Findings Of Fact Allan Bonilla, currently Principal of Riviera Junior High School, was one of at least two assistant principals who attempted to work with Venus Tara Rodriguez during her 7th grade experience there in the 1984-1985 regular school year. He has been employed four years at that facility. Immediately prior to the winter vacation (commonly known as the extended Christmas holidays), on December 20, 1984, Venus left the campus without prior permission, this activity resulted in a two-day indoor suspension. In February, 1985, she received a three-day indoor suspension as the result of tardiness which culminated in an outdoor suspension the same month because her behavior at the three-day indoor suspension was so disruptive that it was deemed ineffective for her and the other students. In March, 1985, her rude and disruptive classroom behavior resulted in two indoor suspensions. In April 1985, as a result of her refusal to work during the last indoor suspension, she was assigned an outdoor suspension. Mr. Bonilla did not work with Venus as regularly as another assistant principal who was not available for hearing, but he expressed personal knowledge of the foregoing events and had interacted with Venus on several occasions for being out of class and boisterous. His assessment was that Venus could do the work required of her but that her behavior was so disruptive in the classroom that at the conclusion of the regular 1984-1985 school year she was failing two out of six subjects and was doing approximately "D" work in the rest. He agreed with the decision to assign her to an alternative school program, which decision was made because of Venus' need of individual attention and smaller class due to her habit of "acting out" in large groups. Venus' parents were contacted concerning each suspension. Mr. Bonilla testified that Venus has successfully finished 7th grade during the 1985 summer school session at GRE Lee opportunity School and he has received notice she will be reassigned and enrolled at Riviera Junior High School for the 1985-1986 school year commencing in September 1985.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order returning Venus Tara Rodriguez to Riviera Junior High School. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Ms. Wilhelmina A. Rodriguez 4110 S. W. 104th Place Miami, Florida 33165 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1510 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Benita A. Roberts (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the entity charged with the responsibility under Florida law to operate, control, and supervise the administration of all public schools within the Miami-Dade County school district. As such, disciplinary actions against its employees fall within its authority. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner and served as the school cafeteria manager at Natural Bridge. The Respondent has been continuously employed within the school district since 1979. She began employment at the age of 20 and was assigned duties as a pot washer. Later the Respondent rose through the ranks to the position of baker. Eventually, after completing training, the Respondent became a food service manager. Throughout her career she served in various capacities without prior disciplinary action being taken against her. In fact, the Respondent received commendations for her hard work, and her kitchen served as a training place for others. Prior to the incidents complained of herein, the Respondent had served the school district with distinction. The Respondent was assigned to Natural Bridge in September of 1992. For many months prior to December 1999, Adrian Ebanks was employed at Natural Bridge as a part-time cafeteria worker. Mr. Ebanks was limited to 30 hours per week or 60 hours per pay period for compensatory purposes. That is, as his manager, the Respondent was supposed to pay Mr. Ebanks for no more than 60 hours per pay period. To arrive at the 60 hours, Mr. Ebanks was scheduled to work no more than 6 hours per day for the 10 days constituting the pay period. According to the Respondent, Mr. Ebanks exceeded the 60 hours numerous weeks but could only be paid for the 60 hours he was approved to work. According to the Respondent, Mr. Ebanks was a dedicated and hard-working cafeteria helper. Between December 23, 1999 and June 16, 2000, Mr. Ebanks was incarcerated and did not report to Natural Bridge to perform his duties. Nevertheless, because the Respondent believed he was owed time for work performed prior to that time, the Respondent continued to complete the payroll record for Mr. Ebanks as if he had worked on the dates indicated. It is undisputed he did not work during the period December 23 through June 16, 2000. The Respondent was not authorized to complete the payroll record for Mr. Ebanks as she did. If, in fact, Mr. Ebanks was owed for additional time worked but not compensated, she should have contacted a supervisor to approve either additional pay for the hours as they accrued or overtime. In truth, Mr. Ebanks was not eligible for overtime pay. The Respondent sought to reward dedicated cafeteria workers who were, in her judgment, underpaid and hardworking. The system did not allow her to give additional pay beyond the time allocated to part-time workers. Regardless, the Respondent attempted to compensate such employees but did not keep a formal log that would demonstrate the actual hours worked that exceeded the 60 hours that could be compensated. In fact, despite her assessment that Mr. Ebanks was owed for the hours he was paid for while incarcerated, there is no documentation to establish that such hours fairly related to unpaid overtime logged prior to his incarceration. Additionally, no cafeteria worker who might have corroborated the Respondent's conclusions testified with regard to the matter. Moreover, the Respondent did not bring the problem of how to fairly compensate her employees to the attention of anyone until after the allegations of the instant case came to light. And, unfortunately, that was not until a year after the incidents complained of in this case. Not until June of 2001 did the principal become aware of the payroll issues. At that time an individual complained to the principal that the Respondent had paid Mr. Ebanks while he was incarcerated. The investigation of that complaint led to the instant action, a criminal investigation of the matter, an audit, and disciplinary action against Mr. Ebanks and the Respondent. As a result of the payroll records submitted by the Respondent, the Petitioner improperly paid Mr. Ebanks $3,255.48. A conference for the record was conducted with the Respondent on November 7, 2001. At that time, the Respondent admitted she had submitted the payroll records for Mr. Ebanks while he was incarcerated. On February 13, 2002, the Petitioner took action to suspend the Respondent and to initiate dismissal proceedings against her for just cause. The "just cause" was alleged to be deficient and/or non-performance of job responsibilities, misconduct in office, lack of good moral character, and violation of School Board rules dealing with employee conduct. On March 5, 2002, the Respondent pled guilty to official misconduct, petit theft, and grand theft. All of the charges arose from the findings set forth above regarding the completion of the payroll records for Mr. Ebanks. As a result of the plea entered by the Respondent, the court imposed 18 months of probation and required the Respondent to remit fees and costs associated with the prosecution of the case. It is unknown as to whether either Mr. Ebanks or the Respondent made restitution for the $3,255.48 paid to Mr. Ebanks during his incarceration. It is certain the Respondent did not acknowledge that her completion of the time records was contrary to school board guidelines.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order affirming the decision to suspend and dismiss the Respondent from her position as a cafeteria manager with the school district. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Merrett R. Stierheim Interim Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 32312-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Evan Jay Byer, Esquire Evan Jay Byer, P.A. 1999 Northeast 150th Street Suite 102 North Miami, Florida 33181 Luis M. Garcia, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Petitioner was properly "administratively withdrawn" from the Bradford-Union Area Vocational Technical Center, pursuant to the termination letter issued February 22, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Bradford-Union Area Vocational Technical Center (B-UAVTC), is located in Bradford County, Florida, and is operated, pursuant to Section 1001.44, Florida Statutes, by the Bradford County School Board. The Bradford County School Board has adopted rules contained in its "Policy Manual," pursuant to Sections 120.536(1), 120.54, and 1001.42(22), Florida Statutes. Included in these rules is Rule 5.10(4), which reads, in pertinent part: The code of conduct for elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Rule. The "2005-2006 General Catalog of the Bradford-Union Area Vocational Technical Center" (hereafter referred-to as “the General Catalog”) constructively contains Respondent's "Code of Conduct." The General Catalog (Exhibit R-10) provides, at page 10, that “Profanity and rudeness will not be tolerated.” There are rules within the General Catalog requiring timely attendance in all classes, including the following: DRESS CODE/RULES OF CONDUCT Students are expected to dress appropriately for the occupation in which they are training. (Page 10.) There are rules within the General Catalog concerning calculation of absences and tardies, including the following: GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR DAY CLASSES Good attendance is an important key to success in the job world. The same is true of the classroom. Attendance policies are intended to promote realistic experiences in good attendance habits. These are the minimum requirements for all programs. Attendance policies may be more stringent in some programs. Tardies Students entering class after the tardy bell has rung will be marked tardy. Three tardies equal one absence. After three tardies, a discipline referral may be issued. Absences The Attendance Policy is monitored by nine week grading periods. The following policies apply to full-time and part-time adult students: First Nine Weeks August 8 - October 7 Second Nine Weeks October 10 - December 16 Third Nine Weeks January 4 - March 10 Fourth Nine Weeks March 13 - May 24 Students registered for day classes Monday through Friday (five days a week) will be allowed up to five absences in any one nine week grading period. On the sixth absence, the student will be withdrawn. Students registered for day or night classes less than 10 hours a week will be allowed up to two absences in any one nine week grading period. On the third absence, he student will be withdrawn. (Pg. 13). * * * The concept of "administrative withdrawal" is also set out in the General Catalog as follows: Administrative Withdrawal Adult students may be withdrawn immediately by the administration for the following reasons: Discipline referral. Behavior or act that endangers students, staff, and/or faculty, or other inappropriate actions as determined by the administration. The student may not reapply for admission until the beginning of the next semester upon approval of the Director. (Pg. 14). Respondent B-UAVTC operates its Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Program, pursuant to the foregoing rules and policies, and pursuant to a "Student Handbook" (hereafter referred to as the "LPN Student Handbook.") The LPN Student Handbook provides: V. STUDENT PROGRESS C. Clinical Performance Progress in the clinical areas will be evaluated as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, with frequent counseling in areas which need strengthening. At the end of each clinical rotation the instructor will complete a performance evaluation and discuss this with the student. . . . (Pg. 20-21) The LPN Student Handbook provides: V. STUDENT PROGRESS * * * TERMINATION BY "DUE PROCESS" * * * Probation-if there is no improvement it may be necessary to discuss the problem with the Director and to place the student on probation for a period of two to four weeks. During that time, satisfactory performance must be maintained (i.e. no absence, tardiness, test failure or inappropriate behavior will be accepted.) Termination: If at the end of the period of probation there is little or no improvement, the student will be allowed to resign by "due process," or remain in attendance without credit. The school reserves the right to ask a student to withdraw from the program for any of the following reasons. Unsatisfactory academic or clinical performance. Unsatisfactory demonstration of the expected effective behavior. misdemeanor. Ethical and/or social Violation of the attendance policy. Violation of school policies. Violation of Student Training Agreement. * * * c. Dismissal-a student may be asked to withdraw immediately if there is sufficient cause. (Pg. 21-22). With regard to attendance, the LPN Student Handbook provides, in pertinent part: II. ATTENDANCE Policy Attendance-regular attendance is necessary for the student to take full advantage of available educational opportunities. All students shall be counted in attendance when they are: Present in assigned class(es). Participating in a school- sponsored function on or off campus. On an educational field trip. (Pg. 11). The LPN Student Handbook also provides a list of acceptable excuses for an absence, including an emergency in the immediate family, a subpoena by any law enforcement agency, and other justifiable reasons approved by the principal or designee upon prior request. (Exhibit 3A pages 11-12). The LPN Student Handbook provides: VIII. F. PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND GROOMING Jewelry . . . one small pair of stud earrings is allowed. . . . (Pg. 26-27). Clarence DeSue was the Director of B-UAVTC at all times material. Petitioner was accepted into the LPN program of the B- UAVTC on May 11, 2005 (Stipulated Fact). Petitioner began classes in the LPN nursing program at B-UAVTC on or about August 8, 2005. (Stipulated Fact.) On August 8, 2005, Petitioner signed a Student Training Agreement, stating that she had read and understood the rules, regulations, and standards discussed in the LPN Student Handbook; that she would adhere to the attendance policy as written for the practical nursing student; and that if she violated the agreement her continuation in the LPN Program would be in jeopardy. (R-3B). In August 2005, after commencement of the first semester, Petitioner twice parked in a faculty lot that had easier access to her regular classrooms than did the student lot. The administrative employee who requested, on both occasions, that Petitioner remove her car perceived Petitioner's response, behavior, and demeanor as "rude." When Mr. DeSue made a blanket announcement that all student vehicles should be removed from that lot, Petitioner did, in fact, remove her car. The administrative employee involved requested and advised that Mr. DeSue write-up Petitioner for her rude response, behavior, and demeanor. Over the objections of the other administrator, who urged that Petitioner's rudeness should be addressed, Mr. DeSue did not address the issue with Petitioner at that time. Mr. DeSue testified that whenever he had to deal with Petitioner at any time during her enrollment at B-UAVTC in 2005- 2006, Petitioner’s demeanor was always critical of the LPN program, negative towards teachers, filled with allegations of inequalities within the classroom situation, and permeated with the belief that everyone was against her. In August 2005, a wound nurse at one of the clinical sites alleged to LPN Program Director Brenda Trogden that Petitioner had attempted to direct a Resident M.D. on how to dress a wound. Such behavior, if it occurred, would have been inappropriate and insubordinate. However, Petitioner denied the incident, and the issue apparently was never resolved. In September 2005, Petitioner was habitually arriving in the LPN classroom on time, but then leaving to return to her car to move it and retrieve her books. Therefore, on several occasions, Petitioner was, in fact, not ready to learn/work in class for up to 20-30 minutes after the class had commenced. Petitioner presented a doctor's note for one absence and a subpoena for another absence, but she was considered excessively tardy (seven tardies in four weeks) on the other occasions. On September 14, 2005, Petitioner was counseled by Ms. Trogden and given a written warning due to her tardiness and absenteeism. On September 19, 2005, Petitioner signed an "Expectations of Nursing" document, (Exhibit R-3C), which advised her of the administration's position concerning absenteeism, tardiness, cheating, and other issues. Among these “expectations” were the following: I will attend all class sessions and be on time unless there is a good reason not to do so. I will satisfy the course requirements and not expect to be relieved of the obligation to [do] so due to non-emergency commitments. *** 6. I will treat other people with respect even when I disagree with their positions. ANY STUDENT MISSING 31 OR MORE CLINICAL OR 19 OR MORE LECTURE HOURS WILL BE PLACED ON ACADEMIC PROBATION. Although Petitioner signed the foregoing document, she noted that she agreed with Item Eight, the ban on cheating, but questioned some of the other policies. On September 23, 2005, another LPN student requested that Petitioner stop flipping pages in her notebook during a classroom lecture, because Petitioner was distracting others from the instructor, Ms. Trogden. Petitioner refused to move her seat in compliance with Ms. Trogden's request, and Ms. Trogden had to re-assign all seats alphabetically as a result of Petitioner's refusal to remove herself to a seat further away from the complaining student. A blanket amnesty to all students, including Petitioner, with regard to certain tardies and absences helped Petitioner as of October 3, 2005. On October 12, 2005, another LPN student reported to Ms. Trogden and to Mr. DeSue that Petitioner had hit her in the back with a deliberate elbow punch while they were in a clinical setting at a nursing home. Petitioner denied any intentional touching of, or animosity toward, the other student. Petitioner's explanation was that, at most, she had grazed the other student with her clipboard upon entering a patient's room. Ms. Trogden had investigated the incident within two hours of its occurrence the previous day. At that time, Ms. Trogden had observed the accuser's back, which evidenced a red area between the accuser's shoulder blade and her spine. Ms. Trogden later reviewed a doctor's note concerning the injury. Ms. Trogden concluded, within her nursing expertise, that the bruise on the victim's back was inconsistent with a brush by a clipboard. She further concluded that the bruise was consistent with a mechanism of injury by forceful contact with an elbow. However, neither the victim nor two other students present at the time of the assault could state with certainty that Petitioner had struck the blow because they had not seen the blow struck and because they had only seen Petitioner in the near vicinity. Ms. Trogden concluded that Petitioner's explanation that she had unintentionally or inadvertently touched someone with her clipboard at a minimum demonstrated poor body mechanics for a nurse, but also concluded that a deliberate touching by Petitioner had not been proven. On October 13, 2005, Petitioner was counseled by Ms. Trogden and LPN Nursing Program Coordinator Joanne Bracewell, LPN, ARNP, concerning absences and tardies, inappropriate parking, and Petitioner's inappropriate behavior when requested to move her seat on September 23, 2005. Petitioner was evaluated by Ms. Bracewell on October 14, 2005. Therein, Petitioner was cited as setting forth unsatisfactory performance and conduct for the following reasons, among others: poor eye contact and communication skills; assisting a confused patient in the shower without getting additional help; lack of teamwork; and illegible handwriting. These were all patient safety deficits. With Mr. DeSue's concurrence, Petitioner was placed on her first probation from October 14, 2005, through December 16, 2005, (approximately nine weeks). Petitioner viewed this first nine weeks' probationary period as placing her under ever-closer scrutiny and as harassing her. At hearing, Petitioner raised the concept that, according to the LPN Student Handbook, probations were supposed to be no more than four weeks in duration. Petitioner is quite right that only a two-to-four weeks probation period is provided for in the LPN Student Handbook. (See Finding of Fact 10.) However, it appears that this extended probation for Petitioner was intended to be to her advantage. If Petitioner had been re- evaluated on October 28 (after two weeks) or on November 17, 2005, (after four weeks) she still would not have been meeting expectations and would have been subject to termination from the LPN program. Instead, Petitioner was given the entire remainder of the first semester in which to improve her performance. Petitioner also was able to make up missed clinicals before the end of the first semester. This was before the end of the second nine weeks' grading period and during her lengthy first probationary period. Although she had not made up all the academic hours by the end of the first semester, Petitioner was making a "B" academically and could have completed the required academic hours for LPN licensure if she had managed perfect attendance in the second semester. Therefore, Petitioner's first probation ended with relative success on December 16, 2005. Although Mr. DeSue testified that Petitioner was placed on probation again from January 16, 2006, through February 1, 2006, the remainder of the record does not support these dates as dates of Petitioner's second probation. Rather, the four days of clinical observation of Petitioner by Wineford Major, RN, as described, infra, occurred within this time span. An evaluation of Petitioner's clinical competency, dated February 2, 2006, by LPN program instructor Wineford Major, RN, again revealed unsatisfactory performance. (Stipulated Fact.) Among deficiencies in Petitioner's clinical skills observed by Ms. Major, and recorded contemporaneously on the competency check-off list, were deficient communication skills with fellow students, doctors, and patients; excessive record review; deficient knowledge of decubitus ulcers; deficient knowledge of laboratory tests and results; deficient observational skills; and insecurity in the administration of medicines. This evaluation was one of the reasons Petitioner was placed on her second probation from February 2, 2006, to March 3, 2006. Ms. Major was very concerned because Petitioner, an LPN student in her second semester, should have mastered several skills and knowledge areas that Petitioner had not have mastered. While conceding that Petitioner could recite the "six rights" of nursing, Ms. Major did not feel Petitioner was translating nursing theory into nursing performance, either appropriately or speedily enough during the clinicals she had observed. Ms. Major believed Petitioner's lack of proficiency signaled patient safety issues. The ability to administer medications appropriately is an essential part of the LPN Program because it is such a large part of the duties a nurse will perform upon graduation and licensure. Ms. Major had also learned that one of the nurses employed by the clinical site had reported to her superiors that she was uncomfortable in allowing Petitioner to pass medications due to Petitioner's affect and clinical deficiencies. Petitioner was placed on her second probation from February 2, 2006, through March 3, 2006 (four weeks), in part as a result of Ms. Major's assessment of Petitioner's nursing skills. However, this second probation was also based on a conference which included Petitioner, Major, Trogden, and Bracewell, during which conference Petitioner's instructors attempted to counsel Petitioner concerning her deficits and to suggest to Petitioner that probation was an opportunity for her to improve and gain confidence. Petitioner did not wish to hear their criticisms and counseling, and abruptly walked out of that conference without permission. In a hospital setting, Petitioner's abrupt exit and treatment of superior nurses probably would have resulted in termination of her employment for insubordination. On February 3, 2006, Petitioner told Mr. DeSue that Ms. Major believed, and had told Petitioner that, Petitioner had a clear slate or mastery with regard to the required competencies raised on her clincals. Mr. DeSue's investigation at the time, and Ms. Major's emphatic testimony at hearing established persuasively that Ms. Major made no such statement. Mr. DeSue and Ms. Major considered Petitioner's February 3, 2006, statement to Mr. DeSue to be a untruth, as opposed to a misunderstanding. Being truthful in the LPN Program in preparation for being a nurse one day is an essential part of the LPN Program. Having good communication skills, as observed and practiced in the LPN Program in preparation for being a nurse one day, is an essential part of the LPN Program. The counseling memorandum for February 3, 2006, the day Petitioner was again placed on probation, included, among other statements, that Petitioner still had communication and collaboration issues with peers, faculty, agency staff, and patients; lacked foundational nursing knowledge; was practicing unsafe nursing interventions; listed a number of safety issues; and stated that Petitioner "does not demonstrate knowledge of ethical responsibilities." Petitioner was warned orally and in writing that a third probation would result in termination. On or about February 15, 2006, Ms. Bracewell requested that Petitioner remove her earrings, which were about four inches long and dangled to Petitioner's clavicle, because they were unsafe to wear while an EKG practice was in progress. Due to Petitioner's defensiveness with Ms. Bracewell at that time and due to Petitioner's immediate complaint about the earring ban to Mr. DeSue, Ms. Bracewell measured earrings on all her other students and discovered three other students wearing earrings measuring one and one-half inches long. Their earrings and Petitioner's earrings violated the LPN Handbook's jewelry code. (See Finding of Fact 13.) Ms. Bracewell requested of them, as she had of Petitioner, that they also remove their earrings. The other students presented no earring problems. On February 16, 2006, Ms. Bracewell asked to speak to Petitioner in private concerning the prior incidents, but particularly the earring incident. Petitioner refused, in front of the entire class, to meet privately with Ms. Bracewell. As a result, Ms. Bracewell told Petitioner that Petitioner could not take the examination that was about to be given until she had spoken privately with Ms. Bracewell. Petitioner then left the classroom without speaking to Ms. Bracewell privately. When Petitioner returned to the classroom after the examination, she acknowledged that she was the clean-up team leader appointed for the day but refused Ms. Bracewell's order to clean-up the room. Again, Petitioner's refusal of a direct order was made in front of other students. On February 20, 2006, clincials at North Florida State Hospital ended before the usual time, and Petitioner was asked to attend a meeting at a Burger King nearby. The meeting was to include Petitioner, Bracewell, Major, Trogden, and DeSue. The purpose of the meeting was to address Petitioner's current deficiencies in the LPN Program. The Burger King location was selected by B-UAVTC personnel for the convenience of all concerned and to fit into the remaining extra time at the end of the clinicals. Petitioner, Bracewell, Major, and Trogden met at the Burger King. Petitioner had not received much notice of the meeting, and became belligerent while awaiting Mr. DeSue's arrival. Petitioner demanded to have her representative present at this counseling session and her request was denied. Ultimately, Petitioner refused to remain for the conference, stating that her child had been taken to a hospital by her mother due to the child's asthma attack. Petitioner's mother testified that Petitioner's daughter was a severe asthmatic whom she frequently took to the hospital, but no specific date for trips to the hospital were elicited from her. Assuming arguendo that her testimony was meant to include a trip to the hospital on February 20, 2006, Petitioner still offered no medical excuse for February 20, 2006. Petitioner's testimony that she requested to reschedule the February 20, 2006, meeting is not credible in light of the evidence as a whole. Failure to attend the February 20, 2006, meeting as requested by all three of her instructors and the B-UVATC Director was inappropriate and insubordinate under the circumstances. Petitioner's attitude on February 20, 2006, was perceived as rude by those in attendance. Ms. Bracewell recommended that Petitioner be administratively withdrawn because Petitioner was not performing satisfactorily during her second probation and because of Petitioner's rudeness. Ms. Trogden and Mr. DeSue concurred with Ms. Bracewell. Ms. Major was not contemporaneously made aware of this recommendation, but she testified that if she had known of the recommendation, she would have concurred in it, based on her recent clinical observations of Petitioner and Petitioner's walking out of the February 3, 2006, counseling session. (See Findings of Fact 34-43.) On February 22, 2006, Mr. DeSue wrote Petitioner, advising her that she was being administratively withdrawn, as follows: . . . effective immediately you will be discontinued from the LPN class. This termination is due to violation of the student handbook, Section V-E (3)(page 21- 22). In essence, you avoided a discussion with faculty concerning inappropriate behavior, leaving class, not making up tests, and attendance. The Student Handbook states, that during probation, no inappropriate behavior will be accepted. This action will not exclude you from applying for next year's program as an LPN Student. All three of Petitioner’s instructors (Bracewell, Trogden, and Major) described Petitioner as consistently not making eye contact and being unreceptive and hostile to their suggestions and counseling. Her affect was defensive at most times.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Bradford County enter a final order ratifying the February 22, 2006, administrative withdrawal letter. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: DeeIvory Clay 405 East Market Road Starke, Florida 32091 Lisa J. Augspurger, Esquire Bush, Augspurger & Lynch, P.A. 4ll East Jackson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 John Cooper, Esquire Cooper & Adanec 100 West Call Street Starke, Florida 32091 Mr. H.M. Hatcher, III, Superintendent Bradford County School Board 501 East Market Street Starke, Florida 32091 Clarence DeSue, Director Bradford Union Area Vocational-Technical Center 609 North Orange Street Starke, Florida 32091
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Anna Mann, should be dismissed from her employment with the Palm Beach County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Palm Beach County School District. Such authority includes, but is not limited to, the employment and discipline of the instructional staff for all Palm Beach County public schools. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher teaching Family and Consumer Sciences (formerly known as Home Economics). Respondent's teaching duties were at Glades Central Community High School (GCCHS). Respondent received a continuing contract (CC) for employment during the 1974-75 school year. There is no evidence that Respondent elected to accept a professional services contract (PSC) during her tenure with the District. Respondent did not voluntarily relinquish her continuing contract. Consequently, it is presumed Respondent continued employment as a CC teacher until the end of the 1997-98 school year. At the conclusion of the 1997-98 school year, the superintendent of schools, acting on the recommendation of the principal, notified Respondent that she would not be recommended for employment and would not be offered a teaching contract for the subsequent school year. This notice was issued on or before April 1, 1998. Such notice further advised Respondent that her employment with the District would end on June 11, 1998. Upon receipt of the notice that she would not be re- appointed for employment, Respondent timely challenged the termination, and the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings. Thereafter, in accordance with the notice previously provided to Respondent, the District did not offer Respondent a contract to teach for the 1998-99 school year. The District utilizes an evaluation instrument known as the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS) Evaluation. Persons using this CTAS tool must be trained and approved prior to implementing any use of the instrument for teacher assessment. All individuals in this proceeding who assessed Respondent's classroom performance were fully trained and authorized to evaluate Respondent. Those using the CTAS instrument had been trained and approved in its use. Those using other methods of evaluation were also fully trained and approved for evaluation of instructional personnel. While Respondent did not agree with the findings of the assessments, Respondent has not raised any credible challenge to the qualifications of any assessor. The CTAS instrument rates the teacher as "acceptable" for which 2 points are assigned or as "concern" for which 1 point is given. There are sixteen specific assessment areas covered by the CTAS instrument. Thus, there is a possible 32-point score for any teacher receiving "acceptable" in all areas of review. Teachers with less than 28 points are formally directed to correct the cited deficiencies. In May of 1996, Respondent was given an annual evaluation by the Assistant Principal, Mr. Campbell. This assessment noted four areas of concern and yielded a total score of 28 points. The topics of the assessment wherein Respondent showed concern (as opposed to acceptable performance) were: management of student conduct, instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, and establishes an appropriate classroom climate. Because Respondent had received a marginal rating in the prior annual assessment, Dr. Grear directed another Assistant Principal, Dr. Fuller, to conduct a mid-year evaluation for Respondent during the fall of 1996. This mid-year evaluation was conducted on December 6, 1996. On this occasion Dr. Fuller observed Respondent in all three of her classes. The evaluation comments were memorialized on a Florida Performance Measurement System Screening/Summative Observation Instrument (FPMS) form as well as in anecdotal notes of the review. Although Respondent did not have many students in the classes observed (her largest observed class held 22 students), frequently students were off-task and not engaged in the learning process. According to Dr. Fuller, Respondent allowed students to put their heads on the desks, get out of their seats and walk around, and ignore her directions to them. In one instance when Respondent directed students to gather at a table for a demonstration, six of the thirteen attending students paid no attention. The CTAS evaluation for the December 6, 1996, mid-year review yielded a total score of 26 points. This instrument documented concerns in six assessment areas: management of student conduct, instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, establishes an appropriate classroom climate, demonstrates ability to plan effectively, and demonstrates effective written communication skills. Respondent reviewed the CTAS form and executed the receipt of it on December 9, 1996. Based upon the concerns noted in the mid-year evaluation, Respondent was given a school site assistance plan. It was hoped this plan would allow Respondent to improve in the deficient areas. This plan outlined strategies and directed Respondent to perform certain tasks by the progress dates indicated in the plan. Respondent was advised that during the time frame identified in the school site assistance plan she would be observed to determine if deficiencies had been corrected. Over the course of the rest of that school year, Respondent continued to receive school site assistance. Unfortunately, although she was able to improve in two areas of concern, she was not able to remedy all deficiencies. At the conclusion of the 1996-97 school year Respondent still had six areas of concern (albeit two new areas of concern added to four uncorrected deficiencies). Assistant Principal Jean Beehler performed Respondent's annual evaluation at the end of the 1996-97 school year. This evaluation, conducted on March 12, 1997, awarded Respondent a total score of 26 points. The areas of concern noted on this CTAS form were: management of student conduct, instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, establishes an appropriate classroom climate, demonstrates knowledge of subject matter, and demonstrates ability to evaluate instructional needs. To her credit, Respondent had improved in planning and written communication skills. Moreover, she demonstrated compliance with the curriculum framework for her courses. Nevertheless, because there were still six areas of concern at the end of the school year, Respondent was given a district level professional development plan to assist her in the correction of the deficiencies. This district level plan (See Petitioner's exhibits 5, 6, and 8) replaced the school site plan. The strategies and directives of this plan offered Respondent a wider level of resources for improvement. A portion of this plan outlined summer remediation activities for Respondent. As to all portions of the plan, Respondent was given set time frames within which to accomplish various tasks. At all times material to the evaluations and plans adopted for Respondent during the 1996-97 school year Respondent had the assistance of Clarence Gunn, a representative from the Classroom Teachers' Association. Mr. Gunn was aware of the evaluations and recommendations for correction made to Respondent and participated in meetings conducted with the teacher when the annual evaluation was reviewed and when the subsequent corrective plan was implemented. It is undisputed that Respondent was given the entire 1997-98 school year to utilize numerous school resources in order to remedy the deficiencies outlined by the CTAS evaluations from the prior year. Respondent was offered assistance at the school site from administrators and peer teachers, as well as from district support staff. Respondent was permitted to attend various conferences and seminars. Despite the numerous and continuous efforts of school personnel to assist in the correction of the deficiencies, Respondent remained resolved, and improvidently observed to students that the school administration was out to get her job. Although Respondent attended workshops and made some efforts to improve, neither gravamen of the deficiencies nor the remedies necessary to correct them registered with Respondent until the time of hearing. In short, the Respondent did not correct the deficiencies. Students in Respondent's class continued to exhibit unacceptable, out of control, behaviors. They ignored her directions, tampered with her resource materials, and would walk out of the classroom. The mid-year evaluation conducted on December 9, 1997, by the principal, Dr. Grear, mirrored the past CTAS forms in that Respondent still showed the same six areas of concern. The district level professional development plan was updated in January 1998 to again offer Respondent assistance, guidance and timelines for correction of the deficiencies. Among the aids offered to Respondent were full-day workshops (for which substitutes were provided for Respondent's classes), after school seminars, reading materials and videos. Regional personnel, an outside expert, and peer-level teachers were also offered to Respondent. None of these individuals or references resulted in the correction of the deficiencies. In March 1998, Respondent was given her annual evaluation which noted the same six areas of concern. As a result, on or about April 1, 1998, Respondent was notified that the superintendent would recommend that the School Board not renew Respondent's teaching contract for the 1998-99 school year. Perhaps most telling of Respondent's failure to maintain classroom management and to establish an appropriate classroom climate was the testimony of Respondent's witness, Mary Willingham. Ms. Willingham was a student in two of Respondent's classes during the 1997-98 school year. She recited different activities done in the classes but when asked: Did you experience the same kind of disruptive behavior in your classmates, like, throwing books and throwing Crayolas in your other three classes like you did in Mrs. Mann's class? Answer: No, nothing like it was in her class. Even Ms. Rasmussen, the AVDA guest speaker in Respondent's classroom, had to shorten a presentation due to the disruptive conduct of the students while Respondent was present in the classroom. The collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the classroom teachers (the contract) contains several paragraphs Respondent argues are pertinent to this case. Article II, Section G, paragraph 3 of the contract provides: 3. The evaluation shall be discussed with the employee by the evaluator. After the conference, the employee shall sign the completed evaluation form to acknowledge that it has been received. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the evaluation which shall be made a part of the employee's official personnel file. If a PSC/CC employee's performance warrants a mid-year evaluation then such mid- year evaluation shall be completed by December 10 and shall follow all aspects of this Section. If any deficiency is noted on the mid-year evaluation, the Principal shall provide the employee with written and specific recommendations for improvement within twenty (20) days of the employee receiving the mid-year evaluation. The Principal/District will provide assistance to the affected employee in all noted areas of concern and adequate time to improve. Except as provided in this Section, employees shall be formally evaluated once yearly prior to May 31. As to both mid-year evaluations conducted in this matter the Petitioner complied with the provisions set forth in Article II, Section G, paragraph 3. Article II, Section M, of the contract provides, in pertinent part: With the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrong- doing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. * * * Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Section, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended with pay, suspended without pay or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: * * * (d) Dismissal. An employee may be dismissed (employment contract terminated or non- renewed) when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. If the disciplinary action(s) taken includes either a suspension or a dismissal, the grievance shall be initiated at STEP TWO. Pertinent to this case, Petitioner fully advised Respondent of the allegations which resulted in the non-renewal of her CC contract. Moreover, Petitioner fully advised Respondent of the remedies necessary to correct all deficiencies. Finally, Petitioner extended to Respondent a protracted period of time within which to correct such deficiencies. In reaching such conclusions, it is observed that Respondent was provided adequate notice of all deficiencies asserted by the Petitioner, was kept apprised of her progress (or lack thereof) in the efforts to remedy the deficiencies, was given a sufficient number of evaluations by different evaluators to properly and accurately document the areas of concern, and was afforded two school years to correct the deficiencies noted in her evaluations. To her credit, Respondent has, over the course of her employment, provided valuable contributions to the GCCHS community. She has maintained close contact in the community and supported many extracurricular activities. Indeed, it is not subject to dispute that she has been helpful to the school and its community. Such positive contributions do not, however, ameliorate her classroom deficiencies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida enter a final order affirming the decision to not renew Respondent's teaching contract for the 1998-99 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 10th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Annette Himmelbaum, Esquire 6770 Indian Creek Drive Suite 9E Miami Beach, Florida 33141 Anthony D. Demma, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas E. Elfers, Esquire Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Dr. Joan Kowel, Superintendent Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school teacher under a continuing contract of employment. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public school system for Dade County, Florida. Little River Elementary School (Little River) is one of the schools in the Dade County public school system. Respondent began working as a classroom teacher for Petitioner during the 1968-69 school year. She has been employed pursuant to a continuing contract since the 1971-72 school year. Throughout her employment with Petitioner, Respondent was frequently absent from her teaching position without approved leave. During the 1981-82 school year Allen Starke was the principal of North Hialeah Elementary School and Respondent was a classroom teacher at that school. Respondent was counseled about her absenteeism on multiple occasions by Mr. Starke during the 1981-82 school year. Mr. Starke observed that Respondent lacked planning and that her class lacked control because of her frequent absences. For the school year 1982-83, Mr. Starke moved Respondent from her regular classroom to a Chapter One class with fewer students. This move was an effort to cut down the number of Respondent's absences. During the school year 1982-83, Respondent took a leave of absence that lasted more than one year. Mr. Starke had no further contact with Respondent after she took her leave of absence. Margaree Raiford became the principal of Little River, which is an inner city school, in January 1990. Respondent was a classroom teacher at Little River when Ms. Raiford came to the school. Ms. Raiford observed that Respondent's behavior was erratic and that she was frequently absent from school. Ms. Raiford was of the opinion that Respondent had become ineffective as a teacher. Because she had come to Little River after the school year was half completed, Ms. Raiford gave Respondent an acceptable evaluation for the 1989-90 school year. On March 28, 1991, Ms. Raiford wrote the following memorandum to Respondent on the subject of excessive absences: Please be advised that you have been absent from the worksite during the 90-91 school year since February 4th for illness. Since your absence from duties adversely impact the educational environment, academic progress of the students and continuity of instruction, you are herein issued the following directives concerning future absences: Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note presented to this principal upon your return to the site. Upon return to the worksite, you must provide an unconditional medical release to return to full duties. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be requested and procedures for Board approved leave implemented. (Emphasis in the original.) These directives are in effect upon receipt of this notice and are necessary to prevent adverse impact to students and their academic progress and to ensure continuity of the educational program. Enclosed is a copy of Request for Leave form. You must process the leave papers within forty-eight hours upon receipt of this memorandum. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review by the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of disciplinary measures. Ms. Raiford signed an evaluation form for Respondent on May 30, 1991, that covered the 1990-91 school year. She left the evaluation portion of the form blank because Respondent was not at the school site when Ms. Raiford made her formal observation that is part of the evaluation process. Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards was notified of Respondent's absences without leave. On April 17, 1991, Joyce Annunziata, Director of Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards, advised Respondent to schedule a conference with her prior to returning to Little River. The conference was to address Respondent's medical fitness to perform full classroom duties and her future employment status with Petitioner. On May 16, 1991, Respondent was temporarily assigned to the regional office pending her clearance to return to the worksite by the Office of Professional Standards. A conference on the record scheduled for May 21, 1991, did not occur because Respondent broke her foot in an accident outside the regional office on May 20, 1991. Following Respondent's recuperation from her foot injury, the conference on the record that had been scheduled for May 21 was rescheduled for September 21, 1991. Because of a scheduling conflict, the conference for the record was not held until September 23, 1991. The following attended the conference for the record on September 23, 1991: Respondent, Yvonne Perez (a representative of the teacher's union), Ms. Raiford, Dr. Annunziata, and Robert Thomas (the director of the regional office). It was decided that Respondent should undergo medical evaluation to include psychiatric and psychological testing. Respondent was assigned to an alternative work location pending her fitness evaluation. Respondent was examined by Dr. Stephen Kahn, M.D., on October 15, 1991. It was decided that further testing was appropriate and Respondent was referred to Ronald L. Bergman, Ph.D., a clinical and consulting psychologist. Dr. Bergman examined Respondent on November 21 and 22, 1991. Dr. Bergman's report was forwarded to the Office of Professional Standards. Dr. Waldo Ellison, a psychiatrist, began treating Respondent on November 10, 1991, and was still treating her on a regular basis as of April 28, 1993, the date he gave his deposition in this proceeding. Dr. Ellison testified as to the Respondent's psychiatric history, her diagnosis, and her treatment plan. The record failed to establish that Respondent's mental or physical health prevented her from complying with Petitioner's rules and explicit instructions pertaining to taking leave of absence. A report was received from Dr. Bergman and the recommendations that Respondent be transferred was considered. On December 13, 1991, Dr. Annunziata wrote Respondent a memorandum on the subject of her return to teaching. This memorandum provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . Please be advised that your alternative assignment is hereby terminated as of December 20, 1991. Region IV has determined that you will return to Little River Elementary School on January 6, 1992, as no other site is available for your transfer. The recommendations stipulated in the report [from Dr. Bergman] are herein made conditions of your employment as follows: Involvement with the recommended program of therapy is to be monitored by district's referral agency. Acceptable attendance at the worksite must be maintained. Site procedures for provision of lesson plans and materials for substitute teacher when absent must be adhered to in the event of any absence from the site. If it is determined future absences are imminent, leave must be requested and procedures for Board approved leave implemented. Your compliance with the aforementioned directives will be monitored by the Office of Professional Standards as the directives are considered conditions of employment with Dade County Public Schools. Respondent returned to the school site from her temporary assignment following the conference for the record in January 1992. Ms. Raiford had the occasion to issue a written reprimand to Respondent on February 11, 1992, about an incident that is not at issue in this proceeding. Pertinent to this proceeding, the memorandum advised Respondent as follows: "Further incidents of defiance or refusal to comply with a school directive will result in the initiation of disciplinary actions for the record for insubordination." Respondent worked at Little River until March 6, 1992, when she went on unauthorized leave that lasted the balance of the school year. Respondent was absent during the time Ms. Raiford wanted to schedule the observation that is part of the evaluation process. Consequently, Ms. Raiford noted that she was unable to complete the formal evaluation, but recommended that Respondent not be re-employed. On May 19, 1992, Ms. Raiford wrote Respondent the following memorandum on the subject of unauthorized absences from the worksite: Please be advised that to date you have been absent from the worksite since March 6, 1992 for 46 consecutive days. You have not contacted this administrator since April 19, 1992 nor sought Board approved leave. The UTD Contract states: "An employee shall be deemed to be absent-without-leave whenever he/she is absent and has not given prior notice to the appropriate administrator that accrued sick or personal leave is to be used or other leave has been appropriately applied for and approved. Any member of the unit who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence and be subject to dismissal." The employment stipulations given to you from the Office of Professional Standards have not been met in regards to acceptable attendance, notification of absence, providing lesson plans, and processing leave. Based on your neglect of duty, failure to adhere to UTD/DCPS contractual obligations, and violation of employment stipulations, I am submitting a recommendation for termination of your employment. In September 1992, the Office of Professional Standards received reports from Dr. Ellison that Respondent was medically released to return to work. Dr. Ellison believed that teaching at Little River exacerbated Respondent's condition, and he made the request on behalf of Respondent that she be transferred to another school. Dr. Ellison thought she could teach in a more orderly, structured school setting where there is better rapport and less stress. Dr. Ellison wanted Respondent assigned to a site other than Little River, but there was no evidence that Respondent could not teach at Little River because of her medical or mental condition. Because of Hurricane Andrew, Petitioner found it difficult to accommodate Respondent's request that she be assigned to another school site, and Respondent was reassigned to teach at Little River. Dr. Annunziata requested that the principal make sure that Respondent's classroom was cleaned and that the air conditioner filter was changed. Respondent returned to Little River in October 1992. She taught approximately one week and then went on unauthorized leave. She did not leave lesson plans when she left, and she did not obtain approved leave. Respondent did not return to Little River. On November 20, 1992, Dr. Annunziata instructed Respondent to schedule a conference for the record. Respondent did not comply with this directive. On November 30, 1992, Ida D. Whipple, Executive Director of the Office of Professional Standards, advised Respondent that the School Board would take steps to terminate her employment due to her unauthorized leave. On February 17, 1993, the School Board voted to suspend Respondent's employment and to initiate the instant proceedings to terminate her employment. Petitioner established that it had repeatedly instructed Respondent of the necessity to comply with leave procedures and that Respondent repeatedly failed to comply with those procedures. Although Respondent may have had legitimate reasons for being absent from school, she did not establish any reasonable grounds for her repeated failure to obtain authorized leave prior to taking these extended absences. Because Respondent did not obtain approved leave, Petitioner's policies prevented the principal from placing a permanent substitute teacher in Respondent's class. As a result, a series of substitute teachers taught Respondent's class. Petitioner also established that Respondent consistently failed to leave lesson plans during her absences. As a consequence of Respondent's repeated absences, the Petitioner's inability to staff her class with a permanent substitute teacher, and her failure to provide lesson plans, there was no continuity of education in her classroom to the detriment of the students. Petitioner established that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired. Petitioner established it returned Respondent to the classroom after she had been given medical clearance to return to work. Respondent thereafter went on unauthorized leave, which triggered Petitioner's decision to terminate her employment. Respondent's contention that the School Board's action on February 17, 1993, was in retaliation for worker compensation claims that Respondent had filed against the School Board is rejected as being unsubstantiated by the record. Respondent failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of her continuing contract, specifically section 3, which provides, in pertinent part as follows: 3. The teacher agrees to teach the full period of service for which this contract is made, in no event to be absent from duty without leave . . . Respondent repeatedly and intentionally refused to obey the School Board Rules and the explicit instructions that had been given to her to request approval for leave and to provide lesson plans. The instructions were reasonable in nature and given by and with proper authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which sustains the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay on February 17, 1993, and which terminates her continuing contract. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all time relevant hereto, respondent, Delores V Crumiel, held Teaching Certificate No. 342743 issued by the State Department of Education. The certificate covers the specialization of elementary education, grades one through six. During school years 1979-80 through 1984-85, Crumiel was employed by petitioner, School Board of Dade County, as a tenured elementary teacher at West Little River Elementary School (WIRES) in Miami, Florida. Crumiel received a bachelor of science degree in elementary education from Florida Memorial College. Except for a leave of absence during school year 1982-83 due to the death of her husband, she was employed as an elementary school teacher in Dade County for the eleven years immediately preceding her dismissal. WLRES is located in a low socio-economic area of Miami. It has qualified as a Chapter I school, which means it receives federal monies to provide supplementary instruction in basic skills for low-achieving students from the low-income areas of the community. Under this program, instruction is focused on basic skills such as mathematics, language arts and reading, and the teacher has no responsibility in content areas such as science, social studies and health. However, in order to compensate for the lack of content areas, the Chapter I teacher is required to interweave topics from the missing content areas into language lessons in order to give a "language experience" to the students. The language experience is an important part of the federal program. The size of Chapter I classes at WLRES is roughly half of a normal class, and typically numbered from thirteen to fifteen students. It was established that a Chapter I class is easier to teach than a class in the regular school program because of smaller classroom size, less discipline problems, and easier subject matter content. The lesson plans are also easier to prepare than regular lesson plans because only language arts and mathematics are included in Chapter I plans. During the relevant time period, Crumiel was assigned to teach either fifth or sixth grades. By virtue of required classroom observations being conducted by supervisory personnel, Crumiel was found to be deficient in classroom management and teacher-student relationships in school year 1979-1980, deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment technique in school year 1983-84, and deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques in school year 1984-85. After Crumiel declined a School Board offer to relinquish her teaching job, and accept a teaching aide position, the School Board voted on October 21, 1985, to dismiss Crumiel from employment with the Board on the basis of incompetency. This action confirmed her earlier suspension effective October 2, 1985, and she has remained suspended without pay since that date. The Board's action prompted the instant proceeding. Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, thereafter filed an administrative complaint seeking revocation of Crumiel's teaching certificate on the same ground. The two matters have been consolidated for hearing purposes. School Year 1979-1980 During school year 1979-1980, Crumiel was assigned to teach in a fifth grade classroom at WLRES. At that time Dr. John Johnson, II was her principal. Crumiel was formally observed by Johnson on December 4, 1979 and February 26, 1980 when he made routine visits to her classroom to evaluate her teaching skills. On these two visits Johnson found Crumiel to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and teacher- student relationships. More specifically, Johnson observed hostility and screaming in the classroom, and found her "upset, emotional and loud." He described her as being in "total disarray." He also felt the students were "acting out." Because of this, she received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Johnson assigned a systems aide to work with Crumiel in the classroom. Crumiel was also assigned to work with a master teacher during the following summer (1981). The results of this effort are noted in a subsequent finding. Dr. Johnson gave her written prescriptions to help improve her performance and asked that the assistant principal work with Crumiel. A prescription is a course of action that must be carried out by a teacher in order to remediate a deficient performance. This type of assistance continued until Johnson departed WLRES in 1983. During this period of time Johnson received numerous complaints regarding Crumiel's classroom management from other teachers, and had to go to her class on a number of occasions to calm the students. During school year 1979-80, a first-year teacher taught in the classroom adjacent to respondent's classroom. She confirmed that Crumiel's classroom discipline was very poor, and that the students were noisy and disruptive. In addition, even though Crumiel was supposedly a "seasoned" teacher, the first year teacher frequently found Crumiel seeking assistance from her regarding subject matter content and teaching techniques. Despite the unacceptable annual evaluation given Crumiel in school year 1979-80, Johnson continued to recommend Crumiel for employment. However, he noted that Crumiel's performance was going "down" as time progressed, and except for the fact that he was leaving WLRES in 1983, he would have recommended she be dismissed from the school system. C. 1980-83 During the summer of 1981, Dr. Johnson assigned crumiel to team teach with Alstene McKinney, a master teacher, so that Crumiel could learn some ideas and techniques from McKinney. They taught two regular size classes of twenty-five to thirty Chapter I students in a pod. A pod is a free standing building utilizing the open space concept where a number of classrooms are separated by partitions. At least two classrooms would share common bathrooms and water fountain facilities. McKinney observed that Crumiel has a problem with classroom management, and that her class was always noisy. On various occasions McKinney had to stop teaching and ask Crumiel's students to quiet down. On one occasion McKinney observed Crumiel instructing her students that a quarter past the hour meant 25 minutes after the hour. When she later mentioned it to Crumiel, Crumiel corrected herself and said, "I meant 20 minutes after." Crumiel's husband unexpectedly died on September 1, 1982, from injuries received in an accident. By the following spring, respondent has accumulated some forty-five days of absences, and her absences were affecting her students' progress. In addition, she developed a pattern of calling in the evening and informing the school secretary htat she would report to work the next day, and then in the morning, calling to inform the school she would be absent. At that time, Dr. Johnson referred Crumiel to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in an effort to aid her in coping with her family crisis. The EAP is a program designed to assist teachers having academic, personal or psychological problems. Crumiel eventually took a leave of absence April, 1983 for the remainder of the school year. She was medically cleared to return to work in August, 1983. The medical clearance noted that Crumiel did not have any medical condition that would impair or restrict her performance as a teacher. School Year 1983-84 Respondent returned to WLRES on August 24, 1983. She was given a Chapter 1 fifth grade classroom assignment on that day by her new principal, Glenda Harris. The class was to be taught in an air-conditioned pod to be shared with two other teachers, Pauline Maloof and Merrial Daniels Radford. There were a total of forty-five students assigned to the entire pod. Although the adequacy of the size of the room was questioned by one of respondent's witnesses, it is found that respondent's classroom contained adequate space for the number of children being taught. In fact, in the prior year, two teachers and sixty-four students had shared the same space. Moreover, the pod concept is common in the Dade County school system, and even today, Crumiel's former pod classroom is still set up structurally in the same manner. During this school year, Chapter I classes were restricted to a maximum of sixteen students, with the average being fifteen students. This compared with a regular class that would have from twenty-eight to thirty-five students. An essential component in the Chapter I program is the oral language development segment. Through this component, the teacher gives the children a better example of speech patterns so that students who are not proficient in the use of standard English become aware of the standard patterns and usage. This enables the students to use appropriate language when entering the job market. To improve and enhance the teacher skills in the foregoing area, all Chapter I teachers, including Crumiel, received five in-service training sessions during the school year. On November 16, 1983, Harris visited Crumiel's classroom to make a formal observation of respondent's teaching. Harris was so stunned by what she observed that she chose not to record her visit as an official observation. During the visit, it became apparent to Harris that Crumiel had no grasp of Chapter I requirements. More specifically, Crumiel was not interweaving the content areas of science and social studies into the language experience. She confused the students by accepting incorrect answers as correct and vice-versa. Crumiel also demonstrated a lack of basic English skills, making such statements as, "Is there anyone who do not understand?"; "I am sorry, boys and girls--my book do not have . . . "; "Why you think it's 'drink?'"; and "Who do not understand?" In addition, Crumiel was using an outdated reading technique (round-robin reading), and did not use the diagnostic prescriptive approach by setting up reading groups within her class. It was evident to Harris that Crumiel had not read the lesson prior to teaching the children, and was totally unprepared. Because of this, the children in Crumiel's classroom did not receive a minimal educational experience on that day. Harris asked Crumiel where her teaching aid materials were, and was told by Crumiel they were in the bottom of one of her desk drawers. Crumiel also acknowledged that she had not read them. Harris returned for a formal observation of Crumiel on November 21, 1983. She found respondent's performance to be no better than it was on November 16, 1983. It was evident that respondent had not read the lesson prior to teaching the class and did not understand the point of the story being told. The students were also having great difficulty reading. Crumiel's interpretive skills were very poor and she still accepted incorrect responses from the students and vice-versa. For example, when one student gave an example of a compound word, charcoal, Crumiel told the student that it was incorrect because "char" was not a word. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "jack-o-later" for "jack-o-lantern," "likeded" for "liked," and "terranium" for "terrarium." She also used very poor grammatical structure. Based upon her observations, Harris rated Crumiel as being unacceptable with specific deficiencies in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She also concluded that the students failed to receive a minimal educational experience. After the observation was concluded, Harris and Crumiel discussed the problems Harris had noted that day. Crumiel acknowledged she had done poorly, and asked that Harris observe her another day when she would be better prepared. Harris again formally observed respondent on November 29, 1983. She was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Harris noted that Crumiel had not set up a reading program even though this is required in both regular and Chapter I classes. In addition, respondent's lesson plans merely listed page numbers rather than activities, materials and evaluations. Further, while she had grouped the children, she had not given them the appropriate reading books based upon their diagnostic tests. Crumiel had also failed to preview the lesson prior to teaching the class. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "shevel" for "shovel," and "depenable" for "dependable," and displayed poor grammar throughout the instruction. Her subject verb agreement was virtually nonexistent and she misused possessives. For example, Crumiel stated, "This machine what is called the steam shovel. . . what is the little boy name? . . . Yes it does scoops up dirt." She was unable to define a steam shovel for a student until she looked the term up in a dictionary. She continued to accept incorrect information from the children as correct and vice-versa. Finally, Harris found respondent's techniques of instruction unacceptable since Crumiel merely read directions to the class. After the observation was completed, Harris met with Crumiel and discussed all areas of her evaluation. On December 8, 1983, a conference-for-the-record was attended by Harris, Crumiel and Jack Grayson, the assistant principal at WLRES. At that time, the observations and visits of November 16, 21 and 29, 1983 were discussed. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Harris and Grayson devised a prescription designed to meet Crumiel's needs. In this case, the prescriptive plan required Crumiel to enroll in a basic English course and a Methods and Materials course in the teaching of reading. She was told to do this by the second semester of the school year. She was also told that Grayson would give her assistance with her reading plans, and visit her classroom on December 13, 1983 to become more familiar with her classroom style. In addition, Harris offered to make available further training in the Dade County Diagnostic Prescriptive Reading System. She was asked to set up a schedule of visitations to other classrooms so that she might learn teaching techniques from other faculty members. Finally, Crumiel was given a set of procedures to be used in critiquing her own plans and presentations of lessons. After the conference, Harris and Grayson spent an hour- and-a-half showing Crumiel how to set up her reading program. They were surprised when they found that respondent, despite having taught for eight or nine years in the system, did not know how to do this. Respondent was next formally observed by Grayson during a lesson on invitations on December 13, 1983. Respondent was given an overall rating of acceptable. However, Grayson later discovered that another teacher, Merria1 Radford Daniels, had actually written the lesson plan, and had demonstrated to Crumiel how to teach that day's class. She did so after Crumiel came to her seeking help before Grayson's visit. Daniels had made displays for Crumiel, and had written the lesson on Crumiel's blackboard with the key words to be used. She also demonstrated the lesson in Crumiel's presence. Daniels then had Crumiel demonstrate the lesson for her, and told respondent to go home and practice in front of a mirror. Respondent admitted this to Grayson. Respondent was informally visited by Harris on January 23, 1984. Although the students were supposed to be in their seats and ready to begin at 8:30 a.m., Harris found them up and out of their seats at 8:58 a.m. when she entered the classroom. Crumiel had not prepared a lesson for that particular class, so she taught a lesson originally scheduled for another time. Even so, she merely read instructions and handed out materials. Harris found no evidence that respondent was carrying out the prescription previously given to her on December 8, 1983. She concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience that day. Respondent was again formally observed by Harris on June 5, 1984. At that time she was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Although respondent had developed lesson plans for the class, the classroom activities did not reflect evidence of effective instructional planning. More importantly, Harris did not see any progress by Crumiel since she had been given the prescription on December 8, 1983. She found Crumiel still reading directions to the students rather than teaching them subject matter content. A large part of the classroom instruction was taken up by students performing meaningless exercises. Respondent still lacked a basic understanding of the subject matter, abbreviations. This was evidenced by respondent's inability to answer questions from students indicating when abbreviations are to be used. For example, she could not answer why the abbreviation for doctor is capitalized, or why the abbreviation for ounces is oz. rather than oun. She still continued to use improper English such as "Be sure your name and date is on all your papers." On June 6, 1984, Grayson revisited Crumiel's classroom to conduct a formal evaluation of Crumiel's mathematics class. Grayson rated respondent's performance as unacceptable with a specific deficiency in the area of techniques of instruction. He found the lesson too simple for the students and therefore a waste of their time. Crumiel's instructions and directions were confusing, and she was unable to clarify them for the students' benefit. Crumiel was again observed by Harris on June 8, 1984. Respondent had asked Harris to return after her prior visit on June 5 because she had learned something in a class she was taking and wanted to demonstrate it to Harris. After observing respondent Harris rated her as unacceptable with deficiencies in the areas of planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She was found barely acceptable in classroom management. Although Crumiel had a lesson plan, it was not effective and was inappropriate for students of the fifth grade level. Moreover, her classroom management appeared to Harris to be staged and practiced as in a performance. At hearing, Crumiel contended the pod was a poor environment in which to teach, and stated her class was frequently disrupted by outside students coming in to her area to use the restroom and drinking fountain. However, during school year 1983-84, Crumiel voiced no complaints to the administration about teaching in a pod, or that she experienced the disruptions she described. Indeed, no such disruptive activity was ever observed by the administrators who made classroom evaluations or by other teachers in the pod. If such activity did occur, it was only after someone inside the classroom unlocked the door since Crumiel's door was always kept locked. During the school year, the disruptive children were always evenly distributed between Maloof, Daniels, and Crumiel. After Harris became aware of Crumiel's classroom management problems, several students with behavioral problems were reassigned from Crumiel's classroom to that of Maloof and Daniels. Moreover, Crumiel received the highest academic level in the three groups. On her annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas or preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. However, Harris refrained from recommending Crumiel for termination, choosing instead to write another, more detailed prescription in the hope that Crumiel could improve over the summer. On June 21, 1984, another conference-for-the-record was held by Harris, Crumiel, Grayson and a teacher union representative. At that time, Harris outlined the prescription and asked that Crumiel continue with the EAP. Crumiel had previously participated in the EAP but had ceased attending, Crumiel was told to prepare her lesson plans in behavioral terms and was given various reading materials to help her with this task. She was further given an excerpt from the teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) manual on techniques of instruction. In addition, she was directed to take certain courses offered by the Teacher Education center (TEC) to assist her in deficient areas. However, Harris suggested that the outside course work could be postponed until the fall so that she could spend a restful summer. Finally Crumiel was told she would be informally observed during the first nine weeks of the following school year, and formally observed in the second nine week period. This information was incorrect since any teacher on prescription must be formally observed during the first six weeks of the next school year. In conjunction with the EAP respondent began individual psychotherapy and supportive counseling with a licensed clinical psychologist that summer. She remained his patient until September, 1985. During school year 1983-84, Crumiel received help from Maloof and Daniels, who shared her pod. Maloof gave Crumiel assistance in grouping her children, shared materials with her, and made various suggestions on how to improve her teaching techniques. However, when they discussed educational topics, Crumiel did not seem to understand the subject matter. Daniels showed respondent how to order materials for the different levels of students. Finally, a reading specialist gave a workshop session in October, 1983 that addressed the procedures for pre- testing, post-testing and leveling students. Crumiel attended this workshop. School Year 1984-85 Beginning in the 1984-85 school year, WLRES implemented the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of teacher observation for all teachers. In the prior year, only annual contract teachers were under the TADS observation scheme. Since Crumiel was under a continuing contract, she was not subject to this observation method prior to school year 1984-85. Under the TADS system, teachers are required to have objectives, activities and a way of monitoring student progress in and through their lesson plans. At the beginning of the school year, Harris moved Crumiel to Room 212, a self-contained classroom. This move was prompted by complaints about noisy, disruptive students in Crumiel's classroom from the teachers who shared the pod with Crumiel during the prior year. Room 212 contained approximately the same amount of space that Crumiel previously had in the pod, but the classroom was not air-conditioned. However, around two- thirds of the teachers in the school did not have air- conditioning at that time. Harris also changed respondent's grade level from grade five to grade six. This was done to relieve her of the additional pressures of preparing the students for the state assessment test (SAT). WLRES had been adjudged deficient during the previous school year, and fifth grade classes were scheduled to be tested on the SAT in the first nine weeks of the school year. Crumiel protested her reassignment to a higher grade level and told Harris that sixth grade mathematics were beyond her teaching ability. However, Harris reminded Crumiel that she was certified for the sixth grade, and that the chances of her actually teaching sixth grade math in a Chapter I class were remote. Children were assigned to respondent in very much the same manner that they had been assigned the previous year. The administration made certain that slow learners and students exhibiting behavior problems were evenly distributed among the various teachers. Harris visited respondent's classroom on September 20, 1984 to conduct an informal observation. Respondent's lesson plans were not written in behavioral terms as directed by her June 21 prescription. Further, she had not grouped the children or pretested them in reading. Harris also found Crumiel's presentation of subject matter and classroom management skills unacceptable. Harris concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience. Harris met with respondent following the informal visit. At that meeting, Harris reviewed Crumiel's prescription and the efforts being made by Crumiel to fulfill its goals. Harris discovered that respondent had "forgotten" to inquire about the various courses taught at the Reacher Education Center and displayed an unconcerned attitude towards the requirements of the prescription. She was told by Crumiel that the sixth grade level objectives were too difficult for her, and that she did not know how to write lesson plans in behavioral objectives. Harris then told Crumiel she would visit respondent's classroom on September 25, 1984. Harris also began showing Crumiel how to write objectives in behavioral terms. Harris was unable to visit respondent's classroom on September 25 because respondent called in sick that morning. Crumiel did, however, bring her lesson plans to Harris the following day. Harris found them lacking any behavioral objectives. Harris again encouraged Crumiel to read the material furnished her. Respondent's mathematics class was formally observed by Grayson on October 1, 1984. A formal observation was required at that time since Crumiel was on prescription from the prior year. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plans did not have the items required by the TADS system. In other words, Crumiel had no way to assess her students in order to monitor their progress. Grayson recommended that respondent continue with the prescription given by Harris, and to turn in her lesson plans on a weekly basis for his review. Grayson continued to review those plans until her dismissal some two years later, and to offer suggestions on how they could be improved. During the school year, the teacher occupying the adjacent classroom continually complained about the noise in respondent's room. Because of this, Crumiel was moved to room 206, a larger self-contained classroom which had been recently renovated and filled with new furniture. It was uncontradicted that room 206 was far superior to the other classroom spaces in the building that were used by Chapter I classes. Respondent was formally observed again by Harris on January 23, 1985. Harris found that the children were not receiving a minimal educational experience. Using the TADS system, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessments techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she was still using November lessons plans with only the dates changed, and was not using the prescribed plan. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she gave no instruction. She was found to be unacceptable in classroom management because the children were not prepared to begin the lesson. In the area of techniques of instruction, Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because she was not using appropriate methods or differentiated materials, and she failed to use two or more learning styles as required by TADS. Finally Crumiel was found to be deficient in assessment techniques because she failed to use the information given her in the TADS prescription manual. In addition, because her grade book and student folders were not properly maintained, and there was no way to tell what had been taught and tested, or to access the students' improvement. As a result of the January 25 visit, Harris prescribed help for respondent from the TADS prescription manual, which is written on a level that the average teacher can understand. However, Harris did not suggest that Crumiel use the manual after that occasion since Crumiel admitted she was unable to understand the information in the manual. At respondent's request, Harris performed another formal observation on January 29, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Harris also concluded that the students did not receive a minimal educational experience. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not written in conformity with her prescription. She appeared unprepared and wasted classroom time on repetitious, meaningless exercises. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of knowledge of subject matter because she did not understand the lesson she was suppose to be teaching, and told the children that adding an "s" at the end of a verb would make it plural. Crumiel's classroom management was rated unacceptable because the classroom environment was not conducive to learning. Harris found the room unkempt and materials in disorder, and noted that Crumiel did not start the lesson promptly due to a number of unnecessary delays. In the area of techniques of instruction Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because the majority of the materials used were inappropriate for the objectives. Further, the methods of instruction never varied, and respondent did not give consideration to the various learning styles in the classroom. Harris concluded that the materials and methods used often insulted the age level of the students. After the observation was concluded, Harris asked Crumiel to review and study the materials given her in the prior prescription. Crumiel was also told that Eneida Hartner, director of the North Central area, would provide her with additional help. Finally, Harris taught a reading lesson to Crumiel's class in an effort to improve Crumiel's teaching style. While Harris was in the classroom, respondent did relatively well with teacher-student relationships. However, when no administrator was present, respondent could often be heard shouting and cajoling the children to behave. There were instances when children were seen hanging out of the windows and shouting. Respondent was heard telling a student on one occasion, "Sit your black butt down." On February 8, 1985, Harris and Hartner visited respondent's classroom for approximately one hour to informally observe Crumiel. Even though Hartner had designed certain activities for respondent to use that day while teaching, Hartner and Harris concluded there was no teaching in the classroom. They also noted that respondent was not following the diagnostic prescriptive approach which is required of all elementary teachers.. Hartner recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from a Chapter I educational specialist, Pat Kanovsky, who was assigned to help Crumiel with the language experience approach used in Chapter I classes. Hartner also directed a prep specialist, Gwen Bryant, to monitor Crumiel in the areas of basic skills, such as reading, writing and mathematics, and to help respondent in the prescriptive diagnostic approach. She also recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from the assistant principal, department chairman and master teacher, and to make use of certain excerpts from the TADS prescription manual. Bryant visited Crumiel's classroom four times in February 1985 in an attempt to provide her with assistance. On her February 14 visit, Bryant observed that respondent was not using the "RSVP" program in an appropriate manner. This is a program that is used for all children in both Chapter I and regular classes. Bryant also noted that Crumiel had not used her pacemaker chart correctly, and was therefore unable to determine if the children were being taught subject matter at a pace commensurate with their level of ability. On her February 27 visit, Bryant found the students confused and not understanding what they were expected to do in class that day. They were yelling, and many were out of their seats. Respondent was unsuccessful in her efforts to manage behavior. After seeing this, Bryant made a number of suggestions to respondent. She also went over the instructional material and demonstrated how to properly use it. She explained how the students were to be placed and instructed according to their reading levels. Bryant gave further tips on teaching techniques, suggestions on managing classroom behavior and how to properly begin a lesson. On February 11, 1985, Kanovsky spent approximately two hours with Crumiel in an effort to improve Crumiel's lesson plan preparation. Among other things, Kanovsky told respondent that her grammar was inappropriate for use in a Chapter I classroom. Hartner, accompanied by Harris, visited respondent's classroom on March 27, 1985, for the purpose of making an external observation. This type of observation was required since Crumiel had already received two negative evaluations from WLRES administrators. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. She was given an unsatisfactory rating in preparation and planning because she failed to properly include a language experience activity in her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to use poor grammar while teaching. For example, Crumiel made such statements as, "Their eyes be red" and "How do their face look?" Crumiel was found to be deficient in techniques of instruction because the lesson lacked sequence, and she failed to adjust her instruction when she did not get anticipated responses from the students. She also accepted responses from the students without telling them whether they were right or wrong. Further, it did not appear that Crumiel had made use of any of the suggestions regarding teaching techniques given by Bryant on February 27. Finally, respondent was given an unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because a review by Hartner of the students' folders revealed that Crumiel had failed to use the diagnostic prescriptive approaches in reading and mathematics that were required by the Dade County school system. Having formally observed Crumiel, Hartner concluded that respondent's students did not have a meaningful educational experience on March 27, 1985. She further concluded that respondent lacked adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that she lacked the necessary motivational skills necessary to promote oral language development. She also concluded that Crumiel would be unable to teach non-Chapter I students because of the greater number of students and more difficult subject matter in those classes. In short, she found Crumiel unable to teach in any capacity at the elementary school level. In addition to her visits on February 14 and 27, Bryant met with Crumiel on at least two other occasions to help Crumiel understand the diagnostic prescriptive approach to reading. Bryant came away from those meetings with the belief that Crumiel did not understand her directions or the teaching materials. She also concluded the Crumbie was unqualified to teach the sixth grade. An educational specialist, Shirley Fields, also visited respondent's classroom on April 19 and 22, 1985, to discuss the oral language development segment of instruction. On one of her visits, she demonstrated for Crumiel's benefit an actual lesson from the program. Harris returned to respondent's classroom on June 3, 1985 for the purpose of conducting a formal observation. She found no improvement on Crumiel's part and concluded it would be counter-productive to fill out a formal observation form. The subject matter of the class was fractions, and Crumiel appeared to have no knowledge of the subject matter. During the school year, Harris and Grayson received a number of verbal complaints about respondent's classroom management. This was confirmed by testimony from the other teachers and a teacher liaison who frequently observed or heard disruption and noise in respondent's classroom. Harris, Crumiel and a teacher union representative attended a conference-for-the-record on June 12, 1986 to discuss Crumiel's teaching performance. However, it was necessary to discontinue the conference shortly after it was begun because Crumiel lost her composure. The conference was reconvened on June 24, 1985. At that meeting Crumiel rejected an opportunity to be reclassified as a teacher aide, a position that would enable her to continue working with children, but only under the direct supervision of another teacher. On her annual evaluation for 1984-1985, respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques and professional responsibility. In addition, she was not recommended for employment the following school year. Psychological Testing In an effort to find some type of alternative position for Crumiel, the classroom teacher's union recommended that she undergo a battery of psychological tests. In this vein, Crumiel was referred to both a psychiatrist and a psychologist to determine if there was a reason for her poor performance in classroom teaching. The psychologist, Dr. Bradman, had previously seen the patient since June, 1984 in conjunction with the EAP. On June 14 and 18, 1985 Bradman administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) Test to Crumiel. This test is more commonly known as an IQ or intelligence quotient test. At the time of testing, Bradman found no evidence of depression although Crumiel experienced some mild anxiety. The test segment which would most likely be affected by depression was the Digit Symbol Subtest. However, Crumiel scored within the average range on this segment, and it represented one of her highest scores. Respondent obtained a Full Scale IQ of 74 which is in the borderline range of intelligence. Stated differently, approximately 95% of the people taking the test would achieve a higher score than Crumiel. Bradman found this result to be accurate and valid, and that neither stress or depression could account for Crumiel's low performance. During the course of the two sessions on June 14 and 18, Bradman asked Crumiel a number of questions to test her intellectual skill and capacity. In response to a question asking her to name four men who have been president of the United States since 1950, she responded, "Roosevelt, Lincoln, George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt." When questioned further, she added, "Jefferson." Crumiel also told Bradman that there were 48 weeks in a year and that Labor Day is in May. She did not know who Louie Armstrong was, and thought that to get from Chicago to the country of Panama one would travel east. She could not correctly define the words "assemble," "enormous," "conceal," "consume," "regulate," "commence," "domestic," "tranquil" or "ponder." Finally, Crumiel could not answer basic arithmetic questions such as "If raffle tickets cost twenty-five cents each, how much would it cost to buy six tickets?" and "If soft drinks are sold six cans to a package, if you want 36 cans, how many packages must you buy?" Based upon the results of the WAIS-R, Dr. Bradman concluded that respondent was not capable of teaching the higher elementary school grades. However, he was unable to form an opinion as to whether Crumiel could teach the lower grade levels based strictly upon the testing he had performed. On August 29, 1985, Crumiel was also evaluated by a board certified psychiatrist, Dr. Waldo M. Ellison, who was accepted as an expert in that field. He examined Crumiel to ascertain if there was a psychological reason for her dysfunction as an elementary school teacher. Ellison noted that respondent experienced some mild anxiety during the examination but had no depression. Further, he found no evidence of any medical problem or condition. Although Crumiel told Dr. Ellison that mathematics was her favorite subject, she was unable to determine two-thirds of the number sixty. She also could not correctly define the word "motivate," and was unaware of important current events such as the name of the mayor of Miami, or the fact that a hurricane was then approaching the City of Miami. Based upon his evaluation, Ellison concluded that respondent's intellectual deficiencies would interfere with the ability to provide her students with a minimum educational experience. Miscellaneous It was the general consensus of all administrators and faculty who observed Crumiel during the relevant time periods that she did not possess the skills necessary to teach elementary students, either at a regular or Chapter I level. More specifically, they found that she lacked an adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that her lack of minimum skills and competency resulted in her students being deprived of a minimal educational experience. Respondent's own testimony helped confirm the above observations since it was replete with inappropriate English grammar and language. Her lack of fundamental mathematics skills also became apparent during cross-examination by the Board counsel. Respondent's Case Respondent blamed her problems in 1984-85 on her assignment to a small, self-contained classroom without air- conditioning. However, this classroom was approximately the same size as used by two other teachers in the pod, and they did not experience the same difficulty as did Crumiel. Moreover, two- thirds of the faculty at WLRES that year had no air-conditioning. Even so, she was moved to a larger, more modernized classroom during the year but her performance did not improve. Respondent also cited over-aged, disruptive students being assigned to her Chapter I classes as a cause for her classroom management difficulty. But credible testimony established that disruptive students were evenly assigned to all Chapter I teachers, that Crumiel's class had no more than other Chapter I teachers, and several were taken out of her classroom in an effort to aid her performance. Crumiel also contended that her classes were frequently disrupted by students wandering into her classroom from an adjacent physical education area to use the restroom and water fountain facilities. No administrator ever observed this while visiting in her class, and it was shown that even if it did happen, she could have prevented this by refusing to unlock her door. Crumiel further stated that she attempted to follow through with her prescriptions, but that Harris and Grayson were never satisfied. However, independent administrators not associated with WLRES confirmed her failure to follow the prescriptions. Respondent also stated she received a "B" in a college course taken one summer at a local college as evidence of her effort to improve her skills. But a fellow teacher placed this testimony in serious doubt when she testified that Crumiel had taken notes into the final examination and improperly used them while filling out her examination booklet. Through the deposition testimony of Dr. Capp, a psychologist, respondent attempted to refute the IQ score of 74 by showing that she received a score of 99 on the test on February 4, 1986, and that she was functioning within the normal range of intelligence. Dr. Bradman had no scientific explanation for this result, but opined that Crumiel may have studied for the second test, or had remembered the questions from the first time the test was administered. Dr. Capp agreed that this was possible. In any event, the testimony of Drs. Bradman and Ellison is deemed to be more persuasive and credible, and their results and conclusions are found to be more accurate. Union Contract Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade County. That body has a labor contract with the Dade County School Board. Among other things, section 6 of the contract provides in relevant part as follows: Any teacher assigned in any observation category shall be entitled to a prescription of professional growth practices (remedies) which shall include reasonable time-frames for implementation . . .. The function of such practices is to assist the teacher in professional growth . . .. Failure to implement prescribed professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was prescribed shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Article . . .. In the instant case, respondent was placed on prescription at the end of school year 1983-84. Respondent was told she would remain on prescription during the first nine weeks of school year 1984- However, in order to comply with a TADS requirement, a teacher who ends the year on prescription must be observed during the first six weeks in the following school year. To meet this requirement, a formal observation was made by Grayson on October 1, 1985 which was within the time-frame for improvement set forth in the prescription. At that time, Grayson gave a second prescription to Crumiel with instructions that a lesson plan be submitted by each Wednesday. Another formal observation was made by Harris on January 23, 1985, or well after the first and second prescriptive periods. Crumiel was then placed on another prescription effective January 28, 1985 by prescription dated January 23, 1985. Certain prescriptives were ordered to be complied with no later than the next visit. This was followed by a formal observation by Harris on January 29, 1985. When the next formal observation was made by Hartner on March 27, 1985, no time-frames were in effect. All such observations, prescriptive periods and remedies were in conformity with the contract. Even respondent did not file a grievance complaining that the contract was violated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency, and that she be terminated from employment with the School Board of Dade County, and her teaching certificate number 342743 be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 24th day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Bldg., Suite 301 1450 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Avenue, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Daniel F. Solomon, Esquire 1455 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 215, Knott Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Petitioner (Case No. 85-3673): Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected as being irrelevant. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 10 Covered in finding of fact 11 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 14 Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 28 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 28 Covered in finding of fact 29 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 17 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Partially covered in finding of fact 16. Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in findings of fact 18 and 19. Covered in finding of fact 18 Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 32. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 33. Covered in finding of fact 34. Partially covered in finding of fact 34. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 36. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 40. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 42. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 44. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 46. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 47. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 54. Covered in finding of fact 55. Covered in finding of fact 55. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in finding of fact 57. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 60. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 62. Covered in finding of fact 63. Covered in finding of fact 64. Covered in finding of fact 65. Covered in finding of fact 66. Covered in finding of fact 66. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 67. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 57. Petitioner (Case No. 86-1116): Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 5. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 13. Covered in findings of fact 16 and 17. Covered in findings of fact 18 and 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in findings of fact 30 and 31. Covered in findings of fact 35 and 36. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Covered in finding of fact 40 except that the observation took place on October 1, 1984. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in findings of fact 3 and 29. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in findings of fact 11 and 33. Covered in finding of fact 71. Covered in findings of fact 5, 6, 9 and 10._ Covered in findings of fact 61, 65 and 66. Covered in findings of fact 61-63. Covered in finding of fact 69 Covered in findings of fact 13 and 35. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 70. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Respondent:* Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 45. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 21. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. The second sentence is irrelevant since no formal external observation was performed by Hartner on February 8, 1985. Rejected as being irrelevant since no formal observation was conducted on February 8, 1985. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Findings of Fact Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 1. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Essentially covered in findings of fact 48-58. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence and irrelevant. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. *Respondent's filing contained two sections entitled "Proposed Findings" and "Findings of Fact."
Findings Of Fact During the 1982-1983 school year, Jorge Valdez is a seventh grade student. He was assigned to Lake Stevens Junior High School for this school year. In October 1982, pursuant to a request from his physical education teacher, Respondent was counseled and issued strokes for being repeatedly late and for refusing to "dress out" for class. On two occasions in November 1982, pursuant to requests from his art teacher, Respondent was counseled and issued strokes for being disruptive in art class by walking around the room during class and refusing to participate in class activities. In December 1982, Respondent was suspended from school for three days as a result of an incident at the bus stop. When Respondent returned to school after his suspension, he was wearing a linked chain approximately three feet long hidden under his shirt. On the third day, he was caught using the chain to threaten another student. Respondent was given a ten-day suspension, and a conference was held with his mother. The Student Code of Conduct provides for expulsion of any student possessing a concealed weapon. As a result of his conference with Grizel Valdez, Jorge's principal agreed he would request a waiver of expulsion with an alternative placement instead. As of November 5, 1982, Respondent's grades in his six classes at Lake Stevens Junior High School were one C, one D and four Fs. In conduct, his grades were one A, one C and four Fs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Jorge Valdez to Petitioner's opportunity school program at Jan Mann Opportunity School North. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1983, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Grizel Valdez 4901 NW 173rd Street Carol City, Florida 33055 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Peggy Addison ("Addison"), failed to correct certain performance deficiencies identified by Petitioner, Collier County School Board (the "School Board"); and whether such failure constitutes just cause for terminating Addison's professional service contract.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the governing body of the Collier County Public School system. The School Board is responsible for hiring, monitoring, supervising and firing all employees of the school system, including all teachers. Addison has been a school teacher since her graduation from college in 1969, with the exception of a few years taken off to raise her family. She has been a teacher within the Collier County School System for 25 years. For 15 years, and for all times relevant to this matter, Addison was a teacher at the School. Addison taught various grades at the School, but primarily first and second grades. She taught first grade at the School for two years prior to the 2009-2010 school year. During the summer of 2008, the School was assigned a new principal, Nicole Stocking. The assignment was Stocking's first as the principal of a school. Previously, Stocking had experience as a school teacher and as an assistant principal. At the time of her appointment, the School had not been making progress for a number of years and was admittedly a "problem" school, meeting only about 60 percent of its goals. In education parlance, the school was not meeting its Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goals. Stocking was directed by the superintendent of schools to take all measures necessary to make improvements at the School. Stocking immediately took aggressive actions to ensure improvement at the School. She let all staff and administrators know that there would be a concerted focus placed on reading programs. She advised all teachers that she expected drastic improvements at the School and expected each teacher to work hard toward that end. Stocking established a leadership team made up of her, Vice-Principal Edwards, Reading Coach Bryant, and Reading Coach/Learning Team Coordinator Campbell. The leadership team would conduct weekly walk-throughs of all classrooms and then meet to discuss any problems they had identified. The intent of the walk-throughs was to identify all problem areas needing attention in order to meet the AYP goals for that school year.1 Stocking was described as "all business" and "not a people person" by her subordinates. It is obvious that Stocking took a fairly hard-line approach to her supervisory responsibilities. At one point, ten classroom teachers filed a group grievance against Stocking due to the harshness of her management style. The grievance was deemed unfounded, but the fact that it was filed is some indication of how teachers perceived their new principal. Some of the teachers who joined in the grievance testified at final hearing, and it is clear there was a broad view of Stocking as a difficult person to work for. That is not to say that Stocking did anything improper, only that her actions could be perceived more harshly by some than by others. The 2008-2009 school year started with some significant changes. For example: A new literacy program (MacMillan) with a text called "Treasures" was implemented district-wide; focus was placed on "Guided Reading"--a process whereby students were divided into small groups where their reading skills and progress could be monitored closely; and teachers were told to expect "walk-throughs" by the principal and other administrators. It was clear that the new administration would be pressing everyone to make vast improvements at the School. Improvement in student reading was expected to be the catalyst for overall school improvements for the 2008-2009 school year. Specifically, the School was going to be focused on the Guided Reading process. Teachers would divide students into groups according to their needs, and then meet with each of the groups independently while other students busied themselves with other tasks. During the groups, the teacher would evaluate one student individually by doing a "running record," that is, a short checklist to see how many words the student read correctly from an assigned text. By doing running records for one student in each group and four groups per day, the teacher could assess every child every week. The running records could then be used to help prepare lesson plans for the upcoming weeks. The evidence at final hearing was somewhat contradictory as to how long it took to do a running record, but the consensus seemed to be that it takes about two to three minutes per student.2 During the 2008-2009 school year, Addison was a first-grade teacher. Addison had taught other grades during her career, but preferred and enjoyed first and second grades the most. She had developed a feel for first-grade curriculum and felt most comfortable in that setting. The first-grade team that year consisted of Arcand, the team leader; Laing; Chamness; Tyler; and Addison. Each of the first-grade classes had a mix of students, including some English language learners ("ELL"), i.e., those for whom English was a second language, and exceptional student education ("ESE") students, those with learning difficulties. Addison's class had some ELL and ESE students, but the overall makeup was not significantly different from the other first-grade classes. Almost immediately upon commencement of the 2008-2009 school year, Stocking began to perceive shortcomings in Addison's teaching skills. Some of the perceptions were based on Stocking's personal observation of Addison's classroom; some were based on reports from her leadership team. Stocking was concerned that Addison's students were not sufficiently engaged in some classroom activities. She felt that Addison was not appropriately implementing the Guided Reading program, and she had some concerns about safety issues for Addison's children. Stocking began to correspond with the first-grade team leader (Arcand) concerning Addison's teaching abilities. Arcand provided Stocking with somewhat negative information gleaned from her own observation of Addison. At the same time, first-grade team members Laing and Creighton expressed positive feelings about Addison's abilities. Stocking developed the following specific concerns about Addison's teaching skills: Classroom management--All of the children were not actively engaged in the classroom work at times; some children seemed not to know what their assignment was about. Group reading--Not all children were reading at their appropriate level, i.e., Addison had rated them at too high or low a level. One child appeared to Stocking to be struggling despite assurance from Addison that the child could read well. Some children were not being properly supervised or monitored during the transition from lunch back to the classroom. Addison had some difficulties with the new MacMillan reading program, but she continued to employ it as directed. Some of her peers attempted to guide Addison and provide instruction, but Addison continued to struggle. To her credit, as expressed by Stocking, Addison sought help from her co-workers to master the program. Despite Addison's best efforts, Stocking did not feel that Addison's students were being properly rated and assessed by way of running records. Addison, on the other hand, felt comfortable with her teaching. There were instances where Addison appeared not to be properly monitoring her students on their way from the lunch room back to the classroom. However, the first graders all transitioned from lunch to class at about the same time, and all first-grade teachers were involved in the transfer process. While it may be true that another teacher saw one of Addison's students misbehaving or going somewhere they were not supposed to go during this time, that fact does not necessarily indicate a failing on Addison's part. She may have been helping or guiding another teacher's student at the same time. There is no evidence, however, that Addison ignored her responsibilities, vis-à-vis, her students. As for students not being fully engaged during instruction, that determination cannot be made upon the evidence presented. While there were apparently children not actively engaged in the lesson being presented while Stocking or someone observed the classroom, Addison admits that first graders are not always on task. She provided several reasons that some of the children might have been unfocused on any given day. The fact that some child may have been disengaged on a particular day is not sufficient to make a finding that such behavior was rampant or a problem. During the second half of the 2008-2009 school year, Addison received numerous written disciplinary-type reports from Stocking, including: an "Observation" memorandum dated January 21, 2009, wherein Assistant Principal Edwards criticized Addison's teaching; a "Conference Summary" memorandum dated January 26, 2009, concerning Addison's interaction with a student who was out of control; a memorandum dated January 28, 2009, moving Addison to "Developing" status in five Educator Accomplished Practices (EAPs); a Warning of Unsatisfactory Performance memorandum dated February 5, 2009, in which Stocking chastised Addison for turning in lesson plans a day later than they were due; a memorandum warning about being placed on Developing status dated March 5, 2009; a letter of reprimand dated March 12, 2009, relating to Addison being absent without proper notification; another letter of reprimand one week later saying Addison failed to turn in lesson plans after an illness; another letter of reprimand dated April 3, 2009, addressing Addison's Guided Reading groups; a memorandum concerning an adverse classroom incident dated April 16, 2009; a letter of reprimand dated May 1, 2009, regarding gifts of water pistols Addison had given to two students at the end of the year; and a letter of discipline, with a one-day suspension, dated May 6, 2009. Addison had never received a letter of discipline prior to the 2008-2009 school year, but in that year she received them almost weekly during the second part of the school year. At the end of the 2008-2009 school year, Addison received an annual evaluation in accordance with School Board policies. The evaluation addressed the 12 areas of performance which form the basis of each teacher's assessment. Addison was placed in the "Developing" category for four of those areas. The Developing category indicates that the teacher has not sufficiently mastered the performance required in that particular area of teaching. By School Board policy, a teacher placed in the Developing category for three or more areas of performance is automatically placed on Strand III status. Addison was placed on Strand III commencing with the start of the 2009-2010 school year.3 Strand III is a probationary category under the School Board's Collier Teacher Assessment System ("CTAS") and is applicable to teachers with a Professional Service Contract. Strand III is covered under Article 5 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board and Collier County Education Association. A teacher placed on Strand III has 90 days to demonstrate improvement in the Developing areas of performance in order to return to Strand II. Prior to being placed on Strand III for the 2009-2010 school year, Addison had never been placed on Strand III before. Her past five annual evaluations were as follows: 2007-2008--All twelve areas were at Professional. The evaluation was done by Ms. Grieco, whose position was not disclosed in the evidence. 2006-2007--Eleven areas were at Professional; one was at Developing. The evaluation was done by Ms. Psenicka, an assistant principal. 2005-2006--Ten areas were at Professional; two were at Developing. The evaluation was done by Assistant Principal Manley. 2004-2005--Seven of 12 areas were deemed Professional; five were deemed Accomplished. Principal Ferguson did the evaluation. 2003-2004--Seven of 12 areas were deemed Professional (the highest level of proficiency); five were deemed Accomplished (meaning that the teacher was not deficient in that area). The evaluation was done by Principal Ferguson. The Strand III process is quite involved. It requires the creation of a team of individuals whose purpose is to help guide the teacher toward improvement in the deficient areas. Stocking actually put three teachers on Strand III at the same time that Addison was designated, although she had never placed a teacher on Strand III before and was not experienced in administering the program. Knowing that the process was very time-consuming, Stocking decided to transfer the other two teachers to other schools, rather than try to run three Strand III processes at once. Each of the other teachers was removed from Strand III once they reached their new schools. Neither of those teachers had received as many disciplinary notices from Stocking as Addison had received, but Stocking testified that she saw the most potential for improvement in Addison versus the other two. There is some incongruity in that statement, but, nonetheless, it is a fact. The Strand III team for Addison was made up of a school administrator (Stocking), an administrative support person (Terry), Addison, and a person selected by Addison (Creighton). This team then developed a Professional Assistance Plan (the "Plan") which set forth the areas of performance that needed to be addressed and general goals to be accomplished. Addison's Plan contained four areas of concern corresponding with the four Developing areas in her 2008-2009 annual evaluation. However, six additional areas were added to the Plan, because Stocking said they "needed some attention." No authority for adding additional areas was provided by Stocking other than that the human resources department told her it was allowable. As a result of the added areas of concern, the Plan contained ten EAPs to be addressed by Addison and the team. Within each EAP, there were a number of "Indicators" which more specifically addressed a component within the general EAP. By way of example, the first EAP was "Assessment" with nine Indicators such as: diagnose the entry level and skill of students using diagnostic tests, observations, and student records; assess the instructional level of exceptional students; and, correctly administer required grade level and district assessments in identified assessment windows. The EAPs would be deemed to have been "observed" if Addison made significant progress on the individual Indicators. While 117 Indicators are a lot, many of them overlap and addressing one Indicator may also address several others at the same time. Nonetheless, when written in a Plan, that many EAPs and Indicators could appear quite daunting. At about the same time Addison was notified that she was being placed on Strand III, Stocking decided to move Addison from teaching first grade to a fifth-grade class. Addison had never taught fifth grade, although her certification was for grades one through five. Addison was opposed to the move, because she was more comfortable with first grade, and during the Strand process, she knew that more would be expected of her. She did not feel that a move to fifth grade would be the best scenario for dealing with Strand III. Stocking denied her request to remain in first grade and also denied Addison's request to be transferred to another school. School-to-school transfers are allowed whenever there are openings available at the target school, but it appears no openings were available. Once the new school year commenced, Addison, now in a new teaching environment with fifth grade, had 90 calendar days under the Plan to show improvement in the areas of concern. The Plan is dated August 24, 2009, and contains the following time line: Commence on August 24, 2009 (Date of formal notice to Addison); September 4, 2009 (Day 10)--Assign assistance team; September 14, 2009 (Day 15)--Hold professional assistance plan meeting; September 21, 2009 (Day 22)--Write professional assistance plan; September 22 through November 24, 2009--Plan, implement and collect data; November 24, 2009 (Day 92)--Assessment; December 16, 2009--Written recommendation from lead administrator to superintendent; January 15, 2010--Written recommendation from superintendent to Addison; If termination was recommended; then February 2, 2010--Written request for hearing. The amount of time from when the notice was given to Addison until the assessment was done was 92 calendar days, which is consistent with the times set forth by CTAS. While the schedule complied with CTAS guidelines, Addison obviously did not have 90 days to address the ten EAPs and 117 indicators. Nonetheless, the Strand III process was correctly implemented from a timeframe perspective. In order to effectuate the Plan, the team was to meet at least weekly to review Addison's progress, re-focus her efforts, and establish goals for the coming week. The weekly meetings were generally held at 7:40 a.m., 30 minutes prior to the start of class on Monday mornings. The meetings would sometime run a little long, and Addison would arrive late to her class. In such instances, she was expected to use her teaching skills to catch up with the timed lesson plans. All teachers were expected to teach in accordance with their lesson plans so that at any given time, anyone coming into their classroom would know exactly what lesson was being taught. Strict compliance with the lesson plan schedule was expected from all teachers. There were documented instances of Addison not teaching lessons in strict accordance with the lesson plan schedule. However, there were extenuating circumstances involved. For example, when the weekly team meeting lasted too long, it would adversely affect Addison's teaching schedule. At other times, Addison would teach one course to another teacher's students and vice-versa. As a result, the teachers may not be teaching in accordance with the lesson plan schedule. There was insufficient evidence to find that Addison was in serious violation of the lesson plan schedule requirements. The weekly team meetings were codified in minutes taken by Vice-Principal Monoki. Sometimes two people took minutes of the meetings in an effort to assure correctness. The minutes were ostensibly meant to be a general overview of what the meeting was about, but, in actuality, they were quite detailed concerning some issues. Addison often took exception to the minutes as printed, and would attempt to submit amendments or changes. Those amendments were generally not accepted by the team. At one point Addison requested the right to tape record the meetings, but that request was denied. The form of the minutes was altered in October 2009, into a sort of chart, rather than regular minute format. The purpose of that change was to allow for better comparison between prior weeks, the current week and the upcoming week. The minutes were provided to each team member at the beginning of the subsequent meeting. All of the team members, except for Addison, would sign the minutes to confirm that they were correct and accurate. Addison did not ever agree that the minutes were correct and accurate. Addison's designated representative on the team, Creighton, did sign the minutes each week. During the approximately 45 school days that Addison was assessed under the Plan, she made progress in some areas, but according to the team, her progress was followed by further shortcomings. However, measurement of Addison's progress was extremely subjective. For example, Addison was found to be deficient in the use of "targets" for her class. Targets are written focus points placed on the bulletin board so that students can remember what topics are currently being taught. Addison was chastised for having inappropriate targets. However, when compared to other fifth-grade teachers' targets, Addison's were virtually identical. For example, on September 4, 2009, Addison took pictures of the targets posted in her classroom and two other classrooms. The targets are compared below: Addison Classroom 2 Classroom 3 Reading: Tall tales, plot development (setting influences plot), reading words with long vowels and many syllables Tall tales, plot development, setting, subject & predicate, long vowel sounds, dialect Compound words, setting-> where-> when, words with long vowels, chronological order, building fluency Science: Make observations, explain how science tools are used, describe the steps of the scientific method . . . Tools scientist use, scientific method, mass=amount of matter in an object, Inquiry=observe, measure, gather and record data . . . Tell what causes weather . . . make observations, take measurements, explain how science tools are used, steps of the scientific method. . . Language Arts: Six traits: Idea, Compound subjects, simple and compound voice, organization, compound predicates, subjects and word choice, commas in a series predicates, six sentence fluency traits of writing: idea, voice, organization, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions, Commas used in a series Math: place value Place value through Sums and differences through millions, billions, compare of whole numbers and compare and order and order numbers, decimals, strategies decimals, place place value for solving word value patterns, sums patterns, rounding, problems, place and differences of estimating, adding value patterns, whole number, adding and subtracting and subtracting whole numbers and problem solving decimals decimals There appears to be only minimal differences between the three teachers' targets set forth above. There was no competent testimony at final hearing as to why Addison's wording of her targets was somehow inferior to that of the other teachers. As another example of subjective measuring, Addison was cited for allowing some children to be disengaged while she was teaching other children. At least one outside observer noted that some children were not on task and others were seen leaving the classroom. But Addison explained that children had the right (and need) to leave the class to go the reading center or restroom; other children were supposed to be busy individually at an assigned center, etc. That is, in a fifth-grade classroom, all children were not always doing the same thing at the same time. During the time period that Addison was undergoing the Strand III process, she received a number of disciplinary notices. On September 1, 2009, Stocking sent Addison a memorandum entitled "Conference Summary," which was a criticism of Addison's teaching during a class on August 31, 2009 (one week into the new school year). This memorandum was followed by a number of other letters and memoranda. The first such letter was on September 9, 2009, just 16 days into the Strand III process. The "Warning of Unsatisfactory Performance" memorandum issued by Stocking on that date said Addison had failed to post targets and had been teaching outside the stated lesson plans. Thus, rather than assisting Addison, under the Plan, with this perceived shortcoming, a disciplinary action was taken. Six days later, on September 15, 2009, a letter of reprimand was issued by Stocking. Again, Addison was accused of not posting appropriate targets on her board for use by her students. Then on October 30, 2009, another letter of reprimand was issued, this time for not conducting daily running records for her students. Addison was doing the running records, but the records sometimes failed to include a statement by Addison as to the child's reading status. This was a shortcoming that could have been addressed as part of the Plan and discussed in team meetings. Instead, it was handled as a disciplinary matter. The letter also addressed a concern that one student was missing a number of grades in the grade book. Addison suggests there are reasons for that discrepancy, i.e., the student only recently transferred in to her class. These disciplinary letters were followed on December 3, 2009, with a memorandum from Stocking addressed to Addison (although it refers to Addison in the third person) indicating that Addison had not met "district expectations." No one explained at final hearing as to the necessity of on-going disciplinary reports while Strand III was progressing. Addison was meeting weekly with Stocking and other team members to address all issues, including those addressed in the separate disciplinary charges. One of the discipline letters initially recommended a three-day suspension for Addison. A suspension would be totally inappropriate for someone under Strand III. The recommendation was changed once this fact was brought to Stocking's attention by the union representative. Interspersed with these disciplinary actions were a fairly constant exchange of emails between Addison and Stocking, Monoki, Terry and others. The emails contained concerns about Addison's teaching and responses from Addison. It is clear from the correspondence between Addison and others that there was complete disagreement between them as to Addison's teaching skills. The team meetings to address the Plan attempted to cover some of the 117 EAPs each week. Commencing with the October 5, 2009, meeting, a chart was utilized to compare the team's focus from the previous meeting to the focus for the coming week. The chart also included feedback from persons who had personally observed Addison the prior week and a statement of the specific support to be provided in weeks to come. During the first several weeks, the "focus from prior week" section of the chart was fairly brief, while the "feedback from formal observations" section was quite long. During the last few team meetings, this trend reversed. It appears that more feedback and support was being provided in the earliest stages of the Strand III process than in the later stages. According to the findings set forth in the team meeting minutes, Addison made progress in some areas and struggled in others. For the most part, the minutes reflected a "Not Achieved" status for many of the EAPs which were addressed. Addison made some attempts to amend the minutes of team meetings, but inasmuch as the minutes were not meant to be verbatim transcripts, her requests were generally denied. It is telling that Addison's selection to the team, Creighton, signed off on each of the minutes despite Addison's refusal to do so. However, Creighton maintains that Addison was doing a fine job teaching, notwithstanding comments in the minutes. Under the Plan, Addison was supposed to receive guidance, training, and support by administrative and other designated professionals. There is evidence in the record that Addison's class was visited on a number of occasions by other teachers and trainers. However, the preponderance of the evidence is that the classroom visits more often resulted in negative reactions to Addison's teaching than assistance and guidance. The amount of actual assistance received by Addison during the Strand III process is not consistent with the ideals set forth in the Plan. Nor were there any observations made by administrative personnel from the School or from the district office, although the Plan called for such observations. Under the Plan, Addison was supposed to be provided additional planning periods to work on the issues set forth in the Plan. The additional planning periods were never provided, but Petitioner could not explain why. Based upon the size and breadth of the Plan, it would seem that some extra planning time would have been absolutely essential. It is clear Addison and Stocking did not particularly like each other.4 Their differences could have been based on differences in teaching methods, age, years of experience, or any other factor. Whatever the reason, it is clear from the record that the two individuals viewed the same facts with very different interpretations. It is no wonder the Strand III process was deemed unsuccessful. On December 15, 2009, Stocking sent a recommendation to the superintendent of Collier County Schools that Addison be terminated for failing to make significant improvement in the four original areas of concern. By letter dated January 15, 2010, the superintendent notified Addison that a recommendation would be going to the School Board that Addison's teaching contract be terminated. The decision to terminate Addison's teaching contract was made based on the assessment performed during the Strand III process. Lost in the focus on Addison's abilities or lack thereof was the issue of her students' performance. At the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year, 17 of Addison's 19 students were credited with having achieved a year's worth of growth. The other two students were deemed unable to achieve a year's worth of growth for reasons outside of Addison's teaching abilities. There were more students in the team leader, Arcand's, class deemed deficient at the end of that year than in Addison's class. Addison did not complete the 2009-2010 school year, so that particular measurement cannot be used to assess her abilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Collier County School Board, finding that although there was ample evidence to support placing Respondent, Peggy Addison, on Strand III, the process was flawed and cannot be used to justify termination of Addison's employment contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 17th day of September, 2010.
