The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application of Petitioner, Kenneth Crowder, for a Florida Educator's Certificate should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons issued on July 22, 2005, by Respondent, John Winn, acting in his capacity as the Commissioner of Education.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 28, 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education notified Petitioner, Kenneth Crowder, that it intended to suspend, revoke, or limit his teaching certificate. The proposed action was based on allegations that Petitioner engaged in inappropriate conduct with three female students, engaged in inappropriate conduct with a female teacher in December 2000, and was convicted of disorderly conduct, which was amended from a charge of domestic violence. An administrative hearing was conducted with respect to Petitioner's Ohio teaching certificate on March 11 and 14, 2002. The hearing was conducted in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Ohio Revised Code. Petitioner appeared at the hearing, was represented by counsel, and testified on his own behalf. There were three alleged incidents involving allegations of Petitioner's inappropriate conduct with female students that were litigated during the Ohio administrative proceedings. The first alleged incident occurred during the 1999-2000 school year when Petitioner was employed at Northland High School. The other two incidents allegedly occurred during the 2000-2001 school year when Petitioner was employed as a teacher at Brookhaven High School. The Ohio State Board of Education alleged that during the 1999-2000 school year, while a teacher at Northland High School, Petitioner inappropriately touched Ms. Tranette Nicole Jackson, a student in his science class. At the time of the incident, Ms. Jackson was about fifteen and a high school freshman.3 During the Ohio administrative proceeding, Ms. Jackson testified that on March 21, 2000, Petitioner called Ms. Jackson up to his desk and told her he wanted to see her after class.4 At the end of class, with no one else present in the classroom, Ms. Jackson reported to Petitioner's desk. Petitioner then touched Ms. Jackson's leg and rubbed her skirt, raising the skirt. Petitioner then told Ms. Jackson that he needed to see her in the supply room, which was across the hall from the classroom. Ms. Jackson accompanied Petitioner into the supply room, where Petitioner put both hands on Ms. Jackson's buttocks and stated, "This is what I wanted to talk to you about. Keep it to yourself." Ms. Jackson testified that Petitioner then gave her a pass to her next class. Ms. Jackson testified that she was "confused," "scared," and "uncomfortable" about the incident and that she reported it to one of her teachers that same day. The incident was then reported to the school principal and the Franklin County Children Services. After the incident, Ms. Jackson was reassigned from Petitioner's science class to another class. During the Ohio proceedings, Petitioner testified that he never touched Ms. Jackson, but that he reprimanded her for her inappropriate attire. Petitioner testified that in instances where students had on inappropriate attire, the school policy required teachers to send such students to the front office. Notwithstanding the school policy, Petitioner testified that he spoke with Ms. Jackson alone and after class concerning her attire. This failure to abide by school policy lends credence to Ms. Jackson's version of events. Moreover, Petitioner's complete inability on cross-examination during the instant hearing to provide his version of the incident leads the undersigned to accept Ms. Jackson's testimony.5 In the 2000-2001 school year, Petitioner was transferred from Northland High School to Brookhaven High School (Brookhaven), where he taught ninth grade science. The Ohio State Board of Education alleged that during the 2000-2001 school year, while he was employed as a teacher at Brookhaven, Petitioner engaged in two incidents involving inappropriate conduct with female students and one incident involving inappropriate conduct with a female teacher. In one instance, it was alleged that on December 19, 2000, about a day before the Christmas break, Petitioner asked a female student, identified as Student 2, to come to his room after school and give him a hug. It was alleged that the student refused to comply with Petitioner's request and reported the alleged incident to school officials. Student 2 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding. However, Judith Gore, the assistant principal for student services at Brookhaven, one school official to whom Student 2 reported the incident, testified at the Ohio administrative proceeding. Ms. Gore testified that in January 2001, Student 2 told her that on or about December 19, 2000, Petitioner approached Student 2 and told her to give him a hug after school and that when she came to the room she should not wear her jacket. Ms. Gore also testified that Student 2 reported that although Petitioner approached her and requested a hug in December 2000, Student 2 told her that she reported it in January 2001, soon after and because Petitioner approached her in January 2001, after the Christmas break, and asked why she had not come to his room and hugged him in December 2000, before the winter holiday. Ms. Gore also testified that as a result of Petitioner's comments, the student was extremely uncomfortable. Ms. Gore testified that she later attended a conference with the student's father and Petitioner regarding the incident. Student 2 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding. However, Petitioner testified at the Ohio administrative hearing that he asked Student 2 for a hug on or about December 19, 2000, the day before winter recess. Petitioner testified that Student 2 was in the hallway, and he said to her, "Hey, yeah, give me a hug. It's Christmas time. I wish you a Happy New Year and a Merry Christmas." Petitioner testified that at the time he requested that Student 2 give him a hug, she was not in any of his classes, but was one of his student assistants. In fact, Petitioner testified that when he requested that Student 2 give him a hug after school, she was not in his classroom, but was in the hall at her locker. Petitioner testified that because December 19, 2000, was the day before the Christmas recess, it was not unusual for students to hug him. However, Petitioner testified that Student 2 did not make any overtures indicating she wanted to hug him. Rather, Petitioner testified that he approached Student 2 and asked her to hug him. Based on Petitioner's testimony in the Ohio hearing and the instant proceeding, regarding Student 2, it is found that in December 2000, Petitioner approached Student 2 while she was in the hall at her locker and asked her to give him a hug. Ms. Gore testified that during December 2000, a different female student, Student 3, complained to her that Petitioner had touched her buttocks while passing behind her. Student 3 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding, and no evidence was presented at the Ohio administrative proceeding or the instant administrative hearing to establish this charge. At the Ohio administrative proceeding, the Ohio State Board of Education litigated the allegation that Petitioner had engaged in inappropriate behavior with a teacher at Brookhaven. Mary Williams, who was a co-worker of Petitioner at Brookhaven High School, testified in the Ohio administrative proceeding. Ms. Williams testified that, in December 2000, while she was standing at the counter in the main office of the school, Petitioner passed by and intentionally brushed against her buttocks. Ms. Williams also testified that the office was large enough so that Mr. Crowder needed not to touch her at all. Ms. Williams was upset by Petitioner's actions and informed him, in graphic language, what would happen if he ever did it again. Petitioner then apologized to Ms. Williams. Petitioner's testimony concerning the incident involving Ms. Williams is conflicting. For instance, Petitioner testified during the Ohio proceedings that if he brushed his hand against Mr. Williams' buttocks, it was purely accidental. During the instant proceedings, however, Petitioner acknowledged that he touched Ms. Williams' buttocks, but explained that it occurred accidentally as a result of his carrying a meter stick through the office area. At no time during Petitioner's prior testimony did he mention that the touching occurred with a meter stick, or even that he was carrying a meter stick. Accordingly, the undersigned finds Ms. Williams' testimony to be more credible. John Tornes, the personnel director for Columbus City Schools, testified at the Ohio administrative proceeding that as a result of the accumulation of allegations and incidents, Petitioner was assigned to work at home, effective January 29, 2001. The following day, January 30, 2001, Petitioner was assigned to a location where he had no contact with students. On March 26, 2001, Petitioner resigned from the Columbus City Schools, effective June 8, 2001. Mr. Tornes testified that Petitioner was not eligible for rehire. Mr. Tornes explained: During every year of Mr. Crowder's employment, there was an allegation of sexual harassment or abuse; three straight years of it while at Crestview Middle School [sic],[6] while at Northland High School, and then the incident just kept ballooning at Brookhaven High School. . . . His behavior became so questionable that it was no longer feasible for the district to continue his employment. The Ohio State Board of Education litigated the issue of Petitioner's conviction of disorderly conduct, which was amended from a charge of domestic violence. During the Ohio proceedings, Jill S. Harris testified on behalf of the Ohio State Board of Education. Ms. Harris testified that for about a year, beginning in 1999, she was involved in a rocky relationship with Petitioner. During that period, Petitioner and Ms. Harris were living together. According to Ms. Harris, on October 7, 2000, Petitioner, after a night of drinking, arrived home at approximately 5:30 a.m., at which point a violent argument ensued. During their confrontation, Petitioner struck Ms. Harris twice in the face, bruising her chin and cheek and cutting her lip. At some point during the argument, Ms. Harris summoned the police. However, when they arrived, Ms. Harris informed the responding officers that nothing was wrong due to her fear of retaliation from Petitioner. Ms. Harris testified that after the police left, the Petitioner picked up a glass table and threw it at her, breaking the table. Petitioner also grabbed Ms. Harris, at which point she cut her foot on the broken glass. Ms. Harris then left the house and called the police from the vehicle she was driving. Soon after Ms. Harris called, police officers met Ms. Harris and returned with her to the house where she and Petitioner lived. When they arrived there, Petitioner was not there. Officer Sheri Laverack was one of the police officers who met with Ms. Harris on October 7, 2000, shortly after the incident, and investigated the matter. At the Ohio administrative proceedings, Officer Laverack testified that soon after the altercation between Ms. Harris and Petitioner, she observed that Ms. Harris' "lip had been busted and her face was swelling and the bottom of her foot was cut." Officer Laverack also observed that there was bruising around one of Ms. Harris' eyes. At both the Ohio administrative proceeding and in the instant proceeding, Petitioner denied that he struck Ms. Harris in the face and caused the injuries to her face that were observed by Officer Laverack. However, it is found that his testimony was not found to be credible by the hearing examiner presiding over the Ohio administrative hearing. Petitioner has offered conflicting testimony with respect to the incident involving Ms. Harris and the cause of her facial injuries. During the Ohio administrative proceeding, Petitioner testified that he slammed his hand down on the glass table, causing it to come up and hit her. At no time during the Ohio proceeding did Petitioner testify that Ms. Harris lifted up the table or in any way contributed to the facial injuries she suffered. However, during the instant proceeding, Petitioner testified that when he hit the glass table, Ms. Harris "pulled the top of it up, and I think it [the glass portion of the table] hit her in the chin or something to that effect." Petitioner then testified that "I don't really recall . . . that's what I vaguely recall." Petitioner's testimony concerning the October 7, 2000, incident and how Ms. Harris sustained the injuries to her face is inconsistent and not credible. In light of the multiple injuries to Ms. Harris' face (a cut to her lip, swelling on the right side of her face, and bruising around her eye), it is unlikely that Ms. Harris' injuries could have been sustained in the manner described by Petitioner. Petitioner's testimony in the instant proceeding that he did not hit Ms. Harris is not credible. On the other hand, given the nature of the injuries, it is more probable that Ms. Harris' injuries resulted from Petitioner's hitting her, as she testified. It is found that Ms. Harris' testimony that Petitioner struck her in the face was credible. Moreover, Ms. Harris' credible testimony was substantiated by the testimony of Officer Laverack, who observed the injuries to Ms. Harris on October 7, 2000, shortly after the incident. As a result of the October 7, 2000, incident, Ms. Harris filed domestic violence and assault charges against Petitioner. Ultimately, as a result of the incident, Petitioner was charged with disorderly conduct. On June 25, 2001, Petitioner entered a guilty plea to the amended charge of disorderly conduct. Pursuant to an agreement with the State of Ohio, Petitioner was sentenced to 30 days in jail, with the sentence being suspended if and when Petitioner made restitution of $1,000 to Ms. Harris for the damage to her table. Petitioner paid the restitution. At the time of the Ohio administrative proceeding, Petitioner had a four-year middle school teaching certificate with an expiration date of June 30, 2002, and had applied for a temporary teaching certificate. On April 2, 2002, the Ohio hearing examiner submitted a recommended order to the Ohio State Board of Education. In the recommended order, the hearing officer found that Petitioner sexually abused Ms. Jackson, inappropriately touched Ms. Williams, and committed an act of violence against Ms. Harris. In addition, the hearing examiner recommended that the Ohio State Board of Education revoke Petitioner's teaching certificate and deny his application for a temporary teaching certificate. In a Resolution dated May 16, 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education revoked Petitioner's teaching certificate. The Resolution was adopted by the Ohio State Board of Education at its meeting on May 14, 2002. The Ohio State Board of Education's Resolution stated that it was revoking Petitioner's middle school teaching certificate "based upon his 2001 conviction for disorderly conduct stemming from domestic violence and inappropriate sexual contact with three female students and one female teacher during 2000 and 2001." Petitioner appealed the decision of the Ohio State Board of Education. The Ohio State Board of Education's decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Ohio Court of Common Pleas on August 11, 2003, in Case No. 02CVF06-6230.7 The testimony of Ms. Harris, Ms. Williams, Ms. Jackson, Officer Laverack, Mr. Tornes, and Ms. Gore in the Ohio proceeding constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule under Subsection 90.803(22), Florida Statutes.8 Therefore, the testimony of the foregoing named individuals in the Ohio administrative proceeding is sufficient in itself to support a finding of fact and does not run afoul of Subsection 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes.9 Petitioner's conduct fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defines good moral character. By any reasonable standard, it is wrong for a teacher to brush his hands on the buttocks of a student and of a fellow colleague. The wrong is compounded when the teacher instructs the student to conceal the fact that he engaged in such conduct. During his testimony, Petitioner admitted that he asked a high school student to give him a hug. By any reasonable standard, this conduct fell short of right behavior that defines good moral character. Petitioner's testimony regarding the circumstances and appropriateness of such a request is not credible or persuasive. Neither does Petitioner's explanation provide a reasonable basis for a teacher to solicit a hug from any student. Petitioner's conduct of committing acts of violence against the woman with whom he lived likewise fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defined good moral behavior. The three incidents in which Petitioner engaged in inappropriate conduct with Ms. Jackson, Student 2, and Ms. Williams, occurred at school. The incident involving Ms. Jackson, one of his students, occurred on school grounds in March 2000. The conduct in which Petitioner engaged with Student 2 and with Ms. Williams, his colleague, occurred at school in December 2000. Petitioner's pattern of conduct with two female students and a female teacher demonstrates that he is an unsuitable candidate for a teaching certificate. Moreover, Petitioner's conduct as established by the facts of this case, particularly as it directly involved students at the school, bears directly on his fitness to teach in the public schools of Florida. The evidence failed to establish that Petitioner possesses the good moral character required of a teacher in this state. For this reason, Petitioner is not eligible for certification. The evidence establishes that Petitioner committed an act or acts for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke a teaching certificate. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality of an act involving moral turpitude. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has had a teaching certificate revoked in another state. The evidence establishes that Petitioner pled guilty and was convicted of the misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules. The evidence establishes that Petitioner failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or public safety. The evidence establishes that Petitioner intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The evidence establishes that Petitioner exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct, which unreasonably interfered in an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment and, further, failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual was protected from such harassment or discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate and providing that he be permanently barred from re- application pursuant to Subsection 1012.796(7)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2006.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Diane Velez, violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the testimony given, and the documentary evidence received, the following Findings of Fact are made. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 789520, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages, (ESOL), and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at Stillwell Middle School (Stillwell) in the Duval County School District. She has been teaching for approximately 20 years, with no prior discipline. Respondent teaches in a wing at Stillwell that is referred to as the SLA Unit, which stands for Supported Level Academics. The students in the SLA Unit are cognitively delayed and have all of their classes in this self- contained unit. The SLA Unit is located in a wing at the back of the school, near the bus loop. If someone is looking down the hall from the doors closest to the rest of the school, there are female and male bathrooms for students to the left and right, respectively, closest to those doors. From those bathrooms, there are five classrooms on each side of the hall. Ms. Velez’s classroom is the third classroom on the right-hand side of the hallway. There are additional restrooms in the wing, all congregated in the area between the third and fourth classrooms on the left hand side of the hallway. At least one of those bathrooms is entered from within a classroom. Stillwell had a policy that if a student was given permission to leave the classroom, the student should not be gone for more than eight to ten minutes without the teacher calling for assistance to locate the student. Teachers could call for assistance from Ronald Messick, the lead ESE teacher; send a paraprofessional to look for the student; or call the front office or a resource officer. The eight-to-ten minute window was not a written policy, but was discussed during pre-planning meetings at the beginning of the year, as well as at faculty meetings. While attendance logs from pre-planning and faculty meetings were not introduced to establish that Respondent was present during faculty meetings or pre-planning meetings, no evidence was presented to indicate that she was absent. In addition, the 2017-2018 Faculty Handbook (Handbook) for Stillwell had more than one section that addressed supervision of students. For example, under the caption “Supervision of Students,” beginning on page 12 of the Handbook, it states:1 It is the responsibility of the school to provide supervision for students in attendance. It is the teacher’s responsibility to make sure that students in his/her charge are supervised at all times. Teachers should be aware of the legal and progressive discipline aspects of failure to provide adequate supervision. Students should always have adult supervision. Under the caption “Hall Passes,” on page 16 of the Handbook, it states: Hall passes are to be used for emergencies only. In an effort to reduce the number of students out of class during instructional time, each classroom will have either a lime/orange vest or a Colored clipboard. Students needing to leave the classroom are required to wear the vest or carry the clipboard. Please make sure students continue to sign-out when leaving/returning to your classroom so if the vest/clipboard disappears, you will know who was in possession of it last. Only one student per class may be on a hall pass at any given time. If it is necessary that a student leave your classroom to go to an Administrative Office and your vest/clipboard is already being used, security will need to escort student(s) to and from the classroom. While it is our desire that no student be in the halls during instructional time, there are absolutely NO hall passes for any reason during the first/last 30 minutes of each class and NO hall passes during 2nd block each day unless called by an Administrator. Students who are found out of class during the first/last 30 minutes of the block will have the vest or clipboard taken and given to the Assistant Principal for you to retrieve. Students who are out of class, unaccompanied by security, and do not have a vest/clipboard will be 1 All italics, underlining, and bold used in the quoted material is as it appears in the Handbook. considered skipping and appropriate consequences will be assigned. The teacher will also be held accountable if not following school procedure. Finally, under the heading “Hall and Campus Monitoring,” it states in all capitals and bold letters, “STUDENTS SHOULD NEVER WALK BY THEMSELVES.” On or about January 11, 2018, J.L. was an 11-year-old female student in the sixth grade. J.L. was assigned to Respondent’s classroom, and has an Individual Education Plan (IEP). J.L. was a student in a class containing students who functioned cognitively at the lowest level for students at Stillwell. While those who testified could not state definitively what the IQ level was for the class, it was generally around 67-70. Ms. Velez described the class as one for which there was “a need to have eyes on them.” J.L. was new to the school during the 2017-2018 school year. On August 22, 2017, Ronald Messick sent an email to J.L.’s teachers, including Respondent, stating that J.L. could not be left alone and that she would “leave with a complete stranger.” He advised that when J.L. uses the restroom, she likes to play in it, and directed that the teacher who has J.L. the last period of the day needed to make sure she used the restroom. J.L.’s mother had called Mr. Messick the first week of school with concerns that J.L. had been unsupervised in the bus pick-up area. Her mother explained her concerns to Mr. Messick regarding J.L.’s need for constant supervision. The email referenced making sure that J.L. went to the bathroom before boarding the bus simply because she would have a long ride home from school. An IEP meeting was conducted for J.L. on October 12, 2017. Mr. Messick was present as the LEA (lead educational agency) representative, along with Ms. Velez, who wrote the IEP, and three others. J.L.’s IEP states that “[s]he has Williams Syndrome which is a developmental disorder that affects many parts of her body.” The IEP also states that J.L. “is a very trusting child and will walk away with a stranger. She does not distinguish friend from stranger and this causes danger to her safety,” and that J.L. “needs increased supervision to ensure her safety.” The statement that J.L. needs increased supervision to insure her safety is included in two separate sections of her IEP. Respondent was J.L.’s case manager. As her case manager, Respondent reviews, completes entries, and inputs other appropriate data in J.L.’s IEP. She was aware of the information contained in J.L.’s IEP. On January 11, 2018, J.L. was present in Ms. Velez’s classroom during the last period of the day. At approximately 2:05, she asked for, and received, permission to go to the bathroom. Ms. Velez allowed J.L. to go by herself. No adult or other student accompanied her. Allowing J.L. to go the restroom alone was not permitted by her IEP. Further, it appears to violate the policies outlined in the Handbook, which prohibits allowing hall passes for the first 30 minutes of each class. The final class of the day began at 2:05.2 It also runs afoul of the email sent by Mr. Messick at the beginning of the school year, which specifically directed that J.L. not be left alone. After J.L. was permitted to leave the classroom, T.B., a male student in Respondent’s class, also asked to go the bathroom, and was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez did not check to see where J.L. was before letting T.B. leave the classroom. T.B. was also unaccompanied. J.L. was absent from the classroom for approximately 24 minutes. There are no credible circumstances presented at hearing by which a student should be absent from the classroom for that length of time, regardless of 2 The Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with violating this policy, and no discipline is recommended for apparently doing so. It is included simply to show that there were multiple guidelines in place to prohibit allowing J.L. outside of the classroom alone. their mental capacity, the policy contained in the Handbook, or any policy discussed at faculty meetings. T.B. returned to the classroom before J.L. After he entered Ms. Velez’s classroom, T.B. apparently told Ms. Velez that J.L. was in the boys’ bathroom. Ms. Velez testified that she was about to look for her when J.L. returned to the classroom. Ms. Velez testified that she noticed J.L. had “a lot of energy,” and was breathing hard and her hands were shaking. Ms. Velez asked J.L. if she had been in the boys’ bathroom, and testified at hearing that J.L. responded that she did not want to get in trouble. J.L. became upset and asked to speak with the school nurse. Ms. Velez allowed her to go to the nurse’s office, this time accompanied by an eighth grade girl. While Ms. Velez described the child who accompanied J.L. as “very responsible,” it is noted that she was also a child in this classroom of children who represented the lowest functioning students at Stillwell. Lana Austin was the school nurse at Stillwell, and her office was down the hall from Ms. Velez’s room in the SLA wing. She testified T.B. was in her office when J.L. arrived. It was not explained at hearing whether T.B. had also asked Ms. Velez to go to the nurse’s office or just how he came to be there. When she arrived at the nurse’s office, J.L. was crying and somewhat distraught, and T.B. was also getting upset. Ms. Austin tried to get J.L. to tell her what was wrong, and J.L. kept saying they were trying to get her in trouble. J.L. wanted to call her mother, and Ms. Austin let her do so, because she believed it would calm her down. A paraprofessional came into Ms. Austin’s office while J.L. was on the phone with her mother. So while the paraprofessional was in the office with the students, Ms. Austin contacted Ms. Raulerson, the principal at Stillwell, and notified her there might be a problem so that someone could look at the hallway video and find out if anything happened. Ms. Austin knew that J.L. was a student who needed to be escorted. She was always brought to the nurse’s office by an adult. On this occasion, there was no adult. Jennifer Raulerson was the principal at Stillwell during the 2017-2018 school year. She is now the executive director for middle schools in Duval County. Ms. Raulerson testified that J.L.’s father came to the school immediately after J.L.’s telephone call home, and started asking questions. Because of the nature of his questions, consistent with school protocols, Ms. Raulerson contacted Stillwell’s school resource officer (SRO), Officer Tuten, as well as Mr. Messick and Ms. Hodges, who was the dean of students, to discuss with J.L.’s father what needed to be done to investigate what actually happened.3 The following morning, Ms. Raulerson, Ms. Hodges, and Mr. Messick spoke to J.L., T.B., and M.N., another student in the hallway, about what happened the day before. Based on their answers, Ms. Raulerson gave Ms. Hodges a basic timeframe, and asked her to check the cameras to see if she saw anything that would indicate that something happened involving J.L. and T.B. Ms. Hodges testified that a person can type in a date and time on the computer and look at a specific timeframe on the video, which is what she did. Once she viewed the video and realized how long a student had been out of the classroom, she went to Ms. Raulerson and they looked at the video again. Mr. Messick also watched the video with them. Administrators at the school could access the surveillance video on their computers. The surveillance video software has dates and times from which you can retrieve a time period to watch. However, when you download 3 Although they were under subpoena, neither J.L. nor J.L.’s father appeared to testify at hearing. Any statements attributed to them cannot support a finding of fact for the truth of the matter asserted. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Statements by J.L. that are included in this Recommended Order are not intended to establish the truth of her statements, but rather, to explain why teachers and administrators took the actions they did in response to the situation. a section of the surveillance video, the downloaded portion does not include the timestamp. When Ms. Raulerson viewed the surveillance video on the computer screen, she could see the time stamp. While the video in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E does not contain the time stamp, Ms. Raulerson credibly testified that it is the same video she and the others viewed to determine whether J.L. and T.B. were out of the classroom and how long they were out of the classroom. Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E is a type of evidence commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their responsibilities as a school administrator. There is no evidence that the tape itself has been altered, edited, or tampered with in any way. The lack of a time stamp is not all that important. What is important is not so much the time of day when J.L. and T.B. were absent from Respondent’s classroom, but the length of time that they were absent.4 Ms. Velez admits that she allowed both students to leave her classroom on January 11. She simply disputes how long J.L. was gone. The surveillance video is 39 minutes and 53 seconds long. The times given in the summary of the video activity below are based on the times recorded on the video, as opposed to the time of day. A comparison of those timeframes with the timeline made by Ms. Austin and Mr. Messick shows that the timelines are essentially the same. The video shows the following: 4 Respondent claims she is prejudiced by the admission of the video, because she was not able to view it with the time-stamps to verify that it was, in fact, the video for January 11, 2018. It is noted that Respondent initiated no discovery in this case. Petitioner filed an exhibit list that included a reference to a video as early as July 24, 2020, some three weeks before hearing. Moreover, the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions specifically requires not only a list of all exhibits to be offered at hearing, but also any objections to those exhibits and the grounds for each objection. Respondent did not note any objection in the Second Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Statement to the admission of any of the videos admitted as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17. At eight minutes, 17 seconds, J.L. leaves Ms. Velez’s classroom and heads down toward the girls’ bathroom at the end of the hall.5 She is wearing an over-sized jacket, but is not wearing a vest or carrying a clipboard. At nine minutes, 15 seconds, she comes out of the girls’ bathroom and speaks to an adult in the hallway, and then heads back to the bathroom. At the 13-minute, 4-second mark, T.B. walks down the hall from Ms. Velez’s classroom and, curiously, walks over toward the girls’ bathroom before going over to the boys’ bathroom. At 14 minutes, 39 seconds, T.B. comes out of the boys’ bathroom and walks over toward the girls’ bathroom a second time. After approximately ten seconds, he exits the area near the girls’ bathroom and heads back to the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 15 minutes into the video, and almost seven minutes after leaving Ms. Velez’s classroom, J.L. comes out of the girls’ bathroom, peers down the hallway in both directions, and goes over to the boys’ bathroom. At this point, she is still wearing her jacket. At approximately 18 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, a second male student, later identified as M.N., walks down the hall. M.N. is not in Ms. Velez’s class during this class period. He also goes toward the girls’ bathroom first, and then stands in the hallway outside the boys’ bathroom. After approximately 30 seconds, he walks down the hall and back, before going toward the boys’ bathroom and out of sight at 19 minutes and 40 seconds. At 20 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, other students start lining up in the hallway. Approximately four classes line up in the hallway, with no one coming out of the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 29 minutes, 5 Respondent established at hearing that one cannot actually see students enter and exit the bathrooms from the surveillance video. The sight line for the video stops just short of the doors to the two bathrooms. However, the only other alternative to going in the bathrooms would be for students to exit the SLA unit through the doors near the bathrooms. If that were the case, J.L. would be subject to harm as well, given that the doors lead to the rest of the school and the bus loading zone. 26 seconds, girls in line outside the bathroom are seen looking toward the boys’ bathroom and appear to be laughing. J.L. comes out of the boys’ bathroom at the 29-minute, 53-second mark, followed by T.B. J.L. is not wearing her jacket, and her belt is undone. T.B. throws J.L.’s jacket on the floor and walks down the hallway with his hands up in the air. Both J.L. and T.B. walk down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s room, and then turn around and return to their respective bathrooms. At the 31-minute, 53-second mark, J.L. comes out of the bathroom with her shirt tucked in and her belt fastened. She is still not wearing her jacket, a small portion of which can be seen on the floor of the hallway. She does not pick it up, but stays in the hallway until T.B. comes out of the bathroom, then both go down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s class, with T.B. running and J.L. walking. J.L. re-enters Ms. Velez’s classroom at 32 minutes, 21 seconds into the video. Finally, at 32 minutes, 30 seconds, M.N. comes out of the boys’ room, picks up J.L.’s jacket and heads down the hall. Based on the surveillance video, J.L.was out of the classroom for slightly over 24 minutes. T.B. was absent from the classroom for over 18 minutes. Ms. Velez is never seen in the hallway. There is no admissible evidence to demonstrate what actually occurred during the time that J.L. appeared to be in the boys’ restroom. Regardless of what actually happened, no female student should be in the boys’ bathroom, and a female student already identified as needing increased supervision should not be allowed to be unsupervised outside of her classroom at all, much less for such a lengthy period of time. The potential for harm was more than foreseeable, it was inevitable. Ms. Velez did not go in the hallway or send Ms. Kirkland, the paraprofessional present in her classroom that day, to check on J.L. or T.B. She did not call the SRO, the front office, or Mr. Messick to ask for assistance in locating either child. She also did not contact Ms. Raulerson, Mr. Messick, or J.L.’s parents after T.B. told her that J.L. had been in the boys’ restroom. She testified that, while J.L. certainly should not be in the boys’ restroom, there was nothing that led her to believe or suspect that there could be neglect or abuse. Ms. Velez acknowledged that she allowed J.L. to go to the bathroom unsupervised, and stated that she was training J.L. to go to the bathroom by herself. If that was the case, doing so was directly contrary to Mr. Messick’s email of August 22, 2017, and to the requirements of J.L.’s IEP. Ms. Velez had approximately 18 students in her classroom. Her focus, according to her, was on providing instruction to the students in her class. She denied losing track of time, but stated that once the students were engaged, she took her time with the lesson, which “led me to not noticing what time it was as normally as I should,” and she “possibly got distracted.” She did not take any responsibility for her actions. Instead, she blamed the situation on the fact that, at the time of the incident, she did not have a full- time paraprofessional assigned to her classroom. While the paraprofessional position for her class was not filled at the time of this incident, Ms. Kirkland traveled with the class and was present in Ms. Velez’s class when J.L. was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez also appeared to minimize the importance of providing increased supervision for J.L., and claimed that she was training her to go to the bathroom by herself. Yet, she described the class as a whole as one that needed “eyes on them” at all times. Further, J.L.’s parents clearly felt the increased supervision was crucial, and called early in the school year to make sure that staff knew J.L. was not to be left alone. Ms. Velez gave no explanation as to why she would “train” J.L. to leave the room unsupervised (and one wonders what training could be taking place, if the child is allowed to go alone outside the classroom), when she knew that to do so was clearly contrary to J.L.’s parents’ wishes. On January 22, 2018, the Duval County School District (the District) began an investigation into the incident concerning J.L. that occurred on January 11, 2018. During the District investigation, Ms. Raulerson notified the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and law enforcement of the incident. Both entities conducted investigations. The results of those investigations are not part of this record. On March 16, 2018, the District reprimanded Respondent and suspended her for 30 days for failing to provide adequate supervision of her students. The School Board’s approval of the suspension and the basis for it was reported in the press.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent pay a fine of $750, and that her certificate be suspended for a period of one year, followed by two years of probation, with terms and conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Stephanie Marisa Schaap, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Petitioner, Osceola County School Board (School Board or Petitioner), has just cause to terminate Respondents Mona Sagar and Kristie Gilmore from their employment contracts.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is duly constituted and charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Osceola County, Florida. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; ch. 1012, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore were employed by the School District. Ms. Sagar has been in the education field for years. She attended “teachers college” in Trinidad and taught school there for ten years. She was hired as a paraprofessional (para) by the School District in 2011. Ms. Sagar was assigned to an autistic classroom at Discovery Intermediate School (Discovery) and later switched to an “intellectually disabled mild” (InD mild) classroom. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Sagar was the para assigned to the “intellectually disabled severe” (InD severe) class. The InD severe class had a teacher and two paras,7/ and was composed of children who were mainly confined to wheelchairs or who needed special assistance to walk. Ms. Sagar completed the crisis prevention intervention (CPI) class, a class that instructs personnel on how to physically and verbally restrain, redirect, and prompt a child who is misbehaving. Ms. Gilmore became a para in exceptional student education (ESE) in 2005. She arrived at Discovery in August 2005. Ms. Gilmore worked with students with varying educational needs including: emotional behavior disorder (EBD); autism; InD mild; intellectually disabled moderate (InD moderate); intellectually disabled profound (InD profound); and regular educational students.8/ Ms. Gilmore had completed the CPI training twice before, but she was not re-certified at the start of the 2013-2014 school year. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. Discovery had six self-contained ESE classrooms for the 2013-2014 school year. There were two autistic classrooms, one InD mild classroom, one InD moderate classroom, one InD severe classroom, and one EBD classroom. All six classrooms are located on the first floor of one of Discovery’s buildings, in close proximity to the office of the dean of students. Student safety is of paramount concern for School District employees. As such, every EBD classroom has a land-line telephone and a walkie-talkie for use to request assistance, to notify the appropriate office of a student’s unscheduled exit from the classroom and to provide other information. The telephone is primarily a school-based phone that has its own five-digit internal extension number.9/ In the event a walkie-talkie is not available, a teacher or para may use the telephone to communicate with other school personnel. The walkie-talkies are limited to the self-contained classrooms, guidance counselors, deans, school resource officer, administrators, principal’s secretary, academic coaches, athletic coaches, and maintenance staff. The walkie-talkies are on one channel or frequency, and when used, everyone who has a walkie- talkie can hear the conversation. Discipline referrals may be written by any adult at Discovery for any infraction in the student code of conduct. The referral form reflects the student’s name, identification number, the classroom, school, grade level, date of birth, race, sex, homeroom teacher, incident date and time, location of the incident, the problem or explanation of the problem, the action taken by the adult prior to the referral, the signature of the referring adult, and the date signed. The bottom of the referral form was for “administrative use only,” and reflects what if any action was taken. Ms. Gilmore, as the para in the EBD self- contained classroom, authored numerous discipline referrals for student J.G. During the 2013 summer, Ms. Chowdhary was notified that she would be re-assigned to Discovery’s EBD self-contained classroom for the 2013-2014 school year. Ms. Chowdhary did not want this assignment; however, Ms. Chowdhary contacted Ms. Gilmore and asked if she (Ms. Gilmore) would consent to be Ms. Chowdhary’s para in her EBD self-contained classroom. This request was based on their positive working relationship during the 2012-2013 school year in an autistic classroom. Ms. Gilmore agreed, the school administration concurred, and Ms. Gilmore was assigned to Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year there were ten male students in Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. This classroom had a walkie-talkie and telephone. Each student had an individual educational plan (IEP), a different EBD, and a medical condition. On the first day of school, each student was given a welcome packet that contained an emergency contact sheet and a health care report form. The parents are requested (but not required) to complete as much of the information as they wish, and return it to the classroom. Ms. Gilmore read the responses “thoroughly” regarding the medical conditions of students J.G. and J.C., as provided by their respective parents or guardians. In early December 2013, Ms. Gilmore was re-assigned to an InD moderate classroom as an accommodation for her pregnancy. Ms. Chowdhary requested a male para to replace Ms. Gilmore. Based on the support staff already engaged by Discovery, Ms. Sagar was transferred to work in Ms. Chowdhary’s self- contained classroom. Ms. Sagar observed and worked with Ms. Gilmore on two separate days for several hours prior to the actual transfer in mid-December. Approximately two weeks before the Christmas break, a female student, J.T., arrived in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. was taller and heavier than either Ms. Chowdhary or Ms. Sagar. J.T.’s language was loud and predominantly profanity-laced. J.T. did not complete her classroom assignments, and she did not follow the classroom rules regarding the use of her cellphone.10/ On January 9, 2014, Ms. Gilmore learned that Ms. Chowdhary was absent from school. Ms. Gilmore volunteered to be the substitute teacher in Ms. Chowdhary’s classroom.11/ In the early afternoon of January 9, two male students engaged in a physical altercation (Altercation No. 1) in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. took out her cellphone and recorded Altercation No. 1 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 6, Respondents’ Exhibit 21). That recording showed one student, J.G., standing over and taunting another student, J.C. J.G. called J.C. a “taco.” J.C. responded that J.G. should call J.C. “Taco Bell,” and added that J.G. was the dark meat in his taco. J.G. took J.C.’s remark to be a racist comment. J.C.12/ was crumpled on the floor behind a desk where J.G. grabbed J.C. by his warm-up jacket collar/shirt. J.G. pulled J.C. up by the collar/shirt and pushed J.C. into a chair at a computer cubby and small space near a wall. J.G. kept one hand on J.C. while pinning J.C. to the small space. J.G. continued to taunt J.C. and is heard to say: Next comment I’m gonna stomp on your [J.C.’s] heart, and I know you got a condition to where I stomp on it, you dead, and I don’t give a f . So you can’t keep making a racist joke. Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were both present and observed Altercation No. 1. Ms. Gilmore was sitting at the teacher’s desk in the front of the room when Altercation No. 1 started. When J.G. “dumped [J.C.] out of the chair,” [to start the altercation], [Ms. Gilmore] told J.G. to “knock it off,” and when J.G. had J.C. on the floor, she [Ms. Gilmore] “told him to quit.” Ms. Gilmore testified that she didn’t call for help because “It was over.” Her testimony is not credible because the recording shows that J.G. then pulled J.C. up to a standing position, and continued to taunt him. Further, Respondents’ Exhibit 16 is a discipline referral that Ms. Gilmore authored on January 9, the day of the altercations. Ms. Gilmore documented in this discipline referral the following “PROBLEM – EXPLAIN:” During Science class, 5th period, [J.G.] was talking about how he fights and got into an altercation with another student. Words were exchanged and [J.G.] didn’t like what the student [J.C.] said so he [J.G.] flipped him [J.C.] out of his chair, kicked him [J.C.] a couple times and threatened to kill the other student [J.C.] by stomping on his [J.C.’s] heart. Ms. Sagar was seated at a desk assisting another student, J.M., when Altercation No. 1 started. Ms. Sagar did not hear any loud shouting or threats at the beginning of Altercation No. 1, but it escalated to the point where she was “alarmed.” Ms. Sagar admitted that she got up to leave the room, then decided not to do so, telling herself: “I shouldn’t leave the class at this time.” The reason she did not leave the classroom was because the altercation “wasn’t settled like down, down, down. It still had like the talking and everybody, so I turned around and came back to my seat.” Ms. Sagar did not move to intervene or call for help. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar moved to intervene in Altercation No. 1, and neither used the walkie-talkie or the telephone to call for assistance or to alert the administration of the volatile situation. A few minutes later another altercation (Altercation No. 2) took place in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. also recorded Altercation No. 2 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 8) on her cellphone. J.G. was again taunting J.C. J.G. dared J.C. to “take a swing” at J.G. J.C. did not swing at J.G. J.G. proceeded to talk to the class about J.C. and other classmates. J.C. then expressed his desire to die because his life “sucks,” his father was dead, and his step-father didn’t love him. J.C. violently kicked/pushed a chair several feet away from himself, began to cry, stated that he’d be “happy if you [J.G.] kill me,” violently overturned a desk, and walked out of the EBD self- contained classroom. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the EBD self-contained classroom, and observed Altercation No. 2. During Altercation No. 2, Ms. Gilmore was at the front of the class at the teacher’s desk. Ms. Gilmore confirmed that J.C. “flipped a desk and walked out of class.” Ms. Gilmore testified she “opened the door, . . . and put myself at the doorway to get the rest of the kids out of the class if I had to get them out.” Ms. Gilmore is briefly partially seen in the recording, and she is heard asking J.C. to pick up the desk before he left the classroom. J.C. did not pick up the desk. The recording shows Ms. Sagar seated at a work table with J.M. At one point Ms. Sagar rises from her seat, walks to a counter with a microwave, stays at the counter for a short time, returns to her seat, and then eats something while Altercation No. 2 is on-going. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar used the walkie- talkie or telephone to obtain assistance or alert the administration of the continuing volatile situation. J.C. went to the dean of students (Ms. Rice’s) office after he walked out of the EBD self-contained classroom. Once there, he screamed at Ms. Rice about the events that had just taken place in his classroom. Ms. Rice observed J.C. to be distraught and angry. Based on J.C.’s comments, Ms. Rice understood that a recording of the classroom events was made. Ms. Rice requested the principal to obtain the recording. Between when J.C. left the EBD self-contained classroom and when the principal arrived at the EBD self-contained classroom to retrieve the recording, yet another altercation, Altercation No. 3, occurred. J.T. started recording Altercation No. 3 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 10) on her cellphone. Student W.F. held a chair over his head and threatened to throw it at another student, D.S. The other students in the classroom can be heard urging W.F. to throw it, but W.F. did not. J.G. can be seen standing behind D.S., and heard to say he’ll “make sure it hit[s] you [D.S.].” When it became apparent that W.F. was not going to throw the chair, J.T. handed her phone to W.F., who continued to record the action, and J.T. threw the chair. J.T. testified that she did not intend to hurt D.S., but she was not “play acting.” Ms. Gilmore testified she did not remember much of Altercation No. 3. She thought she might have been writing a referral at her desk, and did not call for help because the altercation was over so quickly. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the classroom, observed Altercation No. 3, and did nothing to radio or call for assistance or alert the administration of the volatile situation. There is no credible evidence that any of the altercations were pretend fights, or that they were staged for the benefit of the other students. Ms. Gilmore’s contention, that the altercations were staged, is not credible. This EBD self-contained classroom is a challenging class, one that should be closely monitored and adequately staffed to ensure learning can occur, and safety maintained. Respondents never attempted to gain control of the classroom or students. They never called for help or removed the other students from the area. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Osceola County School Board, enter a final order finding that just cause exists for terminating the employment of Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and how, Respondent should be disciplined for failing to take appropriate action regarding a middle school student who brought a knife to school.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 1063574 and is licensed in the fields of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Reading, and Exceptional Student Education. She began teaching at Bonita Springs Middle School in Lee County in September 2011, after the start of the 2011-2012 school year. During instruction in her fourth period class on February 13, 2012, Respondent heard a student ask another student, who was an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) student with emotional issues, "was that a knife?" The ESE student responded, "Drama!" When Respondent looked up, she saw the ESE student place something in her lap, out of Respondent's view. Respondent did not see what it was but saw a flash of silver or metal. The class started to "act up," and Respondent decided to diffuse the incident and quiet the class by telling the ESE student to "put it away." The ESE student then put the object in her backpack. When the class ended, Respondent approached the ESE student and asked if she had a knife. The student denied it. Respondent told the student, if she had a knife, that would be unacceptable, but Respondent did not pursue the matter any further at the time and allowed the student to leave for her next class. During Respondent's eighth period class, the last period of the day, Respondent asked her student-aide, who also was a student in her fourth period class, about the incident during fourth period. The student-aide told Respondent that it was a knife, like a small steak knife, and that the ESE student had been licking it. After speaking with her student-aide, Respondent sent the school's ESE director, who also was the ESE student's caseworker, an electronic message simply asking to discuss the student with her when she had a moment. No details about the incident were included in the message out of Respondent's concern that it would be a public record. Respondent did not receive a response by the end of the school day. The ESE director received the message after hours. The next morning, Respondent saw the ESE director at a teacher's meeting and explained the previous day's incident. The ESE director was concerned about the delay in doing anything else about it and immediately went to the school principal, who was in the cafeteria, as were several other students, including Respondent's ESE student. The principal immediately went to the student and asked if she had a knife. The student admitted she did and thought it was no big deal since Respondent did nothing about it the day before. The student later stated that she was depressed and was considering cutting herself with the knife. Respondent now understands that she did not take the appropriate action on February 13, 2012. However, she contends that there are mitigating factors to consider, and any discipline should be constructive (such as, additional training), not punitive. Respondent attempts to defend herself to an extent by saying she did not actually see the knife during fourth period. However, it is clear that Respondent heard students asking about a knife, and saw something silver or metallic that could have been a knife, and was aware of the student's emotional issues. In light of those circumstances, Respondent should not have been satisfied with the student's denial that she had a knife; she should have involved the school's administrators and resource officer at that point. When she learned during eighth period that the student in fact had a knife, she should not have been satisfied with an unacknowledged electronic message to the ESE director. Respondent also attempts to deflect some blame onto the school for not making sure she knew what to do about incidents like the one that confronted her on February 13, 2012. It may well be true, as she testified, that Respondent did not get a copy of the Parent Guide and Code of Conduct for Students, normally distributed to teachers at the beginning of the school year, which identifies a kitchen knife as a weapon and prohibits it. Petitioner attempted to impeach Respondent's denial of receipt of the document by citing a handful of student discipline referrals by Respondent that use incident types taken from that document. One incident type, albeit not used by Respondent in any of her referrals, was possession of weapons; however, the form does not define weapons. Respondent testified convincingly that she used the forms without reference to the source document. Nonetheless, she knew it would be unacceptable for a student to have a knife at school. When Respondent started teaching at the school, she was offered an opportunity to take the APPLES program for new teachers, which provides information and training on codes of conduct, including provisions to protect the safety of students and faculty. Respondent opted out, stating that she took the APPLES program during her previous employment in Collier County. While perhaps not handed to Respondent when she started teaching at Bonita Springs Middle School, the Parent Guide and Code of Conduct for Students was easily accessible from Respondent's school computer via a program called SharePoint that was a link on the home page. Respondent denies ever accessing the material from her computer. However, Respondent prepared a professional development plan shortly after she started teaching at the school in October 2011. It included a plan to train on how to download documents from SharePoint, but Respondent had not yet followed through on that plan by the time of the incident. Information also was available to Respondent in the form of an Agenda book that she was given. The Agenda book contained the school's rules, including one prohibiting weapons as nuisances and providing that they would be confiscated. It is not clear whether any of the information provided or available to Respondent would have told her what to do in circumstances where she suspected, but was not certain, that a student had a knife, and the student denied it. Based on the facts of this case, additional training is appropriate and actually is desired by Respondent. On the other hand, Respondent would rather not be reprimanded, submit to supervised probation, and pay a $500 fine and pay costs, as Petitioner proposes. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, Petitioner's proposal would be harsh, not constructive, and possibly demoralizing. The evidence is clear that Respondent will follow the rules she is given and take appropriate action in a situation if she knows what is expected of her. A repeat of the failure to act appropriately in a situation similar to the incident on February 13, 2012, is not likely.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission find Respondent guilty of violating rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), issue a letter of reprimand, and place her on a short term of probation conditioned on the completion of appropriate additional training. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, misconduct in office and/or absence without leave. POST-HEARING PROCEDURE A transcript of the formal hearing was provided the undersigned on March 21, 1985, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by both parties. A subsequently-filed revision of Respondent's initial proposal was accepted without objection and considered. When a party's proposed findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence admitted, they were adopted and are reflected in the Recommended Order, but to the extent proposed findings of fact were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been rejected or, where possible, modified to conform to the evidence. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted or are inconsistent with the findings herein, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has thereby been made either directly or indirectly except where the proposed finding of fact was cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary. Based upon observation of the witnesses and their candor and demeanor while testifying, all exhibits admitted in evidence, and the proposals and arguments of counsel, the following relevant facts are found:
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner on November 15, 1982, at West Little River Elementary School. She suffered a non-school related accident and was absent approximately 121 days during the 1982-1983 school year. Observations of her teaching by her then-principal, John Johnson II, were unfavorable, but due to the prolonged absences, those observations did not result in any formal evaluations/recommendations. Respondent's requested leave for this period was granted and approved by Petitioner upon the basis of her severe electrical shock and back injury. Some of this period was classified as leave without pay. Petitioner also paid Respondent's insurance premiums for this period. Having thus condoned this absenteeism, Petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of it. (See allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Notice of Charges.) Principal Nicholas Rinaldi of Bay Harbor Elementary School hired Respondent as the teacher for its new "home-based" gifted program beginning there for the 1983-1984 school year. Although Principal Johnson would not have recommended Respondent for employment in the second year, he was not consulted by Principal Rinaldi. Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that she was limited to a $1,000.00 budget for purchasing materials for the program she was to develop. Principal Rinaldi understood that Respondent knew she was both to stay within this budget which is the standard limit at all home-based gifted programs and that she was required to get prior approval of her purchases from him. Apparently, Respondent grasped, the concept of a $1,000.00 "cap" but did not initially understand that she was to obtain prior written permission. After two orders were cancelled, she still had overspent by $60.00. She was then told specifically not to make any further purchases without the principal's permission. Thereafter, another order placed by Respondent was received at the school but Petitioner did not establish that Respondent placed the order after the cancellation of two prior orders and after Rinaldi's specific instruction not to order any more goods whatsoever. (See allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was clearly informed that she needed prior authorization for phone calls. She did not get prior permission for five long distance phone calls made personally or by students at her direction. The total cost of these calls is 8.56, which is very minimal. All calls were related to classwork with the exception of one call for $.44 and one call for $.25, which were admittedly of a personal nature. Respondent reimbursed the $.72 after the fact when notified of investigation into the phone bill. (See allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges.) Twenty-five students are required for a home-based gifted program. Bay Harbor was one of three North area schools piloting a home-based program in the 1983-1984 school year. In prior school years, gifted children from Bay Harbor attended a center program physically located elsewhere. A center program places a team of teachers of subjects from various schools in one physical location. Eligible students from various schools come to the center for two days a week for the gifted program and they receive their basic skills education at their respective home schools in the remaining three days per week. In a home-based program, a school which has enough gifted students elects to keep those students physically at the home school. They usually go into that program for two hours a day, every day. Some subject or subjects are used to deliver the gifted program. Those subjects are then graded by the home- based gifted teacher, who in this case was Respondent. When he hired her, Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that mathematics would be part of the new "home-based" gifted program, but math was essentially unstructured in the beginning. Thereafter, Principal Rinaldi instructed Respondent to utilize the standard Dade County "total math program, (TMP). When the TMP program was selected by Principal Rinaldi in approximately, December 1983, his motivation was that he understood TMP provided a structure for math that allows students to enter at the level that they are individually and moves each at a pace commensurate with his individual ability. Unfortunately, because a home-based program does not select its students on their specific giftedness in content area, some students in Bay- Harbor's 1983-1984 pilot program were lower than others in math. Some were even below their grade level. Those above the grade level were becoming bored with the program and those below the grade level were in a constant state of frustration struggling to keep up. A failure on Respondent's part to communicate surfaced, and misunderstandings arose between Respondent and parents and students as to the nature of projects, when projects were due and the reasonableness of homework. Problems concerning teacher absences also arose. The more academic and less "time-out-of-school" atmosphere of a home-based versus a center-based program also caused problems between the Respondent teacher and students/parents and between the Respondent and her principal. Upsets among the students and their parents resulted in many students being permanently removed from the gifted program. Over a period of time, the decrease in enrollment threatened to destroy the Bay Harbor gifted program, the survival of which required 25 students. On January 4, 1984, Principal Rinaldi observed Respondent's class for an hour for teacher evaluation purposes. This resulted in a basically good evaluation with some areas targeted for improvement (instructional planning and maintenance of student records [P-7]). The crux of this targeting was the principal's perception that Respondent did not record sufficient grades and her student files were not arranged alphabetically with papers arranged chronologically within each file. This standard of record-keeping is personal to Mr. Rinaldi and not uniform among other Dade County principals. At the standard post-observation conference, the two argued over the evaluation and the exactitude required by the principal, and Respondent refused to sign the evaluation to acknowledge that she had seen and received a copy of the document. As will be related infra, this refusal to sign or initial merely for acknowledgment of receipt of documents became a constant and continuing refusal on Respondent's part whenever the issue came up. Six days later she refused again; on January 17, 1984, Respondent responded in four written pages defending her methods. As events unfolded chronologically thereafter what started basically as a personality clash of the principal's "irresistible force" authoritarianism and the teacher's "immovable object" obstructionism mushroomed to affect students, parents, teachers, and administrators. In early January, Respondent complained concerning the inclusion of math in the gifted program to a higher outside administrator Dr. Agerwald. Mr. Rinaldi objected to this contact. On January 11, 1984, Mrs. Vickers, Petitioner's Director of Exceptional Students Program, arrived to observe Respondent's classes. She prepared a "School Visitation Report." The report is basically positive but does comment that the gifted classes are too big and current IEPs (records) were not and should have been available in the classroom. On February 2, 1984, Vickers issued a commendation to Hay Harbor on quality of cumulative records for exceptional children. Mr. Rinaldi passed this commendation (R-19) on to Respondent with the note, "Mrs. Burton, please continue this fine record 2/6/84." On 1/23/84, he also commended her on quick responses to the Miami Module records-keeping requests (R-20). Petitioner's advisor to gifted teachers, Richard Huffman, was assigned to assist Respondent at the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year. He testified that in his opinion she was a fit teacher, but he was removed as her advisor at the end of January or early February. February 24, 1984, Assistant Principal Vince Vignola observed Respondent in the classroom for a full hour and rated her overall acceptable except that she needed more grades in math and had, lost a student "contract" which had never been signed. Principal Rinaldi called in Gary Rito, Petitioner's Director of Academic Excellence for help resolving the gifted class problems. On March 2, 1984, Mr. Rito met with Respondent, Principal Rinaldi, and Mrs. Laurence, mother of a gifted student. Respondent and Laurence, who teaches elsewhere in Dade County, exchanged sharp words. It was agreed to meet again on March 8, 1984. At that time, James Miley, Petitioner's Supervisor of Gifted Programs, was present. Respondent was given written notice of the meeting one day in advance. Respondent elected to continue in this meeting at the conclusion of the school day. At this time most of her concerns, as expressed to all others present, were with the number of subjects she was required to cover and with the content of the mathematics curriculum in particular. Mr. Rito explained that "gifted" symbolizes a "technique" not a "subject," that Respondent was to use this technique for teaching subjects of math, science (which Respondent should be teaching anyway), and social studies, and for teaching a health and safety unit which was taught for only one or two grade units. Respondent strenuously objected to the use of the TMP math program. Rinaldi and Miley concurred that it was reasonable to include math in the gifted program. Math was, in fact, successfully used in the other two home-based programs beginning in Bay Harbor's Division that year, but the programs utilized may not have been the TMP. Nonetheless, the following adjustments were agreed upon among all those present at the March 8, 1984 meeting: Principal Rinaldi agreed to relieve the academic excellence program of the TMP math program and increased their enrichment activities; Ms. Thomas, Say Harbor's 6th Grade math teacher, was assigned by Principal Rinaldi to help Respondent in math. It was later Ms. Thomas' assessment that Respondent did not understand the TMP concept; and Respondent was directed and agreed to develop four units of study in botany (2 intermediate and 2 primary) to cover the rest of the school year (9 weeks). These plans were to cover instructional objectives, classroom activities, student evaluation methods and homework assignments on a time line. A preliminary plan was to be shown by Respondent to Mr. Miley on March 20. This assignment was primarily the result of a request by Ms. Laurence and other parents requesting to see a sets of plans for purposes of deciding whether to leave their children in the Respondent's class or return those who had already been withdrawn. Rinaldi, Rito, and Miley felt the plans required by the directive would ease the primary problems of implementing the program and of parent-teacher communications and misunderstandings which had been growing, and also felt they were reasonable and necessary. Everyone was aware that withdrawal of Mrs. Laurence's child could reduce program enrollment below the 25 student minimum required. However, no one clearly expressed the belief that this directive was a prescription to improve Respondent's teaching performance, which had been found basically sound up to this point. 1/ The direction itself was for a reasonable and necessary purpose (preserving and improving the gifted program). However, despite Mr. Miley's opinion that the plans as initially directed were reasonable and necessary and despite Respondent's failure to object to the direction at this point, the initial scope of the direction was actually unreasonable under the circumstances. Mr. Miley postponed his scheduled meeting with Respondent from March 20 to March 23, 1984. On that date, Respondent had nothing to show him with regard to the required botany units she had been asked to prepare. Mr. Miley met with Respondent anyway and reduced the required units from 4 to 2 and extended the time for preparation until April 12, 1984. He also gave her a document entitled "Standards of Excellence" for use in the units she was to prepare and agreed to let Respondent continue with her present evaluation system. This adjustment, made in consultation with Respondent also rendered the scope of the direction to prepare the units reasonable. 2/ On April 12, 1984, Mr. Miley asked for the required botany units and received nothing from Respondent. He returned to the school on April 13, and Respondent produced a series of goals and objectives essentially copied from the "Standards of Excellence" wherein she had identified part of a program for the primary students but none for the intermediate students. There were no classroom activities listed, no homework mentioned, and no time lines provided. Despite the extension of time, Respondent did not fulfill the required directive even in its reduced and consequently reasonable form. 3/ The units were not further amplified by Respondent before she left on April 20 and Mrs. Laurence's child was permanently removed from the gifted program. (See allegations of Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Notice of Charges). On March 12, 1984, Respondent called Principal Rinaldi a liar three times in the presence of two other school employees. 4/ (See allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent later informed Principal Rinaldi that she perceived the March 8 meeting as disciplinary in nature. He had not considered it so. He accordingly removed a request for her signature from a summary he had prepared of the March 8 meeting and scheduled a "conference-for-the-record" for March 16, 1984. Conferences-for-the record are disciplinary conferences. The March 16, 1984 meeting was postponed at the request of the Respondent's union representative. A second request for postponement for emergency reasons peculiar to the schedule of that particular union representative (Ms. Perez), was not granted and the conference-for-the-record went forward on March 20, 1984, with Respondent accompanied by her union steward, James Collings. At this conference, Rinaldi discussed the same matters that had been discussed at the March 8, 1984 meeting, the incident which had occurred March 12 when Respondent called him a "liar" three times, Respondent's unsatisfactory attendance record that year, and the fact that her absences were having an adverse effect on the program. Respondent was specifically instructed by her union advisers not to speak at this conference. Certainly she did not deny the March 12 "liar" incident. When she did not respond to Principal Rinaldi's accusations and inquiries, he became agitated. Respondent had received prior approval for a half-day in-service conference (8:30 a.m. to noon on March 21, 1984) with Mrs. Vickers, Director of Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education Program. When she did not report back to teach at Bay Harbor that afternoon, Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi made inquiries and Respondent's continued presence with Mrs. Vickers was confirmed, but not approved. This constitutes a 1/2 day's absence without leave. No substitute was procured since Respondent had been expected to teach her afternoon class. (See allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Notice of Charges.) On March 28, 1984, during a regularly scheduled parent meeting, the parents present expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the gifted program, particularly math. Principal Rinaldi publicly attributed the problems in the gifted program to Respondent and Respondent retaliated by publicly stating that she did not believe TMP math should ever have been included in the gifted program and that she had no control over the inclusion of the math. The majority of witnesses actually present at this meeting found its entire tone and nature informative prior to Principal Rinaldi's comment. Even then, Respondent's comments may have been less than tactful but were hardly untruthful, unprofessional, irresponsible, or incendiary. (See allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to the March 29, 1984 faculty meeting. Based on the contemporaneous memoranda and letter, Respondent's estimate of 3-4 minutes tardiness is accepted over Dr. Rinaldi's later estimate of 20 minutes. The causes related contemporaneously by Respondent are entirely reasonable. (See allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Notice of Charges.) At Principal Rinaldi's April 16, 1984 classroom observation of Respondent, he rated her teaching performance as unacceptable in 3 categories: preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility (P-18). Rinaldi testified that his negative ratings in preparation and planning were due to what were minor concerns on the January evaluation. However, as observed above in Fact Paragraph 6, the January evaluation actually concentrated on the principal's particularly harsh requirement that Respondent's student files must be arranged alphabetically with papers neatly arranged chronologically within each file. Since his perception of the adequacy of records is so intensely personal to Mr. Rinaldi and in light of interim commendations to Respondent for record-keeping, his April analysis of inadequate records of assessment renders the final evaluation "score" highly suspect. 5/ (See allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to work and failed to timely sign in on March 26, 27, 28, and April 20, 1984. (See allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was absent on April 17, 18, and 19. She requested leave for April 17-18 late but it was approved and authorized in advance by Principal Rinaldi for participation in religious holidays. However, these were absences without pay and pushed Respondent over the number of personal leave days to which she was annually entitled. Respondent was absent without authorization on April 19; this was an absence without pay. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 20, 1984, Respondent protested, but finally agreed to meet with Principal Rinaldi in his office for a post-observation conference. Post- observation conferences are not normally considered disciplinary in nature. By this time, he had added Respondent's late notification of the 4/17-4/18 absence and her 4/19 absence to the prescription sheet as deficiencies. Respondent declined an oral dialogue with Rinaldi wherein she was invited to respond to the rating criticisms and prescriptions and offer alternatives and also refused to initial his notation that she insisted on responding in writing. Midway in this meeting, Respondent announced she was going to leave. Again, she would not sign to acknowledge receipt of the observation and prescriptions. Rinaldi instructed her that she was obligated to discuss the rating and if she left, he would consider it insubordination. Respondent left his office and the school and did not return to work as a teacher at Bay Harbor again. A formal reprimand issued partly as a result of this incident. (See allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 23 and April 24 Respondent was absent without pay. April 23 was unauthorized leave. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) With regard to the frequent' short absences, which total led 18 as of April 22, Respondent rarely if ever complied with the "Teachers' Handbook" guidelines for advance notification. Respondent originally felt that it did not matter what type of leave (personal or sick) was listed because she had no leave left anyway. Although many of these absences were for legitimate illnesses or injury of herself or a relative, there was either an on-going absence of lesson plans or a failure on Respondent's part to inform the principal that she had created plans since he last commented on there being none. Consequently, he often could not or did not secure substitutes. This resulted in wasted class time and interfered with classroom continuity. Some of Respondent's unauthorized absences were simply gifted programs she chose to attend without notifying the principal in advance. Respondent was also absent during the 1983-1984 school year for two lengthy periods, which, with all other absences, totalled 62 1/2 days. Medical narratives, admitted without objection, corroborate Respondent's testimony that the two lengthy absences were the result respectively of unanticipated allergic complications of a CAT scan (from January 30 to February 10, 1984,) and of surgery to correct acute sinusitis and recovery time from late April until release. One doctor released her from this last treatment On May 29, 1984; the other released her on June 8, 1984. During the period of time she was absent immediately following the April 20 "walkout" incident until approximately June 8, Respondent failed to adequately inform Petitioner of her proposed date of return. Certified letters sent to her post-office box were returned because Respondent did not pick them up and Petitioner could not send these to her by regular mail or by hand- delivery via a "visiting teacher" because Respondent had never informed Petitioner of her street address. The failure of Respondent to stay in touch, her failure to indicate when she could return to work, and her failure to indicate that her absence would be lengthy resulted in an inability of Petitioner to immediately hire a permanent substitute teacher. Therefore, the gifted classes had to "make-do" with a series of short term substitutes (4 or 5) until Mr. Rinaldi finally hired Mrs. Judith Dryanoff. This process created a lack of continuity in the classroom and more student withdrawals from the gifted program. The problem with multiple substitutes was compounded by Respondent's failure on April 24 and thereafter to have available substitute lesson plans. 6/ Because of Respondent's failure to leave any form of lesson plans or grade book, substitute Judith Dryanoff had to make up her own lesson plans for science and enlist the help of Janice Thomas for math plans. (See allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Notice of Charges.) On May 24, Principal Rinaldi signed Respondent's Annual Evaluation, not recommending her for employment in the next school year (P-22). When released by her doctors, Respondent was assigned by Administration to the North Area Office for June 11-15 and was expected by her principal to be at Bay Harbor simultaneously. She obviously could not do both. She was at the North Area Office for part of June 12 and at Bay Harbor for part of June 14. She was in neither location on June 11, 13, and 15. These days constitute absences without leave. (See allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On June 12, 1984, James Monroes, a supervisor in Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, ordered Respondent to begin the 180 hour course, Beginning Teacher Program, to start at 10:00 a.m., June 14, 1984, at Bay Harbor Elementary School. 7/ At 7:20 a.m. that morning Respondent confronted Principal Rinaldi in his office and called him "malicious, devious, incompetent," and "a sorry excuse for a principal." She accused him of personally taking her personal items from her room and of attempting to get her fired. 8/ Although she initially refused to come back for the program, she returned at 10:00 a.m. and repeated essentially the same harangue in the presence of Mrs. Thomas, the peer teacher selected to oversee Respondent's Beginning Teacher Program. Mrs. Thomas was called in by Mr. Rinaldi who had anticipated that a scene would ensue. Thereafter, out of Mr. Rinaldi's presence, Respondent invited Mrs. Thomas to sign a petition "to get rid of Mr. Rinaldi". (See allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Charges.) Dr. Huffman testified that Respondent also frequently yelled at Mr. Rinaldi in Dr. Huffman's presence prior to Dr. Huffman's February reassignment, and Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi testified that she had heard Respondent call Mr. Rinaldi a "bastard" or refer to him as a"bastard," but the date of this incident(s) was not proven. On August 29, 1984, Dr. Richard Artmeier, supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, directed Respondent to be psychiatrically evaluated the next day to determine if there were any mitigating circumstances for her June 14, 1984 behavior. Respondent is obligated to submit to such evaluation by terms of her employment. After vacillation, Respondent refused to sign the written directive indicating its receipt and adamantly refused to see a psychiatrist. Finally, Dr. Artmeier directed her instead to report to the North Area Office the next day. Respondent did, however, actually go the next day as originally directed for psychiatric evaluation to Dr. Gail Wainger. Dr. Wainger was on Petitioner's "approved" list. In so doing, Respondent could not immediately comply with the directive to report to the North Area Office. Respondent reported to the North Area Office later the same day after her psychiatric evaluation. Petitioner accepted Dr. Wainger's psychiatric evaluation of Respondent, paid for it, and it was admitted at hearing upon Petitioner's motion (P-38). Since Respondent could not be in two places at once, she fulfilled the alternative directives reasonably by fulfilling them sequentially even if she did initially refuse. (See allegations of Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Notice of Charges). The psychiatrist's evaluation is admissible under Section 231.291, Florida Statutes and has been considered. Upon that evidence, together with all other credible evidence adduced at formal hearing, Respondent was accountable for her actions. Respondent has never qualified for and has never been characterized as a teacher under continuing contract.
Recommendation It is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from employment with the Dade County School Board and denying any claims for back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1985.
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Respondent School Board of Dade County's reassignment of the Petitioner based on an alleged pattern of disruptive behavior in the educational program should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the following relevant facts are found. During September, 1978, Victor John Cecchi was transferred from Miami Springs Junior High School to the Jan Mann Opportunity School North. Charles W. Bales, the principal of Miami Springs Junior High School appeared at the hearing and testified that the Petitioner was transferred based on an extensive pattern of "disruptive behavior in the educational program which deprived other students in the program of the full benefits of the educational system." According to principal Bales, the transfer to the Jan Mann Opportunity School North is one where the Opportunity School provides a more controlled atmosphere, smaller classes, more direct supervision which enables a "problem child" to get the benefits of the Dade County educational program. It is eventually the goal of the Opportunity School to reintegrate the "problem child" back into the regular school system so that he is mainstreamed back into the full academic process. During the period October 4, 1977 through the assignment in September of 1978, Petitioner had been referred to the principal's office 35 times for referrals due to disruptive behavior. Principal Bales testified in detail respecting the various incidences by the Petitioner wherein he had been involved in an extended pattern of disrupting classes, leaving the school campus without permission, engaging in altercations with other students and destroying the personal property of others. During these incidences, petitioner was at times returned to the school campus by truant officers and officers from the Miami Springs Police Department While the Petitioner, through his father, does not dispute the fact that he was referred to the principal`s office based on a pattern of disruptive behavior, Petitioner requested that his son be reconsidered for reassignment back in the normal school program at Miami Springs Junior High School. In this regard, testimony reveals that the Petitioner has attended the Jan Mann Opportunity School for a total of only three days since his reassignment to the center. Testimony reveals further that the school system through its Opportunity School affords "problem or disruptive students" opportunity to reacclimate themselves through the process by attending the Opportunity School which provides a different setting. For example, the classroom setting is very individualistic and the number of students range from eight to twelve. Special vocational programs are offered and the pupil to counselor ratio is greater in the Opportunity School. For these reasons, and based on the fact that the Respondent has afforded Petitioner numerous occasions within which he was allowed to correct his disruptive pattern while attending the Miami Springs Junior High School, I shall recommend that the Respondent's reassignment of him to the Jan Mann Opportunity School be upheld.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the petition filed herein be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cecchi 331 Swallow Drive Apartment 17 Miami Springs, Florida 33166 Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Dade County School Board Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 NE 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33013 JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1979.
The Issue The issues for determination at the final hearing were: 1) whether the Respondent should be dismissed from employment due to incompetency; and 2) whether the conflict in the statute cited in the Notice of Charges dated November 18, 1982, and the Notice of Hearing dated June 18, 1983, constitute inadequate notice to the Respondent Muina of the charges against him. At the final hearing, Marsha Gams, a learning disability teacher at Carol City Junior High School, Rosetta Vickers, Director of Exceptional Student Education, Dade County School Board, Carol Cortes, principal at Carol City Junior High School, Karen Layland, department chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., Executive Director of Personnel, Dade County School Board, testified for the Petitioner School Board. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-13 were offered and admitted into evidence. Yvonne Perez, Bargaining Agent Representative, United Teachers of Dade, Alexander Muina and Desmond Patrick Gray, Jr., testified for the Respondent. Respondent's Exhibits 1-5 were offered and admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the hearing, the Respondent requested via telephone conference call, that Respondent's Exhibit 6, the published contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, be admitted into evidence as a late-filed exhibit. The contract was admitted over Petitioner's objection. Proposed Recommended Orders containing findings of fact have been submitted by the parties and considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. When the parties' findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence introduced at final hearing, they were adopted and are reflected in this Recommended Order. To the extent that the findings were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been either rejected, or when possible, modified to conform to the evidence. Additionally, proposed findings which were subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary have not been adopted. On July 11, 1983, the Petitioner filed objections to the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Penalty. Certain of the Petitioner's objections were subsequently stipulated to by the Respondent and are not in issue in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Alexander Muina has been employed by the Dade County School System for approximately nine years. He initially worked with regular students, then worked as an assistant teacher with profoundly mentally handicapped students. During the 1979-80 school year, the Respondent became a permanent substitute in a class for the trainable mentally handicapped. He held this position for approximately two months and during that period received a satisfactory annual evaluation. During the 1980-81 school year the Respondent was assigned to the "ESOL" Program which is an acronym for English for Speakers of Other Languages. During this period, the Respondent taught as an itinerant teacher at three different schools each week. One of the schools the Respondent was assigned was Carol City Junior High School, where he taught on Thursdays and Fridays, as part of the Entrant Program. This was a program which was established for the approximately 13,000 children who had entered the Dade County School System during the Mariel boat lift. Mrs. Carol Cortes, principal at Carol City Junior High School, compiled the Respondent's annual evaluation for 1980-81 after consulting with the two other principals to whose schools Respondent was also assigned. At that time, Respondent received an acceptable annual evaluation from Cortes; however, Cortes had not continually observed the Respondent or had continuous direct contact with him since he was only at the school two days a week. At the close of the 1980-81 school year, the Respondent asked Cortes if there was an opening in exceptional education in which he could be placed. Toward the end of the summer a position became available in varying exceptionalities, an area in which the Respondent is certified by the State of Florida, and he accepted this position. A varying exceptionality class includes students who have three types of learning disabilities or exceptional problems, including the educable mentally handicapped, the learning disabled, and the emotionally handicapped. Although the Respondent is certified by the State of Florida to teach varying exceptionalities, during his first year instructing the class the Respondent experienced significant problems which are reflected in his evaluations of November, January and March of the 1981-82 school year. The first observation of Respondent as a varying exceptionalities teacher was done on November 5, 1981, by Carol Cortes, principal. The Respondent's overall summary rating was unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning and classroom management. Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for each of the students were not being followed. The Respondent was not using the IEPs to develop activities for the students which would meet the goals of providing "diagnostic prescriptive teaching." Using the IEPs and the diagnostic prescriptive teaching techniques is crucial to the success of exceptional educational students. The students were not being taught according to their individual abilities, but rather were doing similar classroom work. Additionally, classroom management was lacking in that the Respondent did not formulate adequate behavior modification plans for the students who were observed talking and milling about the classroom. Following her first observation, Cortes offered assistance to Respondent, including changing his physical classroom layout and placing him with the department chairperson. This was done so that the chairperson could assist in developing the activities and plans necessary for the students and could also provide support in developing behavior modification plans. Cortes also asked the school psychologist to work with the Respondent in establishing such plans. Dr. Gorman, the assistant principal, had frequent informal observations of the Respondent in an attempt to help him with his classroom difficulties. The next formal observation of Respondent was performed by Cortes on January 20, 1983, and the overall summary rating was again unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the Respondent was still not following the student's IEPs. He continued to assign the same general activities to all students regardless of individual differences. His class was confused regarding their goals. Because the Respondent was not teaching toward the objectives set forth in the IEPs, the children were not achieving a minimum education experience. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in classroom management because he did not have adequate control over the students. Students were walking around the class and the class was generally noisy The work that the Respondent did with individual students was in the nature of giving directions rather than actually teaching. In order to teach it is necessary to provide students with new concepts and provide teacher input rather than simply monitor students. The Respondent was marked unacceptable in techniques of instruction because his lesson planning was deficient. He spent the majority of time in the classroom attempting to discipline students. His grade book was kept in an inappropriate manner and the students were frustrated. As a result of these problems, Cortes requested that the Respondent visit a program at Madison Junior High School which had an acceptable behavior modification program in place. The Respondent visited the program on January 26, 1982; however, no substantial improvement after the Respondent's visit was noted. The Respondent also took a reading course in late January, 1982. No significant improvement was noted following completion of that course. In January of 1982, a social studies position at Carol City Junior High School became available. Cortes offered that position to the Respondent and he could have transferred into the social studies department if he had so desired. The Respondent, however, elected to remain in the field of exceptional student instruction. At that time, Cortes felt that the Respondent was attempting to deal with his deficiencies and he should be given the opportunity to correct the problems with his class. Mrs. Vickers, Director of Exceptional Student Education for Dade County Schools, made a routine visit to Carol City Junior High School on January 27, 1982. She had heard from one of her education specialists that there were difficulties in classroom management in the Respondent's classroom. She observed that many of the students were not on task in that they walked around the classroom, talked out loud, and called the Respondent "pops". A few of the students tried to work, but the noise level in the class was so high it was disruptive. Vickers chose not to do a formal observation at that time, because she felt that there were many areas that she could not have marked acceptable. Instead, Vickers chose to do a planning session with Respondent on that same date. At the planning session, Vickers discussed with Respondent such topics as getting the students on task, bringing supplies and materials, completing assignments and doing homework. She discussed IEPs with the Respondent and the minimal skills tests that the children are administered in grades 5, 8 and 11. She explained to the Respondent how to use a grade book and examined the student's work folders. Although the folders contained significant amounts of work, the work did not correlate with the objectives on the children's IEPs. Vickers was also concerned that the Respondent was monitoring the class rather than directly instructing the students on specific skills. He did not pull individual students or groups aside for direct instruction. Vickers returned to the Respondent's classroom on February 25, 1982, in order to conduct a formal observation. At that time, Vickers gave the Respondent an unacceptable overall summary rating. She found him deficient in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, student-teacher relationships, and acceptable in the category of preparation and planning. She rated the Respondent unacceptable in classroom management because a serious problem existed with the management of his students who were not on task. The students were not working in an orderly fashion and the class was so loud that it distracted the class on the other side of the room. When Vickers tried to speak with the teacher in the adjoining room, the noise level in the Respondent's class prevented a successful conversation between them. Due to these problems, the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience. Children with learning disabilities are easily distracted by visual or auditory interference; this problem was occurring in Respondent's class. Vickers rated the Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction since he was not using the diagnostic prescriptive teaching method that is required in the Dade County School System. Respondent was not utilizing small groups to give specific help with skills, but was instead, monitoring. Vickers also rated the Respondent unacceptable in assessment techniques. Exceptional education teachers are required to do a profile on each student showing the skills that the student has met and the skills that the student needs to improve. The Respondent did not meet this requirement. Finally, Vickers found the Respondent unacceptable in student-teacher relationships since she observed that the students showed an unacceptable level of respect for the Respondent. Vickers suggested that the Respondent visit three other exceptional education teachers along with regular teachers in school. She also scheduled an assertive discipline workshop for exceptional education teachers and asked that Respondent attend. The Respondent however, did not attend the workshop. On March 25, 1982, Cortes completed Respondent's annual evaluation for 1981-82 and recommended nonreappointment. This annual evaluation took into consideration all of the observations done by administrators in the building. She found the Respondent unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Cortes next observed the Respondent on May 17, 1982, and again gave him an overall summary rating of unacceptable. She found him unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning and classroom management. Preparation and planning was unacceptable because the Respondent was not following the IEPs for the students. Cortes observed that the Respondent misspelled a word on the black board and the students copied his misspelling. Classroom management remained unacceptable because most of the class was not working. The Respondent continued to have difficulties controlling his students who continued to address him inappropriately by calling him "pops". As the Respondent moved from student to student, the remainder of the class was either talking or milling about the room. Respondent did not have understandable classroom rules and resultant consequences for breaking such rules. Rather than institute positive rewards for students who met the classroom criteria, his emphasis was on negative reinforcement. Following Cortes' discussion with the Respondent as to these deficiencies, she continued to see minimal improvement. It was also recommended that the Respondent visit Mrs. Layland, the department chairperson, to observe her classroom management techniques. Layland had a behavior modification plan in place and was able to work individually with each student while other students remained on task. The Respondent did visit Mrs. Layland's class but there was no significant improvement following that visit. On May 24, 1982, Cortes performed a second annual evaluation on the Respondent in which she found him unacceptable in one category, preparation and planning and acceptable in the remaining categories, but did not recommend him for reemployment. The second annual evaluation had only one unacceptable category, preparation and planning, and overall Respondent was rated unacceptable. However, the area in which the Respondent was rated unacceptable is especially important in the context of exceptional education. Preparation and planning is an important aspect of this field since planning for exceptional education students must be done on an individual basis. Additionally, the teacher has to plan what each student will be learning over a given period of time, and such planning is necessary in order to successfully instruct these students. Notwithstanding the Respondent's improvement, Cortes moved for his nonreappointment at the conclusion of the 1981-82 school year. The Respondent, however, was reappointed for the 1982-83 school year, when it was determined that the documentation upon which the nonreappointment was to be based was insufficient due to noncompliance with the existing union contract. Prior to the completion of the 1981-82 school year, the Respondent, through his area representative, Yvonne Perez, requested a transfer back into a regular classroom where the Respondent could teach Spanish or Social Studies. This was based on the Respondent's recognition that he was encountering extreme difficulties in teaching varying exceptionalities. Patrick Gray, Personnel Director for the Dade County School System, was aware of the request for a transfer on behalf of the Respondent and agreed to consider it. Gray subsequently determined not to transfer the Respondent, and reassigned him to his existing position. Following his assignment back to Carol City Junior High School, Cortes began to formally observe the Respondent. The first such observation of the 1982-83 school year occurred on September 13, 1982, less than one month after teachers had returned to school. Cortes observed the Respondent and documented an observation sheet with five attached papers. Observations performed the previous year had included only one statement. Approximately one month later, Cortes conducted another observation with four detailed attachments. The documentation provided to the Respondent in September and October of 1982 was accumulated to verify or affirm the decision which was made by Cortes in May of the prior year, to terminate the Respondent. Based on Cortes' observations of the Respondent while he was employed at Carol City Junior High School, she would not recommend him for a teaching position in any other field. According to Cortes, the Respondent is lacking the basic skills necessary to be a successful teacher. Marsha Gams, chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School during the 1981-82 school year and Respondent's supervisor, met with the Respondent on numerous occasions during the course of his assignment to Carol City Junior High School. Although Gams saw improvement on Respondent's part during the period that she observed him, the improvement was not significant. Based on Gams' observation of the Respondent's class, she felt that the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience since the Respondent did not have an adequate grasp of the curriculum and materials required for the learning disabled and educable mentally handicapped students. The Respondent's class eventually affected Gams' students due to the noise level which came from his adjoining class. Karen Layland, chairperson of the Exceptional Education Department at Carol City Junior High School during the 1982-83 school year, also worked with the Respondent. They had joint planning periods and spent a number of afternoons reviewing lesson plans, methods, curriculum, and matching materials to IEP objectives. According to Layland, the Respondent's basic problem was that he did not clearly understand the requirements of teaching varying exceptionalities Layland did not observe significant academic progress in the Respondent's class. The Respondent's grade book was disorganized and the materials contained in the student's folders were not appropriate for the particular students. Moreover, there was a lack of organization in his classroom in that students left class without permission. Although Layland felt that the Respondent was well intentioned, he did not have an adequate grasp of the curriculum, teaching management and behavior management that are necessary in an exceptional education setting. Even if Layland had been allowed to continue to work with the Respondent for the remainder of the school year, she did not feel that he could have been brought up to a competent level to teach varying exceptionalities during that period of time. Based on her observations, Layland believed that the Respondent's students were not receiving a minimum education experience due to the Respondent's lack of definite knowledge of methods in instructional techniques for varying exceptional students. By November, 1982, the School Board had made a determination that the school system had exhausted its remedies to raise the Respondent's performance to an acceptable level. Although the Respondent had obtained an acceptable rating from Cortes at the end of the 1982 school year, even this evaluation demonstrated a serious deficiency on Respondent's part. Additionally, during the 1981-82 school year the Respondent encountered numerous significant problems which had not been adequately remediated in order to permit him to continue teaching varying exceptionality students. The school board administration declined Perez' request that the Respondent be transferred into a regular class on the belief that the Respondent was incompetent in basic classroom instruction. However, based on the Respondent's teaching record prior to his employment at Carol City Junior High School, the Respondent encountered difficulties only when he was teaching varying exceptionalities, and in other fields, his basic skills were documented as acceptable. At all material times, the Respondent was employed as an annual contract teacher and did not hold a professional service contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Dade County School Board affirming the dismissal of the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 26th day of September, 1983.
