The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the School Board since August 15, 1995. As a member of the School Board's instructional staff, Respondent's employment is subject to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2008),1 which provides that her employment will not be terminated except for just cause. The School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District. Exceptional Student Education Exceptional Student Education covers a range of students who have individual needs that must be addressed by a specific plan for education, called an Individual Education Plan. The drafting and maintenance of IEPs is governed by federal and state law. The government may complete audits of district ESE records from time to time, although audits are not completed every year. However, the School District self-reports ESE compliance issues to the government. IEPs are valid for one year and must be rewritten annually, although not necessarily coinciding with the beginning of each school year. Generally, a draft form of the IEP is prepared and taken to an IEP meeting to be reviewed by individuals who are involved with the student's education ("IEP team"), including ESE teachers, regular education teachers, guidance counselors, and parents. Although everyone who is directly involved with the student's education is invited to the IEP meeting, it is not necessary that each individual attend for the IEP to be valid. For instance, if parents or service providers do not attend, the IEP is not invalid. All members of the IEP team attending the IEP meeting are required to sign a signature page indicating their attendance. The parents of the students are legally entitled to two notices of the IEP meeting, the first being at least ten days prior to the meeting. The notice can be written or verbal, but should be documented in the ESE file. Parents may waive their right to ten days' notice of the hearing. One person is assigned as the school's Local Education Agency (LEA). An LEA must be present at all IEP meetings which are required to ensure that ESE guidelines are followed. Students are required to be evaluated by service providers, such as speech-language pathologists, psychologists, social workers, and occupational therapists and to be re-evaluated every three years. The re-evaluation must be completed within three years from the calendar date of the earliest testing completed in the previous evaluation or re-evaluation. Each service provider is expected to review the file and to complete a re-evaluation. However, a re-evaluation is not required if the student's IEP team determines that such re-evaluation is not needed. Furthermore, re-evaluations are not required to draft an IEP. Prior to any testing, evaluation or re-evaluation of a student, the consent of the parent must be obtained. The consent forms are valid for one year after the parent's signature is obtained. Each student receiving ESE services should have a file which includes documentation, such as his/her IEP. Students who have more than one exceptionality (such as speech-language) will often have more than one file housed in the ESE office. Also, students who have been receiving ESE services for a long period of time often require more than one file folder to contain all of the documents. The School District obtains funds from the government based upon the ESE status of the students in the district. Students who receive ESE services are given more funding than students in regular classes. The funding is allocated on a per-student basis, and ESE students receive different levels of funding depending on the classification of their disabilities. In order to qualify for the funds, IEP and other relevant documents must be in compliance with certain guidelines referred to as FTE or "full time equivalent." There are two FTE periods during each school year wherein the ESE files must be compliant in order to obtain funds; the first one is in October and the second one is February. Respondent's Employment at Haile Middle School Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a teacher for 13 years. For the past several years, and at all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE teacher at Haile. In 2005-2006, after the preceding ESE department chair was transferred to another school, Janet Kerley, principal at Haile, asked Respondent if she would serve as the ESE department chair. Respondent accepted the job and had served continuously as ESE department chair until early February 2008. While serving as ESE chair, Respondent continued to work as an ESE teacher, and her position was designated as such by the School Board. As ESE department chair at Haile, Respondent received a stipend.2 In 2005-2006, when Respondent first became the ESE department chair, her work day was divided evenly between teaching her scheduled ESE classes and ESE department chair duties. Training for ESE Chair Position No special training was provided for Respondent to serve as ESE department chair. The School District assigned an ESE specialist to each secondary school, including Haile. The ESE specialist's role was to provide support to the ESE department chair. However, ESE specialists had no supervisory responsibilities for the ESE department chair. In the 2006-2007 school year, Emma Mileham, the ESE specialist assigned to Haile that year, gave Respondent a checklist titled, "ESE Department Chair Responsibilities." She also distributed "monthly mind joggers," titled, "ESE Teacher Activities." The checklist of the department chair's responsibilities included reviewing ESE files. During the 2007-2008 school year, Amy Lloyd, the ESE specialist assigned to Haile, interacted with Respondent once a week as part of the school's Child Study Team. However, Lloyd did not provide any list of job responsibilities to Respondent. Kerley evaluated Respondent's work performance in the past and found her work to be satisfactory. Prior to the allegations that gave rise to this action, Kerley never perceived deficiencies in Respondent's ability to maintain the ESE files. During Respondent's 13-year tenure as a teacher in the School District, she has consistently received satisfactory evaluations and has never been the subject of a disciplinary matter. Changes Impacting ESE Department in 2007-2008 Jerry Hernandez was appointed as the assistant principal at Haile for the 2007-2008 school year. Kerley designated Hernandez as the school's ESE administrator. As ESE administrator, Hernandez was responsible for ensuring compliance with FTE requirements, implementation of IEPs, and monitoring the ESE department chair. In the 2007-2008 school year, two changes were implemented which impacted the ESE Department at Haile and those working in that area. First, as part of an overall change implemented by the School District, ESE teachers at Haile were required to use a new computer system for creating ESE documents (i.e., IEPs, notices, consent forms, etc.). Second, there were significant changes in job responsibilities of the ESE department chair at Haile implemented at the school level. Computer System Changes Prior to the 2007-2008 school year, Haile was using a software program called Dynamo to assist in the maintenance of ESE files. Dynamo was primarily based upon the use of "hard copies" of relevant documents and was limited to each user's computer. At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Haile switched from the Dynamo software to a web-based program called the A3 system ("A3"). The main difference between Dynamo and A3 was that A3, as a web-based program, allowed individuals to view relevant documents from any computer by logging into the system. After Haile switched from Dynamo to A3, the teachers and service providers were encouraged to input all previous IEPs drafted in Dynamo into the A3 system. In fact, after the School District switched to the A3 system, there was a "push" by administrators to have all IEPs inputted into A3. To accomplish this, Respondent typed IEPs drafted in Dynamo and those received from other states into the A3 system verbatim, so that teachers and other individuals would have access to the information from their computers. Also, other Haile employees, including ESE teachers Athena Jantzen and Alice Moreland, and speech-language pathologist, Marie Bryant-Jones, input Dynamo IEPs into the A3 system. At the end of the 2006-2007 school year, the speech- language pathologist then assigned to Haile, Bryant-Jones, input goals for each student who received speech services into the A3 system. The next speech-language pathologist was free to revise the goals as she saw fit. The fact that Respondent and ESE teachers were inputting IEPs originally drafted in Dynamo into the A3 system was common knowledge at Haile. The School District provided training in the A3 system for ESE teachers at or near the end of the 2006-2007 school year. Additionally, on March 20, 2007, a district-sponsored one-on-one training was offered to the staff of Haile. Respondent attended that session and the training staff spent that day reviewing and/or explaining the A3 system. The training staff also worked with and helped Respondent input the current IEPs in the A3 system in order "to speed up the process." To start a new IEP in A3, the user is required to click on "Copy IEP" on the computer page. Clicking "Copy IEP" makes an identical copy of the last IEP in the system, including goals and objectives for other information about the student. The dates for the previous IEP remains the same until the user manually changes the date. This copy is a "draft" which becomes the new IEP when the modified or updated information is input into the A3 system. ESE Department Chair Changes in Responsibilities in October 2007 Prior to October 2007, ESE teachers at Haile were responsible for the ESE files of the students they taught, and each ESE teacher drafted the IEPs for their students. In October 2007, Hernandez told Respondent that as the department chair, she was now to assume responsibility for all of the ESE files at Haile. Hernandez explained to Respondent that this change was being made because the ESE teachers had complained to him that they could not, or no longer wanted to, take care of the ESE files and to teach their classes. When Hernandez told Respondent that she was now responsible for maintaining all of the ESE files, Respondent informed Hernandez that she was not happy about that added responsibility. In response, Hernandez told Respondent not to worry about the files, indicating that they (the files) would "take care of themselves." Hernandez than told Respondent that she should concentrate on giving as much support to the teachers as possible. In October 2007, when Hernandez assigned Respondent the responsibility for maintenance of all ESE files, there were approximately 170 ESE files that needed to be maintained in compliance with FTE guidelines. Except for the foregoing, Hernandez never specifically informed Respondent of what her new duties were as ESE department chair. In October 2007, after being given the responsibility for all ESE files, Respondent drafted IEPs into the A3 system for students she did not have in class by getting feedback from the students' teachers and reviewing the students' progress reports. One ESE teacher at Haile, Athena Jantzen, continued to draft some of her own students' IEPs, as Respondent was overloaded with work. Service providers, such as speech-language pathologists and psychologists, were still expected to draft and enter their own goals into the A3 system. If a student received only speech services, the speech-language pathologist was responsible for drafting the student's IEP and maintaining the file. After being assigned the responsibility for all the ESE files, Respondent asked the ESE clerk to print copies of various active IEPs from A3. Respondent requested the copies so that a copy of the student's IEP could be included in each file related to that student. The IEPs and related documents were printed from the A3 system, not photocopied, and reflected a print date of October 17, 2007, on the top of each page. The executed signature pages of the IEP which could not be printed from A3, were not photocopied by the ESE clerk and were not included in each file. After being assigned the responsibility for all the ESE files, Respondent continued to teach her assigned ESE class and perform cafeteria duty on a daily basis. Respondent was also pulled almost weekly from her department chair responsibilities to cover additional classes. Responsibilities Related to ESE Compliance Issues As chairperson for the ESE Department, Respondent was charged with the maintenance and oversight of IEPs. At Haile, the guidance counselor is designated as the school's LEA. At Haile, the registrar was designated by the school administration to set up IEP and revision meetings. The ESE clerk, who worked at Haile one day a week, was assigned to mail out the notices of meetings to the parents. When students enrolled at Haile from another school, the registrar or guidance counselor would inform Respondent if the child required ESE services. Error Reports Respondent received an "error report" from the school's registrar almost weekly. The error report identified potential compliance issues with the ESE files, but did not represent a completely accurate accounting of the files. For example, it would not identify compliance issues, such as a missing signature page for an otherwise valid IEP. Respondent used the error report to ensure that IEPs were timely updated and reviews for re-evaluations were timely initiated. Hernandez, as ESE administrator, received an "error report" about three times a year. Error reports were available to service providers who requested them. These error reports were obtained and used by some service providers to determine when the re-evaluations for which they were responsible were due. Systems to Notify Service Providers of Re-Evaluation Dates While ESE department chair, Respondent used the following three different systems to notify and/or remind service providers when students needed to be re-evaluated: (1) the "white board" system; (2) the "file drawer" system; and (3) the "binder" system. At some point prior to the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent used the "white board" system. Under that system, Respondent listed the names of students whose re-evaluation date was approaching and the due date of the re-evaluation on a "white board" that was located in the ESE office. Respondent updated the "white board" monthly. In the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent used the "file drawer" and "binder" systems to notify service providers of upcoming re-evaluation dates. The "file drawer" system consisted of placing all files that needed to be reviewed and/or files of students who were ready for testing in a file drawer designated and labeled for that specific category. In the case of a file review, Respondent would initiate the file review and then put the ESE file in a drawer labeled, "File Review." The service providers would simply go to the drawer and pull out student files to complete their review. Once the file review was completed and the student was ready for testing, the ESE file would be placed in the re-evaluation and/or evaluation drawer. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent informed all of the service providers assigned to Haile of the "file drawer" system. Among the service providers Respondent informed about the "file drawer" system were Krista Cournoyer, a school psychologist, and Julia Caldwell, a speech- language pathologist. Respondent specifically explained the use of the file drawers to them, because this was their first year working at Haile. The "file drawer" system is a typical system used by schools in the School District, but schools are not required to use that system. Instead, schools have the option of developing and using any system they choose. Early in the 2007-2008 school year and at all times relevant to this proceeding, the "binder" system was initiated at Haile.3 Under that system, the names of students who required testing and re-evaluations were placed in a binder (notebook) in the ESE office. Respondent and Karen Ciemniecki, the ESE evaluator assigned to Haile, updated the information in the binder. The various service providers could utilize the information in the binder to determine which students they needed to test and/or re-evaluate. Service providers were free to use either the "file drawer" or "binder" system to determine when they were to review a file and re-evaluate a student. In addition to utilizing those systems, the service providers could also obtain an error report which would provide information concerning re-evaluations which were due the following month. Both the "file drawer" and the "binder" systems provided the service providers the means to determine when a review and re-evaluation was due, without the direct assistance of Respondent. During the 2007-2008 school year, several service providers, including Ciemniecki and Caldwell, used the "file drawer" and/or "binder" systems to determine when student file reviews, testing and re-evaluations were to be done. In addition to using the established systems, both Ciemniecki and Caldwell obtained error reports from either Respondent or Haile's registrar. Cournoyer, like the other service providers, was aware of the "file drawer" and "binder" systems and knew how to use them. Nonetheless, Cournoyer believed that the systems were inadequate and did not ensure that she would consistently know when the re-evaluations for which she was responsible were due. Although the systems in place were not perfect, if utilized, they provided a reasonable means to determine when reviews and re-evaluations were due. Moreover, the error reports, if obtained and used, provided an additional source by which service providers could determine about a month in advance when re-evaluations were due. There were times when there were files in the designated file drawer that Cournoyer needed to review. In those instances, Respondent removed those files from the drawer and handed them to Cournoyer, indicating that they needed to be reviewed. Events Leading to Investigation In January 2008, Cournoyer believed that it appeared that she was not completing re-evaluations in a timely manner. Cournoyer also believed that the reason for any delays in completing the re-evaluations was that she did not get all the requisite forms for those re-evaluations until they were overdue. On or about January 31, 2008, Cournoyer was conducting a file review for Student E.A. While reviewing the file, she noticed that an IEP meeting was conducted for this student on January 8, 2008. Upon reviewing the file, Cournoyer had two concerns. First, she had not been invited to that IEP meeting. Second, the documentation in the file indicated that the meeting occurred three weeks before Cournoyer was notified of the need to conduct a file review for this particular student. While reviewing the file of E.A., Cournoyer noticed that the student was receiving services from Caldwell, the speech-language pathologist. She then gave the file to Caldwell who, upon review of the file, noticed that the speech goals were already written on the student's active IEP. Caldwell was concerned that she had not written those goals, as it had been her intent to dismiss the student from speech-language services, and that she had not been invited to the IEP meeting. Caldwell discussed her concerns about the speech goals for E.A. with Respondent, who instructed her to set up a meeting to revise the IEP. Cournoyer shared her concerns about "overdue" re-evaluations in an email to Respondent, but disagreed that there was a system in place that addressed her concerns. Dissatisfied with Respondent's response to her email, Cournoyer then sent an email to members of Haile's Child Study Team, including Lloyd, the ESE specialist. After receiving a response from Lloyd, Cournoyer sent an email about her concerns to the Haile administrators, including Hernandez, and ESE staff on or about February 1, 2008. After receiving Cournoyer's email, Hernandez requested that she provide additional information about her allegations and concerns. In response to that request, Cournoyer provided Hernandez with a list of students and dates of re-evaluations that were overdue. On Sunday, February 3, 2008, Hernandez and Cournoyer met at Haile and reviewed the ESE files. During that review, they found some files that were missing signature pages and that one IEP appeared to have an altered date on a consent form. After conducting a preliminary investigation, Hernandez reported his findings to Principal Kerley who, in turn, contacted the School District's Office of Professional Standards ("OPS"). OPS then initiated an investigation of Respondent and the maintenance and formulation of the ESE files at Haile. Respondent was placed on administrative leave on February 5, 2008, before the February 2008 FTE cut-off date. During that leave, Respondent was prohibited from communicating with School District employees or entering the premises of Haile. Prior to being placed on administrative leave, Respondent was not informed of the allegations against her. The matter was assigned to Debra Horne, a specialist with OPS. After reviewing an email about the case from Hernandez, Horne decided to allow the ESE department to review the ESE files at Haile.4 On February 6, 2008, the ESE team, consisting of all the secondary ESE specialists and the ESE coordinator, Joe Roberts, conducted a preliminary review of the ESE files at Haile for compliance issues. That same day, Roberts memorialized the review team's preliminary findings in an email to the ESE director, Ron Russell. According to the email, the ESE team conducted a two-hour review of the ESE files and found about ten files with problems (i.e., missing signature pages, what appeared to be an altered consent form, and IEPs which appeared to be copied from previous year's IEPs). The email memorializing the findings noted that the ESE office was not organized and that "many folders and confidential information were spread out in varying locations of the office, not in a secured fashion." The email also noted that the team looked for "numerous folders [files] and could not locate them in the filing system."5 On February 29, 2009, Horne met with Roberts and Lloyd to review the ESE files and the ESE team's preliminary findings. Based on the review of the files, the OPS determined that 15 ESE files were non-compliant for FTE (funding) purposes and that another five ESE files had compliance issues that did not affect funding. On March 13, 2008, Horne interviewed Respondent about the findings of the ESE review team. The purpose of the interview, which lasted most of the day, was to allow Dozier the opportunity to offer an explanation of the alleged compliance issues concerning specific ESE files.6 Prior to the March 13, 2008, interview, school officials did not notify Respondent of the allegations or allow her to respond to those changes. After completing the investigation and interviewing Respondent, Horne published her findings in an investigative report. The findings in the OPS investigative report and which are the bases of the charges against Respondent in this case involve the non-compliant ESE files referenced above. Specifically, the investigative report found and determined that: (1) 15 ESE files were non-compliant for FTE or funding purposes; and (2) five ESE files had compliance issues that did not affect funding. As a result of the 15 non-compliant ESE files, the affected students were returned to basic funding, causing a decrease in the overall funds available to the School District. Nevertheless, those identified students were provided with services in accordance with their IEPs. Non-Compliant ESE Files Resulting in Loss of Funds Student A.C. The investigative report found that there was no signature page in the ESE file of A.C. for the April 10, 2007, IEP. Without a properly-executed signature page, the IEP is invalid. Respondent testified credibly that she did not know if she conducted the IEP meeting when the April 10, 2007, IEP was developed, but believed that A.C. may have had more than one file. This belief was based on the fact that A.C.'s primary disability was "language impairment," and A.C. received speech services. Typically, such students had two ESE files, one of which was kept by the speech-language pathologist. The April 10, 2007, IEP meeting was conducted during the previous school year and before Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Respondent further testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page before the FTE window closed. Student J.B. The investigative report found that the ESE file of J.B. did not contain a signature page for the November 6, 2006, IEP. Without a properly executed signature page, the IEP is invalid. The November 6, 2006, IEP meeting was conducted during the previous school year and before Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Moreover, there is no evidence that Respondent conducted or was present at this IEP meeting. Respondent testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page for the November 6, 2006, IEP before the FTE window closed. The investigative report found that a second IEP for J.B. indicated that it was drafted on January 25, 2008, but the registrar was informed it was drafted on October 23, 2007. However, there is nothing in the record to establish that the registrar made such a statement. Student Z.L. The investigative report found that the ESE file of Z.L. did not contain a signature page for the March 19, 2007, IEP. The IEP for Z.L. dated March 19, 2007, was drafted while Z.L. was attending Freedom Elementary School ("Freedom"), and, thus, was drafted by employees of Freedom. This IEP was valid through March 18, 2008. Freedom is a school in the School District, and the IEP developed at that school was apparently put in the A3 system. The March 19, 2007, IEP was printed on October 19, 2007, and was a copy of the IEP from Freedom dated March 19, 2007. Because the IEP printed in October 2007 was a copy of a valid IEP, no signature page was required. No determination was made as to whether the original March 19, 2007, IEP, with the fully executed signature page, was ever sent by Freedom to Haile. The signature page could not be printed from the A3 system. Therefore, unless the original or a photocopy of the fully executed signature page of the March 19, 2007, IEP had been sent to Haile, the school would not have the signature page. Student A.L. The investigative report found that there was no temporary IEP written for A.L. after the student transferred to the School District in September 4, 2007, from an out-of-state school. In September 2007, when A.L. enrolled at Haile, the student had a valid IEP from the out-of-state school district. The out-of-state IEP was for the period March 7, 2007, through March 6, 2008, if the student had remained in that state. Once the student was enrolled, the School District had six months from the student's enrollment date to develop a temporary IEP. Accordingly, a temporary IEP should have been developed on or before March 4, 2008. A temporary IEP was not developed for A.L. prior to or by March 4, 2008, or as of March 13, 2008, when Respondent was interviewed by Ms. Horne. Although the temporary IEP had not been developed prior to Respondent's being placed on leave, steps were being taken to develop the IEP prior to Respondent's being placed on leave. For example, Ciemniecki administered achievement tests to A.L. in late September 2007. Also, Cournoyer was reviewing the student's file and also testing the student. Respondent was placed on leave February 5, 2008, about one month before the temporary IEP was required to be developed. Thus, no conclusion can be reached as to whether Respondent would have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the temporary IEP was developed by March 4, 2008. On the other hand, it is equally apparent that after being placed on leave, Respondent was prevented from and could not take any steps to ensure that a temporary IEP was developed for A.L. Therefore, it can not be concluded that Respondent is responsible for the failure to timely develop a temporary IEP. The credible testimony of Respondent was that she intended to take steps to ensure that an IEP was drafted within six months of A.L.'s enrolling in the School District. An issue was raised regarding what appeared to be inconsistent dates on the Informed Notice and Consent for Evaluation/Re-evaluation ("Informed Notice and Consent") form. That form included spaces in which the following was to be provided: (1) the referral date; (2) the parent's signature, either giving or denying consent for the evaluation; and (3) the date of the signature. The referral date printed or typed on the form is February 26, 2006. The parent's signature, giving consent for the evaluation, was dated September 24, 2007. The concern expressed was that the date of the referral, February 26, 2006, was more than a year and a half prior to A.L. enrolling in the School District. This discrepancy was explained by the credible testimony of Respondent. According to that testimony, the above-referenced consent form was from the Dynamo computer system and had been used to make copies of blank forms to be used. However, the "referral date," February 26, 2006, had been printed or typed on the original form, and that date had been inadvertently left on the form prior to copies of the form being made. Student S.H. The investigative report concluded that S.H.'s IEP dated April 26, 2007, was invalid because it was created at Haile four or five months prior to the student's enrolling in the School District on September 5, 2007.7 The ESE file of S.H. contained a valid IEP dated April 26, 2007, that was drafted while the student was living out-of-state and enrolled in an out-of-state school. That IEP would have been valid through April 25, 2008, had the student remained in the out-of-state school district. In addition to the out-of-state IEP, the ESE file of S.H. also contained another IEP dated April 26, 2007, which indicated that, as of that date, the student was attending Haile. There was also a fully executed signature page for this April 26, 2007, IEP, which had been signed by the parent, Respondent, and six other individuals. In addition to the parent and Respondent, six others signed the signature page of that IEP. Contrary to the allegations, the IEP for S.H. created at Haile was not created on April 26, 2007, four months before the student enrolled in the School District. Respondent testified credibly that she input the data from the out-of-state IEP into the A3 system. However, while inputting information in A3 for the student's new IEP, she neglected to change the IEP plan date from April 26, 2007, to the new IEP plan date. The testimony of Respondent is supported by a careful review of contents of the IEP. For example, the IEP clearly indicates that the student is now enrolled at Haile as a "transfer [student] from out of state."8 The signature page of the Haile IEP also mistakenly shows that the IEP was developed on April 26, 2007. However, the upper right corner of that signature page indicates that the signature page form for S.H.'s Haile IEP was printed from the A3 system at 7:18 a.m., on October 29, 2007, almost two months after S.H. enrolled in the School District. As noted above, only blank signature page forms can be printed from A3. Therefore, the signatures had to be placed on the signature page some time after the form was printed. Respondent's failure to change the plan date of the student's out-of-state IEP to the plan date of the new IEP created at Haile, was due to human error. Student S.R. The investigative report found that S.R.'s ESE file did not contain an IEP, a notice of IEP meeting, or signature page. S.R.'s ESE file contained a valid IEP dated February 8, 2007, drafted while the student was at Gene Witt Elementary ("Witt"), a school in the School District. The IEP was drafted by employees at Witt and was valid through February 7, 2008. The file also contained an IEP with a plan date of February 7, 2008 (the same as the Witt IEP), indicating that the student was attending Haile at the time of the IEP. Respondent testified credibly that she typed the data contained in the Witt IEP, which was in the Dynamo System, into the A3 system so that the data would be available to other teachers. Respondent testified credibly that she had no intent to make it appear that S.R. was attending Haile in February 2007. Respondent further testified credibly that when an individual inputs data into the A3 system, the school that the individual is assigned to automatically "pop[s] up" in A3 as the student's school. The document included in the investigative report that is the basis for discipline against Respondent is a copy of S.R.'s IEP that was created at Witt dated February 8, 2007. That IEP was printed from A3 on October 19, 2007. Because the IEP is a copy of a valid IEP, no signature page was required. Likewise, no notice of the IEP meeting was required. No evidence was presented to establish that the notice and fully executed signature page of the subject IEP were ever received by Haile. Student E.M. The investigative report found that the ESE file of E.M. did not contain a signature page for the April 11, 2007, IEP, and, thus, the IEP was invalid. E.M.'s April 11, 2007, IEP notes that the student's primary exceptionality is "language impaired." During the March 2008 interview, Respondent informed the OPS investigator that she believed E.M., as a language-impaired student, had two ESE files, one of which was maintained by the speech-language pathologist.9 Respondent testified credibly that she could have and intended to locate the signature page or schedule another IEP meeting before the FTE window closed. The April 11, 2007, IEP was drafted during the previous school year and prior to Respondent becoming responsible for the maintenance of all ESE files at Haile. Student M.D. The investigative report found that the ESE file of M.D. did not contain a valid IEP. According to the report, Respondent gave a plan date of November 2, 2007, to the registrar, but failed to create an IEP on that date. On November 2, 2007, a parent conference was called and conducted by Ms. Moreland, a teacher at Haile. Respondent did not attend the parent conference, but about mid-meeting, Moreland went to Respondent's office. Moreland then told Respondent that the team originally intended to remove M.D. from mainstream classes, but during the parent conference decided against it. The November 2, 2007, date may have been incorrectly given to the registrar as the IEP plan date.10 However, the meeting conducted on that date was a parent conference, and unlike IEP plan dates, are not reported to the registrar. It is alleged that the report of the conference and IEP revision sheets were incomplete. However, as a result of the team's decision that M.D. services remain the same (he would remain in mainstream classes), there was no need for the partially completed revision form to be included in M.D.'s ESE file. Thus, Moreland should have discarded that form. M.D.'s ESE file included a valid IEP dated February 8, 2007. This IEP was valid through February 7, 2008. The short-term objectives from M.D.'s 2007 and 2008 IEPs were identical. The latter IEP was dated March 6, 2008, after Respondent was on administrative leave and Jantzen was interim department chair. Student E.R. The investigation found that E.R.'s sixth-grade IEP appeared to be copied "exactly" from the student's fifth-grade IEP. The concern was that the information copied from the fifth-grade IEP to the sixth-grade IEP did not accurately reflect an appropriate measurable annual goal in the area of math. The annual measurable goal on E.R.'s fifth-grade IEP and copied on the student's sixth-grade IEP was that the student "will satisfy fifth grade math requirements." However, during the investigation, it was established that the student was performing above the fifth-grade level in math at Haile. Thus, that previous math goal should have been changed.11 The fifth-grade IEP was developed on December 7, 2006, when E.R. was enrolled at Freedom Elementary School ("Freedom") and remained effective through December 6, 2007. E.R. was enrolled as a sixth-grader at Haile in the 2007-2008 school year. Therefore, the fifth-grade IEP was effective the first few months of E.R.'s sixth-grade year at Haile. Pursuant to the administration's instructions, after E.R. enrolled at Haile, Respondent input the information from the December 2006 IEP into A3.12 Although E.R. was in the sixth grade, the IEP was effective until December 6, 2007. The December 7, 2006, IEP, upon which the OPS refers, was printed on October 19, 2007, and is a copy of the IEP developed at Freedom, except that E.R.'s school and grade had been changed. The student's school was changed from "Freedom" to "Haile" and the current grade was changed from fifth to sixth.13 Respondent testified credibly that she did not know who changed the grade and school on E.R.'s December 2006 IEP. Moreover, no evidence was presented as to who made those changes. However, undoubtedly, on October 19, 2007, E.R. was enrolled at Haile and was in the sixth grade. Respondent testified credibly that in inputting E.R.'s December 7, 2006, IEP, developed at Freedom, into the A3 system, she did not intend to make it appear that E.R.'s December 7, 2006, IEP was developed at Haile. Student C.D. The investigative report found that Respondent gave the registrar an IEP plan date on January 30, 2008, but A3 indicated the meeting was held the following day. Having the IEP meeting on the following day would not necessarily be a violation.14 However, C.D.'s ESE file did not contain a notice of a January 30 or 31, 2008, IEP meeting, an IEP, or a signature page for either of those dates. If a meeting were held on either of those days, a notice of the meeting and a signature page should be in the file. C.D.'s ESE file contained a valid IEP dated February 5, 2007, that was valid through February 4, 2008. Respondent testified that she intended to draft another IEP and hold a meeting before the deadline, which would have brought the file into compliance with the FTE requirements. Notwithstanding Respondent's testimony, there was no indication that an IEP plan meeting had been scheduled on or before February 4, 2008, and that notices of such meeting had been sent to parents and other appropriate individuals. Unless an IEP plan meeting had been scheduled and properly noticed, regardless of Respondent's intent, an IEP could not have been developed on or before the February 5, 2007, IEP expired. Student J.D. The investigative report found that the goals from J.D.'s 2008 IEP are identical to the student's 2007 IEP, which was effective from January 26, 2007, through January 25, 2008, unless and until a new IEP was developed. A new IEP ("2008 IEP") was developed for J.D. on January 14, 2008, and was effective from that date until January 13, 2009. During her March 2008 interview with OPS, Respondent informed Horne that she was taught that the goals of a student who was not meeting with success could be carried over to the next year. Other district employees confirmed that it was common practice to carry over goals from one year to the next. J.D.'s 2007 IEP indicates that Jantzen was the contact person for the IEP and that Respondent was not invited to the IEP meeting. J.D.'s 2008 IEP indicates that Respondent was not invited to the IEP meeting. Jantzen signed the signature page of this IEP as the ESE teacher, and Nosal, Moreland, Edmonson, and J.D.'s parent also signed the page. Jantzen, the current ESE department chair at Haile, testified credibly that a student's goals could be carried over to the next year, if deemed appropriate. According to Jantzen, it would be proper to include a note on the IEP regarding the reason(s) why the goals were carried over. However, there is no indication that Jantzen did so in J.D.'s file. Student M.M. The investigative report found that M.M.'s IEP dated April 4, 2007, did not include an LEA signature. Respondent informed OPS that it was probably an oversight that the LEA failed to sign the signature page. Respondent testified credibly that she would not have held a meeting if an LEA was not present, and it was likely that she anticipated an LEA coming or that the LEA was in attendance, but failed to sign the sheet. Typically, in the School District, the ESE department chair is the designated LEA at his/her respective school. However, at Haile, the school's guidance counselor, not the ESE department chair, is the designated LEA. If and when the guidance counselor at Haile is unavailable to serve as LEA, other individuals at the school, including Respondent, as the ESE department chair, were authorized to act as LEA. The failure to obtain the signature of an LEA at the April 4, 2007, IEP meeting was an oversight. Respondent was at that meeting and signed the signature page as the ESE teacher/evaluator. In the absence of the guidance counselor or another person designated as LEA, Respondent could have signed as LEA in addition to signing as ESE teacher/evaluator. Respondent was not aware that the LEA had not signed the form until she (Respondent) was interviewed by OPS. If Respondent had become aware of the problem prior to being placed on administrative leave, she could have taken one of two steps to correct the situation before the FTE window closed. To correct the omission of the LEA signature, Respondent could have scheduled another IEP meeting if no LEA was present. According to Hernandez, corrective action could have been taken by having the LEA sign off after the meeting, if that person had attended the meeting, but forgot to sign.15 Due to her oversight, Respondent took no corrective action to obtain the signature of an LEA on M.M.'s IEP dated April 4, 2007. As a result of this oversight, the IEP was not compliant for the October 2007 or the February 2008 cut-off date. Student B.R.H. The investigative report found that B.R.H.'s IEP dated March 6, 2007, did not include an LEA signature. The effective period of that IEP was March 6, 2007, through March 5, 2008. Respondent signed the signature page of the March 6, 2007, IEP as the ESE teacher/evaluator. In addition to signing the signature page as the ESE teacher/evaluator, Respondent, as ESE department chair, also could have signed as LEA if the primary LEA representative was not at the meeting. The corrective action discussed in paragraph 148 could also have been taken if the LEA representative attended the meeting, but left without signing the signature page. Respondent was not aware of the omission of the LEA signature until it was called to her attention during the March 13, 2008, OPS interview. Had Respondent been aware of that omission prior to that time, she could have taken appropriate corrective action. Because Respondent was unaware of the situation prior to that time, no corrective action was taken prior to the October 2007 FTE cut-off date. Student J.G. The investigative report determined that the ESE file of J.G. could not be found. Despite that determination, it was not established when this student enrolled at Haile and/or if that student's ESE file was ever delivered to Haile. Moreover, at this proceeding no testimony or evidence was presented as to whether the ESE file was found after Respondent was placed on administrative leave. As ESE department chair, Respondent was responsible for maintaining the ESE files. However, in this instance, it is unknown when, and if, J.G. enrolled in Haile and/or if the student's file was ever delivered to the school. Assuming, though not finding it, that J.G's ESE file was at Haile, no evidence was presented that Respondent intentionally or otherwise concealed the file.16 The credible testimony of Respondent was that she did not conceal J.G.'s ESE file. Student B.M. The investigative report found that B.M.'s ESE file could not be found. It was not established that B.M. was a student at Haile, whether the student enrolled at Haile, or if B.M.'s ESE file was ever delivered to Haile. Also, no evidence was presented at the hearing as to whether the file was found since Respondent was placed on administrative leave. During the March 13, 2008, OPS interview, Respondent informed Horne that she did not know B.M. Also, Respondent testified credibly that she did not know B.M. and never saw B.M.'s ESE file. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent intentionally concealed the ESE file of B.M. or that the file was ever at Haile. Alleged Deficiencies Not Resulting in Loss of Funds Student E.A. The investigative report found that Respondent falsified an Informed Notice and Consent form for E.A. This finding was based on a comparison of two Informed Notice and Consent forms for E.A. Informed Notice and Consent forms: (1) advise parents that their child has been recommended for an evaluation, re-evaluation and/or file review; (2) indicate the types of assessments that may be used; (3) provide parents the option to either give or deny consent for the evaluation; and (4) provide a signature and date line for parents to complete. Informed Notice and Consent forms also provide spaces for information, such as the student's name, address, school, grade, and teacher's name ("identifying information"). On both of the Informed Notice and Consent forms for E.A., the identifying information had been written in the appropriate spaces, and the parent had signed and indicated that consent was given for the proposed evaluation. The two Informed Notice and Consent forms were different in several ways as set forth below. On the first Informed Notice and Consent form, someone had written in the student's grade as "6." The middle portion of the form, which describes the student's proposal for evaluation, was not completed. Finally, the parent's signature was on the form, but the "date" line next to his/her signature was not completed. On the second Informed Notice and Consent form: in the space for the student's grade, the number "8" was written over what appeared to be a "6," indicating that the student was in eighth grade, not sixth grade; (2) the middle portion relating to the proposal for evaluation had been completed; and (3) the date, April 23, 2007, previously not on the form, was written next to the parent's signature. The finding in the investigative report assumes that the first Informed Notice and Consent form (which was incomplete) was prepared and signed by the parent when E.A. was in the sixth grade, and the form was copied and modified when the student was in eighth grade. Those alleged modifications included changing the student's grade and inserting a date next to the parent's signature. Respondent testified that she may have changed the grade from "6" to "8" on the second form and did not know if she had added the date next to the parent's signature. While Respondent is not sure how the foregoing occurred or who did it, she explained that, with respect to the grade, it was possible that she wrote the "8" over the "6," because the grade had been initially entered incorrectly.17 According to the OPS report, during the March interview, Respondent advised the investigator that the file she (Respondent) was given to review was E.A.'s speech file and not the student's ESE file. Respondent told Horne during that interview that she was "almost certain that there was another consent form." At hearing, Respondent testified credibly that she believed that there was another consent form elsewhere.18 Based on the record, no determination can be made as to when the date next to the parent's signature was written on the Informed Notice and Consent form or who wrote that date.19 Based on the record, no determination can be made as to who or when E.A.'s grade level was changed from "6" to "8" or whether that change was made to correct an error.20 Student L.H. The investigative report found that the Informed Notice and Consent form for L.H. was falsified by Respondent. On the student's Informed Notice of Consent form, the date next to the parent's signature was January 25, 2008. The date of the parents' signature on that form appeared to have been changed to January 25, 2007. The investigative report found that the "8" in the year 2008 appeared to have been written over what seemed to have been a "7" in the year 2007. No evidence was presented to establish who wrote an "8" on the form, indicating that the form was signed by the parents on January 25, 2008. No evidence was presented as to when the parents actually signed the Informed Notice and Consent form. The credible testimony of Respondent was that she did not change the date on the consent form and did not know who had done so. Student B.H. It is alleged that the ESE file of B.H. did not contain a notice of an IEP meeting and should have since the student's current IEP was to expire on February 6, 2008. No evidence was presented to establish that Respondent directed or instructed the ESE assistant or registrar to send out notices of an IEP meeting for B.H. or that the notices were sent out. Respondent testified that she intended to make the file compliant by sending a notice to the parents before the deadline. Despite Respondent's intentions, unless a notice had been sent out prior to February 5, 2008, and unless she took extraordinary measures, the IEP plan meeting could not be convened and no IEP was developed for B.H. on or before February 6, 2008, when the student's IEP expired.21 Student A.T. The investigative report determined that the IEP for A.T. dated October 4, 2007, did not include a signature page. According to the investigative report, during the March 2008, interview with Respondent, the investigator "reviewed the concern for A.T." (no signature page for the October 2007 IEP). The investigator then advised Respondent that the School District could have lost funding, but the problem was caught in time, and an IEP meeting was held to obtain the signatures. Finally, the investigator told Respondent, "Please explain." Respondent answered by telling the investigator that she could not remember. The investigative report makes no mention of Horne providing any file of A.T.'s to Respondent during the above- described discussion. After the allegation related to the missing signature page was made and Respondent was placed on leave, a signature page for A.T.'s October 4, 2007, IEP, which included Respondent's signature, was found.22 Apparently, before the signature page for the October 4, 2007, IEP referenced in paragraph 189 was located and after Respondent was placed on leave, school officials completed two signature pages for that IEP. These signature pages were backdated to correct the "missing signature page" issue. Ultimate Findings The School Board lost funding due to 15 ESE files being non-compliant with applicable statutes and regulations. However, those non-compliant issues were the result of human errors, mistakes, omissions and oversights of those responsible for the files, including, but not limited to, Respondent. The record is void of any evidence that the ESE files' non-compliance issues were the result of Respondent’s committing intentional acts to falsify the ESE records and/or to misrepresent the facts relative to the ESE students. Finally, there is no evidence that the errors, mistakes, and omissions attributed to Respondent resulted from her intentionally or deliberately neglecting her duties and/or refusing to adhere to the directives of supervisors and/or applicable laws, regulations, and School Board policies.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order: Finding Respondent, Annette D. Dozier, not guilty of the charges alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Reinstating Respondent with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2009.
The Issue Should Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board (School Board or Board), terminate the employment of Respondent, Rose M. Dacanay, for the reasons that follow: Violation of Board Policy 4140A(9), incompetence? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(9)(a), failure to perform the duties of the position? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(19), failure to correct performance deficiencies? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(20), insubordination? Violation of Board Policy 4140A(24), failure to comply with Board policy, state law, or contractual agreement?
Findings Of Fact The Pinellas County School District has employed Ms. Dacanay since August 2005. She has worked as a teacher assistant and as an exceptional student education (ESE) associate. At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Dacanay worked as an ESE associate assigned to the Paul B. Stephens Exceptional Student Education Center (Paul B. Stephens). The Center serves vulnerable students with significant developmental disabilities and medical needs. ESE associates work under a classroom teacher's direct supervision. They must assist the teacher in all aspects of both the care and the education of the students. During the first semester of the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Dacanay worked in the classroom of Paulette Pickering. Because Ms. Dacanay's performance in Ms. Pickering's class was not satisfactory, the principal, Gail Cox, reassigned her to the classroom of Linda Vest for the second semester, which started January 2012. Ms. Cox selected Ms. Vest's classroom because it did not have as many students as Ms. Pickering's, and the class was not as demanding. The reassignment was to give Ms. Dacanay an opportunity to improve her skills and continue working at the school. Also during 2011, Ms. Cox, along with other administrators and a teacher's union representative, met in October and November with Ms. Dacanay four times to review multiple deficiencies in her performance and offer improvement plans. In the meeting held November 10, 2011, Ms. Cox encouraged Ms. Dacanay to apply for other positions in the school system that would not be so demanding and would be a better fit for her. In January of 2012, Ms. Cox spoke to Ms. Dacanay and told her very directly, "This is not working, Rose. You need to find a different job. Even though everyone is nice and polite, you're still not doing your job, and you need to find another one that better fits your skills." Ms. Dacanay did not take this advice. She worked the remainder of the 2011-2012 school year at Paul B. Stephens. After summer break, she returned to employment in the 2012-2013 school year. She was assigned to assist Kim Gilbert. The students of Paul B. Stephens have emotional, mental, and physical disabilities. Many have severe and multiple disabilities. They are dependent upon the services of their teachers and teacher assistants. One of the students in Ms. Gilbert's class required the use of Dynamic Ankle Foot Orthotics (DAFOS). These are hard plastic inserts positioned around a child's foot before putting on the child's shoe. They must be positioned and wedged on carefully to avoid hurting the student. After correct placement, they are strapped on. The DAFOS are individually made for each wearer's feet. Ms. Dacanay had been instructed and trained on how to put DAFOS on. DAFOS position a child's foot to cure or resist deformity. They are uncomfortable even when properly applied. When DAFOS are put on the wrong foot, they are painful and can cause blisters and sores. They also do not properly perform their rehabilitative function. On October 23, 2012, Ms. Dacanay put a student's DAFOS on backwards. This would cause the student pain and eliminate the benefits of the DAFOS. Fortunately, Ms. Gilbert spotted the mistake and corrected it. The same student also needed and wore an arm splint. Ms. Dacanay had been instructed and trained on how to fasten the arm splints. On October 24, 2012, Ms. Dacanay was improperly fastening the arm splint. Ms. Gilbert noticed and corrected her. In 2012, Ms. Dacanay's duties included placing wheelchair-bound students in the bus and securing their wheelchairs. This service is critical to the students' safety and the safety of the other students. It requires properly fastening the students in their chairs with chest and foot straps to prevent them from falling from the chair or injuring their feet during transportation. Ms. Dacanay was trained in securing the students and their wheelchairs for transport. On October 29, 2012, Ms. Dacanay did not fasten the chest straps on one student's wheelchair. On October 30, 2012, Ms. Dacanay did not properly secure a student's feet for transport on the bus. Fortunately each time, other employees noticed the errors and corrected them. On another occasion, Ms. Dacanay did not properly fasten the chest strap of a student in a wheelchair on the bus. Another ESE associate checked the student's straps and tightened them properly. The students' wheelchairs were also strapped tightly in the bus to prevent movement or falling. Ms. Dacanay was properly trained on how to secure the bus hook-up straps. From October forward, Ms. Dacanay routinely failed to properly secure students for the bus. A fellow ESE associate regularly observed this and began routinely checking and tightening the straps for the students. Specifically, Ms. Dacanay did not properly fasten the wheelchair hook-ups on November 14 and December 4, 2012. Despite the fact that properly securing the wheelchairs was one of her duties, on December 4, 2012, Ms. Dacanay asked a student why he had not hooked up the side straps on his wheelchair. Ms. Dacanay's neglect of the task of securing students in their wheelchairs was so common that the other ESE associates who worked in Ms. Gilbert's class were concerned for the children's safety. Consequently, they regularly checked the wheelchairs of students for whom Ms. Dacanay was responsible to ensure that the students were properly secured and safe. They often found the straps loose and secured them. Swimming was part of the curriculum and services for some students. On November 5, 2012, while bringing students back from the pool, Ms. Dacanay used only one hand to push a student in a tall, cumbersome therapy chair. The chair was tall, unstable, and very difficult to maneuver along the sidewalk. With her other hand, Ms. Dacanay was escorting another student. Two other ESE associates yelled at her to stop. Ms. Dacanay did not, and the chair "wobbled" and went off the sidewalk. Ms. Dacanay was taking prescription medicine. She did not properly secure it, and a pill fell to the bathroom floor. Ms. Gilbert found the pill and gave it to the school nurse, Tomeka Miller. Ms. Dacanay went to Ms. Miller and asked her to return the pill. She also asked if anyone else knew about the pill. Ms. Miller advised Ms. Dacanay that Ms. Gilbert knew. The ready availability of the pill to the students with disabilities represented a potential risk to the students. One of the students for whom Ms. Dacanay was responsible was blind and had other issues. In the words of his teacher, Ms. Gilbert: That was my student who was blind. In addition to having a lot of other issues, he's a student who is transported in a wheelchair and he kind of cruises around furniture, but it's not a walker. He's very, very difficult, very strong, very stubborn. He has a lot of sensory issues, so you can't hurry him to do anything. It just makes the problem worse. Ms. Dacanay was aware of the student's issues and needs. On November 8, 2012, Ms. Dacanay was hurrying the student back into the classroom. She was urging him on and saying "come on, let's go." He became agitated. Ms. Gilbert instructed Ms. Dacanay to let the student calm down. Ms. Dacanay did not. This detrimentally affected the rest of the morning routine, including the student's therapy schedule. Ms. Dacanay denied each of the events described above. Her denials are not credible judged in light of the conflicting testimony, consistency of testimony among several witnesses, and consistent reports in contemporaneously created documents. In addition, Ms. Dacanay regularly displayed an inability to perform her work or learn her duties. Despite repeated instructions, she failed to correctly perform routine functions. When she worked with her students and the physical education teacher, Darlene Tickner, Ms. Tickner had to repeat instructions and requests multiple times to get her to work. Ms. Dacanay's inability to understand her duties caused Ms. Tickner to develop a "Teacher Associate Class Expectations" worksheet to help remind Ms. Dacanay and the other associates of their fundamental duties. Although the worksheet was given to all associates, Ms. Dacanay's repeated inability to perform the duties of her position was the reason Ms. Tickner prepared the worksheet. Although Ms. Dacanay was only responsible for seven students, she could not even remember their names. Ms. Dacanay also demonstrated a pattern of not paying attention to the students, preferring instead to perform chores. For instance on September 19, 2012, when Ms. Dacanay should have been assisting with a student activity, she left the classroom area for about ten minutes and spent her time folding and storing student bathing suits. This was after she had read and signed the "Class Expectations" worksheet that listed "Focus on the students and the activity, not chores" first. On another occasion, Ms. Dacanay neglected to bring a blind student who also needed a wheelchair, because of cerebral palsy, to the physical education class. Ms. Tickner asked Ms. Dacanay where the student was. Ms. Dacanay said "she didn't know." Ms. Tickner sent Ms. Dacanay back to the classroom to get the student. Ms. Dacanay returned without the student and said "she couldn't get him into his chair." Ms. Tickner had to go get the student and bring him to the class. As the "Class Expectation" worksheet notes and Ms. Tickner had emphasized, class participation was important for the students and participation with the students was an important part of the associate's job. Once when Ms. Tickner specifically instructed Ms. Dacanay to work with the other associates getting the students in and out of the pool, Ms. Dacanay disobeyed. Instead, she followed a mobile student who did not need assistance around. On another occasion, Ms. Dacanay was supposed to prepare the students for swimming. She removed the diaper from a child who was not going swimming. Similar issues and concerns about Ms. Dacanay's focus and attention to her duties caused the physical education teacher the year before, Mark Manley, to conclude that he could not leave the room if Ms. Dacanay was working with the students. She repeatedly demonstrated problems "focusing on tasks, staying on task . . . inability to stay with a program all the time." The problems Ms. Dacanay had during the 2012-2013 school year were similar to earlier performance failures during her time at Paul B. Stephens when she was working with Ms. Pickering. Ms. Cox met with Ms. Dacanay on October 18, 2012. The letter of reprimand following that meeting summarized the failings identified above and others. The letter advised Ms. Dacanay: [Y]ou appear to avoid work, especially toileting/changing student. Your ability to learn your job or perform your work responsibilities has been questioned and requires your teacher to constantly monitor you to ensure student safety. For example you appear not to remember which student uses which chair nor how to secure students in their chairs. This has happened several times. After 3-4 weeks in school you still needed direction to assist students with table activities before morning group. You have been off-task during PE and you were not able to monitor students assigned to you when they were in the pool. You also fell asleep during music class. In addition to classroom issues the assistants on the bus with you have stated that you pretend to forget how to hook up wheelchairs and harnesses, and do not do your share on the bus. You also fall asleep regularly on the way home in the afternoon which also puts more work on the other assistants. Before working at Paul B. Stephens, Ms. Dacanay received less than satisfactory ratings on her evaluations beginning on February 20, 2007, at Largo High School, where her evaluation noted that she needed to improve punctuality and that she left her assigned area without notifying the teacher. In all, between February 20, 2007, and February 10, 2011, Ms. Dacanay's evaluations reflect 16 instances of being evaluated as unsatisfactory or in need of improvement in areas that include punctuality, judgment, job knowledge, quality of work, quantity of work, initiative and attendance. The weight of the persuasive, credible evidence established that Ms. Dacanay was not competent to perform her duties, did not perform her duties, and did not improve her performance despite being given repeated opportunities to improve.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order finding that there is just cause to terminate Ms. Dacanay's employment and terminating her professional service contract for just cause pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 27th day of November, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed with DOAH on March 21, 2012, and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Monroe County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been an ESE teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional services contract. Prior to the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, Respondent has not received any disciplinary action. Respondent has been an ESE teacher employed by Petitioner since 2005. The 2011-12 school year was her first year working with kindergarten through second grade students. Respondent worked with ESE students both in the regular classroom setting, where she works one-on-one with a student, and in situations where she removes students from the regular classroom and works with one or more students in a separate classroom. Charity King (Ms. King) is a kindergarten teacher in one of Petitioner's elementary schools (the subject school). Respondent was assigned to the subject school for the 2011-12 school year, which was her second year as a teacher. Ms. King's class consists of 16 kindergarten students, one of whom is the Student. The Student is a five-year-old female with special needs. The Student has been diagnosed with a form of autism known as Pervasive Developmental Disability Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. The Student is high functioning intellectually, but she has trouble verbalizing and is easily distracted. She sometimes screams, pushes others (including her teacher), and becomes defiant. Periodically, she has tantrums. The Student's father is a school psychologist employed by Petitioner. The Student's mother is an ESE staffing specialist in the subject school. Both the father and the mother are very involved with their daughter's education. Respondent testified, credibly, that she communicated daily with the Student's parents and that she had developed a good rapport with the Student. Respondent also testified, credibly, that she is philosophically opposed to becoming physical with any student. Ms. Rollason has worked with Respondent on a daily basis since August of 2006. During that time, Ms. Rollason has never seen Respondent be physically inappropriate with a child, Respondent lose her temper with a child, or do anything inappropriate with a child.2/ On December 7, 2012, Respondent provided one-on-one services to the Student in Ms. King's classroom. Ms. King taught her other students during that day. On December 16, Ms. King reported to Ms. Diaz, the assistant principal at the subject school, that on December 7 she had witnessed Respondent spank the Student on one occasion, at which time she administered two blows.3/ Ms. King testified that on a scale ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 10, each of the two blows administered to the Student would have been a 7. Ms. King testified at the formal hearing that she first discussed the spanking incident with Respondent on December 15. Ms. King testified that during that conversation, Respondent tacitly admitted spanking the Student by nodding her head and making a spanking motion. Respondent testified that she met with Ms. King to discuss target groups, which included a general discussion about the Student. Respondent denied that the subject of spanking was discussed, and she denied making any spanking motion Ms. King testified that other than the conversation she had with Respondent, she did not discuss the alleged spanking incident with anyone at the school, including the Student's mother, until December 16, when she talked to Ms. Diaz. Ms. King did not confront Respondent on the day of the alleged incident. Ms. King does not know the approximate time of day the alleged spanking occurred, does not know what she was doing when the alleged spanking occurred, does not know where she was in the classroom, does not know where in the classroom Respondent and the Student were, and does not recall whether the Student cried or had any other reaction to the alleged spanking. Ms. King did not talk to the Student about the alleged spanking, and she did not check to see if the Student was hurt. Ms. King also testified that prior to December 7, she had seen Respondent mishandle the Student. Ms. King did not identify the time, date, or place of this alleged mishandling. Ms. King did not describe the acts that constituted the mishandling. Respondent testified, credibly, that she never mishandled the Student and did not know what Ms. King was referencing. On either December 17 or 18, Respondent was first notified of the allegation that she had spanked the Student. Respondent was totally surprised by the allegation. She had no idea what Ms. King was talking about. Over the course of the following days and weeks, Respondent tried to reconstruct the events of December 7. She could not recall any incident, and nothing in her notes from that day referenced any issue. Mr. Russell interviewed the other students in Ms. King's class on December 22. None of those students reported witnessing anything inappropriate on December 7. The Student's parents were not informed of the alleged incident until January, after the holiday break. Consequently, they were unable to discuss the incident with their daughter right after the alleged incident occurred. Since the first time she was confronted with the allegations, Respondent has maintained she did not hit, spank, or strike the Student on December 7. Respondent has also maintained that she never handled the Student in a rough manner. There is no basis in this case to credit Ms. King's testimony over that of the Respondent. While the undersigned finds Ms. King to be a sincere witness, her vague, uncorroborated testimony is insufficient to support a finding of guilt in this proceeding. Mr. Russell recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. When he made that recommendation, he was unaware of Petitioner's progressive discipline policy. There was no other evidence that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system had been impaired by the alleged incidents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Monroe County, Florida, 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 find Janet Faber not guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and reinstate her employment with back pay and appropriate benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of July, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), Petitioner has just cause to dismiss Respondent for the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges served on April 22, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has employed Respondent as a teacher since 2007. Until this incident, Respondent has not previously received any adverse employment action during her teaching career, which has been exclusively with Petitioner. Initially, Respondent worked as a first-grade general education teacher at Liberty City Elementary School. For her second year at Liberty City, Petitioner assigned Respondent to teach a pre-kindergarten special education class, which contained 12-14 students. Four students were general education students, and the remaining students received special education under a variety of eligibilities. Petitioner assigned Respondent a mentor, and Respondent later earned a certificate in special education. Respondent taught special education classes at Liberty City for the next four school years through June 2013. The special education program, of which Respondent was a part, was transferred from Liberty City to Crowder Early Childhood Diagnostic and Special Education Center (Crowder) for the 2013-14 school year. ** was not among Respondent's students at the start of the 2013-14 school year. About three weeks after the school year started, ** transferred into Respondent's classroom. **’s individual education plan states that its eligibilities are Autism and Emotional/Behavioral Disorder. **'s behavior was volatile in class, and ** would scream and throw itself onto the floor when it did not get its way. To avoid lunchroom disruptions, shortly after **'s arrival, Respondent obtained the approval of her principal to eat lunch in the classroom with ** and another student who did not tolerate the lunchroom well. On October 2, 2014, 12 students were in Respondent's class. Four students were general education students, and the remaining students were special education students. A paraprofessional assisted Respondent from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. each day, including the day in question. Before lunch, Respondent was teaching reading with the students seated on the floor in a circle. Respondent's class occupied a large pod, which was divided into two classrooms by shelves, not a door. On the other side of the shelves was an Autism Spectrum Disorder class. Respondent's side of the pod contained small tables and easels, an art area, a long table, and a puppet theater that doubled as a safe place for students needing a time-out. Relative to the front door leading to the hallway, Respondent and her students were at the far end of the classroom, which Respondent estimated to be at least 20-23 feet from the door leading to the hallway. At some point, ** tried to situate itself next to ##, who generally kept to itself and tried to move away from **. Respondent intervened by telling ** to sit next to her. ** instead threw itself down on the floor in close proximity to the rear wall of the classroom and began flailing about. Fearing that ** would injure itself, Respondent kneeled beside ** and secured its hands. In a few moments, ** calmed down, and Respondent was able to resume instruction. Given these facts as a hypothetical, the principal testified that a teacher taking these actions would not violate any of Petitioner's policies. Following the incident, nothing appeared out of the ordinary. As was her custom, Respondent had lunch with ** and the other child in the classroom. After lunch, ** was removed from the class, and Respondent was summoned to the office where the principal, in the presence of a law enforcement officer, informed Respondent that she had been observed striking **. Unknown to Respondent, as she was holding **'s hands down, the secretary/treasurer of Crowder, who had been a classroom teacher, had entered the front door of the classroom to give Respondent some papers that Respondent needed to sign. The secretary/treasurer testified that, over the course of "a couple of seconds," she saw Respondent kneeling beside **, holding it down with her left hand, and striking it with the other hand on its forearm and sides. With each strike, according to the secretary/treasurer, Respondent raised her right hand to shoulder height before striking the crying child, who was not struggling. The most immediate problem with the secretary/treasurer's version of events is her claim that she had an unobstructed view of the incident. This claim is untrue. The other students, who were seated in a circle at the far end of the room, were between the secretary/treasurer and Respondent and **. More importantly, the secretary/treasurer's version of events does not make sense given her muted reaction. Seeing a teacher striking a passive, crying child hard four times, the secretary/treasurer did not intervene to halt this child abuse. Nor did she immediately return to the office to inform the principal or call the police. Instead, by her own testimony, she exited the classroom, proceeded to a nearby classroom where she delivered to another teacher a paper that needed to be signed, and returned to the front office about four minutes after the incident had taken place. Once in the office, the secretary/treasurer still did not immediately report the incident as she described it in her testimony. Instead, she suggested that the principal conduct a teachers' meeting to remind the teachers of approved methods of discipline. When the principal asked why she should do so, the secretary/treasurer recounted the version to which she testified. The improbabilities and implausibilities in the testimony of the secretary/treasurer preclude assigning it any weight. The striking of any student is unequivocally prohibited by Petitioner's policies. The striking of a very young student with special education disabilities that would be associated with disruptive behaviors would represent a more egregious violation of these policies. The actions of the secretary/treasurer after the incident are inexplicable--unless, at the time, she was unsure of exactly what she had seen or knew that she had seen an incident more in line with Respondent's description. Further undermining the testimony of the secretary/treasurer concerning the incident, which involved four blows of the hand swung from shoulder height, ** was examined later on the same day and bore no marks.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Specific Charges and, if Respondent has been suspended without pay, reinstating her immediately with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 22nd day of July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Cristina Rivera Correa, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19, North, Suite 110 Post Office Box 4940 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Pam Stewart Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, misconduct in office and/or absence without leave. POST-HEARING PROCEDURE A transcript of the formal hearing was provided the undersigned on March 21, 1985, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by both parties. A subsequently-filed revision of Respondent's initial proposal was accepted without objection and considered. When a party's proposed findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence admitted, they were adopted and are reflected in the Recommended Order, but to the extent proposed findings of fact were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been rejected or, where possible, modified to conform to the evidence. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted or are inconsistent with the findings herein, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has thereby been made either directly or indirectly except where the proposed finding of fact was cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary. Based upon observation of the witnesses and their candor and demeanor while testifying, all exhibits admitted in evidence, and the proposals and arguments of counsel, the following relevant facts are found:
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner on November 15, 1982, at West Little River Elementary School. She suffered a non-school related accident and was absent approximately 121 days during the 1982-1983 school year. Observations of her teaching by her then-principal, John Johnson II, were unfavorable, but due to the prolonged absences, those observations did not result in any formal evaluations/recommendations. Respondent's requested leave for this period was granted and approved by Petitioner upon the basis of her severe electrical shock and back injury. Some of this period was classified as leave without pay. Petitioner also paid Respondent's insurance premiums for this period. Having thus condoned this absenteeism, Petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of it. (See allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Notice of Charges.) Principal Nicholas Rinaldi of Bay Harbor Elementary School hired Respondent as the teacher for its new "home-based" gifted program beginning there for the 1983-1984 school year. Although Principal Johnson would not have recommended Respondent for employment in the second year, he was not consulted by Principal Rinaldi. Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that she was limited to a $1,000.00 budget for purchasing materials for the program she was to develop. Principal Rinaldi understood that Respondent knew she was both to stay within this budget which is the standard limit at all home-based gifted programs and that she was required to get prior approval of her purchases from him. Apparently, Respondent grasped, the concept of a $1,000.00 "cap" but did not initially understand that she was to obtain prior written permission. After two orders were cancelled, she still had overspent by $60.00. She was then told specifically not to make any further purchases without the principal's permission. Thereafter, another order placed by Respondent was received at the school but Petitioner did not establish that Respondent placed the order after the cancellation of two prior orders and after Rinaldi's specific instruction not to order any more goods whatsoever. (See allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was clearly informed that she needed prior authorization for phone calls. She did not get prior permission for five long distance phone calls made personally or by students at her direction. The total cost of these calls is 8.56, which is very minimal. All calls were related to classwork with the exception of one call for $.44 and one call for $.25, which were admittedly of a personal nature. Respondent reimbursed the $.72 after the fact when notified of investigation into the phone bill. (See allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges.) Twenty-five students are required for a home-based gifted program. Bay Harbor was one of three North area schools piloting a home-based program in the 1983-1984 school year. In prior school years, gifted children from Bay Harbor attended a center program physically located elsewhere. A center program places a team of teachers of subjects from various schools in one physical location. Eligible students from various schools come to the center for two days a week for the gifted program and they receive their basic skills education at their respective home schools in the remaining three days per week. In a home-based program, a school which has enough gifted students elects to keep those students physically at the home school. They usually go into that program for two hours a day, every day. Some subject or subjects are used to deliver the gifted program. Those subjects are then graded by the home- based gifted teacher, who in this case was Respondent. When he hired her, Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that mathematics would be part of the new "home-based" gifted program, but math was essentially unstructured in the beginning. Thereafter, Principal Rinaldi instructed Respondent to utilize the standard Dade County "total math program, (TMP). When the TMP program was selected by Principal Rinaldi in approximately, December 1983, his motivation was that he understood TMP provided a structure for math that allows students to enter at the level that they are individually and moves each at a pace commensurate with his individual ability. Unfortunately, because a home-based program does not select its students on their specific giftedness in content area, some students in Bay- Harbor's 1983-1984 pilot program were lower than others in math. Some were even below their grade level. Those above the grade level were becoming bored with the program and those below the grade level were in a constant state of frustration struggling to keep up. A failure on Respondent's part to communicate surfaced, and misunderstandings arose between Respondent and parents and students as to the nature of projects, when projects were due and the reasonableness of homework. Problems concerning teacher absences also arose. The more academic and less "time-out-of-school" atmosphere of a home-based versus a center-based program also caused problems between the Respondent teacher and students/parents and between the Respondent and her principal. Upsets among the students and their parents resulted in many students being permanently removed from the gifted program. Over a period of time, the decrease in enrollment threatened to destroy the Bay Harbor gifted program, the survival of which required 25 students. On January 4, 1984, Principal Rinaldi observed Respondent's class for an hour for teacher evaluation purposes. This resulted in a basically good evaluation with some areas targeted for improvement (instructional planning and maintenance of student records [P-7]). The crux of this targeting was the principal's perception that Respondent did not record sufficient grades and her student files were not arranged alphabetically with papers arranged chronologically within each file. This standard of record-keeping is personal to Mr. Rinaldi and not uniform among other Dade County principals. At the standard post-observation conference, the two argued over the evaluation and the exactitude required by the principal, and Respondent refused to sign the evaluation to acknowledge that she had seen and received a copy of the document. As will be related infra, this refusal to sign or initial merely for acknowledgment of receipt of documents became a constant and continuing refusal on Respondent's part whenever the issue came up. Six days later she refused again; on January 17, 1984, Respondent responded in four written pages defending her methods. As events unfolded chronologically thereafter what started basically as a personality clash of the principal's "irresistible force" authoritarianism and the teacher's "immovable object" obstructionism mushroomed to affect students, parents, teachers, and administrators. In early January, Respondent complained concerning the inclusion of math in the gifted program to a higher outside administrator Dr. Agerwald. Mr. Rinaldi objected to this contact. On January 11, 1984, Mrs. Vickers, Petitioner's Director of Exceptional Students Program, arrived to observe Respondent's classes. She prepared a "School Visitation Report." The report is basically positive but does comment that the gifted classes are too big and current IEPs (records) were not and should have been available in the classroom. On February 2, 1984, Vickers issued a commendation to Hay Harbor on quality of cumulative records for exceptional children. Mr. Rinaldi passed this commendation (R-19) on to Respondent with the note, "Mrs. Burton, please continue this fine record 2/6/84." On 1/23/84, he also commended her on quick responses to the Miami Module records-keeping requests (R-20). Petitioner's advisor to gifted teachers, Richard Huffman, was assigned to assist Respondent at the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year. He testified that in his opinion she was a fit teacher, but he was removed as her advisor at the end of January or early February. February 24, 1984, Assistant Principal Vince Vignola observed Respondent in the classroom for a full hour and rated her overall acceptable except that she needed more grades in math and had, lost a student "contract" which had never been signed. Principal Rinaldi called in Gary Rito, Petitioner's Director of Academic Excellence for help resolving the gifted class problems. On March 2, 1984, Mr. Rito met with Respondent, Principal Rinaldi, and Mrs. Laurence, mother of a gifted student. Respondent and Laurence, who teaches elsewhere in Dade County, exchanged sharp words. It was agreed to meet again on March 8, 1984. At that time, James Miley, Petitioner's Supervisor of Gifted Programs, was present. Respondent was given written notice of the meeting one day in advance. Respondent elected to continue in this meeting at the conclusion of the school day. At this time most of her concerns, as expressed to all others present, were with the number of subjects she was required to cover and with the content of the mathematics curriculum in particular. Mr. Rito explained that "gifted" symbolizes a "technique" not a "subject," that Respondent was to use this technique for teaching subjects of math, science (which Respondent should be teaching anyway), and social studies, and for teaching a health and safety unit which was taught for only one or two grade units. Respondent strenuously objected to the use of the TMP math program. Rinaldi and Miley concurred that it was reasonable to include math in the gifted program. Math was, in fact, successfully used in the other two home-based programs beginning in Bay Harbor's Division that year, but the programs utilized may not have been the TMP. Nonetheless, the following adjustments were agreed upon among all those present at the March 8, 1984 meeting: Principal Rinaldi agreed to relieve the academic excellence program of the TMP math program and increased their enrichment activities; Ms. Thomas, Say Harbor's 6th Grade math teacher, was assigned by Principal Rinaldi to help Respondent in math. It was later Ms. Thomas' assessment that Respondent did not understand the TMP concept; and Respondent was directed and agreed to develop four units of study in botany (2 intermediate and 2 primary) to cover the rest of the school year (9 weeks). These plans were to cover instructional objectives, classroom activities, student evaluation methods and homework assignments on a time line. A preliminary plan was to be shown by Respondent to Mr. Miley on March 20. This assignment was primarily the result of a request by Ms. Laurence and other parents requesting to see a sets of plans for purposes of deciding whether to leave their children in the Respondent's class or return those who had already been withdrawn. Rinaldi, Rito, and Miley felt the plans required by the directive would ease the primary problems of implementing the program and of parent-teacher communications and misunderstandings which had been growing, and also felt they were reasonable and necessary. Everyone was aware that withdrawal of Mrs. Laurence's child could reduce program enrollment below the 25 student minimum required. However, no one clearly expressed the belief that this directive was a prescription to improve Respondent's teaching performance, which had been found basically sound up to this point. 1/ The direction itself was for a reasonable and necessary purpose (preserving and improving the gifted program). However, despite Mr. Miley's opinion that the plans as initially directed were reasonable and necessary and despite Respondent's failure to object to the direction at this point, the initial scope of the direction was actually unreasonable under the circumstances. Mr. Miley postponed his scheduled meeting with Respondent from March 20 to March 23, 1984. On that date, Respondent had nothing to show him with regard to the required botany units she had been asked to prepare. Mr. Miley met with Respondent anyway and reduced the required units from 4 to 2 and extended the time for preparation until April 12, 1984. He also gave her a document entitled "Standards of Excellence" for use in the units she was to prepare and agreed to let Respondent continue with her present evaluation system. This adjustment, made in consultation with Respondent also rendered the scope of the direction to prepare the units reasonable. 2/ On April 12, 1984, Mr. Miley asked for the required botany units and received nothing from Respondent. He returned to the school on April 13, and Respondent produced a series of goals and objectives essentially copied from the "Standards of Excellence" wherein she had identified part of a program for the primary students but none for the intermediate students. There were no classroom activities listed, no homework mentioned, and no time lines provided. Despite the extension of time, Respondent did not fulfill the required directive even in its reduced and consequently reasonable form. 3/ The units were not further amplified by Respondent before she left on April 20 and Mrs. Laurence's child was permanently removed from the gifted program. (See allegations of Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Notice of Charges). On March 12, 1984, Respondent called Principal Rinaldi a liar three times in the presence of two other school employees. 4/ (See allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent later informed Principal Rinaldi that she perceived the March 8 meeting as disciplinary in nature. He had not considered it so. He accordingly removed a request for her signature from a summary he had prepared of the March 8 meeting and scheduled a "conference-for-the-record" for March 16, 1984. Conferences-for-the record are disciplinary conferences. The March 16, 1984 meeting was postponed at the request of the Respondent's union representative. A second request for postponement for emergency reasons peculiar to the schedule of that particular union representative (Ms. Perez), was not granted and the conference-for-the-record went forward on March 20, 1984, with Respondent accompanied by her union steward, James Collings. At this conference, Rinaldi discussed the same matters that had been discussed at the March 8, 1984 meeting, the incident which had occurred March 12 when Respondent called him a "liar" three times, Respondent's unsatisfactory attendance record that year, and the fact that her absences were having an adverse effect on the program. Respondent was specifically instructed by her union advisers not to speak at this conference. Certainly she did not deny the March 12 "liar" incident. When she did not respond to Principal Rinaldi's accusations and inquiries, he became agitated. Respondent had received prior approval for a half-day in-service conference (8:30 a.m. to noon on March 21, 1984) with Mrs. Vickers, Director of Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education Program. When she did not report back to teach at Bay Harbor that afternoon, Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi made inquiries and Respondent's continued presence with Mrs. Vickers was confirmed, but not approved. This constitutes a 1/2 day's absence without leave. No substitute was procured since Respondent had been expected to teach her afternoon class. (See allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Notice of Charges.) On March 28, 1984, during a regularly scheduled parent meeting, the parents present expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the gifted program, particularly math. Principal Rinaldi publicly attributed the problems in the gifted program to Respondent and Respondent retaliated by publicly stating that she did not believe TMP math should ever have been included in the gifted program and that she had no control over the inclusion of the math. The majority of witnesses actually present at this meeting found its entire tone and nature informative prior to Principal Rinaldi's comment. Even then, Respondent's comments may have been less than tactful but were hardly untruthful, unprofessional, irresponsible, or incendiary. (See allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to the March 29, 1984 faculty meeting. Based on the contemporaneous memoranda and letter, Respondent's estimate of 3-4 minutes tardiness is accepted over Dr. Rinaldi's later estimate of 20 minutes. The causes related contemporaneously by Respondent are entirely reasonable. (See allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Notice of Charges.) At Principal Rinaldi's April 16, 1984 classroom observation of Respondent, he rated her teaching performance as unacceptable in 3 categories: preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility (P-18). Rinaldi testified that his negative ratings in preparation and planning were due to what were minor concerns on the January evaluation. However, as observed above in Fact Paragraph 6, the January evaluation actually concentrated on the principal's particularly harsh requirement that Respondent's student files must be arranged alphabetically with papers neatly arranged chronologically within each file. Since his perception of the adequacy of records is so intensely personal to Mr. Rinaldi and in light of interim commendations to Respondent for record-keeping, his April analysis of inadequate records of assessment renders the final evaluation "score" highly suspect. 5/ (See allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to work and failed to timely sign in on March 26, 27, 28, and April 20, 1984. (See allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was absent on April 17, 18, and 19. She requested leave for April 17-18 late but it was approved and authorized in advance by Principal Rinaldi for participation in religious holidays. However, these were absences without pay and pushed Respondent over the number of personal leave days to which she was annually entitled. Respondent was absent without authorization on April 19; this was an absence without pay. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 20, 1984, Respondent protested, but finally agreed to meet with Principal Rinaldi in his office for a post-observation conference. Post- observation conferences are not normally considered disciplinary in nature. By this time, he had added Respondent's late notification of the 4/17-4/18 absence and her 4/19 absence to the prescription sheet as deficiencies. Respondent declined an oral dialogue with Rinaldi wherein she was invited to respond to the rating criticisms and prescriptions and offer alternatives and also refused to initial his notation that she insisted on responding in writing. Midway in this meeting, Respondent announced she was going to leave. Again, she would not sign to acknowledge receipt of the observation and prescriptions. Rinaldi instructed her that she was obligated to discuss the rating and if she left, he would consider it insubordination. Respondent left his office and the school and did not return to work as a teacher at Bay Harbor again. A formal reprimand issued partly as a result of this incident. (See allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 23 and April 24 Respondent was absent without pay. April 23 was unauthorized leave. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) With regard to the frequent' short absences, which total led 18 as of April 22, Respondent rarely if ever complied with the "Teachers' Handbook" guidelines for advance notification. Respondent originally felt that it did not matter what type of leave (personal or sick) was listed because she had no leave left anyway. Although many of these absences were for legitimate illnesses or injury of herself or a relative, there was either an on-going absence of lesson plans or a failure on Respondent's part to inform the principal that she had created plans since he last commented on there being none. Consequently, he often could not or did not secure substitutes. This resulted in wasted class time and interfered with classroom continuity. Some of Respondent's unauthorized absences were simply gifted programs she chose to attend without notifying the principal in advance. Respondent was also absent during the 1983-1984 school year for two lengthy periods, which, with all other absences, totalled 62 1/2 days. Medical narratives, admitted without objection, corroborate Respondent's testimony that the two lengthy absences were the result respectively of unanticipated allergic complications of a CAT scan (from January 30 to February 10, 1984,) and of surgery to correct acute sinusitis and recovery time from late April until release. One doctor released her from this last treatment On May 29, 1984; the other released her on June 8, 1984. During the period of time she was absent immediately following the April 20 "walkout" incident until approximately June 8, Respondent failed to adequately inform Petitioner of her proposed date of return. Certified letters sent to her post-office box were returned because Respondent did not pick them up and Petitioner could not send these to her by regular mail or by hand- delivery via a "visiting teacher" because Respondent had never informed Petitioner of her street address. The failure of Respondent to stay in touch, her failure to indicate when she could return to work, and her failure to indicate that her absence would be lengthy resulted in an inability of Petitioner to immediately hire a permanent substitute teacher. Therefore, the gifted classes had to "make-do" with a series of short term substitutes (4 or 5) until Mr. Rinaldi finally hired Mrs. Judith Dryanoff. This process created a lack of continuity in the classroom and more student withdrawals from the gifted program. The problem with multiple substitutes was compounded by Respondent's failure on April 24 and thereafter to have available substitute lesson plans. 6/ Because of Respondent's failure to leave any form of lesson plans or grade book, substitute Judith Dryanoff had to make up her own lesson plans for science and enlist the help of Janice Thomas for math plans. (See allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Notice of Charges.) On May 24, Principal Rinaldi signed Respondent's Annual Evaluation, not recommending her for employment in the next school year (P-22). When released by her doctors, Respondent was assigned by Administration to the North Area Office for June 11-15 and was expected by her principal to be at Bay Harbor simultaneously. She obviously could not do both. She was at the North Area Office for part of June 12 and at Bay Harbor for part of June 14. She was in neither location on June 11, 13, and 15. These days constitute absences without leave. (See allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On June 12, 1984, James Monroes, a supervisor in Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, ordered Respondent to begin the 180 hour course, Beginning Teacher Program, to start at 10:00 a.m., June 14, 1984, at Bay Harbor Elementary School. 7/ At 7:20 a.m. that morning Respondent confronted Principal Rinaldi in his office and called him "malicious, devious, incompetent," and "a sorry excuse for a principal." She accused him of personally taking her personal items from her room and of attempting to get her fired. 8/ Although she initially refused to come back for the program, she returned at 10:00 a.m. and repeated essentially the same harangue in the presence of Mrs. Thomas, the peer teacher selected to oversee Respondent's Beginning Teacher Program. Mrs. Thomas was called in by Mr. Rinaldi who had anticipated that a scene would ensue. Thereafter, out of Mr. Rinaldi's presence, Respondent invited Mrs. Thomas to sign a petition "to get rid of Mr. Rinaldi". (See allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Charges.) Dr. Huffman testified that Respondent also frequently yelled at Mr. Rinaldi in Dr. Huffman's presence prior to Dr. Huffman's February reassignment, and Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi testified that she had heard Respondent call Mr. Rinaldi a "bastard" or refer to him as a"bastard," but the date of this incident(s) was not proven. On August 29, 1984, Dr. Richard Artmeier, supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, directed Respondent to be psychiatrically evaluated the next day to determine if there were any mitigating circumstances for her June 14, 1984 behavior. Respondent is obligated to submit to such evaluation by terms of her employment. After vacillation, Respondent refused to sign the written directive indicating its receipt and adamantly refused to see a psychiatrist. Finally, Dr. Artmeier directed her instead to report to the North Area Office the next day. Respondent did, however, actually go the next day as originally directed for psychiatric evaluation to Dr. Gail Wainger. Dr. Wainger was on Petitioner's "approved" list. In so doing, Respondent could not immediately comply with the directive to report to the North Area Office. Respondent reported to the North Area Office later the same day after her psychiatric evaluation. Petitioner accepted Dr. Wainger's psychiatric evaluation of Respondent, paid for it, and it was admitted at hearing upon Petitioner's motion (P-38). Since Respondent could not be in two places at once, she fulfilled the alternative directives reasonably by fulfilling them sequentially even if she did initially refuse. (See allegations of Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Notice of Charges). The psychiatrist's evaluation is admissible under Section 231.291, Florida Statutes and has been considered. Upon that evidence, together with all other credible evidence adduced at formal hearing, Respondent was accountable for her actions. Respondent has never qualified for and has never been characterized as a teacher under continuing contract.
Recommendation It is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from employment with the Dade County School Board and denying any claims for back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1985.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher, for alleged violations of various School Board rules and policies, as outlined in the Superintendent’s letter to Respondent, dated June 15, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of Sarasota County, the entity responsible for operating, monitoring, staffing, and maintaining the public schools within Sarasota County, in accordance with Part II, Chapter 1001, Florida Statutes (2009). The School is a middle school operated by Petitioner. Petitioner employed Respondent, Brian Berry, as a teacher at the School for several years. Respondent taught students with ESE designation. Respondent is an “instructional employee” under the Instructional Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association (“Union”), and Petitioner (July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2009, for the 2008-2009 year)(the “Collective Bargaining Agreement”). Article XXV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement governs disciplinary actions against teachers, including Respondent. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires there to be just cause for any discipline. Normally, the following progressive discipline steps are administered: (1) verbal reprimand; (2) written reprimand; (3) suspension and, (4) termination. Following progressive discipline is not required “in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or other flagrant violations.” During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent’s classroom was one of four classrooms arranged in a quadrant fashion around a center internal office that connects the four classrooms to each other. Respondent’s room was in the southwest quadrant. Holmes had the room in the northwest quadrant. Brooks had the room in the southeast quadrant. Like Respondent, Holmes and Brooks taught ESE students. Brooks and Respondent shared a paraprofessional, Collins. Bazenas became the School’s principal in April 2006, and has been its principal since that time. Before resorting to the progressive discipline system, School administration routinely counsel employees on an informal basis when there is a concern. Generally, the counseling occurs as a conversation between the administrator and instructor. This informal counseling is non-punitive. Administrators also use Memorandums of Instruction to clarify expectations. A Memorandum of Instruction is also non-punitive in nature; however, failing to abide by the expectation contained in a Memorandum of Instruction could warrant discipline. Respondent’s prior disciplinary history includes: Verbal Reprimand, dated December 17, 2007, for failing to monitor students. Verbal Reprimand, dated January 19, 2009, for failing to submit student attendance on 39 occasions during the 2008- 2009 school year through January 6, 2009. Written Reprimand, dated January 20, 2009, for failing to follow three separate Memorandums of Instruction concerning posting student attendance and for failing to report student attendance on January 7, 2009. Individual Education Plans During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was the case manager responsible for drafting Individual Education Plans (“IEPs”) for several of his students. Under federal law, IEPs must be updated at least once each year. Failing to update an IEP by the time the prior IEP becomes out of date means such IEP is out of compliance. This jeopardizes ESE funding, which comes from state and federal sources. During the 2008-2009 school year, there was an ESE liaison (Cindy Lowery) at the School who routinely and timely reminded case managers, including Respondent, of their IEP responsibilities, important deadlines, and steps necessary to be taken by the case manager. At the beginning of the school year, Lowery explained the procedures to case managers, including Respondent. Respondent received numerous reminders prior to the expiration of each IEP for which he was responsible. The expectations relating to IEP completion were clear and known to case managers, including Respondent, at all relevant times. At all times during the 2008-2009 school year prior to his being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent had the ability to complete in a timely manner each IEP for which he was responsible. He also had access to all materials and assistance necessary to timely complete each of the IEPs. During school year 2008-2009, Respondent was the case manager and responsible for the IEPs of students A.M. (due 11/27/08; completed 12/1/08); J.G. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); U.S. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); J.C. (due 2/20/09; completed 2/25/09); N.C. (due 3/3/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009); B.B. (due 3/11/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009). Reporting Attendance Teachers are required to take classroom attendance each period and timely post that attendance into the School’s computer program that tracks attendance. This expectation is contained in the School’s staff handbook, which is developed and reviewed annually by a shared-decision making team, composed of administrators, teachers, and community members. Reporting attendance each period is a safety and security matter. Reporting attendance also assists with accountability for funding purposes. During the 2008-2009 school year prior to being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent failed to report attendance in at least one period on: August 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29; September 3, 4, 9 - 12, 15, 16, 22, 26, 30; October 1, 3, 7 - 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29; November 6, 7, 12, 18, 20, 21, 25; December 4, 5, 10; January 6, 7; February 19, 24; and March 3, 4, 10, 13, and 16. In all but six of those dates, Respondent failed to report attendance for multiple periods. On October 20, 2008, November 24, 2008, and January 7, 2009, administrators at the School provided Respondent with Memorandums of Instruction reminding Respondent of the need to submit attendance electronically each period. FCAT Proctoring On March 10 and 11, 2009, the FCAT was administered at the School. Respondent was assigned to proctor students who were permitted testing accommodations. Some permitted accommodations included extended testing time and having proctors read questions. Testing of these students occurred in the School’s media center. Another ESE teacher, Aisha Holmes, was also assigned to proctor similar students. Proctors were instructed that they needed to sign-in and sign-out upon entering and leaving the media center; that they could not engage in personal reading; and that they needed to actively supervise the students at all times. A preponderance of evidence supports the finding that Respondent engaged in the following activities contrary to his duties as proctor: Over the two-day proctoring session, Respondent failed to sign-in and sign-out every time that he took a break. Respondent engaged in personal reading and other non-proctoring activities when he was required to be actively proctoring the FCAT. Respondent stood over student S.L.’s shoulder for a time period exceeding two minutes. While Respondent contends that he was trying to determine if S.L. had finished, S.L. had not finished. Respondent’s actions were intimidating to S.L. On the second testing day, Respondent fell asleep on a couch in the media center for a period of time when he should have been actively proctoring. Respondent snored, causing a disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. While the length of time Respondent slept was in dispute, the evidence demonstrates that it was considerably longer than a brief moment as advanced by Respondent. On the second day of testing, a student spilled juice on that student’s reference sheet. Respondent placed the reference sheet in the microwave but did not monitor the drying process. The microwave scorched the reference sheet, resulting in a burnt smell invading the testing area and causing another disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. Use of Video with No Learning Objective in Place In February 2009, Respondent showed the movie “Happy Feet” to his class. He concedes that he had no learning objective in mind in showing this video. Although Respondent explained that in his opinion, no learning could be accomplished that day due to the death of a co-teacher’s fiancé, Respondent conceded that he requested no assistance in addressing this situation despite such assistance being available to him. Lesson Plans Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans at least one week in advance. Teachers are also required to have the lesson plan on their desk and available for review. The lesson plan expectations are contained in the School’s staff handbook. The lesson plans are the guiding document for instruction, which requires teachers to give forethought as to the content of their lessons. It is used by teachers to focus their lessons, by administrators to ensure content aligns with teaching objectives, and by substitutes in the absence of the teacher. It is undisputed that the School’s administration repeatedly counseled Respondent to create and have lesson plans available. Respondent failed to have lesson plans completed and available for the week of October 6, November 17, and December 15, 2008, and January 5, January 20 and February 2, 2009. February 3, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On February 3, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for Students J.G. and U.S. That meeting also addressed Respondent’s continued failure to comply with school policy on maintaining lesson plans. It is undisputed that Respondent failed to timely complete the IEPs for students J.G. and U.S., and that he failed to comply with the lesson plan requirement. March 16, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On the afternoon of Monday, March 16, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent and others met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss: (1) Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. prior to their IEPs becoming out of compliance; (2) the FCAT proctoring matters; (3) use of the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective; (4) continued failure to comply with the lesson plan expectation; (5) tardiness on March 9, and March 10, 2009; and (6) use of the girls’ restroom.1 It is undisputed that Respondent failed to complete the IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. in a timely manner, and that he used the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective in place. During the meeting, Bazenas presented Respondent with the summary of Holmes’ observations of Respondent’s conduct while proctoring the FCAT. Respondent conceded that he was inattentive at times during FCAT proctoring and did fall asleep for some period of time during the FCAT, although he disputes it was for 45 minutes. March 17, 2009, Confrontation On the morning of Tuesday, March 17, 2009, Respondent entered Holmes’ classroom to “discuss” Holmes’ summary of her observations of Respondent during the FCAT. A student, whom Holmes was tutoring, was present in Holmes’ room at the time. Holmes was uncomfortable with Respondent’s insistence on discussing the FCAT matter at that time in front of the student. Holmes advised Respondent that she would talk to him later. Respondent, however, persisted in continuing his challenge to Holmes’ FCAT proctoring observations in front of the student. At that point, Bazenas entered Holmes’s room. Bazenas observed that the situation was “tense” and that Holmes was backed into a corner of the room. Bazenas also observed that the student that was present looked very uncomfortable. At that point, Bazenas, in a reasonable voice, requested that Respondent return to his own classroom to supervise his students. Respondent immediately became upset and began yelling at Bazenas, telling Bazenas not to interrupt him. Respondent approached him and pointed his finger in Bazenas’ face. At that time, Collins was in Brooks’ room. Collins heard shouting coming from the direction of Holmes’ room. Collins proceeded into the center office of the quad. She observed Respondent shouting at Bazenas that he was a “liar” and that Respondent would see Bazenas “in court.” Collins did not hear Bazenas raise his voice. Collins was fearful of Respondent; she had never seen Respondent act in that way. She also testified that Bazenas looked fearful of Respondent. Respondent then proceeded into his classroom and Bazenas followed Respondent into the classroom. He put himself between Respondent and his students, permitting Collins to remove the students from Respondent’s classroom, taking them into Brooks’ classroom. Respondent continued with his emotional outburst during this time. When Bazenas requested that Respondent leave campus immediately, Respondent threatened Bazenas. Bazenas subjectively believed that Respondent’s agitated behavior and his statement to be a threat of violence. Respondent also directed inappropriate comments to his students about Bazenas during his outburst. As Collins brought Respondent’s students into Brooks’ classroom, Collins was shaking and looked very fearful. After all of Respondent’s students were in Brooks’ classroom, Brooks locked the doors. Locking the doors is an unusual occurrence; however, Respondent did leave campus voluntarily. Respondent was immediately placed on administrative leave. Shortly thereafter, a police officer went to Respondent’s house to advise Respondent to stay away from campus. Respondent complied with the request. Respondent’s outburst on March 17, 2009, constituted a real and immediate threat to the School administration, teachers and students and was a flagrant violation of school policies and the State Principles of Professional Conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent from the date Respondent was placed on unpaid leave of absence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of January, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates, as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2017). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2017). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 880641, covering the areas of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2022. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at GHS in the Alachua County School District. Respondent began his teaching career at GHS in 2002 teaching ESE classes. The incident that forms the basis for this proceeding occurred on May 12, 2016, during the 2015-2016 school year. Teachers employed by the Alachua County School Board are subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Alachua County School Board and the Alachua County Education Association, the local teachers’ union. Article IX, Section 21(a), of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which was in effect during the 2015-2016 school year, provides that: Subject to the approval of the principal or his designee, a teacher may leave the campus of his particular school if appropriate arrangements are made to insure that students are not left unsupervised. Approval is required for each circumstance or situation. The principal or his designee will not unreasonably deny such a request. A teacher will use this privilege only in unusual circumstances. At the beginning of each school year, before students report, a faculty pre-planning meeting is held at GHS to go over information provided by the school district. Supervision of students is among the topics of discussion, and teachers are advised that they are not to leave students unsupervised in their classrooms. The reason for the instruction is obvious -- GHS, being responsible for the safety of its students, should take all reasonable measures to ensure their safety on campus. In addition to the instruction provided at the pre- planning meeting, GHS sent periodic emails to teachers throughout the year reiterating that students were not to be left unsupervised in classrooms. On April 5, 2016, an email was sent directed to the general problem of unsupervised students “walking around A, B, and C hallways” during the lunch periods. The email noted that some teachers allowed students to come to their classrooms during the lunch period for mentoring, which was recognized as a laudable activity. One teacher responded the next day expressing appreciation for the reminder, noting that “[t]here are students all over upstairs in A & B wings. They also hang out in the stairwells, especially on the West end.” On April 7, 2016, Mr. Shelnutt sent an email to all teachers reiterating that it was “fantastic” that teachers allowed students in their classrooms during the lunch period, but that students were not to be “roaming around.” The email emphasized that “if you chose to allow students in your classroom during your lunch, you are assuming responsibility for supervising them.”2/ During the lunch shifts, school employees were routinely stationed in areas where general education students were allowed to eat lunch in order to provide adult supervision while their teachers took their 30-minute lunch break. As will be described herein, ESE students were subject to a different lunchtime regimen. During the 2015–16 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach a self-contained class of 4 to 7 students with intellectual disabilities. The “self-contained” setting means that students generally remained in the Gaines building on the GHS campus with other students with disabilities. Respondent’s students were intellectually disabled, but functioned at a higher level than their ESE peers in other classrooms, who had more severe disabilities. Respondent’s students identified more with general education students, and were much more likely to interact with general education students than with those in the other ESE classrooms.3/ The Gaines building was a “community of classrooms,” in that a teacher could request and receive assistance from teachers or paraprofessionals in the other two classrooms in the building. The ESE classrooms surround a small courtyard at the Gaines building. The courtyard has a table and seating, and students would most often sit there to eat their lunch. One of the three ESE teachers usually oversaw the courtyard, and the courtyard could be seen from the ESE classroom windows. There is also a basketball court and track behind the Gaines building, which were occasionally used by ESE students before and after school, and during lunch period. The school day at GHS has six periods. Respondent taught ESE students for five of the six daily periods. During the period when Respondent’s ESE students were at their P.E. class, Respondent was assigned to teach a general education history class. Mr. Shelnutt indicated that “[e]very teacher [at GHS] should have a 30-minute duty free lunch in addition to a planning period.” Mr. DeLucas testified that Respondent was in “a very unique situation. The other self-contained rooms had multiple paraprofessionals. He did not have multiple paraprofessionals.”4/ Consequently, Respondent was the only teacher in his classroom and was assigned students every period of the school day with no planning period. Because of the circumstances, if it became necessary for Respondent to leave the classroom, he would ask one of the teachers or paraprofessionals from the other ESE classrooms to watch his class. Unlike the situation that was the subject of the April 5, 2017 and April 7, 2017, emails referenced above, which appears to describe a general education student lunch period, ESE “self-contained” students were allowed to get their lunches and then return to their classrooms, to avoid the crowds and the lines. It was apparently not uncommon for special needs students to go to the cafeteria during the 20-minute break between the end of A-Lunch at around 11:55 a.m. and the beginning of B-Lunch at 12:15 p.m. when there is not a standard lunch shift. Respondent’s only break in the school day was during his students’ lunch period, from 12:15 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. Since ESE students typically had lunch in the Gaines building courtyard or their classrooms, even Respondent’s “duty free lunch” was not free of duties. On May 12, 2016, Respondent released his students -- which on that day were only B.S., B.H., and N.C. -- around 12:05 p.m. to get lunch from the cafeteria. Respondent’s students had been watching a movie, and wanted to finish the movie during the lunch period. Respondent agreed to let the students return to his classroom to finish watching the movie. Before the students returned to the classroom, Respondent received a telephone call from the baseball booster club president regarding an upcoming banquet. When the students returned to the classroom, Respondent continued the telephone call outside. When Respondent ended the telephone call, he realized that the lunch period was “counting down.” Respondent left the Gaines Building, with the students unattended in his classroom, and drove to a sandwich shop several blocks away. There was no explanation as to why Respondent did not ask one of the other ESE teachers or paraprofessionals to watch his classroom. During Respondent’s absence from the classroom, another of Respondent’s students, J.H., entered the classroom and saw male ESE student, B.S., emerging from a storage closet in Respondent’s classroom, and thereafter discovered female ESE student, B.H., in the closet crying. J.H. went to the office and told Ms. Conyers what he had seen. Ms. Conyers radioed for a dean or an administrator to report to Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Gantt and Mr. Bauer arrived at the classroom at about the same time. Ms. Gantt questioned B.H. as to what had happened, and Mr. Bauer went to the nearby basketball court where B.S. had been reported to have gone. B.H. and B.S. were taken to the Dean’s office for questioning. At some point after Ms. Gantt and Mr. Bauer arrived at Respondent’s classroom, and approximately 15 minutes after his departure from campus, Respondent returned from the sandwich shop. There was considerable evidence devoted to the events that occurred in Respondent’s classroom closet during his absence. All of the evidence was hearsay. However, what was established (and agreed upon) is this: On May 12, 2016, while Respondent was absent from his classroom, during which time students were left unsupervised in the classroom, an event occurred that was of sufficient severity that the police were called in, that the police conducted an investigation, and that the police ultimately completed a sworn complaint charging B.S. with lewd and lascivious molestation of B.H. Alachua County Public Schools charged Respondent with violating school board policies regarding student supervision, specifically a policy that required teachers to obtain the permission of the school principal before leaving school campus, and recommended his termination from employment. Respondent contested the recommendation of termination. On February 16, 2017, the Alachua County School Board, the Alachua County Education Association, and Respondent executed a settlement agreement, providing that: (1) the superintendent would rescind the recommendation for Respondent’s termination; (2) Respondent would take an unpaid leave of absence beginning March 1, 2017, until June 6, 2017; Respondent would agree to complete Safe Schools online training regarding classroom supervision and school safety; and upon completion of the Safe Schools training, Respondent would be returned to paid status as an employee of Alachua County Schools. Respondent fulfilled the terms of the settlement agreement and, with regard to the Safe Schools training, exceeded the required courses. For the 2017–2018 school year, Respondent has been assigned as a P.E. teacher at the Sidney Lanier Center, a K-12 public school in Alachua County. Sidney Lanier is a specialized school for ESE students. The principal of Sidney Lanier was aware of the events of May 12, 2016, when Respondent was assigned. It should be acknowledged that Respondent taught ESE classes at GHS for 14 years without incident. He had no prior discipline and received uniformly good evaluations. He was well regarded as a teacher and a coach, and was generally acknowledged to have had a positive impact on students’ lives. Respondent expressed genuine remorse about leaving students unattended in his classroom, and credibly testified that he would never again do so. The incident did not involve Respondent denigrating or disparaging students, or improperly or abusively making physical contact with students. Nonetheless, Respondent violated a clear and direct requirement that he not leave students unattended. Although he believed his students would not engage in the activity described, such action on the part of a high school student was certainly not unforeseeable. There was conflicting evidence as to whether B.H.’s mental health was actually affected by the incident. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that it had some negative effect. However, rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [a student]'s health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; Fla. EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, though without specific intent or malice, failed to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to their mental or physical health, or safety, pursuant to rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent’s educator’s certificate be suspended for a period of 30 days, that he be issued a letter of reprimand, and that he be placed on probation for a period of two years following his suspension, which penalty is within the range of penalties established in rule 6B-11.007(2). DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 21st day of November, 2017.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged and violations charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, on behalf of the Education Practices Commission, is charged with the responsibility of certifying and regulating public school teachers in Florida. Respondent is a teacher. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate 1266409, covering the area Exceptional Student Education (ESE). Respondent's Background Respondent earned a bachelor's degree in special education from New York University and a master's degree in early childhood special education. From 1998 to 2015 she taught ESE in self-contained classrooms (classrooms dedicated to ESE students) in New York. Respondent moved to Florida and began working for Orange County Public Schools, where she was employed in February 2015 as an ESE teacher at Ocoee Elementary School (Ocoee Elementary). For reasons unrelated to this case, Respondent was moved to the position of behavioral specialist (a non-classroom position), but returned to ESE classroom teaching in the fall of 2017. Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) is a "best practice" crisis de- escalation protocol used district-wide in Orange County Public Schools. Respondent is CPI trained and certified. In June 2017, Respondent injured her shoulder and ankle at work while she was attempting to pick a student up from the floor. She returned to work after a few weeks of physical therapy. She continues to have pain in her shoulder and ankle. Respondent also suffers from asthma and recurrent nerve pain. By all accounts, Respondent was a dedicated and effective ESE teacher at Ocoee Elementary. She used her own funds to purchase supplies for her ESE students, including exercise balls for autistic students to prevent them from rocking in standard-issue chairs. Her evaluations from Ocoee Elementary were all "effective" or "highly effective." All of the witnesses who had occasion to observe Respondent in the classroom gave her high marks. There is no evidence that Respondent ever acted in anger or frustration with a student. She is accused of having done so in the incident at issue here. Respondent's Classroom For the fall of 2017, Respondent taught ESE students in a self- contained classroom at Ocoee Elementary. The grade level of her students spanned three grades, from second to fourth grade. The class size was approximately 12 students. The students were autistic and/or intellectually disabled. Paraprofessionals were assigned to assist Respondent in the classroom, including Cory Baker, Chanda Nguyen, and Michelle Hartley. The classroom had a designated "safe space," a small open area approximately three to four feet wide located between a large portable closet on wheels, a file cabinet on one side, and a wall on the other side. The safe space floor was covered with a soft mat and pillows. Posters on the safe space wall showed students how to breathe, relax, and decompress. A bathroom was located inside the classroom. The door opened out to the classroom. The door could be locked from the inside. Respondent and the paraprofessionals assigned to the classroom had access to an Allen key to unlock the bathroom door, but a disc had to be "popped" off of the lock to use it. Ocoee Elementary had a "crisis team" that could be called to assist when a student was in crisis, including removing the student if necessary. The crisis team included Juan Colon, who was the school's behavior specialist, and Isaac Bowen, a behavior trainer. The crisis team typically responded to a call for assistance within one to two minutes. The Incident with Student E.T. E.T. was assigned to Respondent's ESE classroom for the fall of 2017. He was 12 years old at that time. The other students ranged from seven to nine years of age. At approximately 5'6", E.T. was not only the largest student in the class, but he was also larger, and about four inches taller, than Respondent. E.T. was considered to be intellectually disabled. He was learning on a first or second grade level and his IQ was below 70. Some of the other students in the classroom were autistic, but E.T. was not. A Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) is a written plan that identifies problematic behaviors of a particular ESE student and strategies staff should use to address them. E.T. had a BIP that listed three problematic behaviors: (1) noncompliance (that is, refusing to perform tasks, by saying words like "no," "this is stupid," making faces or squeaking noises, or simply walking away); (2) physical aggression (including aggressive posturing towards his peers and throwing small objects like pencils, erasers, and papers); and (3) elopement (defined as walking away from staff). On the morning of October 12, 2017, E.T. began engaging in disruptive behavior that ultimately required his removal from the classroom. The disruptive behavior began when E.T. crawled under the desk of one or more other students and grabbed crayons and pencils that were not his. Respondent attempted to de-escalate and redirect E.T. with oral instructions, but her attempts failed. Ultimately, Respondent called the crisis team for help with E.T. Mr. Bowen arrived at Respondent's classroom within a short time with two other behavior trainers. The rest of the class was taken to the playground. Respondent and Mr. Bowen sat with E.T. at a table to work on compliance tasks, and E.T.'s behavior and mood improved. Respondent and Mr. Bowen walked with E.T. to the playground to retrieve the rest of the class. Respondent, E.T., and the rest of the class went back to the classroom. Mr. Bowen and the other behavior trainers left to respond to another call. On the way back to Respondent's classroom, E.T. refused to walk in line with the other students. One of the paraprofessionals walked with E.T. and redirected him back to the line. Back in the classroom, E.T.'s disruptive behavior resumed. He grabbed pencils and crayons that were not his and crawled under the desks of other students. He also blew mucus out of his nose, spit saliva onto his hands, and wiped his mucus and saliva all over his body. Respondent attempted to redirect E.T., initially by ignoring his behavior. When that failed, she attempted to redirect him with instructions and incentives. This strategy also failed. Finally, Respondent asked two of the paraprofessionals, Ms. Nguyen and Ms. Hartley, to take the other students to the sensory room, an activity room located outside of Respondent's classroom. The class was removed in the hope that E.T.'s behavior would improve once he was denied an audience of his peers. Respondent asked Ms. Baker to remain in the classroom with her to assist with E.T. When E.T.'s behavior did not improve, Respondent and Ms. Baker called the crisis team again, but this time they were unable to reach Mr. Colon or Mr. Bowen because they were either responding to other calls for help or in a radio "dead zone." Respondent thought E.T. might respond better if he was allowed to talk with his mother, so she called E.T.'s mother and allowed him to talk to her on the class telephone. At that time, E.T. was under a table in the classroom pretending to be a turtle. E.T. feigned illness (fake coughing) and told his mother he wanted to go home. He also asked for potato chips to eat. The call terminated and E.T. refused to come out from under the table. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to coax E.T. out from under the table without laying hands on him, Respondent carefully pulled E.T. from under the table, making sure he did not hit his head. E.T. was not injured in any way in the process. Respondent then took E.T. to the classroom safe space. Once in the safe space, E.T. started to crawl under the portable wheeled closet. Respondent was concerned E.T. would injure himself in the process— legitimately so—and lifted him up and held him against the wall. E.T. made himself go limp to become "dead weight" and slumped down to the floor mat. Respondent lifted him back to his feet again and E.T. slumped back down to the floor. This process was repeated several times until E.T. reached on top of the closet and grabbed a basket of toys, causing the basket contents to fall to the safe space floor. The basket included toy train cars made of die cast metal. E.T. grabbed one of the train cars off the floor and threw it over the head of Ms. Baker, who was standing in the middle of the classroom. He threw another train car at Respondent, striking her in the head. Respondent stepped on one of the train cars and fell hard against the wall, pinning E.T. between her and the wall. E.T. said, "My chest hurts, my heart hurts," and "I think I am going to die." Respondent's shoulder hurt and she was short of breath. Having reached her physical limits, Respondent decided to remove E.T. from the safe space because she was concerned he would be able to reach other items on top of the closet, including a heavy paper slicer with a sharp cutting arm. Respondent's plan was to transport E.T. out of the classroom to the "calm-down" room, an empty classroom used to allow students in crisis to decompress. The calm-down room is located about 20 to 30 yards from Respondent's classroom. Respondent guided E.T. out of the safe space and toward the classroom door, with his arm under her armpit. This would be an approved CPI transport hold but for the fact that CPI transport requires two adults to transport a student in crisis in this manner, with each of the student's arms under the armpits of an adult on each side of the student. Ms. Baker—who was also CPI-trained—did not offer to serve as the second adult or provide any other assistance to Respondent while she was struggling to transport E.T. out of the safe space. E.T.—apparently unfazed by falling with Respondent against the safe space wall moments earlier—started to laugh and grabbed crayons off the desk of another student as he was being guided toward the classroom door. E.T. pulled away from Respondent and started walking quickly ahead of her. Respondent tried to maintain a hold on E.T., but was unable to do so without help from anyone (such as Ms. Baker, who continued as a spectator to Respondent's struggles). E.T. announced he was going to the bathroom and headed for the bathroom door. Respondent rushed to stop him, but tripped and landed hard against the bathroom door with E.T. Respondent was concerned—legitimately so—that E.T. could lock himself in the bathroom and create a mess or injure himself before the key to the bathroom could be accessed. Respondent applied all of her weight to the bathroom door, while E.T. held onto the doorknob, to prevent him from accessing the bathroom. Respondent held E.T. against the bathroom door, using her forearm against his chest. Respondent then struggled to lead E.T. away from the bathroom door and toward the classroom exit door, sliding with him against the wall. Natalie Hatch, a staffing specialist at Ocoee Elementary, and Mr. Colon entered the classroom door when Respondent was struggling to keep E.T. out of the bathroom. Mr. Colon immediately assisted Respondent to escort E.T. to the calm-down room using the dual-hold CPI transport position. On the way to the calm-down room, E.T. was crying and upset and he continued to wipe mucus and saliva on his body. In the calm-down room, E.T. tore paper and threw it on the floor. After about 15 minutes, he calmed down and Mr. Colon talked to him about the importance of following instructions. Ms. Colon asked E.T. to pick the paper off the floor and E.T. complied. Mr. Bowen also arrived and walked with E.T. and Mr. Colon back to Respondent's classroom. There were no further incidents involving E.T. that day. E.T. was not injured, physically or otherwise. The Findings of Fact regarding the incident with E.T. are based almost entirely on Respondent's testimony, which the undersigned found to be highly credible. The findings are also consistent with the credible testimony of Mr. Colon, who found nothing wrong with Respondent's attempt to keep E.T. from going into the bathroom by holding him against the bathroom door, nor did he find anything wrong with anything else he witnessed after entering Respondent's classroom. Ms. Baker stood in the middle of the classroom while Respondent struggled with E.T. Ms. Baker could not see all of the safe room interactions between Respondent and E.T., because her field of view was blocked by the closet and cabinet that formed the boundary of the safe space. Ms. Baker made repeated calls to the crisis team, but otherwise failed to offer any assistance to Respondent. Ms. Baker did not voice any objection to the manner in which Respondent physically interacted with E.T. The following day, Ms. Baker complained to administration that Respondent physically mistreated E.T. This led to an investigation of the incident and ultimately to Respondent's termination. Rejection of Corey Baker's Testimony Petitioner relies chiefly on the testimony of Ms. Baker to prove its case. For the reasons that follow, Ms. Baker's testimony was not credible and has not been accorded any weight. Ms. Baker's account of the incident differed from Respondent's in that she contends Respondent "manhandled" E.T. out of frustration, including: "snatching" him out from under the table when he was pretending to be a turtle; and repeatedly slamming E.T. hard against the wall of the safe room; and later the bathroom door. Essentially, Ms. Baker accuses Respondent of physically mistreating E.T. out of frustration with his conduct that day. Ms. Baker's testimony is rejected where it conflicts with the testimony of Respondent and Mr. Colon for several reasons. First, Ms. Baker 's field of view of the safe space was obstructed. No credit has been given to her testimony about what occurred when E.T. and Respondent were in the safe space together, because she could not see all of what happened there. That she would offer testimony describing events she could not have seen casts doubt on her overall veracity. Ms. Baker's credibility also suffers from her admitted failure to intercede in any way to aid a student she now claims to have been physically mistreated for a prolonged period of time. If, as Ms. Baker contends, Respondent "manhandled" E.T. while the three were alone in the classroom, then Ms. Baker should have attempted to separate the two or at least warn Respondent that she was being too rough; she did neither. Here is Ms. Baker's explanation for why she stood idle when Respondent and E.T. struggled: Q. So why didn't you jump into that space and help her lift him up? Why didn't you do something? A. Because, like I said, I do not feel comfortable with it being a blind corner [referring to the safe space] and already seeing stuff done that shouldn't have been done. If somebody came in, it would have literally looked like we were both just trying to take this kid out. In other words, Ms. Baker claims she did nothing to protect E.T. because she might also get into trouble. This explanation is rejected. It is inconceivable that Ms. Baker would sit back and do nothing if she believed Respondent was mistreating E.T. The rational explanation for why Ms. Baker did nothing to intercede to stop Respondent is that Respondent's actions were appropriate under the circumstances. Finally, Ms. Baker's credibility suffers from her embellishment of the incident, including the trauma she claims to have suffered after-the-fact. Ms. Baker testified that the incident was so traumatic that she had nightmares for a week or two afterwards. She went so far as to blame the stress of witnessing the incident for ending her relationship with her boyfriend. There was no evidence that E.T. was injured in the slightest. Indeed, as Ms. Baker admitted, E.T. laughed and continued to grab crayons that were not his after he left the safe space with Respondent. Ms. Baker grossly distorted the resulting trauma she claims to have suffered. For all of these reasons—and the undersigned's observation of the demeanor of the witnesses who testified live at the final hearing— Ms. Baker's account of the incident with E.T. is found to be grossly exaggerated and unreliable, and is given no weight.2 The OCPS Investigation Petitioner also offered the testimony of Acacia Vierbicky, an investigator for Orange County Public Schools (OCPS). Ms. Vierbicky was charged with investigating the incident involving E.T. after Ms. Baker complained to administration. Ms. Vierbicky testified that during the investigation, Respondent admitted to her that she "snatched" E.T.'s arm from underneath the table when he was pretending to be a turtle, and pinned him against the wall—face first—in the safe space. The Administrative Complaint does not allege facts regarding the manner in which Respondent removed E.T. from under the table as a predicate for any charges. Regardless, Respondent denied that she "snatched" E.T. from under the table and explained why she removed him from underneath the table. Respondent's testimony was credible and is accepted over Ms. Vierbicky's recollection of what she was told during her investigation. 2 Additional evidence was offered to impeach Ms. Baker's credibility. First, to suggest bias, Respondent and Ms. Baker were close friends at one time, but that relationship soured the summer before this incident occurred. Second, another teacher testified that Ms. Baker came forward with false allegations against her in an attempt to get her fired. Finally, another witness testified that Ms. Baker is prone to exaggerate events involving students in general. While all of this testimony may be true, it is unnecessary to rely upon it to reach the conclusion that Ms. Baker's testimony is unreliable. The characterization of whether Respondent "pinned" or "held" E.T. against the wall of the safe space with the weight of her body is not an important distinction here. What is important is that Respondent did so to prevent E.T. from crawling under the wheeled closet or grabbing dangerous items from the top of the closet. Holding E.T. against the wall under these circumstances—whether an approved CPI hold or not—was entirely reasonable to prevent E.T. from hurting himself or others. Ms. Vierbicky's testimony as to her recollection of Respondent's admissions is rejected where it differs from Respondent's live testimony.3 Crisis Prevention Intervention CPI is not the law; it has not been adopted by statute or rule. Petitioner offered the testimony of Kimberly Ann Smith, an expert in CPI and behavior analysis. Ms. Smith testified credibly that pinning or holding a student against a wall or holding a student with his arm behind his back is not an approved CPI hold. But, as Ms. Smith repeatedly acknowledged, CPI is a "best practice" protocol. As such, restraining a student with a non-CPI approved hold can be reasonable under certain circumstances even if it is not the "best practice." Ms. Smith testified that it is acceptable to physically restrain a student when the student may hurt himself or others. Ms. Smith also agreed that E.T. could have injured himself crawling under the wheeled closet and that throwing the metal trains presented a legitimate safety concern. The CPI training materials offer examples of approved holds that one teacher can apply to restrain a student, but these holds are not appropriate for a student 3 Ms. Vierbicky's investigative summary of the incident involving E.T. was admitted as an exhibit in this proceeding, as were the witness statements she collected during her investigation. Although admitted, these exhibits have not been relied upon here because they are largely hearsay. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. It is also noteworthy that there are obvious material omissions from Ms. Vierbicky's investigative summary, including the failure to mention that E.T. grabbed and threw metal trains while in the safe space and the failure to mention the fact that E.T. was not injured. Thus, even if not hearsay, or predicated on hearsay, the investigative summary represents an incomplete assessment of the incident with E.T., and is unreliable for this reason alone. who is taller than the teacher. In fact, these holds should only be used on a student who is at least a head shorter than the teacher. E.T. is significantly taller than Respondent. Petitioner offered no evidence of a CPI-approved hold that would have been appropriate for Respondent to use under the circumstances she confronted with E.T. Petitioner also offered testimony from Ms. Hatch to show that Respondent did not use a CPI-approved restraint when E.T. was attempting to enter the bathroom. Ms. Hatch testified that when she entered the classroom, she saw Respondent holding E.T. with his face against the wall with his hand behind his back. This differs from Mr. Colon's testimony, which was that Respondent was holding E.T. with his back against the bathroom door with her forearm on his chest. Although Mr. Colon's and Ms. Hatch's recollection of the positioning of Respondent and E.T. differ, the distinction is not material. Respondent had a legitimate concern to keep E.T. from entering the bathroom under the circumstances, and her attempts to do so—although not a CPI-approved hold—were reasonable under the circumstances. For all of these reasons, Respondent's admitted failure to use CPI- approved holds to restrain E.T. is not evidence that she failed to make reasonable effort to protect E.T. from any potentially harmful conditions, or that she exposed him to a risk of mental or physical harm. Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent, in fact, made reasonable effort to protect E.T. from conditions harmful to learning and/or to his mental or physical health and/or to his safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRIAN A. NEWMAN 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 27th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe M. Lev, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. 231 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Law Office of Ron Weaver Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding Florida Educator’s Certificate 958493, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Autism Spectrum Disorders, valid through June 30, 2014. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Bay County School District as an ESE teacher at Margaret K. Lewis Center (MKL Center). This is a second career for Respondent. She left a business and technology career to pursue a career in education, specifically working with students with special needs. Respondent obtained her Master’s degree and a special designation to work with special needs students. Respondent was motivated to pursue teaching special education students because she had an aunt with Down’s syndrome who had limited educational opportunities. Respondent taught at Oscar Patterson Elementary for the 2006-2007 school year, and then transferred to MKL Center beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. After Respondent received her state educational certification in autism spectrum disorders, she requested to be assigned to teach an ESE class beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. That year, she was voted as “Teacher of the Year” by her peers. The class to which Respondent was assigned was a challenging class. It was not unusual for students in this classroom to bite, kick, hit, pinch, and trip staff. During the 2010-2011 school year, the number of students was reduced from eight to four, and the number of paraprofessionals was increased from two to three. During the 2011-2012 school year, there were four students in her classroom: C.B., J.B., K.M., and D.C. One paraprofessional, Patricia Lewis, was assigned specifically to D.C. The other two paraprofessionals, Jennifer Shea Saulmon and Nancy Davis, worked with all of the children, and when able to, Patricia Lewis did as well. Ms. Davis, Ms. Saulmon, and Ms. Lewis have seven, fourteen and twenty-seven years of experience, respectively. C.B. had a severe mental disability with a limited ability to comprehend verbal communications and a limited ability to communicate. C.B.’s communication involved single words, sounds, and gestures. He could discern the speaker’s mood, but might not fully understand the content of what was said. For example, C.B. might not understand that someone was saying hello, but would understand that the speaker was friendly towards him. C.B. also had problematic behaviors including biting, pinching, scratching, and hitting. C.B. had an awkward gait and wore ankle orthotics (AFO’s), a type of plastic brace, over his shoe and lower leg to provide stability from the foot to the leg, and to assist in improving his ability to walk. C.B. was ten years old. J.B. was approximately 11 years old in January 2012, and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He also had a limited ability to communicate using single words, sounds and utterances, and gestures. J.B. also used an iPad to communicate. Over time, someone working with J.B. would develop a greater ability to understand and communicate with him. J.B.’s difficult behaviors included spitting, hitting, kicking, and pinching. K.M. was 11 in January 2012. K.M. was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, and had previously suffered a stroke which limited her use of one arm. She also had significant intellectual limitations. However, K.M.’s ability to communicate was greater than the other members of the class, and she could understand verbal communications. In addition, K.M. was more independent than her classmates, and was a risk for elopement from both the classroom and the campus. As stated by one of the paraprofessionals, K.M. “was a runner.” By all accounts, K.M.’s behaviors were consistently disruptive, and managing her in a classroom took a significant effort. D.C. was also 11 in January 2012. D.C. was diagnosed as autistic and engaged in repeated self-injurious behaviors. When upset, D.C. would repeatedly strike himself in the head and face, and he often wore a football helmet as a protective measure. D.C. was very strong, and attempts to prevent him from hurting himself could often result in staff members being hurt. There was testimony at hearing that his behavior plan addressed how many he times he was allowed to hit himself or how long he was allowed to hit himself without intervention. However, the behavior plan for D.C. was not in evidence. A portion of the classroom was designed specifically for D.C., with padded walls and a padded floor, in light of D.C.’s tendency to hit his head against hard surfaces as well. He had some beads that he played with that sometimes calmed him. At some point during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to show signs that the stresses of her very challenging classroom were having an effect on her. After the Christmas break, her stress seemed to have intensified. Respondent was having trouble sleeping, suffered from high blood pressure and pain from injuries sustained in the classroom, and was experiencing some depression. Respondent began to “self- medicate” with alcohol at night. There was no credible evidence that Respondent ever drank during the day or was under the influence of alcohol during work hours. At the end of the school day on January 30, 2012, Ms. Lewis approached assistant principal Elizabeth Swedlund to voice some concerns about Respondent’s behavior in the classroom. Ms. Lewis related some events that had occurred in the classroom that day, as well as some general concerns regarding treatment of the students in the classroom. She voiced the following concerns: that Respondent took away D.C.’s beads and would allow him to hit himself for a period of time longer than allowed by his treatment plan; that she made statements to K.M. such as “I could kill you” or “go play in the street”; and that she hit C.B. with a closed hand and kicked him while working in “circle time.” On January 31, 2012, Ms. Swedlund notified her principal, Britt Smith, of the conversation with Ms. Lewis. She decided to speak with the other paraprofessionals in the classroom and after doing so, to report the information to the abuse registry. Principal Smith notified Sharon Michalik, the District’s Executive Director of Human Resources, of the issue with respect to Respondent. As a result, Mike Jones, Chief of Safety, initiated an investigation. Mike Jones visited the campus the following day. All three paraprofessionals were interviewed and asked to provide written statements. He took Respondent for a drug and urine test, which came back negative. On Friday, February 3, 2012, Respondent was notified to meet with Ms. Michalik and other administrators to review the allegations. After this meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay, and the School District planned to proceed with a recommendation for termination. However, instead the parties entered an agreement executed on March 30, 2012, through which Respondent would take a medical leave of absence and would only be allowed to return to a position with the School District if she was found fit for duty. If she returned, she would be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. On March 30, 2012, the Department of Children and Families issued a letter to Respondent stating that it found no indicators of physical injury and no indicators of bizarre punishment. On April 27, 2012, Respondent was evaluated by psychologist David J. Smith who opined that at that time, she was not fit for duty. She was re-evaluated on July 26, 2012, and cleared to return to work. At that time, she was assigned to a different school. One of the issues raised by Ms. Lewis was that Respondent permitted D.C. to hit himself more frequently than allowed by his behavior plan. The Administrative Complaint specifically charges that she allowed D.C. to hit himself repeatedly for up to ten minutes, while his behavior plan indicated that he should be allowed to hit himself up to three times. The behavior plan was not entered into evidence. The evidence was unclear as to what the plan actually required, and it was equally unclear exactly what Respondent was doing. For example, there was testimony that she would attempt to redirect him once he started hitting himself, but did not physically intervene for ten minutes. There was other testimony that there was never a time when he was allowed to simply hit himself with no one doing anything. Without being able to examine the behavior plan, and without being able to specify the exact incident or incidents at issue, it is not possible to determine whether Respondent was varying from the requirements of the behavior plan, or if any variation was significant. Ms. Davis reported to Ms. Swedlund that on or about Friday, January 27, 2012, J.B. was in time-out because of bad behaviors. While he was in time-out, he was sitting behind a rolling partition, and Respondent was holding the partition in place so that J.B. would have to remain in place. J.B. spat at Respondent, which is something he did often. Ms. Davis reported that while holding the partition Respondent spat back at him, an action that shocked Ms. Davis. Respondent denies ever spitting on J.B. She testified via deposition that J.B. was spitting while in time-out, and she was holding the barrier while talking to him. She responded to his behavior by saying “you do not spit.” Respondent testified that it was possible that some spittle may have fallen on J.B., but that she never intentionally spit on him. The only person who testified regarding the spitting was Ms. Davis. While she was a very credible witness, there was no testimony regarding how close she was to Ms. Henson or to J.B., or that J.B. reacted in any way. Neither of the other paraprofessionals in the room testified that they saw or heard about the incident, and it is implausible to think that such behavior would go without comment. It is conceivable that in saying, “you do not spit,” that spittle would result. Given the high burden of proof for this proceeding, the allegation has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. As previously stated, K.M. presented a classroom management problem. She had a tendency to run around the classroom, take her clothes off, or run out of the classroom and sometimes out of the building. She also would tear up items in the classroom and could be very disruptive. Ms. Lewis felt that Respondent had a hard time getting past her dislike of the child. She had heard her say things like, “I could just kill you right now,” and “go ahead and go into the street.” While Ms. Lewis believed K.M. could understand such statements, she did not react to them, except perhaps to run faster. Ms. Lewis did not believe that Ms. Henson was serious when she made the statements, but more likely made them when frustrated by K.M.’s behavior. Respondent did not recall ever making such statements. Neither Ms. Lewis nor the Administrative Complaint identified exactly when Respondent was to have made these statements, although Ms. Lewis specified that they were statements made at different times. While Ms. Lewis testified that she believed Respondent did not like K.M., it is just as likely that she did not dislike the child, but was extremely frustrated by her behavior. All of the paraprofessionals testified that Respondent truly loved the children she worked with, but that she was frustrated and overwhelmed in the very challenging classroom in which she taught. While the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent made the statements, even Ms. Lewis testified that she did not believe Respondent was serious when she made them. Regardless, the statements were not appropriate statements to make to a child, especially a child with limited intellectual abilities that might not be able to discern whether Respondent was serious. They are, by their nature, disparaging statements. Finally, the incident which caused Ms. Lewis to approach Ms. Swedlund about Respondent involved Respondent’s reactions to C.B. C.B. liked to work on the computer. He would play computer games, such as Dora the Explorer, and was rewarded with computer time for good behavior and finishing all of his assigned work. On Friday, January 27, 2012, C.B. had a rough day, and had been hitting, pinching, and kicking staff. Respondent had spoken with his mother about his behaviors to see if there had been any changes at home that might have contributed to his aggressive behavior. Respondent had told C.B.’s mother that they would have to try some different methods to get C.B. to comply, and that his playing on the computer all day would have to stop. The paraprofessionals testified that on Monday, January 30, 2012, Respondent seemed agitated all day. One said she seemed to carry the frustrations of Friday into Monday. That morning Jennifer Shea Saulmon went to the cafeteria to pick up C.B., who had walked from the parent pickup area without incident, and seemed to be in a good mood. When they reached the classroom, C.B. went straight to the computers. Respondent immediately told him that he could not have computer time. Ms. Saulmon was upset by this, because C.B. had not misbehaved that morning. She questioned Ms. Henson’s decision, and Respondent responded that he could not play on the computer all the time. He then completed his morning work without any disruption, and then walked over to the computers. Ms. Saulmon told him he could not play on the computer at that time. At about 9:15 a.m., the class began “circle time.” During this time, the students sit on the outside of a u-shaped table while Respondent sits on the inside of the “u.” C.B. did not like circle time. On this particular day, he was sitting at the end of the u-shaped table, to Respondent’s left. He began, as he often did, to hit and bite. According to Ms. Saulmon, this behavior usually subsides after about five minutes. This day, however, it did not. C.B. continued to pinch and hit Respondent. In response, Respondent put her arm up with a closed hand (so that the child could not pull and bend back a finger) in a blocking motion, as the teachers and paraprofessionals had been taught to do in order to protect themselves. She said out loud, “I’m blocking, I’m blocking.” However, rather than simply holding her arm up to block against any blows, she would swing her arm toward him to stop the blow, and in doing so, made contact with his arm. Although to Ms. Davis it looked like Respondent was hitting him, she never thought Respondent was trying to hurt C.B. Each time Respondent blocked C.B., he pinched her again, and she blocked him again, which made him angrier. He then started kicking her, and Ms. Davis and Ms. Saulmon believed she kicked him back. However, neither paraprofessional could say that Respondent actually made contact with C.B. They were pretty certain that C.B. was kicking Respondent, and they could see movement toward him by Respondent, and C.B. responded angrily by squealing as he usually did when frustrated or angry. It is just as likely that Respondent was using her leg or foot to try to block C.B.’s kicks, as she stated in her deposition, and that C.B. was angry because she was blocking him. Nonetheless, Respondent’s clear agitation in the classroom that day led to Ms. Lewis’ conversation with Ms. Swedlund about Respondent’s behavior. While all of the paraprofessionals stated concerns about Ms. Henson’s ability to handle that particular class, all were very supportive of her continuing to teach in the special education area. All three seemed to think that the environment of that particular class, which by any measure would be extremely challenging, is one that overwhelmed Respondent, and that she had been in that setting too long. When Respondent returned to work at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, she was transferred to Beach Elementary School. The principal at the new school is Glenda Nouskhajian. Ms. Nouskhajian considers Respondent to be one of her lead teachers in the ESE department, and has no performance- related concerns about her. The only issue Respondent has had since coming to Beach Elementary was a minor paper-work issue related to transferring schools within the district. Respondent is not working in a stand-alone classroom like she was before. She is what Ms. Nouskhajian referred to as a “push-in,” meaning that she goes into other teachers’ classrooms and works with students in small groups in an inclusion setting. She works with the lowest quartile of students, and helps with all of these students’ interventions. Ms. Nouskhajian testified that the students with whom Respondent works are making “great strides,” and Respondent is an educator she would “absolutely” seek to retain. Ms. Nouskhajian knew that there was an issue at Respondent’s prior school, but did not investigate the details. She stated that Respondent had been placed at Beach Elementary by Sharon Michalik, and “I knew that if she was a danger to students, Sharon Michalik would not have placed her at my school . . . . That she went through the counseling and everything she had to do so when she came to my school it was a total fresh start.” Since coming to Beach Elementary, Respondent’s evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was overall effective, with all categories rated as effective or highly effective. In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made inappropriate remarks to student K.M. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent spat on J.B., or that she hit or kicked C.B. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that she varied significantly from D.C.’s behavioral plan or acted in a way that allowed him to hurt himself. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was frustrated and overwhelmed in the autistic classroom and, despite having asked for the assignment, had been teaching in that environment for too long to be effective, given the violent tendencies of the children in that setting. There is clear and convincing evidence that she took a leave of absence in lieu of termination and could only return to the classroom after an evaluation found her fit for duty. A change of setting was needed and has served to re-invigorate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent has violated rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission in its discretion may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder PA 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
