in a spirit of mocking humor to subject Student A.W. to embarrassment in front of the class. A class grade graph prepared during the third quarter of the 2014/2015 school year documented that 68 percent of his students were failing at that time. No similar graph for any other quarter of that year, or for other years, was submitted in evidence. On April 7, 2015, the students in Mr. Delucia's class were supposed to be studying Latin and Greek roots of words, but one student did not have a packet and asked Mr. Delucia for one. After Mr. Delucia handed him the packet, the student said, "There is a footprint on this." Mr. Delucia responded, "Get working on studying or else I will call your father." The student replied, "Please don't." Mr. Delucia then said, "Why, because you don't want to get a footprint on your face?" Ms. Sheffield testified that during her observations, she never saw Mr. Delucia standing up interacting with his students. She said she never saw him deliver a lesson to students. For the 2014/2015 school year, Mr. Delucia's score for the instructional practice component on his evaluation was 2.002, a "needs improvement" rating, while his score for both the deliberate practice/growth plans and student data components was recorded as exactly 3.0. The final evaluation for Mr. Delucia in 2014/2015, computed by combining these unequally weighted scores, was 2.511, an "effective" rating.1/ Mr. Delucia was transferred to Piper High School for the 2015/2016 school year. The administration there did not place Mr. Delucia on a Professional Development Plan. Mr. Delucia has not been subjected to disciplinary action during his time at Piper High School, and he has exhibited positive rapport with his students and colleagues. Mr. Delucia's weighted overall evaluation score for the 2015/2016 school year at Piper High School was 2.831, "effective." Mr. Delucia's demeanor at hearing was defiant. His testimony was sometimes evasive and defensive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Eric Delucia in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), (3)(e), and (5)(e); imposing a fine of $3,000.00; placing him on probation under conditions specified by the Commission for a period of two years; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 20th day of November, 2017.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board (Petitioner or School Board) has just cause to discipline Wendy Portillo's employment based on the conduct alleged in the “Statement of Charges and Petition for One Year Suspension Without Pay and Return to Annual Contract” and the appropriate penalties, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in St. Lucie County, Florida. Petitioner has entered into individual contracts and collective bargaining agreements with the teachers it employs and has adopted rules and policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract and assigned to teach kindergarten at Morningside. On May 21, 2008, Respondent was teaching kindergarten in her classroom at Morningside. The door to Respondent’s classroom is across a hall from the door of the school office. Typically, kindergarten students are five or six years old. Student 1, a male, was one of 17 students in Respondent’s class on May 21, 2008. Student 1 was assigned to Respondent’s class in January 2008. Shortly after his placement in her class, Respondent asked Mr. Graff to help her with Student 1 because of Student 1’s behavior. Mr. Graff works in Morningside’s fourth grade alpha class. The alpha program is designed to identify and assist at-risk third grade students who are having difficulties at home or at school. Mr. Graff has the assistance of a full- time counselor and a full-time paraprofessional. Mr. Graff agreed to help with Student 1 as needed. Student 1 came to Mr. Graff’s classroom on approximately 12 occasions between January and May 21, 2008. In mid-February 2008, Respondent requested a Child Study Team for Student 1, which is the first step in determining whether a student meets the eligibility requirements for services from Petitioner’s Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. This development is part of an on-going process.3 The Child Study Team, of which Respondent was a member, developed strategies designed to redirect Student 1’s behavior. One of the strategies was a reward system utilizing tokens. On May 21, 2008, Respondent’s kindergarten class began at 8:20 a.m. At 9:00 a.m. Respondent’s kindergarten class, including Student 1, went to a performance by the fifth grade that ended at approximately 9:45 a.m. The students returned to Respondent’s classroom at approximately 10:00 a.m. At approximately 10:30 a.m., while she was teaching her class, Respondent observed that Student 1 was off-task and was being disruptive to the other students by flipping crayons at his classmates and crawling under a table. Student 1 pushed up on the table, where other students were trying to work. Respondent attempted to redirect Student 1, but she could not do so. Respondent summoned Officer Black (the school resource officer) to come to her room. Officer Black assisted in getting Student 1 out from under a table and took him to the office. After Officer Black had escorted Student 1 to the school office, Ms. Gascoigne (the assistant principal) counseled Student 1 as to appropriate versus inappropriate behavior. Student 1 told Ms. Gascoigne that he realized what he had done was wrong and that he wanted to say to Respondent that he was sorry. After keeping Student 1 in the office for approximately 15 minutes, Ms. Gascoigne sent Student 1 back to Respondent’s classroom. There was a dispute in the record as to whether Respondent sent a written referral to the office when Officer Black escorted Student 1 to the office at approximately 10:30 a.m. The office did receive a written referral from Respondent on May 21, 2008, pertaining to Student 1’s misbehavior. The inference was that pursuant to School Board Policy 5.33, which pertains to removal of students from a classroom as opposed to a disciplinary referral of a student for misbehaving in class, the office personnel should have detained Student 1 for a longer period of time than 15 minutes if Respondent had sent a written referral with him. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that School Board Policy 5.33 is inapplicable due to Student 1’s level of disruption. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence established that Ms. Gasciogne did not receive the written referral until the afternoon of May 21, 2008, after the occurrence of the events at issue in this proceeding. When she had Officer Black take Student 1 to the office at approximately 10:30 a.m. on May 21, 2008, Respondent did not ask Ms. Gascoigne or anyone else in the office to detain Student 1 for a particular length of time. When Student 1 returned to her classroom, Respondent was in a meeting area where the students were gathered for group instruction. Respondent asked Student 1 why he had returned to the classroom. Student 1 responded to the effect that Ms. Gascoigne had sent him back. Referring to herself and to the other students in her class, Respondent responded to the effect that, “I don’t know if we are ready to have you back at this time.” After making that statement, Respondent directed Student 1 to join her in front of his classmates. Respondent asked Student 1 why he had done the things he had done earlier that morning. Student 1 shrugged his shoulders. Respondent told Student 1 that shrugging his shoulders was not an answer and that he should use his words. Three or four students began saying things about how Student 1 had behaved. Respondent asked Student 1 to listen to his classmates and asked him how what they were saying made him feel. Referring to herself and to the other students, Respondent stated that she did not think we are ready for you to come back at this time. Respondent then announced that she was going to poll the class as to whether Student 1 could rejoin them. Respondent explained to the class that a poll was like taking a vote. Respondent asked each of Student 1’s classmates to verbally vote yes or no whether Student 1 should remain in the classroom and gave each student the opportunity to explain his or her vote. Respondent tallied the votes on the chalk board. The final vote was 14 for removing Student 1 and two for allowing him to remain.4 Respondent thereafter sent Student 1 back to the office. Respondent made the ultimate decision to exclude Student 1 from her classroom, but in making that decision she considered the votes that had been cast by Student 1’s classmates. The reward system utilizing tokens was in place for Student 1 on May 21, 2008. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent utilized the reward system or any other strategy, including the use of Mr. Graff’s class, that had been developed for Student 1 before sending him to the office on the first occasion or before removing him from her class after the classmates had cast their votes and made statements about his behavior. When Student 1’s mother came to pick Student 1 up from school on the evening of May 21, 2008, she told Respondent that she had embarrassed her son and that he was disabled and autistic. Respondent apologized to Student 1’s mother. Student 1 was with his mother when she made the quoted statement to Respondent and when Respondent apologized. When asked by his mother how he felt, Student 1 said he felt sad. Except for her conduct on the May 21, 2008, incident described above, Respondent has had a positive 12-year career as a teacher at Morningside. Respondent testified that at no time did she intend to harm, embarrass, or do anything negative to the student. Respondent further testified that she did not, at the time think she was hurting anyone. She believed that she could show all of her students that there are consequences to actions and to show that actions may affect others. Respondent testified, credibly, that early childhood education is her “passion” (as she termed it at Transcript, Volume III, page 275, beginning on line 11). Petitioner’s investigative report reflects (beginning on page 13 of Petitioner’s Exhibit B) the following: There is no evidence that Ms. Portillo’s conduct was malicious or intended to cause harm or embarrassment to Student 1. However, there is a question as to whether Ms. Portillo exercised the best professional judgment during the incident under investigation. . . . Immediately following the incident of May 21, 2008, Petitioner prohibited Respondent from returning to Morningside. Petitioner assigned Respondent to the School Board office with pay while Petitioner investigated the matter. On November 14, 2008, Mr. Lannon made his recommendation to the School Board. The recommendation was that Petitioner suspend Respondent for a period of one year dating from the School Board’s final order and that her contract be changed from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract. At its meeting of November 14, 2008, the School Board suspended without pay Respondent’s employment for a period of one year and voted to change her contract from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract should she return to employment with the School Board.5 The greater weight of the credible evidence overwhelmingly established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, described above is properly characterized as misconduct as that term is generally understood. As will be discussed below, Petitioner established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, violated the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, thereby violating the provisions of subsection (xxix) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b), as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent’s misconduct on May 21, 2008, violated subsection (xxxi) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b) as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition by exposing Student 1 and the other students in her class to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner established that Respondent utilized an inappropriate method of discipline in removing Student 1 from her class after the class vote, thereby violating subsection (xxxvii) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b), as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent was abusive or discourteous in violation of subsection (ix) of School Board Rule 6.301(3)(b) as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Petition. Mr. Lannon, Ms. Ranew, Ms. Gascoigne, and Ms. Cully are experienced educators with supervisory responsibilities. Each opined that Respondent had violated the Code of Conduct for the Education Profession and explained the reasons for those opinions. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to exercise the best professional judgment on May 21, 2008, as alleged in paragraph 19a of the Petition. The alleged violation set forth in paragraph 19b will be discussed below. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent’s misconduct was unethical and, consequently, failed to establish the violation alleged in paragraph 19c of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect Student 1 from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety as alleged in paragraph 19d of the Petition. Petitioner established that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect Student 1 from harassment as alleged in paragraph 19(e) of the Petition. Petitioner has charged Respondent with “misconduct in office.” There is a difference between the generally used term “misconduct” and the term “misconduct in office.” The State Board has defined the term “misconduct in office” by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3), as follows: (3) Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual’s effectiveness in the school system. While there can be no meaningful debate as to whether Respondent's conduct should be characterized as “misconduct,” there was a dispute as to whether Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system had been impaired, thereby establishing that Respondent was guilty of “misconduct in office” as alleged in the Petition. This incident received extensive coverage by the local, national, and international press. Locally, Petitioner received a high volume of written communications and telephone calls in response to Respondent’s conduct. Some communications supported Respondent’s conduct while others condoned Respondent’s conduct. The communications condoning Respondent’s conduct far outweighed the responses supporting her conduct.6 Petitioner received requests from parents that Respondent not be allowed to teach their students should she return to class. In addition to the negative publicity and negative communications generated by her conduct, Respondent’s principal has lost confidence in her. Ms. McCully testified as follows in response to questions from Petitioner’s counsel (Transcript, Volume III, beginning at page 371, line 17): Q. After the May 21, 2008, incident involving Ms. Portillo, would you recommend that she be hired as a teacher in your school? A. No, I would not. Q. Why is that? A. Personally, I feel that I would not have that rapport, trust, with her and be able to work with her after this. Dr. Lannon testified as follows in response to questions from Petitioner’s counsel (Transcript, Volume I, beginning at page 106, line1): Q. In your opinion, has Ms. Portillo’s actions on May 21, 2008, resulted in a loss of her effectiveness. A. I believe so. Q. How do you reconcile that with your recommendation that she can go back to work after a one-year suspension without pay? A. I came to that with great pain. I believe that the actions that Ms. Portillo undertook actually rose to the issue of termination. But also, in a sense of fairness, Ms. Portillo is a twelve-year employee who has contributed to the lives and the well-being of children in St. Lucie County. My sense on this was that while there is a price to pay – and I believe that the action of not protecting children is literally the most serious thing we can do in a negative way – that her past career would warrant a second chance, but not in the environment in which she had willfully created these series of steps leading to the involvement of a particular child in what I believe to be an embarrassing and disparaging way and the involvement of the class in a way that we may never know. Q. Did you consider terminating Ms. Portillo? A. I did. Q. And is it my understanding that you’re saying the fact that she had twelve positive years mitigated that decision. A. Yes. That’s exactly correct. Q. And that led you to the recommendation that’s at issue? A. That’s exactly right. On cross-examination, Mr. Lannon testified in response to questions by Respondent’s counsel (Transcript, Volume II, beginning on page 149, line 25): Q: And you’re of the opinion as you sit here today, Mr. Lannon, under no circumstances . . . that you would allow [Respondent] to teach elementary school children in St. Lucie County. I would not put her in pre-K through fifth grade. That’s the definition. So that would be correct. In his testimony at the formal hearing and in his letter of November 3, 2008, Mr. Lannon described the mitigating circumstances he considered in contemplating his recommendation to the School Board. The following, taken from Mr. Lannon’s letter, succinctly states those considerations: I have also considered mitigating circumstances. You have had a long (12 years) and positive career in St. Lucie County Public Schools. Your annual evaluations, conducted by five Principals over 12 years are positive. Behavior of young students, in groups such as classrooms, is often difficult and professionally demanding. The official investigation states “there is NO evidence that Ms. Portillo’s conduct was malicious or intended to cause harm or embarrassment . . . “ [Emphasis in the original.] Except for the conduct at issue in this proceeding, Respondent has been an excellent, dedicated teacher during her 12-year tenure at Morningside. She has spent a considerable amount of her personal time working on an extra-curricular activity named Odyssey of the Mind. Many of the employees at Morningside and parents of former students are supportive of Respondent. As to those employees and parents, Respondent’s reputation remains intact despite the negative publicity regarding the conduct at issue.7 The greater weight of the credible evidence clearly established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, has impaired her effectiveness in the system. Petitioner established that Respondent’s conduct on May 21, 2008, constitutes “misconduct in office” within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009 and, consequently, constitutes grounds for the suspension of her employment pursuant to Section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides, in relevant part, that the employment of a teacher with a professional services contract can be terminated or suspended for just cause, which is defined to include “misconduct in office” as defined by State Board rules. Section 1012.33(4)(b), Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part, as follows: (b) Any . . . member of the instructional staff . . . may be returned to annual contract status for another 3 years in the discretion of the district school board, at the end of the school year, when a recommendation to that effect is submitted in writing to the district school board on or before April 1 of any school year, giving good and sufficient reasons therefore . . .. In explaining the rationale for his recommendations, Mr. Lannon testified as follows in response to questions from counsel for Respondent as to his recommended disposition of this matter (beginning at Transcript, Volume II, page 133, line 15): Q. What would happen in the one year that would allow her, from the year that you’re recommending that she be suspended to the year that she, if your recommendation is accepted, that she would come back to work for the School Board, what would happen in that year that would change the alleged loss of respect and confidence in her colleagues first? A. It might not. Q. Your same answer would be as it relates to students? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the parents. A. That’s correct. I have no knowledge of how they would feel. Q. So in essence, you’re allowing, you’re recommending that a person that you’re not sure would be respectful [sic] or confident [sic] by teachers, students, parents, and members of the community, you’re recommending that that person still work for the St. Lucie County School Board. A. I’m allowing that the 12 years prior to May 21, 2008, mitigated my thinking that said this person is deserving of another chance at some point in time. Q. And this chance that you’re talking about is not a chance of great risk or harm if I follow your logical conclusion; is that correct. A. If you look at it more fully, you’ll see that I would not allow her to teach at that grade level in an elementary school again. And there is a difference in the ability of students to be able to discern the words of adults as they age. And I’m going to bank on the fact that the quality that Ms. Portillo had previously shown, absent her actions on that day, which I believe to be premeditated and well thought out, even though they were quick, would not occur again. There can be little doubt that Respondent has been traumatized by the negative reactions to her misconduct.8 Respondent and her family have suffered economically as a result of her suspension. Respondent apologized to Student 1’s mother and testified that she is remorseful.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension of Respondent’s employment for a period of one year from November 18, 2008, and provide for the change of her contract status from a Professional Services Contract to an Annual Contract, contingent upon the availability of a position for which Respondent is qualified and certified. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 31st day of March, 2009.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for ten days without pay for putting hand sanitizer in a student’s mouth.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began her employment with the District in 2007. In October 2019, she was teaching at PPMS as a science teacher. Prior to the incident involved in this case, Respondent received no discipline from the Board. Respondent is an experienced teacher who has been trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent received training concerning ethics relative to her position with the District as a teacher. Respondent has been through the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. The Incident Giving Rise to Discipline On October 14, 2019, Respondent was teaching a science class of approximately 30 sixth and seventh grade students. In this class was sixth grade student X.S., who was being verbally disruptive. Although X.S. was not cussing, Respondent told him that he needed to have his “mouth washed out with soap.” Respondent reached behind herself to grab a bottle on her desk which was either hand soap or hand sanitizer. X.S. and Respondent walked towards each other. X.S. challenged Respondent to “Do it!” Respondent raised the bottle to X.S.’s mouth and pumped in a substance from the bottle. X.S. bent over and spit on the floor. Respondent asked X.S. what he was doing, and he stated that he got hand sanitizer in his mouth. As X.S. stood up, X.S. was observed wiping his mouth and Respondent told him not to spit on the floor. X.S. left the classroom to go to the bathroom and rinse his mouth. His fellow students immediately began talking about the incident while Respondent returned to her desk. The Investigation X.S. did not immediately report the incident because he did not want to anger his foster mother. However, on the day after the incident, October 15, 2019, three students approached PPMS Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels and reported that Respondent had squirted hand sanitizer into X.S.’s mouth. Officer Michaels spoke to the students and X.S. individually and asked them to provide written statements regarding what they observed.1 Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels questioned Respondent regarding the incident. When approached by Officer Michaels, Respondent asked, “What is this about?” He responded that, “this is about squirting hand sanitizer into a student’s mouth.” Respondent said, “It wasn’t hand sanitizer. It was soap.” Respondent did not deny squirting something into X.S.’s mouth to either Principal Aronson or Officer Michaels. Principal Aronson asked Respondent to leave campus. He accompanied her to her classroom and observed a bottle of hand sanitizer on her desk. Principal Aronson also contacted Human Resources to report the incident and spoke to Human Resources Manager Jose Fred who handled overseeing the investigation from that point forward. 1 These written statements, Exhibits 11 through 16, were admitted over Respondent’s objection that they contain impermissible hearsay and are unduly prejudicial because these students refused to attend their scheduled depositions or appear for final hearing. However, their general descriptions of the incident were corroborated by the deposition of student J.C., as well as in part by Respondent. As discussed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(3), hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule as found in sections 90.801-.805, Florida Statutes. On October 15, 2019, Respondent was issued the one-day stay at home letter from Mr. Aronson titled “Assignment to Your Residence with Pay for October 15, 2019.” On October 15, 2019, Respondent was also issued a letter advising her that she was assigned to her residence for October 16 and October 17, 2019. Mr. Fred, under the supervision of Vicki Evans-Paré, Director of Employee and Labor Relations, compiled written statement of six students, took a written statement of Respondent on October 17, 2019, and drafted an Investigative Report dated October 18, 2019, which substantiated violations of applicable rules and Board policies. In her statement to Mr. Perez, Respondent claims it was X.S. who put his hand on hers and pulled the bottle to his own mouth and that she did not squirt anything. However, the remainder of her statement is consistent with the students’ reports of the incident.2 Post-Investigation Due Process On October 30, 2019, Respondent was provided with a Notice of Pre- Determination Meeting, which provided her with the allegations of misconduct. Respondent was provided with a copy of the entire investigative file and time to review it with the representative of her choice. Respondent attended a Pre-Determination Meeting on November 9, 2019, to give her the opportunity to provide any additional information, dispute, and explain or elaborate on any information contained in the Investigative Report. The Employee and Labor Relations (“ELR”) Department enlists the Employee Investigatory Committee (“EIC”) which reviews all of ELR’s case 2 At final hearing, Respondent testified that the bottle was never near the student’s mouth. This is wholly inconsistent with her prior written statement to Mr. Perez, her deposition testimony, and the statements of the students. This conflict negatively impacted Respondent’s credibility. files, inclusive of all documents maintained by ELR, of anything that might lead to suspension or termination, to make a suggestion to the Superintendent, if the allegations are substantiated. Once the EIC decides that the allegations are substantiated and recommends discipline, Ms. Evans-Paré takes the entire employee investigative file, inclusive of the EIC’s recommendations, to the Superintendent who then makes the ultimate recommendation for employee discipline. On November 22, 2019, Respondent was provided with supplemental information to the investigative file and provided an opportunity to respond to the documents by December 6, 2019. On December 9, 2019, Respondent requested that her response be placed in her file. She wrote “in response to the copies of the information from the District that is being used as evidence against me …” after reviewing the case file, complained that only six of 22 students were interviewed or provided statements and it was not an ethical, random sample of the class. Respondent also alleged that the documents had been altered; however, she did not provide any evidence of such during the final hearing or within the response. On December 6, 2019, Respondent again provided a response to the student witness statements to ELR wherein she stated “I have 22 students in my class, only 6 students filled out statements? You have 3 black children submitted in reporting, of which one is not accurate. Yet, they are the minority in this class, of which, 2 out of the 6 statements were from Hispanic students. It is surprising that not a single white student in my class noticed the incident.” On January 24, 2020, Respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend her a ten-day suspension without pay to the Board at its February 19, 2020, meeting. On February 19, 2020, the School Board adopted the Superintendent’s recommendations to suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. Respondent’s Post-Suspension Status Respondent’s suspension by the Board was picked up by the Associated Press and reported across social media and traditional media platforms locally and nationwide. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that typically, when a teacher is alleged to have done something inappropriate with students, the District cannot have the teacher in a classroom around students, so the teacher is reassigned to another location. Respondent was reassigned to adult and community education, so she was in a no-student contact position. Respondent was then moved into Human Resources Funding 9920 status due to the press and comments from the parents received by Principal Aronson and her inability to be returned to PPMS. This allowed Principal Aronson to hire another teacher to take her place. Respondent has not been back in the classroom as a teacher for the District since October 15, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the ten-day suspension without pay and return Respondent to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2021. V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 867 West Bloomingdale Avenue, Suite 6325 Brandon, Florida 33508 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and implementing administrative rules, as charged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against holders of Florida Educational Certificates who are accused of violating section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and related rules. Respondent holds Professional Educator Certificate 860147 (certificate). Valid through June 30, 2016, the certificate covers the areas of Elementary Education and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). Respondent has been a teacher for 25 years. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Discovery in the District. Respondent was employed by the District in a teaching capacity teaching fifth grade math and science for approximately eight years and was assigned to Discovery for approximately five years until his resignation on May 20, 2014. The charges against Respondent arise from Respondent engaging in a pattern of joking, tickling, touching, seeking out young boys who were not his students, and otherwise inappropriately interacting with male students, despite repeated directives not to do so. 2010-2011 School Year/Counseling Memos Angela Fulton (Fulton) is an 18-year educator and principal at Discovery for the past six years. Julie DeGreeff (DeGreeff) is a 26-year educator who has been an assistant principal at Discovery for the past six years. School administrators became concerned over what they viewed as Respondent's inappropriate behavior with young male students not under his supervision. The first person to complain to Fulton about Respondent's behavior was the aftercare supervisor, Rania Mills. The Aftercare Program (Aftercare) is operated independently and separately from Discovery as an after-school program for students who could remain at the school site until 6:00 p.m. The program provides homework assistance, enrichment, and school-related activities from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Aftercare is administered by its own director and staff. Respondent, during the operative periods in the Second Administrative Complaint, was not associated with the program. In the early part of the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent was observed alone in his classroom with Aftercare fifth-grade male students, who were not under his supervision and without the parent's consent. A meeting was held with Respondent where Fulton and DeGreeff gave a verbal directive not to have the Aftercare students in his classroom. Respondent became upset, acted inappropriately, but later apologized. On January 5, 2011, following a conversation with DeGreeff, Respondent was given a written directive to cease requesting or allowing the Aftercare students to come to Respondent's classroom after school hours. Her admonition was that no student should ever be alone with a teacher for liability reasons. Respondent continuously ignored this directive. On Friday, January 21, 2011, DeGreeff found Respondent alone in his classroom with one or more male students from the Aftercare program. On Monday, January 24, 2011, DeGreeff issued a second directive to Respondent reminding him that anyone who is not employed by Aftercare and who has not been given written authorization by a parent may not be with, or request to be with, Aftercare students, either in groups or alone. On February 8, 2011, DeGreeff spoke with Respondent regarding his inappropriate interaction with the male Aftercare students following several teachers' complaints. On March 11, 2011, Respondent was again found in the cafeteria playing with the male Aftercare students. He was again escorted out and directed not to have contact with these students. Respondent verbally acknowledged his interaction with the students was inappropriate. Following this incident, Respondent was issued a written directive on March 24, 2011, which stated, "You are directed not to have contact with the students of Discovery Elementary except in the course of your normal classroom activity or as authorized by administration." Despite the prior admonitions, Respondent continued having contact with the Aftercare students. Despite the clarity of this directive and his earlier understanding and agreement to avoid contact with the Aftercare students, Respondent requested a meeting with the school administration to obtain clarification what was meant by "no contact except in course of your normal classroom duties or as authorized by administration." A conference was held with Respondent on April 21 and another memo was issued clarifying DeGreeff's memo to read, "Please restrain your interactions to students under your classroom supervision." Respondent signed that he received and acknowledged understanding of the directive. Notwithstanding his understanding of the "clarification" of the earlier written directive regarding contact with Aftercare students, Respondent's inappropriate contact with these students continued until he was removed from the school following the November 2013 incident described below with student, D.M. 2011-2012 School Year/Altercation with Akel Tammy Akel (Akel) is a 28-year educator who was a fifth-grade teacher at Discovery. Akel provided two written statements regarding her concerns over Respondent's inappropriate actions with male students. The first statement was provided to Fulton on October 31, 2011, following Akel's confrontation with Respondent regarding his playing with her students. The second was to the Department of Education (DOE) investigator on December 13, 2011. In her first statement, Akel noted Respondent's interaction with S.G., a fifth-grade Filipino student of Akel's, who was never Respondent's student. Akel described Respondent's interaction with S.G. as "flirting." "It's like watching people make out and you feel awkward because you're in the way." Respondent, using a playful, odd voice, was heard on several occasions asking S.G. whether, "You can keep a secret, can't you S.G.? You can keep a secret. You're a good boy. You can keep a secret." While repeating this statement, Respondent was tickling and teasing S.G.'s neck with a piece of paper. Akel was very concerned about Respondent's interaction with L., who was S.G.'s best friend. These two boys were not Respondent's students; yet every day, he watched for them at dismissal and became very excited when he saw them--often flushed in the face. Respondent would touch S.G.'s hair and state, "You need to get a haircut, don't you S.G." In another encounter at dismissal, Respondent was seen tickling S.G. with a paper, in the face, neck, and arms, while commenting "You can keep a secret, can't you, S.?" Akel described Respondent using another voice, similar to speaking to a baby, during the encounter. Akel felt Respondent was being flirtatious, found it very disturbing, and asked him to stop. This was the second occasion when Respondent had asked S.G., who never was his student, if he could keep a secret. The third encounter with S.G., observed by Akel, occurred at dismissal. Respondent was observed tapping S.G.'s face in a light and playful manner with a sheet of paper folded in half. Akel confronted Respondent and inquired what Respondent was doing. Respondent stated he was "playing with S." Respondent told Akel he had a list of "naughty" children, and S.G.'s name was on the list. Respondent repeated this phrase several times in the presence of S.G. before stating, "No, S. is a good boy." "S., you can keep a secret." This is the third occasion when Respondent and S.G.'s "secret" is mentioned in the presence of Akel. Again, Respondent's actions were characterized by Akel as "flirtatious" in nature. The Parent Teacher Association ran a fundraising at dismissal selling different treats. Respondent purchased several and gave them to various students. Respondent approached S.G. with a fudge pop and put it in his face making an "umm" sound. Respondent, while maintaining eye contact with S.G., was licking it and putting the pop in and out of his mouth, as though he was performing oral sex. Akel was appalled at the interaction between Respondent and S.G. On another occasion, Akel was sitting with seven male students on a bench at dismissal, when Respondent approached and asked if there was any room on the bench for him. Despite being told no, Respondent remarked "I can squeeze between these two boys [S.G. and L.]." This occurred a second time at dismissal time when he tried to squeeze between Akel and her students to talk to S.G. Akel refused to move, forcing Respondent to leave. During an early release situation, Respondent was asked by Akel three times to stop playing with S.G. and L. Respondent wanted to know why since he liked the boys. Respondent was told by Akel to attend to his own students and leave hers alone. When Akel walked away, Respondent deliberately ran to S.G. and L. to talk with them. Akel was very concerned about Respondent's on-going flirtatious and strange behavior towards her students. Respondent's refusal to avoid contact with Akel's students later lead to a confrontation in the school's cafeteria. On October 31, 2011, Akel was lining up her students to enter the cafeteria. Respondent left his own students unattended and approached Akel's students and started playing with S.G. and L. Akel asked him to stop so they could get fed without interruption. Respondent giggled, but said nothing. While Akel was supervising her students who were entering the cafeteria, Respondent entered the cafeteria through another door and resumed playing with S.G. and L. Akel approached Respondent and requested him to stop playing with S.G. and L. so they could get their trays and eat. Respondent refused, stating, "I can talk to any of these kids I want to talk to." Akel responded stating "You're unprofessional." Respondent started yelling, calling Akel names, "You're crazy," "you're insane," causing a disruption in front of the cafeteria staff and students. Another teacher, Gwendolyn James-Haynes (James- Haynes), intervened and they moved to the teacher's work area. As Akel tried to enter, Respondent, who was standing in the doorway, took his body and pushed into her. Akel decided to report the matter to the principal. On the way to Fulton's office, Respondent was still yelling, "You're crazy, you're insane, you're crazy, you're crazy." Observations of Other Teachers Akel's observations of Respondent's concerning behavior towards young males who were not his students are consistent with the observations of eight other experienced educators at Discovery. James-Haynes is a teacher with 22 years of experience who worked with Respondent at Challenger Elementary (Challenger) before they both transferred to Discovery when it opened. At Challenger, James-Haynes served as Respondent's New Educators Support System (NESS) coach. This program transitions teachers hired from out of state to adapt to the Broward County system. Normally, it is a one-year training system; however, Respondent was required to go through two years of training. While at Challenger, Respondent was observed by James- Haynes acting inappropriately with young male students. One incident, while on a field trip, resulted in James-Haynes, who was the field trip coordinator, excluding Respondent from any future out-of-county field trips. As described above, on October 31, 2011, James-Haynes witnessed the cafeteria encounter between Akel and Respondent. James-Haynes gave three written statements detailing Respondent's inappropriate conduct with young boys, both at Challenger and Discovery. Respondent's inappropriate conduct and its effect on students, as personally observed by James-Haynes, included: Tickling young boys, rubbing their hair, touching their hair, stroking them on their head; Being alone with boys in his classroom after school playing with toys, instead of assisting them with school or homework; Running, grabbing, picking up young boys before swinging them around; Purchasing expensive gifts for male students; Respondent's "special relationship" with S.G. and their interaction–-repeatedly seeking him out, tickling and stroking his hair. S.G. would react to Respondent's approach at dismissal time by rapidly blinking, which stopped only after Respondent passed by. Taking young boys back to his classroom during lunch for a one-on-one with his door closed. Students holding their backpacks up to their face to hide from Respondent at dismissal time. James-Haynes deemed Respondent's conduct and interactions with these young boys bizarre, inappropriate, and unethical. In part, due to her prior role as the NESS for Respondent, James-Haynes brought these inappropriate actions directly to the attention of Respondent on numerous occasions, concerned about the suspicion surrounding his involvement with these boys. James-Haynes told Respondent, "It's boys, it's young boys, you can't do this." Respondent retorted, "Oh, it's just playing; I'm just playing with them." Respondent was advised by James-Haynes that he was setting himself up for something to answer in the future. Respondent disregarded James-Haynes' concerns and advice to refrain from such interactions. Similar bizarre behavior by Respondent directed at young boys, who were not under his supervision, was reported by Rania Mills (Mills), who was the Aftercare supervisor at Discovery during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. She hired and supervised the staff that was responsible for approximately 250 students from 2:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. Respondent worked in the program sometime previous, but not during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. Mills observed the following incidents involving Respondent: Disrupting students in the hallway, tickling, and laughing. Respondent's constant actions at dismissal required Mills to re-route her students when dismissing them from her class to avoid Respondent's coming into contact with her students; Taking Aftercare students back to his classroom without notice to Mills or permission from parents; Allowing a young boy (J.D.) to put his fingers in Respondent's mouth, with Respondent licking and biting the boy's fingers. Only after Mills made eye contact with Respondent, he stated "Oh that's making me uncomfortable, that's inappropriate." Two or more students watched Respondent licking the fingers and laughed; Allowing Aftercare students to sit on his lap in his classroom. When he was observed by Mills, the students and Respondent both quickly jumped up; Poking, tickling, and hugging male students; Showing unapproved movies to male Aftercare students rather than allowing them to do homework; Giving $20 dollars to a student in the cafeteria. When confronted by Mills, Respondent took the money back and stated, "We were only kidding"; Respondent requested a couple of boys from Aftercare to assist him in his classroom. Respondent was offered use of two adult staff members, but declined, and got frustrated, stating "I just need some boys," before walking away. Veidra Johnson (Johnson) is a fifth-grade math teacher at Discovery who also observed what she described as Respondent's strange and inappropriate behavior. During the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, she noted Respondent's interactions with male students, which she described as a "little weird, little strange." These actions included: Joking around, making jokes; Tickling a student in the hallway; Throwing toys to catch; Two or three first or second-grade students sitting/bouncing and jumping around on Respondent's lap during Aftercare time with Respondent laughing and joking. Only after eye contact was made with Johnson, Respondent told them, "Hey, get up, get up, get up, what are you doing?" Tickling J.O. in the stomach area while J.O. was trying to poke Respondent in the stomach. Interacting with S.G. at dismissal time by playing with or pulling his hair. Brandy Williams (Williams) is a teacher with ten years of experience who works at Discovery. Her first year there was the 2011-2012 school year. During this time, Williams observed Respondent's inappropriate interactions with three young male students. "Specials" are the time which teachers use for planning while students are at lunch, physical education, or another activity. Respondent was observed on several occasions with the same male students in his classroom during lunch and specials. On one occasion, Respondent was observed sitting close to J.O. in the media center with his arm around J.O.'s chair. Respondent did not teach media specials and had no reason to be there during that time. Follow-up to Akel Incident/DOE Investigation Immediately after receiving the report regarding the Akel incident, Fulton asked other teachers to provide written statements containing any information they had regarding Respondent's interactions with male students. Because several teachers reported identical concerns regarding Respondent's touching, teasing, joking with, and seeking out young male students that were not in his class, the matter was referred to DOE for investigation. Detective Richard Barber (Barber) from the District was assigned to investigate. Barber understood his assignment to determine whether Respondent had touched male students in a sexual way. As part of his investigation, Barber reviewed the previously-obtained written statements from Akel and the other teachers. During December 2011 and January 2012, Barber re- interviewed several of the teachers and asked them to again provide written statements. Barber also interviewed several of the students who are identified as being the targets of Respondent's attention and interviewed Respondent. Barber concluded that he could not corroborate whether Respondent had touched the boys in a sexual manner and concluded his investigation. Barber did not make any determination with regard to whether Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct or the Code of Ethics. February 14, 2012, Choking Incident with G.M. On February 14, 2012, fifth-grade student G.M., who was on safety patrol duty after dismissal at Discovery, was observed talking and joking with Respondent in the area where buses pick up students. Respondent and G.M. teased each other about how much candy they had eaten on that Valentine's Day. When running to catch his bus, G.M. stopped and told Charlotte Marchel-Fairclough (Marchel-Fairclough), paraprofessional, that, "Mr. Kornhauser choked me." Although G.M. did not appear to be in distress or hurt, Marchel-Fairclough reported it to another teacher who then informed DeGreeff. Another student exited the bus and told Respondent that G.M. was crying and very upset. Respondent got on G.M.'s bus to ask him what was wrong. G.M. told Respondent that he was upset because he told two adults that Respondent had choked him and they did not believe him. Respondent denies choking G.M.1/ Respondent claims he briefly placed his hand on G.M.'s shoulder to get him to stop joking around and pay attention to his safety patrol duties. While on G.M.'s bus, Respondent offered to provide G.M. with Orbeez (small polymer balls which expand in water used in science class) to get G.M. to calm down and stop crying. Approximately an hour and one-half after G.M.'s bus departed Discovery, Respondent showed up at G.M.'s aftercare karate studio. According to Respondent, he needed to pick up birdseed at the pet store next to the karate studio and decided to stop by to "check on" G.M. G.M.'s mother arrived and verbally confronted Respondent, and then called the police. Respondent was arrested, but no criminal charges were filed. Respondent received a five-day suspension without pay as a result of this incident. November 5, 2013, D.M. Incident On November 5, 2013, D.M., a second-grade student, was waiting for his Aftercare ride in the Discovery car line when he was approached by Respondent. D.M. was holding a rocket which he made for a class project. Respondent asked D.M. to see his project. D.M. was not familiar with Respondent but had seen him around school. When D.M. handed Respondent his project, Respondent broke it. D.M. became upset and started to cry. Respondent told D.M. that it was an accident, that he was sorry, and that he would fix the project over the weekend. Respondent asked D.M. three highly unusual questions: "What do you play with," "What do you sleep with," and "Who do sleep with?" Respondent then took a dollar from his wallet and gave it to D.M. Respondent told D.M. to meet him after school on Monday in his classroom where he would return D.M.'s project. This interaction was observed by D.M.'s second-grade teacher, Veronica Soto (Soto); however, Soto did not hear the conversation between Respondent and D.M. D.M.'s Aftercare ride arrived, and Respondent approached the vehicle to speak with the driver. Soto told Respondent that the adults in the car were not the parents of D.M. Seeing that D.M. was still crying, Soto told D.M. to calm down. Respondent attempted to explain to the adults why D.M. was so upset. After arriving home, D.M. told his mother what had transpired. D.M.'s mother was understandably distressed that a stranger was talking to her son, offered him money, and asked him highly-unusual and inappropriate questions. She immediately sent an email marked "urgent" to Soto. Soto forwarded the message to Fulton and also called her. Soto was extremely concerned because she herself had previously noted what she considered Respondent's attraction to young Hispanic boys, often leaving his class unattended to play with them. Soto's son, who was six and in first grade at Discovery, was told to avoid Respondent because of his mother's concern about Respondent's bizarre behavior with young boys. Although Soto's son was not his student, Respondent tried to befriend Soto's son with gifts and food. Soto felt compelled to report the D.M. incident to the administration because of the perceived attempt by Respondent to build trust with these young boys in order to exploit them. Soto believed that Respondent's actions were not innocent but that of a sexual predator attempting to start a relationship. The following week, Respondent was removed from the classroom and placed on administrative leave. Respondent ultimately resigned his employment on May 20, 2014, in lieu of termination and agreed not to reapply for employment with the District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Education Practices Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's educator's certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 2015.
