The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's professional service contract should be re-newed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Dade County School Board (Petitioner) was a duly constituted school board, charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Helen F. Ruby (Respondent) was employed with the Petitioner as a teacher pursuant to a professional service contract (PSC). Respondent has been employed with Petitioner as a PSC teacher for approximately 15 years. Respondent is a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). As a member of UTD, Respondent is bound by all the provisions of the labor contract between Petitioner and UTD. The UTD contract requires the utilization of the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) to evaluate the performance of teachers. All teachers employed by the Petitioner are evaluated pursuant to the TADS, which is an objective instrument used to observe minimal teaching behaviors. The TADS instrument evaluates teacher classroom performance in six categories which are preparation and planning; knowledge of subject matter; classroom management; techniques of instruction; teacher-student relationships; and assessment techniques. A seventh category, referred to as professional responsibility, reflects the duties and responsibilities of a teacher in complying with the Petitioner's rules, contractual provisions, statutory regulations, site directives, and all policies and procedures relating to record-keeping and attendance. This system of evaluation records deficiencies observed during the observation period and provides the prescription for performance improvement. At all times material hereto, the document used to evaluate Respondent's performance was the TADS document, more specifically, TADS, Classroom Assessment Instrument (CAI). The TADS CAI contained the six categories, not the seventh, in evaluating Respondent's performance. 1995-96 School Year During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent was assigned to John F. Kennedy Middle School (JFK) to teach Language Arts at the seventh grade level. On November 13, 1995, Respondent was formally observed by JFK's Assistant Principal. Respondent was found unacceptable in classroom management. As a result, she was placed on prescription and was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management. The prescription, which includes the prescriptive activities and a date certain for completion or submission of the prescriptive activities, is recorded on the TADS Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement (ROD). After the formal observation, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Assistant Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities on the ROD. Respondent was notified, among other things, that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document; but Respondent did not provide a response on the TADS document to the noted deficiencies. On December 15, 1995, a mid-year Conference-for-the- Record (CFR) was held. Present at the mid-year CFR were the Principal, Assistant Principal, Respondent, and a UTD representative. During the mid-year CFR, Respondent's prescription status was addressed, due to her unsatisfactory performance in classroom management, and her future employment status with Petitioner. Respondent was provided an opportunity to address the deficiencies and concerns noted in the mid-year CFR; however, Respondent did not provide a response. A written summary of the mid-year CFR, dated January 8, 1996, was prepared by the Principal. Respondent received a copy of the summary. On March 11, 1996, Respondent was formally observed by the Principal. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. As a result, she was placed on prescription and was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management, which were recorded on the ROD. After the formal observation, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Respondent was notified, among other things, that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document or an appendage thereto; however, Respondent did not provide a written response to the noted deficiencies. At times during the post-observation conference, Respondent was argumentative and resistant. On March 21, 1996, a CFR was held. Present at the CFR were the Principal, an Assistant Principal, Respondent, and two UTD representatives. During the CFR, Respondent's unacceptable performance in the classroom, resulting from the unacceptable observations of November 13, 1995, and March 11, 1996, was discussed. Respondent was notified that a second unacceptable consecutive summative would result in an external review and that a recommendation to not renew her professional service contract may be made. A written summary of the CFR, dated March 22, 1996, was prepared by the Principal. A copy of the CFR summary was provided to Respondent. The evidence is insufficient to conclude that a summative observation form was provided to Respondent or Respondent’s UTD representatives. By letter dated March 22, 1996, the Petitioner’s Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent, among other things, that she was being charged with unsatisfactory performance in classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Further, Respondent was notified that, if her performance deficiencies were not corrected during the 1996-97 school year, her employment with the Petitioner may be terminated; and that the assessment of her performance would continue throughout the remainder of the school year. By letter dated March 28, 1996, the Petitioner’s Associate Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent, among other things, that she had not been recommended for renewal of her PSC and that the Petitioner had acted on the recommendation to not renew her PSC. Further, Respondent was notified, among other things, that her performance would continue to be assessed throughout the 1995-96 and 1996-97 contract school years; and that, unless her performance deficiencies were remediated, her employment with the Petitioner would terminate at the close of the 1996-97 contract school year, with her last day of employment being June 14, 1997. On April 29, 1996, Respondent was formally observed by JFK's Assistant Principal. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. As a result, she was placed on prescription and was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management and techniques of instruction, which were recorded on the ROD. After the formal observation, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Assistant Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Respondent was notified, among other things, that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document or an appendage thereto; however, Respondent did not provide a written response to the noted deficiencies. As a result of Respondent receiving three unacceptable observations during the 1995-96 school year, JFK’s Principal requested an external review of Respondent’s classroom performance. An external review is a formal observation which requires an on-site administrator and an off-site region or district office administrator to be observers, a two-on-one observation. The observers are both in the teacher’s classroom at the same time; they observe the same lesson plan; and they rate the TADS CAI items independently, using their own judgment. After the two observers independently assess the teacher’s classroom performance, they meet and collaboratively prepare a prescriptive record of observed deficiencies which includes their observations substantiating the deficiencies. The prescription is recorded on the ROD. Written notice must be provided to the teacher that an external review will be conducted. The CFR summary dated March 22, 1996, provided Respondent with notice that an external review would be conducted if a condition precedent occurred, which was the occurrence of a second unacceptable consecutive summative. There is no dispute that the formal observations conducted on November 13, 1995, and March 11, 1996, comprise the first two consecutive TADS CAI observations; and that the formal observations conducted on March 11, 1996, and April 29, 1996, comprise the second two consecutive TADS CAI observations. There is disagreement as to whether the observations comprise the first unacceptable consecutive summative and the second unacceptable consecutive summative, respectively; however, a finding is so made and, therefore, the condition precedent was satisfied. Moreover, a finding is made that the mid-year CFR summary dated March 22, 1996, provided Respondent notice of the external review. On May 30, 1996, an external review of Respondent’s classroom performance was conducted by JFK's Assistant Principal (the on-site administrator) and by the Instructional Supervisor of the Division of Language Arts and Reading (the off-site administrator). Both observers rated Respondent’s classroom performance on the TADS CAI as unacceptable in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Each observer rated Respondent independently on the TADS CAI. The two observers did not discuss their ratings of Respondent prior to completing the TADS CAI rating. After performing their independent ratings, the two observers discussed Respondent’s performance. Neither observer changed their ratings during or after the discussion. As a result of Respondent receiving an unacceptable external review, the two observers discussed and developed prescriptive activities to assist Respondent to overcome her deficiencies, which were recorded on the ROD. After an external review, the on-site observer has the responsibility of conducting the post-observation conference and preparing and issuing the prescription. In accordance therewith, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent and discussed the noted-deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. On June 14, 1996, Respondent was placed on prescription in the category of professional responsibility, the seventh category of TADS, by the Principal. Respondent was given prescriptive activities to assist her to overcome her deficiencies in professional responsibility, which were recorded on the ROD. The Principal held a conference with Respondent to discuss the prescription. Respondent’s annual evaluation was conducted on June 14, 1996. During the 1995-96 school year, the Principal and her staff provided Respondent with assistance to overcome the noted deficiencies. However, Respondent’s classroom performance remained unacceptable. Respondent’s overall performance was found unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Respondent had failed to remediate these unacceptable categories. Respondent received an overall unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1995-96 school year. 1996-97 School Year JFK had a new principal for the 1996-97 school year. The Principal was informed as to Respondent’s prescription status. The Principal met with Respondent, reviewed the prescription with her, and offered to assist Respondent with the prescriptive activities. Respondent indicated to the Principal that she needed no assistance. By memorandum dated September 24, 1996, the Principal notified Respondent that, pursuant to the prescription, Respondent had failed to submit the prescriptive activities which were due on September 20, 1996, and that, therefore, she was in noncompliance with the prescription. Respondent was also notified that, if she failed to submit the prescriptive activities by September 25, 1996, the professional responsibility (category seven) prescription would be extended for noncompliance. Finally, the Principal provided Respondent duplicates of the June 14, 1996, prescription and TADS documents. Respondent failed to complete the prescriptive activities by September 25, 1996. On October 3, 1996, a CFR was held. Present at the CFR were the Principal, the Assistant Principal, Respondent, and the UTD steward. During the CFR, Respondent’s prescriptive status, noncompliance with the prescription and administrative directives, and future employment status with Petitioner were discussed. The June 14, 1996, prescription was extended to November 4, 1996, and Respondent was advised that her failure to complete the prescriptive activities by the prescribed deadline would be considered insubordination. A written summary of the CFR was prepared by the Principal. Respondent was provided a copy of the summary. On October 8, 1996, approximately one week after the CFR, Respondent was formally observed by the Principal. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. As a result, she was placed on prescription and was prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in techniques of instruction and assessment techniques, which were recorded on the ROD. After the formal observation, the Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Respondent was notified that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document or an appendage thereto; however, Respondent did not provide a written response to the noted deficiencies. On October 14, 1996, a memorandum from the Principal was submitted to Respondent which notified Respondent that she had failed to submit all prescriptive activities which were due on October 4, 1996, in accordance with the prescription dated June 6, 1996. Respondent was also notified that the required prescriptive activities must be submitted by October 15, 1996; and that, if they were not, the prescription of June 6, 1996, would be extended due to noncompliance. On December 16, 1996, a mid-year CFR was held. Present at the mid-year CFR were the Principal, the Assistant Principal, Respondent, and the UTD steward. During the mid-year CFR, Respondent’s noncompliance with school site directives, noncompliance with Petitioner’s rules, prescriptive status, and future employment status with Petitioner were discussed. Additionally, the assistance provided Respondent to assist her in improving her classroom performance was reviewed. During the mid-year CFR, Respondent was advised that she was in her second year of unacceptable performance status and that she had failed to remediate her noted deficiencies. She was also advised that, if she failed to remediate the noted- deficiencies by the end of the 1996-97 school year, a recommendation would be made for the non-renewal of her PSC, which would be reported to the Florida Department of Education. Additionally, during the mid-year CFR, Respondent was advised that to remediate the noted deficiencies she must receive two consecutive acceptable summative decisions, which would require three formal observations. Respondent was further advised that, if she received two consecutive unacceptable summatives or four formal observations with no pattern of two consecutive acceptable or unacceptable summatives, an external review would be conducted. A written summary of the mid-year CFR was prepared by the Principal. Respondent received a copy of the summary. On February 6, 1997, Respondent was formally observed by the Assistant Principal. Respondent was found unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instruction. As a result, Respondent was placed on prescription and prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in classroom management and techniques of instruction, which were recorded on the ROD. Respondent was required to complete the prescriptive activities by February 26, 1997. After the formal observation, the Assistant Principal conducted a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Assistant Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Respondent was notified that she had a right to write any explanation that she may have on the TADS document or an appendage thereto; however, Respondent did not provide a written response to the noted deficiencies. Respondent failed to complete the prescriptive activities by February 26, 1997. By memorandum dated March 4, 1997, the Assistant Principal notified Respondent, among other things, that she was in noncompliance with the prescription because of her failure to complete the prescriptive activities by February 26, 1997; and that she had until March 5, 1997, to submit the prescriptive activities. On February 24, 1996, a CFR was held. Present at the CFR were the Principal, the Assistant Principal, Respondent, and a UTD steward. During the CFR, among other things, Respondent’s prescriptive status, unacceptable classroom performance, and noncompliance with school site directives were discussed. Respondent was advised that she had not remediated her deficiencies and was notified that, therefore, an external review was requested. Respondent was also notified that, if she did not remediate the noted-deficiencies, a recommendation would be made to terminate her employment with the Petitioner and not renew her PSC. A written request for an external review was made by the Principal. Respondent received a copy of the request. A written summary of the CFR was prepared by the Principal. A copy of the CFR summary was provided to Respondent, who was informed that she could provide a written response to the summary. Although not required for PSC teachers, an interim evaluation is used to inform PSC teachers on prescription of the latest summative decision. Also, the interim evaluation notifies the PSC teacher that he/she may be in jeopardy of losing their PSC at the end of the school year. On February 27, 1997, Respondent received an interim evaluation. She was found to be unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. The overall unacceptable interim evaluation was based on the compilation of the unacceptable formal observations of October 8, 1996, and February 6, 1997. On March 7, 1977, Respondent was formally observed by JFK's Assistant Principal. Respondent was found to be unacceptable in preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. As a result, Respondent was placed on prescription and prescribed activities to help her overcome her deficiencies in preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques, which were recorded on the ROD. After the formal observation, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent at which the Assistant Principal discussed the deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. The Assistant Principal offered to provide any assistance that Respondent requested to assist her to improve her performance. The date for completion of the prescriptive activities was March 27, 1997. Respondent failed to timely complete the prescription, submitting the prescriptive activities on April 9, 1997. By letter dated March 10, 1997, the Petitioner’s Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent, among other things, that the deficiencies noted in Respondent’s performance in the 1995-96 school year had not been corrected, that he would be recommending to the Petitioner that Respondent’s PSC not be re-issued, and that the Petitioner would act on his recommendation on March 19, 1997. Further, Respondent was notified that her performance would continue to be assessed for the remainder of her contract. On March 19, 1997, the Petitioner acted on the Superintendent’s recommendation. The Petitioner decided not to renew Respondent’s PSC and not to reappoint Respondent to a teaching position. On April 16, 1997, an external review of Respondent’s classroom performance was conducted by JFK's Principal (the on- site administrator) and by the Instructional Supervisor of the Division of Language Arts and Reading (the off-site administrator). Both observers rated Respondent’s classroom performance on the TADS CAI as unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Each observer rated Respondent independently on the TADS CAI. The two observers discussed and developed prescriptive activities to assist Respondent to overcome her deficiencies, which were recorded on the ROD. The two observers collaboratively prepared the prescriptive record of observed deficiencies and recorded the prescription on the ROD. After the external review, the Principal held a post- observation conference with Respondent. The Principal discussed the noted deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Subsequent to the post-observation conference, the Principal assisted and assigned school staff to assist Respondent to improve her classroom performance and with her prescriptive activities. The date for completion of the prescriptive activities was May 9, 1997. Respondent completed the prescriptive activities on May 8 and 9, 1997. On May 29, 1997, an external review of Respondent's classroom performance was conducted by JFK's Assistant Principal (the on-site administrator) and by the Petitioner's Regional Director (the off-site administrator). Both observers rated Respondent’s classroom performance on the TADS CAI as unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Each observer rated Respondent independently on the TADS CAI. The two observers discussed and developed prescriptive activities to assist Respondent to overcome her deficiencies, which were recorded on the ROD. The two observers collaboratively prepared the prescriptive record of observed deficiencies and recorded the prescription on the ROD. After the external review, the Assistant Principal held a post-observation conference with Respondent. The Assistant Principal discussed the noted deficiencies and the prescriptive activities. Subsequent to the post-observation conference, the Principal again assisted and assigned school staff to assist Respondent to improve her classroom performance and her prescriptive activities. The date for completion of the prescriptive activities was June 12, 1997. Respondent failed to timely complete the prescriptive activities, submitting them on June 13, 1997. During the 1996-97 school year, Respondent failed to remediate the noted deficiencies. Respondent’s annual evaluation was conducted on June 11, 1997. Respondent’s overall performance was found to be unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent had failed to remediate these unacceptable categories. Respondent received an overall unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1996-97 school year. By letter dated July 15, 1997, the Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards notified Respondent, among other things, that her performance assessment record for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years had been transmitted to the Florida Department of Education. Respondent was further informed that her performance assessment record was transferred due to Respondent receiving two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations and that she was being provided written notice that her employment with Petitioner was being terminated, not being renewed, or that the Petitioner intended to terminate, or not renew, her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order: Not renewing the professional service contract of Helen F. Ruby. Dismissing Helen F. Ruby from employment with the School Board of Dade County. Denying backpay to Helen F. Ruby. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Twila Hargrove Payne, Esquire School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mr. Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent held active Teaching Certificate 485203 with certification in Political Science and History. She is a hard worker, who, when orphaned, put herself through school, achieving a Master's Degree in Social Justice from Lewis University. Respondent was employed by Petitioner School Board as a social studies teacher at Miami Central Senior High School for the 1981-82, 1982-83, and 1983- 84 school years. During Respondent's first year with the Dade County school system, 1981-82, she was formally observed by her principal, Mr. Hal Guinyard, and other administrators. Respondent had problems with discipline of tardy students, absenteeism, classroom management and noise level control in the classroom and with devising and carrying through variations of instruction. On Respondent's annual evaluation for 1981-82, Respondent was recommended for employment but was found lacking in the area of classroom management. The specific observations leading up to this evaluation were that: Several students entered and left the room at will, other students remained in the halls during class time, some students in the classroom disturbed others in Respondent's class and even nearby classes with irrelevant and extraneous discussions and excess noise. There was excess noise from the late arrivals and those in the halls, too. The Respondent rolled on copy work from the chalkboard or text book with minimal student conversational feedback. Mr. Guinyard suggested to Respondent that she minimize busy work, create an orderly classroom environment, and explore alternative instructional techniques. On October 26, 1982, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal William Matlack, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of objective analysis. Mr. Matlack rated Respondent as unsatisfactory in the area of techniques of instruction. Excessive time was used by Respondent in preparing her students to take a test. Mr. Matlack prescribed help for Respondent in the area of techniques of instruction by assigning Respondent to observe three effective teachers and list four teacher activities, three student activities, and to analyze the time spent in organizing the class and in instructional activities. He also suggested that she read the TADS chapter on acceptable classroom procedures and teaching techniques and attached 33 pages of reading material to her evaluation, giving suggestions for classroom management, effective planning, techniques of instruction, and techniques of student-teacher relationships. He further advised Respondent of an in-service course in techniques of instruction. While Mr. Matlack did not rate Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management, he found that she still did not control her class for all the reasons previously noted by Mr. Guinyard. Rather than rate her as unacceptable in this area, he directed a memorandum dated October 29, 1982, to Respondent's attention indicating problem areas that could lead to further discipline problems if uncorrected. One of the problems was that Respondent was selling doughnuts for the athletic department between classes, and Mr. Matlack made her aware of the fact that students would be tempted to eat in other teachers' classes and that this was against the school rules. Respondent also was admonished concerning the security danger existing in her leaving money and keys lying about. On February 28, 1983, Respondent was again formally observed in the classroom by Mr. Matlack using the TADS and was found to be deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of the subject matter because the topics were not covered thoroughly and there was too much digression. There were 11 topics discussed and few were related to each other. Some of the areas were irrelevant, e.g., the importance of obtaining a good lawyer if one is going to win a lawsuit, how to obtain a house in Chicago, and the five black Presidents in the United States. Only 6 minutes were spent on how a bill becomes a law. Only 25 minutes were spent on the prescribed curriculum topics of cabinet duties, income tax, social security, Veterans' Administration, Federal Housing Authority, Health and Rehabilitative Services, and the Equal Rights Amendment, and the irrelevant topics already mentioned. Techniques of instruction was rated unacceptable because Respondent presented the material in a lecture form. The assignment on the board was very similar in technique (copy work for listing and defining terms, outlining a chapter) to what was used during the October 1982 observation; content was, however, different. The students were not ready for the assignment. There appeared to be no scope and sequence to the lesson. The lesson was very disjointed. The students were not involved when questions were asked, and their response was minimal. No effort was made to identify those students not participating or off task nor to involve all of them in the lesson. One or two students carried the class. Respondent did not appear to be effectively using the suggestions made by Mr. Matlack during his prior observation. Mr. Matlack explained to Respondent the need to create inspiration, create interesting presentations, move around the classroom utilizing various techniques and media, direct questions for the purpose of involving students, and for motivational use of questions geared toward individual abilities of respective students. He recommended Respondent re-read the TADS booklet that he had prescribed before. Respondent was rated "improved" in keeping grades for a variety of types of assignments in her grade book, but she still was not making informal assessments of her students' learning. Respondent was rated unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because she was not involving the students in instruction. The students appeared to do as they pleased. The classroom still did not present a neat and orderly atmosphere. The students seemed surprised at Respondent's attempt to enforce rules and regulations. This indicated to Mr. Matlack that the control was for his benefit, being implemented only for the instant period of observation. At the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year, Mr. Guinyard recommended Respondent for continued employment, but rated her overall unacceptable. He found her unacceptable for the year in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She would continue on prescription (prescribed remediation efforts). Mr. Guinyard testified that he gave Respondent an extra year on prescription and brought in more help so that she might yet improve. During the 1982-83 school year, Mr. Guinyard recommended that Respondent observe other teachers and that she contact Mr. Hanson for help, which she did. Mr. Hanson is the Social Studies Supervisor for Dade County Schools. Mrs. Felicia Accornero (hereinafter Mrs. Mendez), is Assistant Principal for Curriculum (APC). She is not a trained social studies teacher but is certified to teach biology, chemistry, and gifted children. She is certified to work as an administrator, supervisor, or guidance counselor. Additionally, Mrs. Mendez discussed social studies concepts with other social studies teachers in an effort to be of more assistance to Respondent. On October 18, 1983, Respondent was officially observed in the classroom by Mrs. Mendez. Using the TADS analysis system, Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because there were substantial errors in her presentation: incorrect spellings, incorrectly defined terminology, and unnecessary use of lay terms rather than formal terms. Mrs. Mendez' perception was that neither the students nor she, personally, understood the lesson as represented by Respondent. Mrs. Mendez recommended that Respondent work with her. Mrs. Mendez also prescribed particular pages from the TADS prescription manual, which included a detailed subject matter inventory. This was a checklist so that Respondent could understand the different areas where she could become knowledgeable so that her subject matter would be more accurate and more relevant to the students. Mrs. Mendez discussed subject matter with Respondent and discussed one lesson a week with Respondent prior to its presentation. At this time, Mrs. Mendez also rated Respondent unacceptable in classroom management because there were too many delays in the class due to the same deficiencies observed previously by Messrs. Guinyard and Matlack, specifically repetitive tardies, disruption by tardies noisy off-task irrelevant extraneous discussions among students during teaching, 50% of the time spent in opening and closing class and other non-instructional activities, lack of discipline, disorganized classroom and disorganized lesson presentation by Respondent. The lesson plan which was in Respondent's 1982-83 lesson plan book for October 18, 1983, was not the one which Mrs. Mendez observed in the classroom. She was give a separate lesson plan. Mrs. Mendez prescribed a TADS chapter on structuring classroom time so that the teacher moves from one activity to another without delay. Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent work with both her and the department chairman, Mrs. Consuelo Pino, to improve Respondent's classroom management. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction because Respondent was not following a sequence, was not clarifying directions and explanations when necessary, did not give students background information that was necessary for them to understand the topic, and did not perceive when her students did not understand the lesson. Mrs. Mendez prescribed reading a section from the TADS chapter on sequencing lessons and also prescribed help from herself and Mrs. Pino. Mrs. Mendez worked with Respondent to help her place her lesson plans in an understandable sequence. At least weekly for the next ten weeks, Mrs. Mendez helped Respondent. Mrs. Mendez provided Respondent with a book on questioning techniques, helped Respondent organize her room, showed her how to position her desk so that she would have a better view of the students, explained how a seating chart would help her keep accurate attendance quickly, explained how to utilize student folders so that materials would be easily accessible and so that the classroom and instructional techniques and procedures would accordingly be better organized. The prescription deadline was extended to accommodate Respondent. On November 8, 1983, a conference for the record was held with Mr. Mathew V. Lawrence, Mrs. Mendez, and a field representative of United Teachers of Dade. Mr. Lawrence had been Assistant Principal the first two years Respondent taught at Miami Central Senior High and became Principal there for the 1983-84 school year. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the October 18, 1983 observation and the continuing deficiencies. The prescriptions were discussed. The ramifications of continued deficiency were discussed. Respondent's responsibility for basic skills such as reading and spelling was discussed. Respondent was reminded that she was responsible not only for her subject matter, (history, social studies, political science) but for students' basic skills (reading, writing, spelling, grammar). 24.. On November 12, 1983, Mrs. Mendez again formally observed Respondent in the classroom using the TADS analysis technique. Respondent was aware that she would be observed that day. Respondent showed some improvement over the prior observation in that she presented some accurate information for most of the period; however, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in preparation and planning because her objective was too simple and she did not list activities and assessment techniques, as required. Thereafter, Mrs. Mendez worked with Respondent on writing lesson plans and helped her write lesson plans. Mrs. Mendez found Respondent unsatisfactory in knowledge of the subject matter because Respondent made inaccurate statements, used incorrect grammar, and gave opinions rather than presenting both sides of an issue to students. Mrs. Pino made the same observation. During some parts of the lesson, it appeared that Respondent did not know what she was talking about. While the students appeared to understand most of the lesson, at times they did not. Mrs. Mendez also concluded that Respondent was not adhering to a structured plan but for this formal observation for the last formal observation Respondent had prepared lesson plans for observation days separate and apart from her normal procedure/plan for non-observation days. To improve Respondent's knowledge of subject matter, Mrs. Mendez recommended that Respondent review and study the textbook chapters prior to teaching the lesson because it did not appear that Respondent was doing this. Mrs. Mendez also gave Respondent the opportunity to prepare lessons and to explain them to Mrs. Mendez ahead of the time Respondent would present the material to the class so that Mrs. Mendez could monitor whether or not the information would be clearly presented to the class. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction upon much the same grounds as she used to substantiate the unacceptable rating for the categories of preparation and planning and knowledge of the subject matter, all essentially relating back to inadequacy of Respondent's lesson plans, or that the lesson plans were created solely for observation or to satisfy a prescription and were not for actual use. Petitioner's Exhibit 12 does not reflect a specific written prescription in this category, but Mrs. Mendez' oral testimony indicated further emphasis and helpful work on lesson plans was initiated. Respondent was next formally observed by Mr. Matlack on January 19, 1984. Respondent showed improvement this time but Mr. Matlack noted that Respondent needed to record her students' grades in her grade book more promptly as she received them. He also rated her unacceptable in classroom management primarily because of continued disruptions from tardy arrivals. Mr. Matlack directed Respondent to establish rules and regulations for students about coming into the class on time, bringing the needed materials, staying until the period ends, and prohibiting visitors into the classroom. He gave her specific suggestions on how to make these improvements and provided her with a memorandum outlining the deficiencies and prescribed help. Respondent's lesson plan for January 19, 1984, in Respondent's 1983-84 lesson plan book was only partially covered in the period observed that day by Mr. Matlack. On February 8, 1984, Mr. Lawrence rated Respondent unacceptable in classroom management on her midyear annual evaluation for 1983-84. On February 10, 1984, Mr. Lawrence held a second conference for the record with Respondent to discuss her performance assessments to date and his recommendation that she not receive a fourth year of annual contract. He also advised her that if she cleared her deficiencies, he would rescind his recommendation and would recommend a continuing contract. Respondent agreed to a fourth year annual contract. On March 13, 1984, Mr. Lawrence made his first official classroom observation of Respondent according to the TADS and found her to be very deficient. He felt that no teaching and learning were taking place. He observed her to be deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Mrs. Lawrence found Respondent unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because the definitions she gave for vocabulary words were not accurate and not appropriate. The students did not seem to understand the class work. Respondent was not gearing the lesson for all of her students. The lesson plan in Respondent's 1983-84 plan book for March 13, 1984, was not the plan Mr. Lawrence observed being implemented that date. Mr. lawrence prescribed for Respondent to prepare lesson plans for five days that detailed the sequencing of concepts and how each concept would be explained and implemented. Respondent was to include a minimum of five ideas and concepts and give the cognitive levels covered in each area. Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino were recommended as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because students were coming to the room late and being admitted without any evidence they had been detained elsewhere and without reprimand or punishment by Respondent. There was no evidence the students had any knowledge of the correct procedure. Step by step instructions for correcting her classroom management in this area were given to Respondent by Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Tom Shaw later helped her in this area. Mr. Lawrence rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the only two methods she used during the class period were writing definitions for 10 minutes and answering questions from the end of the chapter in the textbook for 45 minutes. The questions at the end of the chapter were unrelated to the vocabulary work. Respondent gave no introduction to the material. There was no evidence of the students understanding the materials, and no opening or closure to the lesson. In order to aid Respondent to improve her techniques of instruction, Mr. Lawrence recommended that Respondent develop a list of at least 10 teaching techniques or suitable teaching methods. He directed her to utilize a minimum of two methods permitting students to actively participate. He directed her to prepare lesson plans for a week that demonstrated these methods and how the students would be involved. He suggested that Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino be used as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques based on four student folders selected at random, each of which contained only five test cares and one or two additional sheets of work. The work in the student folders was not representative of what should have been there so late in the school year and therefore students' work was not accurately documented and could not be properly assessed for grading the child. The help that Mr. Lawrence prescribed for Respondent was to prepare two written assessment items per week for three weeks. Each test was to contain a variety of at least three types of questions. He wanted other corrected items such as homework and class work to be contemporaneously placed in student folders. He assigned Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino to help Respondent. Pursuant to Mr. Lawrence's March 13, 1984 prescription, Mrs. Mendez explained to Respondent in a memorandum what was required in the student folders. Subsequently, when Mrs. Mendez reviewed the student folders, she found a student paper consisting of one incomplete sentence fragment graded "A". The student's grammar was not graded (p 14). This one example was clearly contrary to the criteria established by Mrs. Mendez and contrary to the criteria established by Mrs. Mendez and contrary to the instructions for the assignment outlined by Respondent but it still had been graded "excellent." At hearing, Respondent denied that she gave the paper an "A" and asserted that she would require from this particular student two examples the next day. On April 24, 1984, Respondent was formally observed simultaneously by two administrators (Mrs. Mendez and Paul Hanson) and was found by both administrators to be unsatisfactory in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent had lesson plans and objectives based on the county curriculum, but was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her plans were not effectively implemented. She did not fill the allocated class time although only about 10% of the planned material was covered. One of the nine listed topics was "Communism." Section 233.064, Florida Statutes, spells out the content and mandates 30 hours for curriculum in "Americanism vs. Communism." On eleven different occasions, Mr. Hanson noted students were totally off task, disruptive and loud, and discussing topics that were not relevant to the lesson on Communism. The students were talking in little groups and in Mr. Hanson's opinion nothing academic was learned by the students during the period and consequently the students might thereby fall short of the statutorily required 30 hours. As a means to help Respondent, Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent prepare lesson plans for one week and check with the Assistant Principal who would observe the class to see if the plans were implemented. She recommended that Respondent seek help from both herself and Mrs. Pino. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because the information that she provided concerning Communism was not accurate. There were a number of errors made by Respondent during the course of the lesson. Mr. Hanson prescribed help for Respondent by working with Dan Jones, Social Studies Specialist, during the week of May 11, 1984. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because of the numerous disruptions, extraneous conversations, and constant movement. Student tardiness was noted yet again. Respondent appeared frustrated but was not able to effectively control the situation and did not take any steps to correct or penalize the tardy students. As a means of helping Respondent, Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent work with Mr. Shaw who is the assistant principal that generally monitors attendance and discipline problems. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not deliver the instructional program acceptably in many areas. Also, upon the same grounds, Mr. Hanson prescribed help from Mr. Jones on this element. By memorandum dated May 7, 1984, Mr. Lawrence changed his recommendation for extended annual contract to dismissal because Respondent had failed to remediate her deficiencies and she was now more deficient than when he had observed her in March. Pursuant to Mr. Hanson's prescription of April 24, 1984, Mr. Jones worked with Respondent on May 17, 1984. He brought her material to use and discussed a number of areas: lesson planning and format, techniques, the Dade County balanced curriculum objectives, the possibility of his visiting one of her classes to provide feedback to her about her techniques of instruction, a possible policy of limiting hall passes, a technique for engaging students in group activities, and the need for having at least two activities per class. He brought three books for her to use, Ideals and Ideologies, The Russians, and Practical Methods for the Social Studies. He assisted with her lesson planning for the week of May 21-25, 1984. On May 24, 1984, Mr. Lawrence completed the annual evaluation of Respondent, rating her as deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. This constituted three more unacceptable areas than on her midyear evaluation. Mr. Jones returned to help Respondent on June 4, 1984. Based upon his visitation, he wrote several suggestions for Respondent. Subsequently, when Mr. Jones observed the class, Respondent was attempting to implement some of the recommendations he had made but the presentation was not well structured or organized. Approximately fifty percent of the class period was lost in digressions and expounding of Respondent's personal opinions. Mr. Jones testified that it is appropriate for teachers to get students to express their opinions; however, those opinions should be based on knowledge of the course concepts and should come from the students, rather than from the teacher so as to encourage students to think independently, to make rational decisions, and to not merely absorb their teacher's opinion. In time of confusion, Respondent unduly delayed clarification of instructions. Mr. Jones opined that if he had been a student, he would have had to have asked questions also and in his opinion, the students were being deprived of a minimum acceptable level of instruction. On June 7, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by two administrators (Mr. Hanson and Mr. Shaw) using the TADS analysis system. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Respondent's performance had declined since Mr. Hanson's prior observation. She now was rated as having one acceptable category out of six. Mr. Hanson noted that the "students would have been better off to review without teacher's assistance." Respondent gave incorrect information and was very vague. She made several content errors and confused government forms with economic systems, using the terms synonymously. Mr. Hanson, under the impression that Respondent was still being recommended for a fourth year annual contract, recommended that she take course work over the summer in classroom management and subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because again there were at least nine interruptions of the same kinds as previously observed. However, where previously the Respondent had ignored inappropriate behavior, this time she indulged in a disruptive outburst reprimanding one student very loudly. There was a student in the room who had been withdrawn from school two weeks prior and recently readmitted. In returning this student to the office for a status check, Mr. Shaw missed several minutes of Respondent's class and his observation is somewhat impaired by this absence. It is to Respondent's credit that even during this period of suspension, this particular student sneaked into school to attend her class. At no time were more than half of the students observed to be on task. Mr. Shaw recommended that the Respondent work with Mr. Hanson to improve her classroom management. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because there were only passive activities being pursued and there was little feedback from the students. Respondent's technique was ineffective in encouraging class discussion. There was inadequate use of media. Because the lesson was not in proper sequence, it created academic confusion. Again, Mr. Shaw recommended that Respondent seek help from Mr. Hanson. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because of the general lack of respect on the part of the students and because of Respondent's erratic reaction to the student's behavior. The observers prescribed the same help. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no means of assessing whether or not the students were understanding the review process that was taking place. The observers prescribed the same help. In 1983 Respondent was referred to a nine-credit social studies course taught by Mr. Hanson at Nova University as part of the administration's attempts to help her master the subject matter of her course. She cooperated by taking the course but failed it. Complaints of misgraded, missing, and plagiarized papers arose among students in Respondent's classes. Administrators concluded that Respondent lacked an appropriate procedure for receiving, organizing, and monitoring papers for grading purposes. Students and parents complained that no effective teaching was going on and that the disorganization in the classroom even prevented individualized learning. On another occasion, Respondent was informally observed by administrators giving wrong information to students as to the number of municipalities in Dade County. Administrators also observed that her grammar, verb tenses and word choice were not a good example to her students. The undersigned observed this pattern at hearing. At the hearing, Respondent testified to an incorrect number of Florida counties. During her testimony, Respondent used the non-word, "malicy" instead of "malice." She used the word "connotatins" several times in contexts which more properly would have required either the word "confrontations" or "altercations." In no respect was "connotations" an appropriate word selection and Respondent defined the word "connotations" as meaning "disagreements." Respondent contended that her emphasis on rote copying from the board and reading aloud was an appropriate response to large classes the majority of whose members did not possess basic skills. Respondent explained that what her observers perceived as her poor grammar was actually "street talk" she intentionally used to reach culturally deprived students. While these may have been legitimate motivations, they do not excuse Respondent's never having progressed in the use of proper grammar and varied teaching techniques for communication with students when other teachers in the same school were able to do so. Respondent's explanation also does not ring true in light of Respondent's numerous grammatical and content errors during her own testimony. Mrs. Pino, the department head, offered additional help to Respondent during Respondent's three years at Miami Central Senior High School. She discussed classroom management, ways to diversify teaching, and other problems which came up on a daily basis. She discussed parent contacts in order to help with classroom management. She gave Respondent additional copies of some papers that Respondent has lost. She reviewed lesson plans with Respondent many times and on occasion would review a lesson plan with her prior to an administrator's observation. Pursuant to Mrs. Mendez' request, Mrs. Pino observed a whole period in order to help Respondent learn how to make smooth transitions from one classroom activity to another. Respondent testified that she encouraged students to borrow books from her even if it meant looking the other way when she knew they were removing them. Loaning or giving books away might be altruistic upon Respondent's part, and indeed, helpful to students' learning the subject matter or developing a love of history, reading, etc., but Respondent's practice of encouraging the fantasy of theft for learning's sake is hardly in the best interests of the child or the teaching profession. Respondent, a Negro, contended that it was her attempts to instill in her students pride in their Black heritage which resulted in her negative ratings. She based this primarily upon body language of Mr. Matlack she said she observed when she showed him the pamphlet "The Five Negro Presidents" (R-1). She claimed there existed a rehearsed "plot" by all the Petitioner's witnesses on the basis of either her minority heritage views or on the basis of her election as a steward in the union, United Teachers of Dade. This explanation is not credible. While "Black History" may certainly be a valid part or enrichment of a high school social studies curriculum, it cannot legitimately usurp all of the class time properly allotted to prescribed curriculum. Moreover, inaccurate history, even inaccurate Black History, serves no valid purpose. The undersigned finds that it was not this theme on a single occasion which observers were concerned with in rating Respondent, but the inaccuracy and confusion of her presentation of that theme which resulted in her negative rating on the one occasion to which she refers. Also this pamphlet was not used at every observation and cannot be attributed as the incentive for so many negative ratings by so many different observers. It is also noted that Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino are of Hispanic background. Although Respondent has responded to criticism positively, was eager to improve, and cooperated readily in all of her observers' suggestions, she still never achieved the standards of competency required and expected by the Dade County School Board. This is so despite extensive efforts of her colleagues to help Respondent reach acceptable performance standards. Respondent has failed to teach efficiently and faithfully due to her failure to communicate and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of face and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-3171 finding Respondent guilty of incompetency, affirming her suspension, dismissing her from her employment with the Dade County School Board, and denying her any claim for back pay. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-3171A finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity and revoking her Florida Teacher's Certificate for ten years, subject to reinstatement as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire The Law Building, Suite 204 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed to teach emotionally handicapped children in the elementary schools of Florida. She holds Florida teaching certificate number 696889 which is valid through June 30, 1998. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Volusia County School Board as a teacher of emotionally handicapped children in a self-contained classroom at New Smyrna Middle School. Prior to November 13, 1995, Respondent had no prior disciplinary history. The 1995-96 school year was Respondent's first year as a teacher at New Smyrna Middle School. Her previous teaching experience consisted of serving as a resource teacher. In that circumstance the students went to Respondent's class for a portion of the school day for instruction in certain academic areas. In August of 1995, Respondent requested a conference with the assistant principal, Sue Wolter. One of the items that Respondent wanted to discuss was the procedure she should follow in case a student had a weapon in the classroom. Ms. Wolter instructed Respondent that she should press the buzzer in the classroom three times. When the office staff receives this signal, they know there is a severe problem in the classroom. When a teacher presses the buzzer a light turns on beside the room number. Ms. Wolter also told Respondent that she could use the school intercom and say "Code 3" to alert the office about an emergency situation without letting the class know that she was calling for help. Lastly, Ms. Wolter advised Respondent to send her teaching assistant to the office for assistance. Respondent used these methods to summon help to her classroom on numerous occasions prior to the incident at issue here. In November of 1995, Respondent's class consisted of 12 sixth-grade students. The students' chronological ages varied from 11-to-14 years of age. Respondent's class consisted of students with "varying exceptionalities." Many of the students were dually diagnosed as having psychological and emotional disorders as well as mental retardation. The students' I.Q.'s were exceptionally low. Respondent's students were impulsive, volatile, and often exhibited poor judgment. They had difficulty at times distinguishing between right and wrong. Therefore, it was essential for Respondent to exercise appropriate classroom control at all times. Respondent had a difficult time maintaining discipline in the class. Students were frequently out of their seats or leaving the classroom without permission. Due to the chaotic classroom environment, several different teaching assistants were assigned to Respondent's classroom prior to November 13, 1995. On November 13, 1995, Ms. Linda Baker was Respondent's teaching assistant. Respondent and Ms. Baker did not have a successful working relationship. Ms. Baker felt that Respondent was a poor classroom disciplinarian. Ms. Baker also resented what she perceived as Respondent's condescending attitude. Respondent, on the other hand, resented Ms. Baker's admitted refusal to follow instructions which, at times, amounted to blatant insubordination. As a result of their communication problems, Respondent often wrote notes to Ms. Baker setting forth her classroom duties instead of speaking to her directly. Lavagus Brown, Michael Binder, and Klara Mills were students in Respondent's classroom on the morning of November 13, 1995. Klara Mills was the only girl in the class. As class began that morning, Lavagus Brown told Respondent that Klara had something in her bag that the teacher should know about. Next, Michael Binder told Respondent that Klara had a knife in her bag. Ms. Baker was sitting in the back of the room. She also heard from the children that Klara had a knife. Respondent wrote a note to Ms. Baker and took it to her in the back of the classroom. Respondent asked Ms. Baker to take the note to the office and get an administrator. Respondent did not reveal the contents of the note or explain to Ms. Baker why it was necessary for an administrator to come to the classroom immediately. Ms. Baker took the note and left the classroom. She returned later without an administrator. When questioned by Respondent, Ms. Baker told Respondent that she had delivered the note to the office. Respondent still did not discuss the seriousness of the situation with Ms. Baker. Respondent asked Klara to get her things together so that they could go to the office. Klara took her backpack purse and left the room with Respondent. She did not take her bookbag with her. Ms. Baker stayed in the classroom with the remaining students. She began taking the boys down the hall to the restroom. In order to get to the main office, Respondent and Klara had to walk out of one building, down the main walkway past a second building, and into the second entrance of a third building. Respondent did not attempt to retrieve Klara's backpack purse during the walk through the campus. When Respondent and Klara arrived at the office, Jasmine Gutierrez, a teacher's aide, was waiting in the outer office to see Ms. Wolter, who was in her office with the door partially closed. Cheryl Tucker, one of two secretaries, was also in the outer office. Ms. Tucker was busy answering the phone and writing passes for students. While she was waiting for Ms. Wolter, Ms. Jasmine Gutierrez helped Ms. Tucker write passes for students so they could go to class. Respondent and Klara stood in a corner of the office where they had an argument. Klara denied that she had a knife, claiming that she only had a toy in her bookbag, which was still in the classroom. Klara wanted to go back to the classroom. Respondent wanted Klara to give an object to Respondent or someone that Klara trusted. Respondent asked Ms. Tucker if Ms. Wolter was in the office. Ms. Tucker responded in the negative. Respondent then asked Ms. Tucker to watch Klara while she looked for an administrator. Respondent did not see anyone in Ms. Wolter's office through the partially opened door. Respondent walked toward the office workroom to check her mailbox. Klara was still in the office when Respondent walked back toward the office and around a corner to go to the clinic. Respondent thought that Ms. Wolter might be in the clinic helping the nurse. Unable to locate Ms. Wolter in the clinic, Respondent returned to the office. Ms. Tucker was no longer in the outer office. Ms. Debra Gutierrez, the main secretary, was at her desk next to the office door which was slowly closing. Klara was not in the office. Learning that Klara had returned to class, Respondent left the office without telling anyone in the office that Klara possibly had a knife in her possession. Respondent caught up with Klara before she re-entered the classroom. Respondent told Klara to go to her desk and gather all of her things, including her backpack purse and bookbag, because they needed to return to the office. When Respondent entered the classroom, Ms. Baker was sitting at her place in the back of the room. Respondent immediately began to deal with a student who was in the time-out room, screaming and yelling. Respondent attempted to calm the student down. The time-out room is a small closet with a desk where students can go when they want to work undisturbed. Respondent also used the room for students who were behaving inappropriately and needed time to cool off before returning to class. At times, Respondent would put herself in the time-out room when she felt she was losing patience with the children. While Respondent was in the time-out room with the other student, Ms. Baker took Klara to the restroom. In the hallway, Ms. Baker asked Klara if she had a knife. Klara denied having a knife. As Ms. Baker and Klara entered the classroom, other students began asking Klara about her knife. Klara did not respond to their comments. When Ms. Baker and Klara came back into the classroom, Respondent was standing in the doorway of the time-out room with the door partially closed. From that vantage point, Respondent could talk to the student who was upset and watch Klara who was sitting at her desk. Ms. Baker sat at her place in the back of the room for a few minutes. Then she went to the office where she located Elaine Haskins and Lenny Carr, campus advisors, advising them that Klara possibly had a weapon in the classroom. Ms. Haskins used her walkie-talkie to advise Ms. Wolter that she and Mr. Carr were proceeding with Ms. Baker to Respondent's room because there was a problem. When Ms. Haskins, Mr. Carr, and Ms. Baker arrived at Respondent's classroom, Klara was working quietly at her desk. Ms. Haskins entered the room and told Klara to get all of her things and accompany her to the office. Mr. Carr and Ms. Baker stayed in the hall. At this time, Respondent was still in the time-out room with the other student. Ms. Haskins walked to the time-out room and knocked on the partially-open door. Ms. Haskins advised Respondent that she was taking Klara to the office. Respondent did not advise Ms. Haskins that Klara possibly had a knife. Mr. Carr escorted Ms. Haskins and Klara back to the office. On the way, Ms. Haskins radioed Ms. Wolter to tell her that they were taking Klara to the office. Ms. Haskins told Ms. Wolter that Klara possibly had a weapon in her bag. The school resource officer met the campus advisors and Klara in Ms. Wolter's office. Klara admitted to Ms. Wolter that she had a knife in her bookbag. As Klara emptied her bag on Ms. Wolter's desk, she took out a large hunting knife. The knife was approximately eight and three-quarter inches in length when the retractable blade was extended. The blade alone was four inches long. Subsequently, Ms. Haskins went back to Respondent's classroom to tell her that Klara would not be coming back to class. There is no persuasive evidence of the following admissions by Respondent: (a) to Ms. Haskins that she knew Klara had a knife and "just hadn't responded on that" and (b) to Ms. Baker that she (Respondent) was too busy to handle the situation with Klara and the knife. About one week after the incident involving Klara, Respondent and Ms. Baker had a major disagreement. Ms. Baker was removed as the teaching assistant in Respondent's classroom. Respondent knew from the beginning that she had a potentially dangerous situation in her classroom. The potential for violence created an extremely unsafe environment for all the children involved, including Klara. The Volusia County School District's Student Code of Conduct states that possession of a weapon is a major offense which requires a recommendation of expulsion. Pending a decision on expulsion, a student will be suspended and lose all extracurricular privileges. Respondent was familiar with the Student Code of Conduct. However, the Volusia County School District has no written policy explaining the proper procedure a teacher should follow in searching a student when confronted with actual knowledge or a reasonable suspicion that the student has possession of a concealed weapon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Petitioner's teaching certificate for two weeks and imposing two years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Ron Weaver and Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 10825 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2865 Paul Kwilecki, Esquire 433 Silver Beach Avenue, Suite 104 Daytona Beach, Florida 32176 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, William Doran, committed the acts alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Ten-Day Suspension Without Pay, and, if so, the discipline to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at SMS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been employed by the School Board for approximately eight years. Respondent most recently provided individualized instruction and assistance to students with individualized education plans. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie Classroom Teachers’ Association. Lydia Martin, principal of SMS, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. The 2010-2011 School Year On November 8, 2010, Respondent was counseled by Principal Martin for discourteous and disparaging remarks to students causing them to feel unnecessary embarrassment. Students and parents reported that Respondent made comments in the classroom including “the Bible is crap and we should not believe it,” told students they could not work in groups because they “would just bullshit,” called a student “stupid,” and referred to a group of African-American students as the “black coffee group.” Parents also expressed concern that Respondent discussed prostitution and told students that, in some countries the younger the girls are, the better it is considered because they have not lost their virginity. Respondent denied saying that the Bible is “crap” but admitted telling students that he did not believe in it. Respondent denied calling a student stupid but admitted that he told a student certain choices may be what a “not so smart” person would do. Respondent admitted to referring to a group of black students as a “coffee klatch,” but denied any reference to race or ethnicity. Respondent admitted discussing prostitution in the context of human rights and his personal observations of sex trafficking while serving in the military in East Germany. Principal Martin provided Respondent with a written Summary of Conference that stated, “In the future, do not make comments to students that may cause them embarrassment or that are unprofessional. My expectation is that you will treat students with respect and follow the district guidelines under 6.302 Employee Standards of Conduct and Code of Ethics for Educators.” On May 2, 2011, Principal Martin gave Respondent a Letter of Concern for making comments to a student that caused embarrassment to the student when Respondent stated that, “somebody cried about not getting their stupid PTO FCAT Goodie bag” and that “they were filled with cheap candy.” The daughter of the PTO president was in the class. The 2011-2012 School Year During the fall of 2011, Respondent was accused of inappropriately touching students.1/ As a result, on December 5, 2011, Respondent was removed from the classroom at SMS and placed on Temporary Duty Assignment at the School Board district office pending an investigation into the allegations. In a letter from Maurice Bonner, director of personnel, dated December 14, 2011, Respondent was directed not to engage witnesses, their parents, or potential witnesses during the open investigation. While he was working at the district office, two co- workers of Respondent overheard Respondent contact the parents of one of the student witnesses involved in the investigation by telephone to discuss the investigation. Also, during the investigation, it was discovered that Respondent had taken pictures of students when they were misbehaving in his class as a means of disciplining those students. On February 13, 2012, Principal Martin provided Respondent a Letter of Reprimand for the violation of the administrative directive (not to contact witnesses and parents during a pending investigation) and inappropriately disciplining students. This Letter of Reprimand reminded Respondent of his previous counseling and Letter of Concern and notified Respondent that his failure to follow the prior directives or violation of any other School Board policy would result in more severe disciplinary action being taken against him. In May 2012, Respondent received a three-day suspension without pay for embarrassing students. Respondent is alleged to have announced a student’s name in class and stated that he (Respondent) was “just wasting red ink” by grading the student’s paper. Respondent does not deny the statement, but claims he muttered it under his breath, and it was overheard by several students. Respondent embarrassed another student by sharing personal information about her family with the class. A student’s mother had privately discussed with Respondent the fact that her daughter might act out in class due to the distress she was experiencing as a result of her parents’ divorce. During a classroom discussion about families, this student made a comment that she had a “normal” family. Respondent said to the student, in front of the class, “If you’re so normal, where is your father?” Respondent admits this was inappropriate behavior on his part. The 2012-2013 School Year On May 3, 2013, Respondent was in the classroom of another teacher for the purpose of providing additional teaching assistance for several students. On this date, the usual classroom teacher was absent, and a substitute teacher was present. While walking around the classroom, Respondent observed two students, M.M. and A.L., engaged in a game of “slaps,” in which both students tried to hit each other’s hands. Respondent directed M.M. to stop and asked why he was doing the game during class time. M.M. responded that he was trying to cheer up A.L., it felt good, and they liked playing the game. At this time, Respondent was approximately eight to ten feet away from M.M. who was sitting at a desk. Respondent told M.M. that he didn’t care if it felt good for M.M. to “jump off a bridge,” it was not to go on in the classroom and to get back to work. M.M. asked Respondent what he meant and the two began to argue. Respondent approached M.M. and bent over him while M.M. remained seated at his desk. Respondent testified that he closed the gap between him and M.M. when he felt M.M. told him to shut up by saying “get out of my face.” Respondent stated, “At that point I decided I wasn’t going to let him push me around and I decided to engage him.” The credible testimony from several of the student witnesses was that Respondent approached M.M. and stood over him and that M.M. repeatedly asked Respondent to “please, get out of my face” and to leave him alone. M.M. also cursed and used a racial slur directed at Respondent.2/ Respondent told M.M. to get up and get out of the classroom. When Respondent did not move away from looming over M.M., M.M. said something to the effect of “I don’t want to do any of this.” M.M. stood up, and he and Respondent were face to face, only a few inches apart. M.M. told Respondent that he was a grown man and that he was “acting like a bitch.” Respondent repeatedly mocked M.M., yelling in his face, “Come on big man-- What are you going to do about it, hit me?” and told M.M. to hit him because it would “make my day.” Respondent called M.M. a coward several times when M.M. refused to hit Respondent and backed away. While this was going on, the other students in the classroom believed that Respondent and M.M. were going to have a physical fight, and they stood up, pushed the desks and chairs back, and got out their cell phones to take photos and video. Several of the students began screaming and yelling.3/ M.M. left the classroom and continued to curse at Respondent as Respondent followed him to the Dean’s office. During this altercation, the substitute teacher did not intervene or attempt to help or contact the SMS office. Respondent admits that, once M.M. told Respondent to “get out of his face,” Respondent did nothing to de-escalate the situation. To the contrary, Respondent intentionally escalated the altercation. According to Respondent, “He [M.M.] needed to be shown you can’t tell an adult to shut up.” Respondent testified that he believed that he was teaching M.M. a “life lesson”-–that “you can’t engage an adult and expect to get away with it.” SMS has a protocol for handling belligerent students in the classroom. Teachers receive training at the beginning of each school year regarding the difference between classroom managed behaviors and office managed behaviors. Teachers are trained not to engage a belligerent student but rather to use the buzzer which is tied to the intercom or telephone, available in every classroom, to notify the main office of the situation. In response, someone from the trained management team will come to the classroom to retrieve the student and bring them back to the Dean’s office. As explained by Principal Martin, the purpose of sending an adult from out of the classroom to retrieve a disruptive student is to minimize the possibility of harm to either the student, teacher, or other students, and to allow a “cooling off period” while the misbehaving student is escorted to the Dean’s office. During the altercation with M.M., Respondent made no effort to use the buzzer or the telephone or ask anyone else to notify the office of the escalating situation. Respondent was aware of the protocol but chose to ignore it. According to Respondent, “[M.M.] wanted to intimidate me and he failed and I let him know about it.” Respondent was purposely confrontational and testified that he wanted to show M.M. that Respondent “was not going to back down.” Respondent disregarded the protocol because he believed it would be ineffective and he wanted to teach M.M. a “humility lesson.” Respondent’s explanation, that he thought using the buzzer or telephone would be ineffective because sometimes the buzzer does not work or he was blocked from reaching the buzzer by M.M., was not supported by credible evidence. Further it was directly contradicted by Respondent’s explanation that he didn’t contact the office because M.M.’s behavior problems likely started in elementary school and that at this point, M.M. was not responsive to “conventional means of disciplining students.” While the undersigned is sensitive to the difficulty faced by teachers when dealing with confrontational and unruly students, no rational justification was provided for Respondent’s extreme and outrageous act of attempting to engage M.M. in a fight and labeling him a coward in front of his peers. Respondent’s actions were an unwarranted attempt to bully and belittle a middle school student. In May 2013, Respondent received a letter from then Superintendent Michael Lannon advising Respondent that he was recommending him to the School Board for a ten-day suspension without pay. During the School Board’s investigation and at the final hearing of this matter, Respondent expressed no remorse regarding his actions towards M.M. and testified that, despite knowing his actions constitute a violation of School Board policies, he would do the same thing again. Respondent received all the necessary steps of progressive discipline required by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties prior to receipt of the recommendation for the ten-day suspension without pay. As discussed in greater detail below, the School Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order finding William Doran guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of ten school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2014.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, specifically Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him pursuant to Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Chavero holds a Florida Educator's Certificate that is currently valid. Chavero was employed as a public school teacher in the Dade County School District at all times pertinent to this proceeding. In the 1999-2000 school year, Chavero taught English and math at Braddock. All of his students were enrolled in an Alternative Education Program known as the STARS Program. The STARS Program is offered as a last resort to students who, because of bad behavior, poor grades, or other problems, need extra assistance and attention to remain in school. If a student in the STARS Program fails to perform satisfactorily, he or she may be expelled. Chavero believed that student misconduct and a general lack of discipline at Braddock (and other schools) were preventing pupils from learning and teachers from teaching. Consistent with his pedagogic philosophy, Chavero aspired to teach his students not only the content of a course but also such social skills as proper behavior, dress, and manners. Braddock's Principal, Dr. Donald Hoecherl, disagreed with Chavero's view that behavior and social skills should be taught in the classroom. Principal Hoecherl told Chavero not to teach his students how to conduct themselves in socially acceptable ways. Apparently, the principal's admonition reflected the administration's sensitivity to the perceived "low self-esteem" of students in the STARS Program. Chavero was expected to be flexible and to refrain from confronting students or "coming on too strong" with them. This type of teaching was completely out of character for Chavero. Predictably, he was not able to abandon the authoritarian style that suited his personality and beliefs. As a result, Chavero developed a reputation as a strict disciplinarian — but "nothing out of the ordinary," in the words of V. D., a former student who testified against him at hearing. Transcript ("T-") 49. Indeed, according to this same student, Chavero's classroom rules were "pretty much the same" as other teachers'. T-49. Students began to complain, however, that Chavero was making too frequent use of a form of punishment called an “exclusion.” An exclusion is a temporary in-school suspension that the teacher may impose when a student is disrupting the class. Upon being excluded, the misbehaving student must leave the classroom and spend the remainder of the period in detention at another location. Assistant Principal Jane Garraux investigated the student complaints and concluded that Chavero’s use of the exclusion was excessive. She also determined that most of Chavero’s students (as many as 70 percent) were failing his classes. By comparison, other teachers in the STARS Program were giving passing grades to between 80 and 95 percent of their students. Following her investigation, the assistant principal initiated an evaluation of Chavero in November 1999 that led to the identification of performance deficiencies in the area of classroom control. He was placed on a 90-day performance probation and, as a result, needed to correct the identified deficiencies within that period or face termination of employment. See Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. While on performance probation, Chavero was observed and evaluated several times. In the opinion of his assessors, Chavero’s performance continued to be unsatisfactory. In February 2000, he resigned. 2/ The Commissioner sought to prove that, in the months leading to his resignation, Chavero: (a) refused, on occasion, to answer students’ questions about lessons and assignments; (b) used the exclusion tool excessively, in relation to other teachers in the STARS Program; (c) demanded more from his students in terms of academic performance and classroom decorum than his colleagues were requiring; and (d) became angry and raised his voice in class at times. This is not a proceeding to terminate Chavero’s employment, however, and poor performance does not constitute a basis for discipline under Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes — not, at least, without more than has been shown here. 3/ Therefore, even if all the general deficiencies in Chavero’s performance that the Commissioner attempted to prove at hearing were found to have existed, none amounts to a violation either of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) or of Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. There were, however, two specific occasions on which Chavero allegedly lost his temper and threatened the physical safety of a student or students. Together, these particular instances are the heart of the Commissioner’s case against Chavero and therefore require closer scrutiny. The First Period Incident On January 27, 2000, Chavero gave his first period class a mid-term examination. Near the end of the period, Chavero allowed the students who had completed the test to talk quietly, provided they would not bother the few who were still working. V. D. and J. A., who were sitting together in the back of the room, began conversing with one another. The class soon began to get loud, and Chavero told the students to be quiet. He held up V. D. and J. A. as an example of how he would like the class to behave, saying: "Why can't you guys whisper like J. A. and V. D." The class momentarily calmed down but quickly became noisy again. Chavero began to get angry. He told the students to lower their voices. V. D. continued to talk, and Chavero yelled at her to be quiet. Instead of obeying, V. D. denied that she had been talking loudly, which caused Chavero to yell at her some more. V. D. asked Chavero not to scream at her; he did not stop. At some point during this exchange, V. D. said to Chavero: “What the f*** is your problem?” Enraged, Chavero slammed his fist on a desk and moved quickly toward V. D. Some students, including V. D. and J. A., recall that as Chavero approached V. D., he raised his open hand, palm facing forward, as if to strike her. A number of other students, however, in written statements prepared on January 27, 2000, made no mention of the teacher’s raised hand. For his part, Chavero adamantly denied having raised his hand against V. D. V. D.’s immediate reaction suggests that she was not intimidated or frightened by Chavero’s rapid approach, regardless where his hand was. V. D. testified that she “lost [her] temper,” “got up and . . . exchanged a few words” with Chavero. T-55. More important, it is undisputed that Chavero did not touch V. D. Rather, he returned to his desk at the front of the class to write a “referral” — that is, a written account of V. D.’s misconduct that would be provided to the assistant principal for further handling. V. D. gathered her belongings and left the room. The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chavero intended either to hit V. D. or to cause her unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; that V. D. suffered any physical or emotional injury or felt embarrassed or degraded; or that V. D. was in danger of likely being harmed in Chavero’s classroom on January 27, 2000. As a result, it cannot be said without hesitancy that the conditions in Chavero's classroom that day were harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health or safety. The Third Period Incident R. G. was a student in Chavero’s third period math class. R. G.’s academic performance was extremely poor, and he frequently was excluded for bad behavior. He was defiant and aggressive, openly challenged Chavero’s authority, and, on at least one occasion, threw staples at the teacher. One day — the precise date of this event is not clear, but it apparently occured after January 27, 2000 — R. G. was in Chavero’s class, sitting in the back, not doing his assignment. Because R. G. was refusing to do his schoolwork, Chavero wrote a referral to send him to the assistant principal. R. G. testified that before Chavero wrote the referral, he had insulted R. G. by saying that his (R. G.’s) mother was raising an animal. However, another of Chavero’s former students named F. V., who witnessed this particular incident and testified at hearing on the Commissioner’s behalf, did not hear Chavero make this remark to R. G. Indeed, F. V. testified that he had never heard Chavero make rude or disrespectful comments to his students, nor had he observed Chavero become angry with the class. Chavero denied having insulted R. G., and the evidence supports his denial. After Chavero had filled out the referral, R. G. rose from his seat and approached Chavero’s desk. R. G. reached out to snatch the referral from Chavero’s hand in a manner that, according to F. V., was apparently intended “just to . . . annoy” Chavero. T-93. Specifically, as R. G. grabbed for the referral, he made a feint toward Chavero’s grade book. As F. V. explained, it was well known that Chavero “didn’t like it when people touched [his] grade book.” T-93. In the process, R. G. may have hit Chavero’s hand, although he denied having done so. Reacting to R. G.’s provocative act, Chavero slapped R. G.’s hand away. R. G. was neither injured nor embarrassed by this. Rather, he became angry and began yelling and cursing at Chavero, insulting him. Both R. G. and F. V. recalled that Chavero then said to R. G., “Oh, hit me if you’re a man,” or words to that effect. Chavero, however, testified that his exact statement to R. G. was: “[I]f you try to be physical you’ll get in trouble.” T-124. Chavero was the most credible witness of the three. After Chavero warned R. G. not to become physical, R. G. left the classroom. The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chavero intended either to harm R. G. or to cause him unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; that R. G. suffered any physical or emotional injury or felt embarrassed or degraded; or that R. G. was in danger of likely being hurt in Chavero’s classroom on the day of the third period incident. To the contrary, it appears that R. G.’s aggressive and provocative behavior may have threatened Chavero’s physical safety. Consequently, it cannot be said without hesitancy that the conditions in Chavero's classroom that day were harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health or safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent Armando M. Chavero. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent should be discharged from employment as a tenured teacher based on his professional incompetence.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Petitioner employed Respondent as a certified tenured teacher. Respondent has 28 years of experience teaching mathematics. Michael Kemp became principal at Englewood High School (EHS) during the 2002/2003 school year. Respondent was a mathematics teacher at EHS for the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 school terms. EHS has approximately 2,050 students. It is unique in that it serves as Petitioner's secondary center for a program known as "English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)." Approximately 80 percent of the students at EHS score below a Level 3 (below standard) on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). In the 2002/2003 school year, EHS implemented a standards-based curriculum for the first time. EHS teachers, including Respondent, received training relative to new student performance standards. The teachers also received training in the use of a new mini-lesson plan format for 90-minute blocks of instruction in content areas. During the 2002/2003 academic year, Petitioner implemented a new college preparatory mathematics (CPM) curriculum and a new reading strategy for all content areas. Respondent, along with other EHS teachers, received training in the new math curriculum and reading strategies. Respondent did not transition well to the new way of teaching. He did not adjust his teaching style to accommodate a "block" schedule, which required 90-minutes of instruction for each class period. Mr. Kemp evaluated Respondent for the 2002/2003 school year. Mr. Kemp determined that Respondent's ability to plan and deliver instruction, Competency A on the annual evaluation form and the "Classroom Observation Instrument" (COI), was unsatisfactory. However, Mr. Kemp concluded that Respondent's overall performance for the 2002/2003 school year was satisfactory. For the 2003/2004 school year, EHS initiated a sheltered academic content teaching model. As a result of the new model, many ESOL students exited the core academic program and attended special ESOL classes with designated teachers in academic areas such as language arts, mathematics, and social studies. For the 2003/2004 school year, Respondent was not a sheltered content teacher. Therefore, Respondent's classes contained some ESOL students but not as great a percentage as in 2002/2003. A high student-failure rate was common at EHS for the 2003/2004 school year. That year, approximately two-thirds of Respondent's students previously had failed their required math classes and were repeating the courses. Parental complaints against teachers are normal. The complaints are not always valid. However, when the 2003/2004 school year commenced, Mr. Kemp became concerned about the number of parents who wanted their children removed from Respondent's classes. Some of the parents made the requests as soon as their children were assigned to Respondent's classes. Other parents requested reassignment of their children to other math classes as the year progressed. On November 7, 2003, a student in one of Respondent's classes became very disruptive. Respondent attempted to get the student to settle down. When his efforts were unsuccessful, Respondent directed a verbal obscenity to the student in front of other students while class was in session. Specifically, Respondent told the student to "get the f--- out" of the classroom. On November 14, 2003, Mr. Kemp had a conversation with Respondent about his unsatisfactory classroom performance. In a memorandum dated November 17, 2003, Mr. Kemp advised Respondent that a success plan would be developed and a support team identified to assist him. On December 3, 2003, Mr. Kemp observed Respondent teaching a math class. Mr. Kemp determined that Respondent did not demonstrate satisfactory teaching behaviors. Regarding Respondent's classroom management, Mr. Kemp's observations included the following: (a) Respondent did not control the classroom; (b) Students were not on task during the warm-up activity; (c) Students engaged in conversations, which were not related to the task at hand; (d) There were no apparent expectations for classroom behavior; (e) Respondent tolerated disrespectful talk from students; and (f) Respondent did not control classroom dialogue and discussions. Regarding Respondent's instructional delivery, Mr. Kemp's observations included, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Respondent did not connect the purpose of the lesson with its content; (b) Respondent lectured from the front of the class and did not vary his instructional delivery; (c) Many students were not on task; (d) Respondent continued the lesson despite statements of frustration and lack of understanding from students; (e) Respondent demonstrated content knowledge and mastery of material, but he did not successfully transfer content to students or communicate with them; (f) The lesson was not motivating; (g) Students were not engaged and ignored the lecture; (h) Except for two students who answered questions, the class was either lost or not engaged; (i) Some students requested other students to explain or teach them an assigned task; (j) Respondent circulated among the students but he had no organization as to what was being checked; and (k) Respondent was unaware that students were working on other assignments unrelated to the class work. In a memorandum dated December 4, 2003, Mr. Kemp notified Respondent that a conference had been scheduled for December 10, 2003. The purpose of the meeting was to initiate Respondent's success plan. On December 8, 2003, Mr. Kemp observed Respondent teach another math class. Mr. Kemp concluded that Respondent did not demonstrate satisfactory teaching behaviors. Mr. Kemp's observations included the following: (a) Respondent needed assistance with appropriate lesson planning for a block schedule; (b) Respondent relied too much on a lecture format with no connection between the content of the lesson and its purpose; (c) Respondent had adequate content knowledge but he was ineffective in transferring that knowledge to the students; (d) Respondent had difficulty keeping the students engaged and on task; and (e) Respondent had little control over classroom dialogue. On December 10, 2003, Respondent met with his success team. After the meeting, Respondent was given an opportunity to provide additional strategies and suggestions for improvement to the success plan. Respondent did not take advantage of this opportunity. Respondent's 2003/2004 success plan contained specific goals, objectives and tasks in the following areas: (a) Plans and delivers effective instruction; (b) Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (c) Evaluates the instructional needs of students; (d) Communicates with parents; and (e) Promotes student growth and performance. The success plan identified certain members of the success team to work with Respondent on each area of professional development. The plan provided for weekly meetings with the success team members between January 5, 2004, and March 30, 2004. The success plan required Respondent to attend professional development cluster meetings for off-site continuing education in the following subject areas: (a) Standards Based Education; (b) Rituals and Routines; and (c) Effective Communication. The success plan provided opportunity for on-site continuing education and professional development. For example, the plan required Respondent to read and summarize certain professional literature such as the following: (a) Two math chapters in Best Practices; and (b) Modules related discipline and communication in CHAMPS Foundation. Additionally, Respondent's plan required him to view a video tape related to effective interpersonal communications with students and explain in writing how he planned to implement communication strategies in his classes. Most important, the plan required Respondent to observe his math colleagues twice a month. The success plan required Respondent to develop weekly lesson plans. These lesson plans had to include mini-lesson plans for each class at least once in each daily lesson. The mini-lesson plans included FCAT warm-ups, opening, practice, and closure. The success plan required other on-going activities including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Preparing a written script and implementing appropriate questioning strategies using Bloom's Taxonomy; (b) Preparing a written script of appropriate questions for use when monitoring and probing for solutions with cooperative groups; (c) Preparing a written summary on learning modalities; (d) Preparing a written list of strategies to meet all classroom exceptionalities and learning styles; (e) providing students with written individual corrective feedback; (f) Posting dates for remediation, retesting, or revision of work; (g) Establishing and applying published classroom routines; (h) Posting classroom rules; (i) Creating and maintaining an Absentee Assignment Notebook; (j) Publishing and enforcing a procedure for recording and reporting tardies; (k) Maintaining a notebook of handouts for student access; (l) Publishing and implementing a routine for lesson closure and class dismissal; (m) Maintaining student data records in the "Success by Design" notebook; (n) Communicating with parents about unsatisfactory student performance and course recovery opportunities, using two methods and keeping a log and copies of any written communication; and (o) Creating a daily journal of professional reflections relative to improving student rapport. The success team members observed Respondent's classes and reviewed his written assignments to determine whether he was meeting the requirements of his success plan. The team members provided Respondent with verbal and written feedback about his progress or lack thereof. The success team met as a group on February 10, 2004. On March 10, 2004, Mr. Kemp made a final observation of Respondent's teaching performance. Mr. Kemp concluded that Respondent was attempting to establish a rapport with his students. However, Respondent's performance was inadequate in the following ways: (a) He needed to implement strategies to engage the students; (b) He needed assistance with lesson plans; and (c) He needed additional strategies for classroom management. Mr. Kemp met with Respondent on March 12, 2004. At the meeting, Mr. Kemp advised Respondent that he had not successfully completed the success plan. The annual evaluation that Mr. Kemp and Respondent signed at the meeting indicates that Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in the following areas: (a) Competency A--plans and delivers effective instruction; (b) Competency C--Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; and (c) Competency G--promotes student growth and performance. According to the evaluation, Respondent's overall performance for the 2003/2004 school year was unsatisfactory. As requested by Respondent, Petitioner assigned Respondent to a teaching position at La Villa School of Arts (La Villa) for the 2004/2005 school term. Connie Skinner was La Villa's principal and Jeffery Hutchman was head of the math department at La Villa. Mr. Hutchman made several attempts to contact Respondent during the summer before the 2004/2005 school year commenced. Mr. Hutchman intended to invite Respondent to a middle-school mathematics workshop. Respondent never received Mr. Hutchman's messages and therefore did not attend the workshop. At La Villa, Respondent did not have an assigned classroom. Instead, Respondent was a "traveling" teacher who changed classrooms each period. On September 3, 2004, Ms. Skinner observed Respondent teach a math class for the first time. Ms. Skinner had some positive and negative comments about her observations. Among other things, Ms. Skinner concluded that Respondent circulated appropriately among the students, quickly stopped disrespect by one student, and had good questions from the class at the end of the lesson. She made the following suggestions: (a) Respondent needed to speed up the mini-lesson; (b) Respondent needed to set a time limit for student work to reduce the number of students who were not engaged or slow to start; and (c) Respondent needed to get students to the board. EHS sent La Villa a copy of Respondent's 2003/2004 success plan. On September 3, 2004, the success team at La Villa decided to use a modified version of the 2003/2004 success plan until Ms. Skinner and the La Villa success team had an opportunity to observe Respondent and develop a new success plan for the 2004/2005 school year. On October 11, 2004, Ms. Skinner made an unplanned observation in Respondent's class. The purpose of the visit was not to evaluate Respondent, but to gain additional information for the development of the new success plan. During the visit, Ms. Skinner noted, among other things, that Respondent's voice registered disgust with students for not using notes. On October 20, 2004, Ms. Skinner observed Respondent teach a math class, using the COI to evaluate Respondent's teaching behaviors. Ms. Skinner noted the following: (a) There was a great deal of confusion in a group assignment; (b) Respondent did not gain student attention at the start of the lesson; and (c) Respondent made statements showing his disdain for students and his lack of class discipline. Ms. Skinner concluded that Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory. On October 21, 2004, the success team at La Villa presented Respondent with a new success plan. The plan included specific goals and objectives to effect improvement in Respondent's ability to plan and deliver instruction, to demonstrate effective classroom management skills, to show sensitivity to student needs, to demonstrate abilities to evaluate students' instructional needs, to communicate with parents, and to promote student growth and performance. The 2004/2005 success plan required Respondent to attend training classes in "Connected Math." It also required him to attend workshops in instructional strategies and classroom management as well as other on-site and off-site continuing education programs. The 2004/2005 success plan specified that success team members would assist Respondent by explaining and demonstrating classroom strategies. Additionally, the success team members were required to observe Respondent in the classroom and provide him with feedback. Ms. Skinner observed Respondent on November 17, 2004. Among other comments, Ms. Skinner noted that Respondent's students were either not engaged or asked questions unrelated to the subject of the lesson. Ms. Skinner also concluded as follows: (a) Respondent's lesson did not include a mini lesson; (b) The content of the students' notebooks were poorly arranged and inconsistent; and (c) The students' homework folders were mostly empty and contained no teacher commentary. Ms. Skinner observed Respondent on November 24, 2004, using the COI to evaluate Respondent's teaching behaviors. Ms. Skinner determined that Respondent told the class to "shhhh" over 30 times. For this and other reasons, Ms. Skinner concluded that Respondent had not demonstrated satisfactory performance. On January 20, 2005, Ms. Skinner used the COI and the Professional Behaviors Instrument (PBI) to evaluate Respondent's classroom performance. These evaluations indicated that Respondent had improved in some areas such as clarity of instruction and interaction with students, resulting in a more engaged class. However, his overall performance was unsatisfactory. On March 10, 2005, Ms. Skinner used the COI to evaluate Respondent's teaching behaviors. Ms. Skinner observed the following: (a) Respondent presented material that was hard to read; (b) Respondent handled questions poorly; (c) The pace of the lesson seemed very slow; (d) Respondent failed to praise a student for a correct answer; and (e) Respondent's tone of voice carries disdain for students. Ms. Skinner concluded that Respondent's teaching behaviors were not satisfactory. On March 11, 2005, Ms. Skinner completed Respondent's annual evaluation. She concluded that his performance was unsatisfactory in the following areas: (a) Competency A, Plans and delivers effective instruction; (b) Competency D, Shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment; (c) Competency E, Evaluates instructional needs of students; and (d) Promotes student growth and performance. Respondent's overall evaluation indicated that his professional growth was unsatisfactory. As to Compentency A, persuasive evidence indicates that Respondent's delivery was not clear and explicit. His students did not understand the lesson objectives. His written communications included misspelling and typos. As to Competency D, the record shows that Respondent failed to provide his students with positive reinforcement. Instead, his tone of voice carried disdain when interacting with his students. As to Competency E, Respondent had an unusually high failure rate. This shows that Respondent's instruction did not meet the needs of his students. As to Competency G, Respondent did not provide for individual student needs during his classes. On March 15, 2005, Ms. Skinner and Respondent discussed his 2004/2005 success plan. Ms. Skinner advised Respondent that he had not successfully completed the plan. After each observation/evaluation, Ms. Skinner discussed her findings with Respondent. She advised Respondent of strategies for improving his teaching behaviors. While there was some improvement in the middle of the 2004/2005 school term, by the end of the year there was a reversion in Respondent's professional growth. Ms. Skinner stated that "all of the strategies for standards-based education that we had worked on and helped him to understand, we thought went by the wayside." Regarding Competency A and Competency G, Respondent was unable to improve, despite the assistance of his success teams and the specific in-service training they provided. Respondent's was unable to maintain a satisfactory level of performance for Competency D and Competency E. He made improvement in only one area, Competency C. Overall, Respondent's professional growth was unsatisfactory for consecutive annual evaluations separated by a year of in-service training to correct his deficiencies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order, terminating the Respondent's employment as a tenured teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Adres Rojas, Esquire City of Jacksonville City Hall, St. James Building 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Joseph J. Wise, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue Whether Respondent, Teresa Wimmer, violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics), or 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (Principles of Professional Conduct), as alleged in the Hernando County School Board’s March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination, and March 24, 2015, modification of that notice; and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Hernando County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent has been a teacher at Pine Grove for roughly 11 years. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was a teacher of first-grade students, with a class of approximately 18 students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2014-2015 Staff Handbook. Among the provisions applicable to Respondent was the following: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. Respondent has been the subject of several disciplinary proceedings over the years. In September 2004, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for grabbing a student’s arm on two occasions to correct misbehaviors, the result of which appeared to be a reprimand. The report of the employee conference was to remain in the school file for one year. In January 2006, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for making derogatory comments regarding a student and allowing classmates to do the same. Respondent was required to re-read the Code of Ethics and Professional Practice forms and write a letter of apology to the student and parents. The employee conference report closed with “[a]ny further behaviors involving embarrassment to students will result in further disciplinary action.” In September 2013, Respondent was involved in an incident that is of more direct relevance to this proceeding. In that instance, Respondent was accused of roughly handling students in her classroom. As a result, she was offered, and accepted, a Stipulation for Employee Discipline and Last Chance Agreement (Stipulation). In the Stipulation, Respondent acknowledged that she “engaged in misconduct by having inappropriate and unprofessional interactions with students in her classroom” and that such conduct “warrants disciplinary action up to and including termination.” In lieu of termination, the School Board and Respondent agreed that she would be suspended for ten days and, thereafter, serve a probationary period for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year. The Stipulation further provided that Respondent “agrees that she will not engage in the conduct which gave rise to this Stipulation at any time or any place so long as she is an employee of the Hernando County School District. Further, [Respondent] understands that if she does engage in misconduct, it will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Respondent successfully completed the terms of her probation without incident. School principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, and persons in similar duties are trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI), which is an approved method of restraining or transporting completely out-of-control students or removing children from the classroom. CPI training is not provided as a matter of course to classroom teachers. Respondent has not received CPI training. Holding a student’s hand is not a CPI hold. There is nothing inherently inappropriate with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. The 2014-2015 Staff Handbook provides, in the section entitled “Return of Students to Classroom (Authority of the Teacher),” that: Teachers should follow their school’s procedure for the removal of students who are acting out. Suggestions include: having an adult accompany the student from the class or requesting an administrator to come to the class. (emphasis added). The routine procedure for removal of a disruptive or unruly student from the classroom is for the classroom teacher to call the office, whereupon Ms. Johnson, Ms. Kasten, or a guidance counselor, each of whom are trained in CPI, would go to the room, try to calm the student, and, if warranted, take the student to the office. Despite the procedure described above, Ms. Kasten testified that teachers, on occasion, “would bring the student down for me to talk to or the guidance counselor to talk to.” In such instances, “[t]hey would just walk them down” to the office. Although the teacher would usually call the office first, the evidence did not support a finding that a call was required or necessary, or that it happened in each event. Although the timing of those other events of taking students to the office was described as generally occurring “during their planning period or whatever, if they were at specials or whatever,” the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the act of walking a student to the office, per se, does not constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook and that the school has not previously determined it to be so. Among the reasons for having teachers call the office for assistance with disruptive students is to limit those periods in which a teacher may leave students unattended or, as in this case, leave a co-teacher responsible for up to 36 students while the disruptive student was walked to the office. However, Ms. Tyree testified that there have been times when she would ask Respondent to “keep an eye on [her] class” while she went to attend to other things, and vice versa. There was no suggestion that asking a co-teacher to watch over a class was improper, as long as “your class is covered.” In the weeks prior to February 4, 2015, J.S., a student in Respondent’s classroom, had become increasingly disruptive in the classroom. The behaviors ranged from J.S. talking in “baby-talk” and rolling crayons on his desk, to choking another student with a lanyard. Respondent did not know why J.S.’s behavior had spiraled out of control, but indicated to Ms. Kasten that it was creating a problem for her ability not only to teach J.S., but to teach the other students in her classroom. The office was called on three occasions to deal with J.S., and Ms. Kasten went to the class to address the situations. On two occasions, J.S. remained in the classroom after Ms. Kasten’s intervention. On one occasion, Ms. Kasten removed J.S. from the classroom. On the occasion when Ms. Kasten removed him from Respondent’s classroom, J.S. was walking around the room and disturbing the other students. Ms. Kasten could not get J.S. to listen to her. Thus, she decided to take J.S. to the office. She did not employ her CPI training or use a CPI hold, but took him by the hand “with the idea of keeping him from getting away.” During the walk to the office, J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away.1/ There was no suggestion that the actions of Ms. Kasten in taking J.S. by the hand and walking him to the office were inappropriate or contrary to the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. On the afternoon of February 3, 2015, Ms. Kasten met with Respondent to discuss the behavior of J.S. in her classroom. Respondent was upset and frustrated with J.S.’s unruly behavior and wanted to know what could be done about it. Ms. Kasten suggested that the two of them could work to develop a behavior plan for J.S. and indicated that she would bring a plan to Respondent the next day for them to work on. The incident that forms the basis of this proceeding occurred on February 4, 2015. As students were entering the class for the day, Respondent heard screaming and the words “stop hitting me.” She turned and saw J.S. striking a female student with his fists. Respondent was able to verbally quell the disturbance. However, after initially returning to his seat, J.S. went to the back of the room where he began kicking table legs and other items. Respondent asserted that prior to her taking the student to the office, she called Ms. Kasten to advise her that she would be doing so and received permission from Ms. Kasten. Ms. Kasten had no recollection of having received any such call. The telephone records admitted at the hearing do not reflect that any calls were placed between Respondent’s line and the office.2/ There was no evidence to support a finding that the telephone records maintained by the school were unreliable. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent did not receive prior approval before taking the student to the office on the morning of February 4, 2015. However, the issue of whether Respondent received or did not receive permission to take J.S. to the office, and whether the act of doing so violated any school policy, was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On her way out of the classroom with J.S., Respondent passed through the classroom of her co-teacher, Ms. Tyree, with whom she shared a paired classroom, and stated to her something to the effect of “[c]an you watch my class? They told me to take [J.S.] to the office.” Although not a frequent occurrence, it was not unusual for Respondent and Ms. Tyree, as paired teachers, to watch one another’s classes while the other was out for short periods. In this case, Respondent’s class was covered while she walked J.S. to the office. Respondent took J.S. by the hand and tucked his arm inside her arm. Although J.S. did not want to go to the office, his resistance was described by Ms. Tyree as “verbal like ‘I don't want to go, I don't want to go.’ But there wasn't a, like, a tug of war going on there.” Respondent indicated that she took J.S. by the hand in order to keep him safe. Given J.S.’s actions of physically assaulting a fellow student, followed by continued physical agitation at the back of the room, Respondent’s concern for safety, not only for J.S., but for the other students in her charge, was warranted. The walk to the office was captured by the school’s video system. The video covered the time from 8:33:00 to 8:33:58. Respondent and J.S. are clearly visible in the video for approximately 30 seconds, from frame 08:33:04 to frame 08:33:32. The video is somewhat grainy, and certain details are not readily observable. However, the video is consistent with Respondent’s statement that she was holding J.S. by the hand. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Respondent was holding J.S. by the hand as she walked with him to the office and not by the “wrist area,” as surmised by Ms. Johnson. At frames 08:33:12 and 08:33:13, J.S. appears to briefly resist Respondent’s efforts to take him to the office by trying to remove his hand from Respondent’s hand as they walked side-by-side. Despite his resistance, Respondent was not “pulling/dragging” J.S. during those frames. At frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19, J.S. appears to briefly pull away from Respondent. The action was that of J.S., not of Respondent. Respondent did not release J.S., but neither did she pull or drag J.S. The action at frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19 is entirely consistent with that described by Ms. Kasten when giving the account of her earlier walk to the office with J.S. -- which did not involve a CPI hold -- when J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away. Despite J.S.’s efforts to pull away in both instances, neither Respondent nor Ms. Kasten was “pulling/dragging” J.S. during their walks to the office. For the remainder of the walk to the office, Respondent and J.S. walked side-by-side at a consistent pace. The evidence suggests that J.S. was vocal in his reluctance to be taken to the office, consistent with the description of his verbal resistance when being taken from the classroom as described by Ms. Tyree. The verbal resistance apparently continued, as evidenced by the reaction of the boy using the walker, who comes into the picture at frame 08:33:22. However, J.S.’s verbal protestations did not involve pulling or dragging and do not form the basis of a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. Respondent’s actions, though firm, did not appear to be aggressive. They were consistent with the description offered by Ms. Tyree, who testified that, as to the Respondent’s walk through her classroom, “there wasn't an altercation of, like, dragging or, you know -- it wasn't -- she was walking, he was walking. But he wasn't happy, you could tell that he didn't want to.” As Respondent entered the office with J.S., Ms. Kasten, the elementary assistant, was in the office, though on the other side of the office. Respondent approached the office with J.S. The door to the office opens out. It occasionally slams, and Ms. Kasten has seen it slam on students. In order to ensure J.S.’s safety, Respondent placed both of her hands on his arms to move him through the door and into the office. Respondent yelled for Ms. Kasten to “take him.” Ms. Kasten observed that Respondent was trying to get J.S. into the doorway to someone who could help. Although Respondent’s calls for Ms. Kasten to take J.S. were loud, her tone of voice was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. Upon their entry into the office, Ms. Kasten went over to Respondent and J.S. J.S. stopped resisting once he saw Ms. Kasten. There was no evidence that J.S. was physically harmed in any way, i.e., there were no bruises, scratches, or marks of any kind. Respondent indicated to Ms. Kasten that J.S. had come to class very angry and was physically fighting with his female cousin. Ms. Kasten’s contemporaneous statement of the incident indicated that J.S. was “very upset that he had a fight with his sister.”3/ There was no suggestion that J.S. was upset about his walk to the office with Respondent. Ms. Kasten took J.S. off to the side and talked with him. After J.S. calmed down, Ms. Kasten advised Respondent that she would handle the situation from there, and Respondent left the office. J.S. was ultimately kept in the in-school suspension room for an hour or two. Ms. Kasten reported the incident to Ms. Johnson, who was not in her office or out front and did not witness the event. Shortly thereafter, in a conversation regarding other matters, Ms. Johnson reported to Ms. Martin at the District office that Respondent “brought a student in yelling and dragging.” Ms. Johnson was instructed to immediately remove Respondent from student contact. Ms. Johnson called to Respondent’s classroom and left a message with Respondent that she needed to speak with her. The following day, a meeting was convened to discuss the incident. Present at the meeting were Ms. Johnson, Respondent, and Respondent’s union representative. The confidential secretary to the school principal, Mr. Deen, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During her February 5, 2015, interview regarding the incident, Respondent indicated that “I was keeping him safe. I was holding his hand at first and he was okay. Then he started pulling away from me and I wanted to make sure he didn't hurt himself.” Her statement is consistent with the video. During the meeting, Respondent remained adamant that she had called Ms. Kasten and received the instruction to bring J.S. to the office. In conjunction with the investigation of the incident by Petitioner, Ms. Johnson reported the incident to the Department of Children and Families. The School Board received nothing from the Department of Children and Families to suggest that it found wrongdoing on the part of Respondent. Ms. Johnson believed, based on the information conveyed to her, that there was no reason for Respondent to remove the disruptive student from the classroom and that such action did not follow the protocol for the school for the removal of an unruly student. The alleged breach of protocol involved in taking the child to the office was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On February 18, 2015, Respondent was advised of the opportunity for a pre-determination meeting to be held the following week. Respondent took advantage of the opportunity. The pre-determination meeting was held on February 25, 2015. In attendance were Respondent, Ms. Martin, labor counsel Tom Gonzales, Ms. Johnson, and Joann Hartage, who appeared to be representing Respondent. Ms. Martin’s secretary, Sherrie Kudla, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During the pre-determination meeting, Respondent gave her account of the incident and was questioned, primarily by Ms. Martin. In addition to questions regarding the walk to the office, Ms. Martin asked about interviews of Respondent’s students undertaken by Ms. Johnson, which Ms. Martin found to be “very concerning.” Among the issues raised by Ms. Martin was “their perception [] that you yell and get aggravated with students and that you’re mean to [J.S.].” Although Respondent stated that she had read the statements, she was not involved in the interviews, and had no opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of the statements. More to the point, whether Respondent yelled or was a mean teacher was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. At the conclusion of the pre-determination meeting, Ms. Martin conferred with the school superintendent, and the decision was made to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated from employment. By letter dated March 9, 2015, Respondent was advised that, as a result of her “pulling/dragging a student to the front office,” the District determined that she had violated rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), rules 6A-10.81(3)(a) and (3)(e), and the School Board Policy/Staff Handbook; that she was suspended with pay; and that she had the right to appeal the recommendation of termination. On March 23, 2015, Respondent appealed the recommendation of termination. By letter dated March 24, 2015, Respondent was notified that the recommendation to the School Board would be modified to one of suspension without pay, effective April 22, 2015, and referral of her appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the April 21, 2015, meeting of the School Board, the School Board authorized that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon this case ensued. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based upon the facts as set forth herein, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in an incident of “pulling/dragging a student to the front office.” The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent walked J.S. to the office and, despite J.S.’s verbal protestations and brief efforts to resist, did so in a safe and effective manner. Any “pulling” was brief and on the part of J.S., not on the part of Respondent. There was no “dragging.” The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a teacher’s act of walking an unruly or disruptive student to the office is not, in and of itself, a violation of any applicable procedure or standard and has not been determined to be so in the past. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that there is nothing inherently inappropriate or improper with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. Issues of whether Respondent received telephonic approval to take J.S. to the office, should have left Ms. Tyree to watch her class, spoke to Ms. Kasten in a loud voice, or was loud or mean with her students were not pled as bases for Respondent’s termination, and, thus, cannot form the basis for any disciplinary sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing the March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination; reinstating Respondent to a position equivalent to that previously held with the Hernando County School Board; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or collective bargaining agreement that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful termination/suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 25th day of August, 2015.
Findings Of Fact This matter concerns an incident which took place at Brownsville Junior High School on August 16, 1984, during the last week of the summer school session. The incident involved a female victim and several male students. It is undisputed that a sexual assault on a female student did take place. The only question involved here is what part, if any, the respondent played in this incident. The sexual assault was initiated by another male student, John Felder. Essentially, Felder pulled the victim, Nettie Thomas, into room 101 at the school. That room contained a television set which also served as a computer monitor. After the victim was pulled into room 101, various attempts were made to removed her clothing and she was fondled and touched by several male students. At one point during the victim's struggles, she was forced down on the teacher's desk and was held on top of the desk by her arms. While on the desk, she was assaulted by a male student who laid on top of her and made motions which simulated the motions made during sexual intercourse. At times, someone held his hand over her mouth so that she could not cry out for help. Additionally, during the time the incident occurred, the lights in the room were turned on and off on more than one occasion. The assault was stopped when the assistant principal walked up the hall to investigate the noises which were reported to be coming from room 101. The students involved in the assault fled the room. The assistant principal, Freddie Robinson, observed and identified five boys fleeing room 101. Specifically, he identified Darrien Byrd, John Felder, Anthony Dowdell, Richard Daniels and Vernon Clark. He didn't see Horne. The victim, Nettie Thomas, identified these same five, either in written or verbal statements made during the investigation of this incident. At no time did she name Borne in her statements. Nettie Thomas testified that Bennie Horne was one of the students who held her arms while she was being held on top of the teacher's desk. At hearing was the first time Thomas named Horne as having been present or involved in the incident. Robinson thought Horne was involved because one of the other boys said Horne was there. No evidence was presented which established Horne's presence and involvement except the victim's testimony. In resolving this apparent conflict between the testimony of the victim and her failure to name Horne previously, substantial weight is given to the written statement of the victim which was made shortly after the incident. The written report does not specifically name Bennie Horne. In light of this written statement and lack of direct or corroborative evidence of Horne's presence, and having judged the demeanor of the various witnesses, it is found that Bennie Horne did not hold the arms of the victim in order to restrain her on the desk during the sexual assault and was not shown to have been present at all. Bennie Horne had no record of misconduct at Brownsville Junior High School prior to this incident. He was not a disruptive student and his academic performance was satisfactory.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order returning Bennie Horne to the regular school program and reversing the determination that Horne be placed or retained in an educational alternative program. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Gloria Horne Parent of Bennie Horne 2631 N. W. 49th Street Miami, Florida 33142 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk School Hoard of Dade County 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami Florida 33132
The Issue Whether the District has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was just cause to dismiss Thomas Brown, consistent with the provisions of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Laws of Florida, Chapter 21197 (1941), as amended, and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas Brown, was a teacher of instructional music in the Duval County School District (District). As part of the instructional personnel with the District, Brown was subject to be evaluated on an annual basis pursuant to the teacher assessment system. The purpose for evaluating teachers is to make certain that instruction is occurring in the classroom and that students are learning the required subject matter. The evaluation process also makes certain that student safety in the classroom is taken into consideration by the instructional personnel (teachers). The District uses the teacher assessment system to evaluate all of its teachers regardless of the subject matter they instruct. From the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 academic school years, Brown was a teacher at Andrew Jackson High School where Jack Shanklin (Shanklin) is principal. Shanklin has evaluated teachers annually since he became a principal 22 years ago. He uses the classroom observation instrument within the teacher assessment system to evaluate all of his teachers. At the beginning of the 2000-2001 academic year, Shanklin; Ms. Pierce, assistant principal; Dennis Hester, professional development cadre member; and Mr. Dudley took part in creating a success plan for Brown. A success plan is a course of action designed to prevent an at-risk teacher from getting an unsatisfactory annual evaluation by engendering professional improvement. Shanklin discussed the success plan with Brown before it was implemented. Brown did not have any objections to the plan. Shanklin evaluated Brown for the 2000-2001 academic school year during March of 2001. He based his evaluation results on the observations and written reprimands that he had issued to Brown throughout the 2000-2001 year. During the year, Shanklin observed Brown's classes. In preparation for a classroom visit, he reviewed Brown's lesson plans for October 18, 2000. Lesson plans describe the daily plan for instruction of the students on a particular day. Shanklin had previously directed Brown to turn in his lesson plans on a weekly basis in order to monitor Brown's progress because of his departure from planned lessons. Shanklin attempted to observe Brown in his classroom on October 18, 2000; however, neither the class nor the teacher was present in Brown's classroom. Shanklin later found Brown and the class with the choral class in the auditorium; but Brown had failed to amend his lesson plans to include the choral visit, although he had adequate time to do. He had presented none of the lesson plan that had he filed. Shanklin returned on October 19, 2000, to observe Brown's classroom ten minutes after class has begun. As he entered the classroom, two students ran out the back door. When questioned, Brown had no knowledge of their identity. Shanklin witnessed students harassing other students without correction from Brown while he was addressing the needs of only five of his 35 students. While Brown spoke with the small group, the other students were doing whatever they wanted. There were no class assignments being conducted by the other students. Shanklin later identified one of the students who had been harassing other students as John Fields. Shanklin removed Fields from class because his behavior was so menacing. Brown should have prohibited and corrected the student misconduct, which he failed to do. Shanklin gave Brown a written reprimand by letter dated October 30, 2000. Shanklin also observed Brown on December 4, 2000, during a previously announced observation. Brown did not begin class with an appropriate review of recent material or outline of the day's lesson. Student misconduct again was uncorrected by Brown. Students were moving around and talking during instruction by Brown without correction. This class was not a band class, but a music appreciation class, and there was no need for student movement during instruction. After this observation, Shanklin reviewed his observations with Brown in January of 2001. Following the January discussion, Shanklin observed Brown again later that month, at a previously announced observation. He also discussed that visit with Brown. Shanklin also had Dennis Hester, a professional cadre member, observe Brown's classroom instruction. As part of Hester's responsibilities to improve "less than satisfactory" teachers, Hester reviewed and approved the success plan developed for Brown. Pursuant to that plan, Hester assisted Brown with both formal and informal observations and conferences through 2000 and 2001. After multiple informal conferences in January, Hester began formal observations in February. Hester utilized a number of tools to accurately document the classroom instruction by Brown. Domain One Instrument is a tool in the Florida Performance Measurement System which identifies a teacher's ability to plan lessons. The Domain Two Instrument is a classroom management tool used in the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) to assess how a classroom is run. Hester was trained to evaluate teachers by using both tools and has done so with over 30 teachers in Duval County. Hester also used a conference planning guide which is a list of behaviors observed indicating areas to be worked on, and the Clinical Educator Training (CET) anecdotal instrument to clarify the events of a classroom observation in detail. Hester observed Brown's class on February 1, 2001, and saw a number of students off-tasks, and one child sleeping. Hester observed Brown tell the sleeping child to "wake up, no slobbering on the desk . . ." Brown should have taken positive steps to keep the student awake, and should not have accused him of "slobbering on the desk." Hester discussed these deficiencies with Brown towards the end of February. Hester was due to have all of his evaluations completed on March 15, 2001. Although the Domain One, on planning lessons, was due from Brown to Hester on January 18, 2001 for a February 27, 2001, class observation, Hester did not receive it until March 7, 2001. Thereafter, Hester faxed his commentary of the Domain One to the school for Brown to review as the remaining time permitted. Although Hester did not specifically provide Shanklin with his observation notes for review, the principal reviewed the cadre's notes which outlined the similar misconduct and classroom mismanagement Shanklin witnessed himself. Shanklin's evaluation was also made with the consideration of an incident at the May graduation of 1999/2000 academic school year. Brown's band refused to perform after Brown instructed them to do so. It was later discovered that those students who refused to perform were academically ineligible to be in the class. In prior years, Brown had allowed ineligible students to perform in the school band against the school's rules and regulations, and had been told to stop permitting this. On March 15, 2001, Shanklin gave Brown an unsatisfactory annual evaluation. In evaluating Brown as unsatisfactory for Competency No. 1, Shanklin considered his own observations of Brown's failing to follow his established lesson plans. Brown's failure to manage his classroom and correct student misbehavior supports Shanklin' unsatisfactory evaluation under Competency No. 3. Because of a lack of academic climate due to classroom mismanagement and unorganized instruction, Shanklin deemed Brown to have been unsatisfactory in Competency No. 4. In addition, regarding Competency No. 4, Brown allowed students to eat in his classroom which was critiqued by Shanklin in a letter to Brown dated December 6, 2000. In evaluating Brown unsatisfactory under Competency No. 5, Shanklin considered Brown's failure to provide sufficient evidence that any real grades could be disseminated to Brown's students as there were no rubrics or student work visible for assessments. Finally, Shanklin gave Brown an unsatisfactory evaluation on Competency No. 9 because Brown never demonstrated any type of diversified lesson designed to maintain the attention of the students; which was needed as evidenced by the repeated observation of students sleeping in his class. Following the 1999/2001 academic school year, Brown was transferred to Jefferson Davis Middle School where Bob Powell was principal. Powell created an initial success plan for Brown when he first arrived in the beginning of the year. After formally observing Brown, Powell created a second success plan dated October 29, 2001, which was discussed and agreed to by Brown. The plan was designed for Brown to implement the components for his own benefit. Throughout the year, Powell observed Brown's classroom instruction. On November 20, 2001, Powell formally observed Brown's instruction. Thereafter, Powell also observed Brown on two more occasions on January 10 and 18 of 2002. During his observations, Powell witnessed students talking during "warm-ups," whose attention Brown failed to get. Powell observed that Brown failed to provide praise to his successful students which is needed at the middle school age. Powell noted problems Brown had with communicating with band parents. Powell was concerned that a band parent reported that Brown had threatened to fail and throw her child out of band practice which Brown had no authority to do. In addition, band parents also complained that Brown placed their names as chaperones on a field trip, without their permission. When this was revealed, the trip had to be cancelled. Following the formal conferences with Brown, Powell discussed his observations with Brown. Brown admitted to Powell that other District personnel were telling him the same things Powell was mentioning. Notwithstanding the counseling, Brown was unable to constructively adapt. Powell also requested Patricia Ann Butterboldt to observe Brown during his instruction at Jefferson Davis Middle School. Butterboldt is responsible for supervising and overseeing the curriculum of music teachers throughout the District. During the 2001/2002 academic school year, Butterboldt observed Brown with an intermediate class on two occasions. On November 1, 2001, Butterboldt observed that Brown failed to follow his own instructional classroom schedule. In addition, Brown utilized students to instruct other students in complex musical exercises for which students had no ability to adequately conduct the drill. Butterboldt also witnessed Brown's students consistently off task. On January 23, 2002, observation, Butterboldt again observed inappropriate classroom instruction and management, to include Brown's failure to correct the class for ridiculing a student. Butterboldt noted that even if students forget their instruments, the teacher is responsible to provide instruction to that student. Following both Butterboldt's observations, Powell was provided copies of her observation's reports. Sue Martin, professional cadre member, was requested by Powell to provide feedback on Brown's instruction. Her report was introduced as Exhibit 29. During the same academic school year, Mrs. Saffer, vice-principal observed Brown pursuant to Powell's request. Saffer also utilized the classroom observation instrument during her observation of Brown. Saffer observed that Brown failed to properly correct the behavior of non-responsive students. Although critical, Saffer also complemented Brown on his positive action; however, after reviewing Brown's grade book for the day of her observation, Saffer was surprised that the students were awarded grades without any means of evaluation Saffer could decipher. Afterwards, Saffer met with Brown weekly regarding his grade book. In addition to the grade book, Saffer also discussed with Brown her observations (formal and informal) of his instructional conduct throughout the school year. Although Saffer did not evaluate Brown, she did provide her observations to Powell for his evaluation. In addition to school assistance and counsel, Powell provided Brown with many opportunities for professional training. Brown attended at least two training sessions to Powell's knowledge. However, Powell learned that Brown rejected a training conference in Jacksonville offered to him by Butterboldt because he said the presenters of the conference were "racists." On January 30, 2002, Powell provided Brown with a notice warning him of an unsatisfactory annual evaluation. Powell based his notice of a possible unsatisfactory evaluation on all of the observations and notations he made and had been provided to him. Thereafter, Powell observed another instruction by Brown in February of 2002. However, Powell never witnessed Brown perform pursuant to the schedule attached to a letter drafted by Brown which allegedly addressed Powell's concerns. Powell eventually prepared Brown's annual evaluation for the year which reflected Powell's assessment of Brown's unsatisfactory performance demonstrated throughout the academic year. John Williams is the director of professional standards for the District who was responsible for generating the termination letter once he received the second unsatisfactory evaluation. After reviewing all of the notices and evaluations, Williams not only determined that the manner in which both principals utilized the teacher assessment system was appropriate, but that Brown's performance required that the District initiate Brown's termination from employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Thomas Brown, be dismissed from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Derrel Q. Chatmon, Esquire Duval County School Board 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182
The Issue Whether Respondent's termination of employment as a teacher should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Since 1990, Cabrera has taught elementary school Spanish within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Cabrera began her career with Petitioner as a substitute teacher. In 1993 she was offered the first of several permanent postings. She has been assigned to Bel-Aire from 1996 to the date of her termination. At all times during which Cabrera has been so employed, teachers in the Miami-Dade County school system were evaluated annually pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS"). TADS was approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). The same TADS evaluation procedures are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers. TADS purports to objectively measure 67 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. TADS includes in its assessment criteria: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. TADS observations and ratings are performed by school supervisory personnel. TADS observers are trained and certified. The observer records deficiencies noted during the observation period, if any. In addition, the observer provides a so-called "prescription," or plan, for performance improvement in each of the areas in which deficiencies are noted. A post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. The teacher has the right to provide a written response. Under the School Board's contract with the UTD, the teacher is required to comply with the prescription plan, performing all activities specified in the prescription and meeting the deadlines set forth. Miami-Dade County's TADS assessment system was implemented to fulfill the legislative mandate of Section 231.29, Florida Statutes. The statute requires the superintendent of each of Florida's school districts to establish procedures for assessing, on an annual basis, the performance of all instructional personnel employed by the district. At all times material to this case, TADS was used to evaluate Cabrera's performance. Miami-Dade County's TADS procedures include all of the statutorily required elements, and Cabrera received the benefit of each of the statutory requirements, including notice in writing of each deficiency observed; assistance and recommendations designed to help correct those deficiencies; and a reasonable period of time in which to correct deficiencies. As a result of certain amendments to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, the School Board and UTD executed a Memorandum of Understanding on December 4, 1997, for the purpose of amending the TADS procedure to comply with new statutory requirements. Under the amended procedures, a meeting known as a conference for the record ("CFR") initiates a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. From the beginning of her employment at Bel-Aire through and including the 1998-99 school year, Cabrera's TADS evaluations were satisfactory. Notwithstanding her annual passing TADS scores, the evidence establishes that dealing with classroom discipline had never been Cabrera’s strong suit. Yet, for reasons not revealed in the record, Cabrera had never been in fear for her job, nor had her deficiencies in managing classroom discipline previously bothered administrators enough to cause them to take meaningful action to assist her, or get her out of the classroom. In the summer school session of 2000, Cabrera ran into especially difficult discipline problems from at least two students, and was dissatisfied with the level of support she received from her principal, Melvin Dennis (Dennis), in dealing with those students. Cabrera took the extraordinary step of going outside the school chain-of-command to complain to the central administration about what she perceived to be a lack of appropriate disciplinary support at the school level. On January 8, 2001, Cabrera received the first of that year’s formal TADS evaluations. The observer was assistant principal Dr. Barbara Moller (Moller). At that time, Moller found Cabrera’s performance unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. More specifically, Moller found, among other things, that Cabrera’s lesson plans did not include a method for monitoring student progress; that she failed to maintain student’s attention and to redirect those students who were “off-task”; that Cabrera failed to provide instructional materials that were appropriate for her students; and that Cabrera failed to provide formal assessments of her students’ progress. A timely post-observation CFR was held to discuss the results of the January observation. At that time, Cabrera was advised that due to her unsatisfactory performance, she would be placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. Also during the conference for the record, Respondent was given suggestions on how to improve her performance and correct her deficiencies in the form of written prescriptive activities appropriate to the noted deficiencies. The assistance provided to Cabrera included, but was not limited to: reviewing her lessons plans with the assistant principal; working with the Bilingual Department chairperson to formulate acceptable lesson plans; developing a behavior modification plan with the assistance of two fellow teachers and the school district’s instructional supervisor for bilingual education; and providing instructional materials, assessment devices, and commercially prepared tests. Also during the CFR, Cabrera was advised that at the conclusion of the 90 calendar-day performance probation period, a determination would be made as to whether the performance deficiencies identified during the probationary period have been satisfactorily corrected and that a recommendation by the school principal would be made to the Superintendent of Schools, which could lead to the termination of Respondent’s employment contract if performance deficiencies were not corrected. On February 22, 2001, a second TADS observation was conducted by Principal Dennis. At that time, Dennis deemed Cabrera’s performance unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Dennis observed, among other things, that Cabrera’s class was disorganized. Students were not all in their seats and working within the type of orderly routine expected in a properly managed classroom. Cabrera continued to lack control over her class, as demonstrated by the fact that students were off task and Cabrera was unable to redirect them. Behavior problems may well have been exacerbated by her continued deficiency in techniques of instruction. Rather than tailor materials and instructional techniques to the differing needs of the students, Cabrera was observed to be deficient in this category because she used a rote style of presentation that was not appropriate to all students. In addition, Cabrera failed at this observation to use appropriate assessment techniques to determine how much of the lesson was being absorbed by students. As a result of Cabrera’s continuing unsatisfactory classroom performance, on February 28, 2001, Cabrera was again given formal written notice that she had been placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation status. She was further informed that, due to her unsatisfactory performance, her professional service contract may not be renewed and that her performance would continue to be monitored throughout her probationary period. On March 1, 2001, a post-observation conference was held with Cabrera to address the deficiencies noted in the formal classroom observation. At this time, Cabrera was again presented with a written prescription and a performance improvement plan in order to assist in correcting her deficiencies. In an effort to further assist Cabrera, on March 9, 2001, Dennis requested that the school district’s instructional supervisor for bilingual education visit Cabrera at the school for the purpose of assisting her in improving her performance deficiencies. The school principal also provided the assistance of staff members and teachers to help Cabrera in planning her lessons, developing a positive reinforcement and rewards system and on setting up her classroom in order to provide students with a positive learning environment. In a further effort to provide assistance, Cabrera was referred to the school district’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Cabrera was not required to take advantage of the EAP, and she did not do so. By spring, the strain of the probationary status was taking a visible toll on Cabrera, and the relationship between her and the Bel-Aire administration was fast becoming untenable. On March 27, 2001, Cabrera took her entire class to the main office to complain that she could not begin her lesson because her students did not have pencils. This childish bit of theater was met with an equally silly straight-faced memorandum issued to Cabrera advising that her responsibility for preparation and planning included assisting her students with having the appropriate supplies for class. Two days later, Cabrera was again formally observed in the classroom by Moller. During the formal classroom observation conducted on March 29, 2001, Moller found Cabrera’s performance unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and in teacher-student relationships. Moller documented that Cabrera ignored or was unaware of her students’ inappropriate and disruptive behavior, that she did not provide feedback to students regarding the expected behavior in the classroom, and that she did not sequence the components of her lesson properly. On April 12, 2001, a post-observation conference was held with Cabrera to address the deficiencies noted in the March formal classroom observation. At this time she was again presented a written prescription and a performance improvement plan in order to assist in correcting her deficiencies. On April 18, 2001, the school district’s instructional supervisor for bilingual education met with Cabrera to assist her in correcting her performance deficiencies and offered Cabrera numerous suggestions on how to improve her classroom teaching performance. On May 3, 2001, Cabrera was again formally observed in the classroom by Principal Dennis. At that time, Dennis rated Cabrera’s performance unacceptable in the categories of classroom management and in techniques of instruction. Since a deficiency in even one TADS category, if not corrected within the 90-day period, requires termination, the fact that Cabrera had corrected two areas of deficiency identified in her January evaluation was not enough to save her job. Cabrera believes that she is being unfairly criticized for being unable to manage the behavior of students who, she claims, are beyond the ability of any teacher to manage. In her view, the students who disrupted her classroom “needed professional help, not from a teacher, but from someone else.” Cabrera testified, quite sincerely, that she did the best she could in terms of trying to fulfill her responsibility to create a orderly classroom in which learning could take place. She contends that the decision to place her on prescription in 2001 was an ambush. The evidence did establish that Petitioner’s knowledge of Cabrera’s shortcomings as a disciplinarian were well known at Bel-Aire long before the administration acted upon that knowledge. Cabrera argues that had she been given assistance, inside or outside the TADS process, long before she was, she could have improved her performance and saved her job. This argument requires the fact-finder to engage in impermissible speculation. While the evidence established that Cabrera was motivated to keep her job, complied with all recommended prescriptive activities and, in two out of the four categories in which she was determined by TADS observers to be deficient, had been able to elevate her performance to a passable level within the 90-day compliance period, it is impossible to know whether she could have remedied her deficiencies in the area of classroom discipline had she been forced to try years earlier. If Petitioner was inclined to overlook Cabrera's deficient classroom management prior to last year, Cabrera was similarly inclined to overlook unacceptable behavior in her students when it first manifested itself. In both cases, the willingness to accept sub-standard behavior worked to the detriment of all concerned. The most damaging testimony regarding Cabrera’s classroom management problems came not from School Board witnesses, but from Cabrera herself. She testified that it was her practice to give misbehaving children one or two months to “let them adjust. . . . Maybe they are not used to me. It’s an unfamiliar face. So I wait. Then, when I see that I get to the point where I just can’t take it . . . then that’s when I take action and I start writing referrals and start calling parents.” By that time, the evidence established, it was too late for Cabrera to exercise control over students whom she had allowed to ignore her. As a result of Cabrera’s unsatisfactory performance, on May 3, 2001, Dennis notified the Superintendent of Schools that Cabrera had not satisfactorily corrected her performance deficiencies during her 90 calendar-day performance probation period and recommended that Cabrera's employment be terminated. On May 16, 2001, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Cabrera's employment contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Cabrera's employment and denying her claim for reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2200 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida, 33137 Luis M. Garcia, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Merritt R. Steirheim, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
