The Issue The issue is whether respondent's educator's certificate should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint filed on November 7, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Richard T. Vaughn, Jr., is licensed as a teacher having been issued Florida Educator's Certificate 678116 by the Department of Education. The certificate covers the area of sociology and was valid through June 30, 1995. When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at the Marion Regional Juvenile Detention Center (MRJDC) and The Phoenix Center in the Marion County School District. Based on conduct which occurred during school year 1993-94, on May 19, 1994, respondent was suspended from his teaching position by the Marion County School Board (Board). After an administrative hearing was held in December 1994, a final order was entered by the Board on March 31, 1995, terminating respondent for misconduct in office, incompetency, and willful neglect of duty. After learning of the Board's action, and conducting a further inquiry, petitioner, Frank T. Brogan, as Commissioner of Education, issued an administrative complaint on November 7, 1995, alleging that respondent's conduct also constituted a sufficient ground to discipline his teacher's certificate. The charges stem from incidents which allegedly occurred while respondent taught at MRJDC from September 1993 until April 7, 1994, and at The Phoenix Center from April 8, 1994, until May 17, 1994. In his request for a hearing, respondent has denied all material allegations. During most of school year 1993-94, respondent taught at MRJDC, which is a detention facility for students who are awaiting trial on criminal charges. As might be expected, the students at MRJDC "are very difficult to work with." At hearing, respondent's supervisor established that respondent had "difficulty" with his work, he was "uncooperative" with other faculty and staff, and he had "problems" with his peers. His behavior was generally described by all witnesses as being "bizarre" and "irresponsible." On some occasions, he would become angry with his students and "storm" out of his classroom leaving the students unsupervised. While respondent was teaching at MRJDC, it was necessary for the principal of the school's education center to meet with respondent because he would not speak to any of his colleagues. Respondent took the position that speaking with his peers was not in his job description, and thus it was unnecessary for him to do so. Although admonished by the principal to communicate with his peers, respondent continued to be abrupt and uncommunicative. During his tenure at MRJDC, respondent exhibited irrational and explosive behavior while teaching his classes. For example, he frequently engaged in screaming tirades against students who failed to meet his disciplinary expectations. In addition, it was not unusual for respondent to be confrontational with his students, and if threatened by one, he would challenge the student to carry out the threat, or to meet him outside the classroom to resolve the matter. Respondent's pattern of explosive behavior at MRJDC culminated on April 7, 1994, when the MRJDC superintendent was called to respondent's classroom to resolve an "emergency" situation. As it turned out, a student had thrown some pencil lead, hitting respondent in his glasses. Respondent began yelling at the student and challenging him to come outside the classroom and "take him on" to settle the score. When the superintendent arrived, she asked respondent to leave campus for the remainder of the day. However, respondent became abrupt and confrontational with the superintendent, initially refused to leave, and continued yelling at the student for another five minutes. Because of respondent's pattern of irrational and explosive behavior throughout the school year, and his loss of effectiveness as a teacher at MRJDC with both his colleagues and his students, a decision was made to transfer respondent to The Phoenix Center, an alternative education school, in order to give him one final opportunity. Effective April 8, 1994, respondent was reassigned to The Phoenix Center as an exceptional student education teacher. His class consisted of no more than four or five students. Despite the small number of students, respondent continually called the dean of students to resolve disciplinary problems which arose in his classroom. It can be reasonably inferred that respondent lacked the necessary demeanor and temperament to effectively manage and control his classroom. On May 3, 1994, respondent was described as being "incoherent" and "in a rage" while engaged in an altercation with a student who had threatened him. While the student was being led from the classroom to the principal's office by the dean of students, respondent became "agitated" and followed the student down the hallway continuing to challenge him to carry out his threat. Although ordered by the dean to return to the classroom, respondent initially refused to do so. Respondent's explanation for his conduct was that he was trying to prove a point with the student. For at least the second time that school year, respondent was instructed by the principal not to challenge students who had made threats. By engaging in the conduct described in the previous finding of fact, and that described in findings of fact 6 and 7, respondent intentionally exposed his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. On May 6, 1994, while coaching a school softball team, respondent became outraged over a call by the umpire and left the campus without permission. During his absence, the students were unsupervised. On May 17, 1994, respondent was returning to campus in his automobile when he approached a group of students in the roadway. One female student ignored her teacher's request to move and intentionally remained in the middle of the road. As he approached the student, respondent gunned his engine and drove straight for the student but hit his brakes stopping just short of her. Respondent later explained that he was merely trying to prove the point that if a student remained in the road with a car approaching, she would "be in trouble." By engaging in this conduct, respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect a student's physical safety. By virtue of his personal conduct over the school year at both MRJDC and The Phoenix Center, respondent's effectiveness as a classroom teacher has been seriously reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding respondent guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code, revoking his certificate for one year, allowing him to reapply for an educator's certificate only upon certification by a mental health professional that he is competent and capable of performing his duties as an educator, and upon reemployment, placing him on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 224-B Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carl J. Zahner, II, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard T. Vaughn, Jr. 1731 26th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712
Findings Of Fact Richard L. Gryte holds Florida Teacher's Certificate Number 323641, issued on January 4, 1983, covering the areas of elementary education, early childhood education, emotionally disturbed education and Junior College. Until his resignation on March 13, 1984, Gryte was employed by the Seminole County School Board as a teacher of emotionally handicapped students at the Milwee Middle School located in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. Gryte was initially hired by Douglas Smith, assistant principal at Milwee, in the summer of 1981, to serve as an emotionally handicapped (herein referred to as EH) resource teacher. This was based on Gryte's prior work history, as well as his educational background; including a master's degree in exceptional education. As a resource teacher, Gryte did not have academic responsibilities, but was used as a counselor who would work with students for a period during the day. These students would be assigned to the resource room by their regular classroom teachers, primarily if they had problems regarding behavior. As a teacher involved with emotionally handicapped students, it was necessary for Gryte to prepare forms known as Individual Educational Plans (hereinafter referred to as IEP's). The IEP's were required by Federal and State law and were necessary in order for the school district to obtain funding. From the beginning of his employment and assignment at Milwee Middle School, Gryte had difficulty performing administrative duties regarding documentation and other paperwork. Gryte recognizes that correct documentation is the responsibility of a good teacher, but also acknowledges his weakness in that area. When this problem was brought to the attention of Douglas Smith, assistant principal, he immediately sent memos and spoke with Gryte regarding the problem. During the 1981-82 year, out of the 22 IEP's necessary for Gryte to complete, at least 12 were incomplete or not done. The IEP's that were done were incomplete in that they lacked objectives, goals and other qualitative methods by which to determine the progress of the child. Even as a resource teacher, Gryte failed to prepare lesson plans which were required of all teachers. In fact, Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans for the entire 1981-82 school term, despite being counseled and informed about the necessity of preparing and submitting lesson plans. Overall, Gryte's teaching performance for the 1981-82 school term was not in keeping with minimum standards required of his profession. In addition to the paperwork and other administrative tasks, Gryte had a problem maintaining classroom discipline and control and would violate school rules by leaving the class unattended. During the 1982-83 school term, Mr. Willie G. Holt became the principal at the school. He first became concerned regarding Gryte's performance because of safety concerns he had for student's in Gryte's resource class. Due to the nature of these children and their behavioral problems, it was a policy of the school that children would not be left alone and unattended. Gryte knew of this policy. During the 1982-83 school year, Gryte would periodically leave his class unattended. On two occasions in the spring of 1983, a female student was involved with and performed sexual acts including masturbation and oral sex in the presence of two male students. These acts occurred when Gryte left his class unattended. Gryte recognized that it was wrong to leave the class unattended, but felt he could trust the boys involved and was only gone for a brief period of time. Due to concern for the safety and welfare of the students entrusted to Gryte and because of a need to relieve the previous self-contained teacher, Mr. Holt, school principal, and Mr. Smith, assistant principal in charge of the exceptional education program, decided to place Gryte in the self-contained EH class for the 1983-84 school year. This was thought to be appropriate since the self-contained class had a full-time aide, Betty Manly, who would always be present in the event Gryte would leave the class unattended. Gryte objected to this assignment, but based on his certification and education, he was qualified to be in the self- contained classroom and he was so assigned. Gryte's teaching performance in the self-contained classroom during the 1983-1984 school term was extremely unsatisfactory in all aspects. As in previous years, Gryte was required to submit weekly lesson plans. This was a requirement of all teachers. As in prior years, Gryte was derelict in preparing his lesson plans. From the beginning of the school term until January, 1984, he submitted lesson plans for the first five weeks, but failed to submit any lesson plans thereafter. He next submitted lesson plans for two weeks during the weeks of January 20 and 27, 1984. Thereafter, he did not submit any additional lesson plans until the date of his resignation in March, 1984. The assistant principals, Gordon Hathaway and Douglas Smith, repeatedly instructed Gryte to submit lesson plans timely, but he failed to do so. Even the lesson plans which were submitted were not proper in that they were too generalized and did not serve the proper function. In addition, for the 1983-84 school term, Gryte still had problems completing his IEP's timely and in a proper manner. It was a concern of the school officials that if they were ever audited, they would lose funding. Gryte was counseled by Dr. Daniel Scinto and Dr. Robert Carlton regarding the preparation of IEP's, as well as class management, but little improvement occurred. Gryte's classroom was extremely noisy, unruly and out of control. Dr. Carlton worked with Gryte on several occasions regarding implementation of behavioral management techniques. However, no improvement was noted. The excessive noise from Gryte's classroom was disturbing to the adjoining classes. Mr. Holt started receiving complaints from other teachers. Mrs. Poole indicated that students in her classroom actually complained about the noise from Respondent's class, as did she. The teacher's aide, Betty Manly, observed that Gryte did not assert control. He allowed the students to do as they pleased and demonstrated an apparent lack of classroom control. Gryte himself recognized that there was an excessive amount of noise in his class which was disturbing to other teachers. Some of the noise was due to Gryte's policy of allowing students to use curse words and engage in verbal altercations, which at times led to physical violence. He would permit the students to use "damn", "hell", and other similar curse words. On occasion, fights would break out among the students because Gryte would allow an argument to become too heated and would not assert control. He thought it was necessary for the children to have the freedom to release their anger in this manner. He ultimately hoped to be able to work with the students and this was part of his counseling therapy. Gryte often imposed corporal punishment as a means of discipline with the students. However, he frequently imposed the punishment in violation of State law and School Board policy. The School Board policy, as set forth in the student disciplinary code, requires that all corporal punishment be administered in the presence of another adult and not administered in the presence of other students. On numerous occasions, Gryte paddled a student in the classroom without the presence of another teacher or administrator as a witness and also while in the presence of other students. This practice was against direct orders of the principal. In addition, students were embarrassed by punishment being administered in front of other children. Further, the practice is not appropriate when dealing with any student, but even less so when dealing with emotionally handicapped students. On one occasion, Gryte lined the entire class up for "licks." The noise of the paddling and the student's yelling brought an adjoining teacher to see what had occurred. When she arrived, a student was lying on the floor and his leg was shaking and the student was grimacing and in pain. The teacher advised Gryte not to administer any more punishment, because it was in violation of the school policy. During the first nine weeks of the 1983-84 school year, Gryte failed to provide grades for the students in his class. He was unable to give grades because students had not performed a sufficient amount of work in order for Gryte to evaluate their progress and to assign a competent grade. This was in violation of the school policy as well as the State law, and was upsetting to the administration. The school was required to send blank report cards, with the exception of P.E. grades. Gryte was told to produce his grade book and test papers which had been performed by the students. A review of the grade book showed tests and work had not been required or performed or recorded in order to evaluate the students. What papers were produced by Gryte were not of sufficient quality or quantity to effectively grade the students. The policy of the school was to assign enough work each week to allow the students to receive periodic grades. Gryte recognizes his duty to maintain paperwork and other documentation. He understands this is part of being a competent and effective teacher, even though he would place greater emphasis on the students. Jeanette Burgess was a female student in Gryte's self- contained classroom his last year at Milwee. Gryte had a propensity to touch Jeanette in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner. He would periodically touch her on her face, ears and buttocks. This was embarrassing to Jeanette. On one evening, Gryte called Jeanette's home to speak with her. Her mother, Diana Oliver, answered the phone and inquired as to the nature of the call. Gryte indicated it was a private matter and he needed to speak with Jeanette personally. This offended the mother and she refused to allow him to speak with her daughter and advised him that any matters pertaining to Jeanette in school should be discussed with her. In addition, in the mother's opinion, Gryte had been drinking. She formed this opinion based on slurred speech and other mannerisms. On another occasion, Betty Manly entered the classroom and discovered Gryte standing extremely close to Jeanette and, in Ms. Manly's opinion, touching Jeanette inappropriately. Jeanette was forced back against Ms. Manly's desk and was obviously embarrassed by the situation. Gryte had dismissed the other students to attend P.E. class and was left in the room alone with Jeanette. The situation was upsetting to Jeanette, because she dropped her head and started crying when she was questioned about what had occurred between Gryte and her. Following the telephone incident, Gryte, the principal, and Jeanette's mother had a conference and Gryte was directed not to administer corporal punishment or otherwise touch Jeanette for any reason. Gryte violated this direct order in that he did subsequently administer corporal punishment to Jeanette. Another student in Gryte's self-contained class was a child by the name of Kelly Owens who had self-destructive tendencies and frequently would injure herself. On one occasion, Gryte sent her to the office alone and on the way, she took a piece of glass and cut her wrist and neck, not severely enough to cause death, but enough to result in extensive bleeding. Gryte had been specifically advised not to leave this child unattended. On one occasion, he gave her a pass to leave the school and go to an area known as the "swamp". This is an area off campus where students gather to smoke marijuana and allegedly participate in other similar activities. This occurred after a conference with the child's parents which Gryte attended and in which it was emphasized that the child needed close supervision. On another occasion, Gryte actually left the child in the classroom asleep. This was at the end of the school day. Another teacher came by and found the child sleeping in the class by herself. Gryte indicated he was unaware that Kelly was still in the classroom. In addition to the incident involving the telephone conversation with Jeanette Burgess' mother, Gryte appeared at an open house held on the school campus in the beginning of the 1983-84 school term. It was apparent that Gryte had been drinking. Those teachers present were definitely under the·impression that he had been drinking too much due to his slurred speech and demeanor. When confronted by Mr. Holt, Gryte admitted he had been drinking, but stated he only had one drink prior to the meeting. Based on Gryte's conduct and performance at Milwee, the principal and assistant principal felt he was neither effective nor competent and would not employ Respondent in a teaching position. Respondent recognizes he is not qualified and competent to teach certain areas of his certification. He basically desires to be a counselor and not a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order revoking the teaching certificate of Richard L. Gryte for a period of three years, subject to reinstatement thereafter pursuant to Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: L.Haldane Taylor, Esquire 331 East Union Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard L. Gryte 7703 Meadowglen Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Marlene Greenfield, Administrator Professional Practice Service 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes any specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Petitioner Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-31 are all adopted in substance. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Respondent Respondent filed no Proposed Findings of Fact.
The Issue The issue is whether the Education Practices Commission should suspend, revoke, or otherwise discipline Respondent’s certificate to teach school in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is certified to teach in the area of Mentally Handicapped. Her Florida teaching certificate, number 637203, is valid through June 30, 1999. Respondent received a satisfactory evaluation of her teaching performance in Duval County for four years prior to the 1992-1993 school year. While teaching at C. G. Woodson Elementary School in Duval County, Respondent helped establish a mobility room for students in the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. She also played an important role in the creation of a parent center. She initiated the school’s participation in the foster grandparent program. During the 1992-1993 school year, the Duval County School District employed Respondent as a teacher in a self- contained Exceptional Student Education (ESE) classroom at C. G. Woodson Elementary School. Her students included pre- kindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade students who were designated as Trainable Mentally Handicapped (TMH). Respondent’s principal at C. G. Woodson Elementary School was Ms. Gloridan Norris. In 1992, Ms. Norris observed Respondent in classroom situations that caused her great concern. As a result, Ms. Norris and district ESE personnel began providing Respondent with on-going technical assistance. Respondent denied that she had any problems and did not cooperate with the efforts to alleviate Ms. Norris’s concerns. On or about March 11, 1993, Ms. Norris signed an annual evaluation of Respondent’s performance for the 1992-1993 school year. Competent persuasive evidence supports this evaluation which rated Respondent unsatisfactory in five of eight categories: (a) demonstrates ability to plan and deliver instruction; (b) demonstrates knowledge of subject matter; (c) demonstrates ability to utilize appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (d) shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining positive school environment; and (e) demonstrates a commitment to professional growth. Respondent’s overall evaluation was unsatisfactory. By letter dated May 10, 1993, the Duval County Superintendent of Schools advised Respondent that she would be discharged if she did not reach a satisfactory level of performance. It also informed her that she had the option of transferring to a new teaching position within the county. Respondent elected to transfer to another school. For the 1993-1994 school year, the Duval County School District assigned Respondent to teach at Mary McCloud Bethune Elementary School. Mr. William West was her principal. Respondent’s class for this school term consisted of fourth and fifth grade Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH) students. Her class had twelve students, making it the smallest ESE class in the school. On or about August 2, 1993, Mr. West requested technical assistance for Respondent from the school district’s office of ESE Instructional Program Support. He specifically requested recommendations for Respondent in the area of classroom and behavior management. Pursuant to that request, the school district’s ESE staff visited Respondent’s classroom five times between September 8, 1993 and October 4, 1993. Dory Reese, Specialist in Intellectual Disabilities, prepared a report containing recommendations for Respondent’s immediate implementation. These recommendations included, but were not limited to these: (a) methods to gain control of the classroom so that instruction can begin; (b) how to follow through on any directions; (c) how to discipline; (d) how to be positive in giving directions; (e) how to stop a specific behavior; and (f) how to regain control which has been lost. In the fall of 1993, Mr. West requested assistance for Respondent from the school district’s office of Professional Development. As a result of that request, Sheryl Hahn visited in Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Hahn is certified to teach mentally retarded students. She prepared a written success plan which listed specific objectives and strategies for Respondent to improve her classroom teaching performance. Ms. Hahn’s plan included objectives and strategies in the following areas: (a) ability to plan and deliver instruction; (b) demonstrates knowledge of subject matter; (c) ability to use appropriate classroom management techniques; (d) maintaining accurate records; and (e) showing sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment. Respondent and Ms. Hahn discussed the plan, including proposed completion dates for certain objectives, in a meeting on October 12, 1993. On October 26, 1993, Mr. West prepared Respondent’s mid-year evaluation for the 1993-1994 school year. He found that her performance was unsatisfactory in five of eight categories: demonstrates ability to plan and deliver instruction; demonstrates ability to utilize appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (C) shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining positive school environment; (d) demonstrates abilities to evaluate instructional needs of students; and (e) shows evidence of professional characteristics. Competent persuasive evidence supports these ratings. On October 27, 1993, Respondent was absent from work. The assistant principal, Ms. Rosa Thomas, had to stay with Respondent’s class until a substitute arrived. Respondent had not prepared lesson plans for her class. Another teacher had to share her class work with Respondent’s students. On October 28, 1993, two of Respondent’s pupils left the classroom without permission. Respondent did not know where they were until they were located in the assistant principal’s office. On November 2, 1993, a student left Respondent’s class and went to the school office without permission. Mr. West sent Respondent a memorandum, reminding her that it was dangerous for the children to leave the classroom without adult supervision. He was concerned for the safety of the children. On November 5, 1993, a parent wrote a memorandum complaining that Respondent’s class was out of control. The parent requested that her child be transferred to another class. On November 8, 1993, Mr. West requested a psychiatric evaluation for Respondent. Mr. West based his request on concerns for the safety of Respondent’s students, concerns for Respondent’s health, and concerns about the school’s program. Respondent was unable to maintain control of her classroom. She appeared to be depressed and lethargic. During the week of November 12, 1993, one of Respondent’s pupils refused to get on the bus. The child walked home across a busy highway without supervision. Meanwhile, parents continued to call or visit Mr. West on a daily basis requesting that their child be removed from Respondent’s classroom. On or about November 19, 1993, Mr. West observed Respondent’s classroom performance. He saw students leaving the room without permission, standing on top of desks, taunting the teacher, and fighting. At the end of the day when Mr. West mentioned her pending psychiatric evaluation, Respondent became loud and emotional and stormed from the room. Mr. West wrote a letter to the Assistant Superintendent of Schools, expressing fear for the safety of the children. He requested that Respondent be removed from the classroom immediately. Late in November or early in December of 1993, Mr. West removed Respondent from her regular teaching position. He assigned her a new duty, one-on-one tutoring of ESE students. On or about December 15, 1993, Mr. West wrote another letter to the Assistant Superintendent of Schools. This letter expressed Mr. West’s fear regarding the safety of adults working with Respondent. During a meeting, Respondent became angry with support staff. She glared at the other adults, mumbled under her breath, and scribbled so hard on a paper that she tore it. Mr. West requested that Respondent be removed from the school setting. In January of 1994, Respondent returned to her regular classroom for the first time in several weeks. Mr. West observed her while she was teaching a lesson. He saw a student standing on top of a table and other students wrestling. The students appeared to ignore Respondent’s attempts to restore order. At times, Respondent appeared to ignore the chaos around her. After this observation, Mr. West told Respondent to return to her assigned duty of tutoring ESE students. Mr. West again requested that the school district remove Respondent from the school and place her in a non-teaching position. A memorandum dated January 27, 1994, advised Respondent that she would receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1993-1994 school year. On March 10, 1994, Mr. West signed Respondent’s annual evaluation for the 1993-1994 school year. She received unsatisfactory ratings in six of eight categories: demonstrates ability to plan and deliver instruction; demonstrates knowledge of subject matter; (c)demonstrates ability to utilize appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (d) shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining positive school environment; (e) demonstrates abilities to evaluate instructional needs of students; and (f) shows evidence of professional characteristics. Competent persuasive evidence supports these ratings. On or about April 25, 1994, the Duval County School Board notified Respondent that it intended to terminate her employment. On or about July 11, 1994, Respondent and the Duval County School Board entered into an agreement in which Respondent agreed to resign her teaching position. Clear and convincing evidence indicates that Respondent is not competent to teach or to perform the duties of an employee in a public school system. She is not competent to teach in or operate a private school. Most importantly, Respondent is incapable of providing a safe environment for students in her classroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission revoke Petitioner’s teaching certificate for one year from the date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 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 2nd day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 14 South Ninth Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Patricia Simmons 968 Southeast Browning Avenue Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 224-B Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 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
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Diane Velez, violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the testimony given, and the documentary evidence received, the following Findings of Fact are made. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 789520, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages, (ESOL), and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at Stillwell Middle School (Stillwell) in the Duval County School District. She has been teaching for approximately 20 years, with no prior discipline. Respondent teaches in a wing at Stillwell that is referred to as the SLA Unit, which stands for Supported Level Academics. The students in the SLA Unit are cognitively delayed and have all of their classes in this self- contained unit. The SLA Unit is located in a wing at the back of the school, near the bus loop. If someone is looking down the hall from the doors closest to the rest of the school, there are female and male bathrooms for students to the left and right, respectively, closest to those doors. From those bathrooms, there are five classrooms on each side of the hall. Ms. Velez’s classroom is the third classroom on the right-hand side of the hallway. There are additional restrooms in the wing, all congregated in the area between the third and fourth classrooms on the left hand side of the hallway. At least one of those bathrooms is entered from within a classroom. Stillwell had a policy that if a student was given permission to leave the classroom, the student should not be gone for more than eight to ten minutes without the teacher calling for assistance to locate the student. Teachers could call for assistance from Ronald Messick, the lead ESE teacher; send a paraprofessional to look for the student; or call the front office or a resource officer. The eight-to-ten minute window was not a written policy, but was discussed during pre-planning meetings at the beginning of the year, as well as at faculty meetings. While attendance logs from pre-planning and faculty meetings were not introduced to establish that Respondent was present during faculty meetings or pre-planning meetings, no evidence was presented to indicate that she was absent. In addition, the 2017-2018 Faculty Handbook (Handbook) for Stillwell had more than one section that addressed supervision of students. For example, under the caption “Supervision of Students,” beginning on page 12 of the Handbook, it states:1 It is the responsibility of the school to provide supervision for students in attendance. It is the teacher’s responsibility to make sure that students in his/her charge are supervised at all times. Teachers should be aware of the legal and progressive discipline aspects of failure to provide adequate supervision. Students should always have adult supervision. Under the caption “Hall Passes,” on page 16 of the Handbook, it states: Hall passes are to be used for emergencies only. In an effort to reduce the number of students out of class during instructional time, each classroom will have either a lime/orange vest or a Colored clipboard. Students needing to leave the classroom are required to wear the vest or carry the clipboard. Please make sure students continue to sign-out when leaving/returning to your classroom so if the vest/clipboard disappears, you will know who was in possession of it last. Only one student per class may be on a hall pass at any given time. If it is necessary that a student leave your classroom to go to an Administrative Office and your vest/clipboard is already being used, security will need to escort student(s) to and from the classroom. While it is our desire that no student be in the halls during instructional time, there are absolutely NO hall passes for any reason during the first/last 30 minutes of each class and NO hall passes during 2nd block each day unless called by an Administrator. Students who are found out of class during the first/last 30 minutes of the block will have the vest or clipboard taken and given to the Assistant Principal for you to retrieve. Students who are out of class, unaccompanied by security, and do not have a vest/clipboard will be 1 All italics, underlining, and bold used in the quoted material is as it appears in the Handbook. considered skipping and appropriate consequences will be assigned. The teacher will also be held accountable if not following school procedure. Finally, under the heading “Hall and Campus Monitoring,” it states in all capitals and bold letters, “STUDENTS SHOULD NEVER WALK BY THEMSELVES.” On or about January 11, 2018, J.L. was an 11-year-old female student in the sixth grade. J.L. was assigned to Respondent’s classroom, and has an Individual Education Plan (IEP). J.L. was a student in a class containing students who functioned cognitively at the lowest level for students at Stillwell. While those who testified could not state definitively what the IQ level was for the class, it was generally around 67-70. Ms. Velez described the class as one for which there was “a need to have eyes on them.” J.L. was new to the school during the 2017-2018 school year. On August 22, 2017, Ronald Messick sent an email to J.L.’s teachers, including Respondent, stating that J.L. could not be left alone and that she would “leave with a complete stranger.” He advised that when J.L. uses the restroom, she likes to play in it, and directed that the teacher who has J.L. the last period of the day needed to make sure she used the restroom. J.L.’s mother had called Mr. Messick the first week of school with concerns that J.L. had been unsupervised in the bus pick-up area. Her mother explained her concerns to Mr. Messick regarding J.L.’s need for constant supervision. The email referenced making sure that J.L. went to the bathroom before boarding the bus simply because she would have a long ride home from school. An IEP meeting was conducted for J.L. on October 12, 2017. Mr. Messick was present as the LEA (lead educational agency) representative, along with Ms. Velez, who wrote the IEP, and three others. J.L.’s IEP states that “[s]he has Williams Syndrome which is a developmental disorder that affects many parts of her body.” The IEP also states that J.L. “is a very trusting child and will walk away with a stranger. She does not distinguish friend from stranger and this causes danger to her safety,” and that J.L. “needs increased supervision to ensure her safety.” The statement that J.L. needs increased supervision to insure her safety is included in two separate sections of her IEP. Respondent was J.L.’s case manager. As her case manager, Respondent reviews, completes entries, and inputs other appropriate data in J.L.’s IEP. She was aware of the information contained in J.L.’s IEP. On January 11, 2018, J.L. was present in Ms. Velez’s classroom during the last period of the day. At approximately 2:05, she asked for, and received, permission to go to the bathroom. Ms. Velez allowed J.L. to go by herself. No adult or other student accompanied her. Allowing J.L. to go the restroom alone was not permitted by her IEP. Further, it appears to violate the policies outlined in the Handbook, which prohibits allowing hall passes for the first 30 minutes of each class. The final class of the day began at 2:05.2 It also runs afoul of the email sent by Mr. Messick at the beginning of the school year, which specifically directed that J.L. not be left alone. After J.L. was permitted to leave the classroom, T.B., a male student in Respondent’s class, also asked to go the bathroom, and was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez did not check to see where J.L. was before letting T.B. leave the classroom. T.B. was also unaccompanied. J.L. was absent from the classroom for approximately 24 minutes. There are no credible circumstances presented at hearing by which a student should be absent from the classroom for that length of time, regardless of 2 The Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with violating this policy, and no discipline is recommended for apparently doing so. It is included simply to show that there were multiple guidelines in place to prohibit allowing J.L. outside of the classroom alone. their mental capacity, the policy contained in the Handbook, or any policy discussed at faculty meetings. T.B. returned to the classroom before J.L. After he entered Ms. Velez’s classroom, T.B. apparently told Ms. Velez that J.L. was in the boys’ bathroom. Ms. Velez testified that she was about to look for her when J.L. returned to the classroom. Ms. Velez testified that she noticed J.L. had “a lot of energy,” and was breathing hard and her hands were shaking. Ms. Velez asked J.L. if she had been in the boys’ bathroom, and testified at hearing that J.L. responded that she did not want to get in trouble. J.L. became upset and asked to speak with the school nurse. Ms. Velez allowed her to go to the nurse’s office, this time accompanied by an eighth grade girl. While Ms. Velez described the child who accompanied J.L. as “very responsible,” it is noted that she was also a child in this classroom of children who represented the lowest functioning students at Stillwell. Lana Austin was the school nurse at Stillwell, and her office was down the hall from Ms. Velez’s room in the SLA wing. She testified T.B. was in her office when J.L. arrived. It was not explained at hearing whether T.B. had also asked Ms. Velez to go to the nurse’s office or just how he came to be there. When she arrived at the nurse’s office, J.L. was crying and somewhat distraught, and T.B. was also getting upset. Ms. Austin tried to get J.L. to tell her what was wrong, and J.L. kept saying they were trying to get her in trouble. J.L. wanted to call her mother, and Ms. Austin let her do so, because she believed it would calm her down. A paraprofessional came into Ms. Austin’s office while J.L. was on the phone with her mother. So while the paraprofessional was in the office with the students, Ms. Austin contacted Ms. Raulerson, the principal at Stillwell, and notified her there might be a problem so that someone could look at the hallway video and find out if anything happened. Ms. Austin knew that J.L. was a student who needed to be escorted. She was always brought to the nurse’s office by an adult. On this occasion, there was no adult. Jennifer Raulerson was the principal at Stillwell during the 2017-2018 school year. She is now the executive director for middle schools in Duval County. Ms. Raulerson testified that J.L.’s father came to the school immediately after J.L.’s telephone call home, and started asking questions. Because of the nature of his questions, consistent with school protocols, Ms. Raulerson contacted Stillwell’s school resource officer (SRO), Officer Tuten, as well as Mr. Messick and Ms. Hodges, who was the dean of students, to discuss with J.L.’s father what needed to be done to investigate what actually happened.3 The following morning, Ms. Raulerson, Ms. Hodges, and Mr. Messick spoke to J.L., T.B., and M.N., another student in the hallway, about what happened the day before. Based on their answers, Ms. Raulerson gave Ms. Hodges a basic timeframe, and asked her to check the cameras to see if she saw anything that would indicate that something happened involving J.L. and T.B. Ms. Hodges testified that a person can type in a date and time on the computer and look at a specific timeframe on the video, which is what she did. Once she viewed the video and realized how long a student had been out of the classroom, she went to Ms. Raulerson and they looked at the video again. Mr. Messick also watched the video with them. Administrators at the school could access the surveillance video on their computers. The surveillance video software has dates and times from which you can retrieve a time period to watch. However, when you download 3 Although they were under subpoena, neither J.L. nor J.L.’s father appeared to testify at hearing. Any statements attributed to them cannot support a finding of fact for the truth of the matter asserted. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Statements by J.L. that are included in this Recommended Order are not intended to establish the truth of her statements, but rather, to explain why teachers and administrators took the actions they did in response to the situation. a section of the surveillance video, the downloaded portion does not include the timestamp. When Ms. Raulerson viewed the surveillance video on the computer screen, she could see the time stamp. While the video in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E does not contain the time stamp, Ms. Raulerson credibly testified that it is the same video she and the others viewed to determine whether J.L. and T.B. were out of the classroom and how long they were out of the classroom. Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E is a type of evidence commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their responsibilities as a school administrator. There is no evidence that the tape itself has been altered, edited, or tampered with in any way. The lack of a time stamp is not all that important. What is important is not so much the time of day when J.L. and T.B. were absent from Respondent’s classroom, but the length of time that they were absent.4 Ms. Velez admits that she allowed both students to leave her classroom on January 11. She simply disputes how long J.L. was gone. The surveillance video is 39 minutes and 53 seconds long. The times given in the summary of the video activity below are based on the times recorded on the video, as opposed to the time of day. A comparison of those timeframes with the timeline made by Ms. Austin and Mr. Messick shows that the timelines are essentially the same. The video shows the following: 4 Respondent claims she is prejudiced by the admission of the video, because she was not able to view it with the time-stamps to verify that it was, in fact, the video for January 11, 2018. It is noted that Respondent initiated no discovery in this case. Petitioner filed an exhibit list that included a reference to a video as early as July 24, 2020, some three weeks before hearing. Moreover, the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions specifically requires not only a list of all exhibits to be offered at hearing, but also any objections to those exhibits and the grounds for each objection. Respondent did not note any objection in the Second Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Statement to the admission of any of the videos admitted as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17. At eight minutes, 17 seconds, J.L. leaves Ms. Velez’s classroom and heads down toward the girls’ bathroom at the end of the hall.5 She is wearing an over-sized jacket, but is not wearing a vest or carrying a clipboard. At nine minutes, 15 seconds, she comes out of the girls’ bathroom and speaks to an adult in the hallway, and then heads back to the bathroom. At the 13-minute, 4-second mark, T.B. walks down the hall from Ms. Velez’s classroom and, curiously, walks over toward the girls’ bathroom before going over to the boys’ bathroom. At 14 minutes, 39 seconds, T.B. comes out of the boys’ bathroom and walks over toward the girls’ bathroom a second time. After approximately ten seconds, he exits the area near the girls’ bathroom and heads back to the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 15 minutes into the video, and almost seven minutes after leaving Ms. Velez’s classroom, J.L. comes out of the girls’ bathroom, peers down the hallway in both directions, and goes over to the boys’ bathroom. At this point, she is still wearing her jacket. At approximately 18 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, a second male student, later identified as M.N., walks down the hall. M.N. is not in Ms. Velez’s class during this class period. He also goes toward the girls’ bathroom first, and then stands in the hallway outside the boys’ bathroom. After approximately 30 seconds, he walks down the hall and back, before going toward the boys’ bathroom and out of sight at 19 minutes and 40 seconds. At 20 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, other students start lining up in the hallway. Approximately four classes line up in the hallway, with no one coming out of the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 29 minutes, 5 Respondent established at hearing that one cannot actually see students enter and exit the bathrooms from the surveillance video. The sight line for the video stops just short of the doors to the two bathrooms. However, the only other alternative to going in the bathrooms would be for students to exit the SLA unit through the doors near the bathrooms. If that were the case, J.L. would be subject to harm as well, given that the doors lead to the rest of the school and the bus loading zone. 26 seconds, girls in line outside the bathroom are seen looking toward the boys’ bathroom and appear to be laughing. J.L. comes out of the boys’ bathroom at the 29-minute, 53-second mark, followed by T.B. J.L. is not wearing her jacket, and her belt is undone. T.B. throws J.L.’s jacket on the floor and walks down the hallway with his hands up in the air. Both J.L. and T.B. walk down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s room, and then turn around and return to their respective bathrooms. At the 31-minute, 53-second mark, J.L. comes out of the bathroom with her shirt tucked in and her belt fastened. She is still not wearing her jacket, a small portion of which can be seen on the floor of the hallway. She does not pick it up, but stays in the hallway until T.B. comes out of the bathroom, then both go down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s class, with T.B. running and J.L. walking. J.L. re-enters Ms. Velez’s classroom at 32 minutes, 21 seconds into the video. Finally, at 32 minutes, 30 seconds, M.N. comes out of the boys’ room, picks up J.L.’s jacket and heads down the hall. Based on the surveillance video, J.L.was out of the classroom for slightly over 24 minutes. T.B. was absent from the classroom for over 18 minutes. Ms. Velez is never seen in the hallway. There is no admissible evidence to demonstrate what actually occurred during the time that J.L. appeared to be in the boys’ restroom. Regardless of what actually happened, no female student should be in the boys’ bathroom, and a female student already identified as needing increased supervision should not be allowed to be unsupervised outside of her classroom at all, much less for such a lengthy period of time. The potential for harm was more than foreseeable, it was inevitable. Ms. Velez did not go in the hallway or send Ms. Kirkland, the paraprofessional present in her classroom that day, to check on J.L. or T.B. She did not call the SRO, the front office, or Mr. Messick to ask for assistance in locating either child. She also did not contact Ms. Raulerson, Mr. Messick, or J.L.’s parents after T.B. told her that J.L. had been in the boys’ restroom. She testified that, while J.L. certainly should not be in the boys’ restroom, there was nothing that led her to believe or suspect that there could be neglect or abuse. Ms. Velez acknowledged that she allowed J.L. to go to the bathroom unsupervised, and stated that she was training J.L. to go to the bathroom by herself. If that was the case, doing so was directly contrary to Mr. Messick’s email of August 22, 2017, and to the requirements of J.L.’s IEP. Ms. Velez had approximately 18 students in her classroom. Her focus, according to her, was on providing instruction to the students in her class. She denied losing track of time, but stated that once the students were engaged, she took her time with the lesson, which “led me to not noticing what time it was as normally as I should,” and she “possibly got distracted.” She did not take any responsibility for her actions. Instead, she blamed the situation on the fact that, at the time of the incident, she did not have a full- time paraprofessional assigned to her classroom. While the paraprofessional position for her class was not filled at the time of this incident, Ms. Kirkland traveled with the class and was present in Ms. Velez’s class when J.L. was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez also appeared to minimize the importance of providing increased supervision for J.L., and claimed that she was training her to go to the bathroom by herself. Yet, she described the class as a whole as one that needed “eyes on them” at all times. Further, J.L.’s parents clearly felt the increased supervision was crucial, and called early in the school year to make sure that staff knew J.L. was not to be left alone. Ms. Velez gave no explanation as to why she would “train” J.L. to leave the room unsupervised (and one wonders what training could be taking place, if the child is allowed to go alone outside the classroom), when she knew that to do so was clearly contrary to J.L.’s parents’ wishes. On January 22, 2018, the Duval County School District (the District) began an investigation into the incident concerning J.L. that occurred on January 11, 2018. During the District investigation, Ms. Raulerson notified the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and law enforcement of the incident. Both entities conducted investigations. The results of those investigations are not part of this record. On March 16, 2018, the District reprimanded Respondent and suspended her for 30 days for failing to provide adequate supervision of her students. The School Board’s approval of the suspension and the basis for it was reported in the press.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent pay a fine of $750, and that her certificate be suspended for a period of one year, followed by two years of probation, with terms and conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Stephanie Marisa Schaap, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Duval County School Board should be terminated for the reasons specified in the Notice of Termination of Employment Contract dated May 8, 2012.
Findings Of Fact The Duval County School Board is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Duval County, Florida. Mr. Kristopher J. Hunter has been employed by the Duval County School Board as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher since 2006. He is a certified instructional employee covered by the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended (Tenure Act) and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Duval Teachers United and the School Board for 2009-2011. At the time of the events at issue in this proceeding, Mr. Hunter was assigned to Arlington Middle School. Mr. Hunter was born in Florida in 1977. He attended college at the University of Virginia, graduating in three years with a degree in Geography. He played professional basketball for about six years. He then returned to school and received a teaching degree from the University of North Florida. He began teaching at Arlington Middle School in the Duval County School District in 2006. He was teaching as an ESE teacher, successfully working with children with a range of cognitive and physical disabilities integrated into the least restrictive environment, that is, the regular school classroom environment. At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Mr. Hunter was assigned to a classroom in the Day Treatment Program (DTP). The DTP is the most restrictive environment offered at Arlington Middle School for ESE students. The program is housed in a separate building at the back of the school, and has five teachers and 22 students. The students assigned to DTP are those with the most severe emotional and behavioral disorders, and Mr. Hunter's previous ESE experience did not include working with students of this type. Although his ESE qualification covered working with these students, Mr. Hunter felt unprepared. The DTP teachers have access to an "intervention room" and four "time out" rooms contained within the intervention room if it becomes necessary to remove a student from their classroom because of a high magnitude disruption. The teacher can call, and staff from the intervention room will respond to help remove the disruptive student. Mr. Gary Mericle is the Site Director for DTP, responsible for the overall administration of the program. He has taught Physical Education for about 12 years and is also the Athletic Director. He is not ESE certified, but has administered the DTP for three years. Mr. Mericle is trained in Professional Crisis Management (PCM), including the use of three techniques designed to gain control of a disruptive student in a safe, efficient, and secure manner to minimize danger to the student and others. The "wrist–triceps" hold is the simplest method to obtain basic physical control over a student; the "Sunday stroll" technique is a bit more secure; while the "bar procedure" is the most difficult to effect, but results in the student being immobilized in a prone position, and so is appropriate for the most violent situations. Each ESE teacher in DTP has a para-professional assistant in their classroom. Ms. Edna Lee is assigned as Mr. Hunter's assistant. Ms. Lee has 14 years of experience in ESE and has been working with the most severely disabled students for the last six or seven years. She has experienced highly disruptive behavior and violence on numerous occasions and has been trained in PCM. R.J. is an ESE student who was transferred into DTP at Arlington prior to the Christmas break. His behavior is erratic and unpredictable. R.J. is calm some days, but at other times he engages in violent behaviors, throwing any items within his reach in a room. Mr. Hunter was aware of these behaviors in R.J., but had never experienced them in his own classroom, although R.J. did "act out" in other ways "every single day." Sometime after the Christmas school break, Mr. Hunter was trained in the PCM techniques described above for the first time. Training for the school personnel had been staggered so that everyone would not be away from their duties at the same time. After his training and before the incident involving R.J. which led to this proceeding, Mr. Hunter had had occasion to use both the "wrist-triceps" and "Sunday stroll" techniques. Mr. Mericle was aware that Mr. Hunter had completed this training and had seen Mr. Hunter employ those tactics to manage disorderly students. In the early afternoon of April 2, 2012, R.J., who had been released from a voluntary "time out" in the intervention room, entered Mr. Hunter's classroom through the door at the lower-right corner1/ of the room. When he entered, Mr. Hunter was seated at his desk in the upper-left corner of the classroom, diagonally across from the door through which R.J. entered. Ms. Lee was seated at her desk in the upper-right corner of the room straight ahead of R.J. In the middle of the room were nine student desks, arrayed roughly in a square formation. Ms. Lee testified that as soon as R.J. entered the room, she could see that he was in an agitated state. Another student may have been in the room when R.J. first entered, but immediately left,2/ leaving only Mr. Hunter, Ms. Lee and R.J. in the classroom. R.J. began walking toward Ms. Lee, going to a computer set up on a table against the right hand wall. When he was unable to sign on at the computer because it was locked, he became even more upset, cursing and kicking the chair. Ms. Lee asked R.J. what was wrong, but he did not respond. He grabbed a fistful of pens or pencils and began to throw them. Mr. Hunter asked him to stop, and when he did not, Mr. Hunter warned him that he would have to call intervention. R.J.'s behavior continued, and Mr. Hunter used his walkie-talkie to call Mr. Mericle in intervention and asked him to come to the classroom. Mr. Mericle immediately responded to the call. There was no physical contact between Mr. Hunter and R.J. prior to the time Mr. Mericle entered the room. When Mr. Mericle entered, R.J. was out of control, throwing pencils, books, and other items. Mr. Hunter and Ms. Lee were still at their desks. After observing R.J. for only a moment, Mr. Mericle concluded that his behavior constituted a high magnitude disruption, and that R.J. needed to be escorted back to intervention. At this time R.J. was moving generally in a counter-clockwise direction around the room, on the outside of the student desks. He had been throwing pencils at the window above Mr. Hunter's desk, and some of these pencils had bounced off the windows and had hit Mr. Hunter. Mr. Mericle had responded alone because they were short-handed in intervention. Mr. Mericle went to Mr. Hunter's desk and asked for his help to restrain R.J. Mr. Mericle had dealt with R.J. before under similar circumstances and believed that R.J. could be restrained fairly easily with the "wrist- triceps" hold, in which two people approach the disruptive student from each side, securing the student's wrist with their outside hand and placing their inside hand on the underside of the student's upper arm. R.J. was of slight build, about five feet, eight inches tall, and weighing about 140 pounds. Mr. Hunter is a big man, about six feet, 10 inches tall, and weighing about 290 pounds. Mr. Mericle believed that R.J. could easily be restrained. R.J. was continuing his counter-clockwise walk around the room, now going down the left side of the room opposite the computers, and turning onto the base wall of the room which contained the door where he had originally entered. As he reached the counter against this base wall, he began to run his arm across the top of it, scraping all of the items that were sitting on the counter off onto the floor. He picked up a soap dispenser and threw it. Mr. Mericle and Mr. Hunter were approaching him from behind, and caught up with him as he was about ten feet away from the wall containing the computers, when R.J. was almost back to the point at which he had first entered the room. Just as Mr. Mericle was about to draw even with R.J. on R.J's left side and was reaching for his left arm, R.J. shot forward at a high rate of speed, slammed into the wall straight in front of him, and then slid down and collapsed to the floor. Ms. Lee testified that Mr. Hunter, who had been approaching R.J. from behind on R.J.'s right side, had raised his right foot and shoved it into R.J.'s lower back, propelling R.J. into the wall. Ms. Lee testified that while R.J. had been propelled into the wall from the push, that she believed R.J. was exaggerating the effect of the push, because the effect on R.J. was overdone, like "bad acting." Mr. Hunter then quickly followed R.J., picked him up off the floor by his shirt or shoulders, lifted him completely off of the floor, shook him, and slammed his back against the wall with R.J.'s face held above Mr. Hunter's head. Mr. Mericle said that he heard R.J.'s head hit the wall behind him. Ms. Lee stated that Mr. Hunter said to R.J. in a loud voice, "You can't come in my room doing this." When Mr. Hunter released him, R.J. dropped to the floor, and then got up and left the room. Mr. Mericle went after R.J., saying, "I've got him, I've got him." Ms. Lee testified that she found Mr. Hunter's actions to be "very shocking." Mr. Mericle followed R.J., who went to the front of the school. The School Resource Officer (SRO) was there and Mr. Mericle told the SRO what had happened before continuing his pursuit. Mr. Mericle caught up with R.J. on the softball field. He asked R.J. to return to the DTP building with him. R.J. went calmly, without any use of PCM. R.J. was subsequently transported by Jacksonville Fire Rescue to Shands Medical Center. There was no evidence at hearing of any serious injury. Mr. Hunter's version of events was slightly different. He testified that he stuck his foot out and that R.J. tripped. He stated that R.J. was holding a pencil like a knife in a threatening manner, and that this was the reason Mr. Hunter then grabbed R.J. and lifted him up against the wall. Mr. Hunter said that R.J. calmed down when he was lifted off of the floor and that Mr. Hunter then lowered R.J. back to the floor. Mr. Hunter testified that he never intended to harm R.J. and that he was just trying to get control of the situation. Mr. Hunter testified that R.J. could have hurt anyone in the room or even himself. Mr. Hunter admitted that his actions, even as he had described them, were not appropriate. Ms. Lee was a credible witness whose demeanor suggested that she did not wish to cause Mr. Hunter trouble. She relayed the facts as she saw them, while giving every benefit to Mr. Hunter in her own interpretation of those facts. Her testimony that Mr. Hunter kicked R.J. into the wall is credited. Ms. Lee's conclusion that Mr. Hunter "didn't lose control, but was only trying to get R.J.'s attention" seems quite charitable, however. In any event, it is not acceptable to kick students or lift them off the ground and slam them against a wall to "get their attention." Mr. Hunter's suggestion that his actions were motivated in part by defensive or safety concerns because R.J. was wielding a pencil is discredited. Neither Ms. Lee nor Mr. Mericle, both of whom were closely watching R.J., saw a pencil displayed in a threatening manner. Even if a pencil had been wielded as a weapon, the response was completely inappropriate. At all relevant times during this incident, there were three PCM trained adults in the room with a single ESE middle school student. Mr. Hunter did not cooperate with Mr. Mericle's efforts to use approved techniques. Shoving a student or picking him up and slamming him against a wall are inconsistent with the sanctioned procedures designed to defuse high magnitude disruptions in a safe and secure fashion. Mr. Hunter, provoked by R.J.'s behaviors, used physical force against R.J. in frustration and anger. Mr. Hunter did not intend to physically hurt R.J., but acted inappropriately to get R.J. under control. Ms. Sonita Young is the Chief Human Resources Officer for Duval County Schools. In determining the appropriate action to recommend to the Superintendent in this case, Ms. Young considered the progressive discipline policy reflected in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Ms. Young testified that she discussed the matter with others, and that she concluded that termination was appropriate even though Mr. Hunter had not had the various steps of progressive discipline imposed on him earlier, because of the severe behavior in this incident. On May 8, 2012, a Notice of Termination of Employment Contract and Immediate Suspension Without Pay was sent to Mr. Hunter. On May 9, 2012, Mr. Hunter was arrested on felony child abuse charges based on the incident. Subsequently, on or about June 15, 2012, Mr. Hunter voluntarily entered and was accepted into a pretrial diversionary program in regard to his May 9, 2012, arrest. Prior to the incident described in the May 8, 2012, termination letter, Mr. Hunter had been informed and was aware that Duval County School Board policies prohibited the conduct described therein. Prior to the incident described in the May 8, 2012, termination letter, Mr. Hunter had been informed and was aware that the State Educator's Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession prohibited the conduct described therein. Respondent's demonstrated inability to follow prescribed protocols and his resort to physical force in dealing with an ESE student in frustration and anger impairs his effectiveness in the school system. Respondent's misconduct in office constitutes just cause to terminate his employment as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Duval County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment contract of Kristopher J. Hunter as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 2012.
The Issue Did Respondent, Cynthia Bradford, commit the violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Orange County School Board, is the governmental entity responsible for the operation, supervision, and control of public schools in Orange County, Florida, including the employment of personnel associated with the educational process. Respondent is a white, female employed by Petitioner as an exceptional student education (ESE) annual contract teacher. She taught students with learning and/or emotional disabilities at Meadowbrook Middle School. The students that testified, D.C., N.B., and P.S., are all exceptional education students with mental handicaps, learning disabilities, and/or emotional disabilities. These students are African-American, which is the predominate race of the Meadowbrook Middle School population. ESE students with mental handicaps, learning disabilities, and/or emotional disabilities require a greater period of time and more intensive instruction to acquire knowledge and skills taught in the school curriculum. Students with these problems have difficulty processing emotion, which impacts on their ability to function socially and academically in an educational setting. These students are taught in a “self-contained” classroom environment with a lower teacher-to-student ratio and more individualized instruction time each school day. They remain within Respondent’s classroom the greater part of each school day, leaving only for special classes. These students have a diminished cognitive capacity for abstract thought processing and have difficulty grasping, intellectually and comfortably, the concepts described in the book noted hereinbelow. Some of these students would be at high risk for working with concepts articulated in the book. Meadowbrook Middle School has a Reading Achievement and Progress course, referred to as the “RAP” program. RAP instruction is provided school-wide in every class each day during the sixth period. While the primary focus of RAP is to promote reading proficiency, it is also used to instruct students on character development. This is done with the teacher reading aloud to the class and engaging the student in pertinent discussion about character with reference to the topics discussed in the particular book. All teachers at Meadowbrook Middle School, including Respondent, received training on the implementation of the RAP program before the start of the school year and throughout the school year. Respondent participated in the RAP pre-planning and staff development meetings each of the three years that she taught at Meadowbrook Middle School. In connection with RAP training, Respondent received a “R.A.P. Curriculum and Instruction Guide” to provide classroom assistance and resource information for teachers implementing the RAP program. In addition to containing a list of 140 recommended books, the curriculum guide provided teachers with the following guidance on the selection of reading materials: Choose a quality book – this may seem like an obvious thing to do but it is one that many teachers failed to do. A poor book cannot be made better, no matter how well the reader reads it, so choose a book that: Has significant literary value; Is developmentally appropriate for the target age level students; and/or Affords instructional opportunities (e.g., you can use it to teach a specific concept or skill) . . . While there is a list of recommended books, there is no "approved" reading list. A teacher has the latitude to select any book he or she deems appropriate. The Meadowbrook Middle School library has class sets of books for teachers to check out for RAP. Class sets are just that: forty novels--one for each student--so that each student can read his or her own copy of the book along with the teacher and the rest of the class. Meadowbrook Middle School has a literary coach who is available to assist teachers in the selection of books or other aspects of implementation of the RAP program. Respondent selected a book titled Dumb As Me to read to her ESE students during RAP. This book was not on the recommended book list or available in the school library. She believed the book would capture the interest of her students and present a negative example to stimulate character development discussions. She chose the book because it reflects African- American inter-city culture, similar to the Bluford series which is available in the school library. She did not consult with the literary coach or any other Meadowbrook Middle School educational professional in the selection of the book. Dumb As Me, is fiction about a married, African- American male who lives a self-described “pimp” and “player” lifestyle. The book describes in graphic detail sexual behavior including cunnilingus, masturbation, fellatio, sadism, and sexual intercourse. The book is filled with profanity, including "shit," "fuck," "motherfucker," and such words as "ass," "pussy," "cock," and "dick" as descriptions of the human sexual organs. If Respondent's students had uncensored access to the book, it would be harmful to them. Most of the time the book was locked in a cabinet in the classroom. Through unfortunate circumstance, Respondent's students, or some of them, gained access to the book and read it. When Respondent read the book in class, she sometimes edited the book substituting "F-word" for "fuck," for example. On other occasions, she read the plain text of the novel, including depictions of graphic sexual activity and profanity. As a practical matter, the students are aware of most of the profanity contained in the book. When the same profanity is used by students in class, Respondent attempts to discuss the particular word, "bitch" for example, and explain why it is an inappropriate term. An adult teacher's aid assigned to Respondent's classroom was present when Respondent read part of the novel to her students. She left the classroom after Respondent read a sexually explicit portion of the book about the protagonist engaging in cunnilingus with his mistress. This adult teacher's aid reported Respondent's having read the particular book to the school principal. As a result of this report, the principal obtained and read portions of the book. Another administrative employee undertook an investigation that involved interviewing several of Respondent's students. The investigation confirmed that Respondent had read sexually explicit and profanity-laced portions of the novel to her students. Respondent appears to be a sensitive and concerned teacher; however, the error in judgment demonstrated by her selection of Dumb As Me to be read to learning disabled, emotionally and mentally handicapped children raises question of her competence to teach children. Reading the book, as she did, with its graphic depiction of sexual activity and profanity, exposed Respondent's students to conditions harmful to their social, emotional, and academic development. During the investigation and subsequent activities, Respondent misstated the extent that she had read sexually explicit and profanity-laced portions of the book to her students. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was diminished by her selection of the particular book and reading sexually explicit and profanity-laced sections of the book to her students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent's "misconduct in office" constitutes “just cause” under Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2005), to dismiss her from her employment as a teacher with Petitioner, Orange County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 17th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian F. Moes, Esquire Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271 Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Honorable John Winn, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ronald Blocker, Superintendent Orange County School Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, may terminate Respondent's employment as an instructional employee based upon the conduct alleged in the letter from Assistant Superintendent Ron Ciranna to Respondent dated March 3, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Brown has been employed by the School Board as a teacher for 11 years. She is a member of the Polk Education Association, the collective bargaining unit for teaching personnel; is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Polk Education Association; and holds a professional services contract with the School Board pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. During the first several years of her employment, Ms. Brown was assigned to Dundee Elementary School as an Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher, working with children classified as severely emotionally disturbed, emotionally handicapped, and varying exceptionalities. When she transferred to Spook Hill, Ms. Brown initially worked in a self-contained varying exceptionalities classroom. Three years ago the principal of Spook Hill, Matthew Burkett, requested that Ms. Brown transfer to a new ESE Pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) unit that was being established at the school.2 Ms. Brown started work in the ESE Pre-K unit at the start of the 2005-2006 school year and has remained there ever since. Most of the children in Ms. Brown's class were classified as educable mentally handicapped, or EMH. Testing showed that they were developmentally delayed, with developmental ages that were typically one to two and one-half years behind their chronological ages. At any given time, there could be as few as four or as many as 12 children in Ms. Brown's class. A paraeducator was assigned to assist Ms. Brown. The ESE Pre-K classroom was a portable with a ramp leading to the front door. The front door had a gate with a pool lock. The pool lock was chest-high to an adult, out of the reach of most small children. Outside the portable was the ESE playground, which was completely fenced, with a gate and lock. The playground contained a swing set and other equipment. A child could not exit the playground without adult assistance. The school bus pick-up area was just outside the playground gate. Between January 22, 2007, and February 12, 2008, Mr. Burkett disciplined Ms. Brown 16 times, through verbal warnings, written reprimands, letters of concern, and recommendations to the superintendent for suspensions. The first documented disciplinary action was a "written confirmation of a verbal warning" from Mr. Burkett to Ms. Brown dated January 22, 2007. The letter references "many issues" that had been discussed at a January 19, 2007, conference, stating that Ms. Brown had already addressed several of the issues discussed. Mr. Burkett then wrote: I would like to target the issue of "falling asleep" during nap time as a very critical area which must be corrected. You stated that it has happened because you have to model and cuddle with the children to get them to fall asleep and that your para was present. I instructed you to sit up while cuddling the children to sleep and that you must not ever fall asleep. Please know any instance from this point on that jeopardizes the health and safety of the students will result in further disciplinary action. On February 8, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a written reprimand to Ms. Brown. The reprimand letter stated that on February 2, 2007, at 12:45 p.m., Mr. Burkett walked through Ms. Brown's class to observe. The room was quiet and dark. All the students were lying down, and some of them were already asleep. Mr. Burkett observed that Ms. Brown was lying down with several students. She was not asleep, and she responded when spoken to by Mr. Burkett, who nonetheless felt obliged to issue a written reprimand in light of his prior warning. Ms. Brown signed the reprimand letter, acknowledging receipt, but also wrote the following: "Due to this concern I have quit sitting w/any students. I sit in my chair w/students around my desk. Any parent concerned about their child not napping will be directed to the office (Burkett or [assistant principal Sharon] Neal)." On February 9, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a "letter of concern" to Ms. Brown regarding conferences held on February 2, 5, and 8, 2007. The letter discussed a number of concerns that had been voiced by parents or school administrators. Ms. Brown's high school student assistant had not submitted the required application to obtain volunteer status and would be barred from the classroom until her paperwork was completed. An unauthorized man had been seen in Ms. Brown's class. The man was an old classmate of Ms. Brown's and was helping her to plan a class reunion. Mr. Burkett informed Ms. Brown not to conduct personal business during the school day. A parent observed that Ms. Brown was "always on her cell phone." Ms. Brown had been repeatedly cautioned about cell phone use, and the letter of concern directed her not to have her personal cell phone on her person during the school day. Another parent observed that nap time appeared to last for two hours. Mr. Burkett instructed Ms. Brown that nap time should be only one hour long. The letter of concern also addressed the issue of parents dropping off students to Ms. Brown's class prior to the 7:15 a.m. start of the school day. Mr. Burkett told Ms. Brown that he would intervene on her behalf to stop the children from arriving early, but Ms. Brown stated that she was voluntarily arriving early to take the children and would voluntarily continue to do so. On the same day as the letter of concern, February 9, 2007, Mr. Burkett also issued a "written documentation of a verbal warning" to Ms. Brown. This warning concerned Ms. Brown's having left the campus from 11:30 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. on February 7, 2007, without permission from the school's administration. The letter stated that Mr. Burkett was forced to send the assistant principal, Ms. Neal, to Ms. Brown's classroom to assist with the supervision of the students in Ms. Brown's absence. Ms. Brown's excuse was that she had to take her niece to work at McDonald's. Mr. Burkett's letter of concern emphasized that, whatever the emergency, Ms. Brown was required to make arrangements with the administration before leaving the campus. On March 6, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a written reprimand to Ms. Brown "for your continued use of your personal cell phone during student contact time." On March 1, 2007, Mr. Burkett observed Alice Staton, Ms. Brown's paraeducator, sitting on the swing set holding a child. Ms. Staton yelled across the playground, "Get back in that room." Mr. Burkett saw three of the ESE Pre-K students outside the classroom, running up and down the portable's ramp. The door and gate to the portable were open. Mr. Burkett "corralled" the three students back into the classroom, where he observed three other students in Ms. Brown's chair, swinging it in circles. Mr. Burkett then noticed that Ms. Brown was speaking on her cell phone. She did not notice that Mr. Burkett had entered until he walked all the way across the room toward the students in her chair. According to the written reprimand, Ms. Brown then "placed the phone down discreetly and proceeded to use a loud tone of voice instructing the class to clean up." Ms. Brown submitted a handwritten response to the letter of reprimand. She did not deny the facts as stated by Mr. Burkett, but offered her justification for this "unexpected" incident: A parent called my cell # at the time we were having issues with a student who was screaming & crying. Alice walked this student outside to make the room quieter. She accidentally left door & gate open. I thought she told me she would be outside. I didn't hear the "playground" due to the child screaming. I turned[,] was helping students clean when my cell phone rang. It was a parent checking on her child. I may have been on the phone 2-3 seconds. Mr. Burkett had walked in. Alice had eye contact with the outside students & I had eye contact with the ones in the room. At the hearing, Mr. Burkett testified that, although Ms. Brown's use of her personal cell phone violated the directive of his February 9, 2007, letter of concern, his overriding motivation in reprimanding Ms. Brown was the lack of supervision he observed during the incident. He believed that the children running on the ramp were out of the sightline of either Ms. Brown or Ms. Staton, and he observed that Ms. Brown was so engrossed in her telephone conversation that she did not even see him enter the portable. By letter dated March 14, 2007, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown without pay for a period of one day effective March 22, 2007.3 The grounds for this suspension were the events of March 1, 2007, as recited in Mr. Burkett's written reprimand of March 6, 2007, as well as the following, as stated in Superintendent McKinzie's letter: Later that same day [March 1], it was reported to the principal that not only did you use your cell phone again, but you asked the para assigned to your class to "keep watch" for you. This statement was provided for [sic] in writing by another employee and notarized. This action took place immediately after you had just left a conference with Mr. Burkett in which you were given a directive not to have your cell phone in class. The principal discussed with you his concerns regarding student safety and told you that you could not provide adequate supervision while on personal cell phone calls. By letter dated April 18, 2007, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown without pay for one day effective April 25, 2007. The grounds for the suspension were stated as follows in Superintendent McKenzie's letter: This action is based on an incident which happened on March 19, 2007. On that date, Principal Matt Burkett was notified that you had allegedly hit a high school student on the campus of Spook Hill Elementary. Your classroom paraeducator witnessed the altercation and attested that you had engaged in an argument during student contact time. She stated that you slapped the student in the face and that she saw you follow the student in your truck off campus. Principal Burkett spoke with you regarding the alleged incident. You admitted that you did slap the student in the face and that you did get in your truck and follow her off campus. By your own admission, you stated that there had been a prior altercation off campus with this particular student. Clearly, you allowed a personal situation to escalate into a violent confrontation on the school campus. Although you did apologize for your actions, your behavior was totally unprofessional and cannot be condoned. Your lack of judgment in this situation jeopardized the safety of the students in your charge. Please remember that teachers are role models for their students and should behave accordingly. On May 8, 2007, Mr. Burkett wrote a letter of concern to Ms. Brown to inform her of continuing inadequacies that Mr. Burkett was observing in Ms. Brown's job performance. The letter notes that on March 8, 2007, a Professional Development Plan ("PDP") had been established "to address the learning environment in your classroom." A PDP is a plan to help struggling teachers in areas of inadequate performance. A team of professionals is assigned to work with the teacher to aid in professional development and address the teacher's inadequacies. In his letter of concern, Mr. Burkett noted the following specific PDP items that were "in need of positive change": Circulate and monitor with appropriate proximity during all activities. (On 3/20 on your observation I marked you for remaining at desk. On 4/15, 4/26, 4/30, and 5/7 as I walked into your room you were sitting behind your desk.) Provide structured hands-on activities during outside play. (I have taken photos of your play area, as well as the equipment for outside play activities. They indicate a need to enhance and organize the learning environment.) Constantly engage and interact with students. (Please refer to item number one.) Daily schedule will be posted. (On 4/26 Mrs. Neal and I addressed the need to post your daily schedule and be certain that times are indicated.) IEP's must be in compliance.[4] (I showed you the report in which two of your students were listed as out of compliance.) Safety issues will be jointly addressed and teacher will comply with all administrative directives. (On 5/4/07 you called for the school resource officer. . . . I entered your classroom and observed you talking on your personal cell phone. You have also been tardy to work which is an issue we have addressed in the past.) On September 5, 2007, Mr. Burkett wrote a letter to Superintendent McKinzie recommending that Ms. Brown be suspended, based on "her history of jeopardizing the safety and welfare of her students" and in light of the following specific incident: On August 31st I went into Ms. Brown's Pre-K room and she was not present. I noticed a student tipped over strapped into a high chair. I asked the para-professional where the teacher was and she stated "I do not know." She said the teacher stated she "had to get out." The para also stated she did not place the child in the high chair. According to the para the teacher had been gone for about ten minutes. I was in the room for five minutes before the teacher returned. Ms. Brown sent me an email and stated she went to the restroom and laminated some things. I am very concerned because Ms. Brown has explained on several occasions the severity of the needs her students have and the need for more time to have in small group teaching. Therefore, while I understand the need for a bathroom break, I do not understand the need to choose this critical time to laminate. Secondly, she left a child in a high chair as a "time out" which is an inappropriate use of the chair. Furthermore, she left the child for an excessively lengthy time and in fact she left the classroom while the child was still restrained. As a result of her actions the child turned over in the high chair. At the hearing, Mr. Burkett conceded that the child's IEP stated that he could be strapped into the high chair for feeding. However, neither Ms. Brown nor Ms. Staton offered affirmative testimony that the child was in fact strapped into the high chair for feeding. Because no testimony or other evidence was presented to contradict the version of events set forth in Mr. Burkett's letter to Superintendent McKinzie and adopted by Mr. Burkett at the hearing, Mr. Burkett's version is credited. By letter dated September 10, 2007, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown without pay for five days effective September 17, 2007, through September 21, 2007, as a "result of your continued lack of attention to the safety and welfare of the students in your charge."5 In a letter dated January 25, 2008, Mr. Burkett recommended to Superintendent McKinzie that Ms. Brown be suspended "as a continuation of the progressive discipline section 4.4-1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement." Mr. Burkett noted that Ms. Brown received a verbal warning on February 9, 2007, for leaving campus without permission, and was suspended on April 25, 2007, for an incident that included her leaving the campus. Mr. Burkett's letter described the current incident as follows: On January 17, 2008, Ms. Brown once again left campus without permission during her contact hours which extend to 3:15 pm. At approximately 2:25 pm transportation contacted the school to ascertain the whereabouts of a Pre-K child because they had a bus at Spook Hill waiting on a student. The teacher placed the child on another bus. However, transportation needed to confirm the child was placed on a different bus before they allowed the bus to leave. As a result of Ms. Brown leaving the campus without informing the administration there was an unnecessary delay in getting vital transportation information regarding what bus the child was placed on by the teacher. Furthermore, there was tremendous stress placed on the office staff as they tried locating and contacting Ms. Brown in order to confirm the child was safely on the bus. In our conference on January 23, 2008, regarding the matter Ms. Brown acknowledged she left campus for a personal matter and that her actions were incorrect and she apologized for the incident. Unfortunately, Ms. Brown chose not to follow clearly stated written instructions from her previous disciplinary actions. By letter dated January 30, 2008, signed by Mr. Ciranna, assistant superintendent for Human Resource Services, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown for five days without pay effective February 6 through February 12, 2008, based on Mr. Burkett's recommendation. In a letter dated February 11, 2008, Mr. Burkett recommended to Superintendent McKinzie that Ms. Brown be suspended for failure to complete her students' progress reports as required by their IEPs. The letter stated, in relevant part: I met with Ms. Brown on January 31st, 2008, and asked if she completed progress reports for her students. She replied that she did not have time to complete them. I gave her a directive to complete her student's progress reports and I provided her coverage. On February 1st, 2008, Ms. Brown sent me a letter which stated: "Yesterday when we met you asked me about my progress reports. I spoke from memory and indicated that I was way behind because of the time it takes me to work with my one on one student. Because of the assistance you provided, I was able to review the information and found I was not as far behind as I had indicated." According to a report provided to me by Chris English (Network Specialist) not a single progress report was created by Ms. Brown prior to January 31st, 2008. To further understand the severity of this offense it should be noted that Ms. Brown is currently on a Professional Development Plan (PDP) and one of the strategies is written as follows: "All IEP's and IEP notices must be in compliance and correctly written. Teacher will provide a one week notice if coverage is needed so she can prepare the IEP." Prior to our meeting on January 31st, 2008, Ms. Brown has never requested coverage to complete progress reports as part of the student's IEP. In a written response, Ms. Brown stated that she had "asked at least twice in the past for assistance to complete IEP paperwork a week in advance and was not provided coverage." While she stated her general disagreement with Mr. Burkett's letter, Ms. Brown did not otherwise contradict any of the specific factual assertions made by Mr. Burkett. At the hearing, Mr. Burkett testified that prior to February 12, 2008, he had a discussion with the School Board's director of employee relations about terminating Ms. Brown's employment, but that Superintendent McKinzie decided to suspend Ms. Brown on this occasion. By letter dated February 12, 2008, signed by Mr. Ciranna, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown for one day without pay effective February 20, 2008, based on Mr. Burkett's recommendation. By letter dated February 29, 2008, Mr. Burkett recommended to Superintendent McKinzie that Ms. Brown be terminated as an employee with the School Board. This recommendation led to the suspension and termination letter of March 3, 2008, the relevant terms of which are set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Mr. Burkett based his recommendation on "multiple issues extending over the course of the past year," as well as the following specific events occurring during February 2008: During Ms. Brown's recent suspension she acted insubordinately by coming on school campus during her suspension. I met with Ms. Brown on February 4, 2008, and I gave her a directive not to come on campus for any reason during her suspension days. Ms. Brown later called me on the phone and asked if she could come after the school day to do her lesson plans. I again stated to her that she could not be on school campus during her suspension days. On February 11, one of Ms. Brown's five suspension days, it was brought to my attention that she was on campus and delivered lunch to her paraprofessional. I have a statement from Ms. Brown in which she admits she delivered lunch. I also have a statement from the paraprofessional which states, "Yesterday, I called Ms. Brown about the Valentine's list. She called me back and asked if I wanted her to bring us lunch. I told her no and she is not supposed to be on campus. She said it was alright if she went to the office. She called me later again, and told me to come to the back of the lunch room door to get the lunch. . ." Additionally, I have a statement from my secretary in which Ms. Brown asked her "not to let Mr. Burkett know that she was here because she would get in trouble." Ms. Brown was previously suspended on March 22, 2007, in part for asking her paraprofessional to "watch out" for administration so she could insubordinately use her cell phone. Ms. Brown's actions depict an employee that has an established pattern of deliberate insubordination. Most concerning of all, in a four day span of time between February 19, 2008, and February 22, 2008, Ms. Brown continued to display a pattern of allegations [sic] of child endangerment. The following is a brief description of the incidents: On February 19, 2008, Mrs. Jenny Baker, a paraprofessional, was covering her classroom so I could serve her notice of suspension for February 20th. Mrs. Baker stated that upon Ms. Brown's return to class she asked if she could leave. Since the teacher did not respond Mrs. Baker left the portable to attend to her other duties and noticed three Pre-K students behind her and Ms. Brown was nowhere in sight. It was obvious that these students had left Ms. Brown's classroom without her supervision. Mrs. Baker waited for the other para to return from the buses to escort the kids back into the class. On February 19, 2008, I went to the classroom at approximately 2:30 (after Mrs. Baker had informed me of her concern). I noticed Ms. Brown at her computer behind her desk. The door to the portable was wide open and two students were sitting out of the teachers [sic] view behind the "cubby." These students could have readily left the classroom without Ms. Brown's knowledge. It was previously recommended by Ms. Sherwin (Educational Diagnostician) on February 5, 2008, that "in general, I think rearrangement of your classroom. . . may help. . . . I am particularly concerned with the arrangement that has the area between your door and shelving not visible to you at all times." On February 21, 2008, Mrs. Neal, the assistant principal, was walking through Ms. Brown's portable. Upon entering she noticed Ms. Brown getting up from her desk. The para was placing a band aid on another child. Ms. Brown stated that she was printing progress reports. Mrs. Neal stated the room was "a mess" and she began to straighten a piece of carpeting so the kids would not trip over it and hurt themselves. Mrs. Neal then counted the students and noticed one was missing. "Ms. Brown . . . looked puzzled." The paraprofessional and the teacher began to look for the missing child. She was found by Ms. Brown in the bathroom. The duration of time the child was missing was approximately five minutes. On February 22, 2008, at approximately 10:40 a.m. I was walking the exterminator to the classroom. As we walked up to the portable I noticed the front door wide open and two Pre-K students were on the ramp running. One tripped and fell. I rushed to the gate because I thought he was hurt, but he was already up and running down the ramp again. Clearly, these two students were not able to be observed by Ms. Brown and were not under her supervision or control. The exterminator and I entered the gated area and then Ms. Brown came out yelling for the boys to "get back in here." * * * I am entirely in favor of helping employees grow professionally as can be established by allowing Ms. Brown to create a second Professional Development Plan. However, she has established a pattern of allegations of child endangerment that results in disciplinary action. In addition, her multiple serious violations of school and district policies over the course of time have also established a pattern necessitating disciplinary action. It is for this reason that I am recommending termination pursuant to Article 4.4-1 of the collective bargaining agreement. As to the February 11, 2008, incident described in his letter, Mr. Burkett testified that Ms. Brown knew that she was not to come onto the campus while under suspension, because he had discussed the matter with her during one of her previous suspensions. Mr. Burkett testified that he was following School Board policy in prohibiting Ms. Brown from entering the campus during her suspension. Ms. Brown testified that as of February 11, 2008, she had never been told not to come on the campus while serving a suspension. Ms. Brown stated that she simply wanted to do something nice for Ms. Staton, her paraeducator, by way of bringing lunch. Ms. Brown had known Ms. Staton since the former was herself a student at Spook Hill. While Ms. Brown's good intentions may be credited, her testimony that no one had told her not to come on campus during a suspension is not credible. Her stealth in bringing lunch to Ms. Staton indicates that she knew she should not be there. Further, Mr. Burkett's letter quotes a statement from Ms. Staton in which she told Ms. Brown that she was not supposed to be on the campus. Ms. Staton testified at the hearing, and Ms. Brown had ample opportunity to question her about the events of February 11, 2008, and her statement to Mr. Burkett. However, Ms. Staton was questioned only about the February 21, 2008, incident. Mr. Burkett testified that the February 19, 2008, incidents were of greater concern to him because of the child safety issues involved. Mrs. Baker, the paraeducator who covered the class for Ms. Brown, testified that Ms. Brown was quiet when she returned from her meeting with Mr. Burkett. Ms. Brown sat at her computer. Mrs. Baker announced that she was now leaving the class, but Ms. Brown did not respond. Mrs. Baker walked out to the gate. When she started to close the gate, she looked behind her and saw three children who had followed her out of the class. Ms. Brown was still in the classroom, apparently unaware that the children had walked out. Mrs. Baker saw that Ms. Staton was outside placing another child on a school bus. On her way back into the classroom, Ms. Staton took charge of the three children who had followed Mrs. Baker out the door. Mrs. Baker returned to the main office. When Mr. Burkett asked how things had gone, she reported the incident to him. Ms. Brown testified that she did not recall the incident. Mrs. Baker's version of this incident is credited. After receiving the report from Mrs. Baker, Mr. Burkett was concerned for the children. He went to the class and saw Ms. Brown sitting at the computer behind her desk, and two students sitting out of her view though the door to the portable was wide open. Mr. Burkett testified that experts from the School Board had already come into the portable and discussed the room set-up with Ms. Brown, particularly the fact that there were obstacles to her having a clear line of vision from the desk to the door. A bookshelf that extended from the "cubbies" blocked her view of the doorway. Mr. Burkett noted that the two children could have walked out of the classroom without Ms. Brown seeing them. Ms. Brown testified that the two students in question rode the last bus from the school. Ms. Staton had already left the classroom to go on bus duty. Ms. Brown left the door open so that she could see the bus as it came around the side of the portable. The two students sat there playing as Ms. Brown worked at her desk. No one else was in the classroom. Ms. Brown could hear the children as she worked and testified that she could have heard them go out of the room because the front ramp squeaks. She also could have seen them through the windows. Ms. Brown was adamant that she knew the children in her class and she knew where these two children were, sitting there waiting on their bus. This was their daily routine, and there was nothing unusual about this day other than Mr. Burkett's entrance. Ms. Brown testified that Mr. Burkett said nothing about his concerns for the children's safety at the time. The only discussion was "something about the cubbies." Mr. Burkett came to the room the next morning and said the cubbies had to be moved. He and Ms. Brown moved the cubbies before the children arrived, making the door more visible from Ms. Brown's desk. Ms. Brown testified that the room had been arranged the same way since school started in August and that she was concerned because consistency is vitally important to students who are functioning at the level of 18 to 24 months of age. Any change to their environment can throw off their routines and cause them to have bad days. Ms. Brown did not believe that moving the cubbies was necessary. As to the events of February 21, 2008, assistant principal Sharon Neal testified that she went to observe Ms. Brown's classroom on that date. As she walked in, Ms. Neal saw Ms. Brown sitting at her computer. She asked Ms. Brown how many students were in the class, and was told that all the students were present. Ms. Neal counted the students, then recounted them. Then she told Ms. Brown and Ms. Staton that if everybody is here today, then someone is missing. Ms. Brown and Ms. Staton began to count, then began searching the room. After a minute or two of searching, they wondered if perhaps Student D. was in the bathroom.6 They opened the bathroom door and found Student D. Ms. Neal discussed with Ms. Brown and Ms. Staton what could have happened with the child going missing for a period of several minutes. Ms. Brown testified that when Ms. Neal stated that a child was missing, she responded that the child had to be somewhere in the classroom. She knew this because the front door was equipped with a buzzer that went off when the door was opened, and Ms. Brown's desk was next to the back door. She and Ms. Staton scanned the portable and quickly concluded that the child must be in the bathroom. Ms. Brown testified that Student D. was a very large child whose functional age was eight months. She wore pull-up diapers, though it was becoming difficult to find diapers to fit the child. Ms. Brown and the child's mother had been working diligently on potty training the Student D. This was the first time she had gone to the bathroom on her own. Ms. Staton confirmed their surprise at finding Student D. on the potty, because they did not believe her capable of going to the bathroom alone. Ms. Staton conceded that neither she nor Ms. Brown knew where the child was before Ms. Neal noted that a student was missing. As to the events of February 22, 2008, Mr. Burkett testified that there had been an insect problem in the portable, and therefore an exterminator had been called. As Mr. Burkett walked the exterminator down to the classroom, he noticed the door of the portable was "wide open." Two Pre-K students were running down the ramp, and one of them tripped and fell. Mr. Burkett was concerned for the student's safety, but the child popped up and started running again. Mr. Burkett estimated that another 30 seconds passed before Ms. Brown came out of portable, "yelling for the kid to get back inside." Mr. Burkett noted that this was yet another incident in which "the door was open, the kids were on the loose, and not properly supervised." Ms. Brown testified that the students were working at their regular daily schedules when the phone rang in the classroom. The school secretary was calling to tell Ms. Brown that Mr. Burkett and the exterminator were on their way to spray the classroom. The secretary told Ms. Brown that she needed to have the children out of the portable by the time Mr. Burkett and the exterminator arrived. Ms. Brown and Ms. Staton began trying to quickly move the students out of the portable. Ms. Staton secured the women's purses, then went outside to unlock the shed on the playground as instructed by the secretary. Meanwhile, Ms. Brown was lining up the children to proceed out the door. Ms. Brown turned momentarily to get diapers from the changing table. As she turned, two of the children took off and ran out the door. Ms. Brown testified that these were two boys who were prone to running away. She knew who they were because she could hear them laughing. She turned and ran to the door and called their names. When she got to the ramp, Mr. Burkett was helping one of them up from where he fell. Ms. Brown testified that it usually takes from five to ten minutes to line up the children, get the diapers and other supplies, and proceed out the door as a class even when the move is planned, and she has Ms. Staton to help with the children. In this situation, she was moving the children on short notice, and Ms. Staton was busy securing the purses and unlocking the shed. There is no real contradiction between Mr. Burkett's and Ms. Brown's versions of this incident, save for Mr. Burkett's estimate that 30 seconds passed between the time the student fell on the ramp and Ms. Brown appeared at the door of the portable. It is found that Mr. Burkett's estimate of the time is likely exaggerated due to his dismay at the situation and that Ms. Brown in all likelihood came out the door only a few seconds after the boys. Ms. Brown's version of events, while credible, calls her judgment into question. She described a somewhat frantic decampment from the portable, as if she believed Mr. Burkett would order the exterminator to begin spraying whether or not the children were out of the classroom. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Burkett would not have preferred a slow but orderly procession to the scene he encountered. Except where noted in the above findings of fact, Ms. Brown did not contest the factual allegations made against her. Ms. Brown's defense was twofold. First, the great majority of incidents cited as grounds for discipline were run of the mill occurrences in a Pre-K ESE classroom. Second, the sheer number of disciplinary actions establish a concerted effort by Mr. Burkett to build a record against Ms. Brown by seizing any opportunity to find fault with her job performance. As to her first defense, Ms. Brown testified as follows regarding the four incidents described in Mr. Burkett's letter recommending termination: Those are things that can happen at any moment at any time in an ESE Pre-K classroom. There's children that pull away from their teachers, their parents. These children are sent to our room to get some structure, and to help them to cognitively, socially, behaviorally develop, because they are delayed in all that development. Ms. Brown's point is valid as to some of the disciplinary incidents cited in the termination letter. The February 19, 2008, incident essentially involved a difference of opinion between Mr. Burkett and Ms. Brown. He believed that she should have the children in her line of vision at all times. She believed it was safe to be able to hear what the two children were doing and testified that this had been her daily practice all year. The February 21, 2008, incident was a matter of Student D. unexpectedly taking the initiative to go to the bathroom alone. The February 22, 2008, incident involving the exterminator was simply a matter of two students bolting for the door as soon as Ms. Brown's back was turned, something that could happen at any time with a group of Pre-K children. Ms. Brown is correct when she argues that the events of February 19 through February 22, 2008, standing alone, would provide slim grounds for the dismissal of a veteran ESE teacher. However, these events were not the sole factual basis for the School Board's decision to terminate Ms. Brown's employment. The termination letter makes clear that the School Board considered these events to be emblematic of a long history of Ms. Brown's "pattern of failing to properly supervise the students under your care." The termination letter references all of Ms. Brown's previous suspensions and, expressly, references Ms. Brown's insubordination in entering the campus during her suspension despite Mr. Burkett's directive that she was not to come onto campus for any reason during that time. Ms. Brown had been suspended five times between March 14, 2007 and February 12, 2008. The March 14, 2007, suspension was for insubordination regarding the use of her personal cell phone. The April 18, 2007, suspension was for a physical altercation with a high school student, followed by Ms. Brown's leaving the campus in pursuit of the student. The September 10, 2007, suspension was for the inappropriate use of a high chair for student discipline, resulting in the student's falling while strapped into the chair. The January 30, 2008, suspension was for leaving the campus for personal reasons, without permission or notice to the administration, resulting in confusion as to whether a student was on the correct bus. The February 12, 2008, suspension was for Ms. Brown's failure to complete student progress reports. The events of February 19 through February 22, 2008, must be viewed in light of Ms. Brown's disciplinary history since at least her first suspension on March 14, 2007. In that light, these relatively minor events indicated to Mr. Burkett and the School Board that Ms. Brown's performance showed no prospects of improving. A consistent theme throughout Ms. Brown's disciplinary history, in addition to her continuing insubordination, was her failure to adequately supervise the children in her care. The fact no child was seriously injured in any of these events was fortuitous, not a reason to minimize or overlook Ms. Brown's often casual approach to minding these very young ESE students. The School Board had taken every disciplinary action available to it under the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement, including multiple suspensions short of moving for termination. This last point addresses Ms. Brown's second argument, that the number of disciplinary events indicates a vendetta on the part of Mr. Burkett. No evidence was offered that Mr. Burkett bore any personal animus toward Ms. Brown. The evidence indicated that Ms. Brown was under additional scrutiny because of her disciplinary history. The evidence further indicated that Mr. Burkett made reasonable effort to assist Ms. Brown in improving her performance, including the establishment of a PDP and the appointment of a team of professionals to observe her class and offer advice. The number of disciplinary events indicates, if anything, forbearance on the part of Mr. Burkett and the School Board, imposing multiple suspensions rather than moving precipitously to the final step of termination. The evidence did not establish that Mr. Burkett was motivated by anything other than the desire to ensure the safety of the students at Spook Hill.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Deana Brown as a teacher at Spook Hill Elementary School. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact One of the statutory duties of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") is to evaluate the performance of every teacher employed in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"), at least once per year. To accomplish this, the Board uses a personnel assessment system known as "PACES," which is an acronym for Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. PACES is the product of collective bargaining between the Board and the teachers' union, and it has been duly approved by the Florida Department of Education. The Board's evaluation procedure begins with an observation of the subject teacher, conducted by an administrator trained in the use of PACES. On a score sheet called the Observation Form for Annual Evaluation ("OFAE"), the evaluator rates the teacher's performance on 44 independently dispositive "indicators." The only grades assignable to the respective indicators are "acceptable" and "unacceptable"; thus, the evaluator's decision, for each indicator, is binary: yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down.1 A negative mark on any one of the 44 indicators results in an overall performance evaluation of "unsatisfactory." For the teacher under observation, therefore, each indicator constitutes, in effect, a pass/fail test, with his or her job hanging in the balance. If the teacher passes all 44 of the independently dispositive indicators, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory" and the evaluative process is complete. If, on the other hand, the teacher is given a failing grade on one or more of the 44 indicators and hence adjudged an unsatisfactory performer, then the initial observation is deemed to be "not of record" (i.e. inoperative) and a follow-up, "for the record" evaluation is scheduled to occur, upon notice to the affected teacher, about one month later. In the meantime, the teacher is offered the assistance of a Professional Growth Team ("PGT"), a group of peers who, having received special training in PACES, are in a position to help the affected teacher correct performance deficiencies in advance of the follow-up evaluation. The follow-up evaluation is conducted in the same manner as the initial "not of record" evaluation. If the teacher passes all 44 indicators, then his performance is deemed satisfactory and the evaluative process is complete. If he fails one or more of the indicators, however, then the teacher is placed on probation for a period of 90 calendar days (excluding vacations and holidays). The probation period is preceded by a formal Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), at which notice of the specific performance deficiencies is provided to the teacher. As well, the teacher is given a Professional Improvement Plan ("PIP"), wherein particular remedial tasks, intended to help the teacher correct the noted performance deficiencies, are assigned. During the performance probation, the teacher must be formally observed at least twice, by an evaluator using the OFAE. If, on any of these probationary observations, the teacher fails at least one indicator, then another PIP is prepared and offered. Within 14 days after the end of probation, a "confirmatory evaluation" is conducted, using the OFAE. The purpose of the confirmatory evaluation is to determine whether the noted performance deficiencies were corrected. If they were, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory." If not, the principal then makes a recommendation to the superintendent whether to continue or terminate the teacher's employment. As mentioned above, a PACES evaluation takes account of 44 crucial indicators.2 The indicators are organized under "components." The 44 outcome determinative indicators fall within 21 components, which are identified on the OFAE. These components are organized, in turn, under "domains," of which six are identified on the OFAE. Each domain has been assigned a Roman numeral identifier: I through VI. The components are distinguished alphabetically: A, B, C, etc. The indicators are numbered using Arabic numerals. Each specific indicator is named according to the Roman numeral of its domain, the letter of its component, and its own Arabic number. Thus, for example, the first indicator under Component A of Domain I is referred to as "I.A.1." Notwithstanding the PACES taxonomy, the classifications of "domain" and "component" are useful only as a means of organizing the indicators. This is because a teacher does not pass or fail a performance evaluation at the domain level or at the component level; rather, he passes or fails at the indicator level, for, again, each of the 44 indicators is independently dispositive under PACES.3 Thus, each of the determinative 44 indicators is of precisely equal weight. None is more important or less important than another.4 B. At all times material to this case, Respondent Sergio H. Escalona ("Escalona") was a teacher in the District. From 2000 until May 19, 2004, when the Board suspended him pending termination of employment, Escalona was a science teacher at Miami Springs Senior High School ("Miami Springs"), a typical high school in the District. During the 2003-04 school year, an evaluator observed Escalona in his classroom on five separate occasions, each time using the OFAE. The dates of these evaluations were, and the names of the respective evaluators are, as follows: Evaluation Date Evaluator November 5, 2003 Carlos M. del Cuadro, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs December 2, 2003 Mr. del Cuadro January 16, 2004 Douglas P. Rodriguez, Principal, Miami Springs February 17, 2004 Deborah Carter, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs April 5, 2004 Mr. Rodriguez The Board contends that Escalona failed all five evaluations; the first, however, was deemed "not of record" and thus is relevant only insofar as it opened the door to the process that followed. The following table shows, for each evaluation (including the first), the indicators that the respective evaluators thought Escalona had failed: IA1 IA2 IB1 IB3 IE3 IF1 IF2 IIA1 IIA3 IIB2 IIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x 01-16-04 x x x 02-17-04 x x x x 04-05-04 x x x IID1 IID3 IID4 IIE1 IIE2 IIE5 IIIA1 IIIA3 IIIB1 IIIB3 IIIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x 01-16-04 x x 02-17-04 x 04-05-04 x x x x x IVA3 IVA 5 IVA6 IVB1 IVB2 IVB 3 IVC2 IVD1 IVD3 IVD6 IVE2 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x 02-17-04 x x x x x 04-05-04 x ? x ? x ? x x IVE4 VA1 VA4 VB1 VB2 VC1 VIA2 VIB1 VIB3 VIC2 VIC4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x x 02-17-04 04-05-04 x ? ? ? x ? x x Because Mr. del Cuadro identified 10 performance deficiencies on December 2, 2003, Escalona was placed on performance probation, pursuant to the procedure described in detail above. Mr. Rodriguez held a CFR on December 9, 2004, to review with Escalona the identified deficiencies and explain the procedures relating to the 90-day probation. Following the CFR, Escalona was given written notice of unsatisfactory performance, in the form of a Summary of Conference-For-The-Record And Professional Improvement Plan (PIP), dated December 9, 2003 ("Summary"). In the Summary, Mr. Rodriguez charged Escalona with failure to satisfactorily perform the following PACES indicators: II.B.4, II.E.5, III.B.3, IV.A.5, IV.B.1, IV.D.1, V.A.1, V.A.4, V.B.1, and VI.A.2. (These 10 indicators are highlighted vertically in the table above.) At the same time, Escalona was given a PIP, and a PGT was assembled to provide assistance. Following the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, based on which Mr. Rodriguez identified 24 deficiencies as shown in the table above, Mr. Rodriguez notified the superintendent that Escalona had failed to correct noted performance deficiencies during a 90-day probation and recommended that Escalona's employment be terminated. The superintendent accepted Mr. Rodriguez's recommendation on April 12, 2004, and shortly thereafter notified Escalona of his decision to recommend that the Board terminate Escalona's employment contract. On May 19, 2004, the Board voted to do just that. C. Of the four evaluations "for the record," the two that were conducted during Escalona's probation (on January 16, 2004, and February 17, 2004) are presently relevant mainly to establish that the proper procedure was followed——a matter that is not genuinely disputed. The substance of these probationary evaluations cannot affect the outcome here because even if Escalona's performance had been perfect during probation, Mr. Rodriguez nevertheless found deficiencies during the post- probation, confirmatory evaluation, which is the only one probative of the dispositive question: Had Escalona corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period after the close of the 90 calendar days' probation? In view of the ultimate issue, the evaluation of December 2, 2003, is primarily relevant because it established the 10 "noted performance deficiencies" that Escalona needed to correct. For reasons that will be discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, the Board cannot terminate Escalona's employment based on other deficiencies allegedly found during probation or at the confirmatory evaluation; rather, it must focus exclusively on those 10 particular deficiencies which Escalona was given 90 calendar days to correct. Thus, stated more precisely, the ultimate question in this case is whether any of the 10 specific deficiencies identified in the Summary provided to Escalona on December 9, 2003, persisted after the 90-day probation. As it happened, Mr. Rodriguez determined, as a result of the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, that Escalona had corrected three of the 10 noted performance deficiencies, for Mr. Rodriguez gave Escalona a passing grade on the indicators II.B.4, II.E.5, and III.B.3. The remaining seven deficiencies upon which termination could legally be based are identified in the table above with the "?" symbol. It is to these seven allegedly uncorrected deficiencies that our attention now must turn. The Board contends, based on Mr. Rodriguez's confirmatory evaluation of April 5, 2004, that Escalona was still, as of that date, failing satisfactorily to perform the following PACES indicators: 5: The purpose or importance of learning tasks is clear to learners. 1: Teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. IV.D.1: Learners have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level or to integrate knowledge and understandings. V.A.1: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in developing associations. 4: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. 1: A variety of questions that enable thinking are asked and/or solicited. VI.A.2: Learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks is monitored. The only descriptive evidence in the record regarding Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004——and hence the only evidence of historical fact upon which the undersigned can decide whether Escalona failed adequately to perform the seven indicators just mentioned——consists of Mr. Rodriguez's testimony. Mr. Rodriguez, who had observed Escalona in the classroom for 50 minutes that day, recounted at final hearing what he had seen as follows: Again, there were students that were simply not engaged at all in learning. For example, there was a student that put his head down at a particular time. He slept for about fifteen minutes. Mr. Escalona never addressed the student, never redirected the learning, never tried to engage that student. Overall the students continued to pass notes in class. The students simply——there was really no plan at all. That was get up, give a lecture. Kids were not paying attention. No redirection for student learning. Questions again very basic. Most of the questions had no response from the students. And [they] just seemed very disinterested, the students did, and the lesson was just not acceptable. Final Hearing Transcript at 103-04. To repeat for emphasis, any findings of historical fact concerning Escalona's performance during the confirmatory evaluation must be based on the foregoing testimony, for that is all the evidence there is on the subject.5 Mr. Rodriguez did not explain how he had applied the seven indicators quoted above to his classroom observations of Escalona to determine that the teacher's performance was not up to standards. D. The seven indicators at issue in this case, it will be seen upon close examination, are not standards upon which to base a judgment, but rather factual conditions ("indicator- conditions") for which the evaluator is supposed to look. If a particular indicator-condition (e.g. the purpose of learning tasks is clear to learners) is found to exist, then the evaluator should award the teacher a passing grade of "acceptable" for that indicator (in this example, Indicator IV.A.5); if not, the grade should be "unacceptable." The indicator-conditions are plainly not objective historical facts; they are, rather, subjective facts, which come into being only when the evaluator puts historical facts against external standards, using reason and logic to make qualitative judgments about what occurred. Subjective facts of this nature are sometimes called "ultimate" facts, the answers to "mixed questions" of law and fact. To illustrate this point, imagine that the class Mr. Rodriguez observed on April 5, 2004, had been videotaped from several different camera angles. The resulting tapes would constitute an accurate audio-visual record of what transpired in Escalona's class that day. Anyone later viewing the tapes would be able to make detailed and accurate findings of objective historical fact, including words spoken, actions taken, time spent on particular tasks, etc. But, without more than the videotapes themselves could provide, a viewer would be unable fairly to determine whether, for example, the "[t]eaching and learning activities [had been] appropriate for the complexity of the learning context" (Indicator IV.B.1), or whether the questions asked adequately "enable[d] thinking" (Indicator V.B.1).6 This is because to make such determinations fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the rule of law requires the use of standards of decision, yardsticks against which to measure the perceptible reality captured on film. Another term for standards of decision is "neutral principles." A neutral principle prescribes normative conduct in a way that permits fair judgments to be made consistently—— that is, in this context, enables the reaching of similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time. A neutral principle must not be either political or results oriented. It must be capable of being applied across- the-board, to all teachers in all evaluations. In the unique milieu of PACES, neutral principles could take a variety of forms. One obvious form would be standards of teacher conduct. Such standards might be defined, for example, with reference to the average competent teacher in the District (or school, or state, etc.). In an adjudicative proceeding such as this one, expert testimony might then be necessary to establish what the average competent teacher does, for example, to monitor learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks (Indicator VI.A.2) or to create opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive level (Indicator IV.D.1).7 Other standards might be definitional. For example, to determine whether teaching and learning activities are appropriate (Indicator IV.B.1) practically demands a definition of the term "appropriate" for this context. Still other standards might be framed as tests, e.g. a test for determining whether a question enables thinking (Indicator V.B.1). However the neutral principles are framed, at bottom there must be standards that describe what "satisfactory" performance of the indicators looks like, so that different people can agree, most of the time, that the indicator- conditions are present or absent in a given situation——and in other, similar situations. Without neutral principles to discipline the decision-maker, the indicators can be used as cover for almost any conclusion an evaluator (or Administrative Law Judge) might want to make. In this case, the record is devoid of any persuasive evidence of neutral principles for use in determining, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether the conditions described in the seven relevant indicators were extant in Escalona's classroom on April 5, 2004, or not. E. In this de novo proceeding, the undersigned fact- finder is charged with the responsibility of determining independently, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether, as of the two-week period following probation, Escalona had corrected all of the performance deficiencies of which he was notified at the outset of probation. The only evidence of Escalona's post- probation teaching performance consists of Mr. Rogriguez's testimony about his observation of Escalona for 50 minutes on April 5, 2004, which was quoted above. Mr. Rodriguez's testimony gives the undersigned little to work with. His observations can be boiled down to four major points, none of which flatters Escalona: (a) Escalona lectured, and the students, who seemed disinterested, did not pay attention——some even passed notes; (b) Escalona asked "very basic" questions, most of which elicited "no response"; (c) one student slept for 15 minutes, and Escalona left him alone; (d) the lesson was "just not acceptable." On inspection, these points are much less helpful than they might at first blush appear. One of them——point (d)——is merely a conclusion which invades the undersigned's province as the fact-finder; accordingly, it has been given practically no weight. The only facts offered in support of the conclusions, in point (a), that the students "seemed" disinterested and were "not paying attention" to Escalona's lecture is the testimony that some students passed notes, and some (many?) did not answer the teacher's questions. But this is a rather thin foundation upon which to rest a conclusion that the students were bored because Escalona's teaching was poor. And even if they were (or looked) bored, is it not fairly common for teenaged high-school students to be (or appear) bored in school, for reasons unrelated to the teacher's performance? There is no evidence whatsoever that student boredom (or note passing or non- responsiveness) features only in the classrooms of poorly performing teachers. As for the supposedly "basic" nature of Escalona's questions, see point (b), the undersigned cannot give Mr. Rodriguez's testimony much weight, because there is no evidence as to what the questions actually were or why they were so very basic. Finally, regarding point (c), the fact that a student slept during class is, to be sure, somewhat damaging to Escalona, inasmuch as students should not generally be napping in class, but without additional information about the student (who might have been sick, for all the undersigned knows) and the surrounding circumstances the undersigned is not persuaded that the sleeping student is res ipsa loquitur on the quality of of Escalona's teaching performance. There is certainly no evidence that students doze only in the bad teachers' classes. More important, however, than the paucity of evidence establishing the objective historical facts concerning Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004, is the failure of proof regarding neutral principles for use in determining the existence or nonexistence of the relevant indicator-conditions. Even if the undersigned had a clear picture of what actually occurred in Escalona's classroom that day, which he lacks, he has been provided no standards against which to measure Escalona's performance, to determine whether the indicator- conditions were met or not. The absence of evidence of such standards is fatal to the Board's case. To make ultimate factual determinations without proof of neutral principles, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Escalona.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Florida Statutes. When a teacher contests a superintendent's recommendation of dismissal, as here, the ensuing hearing must be conducted "in accordance with chapter 120." See § 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Fla. Stat. A "chapter 120 proceeding [entails] a hearing de novo intended to 'formulate final agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily.'" Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So. 2d 831, 833 (Fla. 1993)(quoting McDonald v. Department of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)). Thus, the Board's burden in this case was not merely to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators sincerely believed, after conducting a legally sufficient assessment, that Young's performance was deficient, nor even to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators' judgment was factually and legally tenable. Rather, the Board's burden was to persuade the undersigned himself to find, independently, that Young's performance was deficient. Because this case is a proceeding to terminate a teacher's employment and does not involve the loss of a license or certification, the Board was required to prove the alleged grounds for Escalona's dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas County School Bd., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. School Bd. of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Bd. of Lake County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). B. Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, which governs the process for evaluating teachers, provides in full as follows: 1012.34 Assessment procedures and criteria.-- For the purpose of improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory services in the public schools of the state, the district school superintendent shall establish procedures for assessing the performance of duties and responsibilities of all instructional, administrative, and supervisory personnel employed by the school district. The Department of Education must approve each district's instructional personnel assessment system. The following conditions must be considered in the design of the district's instructional personnel assessment system: The system must be designed to support district and school level improvement plans. The system must provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous quality improvement of the professional skills of instructional personnel. The system must include a mechanism to give parents an opportunity to provide input into employee performance assessments when appropriate. In addition to addressing generic teaching competencies, districts must determine those teaching fields for which special procedures and criteria will be developed. Each district school board may establish a peer assistance process. The plan may provide a mechanism for assistance of persons who are placed on performance probation as well as offer assistance to other employees who request it. The district school board shall provide training programs that are based upon guidelines provided by the Department of Education to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities understand the proper use of the assessment criteria and procedures. The assessment procedure for instructional personnel and school administrators must be primarily based on the performance of students assigned to their classrooms or schools, as appropriate. Pursuant to this section, a school district's performance assessment is not limited to basing unsatisfactory performance of instructional personnel and school administrators upon student performance, but may include other criteria approved to assess instructional personnel and school administrators' performance, or any combination of student performance and other approved criteria. The procedures must comply with, but are not limited to, the following requirements: An assessment must be conducted for each employee at least once a year. The assessment must be based upon sound educational principles and contemporary research in effective educational practices. The assessment must primarily use data and indicators of improvement in student performance assessed annually as specified in s. 1008.22 and may consider results of peer reviews in evaluating the employee's performance. Student performance must be measured by state assessments required under s. 1008.22 and by local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the state assessment program. The assessment criteria must include, but are not limited to, indicators that relate to the following: Performance of students. Ability to maintain appropriate discipline. Knowledge of subject matter. The district school board shall make special provisions for evaluating teachers who are assigned to teach out-of-field. Ability to plan and deliver instruction, including implementation of the rigorous reading requirement pursuant to s. 1003.415, when applicable, and the use of technology in the classroom. Ability to evaluate instructional needs. Ability to establish and maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement. Other professional competencies, responsibilities, and requirements as established by rules of the State Board of Education and policies of the district school board. All personnel must be fully informed of the criteria and procedures associated with the assessment process before the assessment takes place. The individual responsible for supervising the employee must assess the employee's performance. The evaluator must submit a written report of the assessment to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee's contract. The evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the assessment takes place. The evaluator must discuss the written report of assessment with the employee. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the assessment, and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or her personnel file. If an employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination. The notice must describe such unsatisfactory performance and include notice of the following procedural requirements: 1. Upon delivery of a notice of unsatisfactory performance, the evaluator must confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance in helping to correct deficiencies within a prescribed period of time. 2.a. If the employee holds a professional service contract as provided in s. 1012.33, the employee shall be placed on performance probation and governed by the provisions of this section for 90 calendar days following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are not counted when calculating the 90-calendar-day period. During the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract must be evaluated periodically and apprised of progress achieved and must be provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies. At any time during the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract may request a transfer to another appropriate position with a different supervising administrator; however, a transfer does not extend the period for correcting performance deficiencies. b. Within 14 days after the close of the 90 calendar days, the evaluator must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the district school superintendent. Within 14 days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the district school superintendent must notify the employee who holds a professional service contract in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the district school superintendent will recommend that the district school board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the district school superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 days after receipt of the district school superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. The hearing shall be conducted at the district school board's election in accordance with one of the following procedures: A direct hearing conducted by the district school board within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of ss. 120.569 and 120.57. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain the district school superintendent's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment; or A hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services. The hearing shall be conducted within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal in accordance with chapter 120. The recommendation of the administrative law judge shall be made to the district school board. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain or change the administrative law judge's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment. The district school superintendent shall notify the department of any instructional personnel who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and who have been given written notice by the district that their employment is being terminated or is not being renewed or that the district school board intends to terminate, or not renew, their employment. The department shall conduct an investigation to determine whether action shall be taken against the certificateholder pursuant to s. 1012.795(1)(b). The district school superintendent shall develop a mechanism for evaluating the effective use of assessment criteria and evaluation procedures by administrators who are assigned responsibility for evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. The use of the assessment and evaluation procedures shall be considered as part of the annual assessment of the administrator's performance. The system must include a mechanism to give parents and teachers an opportunity to provide input into the administrator's performance assessment, when appropriate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant a probationary employee a right to continued employment beyond the term of his or her contract. The district school board shall establish a procedure annually reviewing instructional personnel assessment systems to determine compliance with this section. All substantial revisions to an approved system must be reviewed and approved by the district school board before being used to assess instructional personnel. Upon request by a school district, the department shall provide assistance in developing, improving, or reviewing an assessment system. The State Board of Education shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54, that establish uniform guidelines for the submission, review, and approval of district procedures for the annual assessment of instructional personnel and that include criteria for evaluating professional performance. (Underlining and italics added). Under Section 1012.34(3), school districts must establish a primarily student performance-based procedure (or system) for assessing the performance of teachers. In other words, the method of accomplishing the assessment must be tailored to meet the goal of forming evaluative judgments about teachers' performance based mainly on the performance of their students. In clear terms, then, the legislature has announced that the primary (though not exclusive)8 indicator of whether a teacher is doing a good job is the performance of his students. If a teacher's students are succeeding, then, whatever he is doing, the teacher is likely (though not necessarily) performing his duties satisfactorily. It is plainly the legislature's belief that if we do not know how the teacher's students are performing, then we cannot make a valid judgment as to whether the teacher is performing his duties satisfactorily.9 The statute further mandates that, in assessing teachers, indicators of student performance——which performance is assessed annually as specified in Section 1008.22——must be the primarily-used data. (In contrast, evaluators are permitted, but not required, to make use of peer reviews in assessing teacher performance.) Section 1008.22, which is referenced specifically in Section 1012.34(3)(a), requires that school districts participate in a statewide assessment program, the centerpiece of which is the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). See § 1008.22(3), Fla. Stat. The FCAT is a standardized test that is administered annually to students in grades three through 10. Id. Section 1008.22 is not concerned only with the FCAT, however. Subsection (7), for example, provides as follows: (7) LOCAL ASSESSMENTS.--Measurement of the learning gains of students in all subjects and grade levels other than subjects and grade levels required for the state student achievement testing program is the responsibility of the school districts. Thus, the school districts are charged with developing their own local assessment tools, to fill in the gaps left open by the statewide FCAT testing program. Section 1008.22(5) provides additionally that "[s]tudent performance data shall be used in . . . evaluation of instructional personnel[.]" Section 1012.34(3)(a) prescribes two and only two permissible measures of student performance for use in evaluating teachers: (a) the statewide FCAT assessments and (b) the gap-filling local assessments, both of which measures are required under Section 1008.22. It is clear that Sections 1012.34(3) and 1008.22 have at least one subject in common, namely, student performance-based assessment of teachers. Being in pari materia in this regard, Sections 1012.34 and 1008.22 must be construed so as to further the common goal. See, e.g., Mehl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 1993)(separate statutory provisions that are in pari materia should be construed to express a unified legislative purpose); Lincoln v. Florida Parole Com'n, 643 So. 2d 668, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(statutes on same subject and having same general purpose should be construed in pari materia). When the requirements of Section 1012.34(3) are read together with Section 1008.22, several conclusions are inescapable. First, FCAT scores must be the primary source of information used in evaluating any teacher who teaches an FCAT- covered subject to students in grades three through 10. Second, school districts must develop, and annually administer, local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT. Third, student performance data derived from local assessments must be the primary source of information used in evaluating teachers whose subjects are not covered on the FCAT and/or whose students do not take the FCAT. The absence of evidence in the record concerning the performance of Escalona's students either on the FCAT or on local assessments, as appropriate, see endnote 5, supra, deprives the undersigned of information that the legislature has deemed essential to the evaluation of a teacher's performance. Having neither state nor local assessments to review, the undersigned cannot find that Escalona's performance was deficient in the first place, much less whether he corrected the alleged performance deficiencies in accordance with Section 1012.34(3)(d). Without such findings, the Board cannot dismiss Escalona for failure to correct noted performance deficiencies. C. It was stated in the Findings of Fact above that the Board can terminate Escalona's employment only if, based on an assessment of his performance as of the two-week period following the 90 calendar days of probation, the teacher had failed to correct the particular performance deficiencies of which he had been formally notified in writing prior to probation; other alleged deficiencies, whether observed during probation or thereafter, cannot be relied upon in support of a decision to dismiss Escalona. Standing behind this observation is Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The pertinent statutory language instructs that a teacher whose performance has been deemed unsatisfactory must be provided a written "notice of unsatisfactory performance," which notice shall include a description of "such unsatisfactory performance" plus recommendations for improvement in the "specific areas of unsatisfactory performance." The statute then specifies that the teacher must be allowed 90 calendar days "following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance" to correct "the noted performance deficiencies." Clearly, the "noted performance deficiencies" are the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance described in the notice of unsatisfactory performance. Finally, the statute mandates that the teacher shall be assessed within two weeks after the end of probation to determine whether "the performance deficiencies" have been corrected. It is clear, again, that "the performance deficiencies" are "the noted performance deficiencies" described in the written notice of unsatisfactory performance. See § 1012.34(3)(d)1. & 2.a., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The reason why a decision to terminate a poorly performing teacher must be based solely on the specific performance deficiencies described in the pre-probation notice of unsatisfactory performance is plain: allowing the school district to rely on subsequently observed deficiencies would defeat the teacher's unambiguous statutory right to have 90 post-notice calendar days in which to correct the noted performance deficiencies that triggered probation in the first place. This case exemplifies the problem posed by post-notice deficiencies. The notice of unsatisfactory performance (the Summary) that gave rise to Escalona's probation, which was based on Mr. del Cuadro's evaluation of December 2, 2003, charged the teacher with 10 specific performance deficiencies. By February 17, 2004, when Ms. Carter formally observed Escalona for the last time before the end of probation, Escalona had corrected all but one (Indicator IV.A.5) of the noted performance deficiencies——suggesting that he had made significant improvement. Unfortunately for Escalona, however, Ms. Carter believed that the teacher had exhibited nine deficiencies besides the noted performance deficiencies, with the net result that, near the end of probation, Escalona still had 10 deficiencies. Of these nine post-notice deficiencies, four (Indicators I.F.1, I.F.2, II.A.1, and IV.B.3) were recorded for the first time ever on February 17, 2004. Obviously, Escalona was not given 90 days to correct these four alleged deficiencies. Yet another three of the post-notice deficiencies reported by Ms. Carter (Indicators I.A.1, IV.A.6, and IV.B.2) had not been seen since Mr. Cuadro's initial evaluation of November 5, 2003. This initial evaluation, being "not of record," cannot count as a notice of unsatisfactory performance to Escalona. Hence he was not given 90 days to correct these three alleged deficiencies. For that matter, the remaining two post-notice deficiencies alleged to exist on February 17, 2004—— Indicators II.D.4 and IV.A.3——had not been observed, post- notice, until January 16, 2004, which means that Escalona did not have 90 days to correct them, either. For the above reasons, when assessing whether, in fact, Escalona had corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period following probation, the undersigned focused, as he was required to do, exclusively on the 10 deficiencies described in the Summary, seven of which were alleged not to have been timely corrected. Having determined as a matter of fact that the evidence was insufficient to prove these seven alleged deficiencies existed or persisted, it must be concluded that the Board has failed to carry its burden of establishing the alleged factual grounds for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Escalona of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Escalona be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended; and (c) awarding Escalona back salary, plus benefits, to the extent these accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2004, 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 23rd day of November, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed any of the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 26, 2014, and, if so, what is the appropriate disciplinary penalty?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against holders of Florida Educational Certificates accused of violating section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and related rules. Respondent Erin S. Scheumeister holds Professional Educator’s Certificate 982133. Valid through June 30, 2015, the certificate covers the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages, Exceptional Student Education, and Autism Spectrum Disorders. At all times material to this proceeding, the St. Lucie County School District (District) employed Ms. Scheumeister as an Exceptional Student Education teacher at Samuel S. Gaines Academy K-8 (“Samuel Gaines” or “Gaines Academy”). During the 2012-2013 school year, a typical school day in Ms. Scheumeister’s class ended with a science or social studies lesson which would be presented jointly with the class of Ms. Madelina. Ms. Madelina was another Exceptional Student Education teacher at Gaines Academy, and she and Ms. Scheumeister would co-teach the class. For the science lesson, Ms. Madelina would bring her class to Ms. Scheumeister’s classroom. Ms. Madelina’s self-care aide, Jane Alice Waite, assisted with the joint science lesson. During the 2012-2013 school year, two support staff members, a behavior tech and a paraprofessional, were assigned to Ms. Scheumeister’s class. Ms. Scheumeister is charged with violations that flow from an incident that occurred during a joint science class on Friday, March 8, 2013. The joint science class was conducted, as was customary, at the end of the school day but in Ms. Madelina’s absence because she was absent from school the entire day. In her place was Amy Crossland, a frequent substitute teacher at Gaines Academy. Ms. Crossland also substituted on occasion for Ms. Scheumeister when she was absent and had filled in for Ms. Scheumeister’s paraprofessional aide on more than one occasion so that she was familiar both with Ms. Scheumeister’s class and Ms. Madelina’s class and the arrangement for joint science or social studies classes at the end of the day. As Ms. Crossland put it at the hearing, “It [Ms. Scheumeister’s class] was a challenging classroom, so they [the Administration] would put me in there frequently because they knew I [could] do it.” Hr’g Tr. 11. One of the students in Ms. Scheumeister’s class was R.W., a nine-year-old male student with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Language Impairments. Described by Ms. Crossland as “a sweet kid but . . . a handful,” Hr’g Tr. 12, R.W. exhibited aggressive behavior on a regular, if not daily, basis. Ms. Scheumeister summed this behavior up as follows: He would hit, kick, punch staff, students, knock over desks, fall on the floor, roll around on the floor, knock over furniture. He would do self-injurious behavior such as pinching himself on the arm or he would run over into the kitchen and hit his head on . . . the counter where we have to block him from hurting himself. Hr’g Tr. 102. R.W.’s aggressive behavior was triggered when his routine was disrupted or he became upset. Whenever the trigger occurred, R.W.’s behavior became aggressive quickly. An example of R.W.’s aggressive behavior involved a sink in an island in the kitchen that is either adjoining the classroom or part of the classroom. The sink had a faucet that could be rotated away from a position above the sink into a position above the floor. In moments of acting out, R.W. would swivel the faucet and turn the water on so that water would pour onto the floor. Over the course of the several times that Ms. Crossland was present in Ms. Scheumeister’s class, she saw R.W. turn the faucet on above the floor. Ms. Scheumeister’s response usually consisted of attempts to redirect R.W. to appropriate behavior. By the time of the incident on March 8, 2013, R.W. had swiveled the faucet and turned it on to spill water onto the floor more than once that day. These spills occurred during the joint science class in the presence of students from the two classes of Mses. Scheumeister and Madelina. Immediately after the first time, R.W. ran from the sink and dropped to the floor, which was common behavior for R.W. when he did not get his way or was disciplined. Ms. Scheumeister “raised her voice a little bit,” Hr’g Tr. 13, and her facial expression indicated that her patience with R.W. was wearing thin. Ms. Crossland attributed Ms. Scheumeister’s less-than calm reaction to R.W.’s misbehavior, plus the added stress of the joint science lesson with so many students present in the classroom at once. Ms. Scheumeister did not do anything to R.W. physically the first time he ran the water onto the classroom floor on March 8, 2013. Her reaction became physical, however, when R.W. did it again. Ms. Scheumeister grabbed R.W.’s shoulders with both of her hands. With R.W. kicking and screaming, Ms. Scheumeister sat him on the floor. Ms. Scheumeister pushed and pulled R.W. through the water in what witnesses described as a mopping action. His shirt and shorts became wet. Ms. Scheumeister followed this physical discipline with words to R.W. with the effect that if he thought it was funny to spill water on the floor, she thought it would be funny for him to have to explain to his parents why his clothes were wet. Jane Alice Waite, a paraprofessional aide assigned to Ms. Madelina’s class, observed Ms. Scheumeister push and pull R.W. through the water on the classroom floor. Ms. Waite’s response was immediate. She gathered Ms. Madelina’s students, left Ms. Scheumeister’s classroom with them, and returned the students to Ms. Madelina’s classroom. Ms. Waite did not want her students to remain in the presence of Ms. Scheumeister’s actions with R.W. for fear that they would be upset or become over-excited, a tendency of autistic students. Ms. Waite appreciates that maintaining order in a classroom of autistic students can be a task that is “overwhelming.” Hr’g Tr. 46. Nonetheless, Ms. Waite found Ms. Scheumeister’s method of discipline of R.W. to amount to a loss of control and to be unjustifiable and inappropriate. Morgan Kelly was the behavior tech in Ms. Scheumeister’s classroom the day of the incident. Ms. Kelly confirmed the testimony of Mses. Crossland and Waite. She saw Ms. Scheumeister “proceed with the mopping action dragging [R.W.] back and forth across the water.” Hr’g Tr. 53. Ms. Kelly’s immediate reaction was to offer to change R.W.’s clothing. Ms. Scheumeister reiterated that R.W. could go home wet and his parents can wonder why. R.W. responded to the comment by again turning on the faucet and running water onto the floor. Ms. Scheumeister grabbed R.W. and dragged him through the water again and then instructed Ms. Kelly to put R.W. on the bus wet without a change in clothing. R.W. rode the bus home in wet clothing. The incident with R.W. was not the first time Ms. Kelly had observed Ms. Scheumeister act inappropriately with the autistic students in her classroom. On one occasion, Ms. Scheumeister disparaged her students for their inability to answer questions about a topic at kindergarten level that she had just read to them. On other occasions, Ms. Scheumeister said to some of her students that she intended to “choke them out.” Ms. Scheumeister also on more than one occasion pulled a student’s tee shirt over the back of the chair in which they were sitting so that the student could not get up. Ms. Kelly reported the incident with R.W. to Carolyn Wilkins, the principal of Gaines Academy at approximately 5:30 p.m. on the evening of March 8, 2013, a few hours after it occurred. Ms. Crossland also reported the matter. Rather than to the principal, Ms. Crossland submitted the report to the Exceptional Student Education Department chairperson. In the investigation that ensued, Mses. Kelly, Crossland, and Waite provided written statements. Ms. Waite’s view of the incident with R.W. differed from Ms. Crossland’s in one respect. Ms. Waite was “not sure” how R.W. ended up in the water. But her statement was consistent with the other two statements in that Ms. Waite wrote that Ms. Scheumeister “pulled him in the water two or three time[s] and stated she was not going to change him and he was going home wet and he got on the bus wet.” Pet’r’s Ex. 4. In the wake of the report from Ms. Kelly, Ms. Wilkins called the assistant superintendent of Human Resources. The assistant superintendent directed Principal Wilkins to call the Department of Children and Families and the school resource officer. Ms. Wilkins did so. She followed up the reports with a call to Ms. Scheumeister. In the conversation with Ms. Scheumeister, the principal informed her of the allegations, and ordered Ms. Scheumeister to report to the District office on the following Monday. The District followed its procedures dictated by reports of a teacher’s inappropriate conduct with a student. The District commenced an investigation, and Ms. Scheumeister was transferred to the District office on what the District refers to as a “temporary duty assignment,” Hr’g Tr. 81, or “TDA.” See Pet’r’s Ex. 7. In keeping with standard procedure, the District hand-delivered to Ms. Scheumeister a copy of a written document entitled “Notice of Investigation and TDA” dated March 11, 2013, the Monday after the incident with R.W. In May 2013, Principal Wilkins sent a letter dated May 29, 2013, to Ms. Scheumeister. It informed her that Principal Wilkins had decided not to recommend Ms. Scheumeister for reappointment for the 2013-2014 school year. An Administrative Complaint was executed on November 7, 2013. On March 26, 2014, Petitioner moved to amend the Administrative Complaint. The motion was granted following Respondent’s notice of withdrawal of her opposition to the amendment. A section of the Amended Administrative Complaint entitled “MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS” contains three paragraphs, numbered 3, 4, and 5. Paragraph 3 alleges: Respondent twice grabbed R.W., a 9-year-old student diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Language Impairment, and dragged him across the floor in an attempt to mop up a puddle of water that R.W. had spilled. During this, Respondent stated to the student, “You think it is funny to flood the room? Well, I think its funny your clothes are wet.” When another school personnel offered to change R.W.’s clothes, Respondent refused to allow it and commented she wanted R.W. to go home with wet clothes. Paragraph 4 alleges: Respondent made inappropriate comments or actions to her nine (9) students, who are diagnosed with Autism, including but not limited to, “I’m going to choke you out”; “That’s a kindergarten book and you (students) are not as smart as kindergarteners”; “It’s ok his (student’s) pants are too tight, he shouldn’t reproduce,”; putting student’s over their chairs to prevent them from getting out of their chair and yelling at students. Amended Administrative Complaint, executed March 26, 2014, EPC Case No. 123-2596. Paragraph 5 alleges that following an investigation, Ms. Scheumeister’s “employment contract was non- renewed for the 2013-2014 school year.” On the basis of the material allegations, the Amended Administrative Complaint charged Ms. Scheumeister as follows: STATUTE VIOLATIONS COUNT 1: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board of Education. COUNT 2: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board. COUNT 3: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules. RULE VIOLATIONS COUNT 4: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. COUNT 5: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Ms. Scheumeister requested a formal hearing before DOAH on an Election of Rights form in which she disputed all allegations of the Administrative Complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Office of Professional Practices Services filed the case with the EPC, and the EPC announced in a letter dated March 11, 2014, that it would forward the case to DOAH.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s educator’s certificate be revoked for a period of not less than five years and that an appropriate fine be levied for each count. If Respondent, when eligible, reapplies for an educator’s certificate and receives one, a condition of the certificate should be probation for a period of five years with additional conditions appropriate to the facts of this case to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 8th day of September, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Lois S. Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 (eServed) Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street, Suite E Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether the allegations contained in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner are true, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board has employed Dr. Whalen since 1997. She first worked as a teacher at Gladys Morse Elementary School. When Morse closed she was transferred to Taylor Elementary School, a new school. She continued teaching at Taylor Elementary School until January 19, 2005. Her employment was pursuant to a professional services contract. Dr. Whalen holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 530568. Dr. Whalen has been confined to a wheelchair for almost 55 years. She cannot move her lower extremities and she is without feeling in her lower extremities. On January 19, 2005, she was approximately 58 years of age. During times pertinent Dr. Whalen taught a "varying exceptionalities" class. A "varying exceptionalities" class is provided for students who have a specific learning disability, or have emotional difficulties, or who have a physical handicap. She has been an exceptional student education teacher for about 20 years. She has never been disciplined by an employer during her career. In addition to her teaching activities she is also County Coordinator for the Special Olympics. The Commissioner of Education is the chief educational officer of the state and is responsible for giving full assistance to the State Board of Education in enforcing compliance with the mission and goals of the K-20 education system. The State Board of Education's mission includes the provision of certification requirements for all school-based personnel. The Education Practices Commission is appointed by the State Board of Education and has the authority to discipline teachers. Nonviolent Crisis Intervention Kathy Kriedler is currently a teacher at Taylor Elementary School. She is certified in teaching emotionally impaired children and has taught emotionally impaired children in Taylor County since 1983. She is an outstanding teacher who was recently named Taylor County Elementary School Teacher of the Year and Taylor County District Teacher of the Year. Ms. Kriedler is a master level instructor in Nonviolent Crisis Intervention, which is a program of the Crisis Prevention Institute. The use of skills associated with the program is generally referred to as CPI. CPI arms teachers with the skills necessary to de-escalate a crisis involving a student, or, in the event de-escalation fails, provides the skills necessary to physically control students. Ms. Kriedler has been the School Board's CPI teacher since 1987. CPI teaches that there are four stages of crisis development and provides four staff responses to each stage. These stages and responses are: (1) Anxiety-Supportive; (2) Defensive-Directive; (3) Acting Out Person-Nonviolent Physical Crisis Intervention; and (4) Tension Reduction- Therapeutic Rapport. The thrust of CPI is the avoidance of physical intervention when possible. The CPI Workbook notes that, "The crisis development model . . . is an extremely valuable tool that can be utilized to determine where a person is during an escalation process." It then notes, helpfully, "Granted, human behavior is not an orderly 1-4 progression." The CPI Workbook provides certain responses for a situation that has devolved into violence. CPI physical control techniques include the "children's control position" which is also referred to as the "basket hold." CPI also provides a maneuver called the "bite release" which is used when a child bites a teacher and the "choke release" which is used when a child chokes a teacher. CPI specifically forbids sitting or lying on a child who is lying on the floor because this could cause "positional asphyxia." In other words, an adult who lies upon a child could prevent a child from breathing. CPI holds are not to be used for punishment. The School Board encourages teachers to learn and apply CPI in their dealings with students. The use of CPI is not, however, mandatory School Board policy nor is it required by the State Board of Education. Dr. Whalen took and passed Ms. Kriedler's CPI course and took and passed her refresher course. She had at least 16 hours of instruction in CPI. She could not accomplish some of the holds taught because of her physical handicap. The alleged chain incident Ms. Amanda Colleen Fuquay taught with Dr. Whalen when both of them were teachers at Gladys Morse Elementary School. Ms. Fuquay, like Dr. Whalen, taught exceptional children. Ms. Fuquay's first teaching job after receipt of her bachelor's degree was at Morse Elementary School. At the time Ms. Fuquay began teaching, Dr. Whalen was also a teacher at Morse. The record does not reveal when Ms. Fuqua initially began teaching at Morse, but it was after 1997 and before August 2002, when Morse Elementary merged into the new Taylor Elementary School. During Ms. Fuqua's first year of teaching she entered Dr. Whalen's class. She testified that upon entry she observed a male student chained to a chair at his desk. The chain may have been about the size of a dog choker. She said that the chain ran through the student's belt loop and around the chair. Ms. Fuqua said that she inquired of Dr. Whalen as to the reason for the chain and she replied, in perhaps a joking way, that the student wouldn't sit down. The evidence does not reveal when this occurred or even in what year it occurred. The evidence does not reveal the name of the alleged victim. The evidence does not reveal the victim's response to being chained to the chair. The evidence does not reveal whether Dr. Whalen chained the child or if someone else chained the child or if it just appeared that the child was chained. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide for school years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001, and she testified at the hearing. She did not mention this incident. Ms. Fuqua could not discern if this was a serious matter or whether it was some sort of a joke. She said, "I didn't have a clue." Ms. Fuqua failed to report this incident because she was new to teaching and she had not, "learned the ropes." Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she had ever chained a student to a chair, and specifically denied that she had done it in 1999, which is within the time frame that Ms. Fuqua could have observed this. Moreover, she specifically denied having chains in her classroom. The Commissioner has the burden of proving the facts in this case, as will be discussed in detail below, by clear and convincing evidence. Undoubtedly, Ms. Fuqua saw a chain of some sort that appeared to be positioned in such a manner as to restrain the unidentified student. However, the lack of any corroborating evidence, the paucity of details, and the denial of wrong-doing by Dr. Whalen prevents a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of maltreatment. The alleged incident involving S.A. On August 13, 1998, at Morse, Ms. Kriedler was called by Dr. Whalen to her class. When Ms. Kriedler entered the class she observed Dr. Whalen holding S.A.'s arms to his desk with her right hand and holding the hair of his head by her left hand. She stated to Ms. Kriedler that, "If he moves a quarter of an inch, I'm going to rip the hair out of his head." Dr. Whalen also related that S.A. had kicked her. Dr. Whalen also said to S.A., in the presence of Ms. Kriedler, "Go ahead and kick me because I can't feel it." This referred to her handicap. By this time S.A. was motionless. After a discussion with Ms. Kriedler, Dr. Whalen released S.A. and Ms. Kriedler took him to her classroom. Subsequently, Ms. Kriedler requested that he be transferred to her class and that request was granted. Ms. Kriedler reported this incident to Shona Murphy, the Taylor County School District Exceptional Student Education Administrator. Ms. Murphy stated that Ms. Kriedler reported to her that that S.A. was flailing about and kicking when Dr. Whalen threatened to pull his hair. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide on August 13, 1998. She recalls S.A. and described him as a troubled young man who was full of anger. He would sometimes come to school appearing disheveled. He had blond hair that was usually short. Ms. Whiddon has observed him lash out at others with his hands. Ms. Whiddon was not present in the classroom when the incident described by Ms. Kriedler occurred. However, upon her return to the classroom, Dr. Whalen informed her that she had grabbed S.A. by the hair until she could control him. Ms. Murphy discussed the incident with Principal Izell Montgomery and Superintendent Oscar Howard in late August 1998. As a result of the discussions, these officials decided to video-tape Dr. Whalen's classroom, and to take no other action. Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she grabbed S.A.'s hair. Despite Dr. Whalen's assertion to the contrary and upon consideration of all of the evidence, it has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Whalen grabbed and held S.A.'s hair and threatened to pull it out. Grabbing a student's hair is not an approved CPI hold. However, at the time this occurred Dr. Whalen was not required to use CPI methods. Grabbing a student's hair is generally unacceptable conduct unless, for instance, it is done in self- defense, or in order to protect the student or others. It has been not been proven by clear and convincing evidence that grabbing S.A.'s hair was impermissible. Dr. Whalen told Ms. Kriedler that S.A. had been kicking her. This statement raises the possibility that the action was initiated as a self-defense measure. When one considers that Dr. Whalen has limited mobility, and that her aide was not present, she was permitted to take reasonable actions to defend herself. Grabbing a student's hair may have been reasonable under the circumstances and, in the event, the record does not provide enough evidence to permit a determination. The video-tape of November 20, 2002 A video-tape, that included audio, and which was made part of the record of the case, portrays events on the morning of November 20, 2002. The video-tape was brought to the attention of the school administration by a parent who had received the video-tape from Dr. Whalen. The picture quality of the video is satisfactory but the audio is derived from a microphone near Dr. Whalen's desk. Therefore, it is clear that the microphone did not record all of the words spoken in the classroom at the time and date pertinent. Accordingly, facts found as a result of viewing the video-tape are limited to those which are clearly depicted by it. The School Board had discussed the wearing of apparel with representations of the Confederate battle flag on them in a meeting immediately prior to November 20, 2002. Early in the morning of November 20, 2002, there was a discussion with regard to the School Board deliberations among some of Dr. Whalen's students. The discussion came close to degenerating into physical conflict. This was reported to Dr. Whalen's aide, Ruth Ann Austin. It was further reported that some students called some of their fellow students "rebels," and others called other students "Yankees" and "gangsters." Assistant Principal Verges visited the classroom at the beginning of the school day, at Dr. Whalen's request, and he explained the matters discussed at the School Board meeting. Upon the departure of Assistant Principal Verges, Dr. Whalen unleashed a torrent of criticism upon her students addressing the subject of name-calling. Dr. Whalen spoke to the students in a loud and threatening tone of voice. While delivering this tirade, Dr. Whalen traveled to and fro in her motorized wheelchair. The video-tape revealed that this wheelchair was capable of rapid movement and that it was highly maneuverable. The lecture was delivered in a wholly confrontational and offensive manner. The lecture continued for more than 30 minutes. This behavior was the opposite of the de-escalating behavior that is suggested by CPI. However, Dr. Whalen had never been directed to employ CPI. S.O. was a student in Dr. Whalen's class and was present on November 20, 2002. He was a student of the Caucasian race who had, prior to this date, displayed aggressive and violent behavior toward Assistant Principal Verges and toward Ruth Ann Austin, Dr. Whalen's aide. Some on the school staff described him, charitably, as "non-compliant." S.O. was quick to curse and had in the past, directed racial slurs to Ms. Austin, who is an African-American. Because of his propensity to kick those to whom his anger was directed, his parents had been requested to ensure that he wear soft shoes while attending school. On November 20, 2002, S.O. was wearing cowboy boots and a Dixie Outfitters shirt with the Confederate battle flag emblazoned upon the front. Subsequent to Dr. Whalen's tirade, S.O. slid out of his chair onto the carpeted floor of the classroom. Dr. Whalen instructed him to get back in his chair, and when he did not, she tried to force him into the chair. She threatened S.O. by saying, "Do you want to do the floor thing?" When S.O., slid out of his chair again, Dr. Whalen forcibly removed S.O.'s jacket. Thereafter, Ms. Austin approached S.O. Ms. Austin is a large woman. Ms. Austin removed S.O.'s watch and yanked S.O.'s boots from his feet and threw them behind his chair. Dr. Whalen drove her wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair with substantial violence. Thereafter, Ms. Austin removed S.O. from the classroom. Removing S.O.'s jacket, watch, and boots was acceptable under the circumstances because they could have been used as weapons. The act of driving the wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair, however, was unnecessary and unhelpful. A memorandum of counseling was presented to Dr. Whalen by Principal Ivey on December 2, 2002, which addressed her behavior as portrayed by the video-tape. The S.O. and C.C. incidents Reports from time to time were made to Assistant Principal Verges, and others, that Dr. Whalen engaged in an activity commonly referred to as "kissing the carpet." This referred to physically taking children down to the floor and sitting on them. During April 2003, Dr. Whalen reported to Assistant Principal Verges and Ms. Kriedler that she had recently put two students on the carpet. During the four years Mr. Verges was Dr. Whalen's Assistant Principal, Dr. Whalen reported a total of only about four instances of having to physically restrain students. Dr. Whalen has never told Mr. Verges that she has regularly restrained children on the floor. Dr. Whalen's agent for using physical restraint is her aide, Ms. Austin, because Dr. Whalen's handicap does not permit her to easily engage in physical restraint. Ms. Austin physically restrained children five or six or seven times during the four years she was Dr. Whalen's aide. On four occasions a child actually went to the floor while being restrained by Ms. Austin. One of the two students who were reported to have been physically restrained during the April 2003, time frame was S.M. During this time frame S.M. became a new student in Dr. Whalen's class. S.M. was unhappy about being placed in a "slow" class. It was Ms. Austin's practice to meet Dr. Whalen's students when they exited the school bus in the morning. Accordingly, she met S.M., the new student. S.M. was "mouthy" when she exited the bus and would not get in line with the other children. S.M. and the rest of the children were taken to the lunch room in order to procure breakfast. While there, S.M. obtained a tray containing peaches and other food and threw the contents to the floor. Ms. Austin instructed S.M. to clean up the mess she made. S.M. responded by pushing Ms. Austin twice, and thereafter Ms. Austin put S.M. in a basket hold. S.M. struggled and they both fell on the floor. Ms. Austin called for assistance and someone named "Herb" arrived. Herb put a basket hold on S.M. while Ms. Austin tried to remove S.M.'s boots because S.M. was kicking her. S.M. was almost as tall as Ms. Austin and was very strong. At the end of the day, Ms. Austin was trying to "beat the rush" and to get her students on the school bus early. She was standing in the door to the classroom attempting to get her students to form a line. She and Dr. Whalen had planned for S.M., and another student, with whom she had engaged in an ongoing disagreement, to remain seated while the rest of their classmates got on the bus. While the line was being formed, S.M. and her fellow student had been directed to sit still. Instead, S.M. rose, said that she was not going to wait, and tried to push by Ms. Austin. Ms. Austin responded by asking her to sit down. S.M. said she would not sit down and pushed Ms. Austin yet again. Ms. Austin tried to restrain her and told the other students to get to the bus as best as they could because she was struggling with S.M. and was having substantial difficulty in restraining her. Ms. Austin asked for help. She and S.M. fell to the floor. S.M. was on the carpet. Dr. Whalen slid from her wheelchair and attempted to restrain the top part of S.M.'s body. Ms. Austin held the bottom part of her body and attempted to remove her boots with which S.M. was kicking. S.M. was cursing, screaming, and otherwise demonstrating her anger. Dr. Whalen talked to her until she calmed down. They then released S.M. The actions taken by Ms. Austin and Dr. Whalen were appropriate responses to S.M.'s behavior. The S.M. affair precipitated the C.C. incident. C.C. was a large male student who had no history of violence. C.C. teased S.M. about having been "taken down" by Ms. Austin. C.C., teasingly, told Ms. Austin, that he did not think Ms. Austin could take him down. Ms. Austin said she could put him in a basket hold which she did. C.C. challenged Ms. Austin to put him on the floor and she did. This was considered a joke by C.C. and Ms. Austin. This incident was nothing more than horseplay. As the result of the comments made by Dr. Whalen, addressing the S.M. and C.C. incidents, to Ms. Kriedler and to Assistant Principal Verges, a memorandum issued dated April 7, 2003. It was signed by Principal Sylvia Ivey. The memorandum recited that Dr. Whalen's comments raised concerns with regard to whether Dr. Whalen was using appropriate CPI techniques. The memorandum stated that Dr. Whalen's classroom would be video-taped for the remainder of the school year, that Dr. Whalen was to document each case of restraint used, that she should use proper CPI techniques, and that she should contact the office should a crisis situation arise in her classroom. The J.R. incident On January 19, 2005, J.R. was a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom. On that date, J.R. was a ten-year-old female and in the third grade. J.R. had been a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom only since about January 10, 2005. Dr. Whalen did not know much about J.R.'s history on January 19, 2005. At the hearing J.R. appeared physically to be approximately as large as Dr. Whalen. A determination as to exactly who was the larger could not be made because Dr. Whalen was seated in a wheelchair. Assistant Principal Verges found that J.R.'s physical strength was greater than average for an elementary school student on an occasion when he had to restrain her after she bit another person. J.R. brought a CD player to class on January 19, 2005, and after lunchtime, Dr. Whalen discovered it and confiscated it. Dr. Whalen took possession of the CD player because school rules forbid students to have CD players in class. Dr. Whalen put it in a drawer by her desk. When this happened, in J.R.'s words she, "Got mad." A heated discussion between Dr. Whalen and J.R., about the dispossession of the CD player ensued, but after a brief time, according to Dr. Whalen's aide, Angela Watford, "the argument settled." Even though Ms. Watford's lunch break had begun, she remained in the room, at Dr. Whalen's request, until she was satisfied that the dispute had calmed. Subsequent to the departure of Ms. Watford, J.R. approached Dr. Whalen, who was seated behind her desk working. The configuration of the desk and furniture used by Dr. Whalen was such that she was surrounded by furniture on three sides. In order to obtain the CD player, it was necessary for J.R. to enter this confined space. J.R. entered this space, moving behind Dr. Whalen, and reached for the drawer containing the CD player in an effort to retrieve it. When Dr. Whalen asked her what she was doing, J.R. said, "I am getting my CD player and getting out of this f class." Dr. Whalen told J.R. to return to her desk. J.R. continued in her effort to obtain the CD player and succeeded in opening the drawer and grasping the headset part of the CD player. Dr. Whalen attempted to close the drawer. J.R. reacted violently and this surprised Dr. Whalen. J.R. attempted to strike Dr. Whalen. Dr. Whalen reared back to avoid the blow and then put her arm around J.R. When J.R. pulled away, this caused Dr. Whalen to fall from her wheelchair on top of J.R.'s back at about a 45-degree angle. Immediately thereafter, J.R. bit Dr. Whalen several times. The bites broke Dr. Whalen's skin in three places and the pain caused her to cry. J.R. began cursing, screaming, and kicking. J.R. said she was going to "kick the s _ _ _" out of her teacher. In fact, while on the carpet, J.R. kicked Dr. Whalen numerous times. Dr. Whalen believed she would be in danger of additional harm if she allowed J.R. to regain her feet. This belief was reasonable. J.R. was in no danger of asphyxiation during this event because Dr. Whalen removed part of her weight from J.R. by extending her arms. Upon returning from lunch Ms. Watford spotted T.B., a boy who appears to be eight to ten years of age. T.B. was standing outside of Dr. Whalen's classroom and he calmly said to Ms. Watford, "Help." Ms. Watford entered the classroom and observed Dr. Whalen lying on top of and across J.R., who was face down on the carpeted floor, and who was cursing and kicking while Dr. Whalen tried to restrain her. Ms. Watford ran over to assist in restraining her by putting her legs between J.R.'s legs. J.R. thereafter tried to hit Ms. Watford with her right hand. Ms. Watford grabbed J.R.'s right arm and was severely bitten on the knuckle by J.R. The three of them ended up, Ms. Watford related, "in a wad." Within seconds of Ms. Watford's intervention, Frances Durden, an aide in the classroom next door came on the scene. She was followed by Takeisha McIntyre, the dean of the school, and Assistant Principal Verges. Ms. McIntyre and Mr. Verges were able to calm J.R. and safely separate her from Dr. Whalen. Then J.R. stated that Dr. Whalen had bitten her on the back. Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford went to the school's health clinic to have their wounds treated. The wounds were cleaned and Ms. Watford subsequently received an injection. While Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford were at the health clinic, J.R. was ushered in by Ms. McIntyre. J.R.'s shirt was raised and the persons present observed two red marks between her shoulder blades. Dr. Whalen said that the marks must have been produced by her chin or that possibly her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. She said that she had forced her chin into J.R.'s back in an effort to stop J.R. from biting her. Ms. McIntyre took photographs of the marks. The photography was observed by Mr. Verges. The photographs reveal two red marks positioned between J.R.'s shoulder blades. The two marks are vertical, parallel, and aligned with the backbone. They are from one, to one and one half inches in length. The skin is not broken. There is no wound. Teeth marks are not discernible. A teacher who has many years of experience in the elementary or kindergarten education levels, and who has observed many bite marks, may offer an opinion as to whether a mark is a bite mark. Mr. Verges has the requisite experience to offer an opinion as to the nature of the marks on J.R.'s back and he observed the actual marks as well as the photographs. It is his opinion that the two marks were caused by a bite. Ms. McIntyre, who has also observed many bite marks in her career, and who observed the actual marks as well as the photographs, stated that the marks were consistent with a bite. Registered Nurse Cate Jacob, supervisor of the School Health Program observed Julia's back on January 19, 2005, and opined that the red marks on J.R.'s back were bite marks. J.R. reported via her mother, the day after the incident, that she had been bitten by a boy on the playground of Taylor Elementary School, by a black boy with baggy pants, possibly before the incident with Dr. Whalen. Facts presented at the hearing suggest that it is unlikely that J.R. was bitten on the playground under the circumstances described in this report. T.B. was the only nonparticipant close to the actual combat who was a neutral observer. He did not see Dr. Whalen bite J.R., but did see her chin contact J.R.'s back and he heard Dr. Whalen say words to the effect, "I am going to make you say 'ouch.'" Dr. Whalen denied biting J.R. She stated at the time of the event, and under oath at the hearing, that she forcibly contacted J.R.'s back with her chin. She stated that it was possible that in the heat of the struggle her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. The opinion of the school personnel as to the origin of the marks upon J.R.'s back is entitled to great weight. On the other hand, a study of the photographs exposed immediately after the incident, reveals no teeth marks and no broken skin. The marks could be consistent with pressing one's chin upon another's back or pressing one's teeth in one's back. In the latter case, whether J.R. was bitten may be a matter of definition. Generally, a bite occurs when the victim experiences a grip or would like that experienced by Ms. Watford or Dr. Whalen in this incident. Although J.R. asserted that the marks occurred because of the actions of, "a boy on the playground," given J.R.'s general lack of credibility, that explanation is of questionable reliability. The evidence, taken as a whole, does not lend itself to a finding of the origin of the marks on J.R.'s back. Because proof by clear and convincing evidence is required in this case, it is not found that Dr. Whalen bit J.R. Principal Ivey's memorandum of April 7, 2003, specified that ". . . Mr. Howard and I informed you that we will video-tape your classroom . . . ." Thus it is clear that it was not Dr. Whalen's duty to cause the classroom to be video-taped. It is clear that for many months Dr. Whalen's classroom was video-taped and until the November 20, 2003, incident, none of her actions caused attention to be drawn to her teaching methods. It is found that the assault on Dr. Whalen was sudden and unexpected. Any actions taken by Dr. Whalen were taken in permissible self-defense. J.R. was suspended from Taylor Elementary School for ten days following this incident. Miscellaneous Findings Sylvia Ivey has been the principal of Taylor Elementary for three years. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen three times. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen as "effective," which is the top mark that a teacher may receive. From approximately 1997, when the S.A. hair pulling allegedly occurred, until December 2, 2002, not a single document was created indicating dissatisfaction with Dr. Whalen's teaching methods. Dr. Whalen's normal voice volume is louder than average. She would often elevate her already loud voice, intimidate students and pound on her desk. The aforementioned activities are not part of CPI. On the other hand, these methods worked for Dr. Whalen for 20 years. She was not required to use CPI until subsequent to the memorandum of April 7, 2003. There is no evidence that she failed to use CPI once she was required to employ it. As revealed by the testimony of Dr. Whalen, Ms. Kriedler, Assistant Principal Verges, Ms. Austin, and others, some of these children would strike, kick, bite, throw objects, curse, and hurl racial epithets at their teachers. Teaching some of these children was difficult.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of Counts 3 and 4, that she be issued a reprimand, that she be placed on probation as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.008, for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
