The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the letter from the Petitioner dated August 22, 2002, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed October 12, 2002, and, if so, whether dismissal from employment is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2002). At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Starr was employed by the School Board as a social studies teacher at Lake Stevens. After receiving a degree in political science from Loyola University, Mr. Starr enrolled in the social studies education program at Florida International University. Mr. Starr completed this program in the summer of 1998 and applied for a teaching position with the Miami-Dade County public school system. He was hired as a substitute teacher and placed in a substitute teacher pool so that he worked at various schools, and he also taught in the Adult Education Program at North Miami Senior High School. Dr. Alvin Brennan became the principal of Lake Stevens in January 2000. In or around November 2000, he hired Mr. Starr to teach social studies at Lake Stevens. At the times material to this proceeding, Arnold Montgomery was the assistant principal at Lake Stevens who, among other duties, supervised the social studies program, observed teachers' classroom performance, and acted as a resource person regarding curriculum, instructional, and academic issues at the school. In a Teacher Assessment and Development System Post- Observation Report dated January 18, 2001, Dina Carretta, an assistant principal at Lake Stevens, rated Mr. Starr acceptable in all six categories of the Teacher Assessment and Development System evaluation instrument. Mr. Starr's failure to keep a standard grade book. In early November 2001, Dr. Brennan learned that the State Department of Education intended to include Lake Stevens in a Full-Time Equivalency audit. The grade books of the teachers at Lake Stevens were to be reviewed as part of the audit to ensure that Lake Stevens accurately reported its full- time equivalents to the district so that the State could ultimately determine the accuracy of the number of full-time equivalents reported by the various school districts to the State. On or about November 2, 2001, Dr. Brennan instructed all of the teachers at the school to turn over their grade books to him for review so that he could prepare for the audit. It is one of the responsibilities of a teacher to maintain a grade book that contains the attendance record and grades for each student in his or her classes. Mr. Starr did not submit a grade book to Dr. Brennan in response to this instruction, and Dr. Brennan called Mr. Starr to his office and directed him to turn over his grade book. Mr. Starr told Dr. Brennan that he was experimenting with a computerized grade book and that only he could understand it.2 Dr. Brennan explained to Mr. Starr that each teacher is required to keep complete and accurate grade books because funding is dependent on the number of students attending a school and because grade books are official documents that must be produced to parents who ask about their children's grades and attendance. Mr. Starr still did not provide his grade book to Dr. Brennan as instructed. During roughly this same timeframe, Mr. Montgomery began preparations for an observation of Mr. Starr's classroom performance in accordance with the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System ("PACES"), which is a tool for evaluating teachers that came into use in the Miami-Dade County public school system in or about 1999. Mr. Montgomery intended to conduct an observation of Mr. Starr's classroom in late November 2001, and, in accordance with procedure, Mr. Montgomery scheduled a pre-observation conference with Mr. Starr for November 19, 2001. In the notice of the pre-observation conference, Mr. Montgomery asked Mr. Starr to bring his grade book, lesson plans, and three student folders to the conference. Mr. Starr did not attend the pre-observation conference and did not provide the materials that Mr. Montgomery had requested. Mr. Montgomery followed up with Mr. Starr and asked him again to provide the requested documents; Mr. Starr responded that he would provide the documents, including the grade book, at a later time. Mr. Starr did not provide his grade book to Mr. Montgomery prior to or at the November 26, 2001, observation. Dr. Brennan held a Conference-for-the-Record with Mr. Starr on December 7, 2001, to discuss Mr. Starr's failure to comply with Dr. Brennan's directive to provide him with a proper grade book; Ms. Carretta was also in attendance. It is noted in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, dated December 13, 2001, that Mr. Starr was asked whether the United Teachers of Dade represented him, and he responded that he was not a member of the union. In the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record, Dr. Brennan recorded that the purpose of the conference was to discuss Mr. Starr's non-compliance with School Board Rule 6Gx13- 4-1.21 and with administrative directives requiring that he properly maintain a grade book. Dr. Brennan explained to Mr. Starr during the conference the importance of maintaining a grade book to record daily attendance and grades for his students and advised him that one of his responsibilities as a teacher was to maintain a proper grade book. At the December 7, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record, Dr. Brennan advised Mr. Starr that, although there were authorized computer grade book programs, the program with which Mr. Starr was experimenting was not authorized. Dr. Brennan directed Mr. Starr not to use any computerized or computer- assisted grade books without first obtaining Dr. Brennan's approval and instructed him to ask Arnold Montgomery, an assistant principal at Lake Stevens, to help him set up and maintain a standard grade book. Mr. Starr did not believe that he was required to get Dr. Brennan's approval for the use of a computer grade book "right off the bat."3 In his view, the rules provided that Dr. Brennan had the authority to demand that he not use a computer grade book but that the School Board allowed computer grade books in general. Mr. Starr continued to use his computerized "grade book," and he did not provide a grade book to Dr. Brennan or to Mr. Montgomery during the 2001-2002 school year, despite being instructed to do so on numerous occasions.4 At some point, Mr. Starr provided Dr. Brennan with sheets of paper that Mr. Starr identified as his computerized grade book, but Dr. Brennan was unable to understand the documents that Mr. Starr presented to him. Mr. Starr's failure to adhere to Lake Stevens' discipline plan. Currently, and at the times pertinent to this proceeding, Lake Stevens has in place a discipline plan developed by the school's Discipline Committee pursuant to which teachers are required to go through five steps before taking the sixth step of requesting administrative action with respect to students who presented discipline problems. This six-step discipline plan has the approval of the teachers and administrators at Lake Stevens. Pursuant to the plan, the teachers at Lake Stevens are grouped into teams of six teachers, who work in collaboration in carrying out each step of the six-step discipline plan. It is Dr. Brennan's responsibility to ensure that the six-step discipline plan is implemented. The main elements of the six-step discipline plan are as follows: When a student misbehaves in a teacher's classroom, the teacher first initiates a discussion about the student at the daily team meeting to determine whether any other teachers on the team have a problem with that student. If necessary, the team moves to the second step, which requires that the team conduct a conference with the parent(s) of the student. If the problem still is not resolved, the third step is initiated and the student is required to confer with a school counselor. The fourth step in the six-step plan requires that the student meet with both the school counselor and the team. The fifth step is a parent/student conference with the school counselor and the team. If the problem has not been resolved after these five steps have been completed, the team then moves to the sixth step and the teacher is permitted to complete a referral sending the student to a school administrator for intervention.5 The referral must be routed through the team leader. Once the team leader approves a referral, the team leader meets with the administrator for the particular grade-level, and they decide the appropriate punishment for the student. If a teacher refers a student for administrative action before the first five steps in the plan are completed, the team leader sends the referral back to the teacher with instructions to follow the appropriate procedure. According to Mr. Starr, there was chaos in his classroom by December 2001. Prior to this time, he had spoken with Dr. Brennan about the problems he was having maintaining discipline, and Dr. Brennan told him he needed to learn to handle the problems himself. Dr. Brennan insisted that Mr. Starr strictly adhere to the six-step discipline plan, and Dr. Brennan refused to provide direct assistance to Mr. Starr even though Mr. Starr repeatedly requested his assistance. In Dr. Brennan's view, it is the teacher's responsibility to manage the learning environment, and it is not the responsibility of the principal to help the teachers maintain discipline in their classrooms. To this end, Dr. Brennan encouraged Mr. Starr to work with the team of teachers on his grade level on a daily basis for assistance in managing his classroom. In addition, Dr. Brennan directed Mr. Starr to discuss techniques for classroom management with the members of a Professional Growth Team that was appointed in December 2001 to assist Mr. Starr and with Mr. Montgomery, who was available to assist Mr. Starr. Mr. Starr resisted all efforts to assist him in managing his classroom. Mr. Starr absolutely refused to adhere to the six-step discipline plan during the entire 2001-2002 school year and repeatedly prepared referrals and sent students to the administrative offices without having completed even the first step of the six-step plan. Mr. Starr did not attend team meetings and isolated himself from the team. Because of his refusal to work with his team, it was very difficult for anyone to help Mr. Starr deal with students that he considered disruptive and defiant. Mr. Starr refused to adhere to the six-step discipline plan because he disagrees with the philosophy of the plan; he believes that misbehavior must be addressed with immediate consequences and that, because it took days to complete the five steps required before a referral could be made, the plan reinforced his students' perceptions that there were no consequences to defiance and disruption in his classroom.6 Mr. Montgomery had numerous conferences with Mr. Starr about his failure to follow the six-step discipline plan, specifically about his not following the first five steps in the plan, but, rather, going directly to the sixth step and referring misbehaving students to Dr. Brennan's office. Mr. Starr told Mr. Montgomery periodically throughout the 2001- 2002 school year that the six-step discipline plan did not work for him and that he was not going to follow the plan. Mr. Starr described the conditions in his classroom in a memorandum to Dr. Brennan dated March 5, 2002: The situation in my classroom has become dangerous and untenable due to rampant student defiance. Students no longer obey what the instructor directs them to do, and they are no longer in compliance with any class rules. Lesson objectives are not being met due to the chaos, and there is a potential that student[s] may be injured. Mr. Starr referred in his memorandum to a number of "management referrals" that he contended had not been processed by the administration, and he attributed the chaos in his classroom to "administrative neglect." Mr. Starr concludes his memorandum by stating: "The weakness in my management is due to lack of administrative support because of inadequate follow-up." Mr. Starr sent copies of this memorandum to the district office, the regional superintendent and the district superintendent of schools.7 Dr. Brennan responded to Mr. Starr's memorandum by discussing the situation in Mr. Starr's classroom with the administrator handling discipline matters for the sixth grade;8 during the discussion, Dr. Brennan "question[ed] the validity of the statements that Mr. Starr was making in his letter."9 Dr. Brennan then referred Mr. Starr to the leader of his team and to the grade-level administrator for the sixth grade for a review of the six-step discipline plan. Dr. Brennan also instructed Mr. Starr to work with his team on discipline problems. Dr. Brennan found it very difficult to assist Mr. Starr, however, because, in Dr. Brennan's view, Mr. Starr resisted all of the administration's efforts to help him with the discipline problems in his classroom and refused to implement the six-step discipline plan. In addition, many of the students identified by Mr. Starr as discipline problems were not causing problems for any of the other teachers on Mr. Starr's team. Mr. Starr's refusal to complete prescriptive activities. Mr. Starr was in his second year of an annual contract during the 2001-2002 school year and was, therefore, considered a new teacher subject to two formal PACES observations each year. Whenever a PACES observation is scheduled, the teacher is notified at least a week in advance, and a pre-observation conference is scheduled. The teacher is told to bring to the pre-observation conference his or her grade book, lesson plans, and other materials for review so that everything will be in order at the time of the observation, and the teacher and the administrator who is to conduct the observation discuss the observation procedures. Currently, and at the times material to this proceeding, new teachers at Lake Stevens are given a "free" observation, if necessary, in addition to the two required formal observations. The purpose of the free observation is to allow the administrator observing the teacher to identify the teacher's deficiencies, to discuss the deficiencies with the teacher, and to provide the teacher with assistance to remedy the deficiencies prior to the formal observation. A teacher who has deficiencies in the first observation is given a week or more to work on correcting any deficiencies before an official observation is conducted. Mr. Montgomery scheduled a PACES observation of Mr. Starr's classroom performance for November 26, 2001. In preparation for this observation, Mr. Montgomery scheduled a pre-observation conference for November 19, 2002, and he directed Mr. Starr to bring with him to the meeting his grade book, his lesson plans, and three student folders. As noted above in paragraph 10, Mr. Starr did not attend the conference, and he did not produce any of the materials requested by Mr. Montgomery. Mr. Montgomery, therefore, did not have an opportunity to review these items prior to the observation. Mr. Montgomery determined during the PACES observation on November 26, 2001, that Mr. Starr's classroom performance was deficient in a number of the components of the PACES evaluation instrument. Mr. Montgomery attributed these deficiencies in large part to Mr. Starr's failure to have a lesson plan prepared for his classes and to his inability to manage his classroom. Had Mr. Starr's classroom performance been acceptable during the November 26, 2001, observation, that observation would have been considered his formal PACES observation. Mr. Starr's classroom performance had serious deficiencies, however, and the November 26, 2001, observation was treated as a "free" observation. Mr. Montgomery met with Mr. Starr after the November 26, 2001, observation, discussed the deficiencies in his classroom performance, and instructed him to provide the grade book, lesson plans, and student folders that Mr. Montgomery had previously requested before the formal PACES observation of his classroom performance. Mr. Montgomery conducted a formal observation of Mr. Starr's classroom performance on December 3, 2001, after having given Mr. Starr one week's notice. Mr. Starr again failed to provide his grade book, lesson plans, or student folders, and Mr. Montgomery found his classroom performance deficient in five out of the seven PACES domains: Mr. Montgomery found that Mr. Starr was deficient in planning for teaching and learning; managing the learning environment; enabling thinking; classroom-based assessment of learning; and professional responsibility.10 On or about December 13, 2001, Mr. Montgomery and Dr. Brennan conferred with Mr. Starr to discuss his December 3, 2001, observation. Mr. Starr was provided with a copy of the observation and was told to work with a Professional Growth Team for assistance in correcting the deficiencies in his classroom performance. He was also directed to work with a buddy, a peer, and a master teacher to learn how to set up a grade book and to learn what must be included in a lesson plan. A Professional Growth Team consists of two teachers, one selected by the teacher and one selected by Dr. Brennan. Mr. Starr selected Ms. Davis and Dr. Brennan selected Ms. Scriven-Husband as members of the Professional Growth Team.11 Dr. Brennan gave Ms. Davis and Ms. Scriven-Husband a general outline of Mr. Starr's deficiencies and advised them of the areas in which they were to work with Mr. Starr. The work of the Professional Growth Team was done under the supervision of Dr. Brennan, and he was advised that Mr. Starr was not completing the tasks given him by the Professional Growth Team. One of the items Mr. Starr was to produce for the Professional Growth Team was a long-range plan. Dr. Brennan wanted Mr. Starr to produce a long-range plan so the Professional Growth Team could determine whether he knew how to plan a lesson. Dr. Brennan was advised that Mr. Starr did not provide such a plan to the Professional Growth Team. When Dr. Brennan questioned Mr. Starr about the plan, Mr. Starr replied that he intended to prepare it over the Christmas holidays. Dr. Brennan told him to provide the plan by the end of the day; Mr. Starr did not do so. Mr. Montgomery scheduled an informal observation of Mr. Starr's classroom performance on or about February 8, 2002. Mr. Montgomery had spoken periodically with members of Mr. Starr's Professional Growth Team between the December 3, 2001, and February 8, 2002, observations and had been advised that Mr. Starr had not provided the Professional Growth Team with his grade book, lesson plans, or student folders and that Mr. Starr had not sought the team's assistance in correcting the deficiencies identified in the December 3, 2001, observation. Mr. Montgomery again instructed Mr. Starr to provide his grade book, lesson plans, and student folders prior to the February 2002 observation. In response to this instruction, Mr. Starr advised Mr. Montgomery that he used an electronic grade book and that his lesson plans were on his Palm Pilot because he felt that he had more flexibility using these tools than trying to work with written documents. Mr. Montgomery told Mr. Starr to provide hard copies of the lesson plans and the grade book, as required by the Miami-Dade County public school system procedures; Mr. Starr did not provide the requested documents to Mr. Montgomery. Mr. Montgomery observed numerous deficiencies in Mr. Starr's classroom performance during the February 8, 2002, observation, and Mr. Montgomery discussed the results of the observation with Dr. Brennan. Mr. Montgomery conducted a formal observation of Mr. Starr's classroom performance on March 1, 2002. Again, Mr. Montgomery noted a number of deficiencies in Mr. Starr's classroom performance, specifically in seven components of Domain I, Planning for Teaching and Learning; eight components of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; two components of Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and one component of Domain VI, Classroom-Based Assessment of Learning. Dr. Brennan discussed the results of the March 1, 2002, observation with Carnel White, the Region Superintendent for Lake Stevens, who instructed Dr. Brennan to proceed to develop a Professional Improvement Plan.12 Dr. Brennan was, by this time, certain that Mr. Starr was not going to correct the deficiencies in his classroom performance, since the deficiencies noted in the March 1, 2002, observation were the same deficiencies noted in previous observations. Mr. Starr met with Dr. Brennan and Mr. Montgomery in a Conference-for-the-Record on March 15, 2002, to discuss the results of the March 1, 2002, observation.13 An extensive Professional Improvement Plan was developed for Mr. Starr during the Conference-for-the-Record: Mr. Starr was required to complete course work for Domains I, II, V, and VI; he was required to discuss with the Professional Growth Team 17 assigned readings and to submit written summaries of these readings to Dr. Brennan for his approval; and he was required to discuss with Dr. Brennan and identify for him techniques and strategies for 14 components in which he was deficient, to apply the new techniques and strategies, and to maintain and submit to Dr. Brennan logs charting the successes and failures in his application of these new classroom techniques and strategies. All of the courses and plan activities in the Professional Improvement Plan were to be completed by April 9, 2002.14 Mr. Starr was advised at the March 15, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record that he should speak to Mr. Montgomery if he had any concerns about the Professional Improvement Plan. Mr. Starr did not complete the plan activities set forth in the Professional Improvement Plan by the April 9, 2002, deadline. On April 9, 2002, Dr. Brennan called Mr. Starr to the office to ask him to submit the written plan activities required by the Professional Improvement Plan; although Mr. Starr presented himself at the main office, he refused to go into Dr. Brennan's office to meet with him. According to Dr. Brennan, Mr. Starr also advised him at this time that he did not intend to comply with any further administrative directives. On April 10, 2001, after conferring with Dr. Brennan, Mr. White placed Mr. Starr in an alternate work assignment at his residence, pending a district-level Conference-for-the- Record requested by Mr. White. The district-level Conference- for-the-Record was held at the Office of Professional Responsibilities on April 12, 2002, to discuss Mr. Starr's failure to comply with the Professional Improvement Plan; his insubordination; his violation of Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code; and his future employment status with the School Board. The April 12, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record was conducted by Barbara Moss, District Director of the Office of Professional Standards, and Ms. Moss prepared a Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record dated May 3, 2002. In the summary, Ms. Moss noted that, prior to the conference, Mr. Starr asked to bring an attorney to the Conference-for-the-Record and to tape the proceedings and that he was told that attorneys and tape recordings were not permitted. Ms. Moss also noted that Mr. Starr accused Dr. Brennan of harassing him and that she discussed with Mr. Starr the procedure for reporting harassment and gave him an Equal Employment Opportunity packet. Ms. Moss further noted that Mr. Starr stated that he wanted to file a grievance against Dr. Brennan and that she explained the procedure for filing a grievance and gave him a copy of the Contract between the Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, which contained the formal union grievance procedure. Mr. Starr was not, however, a union member and did not have access to this procedure. Mr. Starr's failure to comply with the plan activities specified in the Professional Improvement Plan dated March 15, 2002, was discussed at the April 12, 2002, Conference-for-the- Record. It is reported in the summary that Mr. Starr stated that he believed the evaluation process was designed to make him fail and that there was a conspiracy against him. According to the Summary of the Conference-for-the- Record, Mr. Starr confirmed during the conference that he had told Dr. Brennan that he wouldn’t comply with Dr. Brennan's directives, explaining that he defied Dr. Brennan because Mr. Starr perceived that Dr. Brennan was abusive and belligerent in his dealings with him. The summary also reflects that Mr. Starr's failure to provide Dr. Brennan with a student grade book and with attendance records was specifically discussed at the Conference-for-the-Record. The summary of the April 12, 2002, Conference-for-the- Record reflects that Mr. Starr was issued the following directives: He was directed to comply with all administrative directives; to complete all Professional Improvement Plan activities and to submit them to Dr. Brennan by the end of the workday on April 15, 2002; to maintain a grade book, a record of students' attendance, and lesson plans; and to implement Lake Stevens' discipline plan to effect classroom management. Mr. Starr was also told to submit to Dr. Brennan by April 15, 2002, an updated grade book and student attendance records. Finally, Mr. Starr was advised that he could return to Lake Stevens and resume his teaching duties on April 15, 2002. Mr. Starr indicated at the conclusion of the April 12, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record that he would comply with the directives. Finally, Mr. Starr requested at the April 12, 2002, district-level Conference-for-the-Record that Mr. White order Dr. Brennan to relieve him of the sixth period class, stating, according to the summary, that he was not capable of teaching six periods. Mr. White instructed Dr. Brennan to assign the sixth period to another teacher, which Dr. Brennan did.15 When Dr. Brennan did not receive Mr. Starr's completed Professional Improvement Plan activities by April 15, 2002, he extended the deadline to April 16, 2002. Mr. Starr did not provide the materials on April 16, 2002, and Dr. Brennan summoned Mr. Starr to his office.16 According to Dr. Brennan, Mr. Starr was disruptive when he arrived at the administrative offices in response to Dr. Brennan's summons on April 16, 2002. Mr. Starr announced in the main office, in front of several members of the school staff, that he was not going into Dr. Brennan's office, and he told Dr. Brennan not to summon him to Dr. Brennan's office again.17 Dr. Brennan telephoned Ms. Moss on April 16, 2002, after this incident, and advised her that Mr. Starr "had been blatant in his insubordination" and that either Mr. Starr would have to leave the Lake Stevens campus or he, Dr. Brennan, would leave.18 On April 17, 2002, Dr. Brennan conducted a PACES observation of Mr. Starr for his annual evaluation. The Observation Form for Annual Evaluation indicates that Dr. Brennan observed Mr. Starr's classroom performance from "12:30 to 12:50."19 Mr. Starr again failed to have a lesson plan, and Dr. Brennan found that Mr. Starr was deficient in every component of the six PACES domains evaluated. The evaluation form reflects that a post-observation meeting was held on April 19, 2002, at which time Mr. Starr signed the evaluation form and wrote on the form that he did not agree with the evaluation. On April 18, 2002, Dr. Brennan issued a notice advising Mr. Starr that a Conference-for-the-Record had been scheduled for April 22, 2002, to discuss Mr. Starr's failure to comply with the Professional Improvement Plan, gross insubordination, violation of the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21. According to the Summary of the Conference-for-the- Record, the conference was held in Mr. Starr's absence because of "his refusal to comply with an administrative directive." Dr. Brennan referred in the summary to Mr. Starr's "refusal to report to the principal's office" and categorized the refusal as insubordination and conduct unacceptable for a School Board employee. Assistant Principal Dina Carretta was the only person other than Dr. Brennan attending the Conference-for-the-Record. During the April 22, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record, Dr. Brennan prepared a Professional Improvement Plan for PACES Domain VII, Professional Responsibilities, having found Mr. Starr deficient in that domain, because he failed to comply with the March 15, 2002, Professional Improvement Plan; failed to submit by the required date the activities set out in the Professional Improvement Plan; and failed to comply with "district and school site requirements regarding grade book and student's attendance records." Mr. White again placed Mr. Starr on alternate work assignment at his residence, effective April 24, 2002. Ms. Moss included in the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record held April 12, 2002, which she prepared on May 3, 2002, a notation that, on or about April 24, 2002, she spoke with Mr. Starr and advised him that he could resign his position if he did not wish to comply with administrative directives and the Professional Improvement Plan activities. According to the notation in the summary, Mr. Starr again affirmed that he would comply with the directives and the plan activities. After she prepared the summary of the April 12, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record, Ms. Moss submitted it to the School Board's attorneys for review because Dr. Brennan and Mr. White had recommended that Mr. Starr's employment with the Miami-Dade County public school system be terminated. The bases for the termination recommendation included gross insubordination, violation of School Board rules, and violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession. In July 2002, after it was decided that a recommendation would be made to the School Board that Mr. Starr be terminated as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County public school system, Ms. Moss met with Mr. Starr to advise him of the recommendation; she also gave Mr. Starr another opportunity to resign his position, which he refused. Summary. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Starr repeatedly refused to comply with directives and instructions from Dr. Brennan and Mr. Montgomery that were reasonable and within the scope of their authority and that, in at least one instance, Mr. Starr openly and publicly defied an order given by Dr. Brennan. Mr. Starr freely admits that there was a serious lack of discipline among the students in his classroom and that the problems were so severe that he was unable to teach and the students were unable to learn. Mr. Starr also admits that he defied Dr. Brennan in almost everything that Dr. Brennan directed him to do and that he was repeatedly insubordinate towards Dr. Brennan. Although Mr. Starr's defiance of Dr. Brennan's directives consisted, for the most part, of a stubborn refusal to do as Dr. Brennan directed, Mr. Starr did cause a public disturbance in the main office by refusing to enter the principal's office when summoned on April 16, 2002, thereby openly defying Dr. Brennan's authority to summon Mr. Starr to his office. Mr. Starr's refusal to comply with reasonable administrative directives and his blatant defiance of Dr. Brennan reflected discredit on Mr. Starr as a teacher. The evidence is also sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, from December 2001, until he was removed from the classroom on April 24, 2002, Mr. Starr did not make any effort to work with Mr. Montgomery or with his Professional Growth Team to improve his teaching and class management deficiencies, nor did he make any effort to complete the activities set forth in the Professional Improvement Plan that were designed to assist him in achieving professional growth. Mr. Starr's failure to strive for professional growth by working to correct the deficiencies identified in Mr. Montgomery's December 3, 2001, and March 1, 2002, observations negatively affected his ability to teach his students. Mr. Starr refuses to accept responsibility for the lack of discipline in his classroom. Rather, he faults Dr. Brennan for failing to help him impose discipline on those students who were misbehaving and defying Mr. Starr's authority. According to Mr. Starr, the six-step discipline plan did not work, and, once the students realized that there were no consequences if they behaved badly, it was impossible for him to manage the students in his classes. Mr. Starr also believes that, if Dr. Brennan cared about Mr. Starr's professional development, Dr. Brennan would have "developed a specific strategy of corrective action for students that were defiant" towards him.20 Mr. Starr considers his defiance of and insubordination towards Dr. Brennan "principled," and he believes that he had "no other reasonable recourse" but was forced by Dr. Brennan to defy Dr. Brennan's administrative directives.21 Additionally, Mr. Starr justifies his refusal to complete the Professional Improvement Plan activities, to keep a standard grade book, to adhere to the six-step discipline plan, and to prepare lesson plans on the grounds that Dr. Brennan behaved towards him in an abusive and belligerent manner and attempted to set him up for termination. It may well be, as Mr. Starr contends, that Dr. Brennan began losing patience with Mr. Starr, as the 2001-2002 school year progressed; it may well be that Dr. Brennan's manner towards Mr. Starr became increasingly abrupt; and it may well be that Dr. Brennan could have provided Mr. Starr with more assistance than he was willing to provide. Whatever Dr. Brennan's failings as Mr. Starr's principal, however, Mr. Starr was not justified in defying Dr. Brennan, in refusing to obey Dr. Brennan's directives, and in generally behaving in a manner inappropriate for a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order Finding that Stephen J. Starr, Jr., violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and committed gross insubordination and misconduct in office; Sustaining his suspension; and, Terminating his employment as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County public school system. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2003.
The Issue Whether Lisa Parker (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Miami-Dade County School Board's (School Board) Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 1986. During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was the lead staffing specialist for the School Board's ESE program in Region I. During the 2008-2009 school year, Michael J. Krop Sr. High School (Krop) was a school for which Respondent had responsibility. The School Board's ESE program provides services to students who are determined eligible for such services. The eligibility determination is made by a staffing committee consisting of a minimum of three School Board professional employees. The School Board has adopted the following procedure pertaining to the eligibility staffing committee2/: A staffing committee, utilizing the process of reviewing student data including but not limited to diagnostic, evaluation, educational, or social data, determines a student's eligibility. A minimum of three (3) professional personnel, one (1) of whom is the district administrator of exceptional students or designee, meet as a staffing committee. For students being considered for eligibility as a student with a disability, the parent is invited to participate in this meeting . . . . If a student is determined to be eligible for services through the ESE program, an IEP team is assembled to conduct an IEP meeting and to prepare an IEP for the student. The parents of the student are entitled to attend the IEP meeting as part of the IEP team. A local education agency (LEA) representative is a required member of an IEP team. The other required members of the IEP are a general education teacher, a special education teacher, and an evaluation specialist.3/ Relevant to this proceeding, a general education teacher and an evaluation specialist can be excused from the IEP meeting before the close of the meeting. The members of a staffing committee that determines eligibility can also constitute the members of an IEP team. An eligibility determination is frequently made with an IEP team meeting ensuing immediately thereafter. There is nothing unusual about an eligibility determination and an initial IEP being accomplished on the same day. "Specific learning disability" and "other health impaired" are two categories that qualify a student for ESE services.4/ School-based staffing specialists are assigned to schools to hold staffing meetings to determine eligible for services from the ESE program, and to write an IEP for a student found to be eligible. Generally, a lead staffing specialist is a position of support for school-based staffing specialists in the areas of organization, scheduling, and compliance with relevant substantive and procedural requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Florida Statutes, and rules. A lead staffing specialist also provides professional development to school-based personnel through in- service training and individual support to schools. A lead staffing specialist is responsible for ensuring that eligibility determinations were based on adequate documentation in a timely fashion. On June 27, 2008, the School Board published a "Memorandum" that solicited applicants for the position of "lead staffing specialist." That Memorandum contained the following under the heading "Job Responsibilities Include": Serve as the Local Education Agency (LEA) Representative of the Multi-Disciplinary Team for eligibility, placement and dismissal decisions for students in the least restrictive environment. Collect and review staffing data and allocation of personnel to facilitate adherence to required procedures and timelines for staffings. Assist the SPED Instructional Supervisor in monitoring unit allocations, program enrollment and suspension and inclusion percentages. Demonstrate knowledge in procedural safeguards, due process and mediation procedures. Consult with the Regional Center SPED Instructional Supervisors to resolve issues related to the provision of programs and services to individual students. Provide on-site technical assistance to teachers, administrators and support personnel in areas involving program planning, curriculum and instructional techniques for students. Provide program assistance to parents and community agencies. Identify school needs regarding enrollment, unit allocation, equipment, materials and transportation. Plan and conduct regularly scheduled staff meetings to maintain communication and provide for the dissemination of information. Serve as the Region Center SPED Instructional Supervisor's designee in the identification and resolution of problems, issues and concerns related to special education services. When necessary, a lead staffing specialist is also expected to serve as the LEA representative at a school-based staffing to determine a student's eligibility for services from the ESE program and to participate in the preparation of an IEP as a member of the IEP team. A lead staffing specialist who serves as the LEA at an initial eligibility meeting or an IEP meeting is charged with ensuring that the School Board's policies are followed and that all necessary documentation is obtained. It is the School Board's responsibility to ensure that its policies comply with all applicable Federal and Florida statutes and rules. The LEA at an IEP meeting has the responsibility of preparing a Matrix of Services form based on the services provided by the IEP. The completion of the form results in the generation of a number that is used to determine the level of funding the School Board receives for the student. For ease of reference, that number will be referred to as the matrix number. A higher matrix number generates more funding than a lower number. A matrix number is also used to determine the level of funding for a McKay Scholarship. Again, a higher matrix number will result in greater funding. Respondent has been adequately trained in the procedures for determining eligibility for ESE program services, for the completion of IEPs, and for the completion of Matrix of Service forms. At the times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. S.-N. served as the School Board's Instructional Supervisor of ESE and was Respondent's direct supervisor. In addition to their professional relationship, Ms. S.-N. and Respondent had been close personal friends for over 25 years at the time of the formal hearing. S.N. is the daughter of Ms. S.-N.. At the request of Ms. S.-N., Respondent served as the LEA for the eligibility staffing and subsequent creation of an IEP for S.N. at Krop on October 15, 2008. Also at Ms. S.-N.'s request, Respondent served as the LEA on an IEP team that prepared a second IEP for S.N. on February 9, 2009. Prior to the eligibility determination on October 15, 2008, S.N. was a student at American Heritage Academy, a private school in Plantation, Broward County, Florida. Prior to the eligibility determination, Dr. Laurie Karpf, a psychiatrist, had diagnosed S.N. with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and mood disorder, NOS (not otherwise specified). Dr. Karpf prescribed for S.N. medication to treat ADHD.5/ Prior to the eligibility determination, Dr. Garnett Reynolds, a speech and language pathologist employed by the School Board, screened S.N. to determine whether S.N. had speech or hearing deficits. Dr. Reynolds determined that S.N. had no such deficits. Dr. Reynolds did not participate further in the eligibility determination or in drafting either IEP at issue. On August 22, 2008, Dr. Yolanda Sklar, a school psychologist employed by the School Board, evaluated S.N. at the request of Ms. S.-N. Because S.N. was enrolled in a private school in Broward County, Dr. Sklar conducted the evaluation in her capacity as a "clinical psychologist," using the DSM-IV model, as opposed to the capacity as a school psychologist using School Board protocols. Dr. Sklar's report stated the following as the "Reason for Referral": [S.N.] is a 15 year, nine month old female who was referred for a psychological evaluation for reasons of academic difficulties in school. [S.] is enrolled in tenth grade at American Heritage School. Information was requested regarding [S.'s] level of intellectual functioning, academic achievement, and her learning aptitude in order to address the possibility of learning disabilities. [S.] presents with a history of attentional difficulties and academic problems in school. She has struggled throughout her schooling years, but her difficulties in school have become more evident at the higher grades, with higher academic demands and expectations. [S.] also has Attention Deficit Disorder. She is currently on medication (Focalin) for treatment of attentional difficulties and she appears to be responding well to the medication. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide diagnostic clarification and assist with determination of [S.'s] educational needs. Recommendations are provided based on [S.'s] learning abilities and her instructional needs in order to insure her academic potential and her success in school. Ms. S.-N. had, at times, been Dr. Sklar's direct supervisor. Dr. Sklar felt intimated when Ms. S.-N. requested that she evaluate S.N. Nevertheless, Dr. Sklar's report and her testimony at the formal hearing established that she evaluated S.N. in a thorough and professional manner. Dr. Sklar administered to S.N. the following tests: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV Woodcock-Johnson-III Tests of Achievement Woodcock-Johnson-III Tests of Cognitive Ability Beery Developmental Test of Visual- Motor Integration-V Behavior Assessment System for Children, Parent Rating Behavior Assessment System for Children, Self-Report Sentence Completion Test-Adolescent Clinical Interview and Observations Dr. Sklar's report contained the following "Summary and Conclusions": [S.N.] is a 15 year, nine month old female who is functioning within the Average range of intellectual classification. Assessment of learning aptitude indicates a learning disorder or learning disability in processing speed. Academically, [S.] is not performing to the best of her ability and not reaching her potential due to learning disabilities. She is achieving significantly below her level of expectancy in reading fluency. Psychometric findings strongly support evidence of a specific learning disability in processing speed. A childhood history of Attention Deficit Disorder is also supported. The overall implications are that [S.] will require accommodations in the classroom and in testing situations to fully utilize her intellectual potential. The failure to accommodate may lead to academic performance well below her expected ability. Based on findings, it is imperative that [S.] receive individualized instructional adjustments in the classroom and test accommodations in order to meet her educational goals. Results and clinical impressions are consistent with a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominately Inattentive Type, and Learning Disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified). Dr. Sklar's report contained the following under the heading "Diagnostic Impressions": The following diagnostic criteria is met in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV-TR), American Psychiatric Association: Axis I: 314.00 Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominately Inattentive Type Axis II: 315.9 Learning Disorder, NOS Dr. Sklar's report contained the following under the heading "Educational Strategies and Recommendations": [S.] would benefit from educational software programs that are multi-modal and emphasize visual skills, as her visual memory processing skills appear to be her strongest learning modality. Software programs, such as Talking Books would be beneficial. As [S.] has a history of Attention Deficit Disorder, it is imperative that directions be specific and given clearly. It may be necessary to repeat directions in order to assure attending skills and comprehension of instructions regarding the task at hand. In light of deficits in processing speed, it is imperative that [S.] receive time accommodations in classroom assignments, exams, and standardized tests. Restrict the amount of work required on a single page if possible. Teaching techniques should begin with identification of individual parts, moving to integrated wholes. Keep visually presented material simple in format and uncluttered by excessive stimuli. Classroom lectures may be taped in order of [S.] to play back lectures and take notes at her own pace. Strategies that may facilitate written tasks include providing outlines and visual cues such as color coding, numbering lines, etc. Educational materials and tools, such as a computer/word processor, calculator, tape recorder, spell-checker, ruler, etc., should be allowed as deemed necessary. Dr. Sklar's report does not reflect an opinion as to whether S.N. met the eligibility criteria for ESE services in Miami-Dade public schools. At the formal hearing Dr. Sklar testified that S.N. did not meet criteria for eligibility under the SLD category. The School Board uses a discrepancy model, which measures the statistical difference from IQ and level of academic functioning. The difference in S.N.'s evaluation was one-half point short of the differential required by the School Board, which determined that she was not eligible, but suggested that further testing was warranted. Prior to October 15, 2008, Ms. S.-N. instructed Respondent to determine S.N.'s eligibility for ESE services and to prepare an IEP for her daughter as soon as possible. Respondent could not remember the date that conversation took place, but it is clear that Respondent worked on very short notice. The School Board contends that Respondent acted to the detriment of other students who were waiting to be evaluated for eligibility of ESE services or for an IEP by giving S.N. priority over those other students. The School Board's contention is rejected because there was insufficient evidence to establish that any student's staffing was delayed by Respondent's actions. Ms. S.-N. enrolled S.N. as a student at Krop on October 15, 2008. The enrollment record reflected that S.N. resided at an address in Miami-Dade County, Florida, within the Krop school zone. That was a false address. Although Respondent utilized that false address on the October 15, 2008, IEP, Respondent testified, credibly, that she pulled the address from the school computer. Respondent had no duty to verify the accuracy of that address. There was no evidence that Respondent knew or should have known that the address was false. In response to Ms. S.-N.'s instruction, Respondent attempted to convene an eligibility team meeting and an IEP meeting at Krop on October 15, 2008. The meeting was held in the office of Elissa Rubinowitz, the Program Specialist (for ESE) at Krop. On October 15, 2008, Respondent generated an IEP for S.N. that reflected that S.N. had been determined eligible for the following ESE programs: "Specific Learning Disabilities" and "Other Health Impaired." Under the heading "Signatures and Positions of Persons Attending Conference [sic]", the following signatures appear with the positions of each signer in parenthesis: Ms. S.-N. (parent), S.N. (student), Respondent (LEA representative), Ms. Rubinowitz (ESE teacher), Dr. Richard Rosen (evaluation specialist), and Lawrence Davidson (general education teacher). Mr. Davidson was not at the staffing committee team meeting that determined S.N.'s eligibility for services, nor did he attend the IEP meeting at Krop on October 15, 2008. Mr. Davidson's office at Krop was next door to Ms. Rubinowitz's office. After Respondent completed the IEP without Mr. Davidson's presence or input, Ms. Rubinowitz went to Mr. Davidson's office, gave him the IEP, and asked him to sign the IEP as the general education teacher. Mr. Davidson signed the IEP as the general education teacher.6/ The IEP reflects that S.N. was to be placed in all general education classes at Krop. Consequently, a general education teacher should have been a participating member of the IEP team. Because there was no general education teacher, the IEP team was inappropriately composed. Similarly, Dr. Rosen was not at Krop on October 15, 2008. On the afternoon of October 15, 2008, Dr. Rosen happened to be at the Region I office when Ms. S.-N. asked him to come into her office to review Dr. Sklar's psychological report. The only persons present were Ms. S.-N., Respondent, and Dr. Rosen. Dr. Rosen has known Dr. Sklar for many years and quickly reviewed her report. Ms. S.-N. had no questions about the report. After his review, Dr. Rosen signed the IEP as the evaluation specialist. Although Dr. Sklar is a school psychologist employed by the School Board, her report pertaining to S.N. is properly considered as being a private psychological evaluation because Dr. Sklar's evaluation of S.N. was not prepared pursuant to School Board protocol. Either Dr. Rosen or Respondent should have signed a form styled "Receipt of Private Psychological Evaluation," which would have acknowledged receipt of the private evaluation from Ms. S.-N. The form contains the following caveat: "A copy of this form should be kept in the student's cumulative folder." Respondent failed to ensure that this form was signed and placed in S.N.'s cumulative folder. Dr. Rosen should have completed and signed a form styled "Review of Psychological Reports Originating Outside Miami-Dade County Public Schools." That form includes a section for the school psychologist to determine whether the report is sufficiently recent and whether the evaluator meets professional background criteria. At the bottom of the form is a note that "This form is required for all psychological evaluations originating outside M-DCPS." Respondent failed to ensure that Dr. Rosen completed and signed that form. The determination that S.N. met ESE eligibility was not made by a properly convened staffing committee. There were three persons employed by the School Board at the Krop meeting (Respondent, Ms. Rubinowitz, and Ms. S.-N.). Likewise, there were three persons employed by the School Board at the Region I office meeting (Respondent, Dr. Rosen, and Ms. S.-N.). Ms. S.- N. attended both meetings as a parent; not as a School Board professional. Ms. Rubinowitz and Dr. Rosen did not participate in the same meeting. Consequently, no staffing meeting as contemplated by the School Board's policies occurred because a minimum of three School Board professionals did not meet as a staffing committee to determine eligibility. There was a dispute as to whether the staffing committee had adequate information to determine that S.N. met the criteria for ESE services under the SLD category or under the OHI category. That dispute is resolved by finding that a properly convened staffing committee had the right to rely on Dr. Sklar's report, on Dr. Karpf's records, and on input from Ms. S.-N. in concluding that S.N. was eligible under both categories. Further, the available information would have been sufficient for a properly convened staffing committee to determine that S.N. was eligible for ESE services under both categories. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the substantive contents of the IEP developed October 15, 2008, were inappropriate.7/ The Matrix of Services form contains five "domains." Domain A relates to "Curriculum and Learning Environment." Domain B relates to "Social/Emotional Behavior." Domain C relates to "Independent Functioning." Domain D relates to "Health Care." Domain E relates to "Communication." Under each domain is a "Level of Service" that begins with Level 1 and ends with Level 5. There is a descriptor on the form and in a handbook as to what constitutes a level of service. The person completing the Matrix of Service form assigns a number to each domain based on the level of service provided in the IEP. The numbers for the five domains are added together to produce what is referred to as the "Cost Factor Scale," which is used to determine state funding to the School Board. The higher the Cost Factor Scale, the more state funding the School Board would receive for the student. The Cost Factor Scale is also utilized in determining the funding for McKay Scholarships. As part of the IEP process, Respondent completed a Matrix of Services form in conjunction with the October 15, 2008, IEP. Petitioner established that Respondent should have scored Domain A as a 3 as opposed to a 4. As scored by Respondent, the total domain rating was 12. If Respondent had correctly scored Domain A, the total domain rating would have been 11. Domain totals ranging from 10-13 produce a cost factor scale of 252. Because the Cost Factor Scale was not changed, this error did not become significant until Respondent completed the Matrix of Services form in conjunction with the February 2009 IEP. S.N. withdrew from Krop on October 23, 2008, and returned to her private school placement shortly thereafter. Between October 2008 and February 2009, S.N.'s negative behaviors escalated. On February 5, 2009, Ms. S.-N. re-enrolled S.N. at Krop. On the instructions of Ms. S.-N., Respondent convened an interim IEP meeting on February 9, 2009. The purpose of the meeting was to "review accommodations." An interim IEP coversheet was prepared by Respondent. Those purporting to sign the coversheet as having participated in the IEP team meeting and their positions were: Ms. S.-N. (parent), S.N. (student), Respondent (LEA), Ms. Rubinowitz (ESE teacher and evaluation specialist), and Mr. Davidson (general education teacher). As he did with the earlier IEP, Mr. Davidson signed the interim IEP coversheet on February 9, 2009, without having attended the IEP meeting or providing any input. No general education teacher participated in the IEP meeting. Consequently, this IEP team was not appropriately formed. Respondent failed to adhere to School Board procedures in assembling the IEP team. At that meeting, the level of counseling for S.N. was changed from weekly to daily, and a provision was added for the counselor to consult with the family on a monthly basis to monitor the status of S.N.'s focus on schoolwork. This change was based on input from Ms. S.-N. as to S.N.'s escalating behavior. The body of the IEP was not changed to reflect the change in counseling for S.N. from a weekly basis to a daily basis. That omission was an error by Respondent. A note was added to the IEP to reflect the added provision for family counseling. Respondent completed a Matrix of Service form on February 9, 2009, based on the interim IEP. Domain B was increased from a 3 to a 4 because of the change from weekly counseling to daily counseling. Domain D was increased from a 1 to a 2 because of the addition of monthly counseling with the student's family. The total domain rating increased from 12 to 14 based on the increases in Domains B and D. The Cost Factor Scale increased from a score of 252 to a score of 253. Petitioner established that Domain B should not have been increased because the IEP does not reflect that the student would begin receiving daily counseling. Because of Respondent's scoring errors, the final Cost Scale Factor was 253. Had Respondent correctly scored the Matrix of Services form, the final Cost Scale Factor would have been 252. Determining a level of service under a particular domain requires some subjectively. While Respondent made the scoring errors reflected above, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent deliberately "fudged" her scoring to benefit Ms. S.- N.8/ On February 20, 2009, S.N. was withdrawn from Krop by her father. Subsequent to that withdrawal, Ms. S.-N. applied for a McKay Scholarship for S.N. for the 2009-10 school year. The application included the two IEPs discussed herein and the two Matrix of Services forms completed by Respondent. Had Ms. S.-N. been successful in obtaining a McKay Scholarship, the amount of the scholarship would have been greater if it had been awarded on a Cost Factor Scale of 253 as compared to a Cost Factor Scale of 252. Respondent had no knowledge that Ms. S.-N. intended to apply for a McKay Scholarship on behalf of S.N. at any time relevant to this proceeding. S.N. has now graduated from a high school in Broward County, Florida. Until her graduation, S.N. received services and accommodations similar to those reflected on the IEPs at issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Lisa Parker guilty of the violations alleged in Count I (misconduct in office), Count (III) (Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.21 relating to Responsibilities and Duties of School Board employees), and Count (IV) (Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213 relating to the Code of Ethics) of the Notice of Specific Charges and as found in this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the final order find Lisa Parker not guilty of the violations alleged in Count II (immorality) and (V) (Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.212 relating to Conflict of Interests). For the violations found, it is recommended that the final order suspend Lisa Parker's employment without pay for a period of 30 school days. Because Lisa Parker has been suspended for more than 30 school days, it is RECOMMENDED that her employment be reinstated with back pay. The calculation of back pay should not include pay for the 30- day suspension period. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 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 15th day of February 2013.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be dismissed from her employment as a teacher because of incompetency, as alleged in the Petitioner's letter to the Respondent dated November 16, 1999, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 22, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the county and to "provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees" of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1997). At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. Weinstein was an elementary school teacher employed under a continuing contract by the School Board and assigned to Miami Heights Elementary School ("Miami Heights Elementary"). Ms. Weinstein has been employed by the School Board since 1968. Ms. Weinstein is a member of United Teachers of Dade and is governed by the Contract Between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). During the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. Weinstein taught a second grade class at Miami Heights Elementary. She was placed on alternate assignment on February 9, 1999, and, in March 1999, she took medical leave, which was approved by the School Board. On October 13, 1999, Ms. Weinstein was advised that she must either resign or retire from her position as a teacher with the School Board by October 20, 1999, and that, if she did not do so, a recommendation would be made to the School Board at its November 17, 1999, meeting that she be dismissed from her employment. The decision that Ms. Weinstein could no longer teach in the Miami-Dade County public school system was based on two grounds. First, she had received an unacceptable evaluation for the 1998-1999 school year based on the determination that her teaching performance was not acceptable and that she had failed to remediate the deficiencies identified in the TADS formal observations conducted in September and November 1998 and in January 1999. Second, two psychologists had found Ms. Weinstein medically unfit for duty as an elementary school teacher as a result of psychological evaluations conducted in January 1999 and August 1999. Performance as a teacher Parent and teacher complaints Blanca M. Valle became principal of Miami Heights Elementary in June 1997. Soon after she assumed her duties, Ms. Valle received a letter from a parent complaining that Ms. Weinstein allegedly told her son he was "stupid"; the parent requested that her son not be assigned to Ms. Weinstein's class for the upcoming school year. At the time, Ms. Weinstein was teaching in a summer program at South Miami Heights Elementary School. Although the charge made by the parent was not substantiated, 1/ the child was assigned to a different teacher for the summer program, and Ms. Valle made sure that the child was not assigned to Ms. Weinstein's class for the 1997- 1998 school year. Ms. Valle assigned Ms. Weinstein to teach a kindergarten class during the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Valle received several letters from parents in September 1997 complaining about Ms. Weinstein's treatment of their children. One parent complained that Ms. Weinstein ignored her son when he raised his hand to participate in class; another parent asked that his child be assigned to another kindergarten class because the child felt intimidated and frightened in Ms. Weinstein's class; another parent complained that Ms. Weinstein was not aware that her daughter was lost in the cafeteria for 45 minutes after lunch; another parent complained that her son's school supplies were stolen from the classroom, his homework was not collected by Ms. Weinstein, and his shirt was cut in several places by another student during the time he was under Ms. Weinstein's supervision. As a result of the complaints, Ms. Valle assigned Ms. Weinstein in October 1997 to teach a third grade class that had just been created at Miami Heights Elementary to accommodate a greater-than-expected number of students. In addition to re- assigning Ms. Weinstein, Ms. Valle assigned another teacher to act as her mentor, assigned the grade level chairperson to work closely with her, and referred her to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program. 2/ After Ms. Weinstein was transferred, Ms. Valle received several letters from parents of third grade students complaining about Ms. Weinstein and asking that their children be transferred to another class. One parent complained that, during a field trip the parent was chaperoning, Ms. Weinstein spent an inordinate amount of time berating students for misbehavior, to no effect; she lacked control of the class, and she was disorganized; another parent complained that, during a conference with Ms. Weinstein and Ms. Clayton, Ms. Weinstein lied about sending progress reports home to the parent and said that her daughter was crazy. During the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. Weinstein was assigned to teach a second grade class. Ms. Valle received several letters from parents complaining about Ms. Weinstein and requesting that their children be transferred to another class. Several parents stated that they wanted their children transferred to another class because they had received negative reports from other parents regarding Ms. Weinstein. One parent complained that her son cried every morning and did not want to go to school, that Ms. Weinstein told the parent that her son lied to the parent and to himself, and that Ms. Weinstein did not have a professional appearance; another parent complained that Ms. Weinstein ignored her daughter when she raised her hand to turn in her homework. Crystal Coffey was the assistant principal at Miami Heights Elementary during the 1998-1999 school year, which was her first year in the position at Miami Heights Elementary. It was not unusual for parents to approach her and ask that their child be transferred out of Ms. Weinstein's class. At the end of the 1998-1999 school year, when Ms. Weinstein was on medical leave, Ms. Valle received letters from three teachers complaining about Ms. Weinstein. The second grade level chairperson during the 1998-1999 school year complained that Ms. Weinstein was very difficult to work with and did not grasp the curriculum or understand how to present lessons. Another teacher commented that she had observed Ms. Weinstein engage in a pattern of unprofessional and often bizarre behavior over the years. A teacher who team-taught language arts with Ms. Weinstein wrote that, among other things, Ms. Weinstein would not let students go to the rest room, that on two occasions Ms. Weinstein sat at her desk during class and ate a chef salad and a tuna salad with her hands, and that Ms. Weinstein would put a "bad behavior" check mark beside children's names for the most minor offenses. Observations of Ms. Weinstein's teaching performance Ms. Weinstein's performance as a teacher was rated acceptable overall and acceptable in every performance category in each annual evaluation from the 1978-1979 school year 3/ through the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Valle signed Ms. Weinstein's Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS") 4/ Annual Evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year based on a formal TADS observation conducted on April 13, 1998, by the then-assistant principal of Miami Heights Elementary, Alice Clayton. Ms. Clayton prepared a CAI-Post Observation Report for the April 13, 1998, TADS observation rating Ms. Weinstein's performance acceptable in each category assessed. She also rated Ms. Weinstein's performance acceptable for each indicator in each category. Ms. Valle conducted informal observations of the classroom performance of each of the teachers in Miami Heights Elementary; it was her practice to visit all of the classrooms in the school at least once a day. During her informal observations of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance, she observed students who were not on task, discipline problems, and a general lack of teaching and learning in the classroom. Ms. Coffey made it a practice to informally observe each teacher's classroom at least three times each week. Ms. Coffey informally observed Ms. Weinstein's classroom an average of three times each week during the 1998-1999 school year. At the beginning of the school day, Ms. Coffey would often find Ms. Weinstein sitting at her desk in the classroom eating her breakfast or looking "spacey," apparently unaware that the classroom door was open and that a number of parents were trying to talk with her and/or trying to get their children organized for the day. On September 18, 1998, Ms. Valle, who was trained in the use of TADS, conducted a formal TADS observation of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance and completed both a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement with respect to the observation. Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance acceptable in three categories listed on the CAI Post-Observation Report: knowledge of subject matter, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein unacceptable in three categories on the CAI Post-Observation Report: preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. The Record of Observed Deficiencies contains numerous references to Ms. Weinstein's failure to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students who were off task; rather, Ms. Valle observed that Ms. Weinstein ignored students who were talking and playing and generally behaving poorly, and she seemed to be unaware of the students' behavior in her classroom. Ms. Valle also observed that Ms. Weinstein ignored students who raised their hands with questions or to contribute to the class discussion, did not provide background information for her lesson or any explanation of how to do the problems assigned, did not acknowledge that many of the children were confused by the lesson, and did not provide closure to the lesson. On November 16, 1999, Ms. Coffey, who was trained in the use of TADS, conducted a formal TADS observation of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance and completed both a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement with respect to the observation. Ms. Coffey rated Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance acceptable in two categories listed on the CAI Post-Observation Report: knowledge of subject matter and assessment techniques. Ms. Coffey rated Ms. Weinstein unacceptable in four categories on the CAI Post-Observation Report: preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Ms. Coffey observed that Ms. Weinstein did not follow her lesson plan and went beyond the time allotted for the lesson, leaving the teacher who was to teach the next lesson knocking at the classroom door for over five minutes. Ms. Coffey noticed that students already had completed the workbook page for the lesson, and, in Ms. Coffey's opinion, Ms. Weinstein was not teaching a new lesson during the observation but one she had already taught. Ms. Coffey observed that Ms. Weinstein did not use any verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect the many students who were off task and that she put check marks for bad behavior and stars for good behavior beside students' names, which she had written on the chalk board, without providing any explanation to the students and often for no discernable reason. Ms. Coffey also observed that Ms. Weinstein often ignored students' inappropriate behavior, did not monitor whether the students were learning the lesson, did not provide feedback to the students, and did not respond to students who had questions. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on December 8, 1998, to discuss Ms. Weinstein's September and November performance assessments and related matters and her future employment status with the School Board. Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey attended the conference, as well as Ms. Weinstein and two union stewards. Ms. Valle discussed the two TADS formal observations with Ms. Weinstein, as well as the prescriptive activities assigned in the observation reports and ways in which Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey would assist her to improve her teaching performance. Ms. Weinstein was advised that disciplinary action would be considered if her performance did not improve. On January 25, 2000, Ms. Valle conducted her second formal observation of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance, and she completed both a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement with respect to the observation. Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance acceptable in three categories listed on the CAI Post-Observation Report: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and teacher-student relationships. Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein unacceptable in three categories on the CAI Post-Observation Report: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. At the time of the second observation, Ms. Weinstein had not remedied many of the unsatisfactory teaching behaviors Ms. Valle had observed in her formal observation in September 1998. The lesson observed by Ms. Valle on January 25, 1999, was on the concepts of solid, liquid, and gas, but Ms. Valle observed that Ms. Weinstein did not use any supplemental materials or hands-on activities to teach the students, nor did she provide necessary background information or closure for the lesson. Ms. Valle observed that Ms. Weinstein did not call on students who had raised their hands with questions or to contribute to the class discussion, did not provide feedback to help students who were confused by the lesson, failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students who were off task, and ignored students who were off task, seemingly unaware of their behavior. In addition, Ms. Valle found that Ms. Weinstein had virtually no documentation to support grades for the students: As of January 25, 1999, the most recent grade recorded in Ms. Weinstein's grade book was for December 9, 1998, and there were no assessments and very little work contained in the students' folders. On June 8, 1999, Ms. Valle prepared a memorandum regarding Ms. Weinstein's TADS Annual Evaluation for the 1998- 1999 school year, in which Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein unacceptable in every category of classroom assessment; Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein acceptable in professional responsibilities. The memorandum was prepared in lieu of conducting a conference-for-the-record because Ms. Weinstein was on extended medical leave. In the memorandum, Ms. Valle advised Ms. Weinstein that her performance was unacceptable because the deficiencies identified in the formal TADS observations in September and November 1998 and January 1999 had not been remediated. Ms. Valle advised Ms. Weinstein that the assessment process would continue when she returned to Miami Heights Elementary. Had Ms. Weinstein not gone on medical leave in March 1999, she would have been entitled to at least one, and perhaps two, formal TADS observations conducted by a School Board administrator other than Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey. As it was, no external TADS observation was conducted, and the TADS assessment process was not completed. Fitness for duty as a teacher In a memorandum to the Office of Professional Standards dated January 13, 1999, Ms. Valle requested that Ms. Weinstein be given a fitness evaluation because she had observed Ms. Weinstein engage in behavior during the 1998-1999 school year that Ms. Valle considered unusual. Ms. Valle attached to the memorandum letters that Ms. Weinstein had prepared requesting that the parents of various students sign a statement "for her autograph book" to the effect that "Ms. Weinstein is a good teacher"; Ms. Weinstein passed the letters out to students and parents and disrupted classes when she took letters to other teachers and asked that they give them to the students whose names she had written on the letters. Both parents and teachers complained to Ms. Valle about these letters. Ms. Valle observed Ms. Weinstein engage in other behavior that Ms. Valle considered unusual: Ms. Weinstein came to school dressed in a manner that Ms. Valle considered inappropriate, and her hair was often untidy; during the winter, Ms. Weinstein sometimes wore a hat pulled down to her eyes the entire day; during a meeting with Ms. Valle and others, Ms. Weinstein took a pair of leopard-print gloves out of a box she carried and put on the gloves; Ms. Weinstein attended a PTA meeting wearing a black see-through skirt and blouse; Ms. Weinstein gobbled her food and ate food such as tuna salad with her hands; Ms. Weinstein walked in the school halls with a blank look on her face. In addition, Ms. Valle noted that Ms. Weinstein had excessive absences from school. Ms. Coffey observed Ms. Weinstein engage in behavior she considered unusual: When she had conferences with Ms. Weinstein, Ms. Weinstein would not look at her or respond to questions or statements except to say that "it's not true"; Ms. Weinstein wore a fur-like hat and long leopard gloves on hot days and sometimes walked around school under an umbrella when it was not raining; and Ms. Weinstein often had a "spacey" look and seemed not to understand what was being said to her. In response to Ms. Valle's request that Ms. Weinstein be referred for a fitness evaluation, a Conference-for-the- Record was held in the Office of Professional Standards on January 27, 1999, to consider, among other things, Ms. Weinstein's performance assessment and her medical fitness to perform her assigned duties. The Summary of the Conference- for-the-Record reflected that Ms. Weinstein was advised that her absences were considered excessive because she used more sick leave than she had accrued, and the two formal TADS observations completed in September and November 1998 were discussed. Ms. Weinstein acknowledged that the School Board had the right to require that she be evaluated to determine her fitness for duty, and she chose to be evaluated by Dr. Larry Harmon, whose name appeared on a list of psychologists approved by the School Board. Ms. Weinstein appended a two-page response to the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record in which she admitted to some of the behaviors identified by Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey but disputed the conclusion that these behaviors were unusual. Dr. Harmon's evaluation - January 1999 At the request of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Larry Harmon, who is a licensed clinical psychologist, performed a fitness-for-duty evaluation of Ms. Weinstein on January 28, 1999. In evaluating Ms. Weinstein, Dr. Harmon conducted a clinical interview and a mental status examination, administered several psychological tests, consulted with other mental health professionals, and reviewed materials provided to him by the School Board. Dr. Harmon issued a report dated March 10, 1999, in which he deferred his diagnosis with respect to Axis I "Clinical Disorders and Conditions." 5/ He diagnosed Ms. Weinstein with "Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified" with respect to Axis II "Personality Disorders," 6/ commenting that she exhibited moderate to severe patterns of defensiveness, denial, projection, blame, rationalization, distorted thinking, suspiciousness, selective listening, inability to process and accept feedback, poor judgement, and lack of insight. Dr. Harmon deferred his diagnosis with respect to Axis III "Physical Disorders and Conditions" to her physician. Dr. Harmon concluded that Ms. Weinstein was not fit for duty as an elementary school teacher. This conclusion was based on his assessment that [h]er impaired interpersonal behavior and unacceptable work performance in Preparation and Planning, Classroom Management, Techniques of Instruction, and Teacher- Student Relationships is likely to continue and be considered below acceptable standards. Based on this assessment, there is insufficient supporting information to clear her to return to work. . . . Dr. Harmon's assessment that her interpersonal behavior was impaired was based on his observations that Ms. Weinstein was extremely defensive and almost in a state of denial that there were any problems with her interactions and performance; that she had difficulty processing information conveyed to her during the clinical interview and mental status examination; that her judgment was impaired and her problem-solving ability reduced; and that she had a low level of insight into the effect of her behavior on others. Dr. Harmon found that Ms. Weinstein generally had serious difficulties with job tasks requiring interpersonal interactions and stated that individuals with her [Ms. Weinstein's] level of defensiveness, distorted thinking, suspiciousness, denial, selective listening, inability to engage feedback, poor judgement, and lack of insight are likely to evidence significant work difficulties, especially if she is under stress. . . . [T]here appears to be a probability of significant risk that her inadequate interpersonal skills and inability to benefit from feedback will adversely affect her work performance . . . . Among other things, Dr. Harmon recommended in his report that Ms. Weinstein be placed on medical leave for at least one month to allow her to receive intensive mental health treatment to help her improve her interpersonal skills and work performance and that she participate in psychotherapy sessions and follow the recommendations of her psychotherapist. Another Conference-for-the Record was held in the Office of Professional Standards on March 17, 1999, for the purpose of discussing Ms. Weinstein's medical fitness to perform her assigned duties. At the time, Ms. Weinstein was temporarily assigned to the Region VI Office, where she had been placed in early February 1999. Dr. Harmon's report was reviewed at the conference with Ms. Weinstein and the union representative, and the recommendations in his report were accepted by the School Board as conditions for Ms. Weinstein's continued employment as follows: Obtain medical clearance from the Board approved evaluator to return to work within 29 working days of this conference or implement procedures for Board approved medical leave. Participate in psychotherapeutic sessions on a regular basis to be monitored by personnel from the District's support agency. Follow all recommendations of the health care professionals. Sign a limited Release and Exchange of Information for all of your mental health professionals which restricts the release and exchange of information to those symptoms, behavioral patterns, and treatment compliance issues directly relevant to your fitness for duty determination. Upon the recommendation of the District's support agency, which will be based upon discussions with your treating mental health professionals, a re-evaluation will be scheduled for you with Dr. Harmon. Ms. Weinstein was advised that, if she did not comply with Dr. Harmon's recommendations, the School Board would be compelled to take disciplinary measures against her including suspension, demotion, or dismissal. In the School Board's opinion, Ms. Weinstein was not ready to assume her duties after 30 days, and she subsequently took School Board-approved medical leave through the end of the 1998-1999 school year. Dr. Feazell's evaluation - March 1999 After the School Board received Dr. Harmon's evaluation report, Ms. Weinstein sought a second opinion on her fitness to carry out her duties as a second grade teacher with the Miami-Dade County school system. David A. Feazell, a licensed psychologist, conducted a psychological evaluation of Ms. Weinstein on March 22 and 26, 1999, and prepared a report summarizing his findings. Dr. Feazell spent approximately two hours with Ms. Weinstein in a clinical interview and another two hours administering psychological tests, which included personality and intelligence tests. Ms. Weinstein provided Dr. Feazell a copy of Dr. Harmon's report; he did not have access to the information provided to Dr. Harmon by the School Board, although he had access to the summary of the information contained in Dr. Harmon's report. Dr. Feazell noted in his evaluation report that, during the clinical interview, Ms. Weinstein's account of her employment situation was relevant and detailed and consisted of explanations for her behavior and rebuttal of the complaints made about her. Ms. Weinstein believed that she had made an unduly negative impression on Dr. Harmon because she was ill at ease and defensive in answering his questions. The psychological tests given by Dr. Feazell revealed that Ms. Weinstein's MMPI-2 [Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2] profile is defensive, going beyond that which is commonly seen in fitness for duty evaluations. She denies emotional discomfort and vulnerability, as well as common place human faults and frailties. She presents an unusually positive self-image, describes herself as self-controlled and quite socially responsible, and reports unusually low levels of depression or anxiety. In MMPI-2 item responses, she admits minimal social anxiety and characterizes herself as very outgoing, despite describing herself in the interview as shy. Individuals with Ms. Weinstein's MMPI-2 and Rorschach profiles are typically inclined to deny problems and not to have a high level of introspection or insight into their own feelings. They can be simplistic or inflexible into [sic] their approach to problems and tend to see things too much in terms of how others do not understand them or treat them unfairly. Ms. Weinstein actually shows several signs of a particular need for the approval and affection of others, so that she may find situations quite disconcerting in which others evaluate, criticize, or take a demanding, skeptical view of her. In terms of judgment, Ms. Weinstein is capable of thoughtful, perceptive analysis of situations. However, she also appears likely to overlook or misinterpret important details. Her judgment can be inconsistent, especially under conditions of emotional stress. She seems to react strongly to emotional stimuli. She could benefit from the support or guidance of others in learning to stop and to look at a situation from other points of view before she draws unwarranted or inaccurate conclusions. It is noted that testing shows no bizarre thinking or major distortion of judgment. Based on his clinical interview and testing of Ms. Weinstein, Dr. Feazell diagnosed her with an Axis I clinical diagnosis of "Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct in the face of occupational and personal stress." Dr. Feazell did not make an Axis II diagnosis, noting that "[a]lthough personality patterns predispose her to respond with some defensive inflexibility to certain interpersonal stresses, there may not be sufficient evidence of a formal personality disorder." Dr. Feazell did note, however, that, at the time of his evaluation, Ms. Weinstein was inclined to overreact to stress and to misunderstand things and form incomplete conclusions when she was under stress. Dr. Feazell finally observed that Ms. Weinstein needs continuing psychotherapy to develop better ways to recognize and deal with uncomfortable feelings, to learn better skills for hearing and taking in feedback and information without over-reacting and selectively misunderstanding it, and to learn better awareness of how her won style of judgment and interaction can hinder her problem solving under pressure. In Dr. Feazell's opinion, Ms. Weinstein was fit for duty at the time he evaluated her in March 1999 "as long as she has the support of treatment while working out her job issues with her principal. It is recommended that Ms. Weinstein return to work with continuing treatment." According to Dr. Feazell, Ms. Weinstein's prognosis is fairly good if she continues in treatment. Dr. Gibb's evaluation - August 1999 Ms. Weinstein was referred by the School Board for a follow-up fitness-for-duty evaluation, which was performed by Charles C. Gibbs on August 13, 1999. Dr. Gibbs conducted a clinical interview with Ms. Weinstein, administered several psychological tests, reviewed records provided by the School Board, and reviewed the evaluations of Ms. Weinstein performed by Dr. Harmon, Dr. Feazell, and Dr. Maurer, a psychologist who evaluated Ms. Weinstein at her request in June and July 1999. Dr. Gibbs tried to contact Ms. Weinstein's psychotherapist, Tyrone Lewis, but Mr. Lewis did not return several telephone calls. In Dr. Gibbs' opinion, Ms. Weinstein's most likely diagnosis would be an Axis I clinical disorder, such as depression, anxiety, or an adjustment disorder. Dr. Gibbs concluded that Ms. Weinstein was not fit to return to her job duties as an elementary school teacher as of August 1999, observing in the report of his psychological evaluation that [c]urrent test results and clinical data indicate that Ms. Weinstein is excessively defensive, guarded, substitutes fantasy for reality in stressful situations and she is plagued with poor judgment given her tendency to make decisions based on inadequate information. Furthermore she is not introspective and lacks insight into her behavior. As such she tends to project blame onto others and minimize the effects of her behavior on those in her environment. The aforementioned summary of the data in my professional opinion would make it difficult for Ms. Weinstein to counsel students when adjustment and/or academic problems arise. Further concern is raised in that she tends to make poor decisions based on inadequate information. Working with children requires a great deal of patience and as noted by results from Dr. Maurer with which I concur she is in a constant state of stimulus overload. Thus such typical stressors such as managing classroom rules and behavior of students will likely result in Ms. Weinstein becoming overwhelmed. Additionally, her unconventional and egocentric style will not allow her to meet the changing and challenging emotional needs of elementary children. I am further concerned that her defensiveness will prevent her from benefiting from constractive [sic] criticism which will impair her participating in professional meetings and being able to put into action new information obtained from conferences and inservice classes. Dr. Gibbs noted in his report that Dr. Feazell and Dr. Maurer had both concluded that Ms. Weinstein was fit for duty but that they had not reviewed the materials he received from the School Board. Dr. Gibbs also was concerned that Ms. Weinstein had some mild organic impairment, and he recommended that she have a full neuropsychological evaluation. He further recommended that Ms. Weinstein continue in therapy for at least three months before having another evaluation of her fitness for duty and that, if she were at some point allowed to resume her duties as an elementary school teacher, she "team teach with another professional for 3 months prior to teaching on her own." Ms. Weinstein's psychotherapy treatment Ms. Weinstein has been in treatment with Tyrone Lewis, a psychotherapist, since January 1999. Mr. Lewis sees Ms. Weinstein once a week and sometimes once every two weeks; he engages in what he describes as "supportive psychotherapy" with Ms. Weinstein, which is designed to provide her with insight into her current situation and to help relieve her depression and anxiety. Currently, he is working with Ms. Weinstein to help her deal with the uncertainty about her job and the possibility that she will not work as a teacher. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Lewis was of the opinion that Ms. Weinstein was much improved, specifically with respect to her cognitive skills, her depression, her anxiety, and her awareness of her current life situation. Final Conference-for-the Record A Conference-for-the-Record was held at the Office of Professional Standards on October 13, 1999, to review Ms. Weinstein's performance assessment and her medical fitness to perform assigned duties. Ms. Weinstein had been working in her alternate assignment in the Region VI Office since the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year. With respect to Ms. Weinstein's performance assessment, the results of the observations done by Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey in September and November 1998 and in January 1999 were reviewed, and it was noted that her 1998-1999 TADS Annual Evaluation was unacceptable. Ms. Weinstein was advised that her teaching performance was not acceptable and that she had not remediated the cited deficiencies. With respect to Ms. Weinstein's medical fitness to perform her duties, the report of Dr. Gibbs was reviewed with Ms. Weinstein and her union representative. The School Board personnel acknowledged that Dr. Feazell and Dr. Maurer both concluded that Ms. Weinstein was able to return to work, while Dr. Harmon and Dr. Gibbs concluded that Ms. Weinstein was not able to return to work. The School Board accepted the assessment of Dr. Gibbs. Ms. Weinstein requested that she be evaluated by a fifth doctor, as a "tie breaker"; this request was denied, as were Ms. Weinstein's requests that she be transferred from Miami Heights Elementary and that the School Board authorize additional leave to allow time for her to have the neurological examination recommended by Dr. Gibbs. Ms. Weinstein was advised that she must either resign her job or retire because she had been unable to obtain medical clearance to return to her teaching duties and was not eligible for additional leave. Ms. Weinstein did not choose to resign or retire by the October 20, 1999, deadline, and the School Board suspended her and recommended her dismissal from employment at its November 17, 1999, meeting. Summary The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Weinstein is incompetent as a teacher because she failed to communicate with or relate to her students to such a degree that the students were denied a minimum educational experience. Based on the formal and informal observations of Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey during the fall of 1998 and in January 1999, Ms. Weinstein exercised virtually no control over the students in her classroom and either indiscriminately reprimanded the students or ignored their inappropriate behavior. Ms. Weinstein did not present her lessons in a coherent fashion, did not respond to students who were either confused or wanted to participate in the class, and was seemingly indifferent to whether the students learned in her classroom. No improvement of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance was noted by Ms. Valle in her formal observation in January 1999 even though Ms. Weinstein had completed the activities prescribed by Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey with respect to the September and November 1999 observations. The School Board has shown by the greater weight of the persuasive evidence that Ms. Weinstein is unable to perform her responsibilities as an elementary school teacher as a result of inefficiency in the classroom. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Weinstein is incompetent as a teacher because she is not emotionally stable. Dr. Harmon, Dr. Gibbs, and Dr. Feazell reached virtually the same conclusions regarding Ms. Weinstein's psychological profile and personality traits. All three psychologists found that Ms. Weinstein is extremely defensive, shows little insight into her own behavior, is unable to accept and benefit from feedback, makes judgments based on incomplete or incorrect information, and processes information poorly when she is in a stressful situation. On the basis of their assessments, Dr. Harmon and Dr. Gibbs concluded that Ms. Weinstein is unfit to carry out the duties as a teacher of elementary school children; Dr. Feazell concluded that Ms. Weinstein was fit to return to her teaching duties as of July 1999, as long as she continued in treatment to resolve the issues he identified in his evaluation report. The psychotherapy treatment Ms. Weinstein is receiving is not, however, focused on developing her ability to interact with others, to process and benefit from feedback, or to improve her judgment and ability to react properly in stressful situations, and Mr. Lewis supported his opinion that Ms. Weinstein was fit for duty as an elementary school teacher with nothing more than the observation that she was "much improved." The School Board has shown by the greater weight of the persuasive evidence that Ms. Weinstein is not fit to discharge her duties as a teacher at Miami Heights Elementary as a result of emotional instability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the suspension without pay of Yvonne M. Weinstein and dismissing her as an employee of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, for incompetency. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 2000.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges (as finally amended)? If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Dade County with just or proper cause to take disciplinary action against him? If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The School Board The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent: School Board Employment Respondent has been employed by the School Board since March 23, 1979. He is currently under suspension pending the outcome of these disciplinary proceedings. For the duration of his employment with the School Board until his suspension, Respondent was a custodial worker assigned to the D.A. Dorsey Educational Center (Center). At the time of his suspension, he was a lead custodian at the Center and, in the opinion of the principal of the Center, Stella Johnson, "do[ing] a fine job" performing his custodial duties. As the lead custodian, Respondent occupied a position of trust inasmuch as he had the keys to the Center and ready access to School Board property inside the building. Furthermore, at times, the performance of his custodial duties brought him in direct contact with students. Respondent: Post-Hire "Criminal History" and School Board Reaction to Reports of His Criminal ConductThe 1985 Warning In the summer of 1985, Respondent was the subject of a School Board police investigation. The results of the investigation were set forth in an investigative report prepared by the School Board police. Upon receiving the investigative report, which indicated that Respondent had been arrested after a purse snatching incident and charged with armed robbery, Henry Horstmann, a director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, scheduled a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. At the time of the conference, according to the information Horstmann had received, the armed robbery charge against Respondent had not been resolved. Horstmann warned Respondent at this 1985 conference- for-the-record that criminal activity on Respondent's part, whether occurring on or off the job, could lead to Respondent's dismissal. Approximately a year later, Horstmann was advised that the criminal proceeding against Respondent had ended with Respondent pleading guilty to, and being convicted of, the crime of "attempting to solicit." Because Respondent was "a good employee insofar as his performance at the work site," the principal of the Center02 wanted him to remain in his position. Consequently, he was not terminated. The Thefts at the Pembroke Lakes Mall In the fall of 1994, while working a second job that involved helping in the cleaning of the Pembroke Lakes Mall in Pembroke Pines, Florida, Respondent stole merchandise from stores in the mall (after business hours when the stores were closed). On November 28, 1994, Respondent gave a statement to Pembroke Pines police confessing to these crimes.03 Criminal charges were filed against Respondent. On April 25, 1995, based upon guilty pleas that he had entered, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of: one count of burglary in Broward County 02 Stella Johnson was not the principal of the Center at the time. It was not until August of 1991 that she became principal of the school. 03 In response to a question asked by the interrogating officer, Respondent stated that he committed these crimes because he had "[p]roblems . . . marriage, jobs, Circuit Court Case No. 95000607CF10A; one count of burglary and one count of grand theft in the third degree in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 95000609CF10A; one count of burglary and one count of grand theft in the third degree in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 94020151CF10A; and one count of burglary and one count of grand theft in the third degree in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 95000671CF10A. In each of these cases, he was sentenced to 90 days in the Broward County Jail and one year of probation. The sentences were to run concurrently. In August of 1995, Johnson received a telephone call from Respondent's probation officer, who was seeking verification of Respondent's employment status. It was during this telephone conversation with Respondent's probation officer that Johnson first learned of the thefts that Respondent had committed while working at the Pembroke Lakes Mall. Immediately after the conclusion of the conversation, Johnson telephoned the Office of Professional Standards for guidance and direction.04 In accordance with the advice she was given, Johnson requested the School Board police to conduct an investigation of Respondent's criminal background. Pursuant to Johnson's request, on or about October 25, 1995, School Board police conducted such an investigation and apprised her, in writing, of the preliminary results of the investigation. Johnson passed on the information she had received from the School Board police to the Office of Professional Standards. Thereafter, a conference-for-the-record was scheduled to address Respondent's "future employment status with Dade County Public Schools." The conference-for-the-record was held on February 7, 1996. Dr. James Monroe, the executive director of the Office of Professional Standards, prepared, and bills, drugs, just problems." 04 Johnson advised the Office of Professional Standards during this telephone call that there had been a series of thefts of school property at her school and that, in some instances, it appeared that one or more school employees might be responsible because of the absence of any signs of forced entry. Johnson, however, had insufficient evidence to prove that Respondent was the perpetrator of any of these thefts. subsequently furnished to Respondent, a memorandum (dated February 28, 1996) in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: On February 7, 1996, a conference-for-the-record was held with you [Respondent] in the Office of Professional Standards conducted by this administrator. In attendance were Ms. Stella Johnson, Principal, Dorsey Educational Center, Mr. Nelson Perez, District Director, Ms. Chris Harris, Bargaining Agent Representative, American Federation of State, County, [and] Municipal Employees, and this administrator. The conference was held to address Investigative Report No. A00007 concerning your prior arrest, and your future employment status with Dade County Public Schools. Service History As you reported in this conference, you were initially employed by Dade County Public Schools as a Custodian on March 23, 1979 and assigned to D.A. Dorsey Educational Center to the present. Conference Data Reviewed A Review of the record included reference to the following investigative issues: This administrator presented to and reviewed with you a copy of the investigative report in its entirety. In reference to your arrest of November 28, 1994, you reported having been detained by police authorities and that you remain on probation through April 4, 1996.05 You declined to make a comment when asked about your arrest of August 18, 1990 for purchase/possession of cocaine. This administrator noted a similar arrest of May 30, 1986 for possession of marijuana for which you declined to make a comment. In reference to your arrest of June 22, 1985, I noted that you had been arrested (May 30, 1986) while under a three year probation during the period of September 17, 1985 through September 17, 1988. Ms. Harris raised a question as to the need to address prior arrests. Ms. Johnson expressed concern relative to recurring incidents of theft during time periods for which you had been granted permission to enter the facilities during off duty hours. Ms. Johnson reported having previously discussed these incidents with you. Ms. Johnson noted that your second arrest had adversely impacted your overall effectiveness as an employee inasmuch as your assigned duties and responsibilities include making provisions for the maintenance, cleaning and security of School Board equipment and property. 0 5 It appears that, at the time of this 5 Cont. February 7, 1996, conference-for-the-record, the School Board administration knew that Respondent had been adjudicated guilty of, and sentenced for, the crimes (of burglary and grand theft) he had committed at the Pembroke Lakes Mall. This administrator presented to you and reviewed with you memoranda dated March 13, 1984, February 17, 1984, February 9, 1984, December 12, 1983 and November 2, 1983 in their entirety. I specifically reviewed with you the principal's notation of your unacceptable performance relative to your failure to secure gates and doors as required. Ms. Johnson noted that she has discussed similar occurrence with you on a recurring basis. Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Associate Superintendent in the Bureau of Professional Standards and Operations, the Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Applied Technology, Adult, Career and Community Education, and the Principal of Dorsey Education[al] Center. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of their recommendations will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include: a letter of reprimand, suspension or dismissal. You were apprised of your rights to clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. On or about July 2, 1996, the School Board police supplemented its previous report of the results of its investigation of Respondent's criminal record. On September 25, 1996, another conference-for-the-record was held concerning Respondent's "future employment status with Dade County Public Schools." Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, who had conducted the September 25, 1996, conference-for-the-record on behalf of the Office of Professional Standards, prepared, and sent to Respondent, a summary of the conference. The summary, which was dated September 30, 1996, read as follows: On September 25, 1996, a conference-for-the-record was held with you [Respondent] in the Office of Professional Standards, In attendance were Ms. Stella Johnson, Principal, Miami Skill Center, Mr. Herman Bain, Board Member, AFSCME, and this administrator. The conference was held to address your noncompliance with School Board policy and rules regarding Conduct Unbecoming a School Board Employee and your future employment status with Dade County Public Schools. Service History As you reported in this conference, you were initially employed by Dade County Public Schools as a Custodian in 1979 and assigned to Dorsey Education Center where you have remained. I began by reviewing the reason for this conference which is to discuss a Records Check that revealed a total of four arrests. The last arrest was in 1994 for burglary and grand theft and it resulted in an adjudication of guilty. You said that during that period of time when you had been arrested, you had personal problems. However, currently that is no longer the case and you have your life under control. Ms. Johnson, your principal, said that your work performance is good and you do a fine job. Your attendance is also good. Your union representative requested a copy of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, Employee Conduct, which was provided. I explained that although your arrests were not directly related to your Dade County Public Schools job, there is a level of expectation regarding employee conduct and your arrests place you in violation of that expectation. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of their recommendation will compel formal notification of the recommended action of disciplinary measures to include: a letter of reprimand, suspension, dismissal, or the imposition of community service. You were apprised of your rights to clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. Since there were not further questions or comments, the conference was adjourned. At its October 23, 1996, meeting, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings against him "for just cause, including violation of employee conduct rule and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude." The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a lead custodian employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by AFSCME and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME, effective July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1997 (AFSCME Contract). Article II, Section 3, of the AFSCME Contract provides as follows: ARTICLE II- RECOGNITION SECTION 3. The provisions of this Contract are not to be interpreted in any way or manner to change, amend, modify, or in any other way delimit the exclusive authority of the School Board and the Superintendent for the management of the total school system and any part of the school system. It is expressly understood and agreed that all rights and responsibilities of the School Board and Superintendent, as established now and through subsequent amendment or revision by constitutional provision, state and federal statutes, state regulations, and School Board Rules, shall continue to be exercised exclusively by the School Board and the Superintendent without prior notice or negotiations with AFSCME, except as specifically and explicitly provided for by the stated terms of this Contract. Such rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, by way of limitation, include the following: (1) selection and promotion of employees; (2) separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; (3) the designation of the organizational structure of the DCPS and lines of administrative authority of DCPS. It is understood and agreed that management possess the sole right, duty, and responsibility for operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following: Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; Direct the work force; Hire, assign, and transfer employees; Determine the missions of the Board agencies; Determine the methods, means, and number of personnel needed or desirable for carrying out the Board's missions; Introduce new or improved methods or facilities; Change existing methods or facilities; Relieve employees because of lack of work; Contract out for goods or services; and, Such other rights, normally consistent with management's duty and responsibility for operation of the Board's services, provided, however, that the exercise of such rights does not preclude the Union from conferring about the practical consequences that decisions may have on terms and conditions of employment. Article IX of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "working conditions." Section 11 of Article IX is entitled "Personal Life." It provides as follows: The private and personal life of an employee, except for such incidents and occurrences which could lead to suspension and dismissal as provided by statute, shall not be within the appropriate concern of the Board.06 0 6 This provision of the AFSCME Contract does not protect employees who engage in criminal conduct inasmuch as the commission of a crime Article XI of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "disciplinary action." Section 1 of Article XI is entitled "Due Process." It provides as follows: Unit members are accountable for their individual levels of productivity, implementing the duties of their positions, and rendering efficient, effective delivery of services and support. Whenever an employee renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the deficiency or rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline steps should be followed: 1. verbal warning; 2. written warning (acknowledged); and, 3. A. Conference-for-the-Record. Conference-for-the-Record shall be held as the first step when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated personnel investigation. The parties agree that discharge is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee's job, seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME bargaining unit members shall be is not a "private and personal" matter. Rather, it is "an offense against the public." Shaw v. Fletcher, 188 So. 135, 136 (Fla. 1939). consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline (i.e., in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record). The employee shall have the right to representation in Conferences-for-the-Record held pursuant to this Article. Such a conference shall include any meeting where disciplinary action will be initiated. The employee shall be given two days' notice and a statement for the reason for any Conference-for-the-Record, as defined above, except in cases deemed to be an emergency. The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notification of suspension, dismissal, or other actions appealable under this Section) against an employee in this bargaining unit. Section 2 of Article XI is entitled "Dismissal, Suspension, Reduction-in-Grade." It provides as follows: Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action. The Board shall appoint an impartial Hearing Officer, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the Hearing Officer shall present the findings. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and reductions- in-grade. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal or suspension, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or reduction-in-grade. Dismissal, suspension, reduction-in-grade, and non- reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Section 3 of Article XI is entitled "Cause for Suspension." It provides as follows: In those cases where any employee has not complied with Board policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent. Section 4 of Article XI is entitled "Types of Separation." It provides, in part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any four distinct types of separation. Voluntary-- The employee initiates the separation by resigning, retiring, abandoning the position, or other unilateral action by the employee. Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence. Disciplinary-- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. Non-reappointment-- The employee is separated by management's decision not to offer another annual contract. However, such non-reappointment shall not be in lieu of discipline or lay-off. Employees whose performance has been deemed marginal by the supervising administrator, who have been counseled during the school year concerning performance, and have failed to perform acceptably shall not be reappointed. Such employees and the Union shall be put on written notice of possible non-reappointment. Counseling and written notice of non- reappointment shall be provided in a timely manner. This action shall not be arbitrary or capricious, but based upon reason for the best interest of the employer. AFSCME bargaining unit members employed by the school district in excess of five years shall not be subject to non-reappointment. Such employees may only be discharged for just cause. Layoff-- . . . The factors most important in determining what type of separation occurred for a given employee are: which party initiated the action; what time of the work year the action occurred; and the employer's expressed intent. Appendix III of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "classification plan and procedures." Section R of Appendix III is entitled "Custodial Services." It provides, in part, as follows: The following guidelines and procedures will be implemented regarding the organization and provision of custodial services. 1. SUPERVISION The site administrator (e.g., principal) shall have overall responsibility and supervisory authority for all custodial activities and resultant facility condition. The principal's responsibility in this area is typically and properly delegated to the site Head custodian (or, in a few very large facilities, to a Plant Foreman). The Head Custodian (or Plant Foreman) shall be responsible for all custodial activities on all shifts. Custodians who lead other custodial workers in a group or team shall be designated as Lead Custodians. Lead Custodians would be limited to one per shift, per site. Where a single custodian is assigned to a shift and is responsible for closing and securing the facility at the end of that shift, that custodian would also be designated as a Lead Custodian. . . . CAREER LADDER The custodial career ladder shall include criteria/guidelines, as outlined below: Job Classification . . . Site Custodian . . . Lead Custodian . . . Head Custodian . . . Plant Foreman . . . Master Custodian . . . TRAINING . . . Site Custodian (1) Works at a school or facility site . . . Lead/Head Custodian or Plant Foreman (1) This is a leadership position at a school or facility site. . . . The School Board's Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, 6Gx13-4C-1.02, and 6Gx13- 4C-1.021 As a School Board employee, Respondent was obligated to act in accordance with School Board rules and regulations,07 including Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I), 6Gx13-4C-1.02, and 6Gx13- 4C1.021,08 which provide as follows: Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I) Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES 07 These rules and regulations are referred to in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract. Pursuant to Article XI, violation of these rules and regulations can lead to disciplinary action. 08 An employee who does not meet his responsibility of complying with School Board rules and regulations is guilty of "non- performance of job responsibilities," as that term is used in Article XI, Section 4.C., of the AFSCME Contract. I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. 6Gx13-4C-1.02 Activities NON-INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL The Board recognizes and appreciates the important supporting role played by non- instructional personnel in the school system's educational program. For that reason the Board endeavors to select persons of the highest quality to fill vacancies as they occur. One of the important functions served by the non-teaching staff is that of demonstrating good citizenship in the community. The Board reaffirms its wish that all employees of the schools enjoy the full rights and privileges of residency and citizenship in this community and in the state. Because of its high regard for the school system's non-teaching staff, the Board confidently expects that its employees will place special emphasis upon representing the school system ably both formally and informally in the community. 6Gx13-4C-1.021 FINGERPRINTING OF ALL EMPLOYEES UPON APPLICATION AND EMPLOYMENT Pursuant to Florida Statute 231.02, it is the intent of the School Board to insure that only individuals of good moral character09 be employed by the school system. The Dade County Public Schools work force is mobile and an employee in the course of a career may be assigned to various work locations where students are present. It is thus necessary to perform the appropriate security checks on all newly hired personnel. All applicants for full-time and part- time jobs shall be fingerprinted at the time of application for employment. When the applicant is hired, the district shall file a complete set of fingerprints on the new hire with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). FDLE will process and submit the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for federal processing. The cost of fingerprinting and the fingerprint processing shall be borne by the employee. All new employees, full and part-time, shall be on probationary status pending fingerprint processing and determination, based on results of the fingerprint check, of compliance with standards of good moral character. Employees not found to be of good 0 9 Individuals who engage in "immorality," as defined in Rule 6B-4.009(2), Florida Administrative Code, (i.e., conduct "inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals [which is] sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community") are not "individuals of good moral character," within the meaning of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.021. moral character will have their probationary employment terminated. For purposes of this rule, good moral character means exemplifying the acts and conduct which could cause a reasonable person to have confidence in an individual's honesty, fairness and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation. The Dade County Public Schools shall review fingerprint reports and determine if an employee's criminal record contains crimes involving moral turpitude. For purposes of this rule, moral turpitude means "a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties, which, according to the accepted standards of the time, a person owes to other people or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statutes, fixes moral turpitude." Rule 6B-4.009(6), FAC. Employees found through fingerprint processing to have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude will be terminated from employment. Crimes which may demonstrate moral turpitude include but are not limited to: Murder (Section 782.04 F.S.) Manslaughter (Section 782.07 F.S.) Vehicular homicide (Section 782.071 F.S.) Killing an unborn child by injury to the mother (Section 782.09 F.S.) Assault upon a minor (Section 784.011 F.S.) Aggravated assault (Section 784.021 F.S.) Aggravated assault relating to battery upon a minor (Section 784.03 F.S.) Aggravated battery (Section 784.045 F.S.) Kidnapping (Section 787.01 F.S.) False imprisonment (Section 787.02 F.S.) Removing children from the state or concealing children contrary to court order (Section 787.04 F.S.) Sexual battery (Section 794.011 F.S.) Carnal intercourse with an unmarried person under 18 years of age (Section 794.05 F.S.) Prostitution (Chapter 796 F.S.) Arson (Section 806.01 F.S.) Robbery (Section 812.13 F.S.) Incest (Section 826.04 F.S.) Aggravated child abuse (Section 827.03 F.S.) Child abuse (Section 827.04 F.S.) Negligent treatment of children (Section 827.05 F.S.) Sexual performance by a child (Section 827.071 F.S.) Exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult (Section 825.102 F.S.) Drug abuse if the offense was a felony or if any other person involved in the offense was a minor (Chapter 893 F.S.) If the administration finds it appropriate upon consideration of the particular circumstances of an applicant's/employee's case (timing, persons involved, specific mitigating facts), a determination may be made finding that such crime as applied to the applicant/employee does not involve moral turpitude. A probationary employee terminated because of lack of good moral character including but not necessarily limited to conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude shall have the right to appeal such decision to Labor Relations and Personnel Management. The request for appeal must be filed within 15 days following notification of termination. Personnel who have been fingerprinted and processed in accordance with this rule and who have had a break in service of more than 90 days shall be required to be re- fingerprinted in order to be re-employed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order finding that, for the reasons set forth above, "disciplinary action" against Respondent is warranted and imposing upon Respondent the "disciplinary action" described in paragraph 61 of this Recommended Order. 016 Failure to do so may result in further "disciplinary action" being taken against him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of March, 1997. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1997.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent from his teaching position, without pay, for 15 days, and to terminate his employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools within the School District of Palm Beach County ("District"), pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed by the District as a teacher since 2005. His last teaching assignment was as an eighth grade history teacher at Howell L. Watkins Middle School ("Watkins"), where he taught for approximately 12 years. Administrative Complaint Charges The Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about January 19, 2017, Respondent engaged in the following conduct with respect to a student, K.B.: "10. . . . a. [p]ush[ing] her into the dry board; b. [g]rabbing the student victim’s backpack causing her to fall; c. [p]ulling the victim’s arms and dragging her by one arm and one leg; and d. [d]ragging the student victim by the ankle and wrist." As a result of this alleged conduct, Petitioner has charged Respondent, in the Administrative Complaint, with violating the following statutes, rules, and School Board policies: sections 1008.24(1)(c), (1)(f), and (1)(g), 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.27(5), Florida Statutes; Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2) and 6A-10.081(2)(a)(1), (2)(a)(5), and (2)(c)(1); and School Board Policies 0.01(2)(3) and (2)(4); 3.02(4)(a), (4)(d), and (4)(f); 3.02(5)(a)(ii), (5)(a)(viii), (5)(c)(vii) and (5)(i); 1.013(1); 1.1013; and 3.27; and article II, section M of the County Teachers' Association Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"). The Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with having committed gross insubordination in violation of rule 6A-5.056(4). Evidence Adduced at Hearing The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on January 19, 2017, at Watkins, in Respondent's classroom and in the hallway immediately outside of Respondent's classroom. On that day, K.B., a student in Respondent's class, put her head down on her desk and refused to participate in the class's activities, despite being told repeatedly by Respondent to lift her head off of her desk and to participate in class activities. Frustrated with K.B.'s refusal to obey his repeated directives to lift her head off of her desk and participate in the class, Respondent ordered K.B. to get out of his classroom. The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish whether, or what type, of physical interaction between Respondent and K.B. may have occurred as she was leaving, but was still inside the classroom.2/ The undisputed evidence establishes that as K.B. was walking toward the door to leave the classroom, she intentionally knocked a book off of a desk, causing it to fall to the floor. Respondent ordered K.B. to pick up the book, but she did not do so and exited the classroom. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that as K.B. opened the door and attempted to exit the classroom, Respondent detained her by grabbing her backpack. K.B. pushed forward in an attempt to resist being detained by Respondent, and as a result, fell to the floor in the hallway immediately adjacent to the open classroom door.3/ The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent placed his hands on K.B.'s wrist and ankle as she was lying on the floor and dragged her back into the classroom.4/ Once K.B. and Respondent were back inside the classroom, Respondent ordered K.B. to pick up the book that she had pushed to the floor and to place it back on the desk. She complied, but then again intentionally pushed the book off of the desk onto the floor and again exited the classroom. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that as K.B. ran out of the open classroom door, Respondent again grabbed K.B. by her backpack. K.B. pushed forward to resist being physically detained by Respondent, and, as a result, again fell to the floor of the hallway. Respondent placed his hands on K.B.'s wrist and ankle as she was lying on the floor and again dragged her back into the classroom.5/ As K.B. and Respondent exited the classroom the second time, teacher Angela Hammond, whose classroom was immediately next door to Respondent's and who said she heard a "commotion," came out of her classroom into the hall. Hammond observed Respondent dragging K.B., who was lying on the floor, back into his classroom. Hammond entered Respondent's classroom and observed K.B. pick up a book that was on the floor, place it on a desk, and then slide it off of the desk onto the floor. At that point, Hammond took K.B. into her (Hammond's) classroom, and talked to K.B. in an effort to calm her down. At some point, Respondent also entered Hammond's classroom to talk to K.B. in an effort to determine if she was alright and to calm her down. The clear and convincing evidence, consisting of K.B.'s own testimony, establishes that she was not physically injured as a result of any aspect of the incident, including having been pulled by her ankle and wrist by Respondent. K.B. testified that she was extremely angry with Respondent as a result of the incident. The evidence establishes that before the incident, Respondent and K.B. enjoyed a mentor-mentee relationship. K.B. would talk to Respondent about her personal and school- related problems. Respondent would advise K.B. regarding engaging in more appropriate behavior at school, and would encourage her academic performance. K.B. testified that Respondent was one of her favorite teachers and that Respondent's class was the only one she had enjoyed in the 2016-2017 school year. To that point, K.B. wrote a letter to Respondent, telling him that she enjoyed his class, that he was a good teacher, and that she appreciated his help and encouragement. When asked whether the January 19, 2017, incident had changed her opinion of Respondent, she testified: "[n]ot really, because we both were in the wrong." Donald Hoffman, the principal at Watkins during the 2016-2017 school year, testified that the proper means for dealing with students who present behavioral problems during class is to use the in-classroom buzzer, which is mounted on the classroom wall, to call for assistance from school administration staff. Hoffman testified that all teachers at Watkins are apprised of this protocol. Respondent acknowledged that he was aware of this protocol, but that he did not use the buzzer to call for assistance in dealing with K.B.'s defiant behavior in the classroom or as she left the classroom. He acknowledged that he could have handled the situation in a more appropriate manner than he did in physically detaining K.B. Respondent testified, credibly, that he physically detained K.B. to prevent her from getting into trouble with the school's administration, and possibly being returned to the alternative school from which she had transferred, for having left his classroom during the class period. The Watkins Faculty & Staff Handbook ("Faculty Handbook") for fiscal year 2017 ("FY '17"), pages 33 and 34, contains a policy, regarding student detention. This policy states, in pertinent part: "The Principal, Assistant Principal, teacher, media specialist, or others engaged in administrative or instructional capacity in public schools, shall be authorized to temporarily detain and question a student under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such a student has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of law." There is no persuasive evidence establishing that K.B. had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Therefore, the policy on pages 33 and 34 of the Faculty Handbook does not authorize Respondent's physical detention of K.B. Hoffman testified that the administration at Watkins does "not promote physical contact with students in any negative manner," and that, generally, only the administration is permitted to detain students at Watkins. Respondent previously has been disciplined by Petitioner.6/ One prior disciplinary action——consisting of a written reprimand issued on May 23, 2013, in which Respondent was reprimanded for engaging in "horseplay" with a student——is germane to this proceeding because it is an action that falls within the Progressive Discipline process established in the CBA, section 7.7/ Findings of Ultimate Fact The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having violated various statutes, State Board of Education rules, and School Board policies. Whether Respondent committed the charged offenses is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each alleged violation. Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1985); McKinney v. Castor, 66 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). 31. Here, Petitioner has charged Respondent with violating rule 6A-5.056(2), which states: 6A-5.056 Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal. "Just cause" means cause that is legally sufficient. Each of the charges upon which just cause for a dismissal action against specified school personnel may be pursued are set forth in Sections 1012.33 and 1012.335, F.S. In fulfillment of these laws, the basis for each such charge is hereby defined: * * * "Misconduct in Office" means one or more of the following: A violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6A-10.080, F.A.C.; A violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6A- 10.081, F.A.C.; A violation of the adopted school board rules; Behavior that disrupts the student’s learning environment; or Behavior that reduces the teacher’s ability or his or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with violating rule 6A-10.081(2), which states, in pertinent part: Florida educators shall comply with the following disciplinary principles. Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual educator’s certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law. Obligation to the student requires that the individual: 1. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety. * * * 5. Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. * * * (c) Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual: 1. Shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with violating various School Board policies. Specifically, Petitioner has charged Respondent with violating Policy 0.01, Commitment to the Student, Principle I, which states in pertinent part: 2. In fulfilling his obligations to the student, the educator-. . . 3. [s]hall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health and safety; 4. [s]hall conduct professional business in such a way that he does not expose the student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with violating Policy 1.013, Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff, which states: The district administrative staff shall be responsible for the efficient planning and administration of all supporting educational services such as maintenance, transportation, school lunch, personnel, purchasing, federal programs, payroll and other responsibilities as directed by the superintendent. The district administrative staff is also responsible for insuring that the appropriate district policies, state board of education rules, state laws, and federal laws and rules are adhered to. It shall be the responsibility of the personnel employed by the district school board to carry out their assigned duties in accordance with federal laws, rules, state statutes, state board of education rules, school board policy, superintendent's administrative directives and local school and area rules. District administrative staff. District instructional staff. The district level instructional staff shall be responsible for the cooperative development, supervision, and improvement of the district instructional program. The areas include in-service education, program evaluation, development of curriculum materials, educational specifications for school facilities, development of federal programs, accreditations, state program requirements and other responsibilities as directed by the superintendent. Pursuant to § 231.09, Fla. Stat., the primary duty of instructional personnel is to work diligently and faithfully to help students meet or exceed annual learning goals, to meet state and local achievement requirements, and to master the skills required to graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary education and work. This duty applies to instructional personnel whether they teach or function in a support role. Teachers. It shall be the duty of the teacher to provide instruction, leadership, classroom management and guidance to pupils through democratic experiences that promote growth and development both as individuals and as members of society. Pursuant to § 231.09, F.S., teachers shall perform duties prescribed by school board policies relating, but not limited, to helping students master challenging standards and meet all state and local requirements for achievement; teaching efficiently and faithfully; using prescribed materials and methods, including technology- based instruction; recordkeeping; and fulfilling the terms of any contract, unless released from the contract by the school board. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with violating the following provisions of Policy 3.02, Code of Ethics: Accountability and Compliance Each employee agrees and pledges: To provide the best example possible; striving to demonstrate excellence, integrity and responsibility in the workplace. * * * d. To treat all students and individuals with respect and to strive to be fair in all matters. * * * f. To take responsibility and be accountable for his or her acts or omissions. Ethical Standards a. Abuse of Students – We are committed to ensuring that employee-student relationships are positive, professional, and non- exploitive. We will not tolerate improper employee-student relationships. Each employee should always maintain a professional relationship with students, both in and outside of the classroom. Unethical conduct includes but is not limited to: * * * ii. Exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. * * * viii. Engaging in misconduct which affects the health, safety, and welfare of a student(s). * * * c. Misrepresentation or Falsification – We are committed to candor in our work relationships, providing other Board employees including supervisors, senior staff and Board members with accurate, reliable and timely information. Employees should exemplify honesty and integrity in the performance of their official duties for the School District. Unethical conduct includes but is not limited to: i. Falsifying, misrepresenting, or omitting information submitted in the course of an official inquiry/investigation[.] Professional Conduct – We are committed to ensuring that our power and authority are used in an appropriate, positive manner that enhances the public interest and trust. Employees should demonstrate conduct that follows generally recognized professional standards. Unethical conduct is any conduct that impairs the ability to function professionally in his or her employment position or conduct that is detrimental to the health, welfare or discipline of students or the workplace. Unethical conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following: Failing to maintain any necessary certification or licensure required in the performance of job duties for the School District. Shall not knowingly and willfully make false statements about a colleague. Failing to report the alleged misconduct of a fellow employee, to cooperate fully during any investigation or to complete an investigation relative to allegations of misconduct of a fellow employee, which affects the health, safety or welfare of a student. Entering into a confidentiality agreement regarding terminated or dismissed instructional employees and school administrators, or personnel or administrators who are dismissed or resign in lieu of termination, based in whole or in part on misconduct that affects the health, safety or welfare of a student. Providing employment references or discussing the instructional personnel’s or school administrator’s performance with prospective employers in another educational setting, without disclosing the personnel’s or administrator’s misconduct. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with violating Policy 3.27, Suspension and Dismissal of Employees,8/ which provides: The purpose of this section is to promulgate rules regarding the suspension and dismissal of employees. These rules shall be read in conjunction with the procedures established for administrative hearings as set forth in Chapter 4, except, however, in the event it is determined that a conflict exists between these rules and those of Chapter 4, these rules will be controlling. Upon a finding of probable cause by the Superintendent sufficient to warrant a recommendation to the School Board for suspension without pay and dismissal, the Superintendent shall communicate in writing to the employee: A concise statement of the Superintendent's recommendation(s) to the School Board affecting the employee's employment status. A statement of the date, time, and place where the School Board shall meet to consider the Superintendent's actions and recommendation(s). A statement of the legal authority for the Superintendent's actions and recommendation(s). A short and plain statement of the charges made by the Superintendent against the employee. A statement of the time limit for requesting a hearing before the School Board. All employees recommended for suspension without pay and dismissal shall have the right to request a hearing provided such a request is made in writing to the School Board within 15 days of the receipt of the Superintendent's written notice. Any person who receives written notice from the Superintendent of a recommendation(s) for suspension without pay and dismissal and who fails to request a hearing within 15 days, shall have waived the right to request a hearing on such matters, and the allegations and charges as contained in the notice shall be deemed by the School Board to be true for the purpose of entering a final order on the Superintendent's recommendation(s). In the event a request for a hearing is timely made and received by the Office of General Counsel, by either an instructional employee with a continuing contract or by a noninstructional employee during the term of an annual contract, the procedure for conducting a hearing, unless otherwise determined by the School Board, is as follows: The Superintendent will file a petition for dismissal with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). This petition shall contain: The name and address of the School Board and the file or identification number, if known; The name and address of the employee, and an explanation of how the employee's substantial interest will be affected by the agency determination; A statement of when and how the employee received notice of agency decision or intent to render a decision; A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, as well as the rules and statutes which entitle the Superintendent to relief; A demand for relief to which the Superintendent deems himself entitled; and Other information which the Superintendent contends is material. The DOAH will assign a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing. The employee and the employee's representative will be informed of the time and place for the hearing by the DOAH. Whenever possible, the hearing shall be held in the place most convenient to all parties as determined by the Hearing Officer. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Within thirty (30) days after the hearing or receipt of the hearing transcript, whichever is later, the Hearing Officer shall file a recommended order to the School Board including a caption, time and place of hearing, statement of the issues, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommendations for final agency action. The School Board, within ninety (90) days of receipt of the Hearing Officer's recommended order, shall issue the final order. This shall be considered at a regularly scheduled School Board meeting. The School Board may adopt the Hearing Officer's recommended order as its Final Order. The School Board in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law in the recommended order but may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the School Board first determines from a review of the complete record that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law. The School Board may reduce or increase the recommended penalty in a recommended order, but may do so only with a review of the complete record. The hearing must be conducted by the School Board within forty-five (45) days of the request for hearing. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Following the close of a hearing before the School Board, the parties may submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order, or legal briefs on the issues within a time designated by the School Board. If an employee does not specifically designate a hearing preference, the School Board shall follow procedures as listed in Section (5). If a request for a hearing is timely made and received by the Office of General Counsel by an instructional employee during the term of an annual contract or by an instructional employee with a professional service contract, either employee may elect to have a hearing before the DOAH or request that a hearing be held before the School Board. If the employee elects a hearing before the School Board, the following procedures shall apply: A majority vote of the membership of the School Board shall be required to sustain the Superintendent's recommendation. A final order shall be entered within ninety (90) days after the last date of the hearing or receipt of the hearing transcript, whichever is later. The determination of the School Board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment. Petitioner also cites, as a basis for its proposed discipline of Respondent, article II, section M, of the CBA, Progressive Discipline, which states: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. Any information, which may be relied upon to take action against an employee, will be shared promptly with said employee and his/her Association representative as soon as possible. Copies of any written information/correspondence that is related to the action of the employee or the investigating administrator(s) will be provided promptly to the employee and his/her Association representative. An employee against whom action is to be taken under this Section and his/her Association representative shall have the right to review and refute any and all of the information relied upon to support any proposed disciplinary action prior to taking such action. To this end, the employee and his/her Association representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present responses/refutations concerning the pending disciplinary action and concerning the appropriateness of the proposed disciplinary action. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph #7 below may be cited. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Section, an employee may be reprimanded verbally with written notation, reprimanded in writing, suspended without pay or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the Parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District, a District employee, and/or a child/children or the actions/inactions of the employee clearly constitute flagrant or purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand with a Written Notation - Such written notation shall not be placed in the employee's personnel file maintained at the District headquarters, but will be placed in a file at the school/department and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee after twelve (12) months of the action/inaction of the employee which led to the notation. The written notification shall be maintained at the school site/department pursuant to the District’s Records Retention Schedule. Written Reprimand - A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Suspension Without Pay - A suspension without pay may be issued to an employee, when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension without pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Dismissal - An employee may be dismissed (employment contract terminated) when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. If the disciplinary action(s) taken includes either a suspension or a dismissal, the grievance shall be initiated at STEP TWO. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that by dragging K.B. by her wrist and ankle back into the classroom, Respondent violated rules 6A-5.056(2)(b), 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and School Board Policy 0.01, section 3. Specifically, Respondent's actions did not constitute a reasonable effort on his part to protect K.B. from conditions potentially harmful to her health or safety. There was at least a possibility that K.B. could have been injured by being dragged across the floor by her wrist and ankle, and Respondent should have foreseen and understood that possibility. Additionally, it is determined that Respondent violated School Board Policy 3.02, section 4.d. By dragging K.B. across the floor by her ankle and wrist, Respondent did not treat K.B. with respect, as is required by that policy. Although Respondent detained K.B. in order to prevent her from getting into trouble and potentially transferred out of Watkins to an alternative school, he could have avoided having physical contact with K.B. by following the established protocol to use the classroom buzzer to summon school administration. As discussed above, Petitioner has taken one prior pertinent disciplinary action against Respondent, in the form of a written reprimand. As discussed above, section M of the CBA establishes Petitioner's progressive discipline policy. Section 7.d. of this policy states that except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District, a District employee, or a child, or the actions or inactions of the employee clearly constitute flagrant or purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline is administered in a sequential manner, starting with a verbal reprimand with written notation; progressing to a written reprimand; then progressing to suspension without pay; and concluding with dismissal. Here, the clear and convincing evidence supports following the sequential penalty imposition established in section 7. of the progressive discipline policy. Specifically, the clear and convincing evidence supports suspending Respondent without pay, for the duration of his suspension, starting on the day on which he was suspended up to the date of entry of the final order in this proceeding. This penalty takes into account the serious nature of Respondent's conduct in dragging K.B. across the floor, but does not result in termination of a teacher who, by all accounts, is a very good teacher who cares deeply about his students, including K.B., and who puts forth extra effort to mentor to students in need of such support.9/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order finding just cause and suspending Respondent from his teaching position, without pay, commencing on the date on which he was suspended from his employment, and ending on the date on which a final order is entered in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 13th day of November, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Lontay Finney's employment with Palm Beach County School Board based upon the allegations made in its Petition.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Palm Beach County, Florida. Article IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Finney started his employment with the School Board on December 19, 2005. He was employed pursuant to an annual contract. Finney taught at Glades Central High School ("Glades Central") from 2010 through 2015. He was last employed as both a science teacher and assistant athletic director. Finney's annual evaluations were acceptable and effective during each year of his employment at Glades Central. As a teacher, Finney was expected to comply with the Code of Ethics. On June 1, 2010, he signed an acknowledgment that he received training, read, and would abide by School Board Policy 3.02, Code of Ethics. Reniqua Morgan ("Morgan") was a female student at Glades Central from 2011 to 2015. She was a cheerleader athlete but never had Finney as a teacher. Finney knew of Morgan as one of the daughters of his teacher colleague, Renee Johnson Atkins ("Atkins") and from seeing Morgan around school. Morgan and Finney also knew who each other were because they had a niece in common and lived in the small town of Belle Glade. However, Finney and Morgan did not associate with one another directly before March 2015. On or about March 22, 2015, Finney initiated contact, reaching out to Morgan by poking her on Facebook. Morgan poked him back and then Finney followed up by inboxing her next. Morgan was surprised that Finney was conversing with her. They continued to chat for several weeks not on an open feed of Facebook but messaging each other's inbox privately. Between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 12, 2015, Finney initiated a conversation with Morgan and they chatted on Facebook. Finney suggested that the two of them get together and asked Morgan, do you want to "chill?" Morgan agreed and said "I don't mind." They then decided to meet up. Finney did not offer to pick Morgan up at her house. Finney instructed her to meet him at the stop sign, around the corner and down the street from where she lived.1/ Morgan, unbeknownst to her mother, met Finney by the stop sign. At the stop sign, Morgan got in Finney's mother's truck with Finney. When Finney first made contact with Morgan that night, he gave her a hug. He then drove her to his home. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Morgan was a 17-year-old minor. Finney did not have permission from Morgan's parents to either pick her up or take her to his house. His inappropriate actions were outside of school and not in connection with any school-related activity in any way. At approximately 12:24 a.m. on Monday, April 13, 2015, Morgan's mother, Atkins, was at her residence and went to use the restroom and she then discovered that Morgan was not at home. Morgan had left home without her permission. Atkins was worried about Morgan being out that early in the morning because it was "unsafe because [of] the neighborhood that [she] live[d] in, there [were] some people in that neighborhood that [were] unsafe."2/ While at Finney's house, Finney and Morgan remained in the parked truck alongside of the house alone together for approximately an hour and a half to two hours and spent some of the time talking and scrolling through Netflix on Finney's phone. Neither Morgan nor Finney can recall the name of any of the movies they watched on Netflix. Morgan's mother was looking for Morgan and found out from Bethanie Woodson ("Woodson"), Morgan's friend, that her daughter was with Finney. Atkins took Woodson with her and drove to Finney's house looking for Morgan. While in the truck with Finney, Morgan's friend contacted her and let her know that her mother was looking for her. Morgan told Finney she needed to go home. Atkins also learned while at Finney's house that Morgan was on the way home, so she got back in her vehicle and returned home. Morgan told Finney to drop her off near the railroad track, which is not the same place he picked her up. He then dropped her off where she suggested near Avenue A, a neighborhood on the opposite side of the railroad tracks from where Morgan lived, and several blocks away from her home. After Finney dropped Morgan off in the early school day morning while it was dark outside, Morgan had to walk down the street, come through the neighborhood and then walk across the bushy railroad tracks to get to her residence. The foot path Morgan took was also unlit, grassy, and rocky near the train tracks. No streetlights were near the tracks.3/ When Morgan got home, her mother, sister, and Woodson were waiting for her. Morgan's mother was irate that Morgan had been with Finney and drove Morgan back to Finney's home to address his actions with her daughter. Finney lived with his parents. When Atkins knocked on the door, Finney's father came to the door and Atkins requested to see Finney. Atkins confronted him angrily and berated him for being a teacher, picking up Morgan, and taking her to his house at that hour of the night. Atkins also informed Finney's mother what occurred while she was at their house. Morgan and Finney have had no contact since the incident. Morgan's mother reported the incident to Glades Central. As a result, the principal assigned Finney to his residence by letter, with pay, starting April 13, 2015, pending the investigation or notification of a change in assignment in writing. On April 15, 2015, Finney was assigned to temporary duty at Transportation Services pending investigation. An investigation by the school police found no violation of a criminal law by Finney, and the case was referred to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards, which is charged with conducting investigations into alleged violations of School Board policy. On or about May 11, 2015, the Office of Professional Standards opened an administrative investigation. Dianna Weinbaum ("Weinbaum"), now director of Office of Professional Standards and former human resources manager, was assigned to investigate the matter. Around the time the investigation was being conducted, Finney deactivated his Facebook page due to the mostly negative comments and statuses, as well as rumors surrounding the incident of him picking up Morgan and taking her to his house. Finney was able to finish the school year working back at Glades Central between investigations. Weinbaum performed a thorough and complete investigation regarding the allegations against Respondent. She interviewed all the witnesses and obtained statements, as well as visited the locations where Finney picked up and dropped off Morgan. On August 4, 2015, consistent with District policy, Respondent was removed from the classroom and reassigned from his teaching position back to a temporary duty location again. On October 8, 2015, a pre-determination meeting was held with the director of the Office of Professional Standards and Finney, who was represented by counsel regarding the interactions between Finney and Morgan. Finney was provided a copy of the investigative file. At the end of the investigation, it was determined that Finney's actions were both an inappropriate relationship with Morgan and posed a clear threat to Morgan's health, safety and welfare. Weinbaum recommended discipline for Finney consistent with discipline received by other employees based on the superintendent and School Board's position that employees who engage in inappropriate relationships with students and who endanger the health, welfare and safety of a child will be terminated. On November 19, 2015, Petitioner notified Finney of the superintendent's recommendation for termination of his employment at the School Board Meeting set for December 9, 2015. The School Board accepted the superintendent's recommendation and voted to suspend Finney for 15 days and thereafter terminate his employment. Finney timely requested a hearing to contest the superintendent's recommendation. Finney's disciplinary history does not include any discipline for actions similar to these for which suspension and termination are recommended. Petitioner charged Finney by Petition with soliciting an inappropriate relationship with a student that jeopardized her health, safety and welfare. The Petition charged Finney with the following violations: School Board Policies 0.01(2)(c),(2)(f) Commitment to the Student Principle 1; 3.02(4)(a)(b)(d)(e),(g); 3.02 5(a),(a)(iii),(a)(v),(a)(vii); Code of Ethics; 1.013(1) and (4), Responsibilities of School district Personnel and Staff; School Board Policies 1.013 and 3.27, Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal, and Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article II, Section M; and (C) Rule 6A-5.056 (2)(a),(b) and (4) F.A.C., Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal; 6A-10.081 (3)(a) and (3)(e), F.A.C.; 6A-10.080(1),(2) and (3) F.A.C. Code of Ethics for the Education Profession of Florida; and 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(h) F.A.C. Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. During the final hearing in this matter, Finney testified that his decision to drive Morgan to his house "was a lapse in judgment and it was just a bad decision that I made." At hearing, the testimony and exhibits established that Finney initiated contact with Morgan and solicited an inappropriate relationship with a student that jeopardized her health, safety and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing charges of violations of policies 0.01(2)6., 3.02(4)(a), (d), (e), and (g); 5(a), (a)(iii), (a)(v), and (a)(viii); 1.013(4); and rule 6A-10.081(3)(e) and (h); finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), 6A-5.056(2), 6A-10.081(3)(a), policies 0.01(2)3., 1.013(1), 3.02(4)(b), and 3.02(5)(a)(vii), as charged; and upholding Respondent's suspension without pay and termination for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 4th day of January, 2017.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Angel Guzman, committed the violations alleged in a Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Petitioner, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, on November 14, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Miami-Dade County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"), is a duly- constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Angel Guzman was employed as a teacher by the School Board and assigned to Miami Edison Middle School (hereinafter referred to as "Edison"). Mr. Guzman is and has been employed by the School Board pursuant to an annual service contract. Prior to his employment by the School Board, Mr. Guzman was employed by New York City as a teacher assistant for three years and as a teacher for four years. He has been employed as a graphic communications teacher by the School Board since 1998, approximately two and a half years. Prior to the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, Mr. Guzman had never been the subject of a School Board personnel investigation. The February 16, 2001, Incident On February 16, 2001, Mr. Guzman was handing out reading logs in a FCAT preparation class at Edison. The students in the class were seventh graders. Sherwin JeanPierre, a student in the class, and another student asked their fellow student, Maurice Barnhill to get their reading logs from Mr. Guzman. Maurice picked up the logs, but was confronted by Mr. Guzman who, when he learned that Maurice was picking up logs for others, snatched the logs out of his hands and told him to return to his seat. An argument between Mr. Guzman and Maurice ensued. The teacher and student yelled at each other, Mr. Guzman forcefully pushed Maurice on the shoulder, and Mr. Guzman said "coño" to Maurice, which means "damn" in Spanish. Mr. Guzman eventually became so angry that he grabbed a wooden stool located between him and Maurice, swung it toward Maurice, and hit Maurice on the leg with the stool. While the stool hurt Maurice, he suffered no significant injury. The Second February 2001 Incident Following the February 16, 2001, incident, Mr. Guzman and another student were involved in a verbal confrontation. The situation was defused by Theron Clark, an Assistant Principal at Edison, and a security monitor. Following the confrontation, Mr. Clark and Dr. Peggy Henderson Jones, another Assistant Principal, met with Mr. Guzman. At this meeting, Mr. Guzman indicated that he was very stressed and did not want to return to his class. Mr. Guzman was allowed to go home the day of the incident and was subsequently referred to the Employee Assistance Program. Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Guzman for the February 16, 2001, Incident A conference-for-the-record (hereinafter referred to as the "conference") was held with Mr. Guzman on March 6, 2001, by Ronald D. Major, the Principal at Edison. The conference was attended by Mr. Major, Mr. Theron, Eduardo Sacarello, a United Teachers of Dade representative, and Mr. Guzman. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Mr. Guzman's non-compliance, during the February 16, 2001, incident with Maurice Barnhill, with school rules, School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07, dealing with corporal punishment, and 6Gx13-4A-1.21, dealing with employee conduct, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade. During the conference, Mr. Guzman was advised that a letter of reprimand would be issued, and he was directed to immediately implement procedures for the removal of disruptive students consistent with the faculty handbook. Mr. Guzman was also warned that any recurrence of the type of violation committed by him during the February 16, 2001, incident would result in further disciplinary action. A written reprimand to Mr. Guzman was issued on March 7, 2001, by Mr. Major. In the reprimand, Mr. Major again warned Mr. Guzman that any recurrence of the infraction would result in additional disciplinary action. The April 25, 2001, Incident On April 25, 2001, during a class under Mr. Guzman's supervision, Mr. Guzman caused a document to be printed from a class computer. A student took the paper and gave it to another student in the class, Ian Lightbourne, who asked for the paper. Ian placed the paper, even though it did not belong to him, in his book bag. When Mr. Guzman came to retrieve the paper he had printed, found it was gone, and asked if anyone knew what had happened to it. Although no one answered, Mr. Guzman suspected Ian and asked him to open his book bag. Ian complied and Mr. Guzman found the paper. Mr. Guzman became irate and began yelling at Ian to "not touch my things." Mr. Guzman then grabbed Ian by the arm and started to pull him toward the front of the classroom. Ian, who was sitting on a stool, lost his balance and fell to his knees. Mr. Guzman continued to pull Ian, who began to cry and yell, "Let me go," the length of the classroom on his knees. Mr. Guzman pulled Ian to a corner of the classroom where he banged Ian's arm against a metal darkroom door. Ian had previously broken the arm that Mr. Guzman grabbed and had only recently had the cast removed. Although the incident did not result in any serious injury to Ian, it was painful and caused his mother to seek medical attention for her son. On April 27, 2001, as a result of the April 25, 2001, incident, Mr. Guzman was assigned to alternative work at his residence, with pay. Mr. Guzman was not allowed to have any contact in his assignment with students. On August 14, 2001, the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida, entered a "Stay Away Order" in Case No. M0130143 requiring that Mr. Guzman stay away from, and have no contact with, Ian. Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Guzman for the April 25, 2001, Incident On August 29, 2001, another conference-for-the-record (hereinafter referred to as the "second conference") was held. The second conference was attended by Julia F. Menendez, Regional Director, Region IV Operations of the School Board; Sharon D. Jackson, District Director; and Mr. Guzman. The second conference was held at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. The second conference was conducted to discuss Mr. Guzman's performance assessments, non-compliance with School Board policies and rules regarding violence in the workplace and corporal punishment, insubordination, noncompliance with site directives regarding appropriate use of discipline techniques, violation of the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities, and Mr. Guzman's future employment with the School Board. At the conclusion of the second conference, Mr. Guzman was informed that his alternative work assignment would be continued, that his actions would be reviewed with the Superintendent of Region IV Operations, the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, and Edison's principal, and he was directed to refrain from touching, grabbing, hitting, or dragging any student for any reason. Subsequent to the second conference, the School Board's Office of Professional Standards concluded that Mr. Guzman had violated School Board and state rules. Therefore, an agenda item recommending dismissal of Mr. Guzman was prepared for the School Board to consider. That agenda item was discussed with Mr. Guzman on October 16, 2001, and was considered at the School Board's meeting of October 24, 2001. At its October 24, 2001, meeting, the School Board suspended Mr. Guzman without pay and approved the initiation of dismissal proceedings against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the decision of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, suspending Angel Guzman without pay be sustained and that his employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 27th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank E. Freeman, Esquire 666 Northeast 125th Street Suite 238 Miami, Florida 33161 Merrett R. Stierheim, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the Broward County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed with Petitioner as an exceptional student education ("ESE") teacher at Silver Ridge Elementary School in Broward County, Florida. The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Respondent has extensive educational training and experience in working with disabled and special needs students for many years. Respondent worked in the school system in Long Island, New York, as a paraprofessional for an estimated 13 to 14 years. Her duties included working with exceptional students at a cerebral palsy center, where she assisted teachers in changing students' diapers, feeding them, and assisting them in using various types of adaptive equipment. She also taught and tested special needs students having physical disabilities but possessing greater cognitive awareness. At the encouragement of teachers with whom she worked, Respondent pursued and received her bachelor's degree in elementary education in 1999, while continuing to work as a paraprofessional in the school system. Thereafter, she pursued her master's degree while working as a substitute teacher during the school year and as a teacher for summer school during the summer months. Respondent received her master's degree in special education in 2003. Respondent began working as an ESE teacher at Silver Ridge Elementary School in 2003, shortly after she moved to Florida. The allegations giving rise to this proceeding span the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. During both school years, Respondent's ESE students were disabled and most of them were nonverbal. Petitioner alleges that during both school years, Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive actions toward students in her classroom in violation of Department of Education rules and Petitioner's policies. The 2011-2012 School Year Background Starting in August of the 2011-2012 school year, paraprofessionals Rostande Cherelus and Cara Yontz were assigned to assist in Respondent's classroom. Cherelus and Yontz both testified that they had a good working relationship with Respondent. However, this testimony is belied by the credible, persuasive evidence establishing that Respondent did not enjoy a smooth working relationship with either of them. The persuasive evidence establishes that the difficulties in Respondent's relationship with both paraprofessionals stemmed from their frequent tardiness, leaving the classroom during instructional time without Respondent's permission, and frequent use of their cell phones in the classroom during instructional time. Respondent let them know on many occasions that this behavior was not acceptable. The persuasive evidence further establishes that neither paraprofessional was particularly cooperative in assisting Respondent in the classroom. For example, when Respondent attempted to engage the participatory-level students in the various learning activities class, the paraprofessionals ——particularly Cherelus——would often respond with what Respondent characterized as "huffing and puffing," rolling of the eyes, crossed arms, and comments questioning the utility of engaging in activities to educate the students because "that kid can't do anything anyway." Respondent credibly testified that when admonished, Cherelus would make statements such as "thank God, God didn't give me a kid like that." Respondent consistently reported the ongoing problems with Cherelus and Yontz to then-Principal Marion Gundling and then-Assistant Principal Saemone Hollingsworth. However, it appears that this effort was in vain. By November 7, 2011, the situation in Respondent's classroom had deteriorated to the point that Respondent requested a meeting with Gundling and Hollingsworth to address the continuing problems with the paraprofessionals. After the November 7, 2011, the situation in Respondent's classroom did not improve. Respondent testified, credibly, that both paraprofessionals continued to be difficult to work with, that there was constant friction in the classroom, and that both paraprofessionals were aware of her lack of satisfaction with their behavior and job performance. They also knew that she communicated her dissatisfaction to the school administration. On December 1, 2011——notably, before Cherelus and Yontz alleged student abuse by Respondent1/——Respondent contacted Gundling and Hollingsworth by electronic mail ("email"), stating "[m]y classroom is an absolute disaster since our meeting." The email described in great detail2/ events, actions by the paraprofessionals, the dysfunctional atmosphere in Respondent's classroom arising from the paraprofessionals' behavior and poor job performance, and Respondent's continued dissatisfaction with them. On December 15, 2011, Yontz filed a written statement with the school administration alleging that Respondent had taken abusive actions toward students D.N. and J.M. Yontz's statement alleged that in October of that year, Respondent had become angry with D.N., screamed at her, and grabbed her hair from behind. The statement also alleged that in October of that year,3/ Respondent punished student J.M. by confining her to the classroom bathroom from 8:30 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. The statement further alleged that on December 15, 2011, Respondent had become angry with and screamed at student J.M., pushed her face, and attempted to secure J.M's glasses, which were too large for her face, with a rubber band. According to Yontz's statement, Respondent pulled J.M.'s hair, causing her to make noises indicating that she was in pain. Cherelus filed a written statement with the school administration on December 16, 2011, stating that when she had returned from break the previous day, J.M. was upset. According to Cherelus' statement, when she asked J.M. what was wrong, J.M. said "Ms. T. pull" and made a pulling motion while pointing to her glasses. On December 16, 2011, Respondent was removed from her classroom pending an investigation of the allegations against her made by Yontz and Cherelus. Ultimately, the investigation yielded insufficient evidence to support Yontz's and Cherelus' allegations and Petitioner took no disciplinary action against Respondent at that time. She was returned to her classroom in April 2012. Notwithstanding that the investigation absolved Respondent, Petitioner now seeks to take disciplinary action based on these accusations. Allegations in Amended Administrative Complaint In Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint filed in this proceeding on April 1, 2014, Petitioner alleges that during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive acts toward students D.N., J.M., A.S., and C.A., who were assigned to her class. Each of these allegations is addressed below.4/ Student D.N. Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that in October 2011, Respondent screamed at student D.N. for being unable to complete her work and pulled her hair. At the final hearing, Cherelus and Yontz both testified that one day in the classroom, Respondent grabbed D.N. by her ponytail. However, their testimony is inconsistent regarding key details and circumstances. Cherelus testified that Respondent grabbed D.N. and pulled her up from her chair because she had asked D.N. to get up and go get her classwork, and D.N. did not do so. Cherelus testified that Respondent said something to the effect of "[l]et's go, you don't want to do your work" and pulled D.N. up from her chair by her ponytail, causing D.N. to fall on the floor. Cherelus testified that D.N. screamed and Respondent let her go. Cherelus further testified that Respondent did not scream at D.N. Yontz, on the other hand, testified that Respondent screamed at D.N. because she was not focusing on the classwork in front of her on her desk. Yontz testified that at one point, Respondent grabbed D.N. by the back of the neck and forcefully held her head to keep her facing downward. Yontz testified that Respondent then grabbed and tugged D.N.'s ponytail and pulled her head backward to force her to look at her work. The inconsistencies between the Cherelus' and Yontz's testimony are significant. Cherelus described a situation in which Respondent jerked D.N.'s ponytail to make her get up from her desk, and that as a result, D.N. fell to the floor. However, Yontz described a situation in which D.N. remained seated and Respondent jerked her head backward by her ponytail to make her focus on the work on her desk.5/ Additionally, Yontz testified that Respondent screamed at D.N., while Cherelus specifically stated that she did not scream. Yontz testified that Respondent grabbed the back of D.N.'s neck, while Cherelus did not testify to that effect. Testimony regarding key details and circumstances surrounding the incident is vital to determining credibility in a case such as this, where the witnesses for both parties have differing accounts of the events at issue. Here, due to the inconsistencies in their testimony regarding significant details and circumstances regarding the alleged incident, the undersigned finds neither Cherelus' nor Yontz's testimony persuasive or credible. By contrast, Respondent provided a clear, detailed account of the incident that significantly differed from that provided by Cherelus and Yontz. On the day in question, Respondent was working with D.N., who has a movement-related disability, to direct her to focus on her work. Because of D.N.'s disability, she was easily distracted and often looked around at activity occurring on either side of her. Thus, when Respondent engaged in one-on-one instruction with D.N., she would stand behind D.N. and use a series of voice and gestural commands, verbal and gestural prompts, and physical prompts as necessary, to get D.N. to focus on her work. Pursuant to D.N.'s individual education plan ("IEP"), she had worn a weighted vest to assist her in focusing on her work, but shortly before the incident, her IEP had been amended to no longer include use of the vest, so Respondent had instead begun using physical compression on D.N.'s shoulders, with her thumbs touching the back of her neck, to assist D.N. in focusing. Respondent credibly testified that the compression was slight, not forceful. On the day in question, Respondent used the compression technique but D.N. continued to look around, so Respondent put her hands on the sides of D.N.'s face to focus her to gaze downward at her work. When Respondent removed the compression from D.N.'s shoulders, she popped backward. Respondent credibly testified that she did not pull D.N.'s hair or jerk her head backward by her ponytail. Respondent's account of the incident is credible and persuasive.6/ Further, the timing of Respondent's email communication with Gundling and Hollingsworth is significant to determining the comparative credibility of Respondent, Cherelus, and Yontz. Respondent's December 1, 2011, email to Gundling and Hollingsworth described in significant detail the events and actions that had taken place in Respondent's classroom following her November 7, 2011, meeting with them. Of particular note is Respondent's detailed description of Cherelus' actions on December 1, 2011, toward student D.N.——specifically, that Cherelus pulled D.N's hair and screamed at her. Respondent's email account of that incident, sent on the same day it was alleged to have occurred and describing it in substantial detail, is far more persuasive than both Cherelus' or Yontz's subsequent statements and hearing testimony regarding the incident. The credible, persuasive evidence leads to the inference that as a result of the paraprofessionals' poor relationship with Respondent, they accused her——after she had reported their poor performance——of the very conduct toward student D.N. that Respondent previously reported that Cherelus had committed. This is a far more reasonable inference than the version of events that Petitioner espouses——which would require the undersigned to infer that Respondent somehow knew that she was going to be accused, at a later date, of pulling D.N.'s hair and screaming at her, so she covered herself by preparing and sending the December 1, 2011, email accusing Cherelus of engaging in that same conduct. For these reasons, the undersigned finds the testimony of Cherelus and Yontz regarding the alleged incident involving D.N. incredible and unpersuasive. Conversely, the undersigned finds Respondent's testimony regarding D.N. credible and persuasive. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint regarding student D.N. Student J.M. In paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in October 2011, Respondent confined student J.M. to the classroom restroom from 8:30 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. as punishment for urinating in her pants. Petitioner's direct evidence to support this allegation primarily consisted of Yontz's testimony.7/ According to Yontz, J.M. came to school one morning after having wet her pants the previous day, and Respondent immediately placed her in the classroom restroom, with the door closed, to punish her.8/ Yontz testified that Respondent left J.M. in the restroom by herself with the door closed beginning at 8:30 a.m. until 1:45 p.m., only being allowed to leave the restroom for lunch in the cafeteria. Yontz also testified that because J.M. was confined to Respondent's classroom restroom all day, the other students in Respondent's class had to use the restroom in other classrooms. Cherelus did not testify regarding this alleged incident.9/ Respondent's clear, credible explanation of this incident differed sharply from that provided by Yontz. Because J.M. frequently would urinate in her pants, her mother would send multiple sets of clothing to school so that Respondent could change J.M.'s clothes when this happened. J.M. had urinated on herself the previous day and had gone through her last set of clothing that day, so Respondent sent a note home to J.M.'s mother asking her to send a fresh set of clothing to school the following day. However, when J.M. arrived at school the next day, she had urinated in her pants and her mother had not sent extra clothing. Respondent changed J.M. into a borrowed set of D.N.'s clothing. J.M. again urinated in her pants and at that point, there was no extra clothing in the classroom for J.M. to wear. Respondent sent Cherelus to the school clinic to see if there was extra clothing that J.M. could wear and she also contacted J.M.'s mother to bring clothing to school for J.M. During the time it took for Cherelus to go to the clinic and return with clothing for J.M. to change into, Respondent put J.M. in the restroom. Respondent could not recall the exact amount of time that J.M. was confined to the restroom, but estimated that it was a short amount of time. She credibly testified that J.M. did not spend the entire day confined to the restroom, and that J.M. was not placed in the restroom as punishment, but, rather, to await a change of clothing. J.M.'s mother, Shakima Brown, verified Respondent's account of the incident. Brown testified that Respondent called her on the day in question to request that she bring a change of clothes to the school. Brown lived only ten minutes away, and she directed Respondent to place J.M. in the restroom until she could bring the extra clothing to the school. Brown testified, credibly, that J.M. had never communicated to her that Respondent confined her to the restroom as punishment, and that had that happened, J.M. would have let her know. The credible, persuasive evidence supports Respondent's account of this incident. The undersigned finds Yontz's account of this incident incredible and unpersuasive. Petitioner also alleges, in paragraph 6. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that on December 15, 2011, Respondent verbally abused J.M., slapped her face, and popped her with a rubber band that she had tied to J.M.'s glasses in an effort to keep them on her face. Yontz is the only witness whose testimony Petitioner presented who claimed to have actually seen the incident. Yontz testified that on the day in question, J.M. was attempting to write her name but was unable to do so without making mistakes. According to Yontz, this annoyed Respondent, who screamed at J.M. Yontz testified that J.M.'s glasses kept falling off, so Respondent tied a rubber band on the ends of them to keep them from falling off. However, the rubber band was too tight so kept popping J.M.'s ear, causing her to make noises as if she were in pain. According to Yontz, Respondent pushed J.M.'s face and screamed at her "oh, you're so annoying, you freaking idiot." Yontz testified that Respondent did not slap J.M.'s face.10/ Cherelus' also testified regarding this incident. She testified that on that day, she took J.M. to another classroom, and that as she was doing so, J.M. cried. Cherelus testified that when she asked J.M. what was wrong, J.M. said "Ms. T slapped me" and gestured in a manner that Cherelus interpreted as showing that Respondent had slapped J.M.11/ On cross examination, Cherelus acknowledged that she did not see Respondent slap J.M., pull her hair, or otherwise hurt her. Cherelus further acknowledged that J.M. is largely nonverbal and incapable of articulating sentences, and that she only said "Ms. T." while making a pulling motion. In any event, Cherelus did not have personal, independent knowledge of this alleged incident, and her testimony was based on J.M.'s limited statement and gesture. Maureen McLaughlin, the child abuse designee for Silver Ridge Elementary School, also testified regarding this alleged incident. McLaughlin testified that Yontz brought J.M. to her office,12/ and that at Yontz's prompting, J.M., using a teddy bear, indicated that Respondent had pushed her head using an open hand. McLaughlin testified: [a]nd basically, it's hard to enact, but J. took her hand, sort of open like this, and what I remember is that her head turned, like, she turned her head. So it was hard to tell, like, is it a slap, is it a push, but it was an open hand and her head ended up being turned because of it. McLaughlin reported the incident to the abuse hotline.13/ Respondent provided a credible, persuasive explanation of the incident. She testified that J.M. previously had a pair of glasses that did not fit her and had used a teal elastic band to hold them on her face. At some point, J.M. lost both the elastic band and her glasses, so Respondent contacted J.M.'s mother regarding getting another pair of glasses for J.M.; however, J.M.'s mother told her that they could not afford to purchase another pair of glasses. Respondent gave J.M.'s mother a pair of glasses frames that had belonged to her daughter, and J.M.'s mother had the frames fitted with J.M.'s prescription. However, those glasses also did not fit J.M.'s face and fell off when she looked down. On the day in question, Respondent tried, unsuccessfully, to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face using a large rubber band. The rubber band popped, causing J.M. to make a sound. Respondent apologized, tried one more time to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face using the rubber band, then gave up. Respondent testified that while she was attempting to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face, J.M. was moving around, so Respondent had J.M. put her head down on the desk. J.M. was hearing-impaired and had put her head down on the side on which her functioning ear was located, so Respondent used her open hand to turn J.M.'s head to the other side. Respondent credibly testified that she did not slap J.M., scream at her, or pull her hair. J.M.'s mother, Shakima Brown, testified that she had been informed of the incident concerning J.M.'s glasses and that on her own, over a period of days, had asked J.M. several times if anyone had hit her. Brown testified, credibly, that J.M. said "no" every time she was asked.14/ The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not scream at J.M., did not slap her face, and did not intentionally hurt her by popping her ear with a rubber band. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 6. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student A.S. In paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent handled A.S. in a physically rough manner, causing him to sustain a scratch on his neck. Cherelus testified that she did not recall any incident involving a student named "A.," and she could not recall his last name. Yontz testified that one day, she took the children out for recess, and as they were leaving, A. was in the room with Respondent. A. subsequently came outside and was crying, and Yontz observed scratch marks on A.'s neck. Yontz testified that she had asked what had happened, and Respondent told her that A. had scratched his neck on the corner of the counter as he put trash in the trash can. Neither Yontz nor Cherelus saw Respondent scratch A., and Petitioner presented no other evidence showing that Respondent scratched A. The sum of Petitioner's evidence regarding this allegation is that A. was scratched while in the classroom with Respondent. There is absolutely no competent substantial evidence in the record showing that Respondent scratched A. Additionally, neither Yontz nor Cherelus, or any other witness, specifically identified "A." as the student "A.S." named in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence linking the testimony about "A." to any allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations set forth in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint involving student A.S. Student C.A. Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 7. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that C.A. went home with scratches on his neck and face over a three-day period, and that when Respondent was questioned, she claimed that C.A. "had an encounter with a tree." Presumably, paragraph 7. is intended to charge Respondent with scratching C.A. and then lying about it. However, this paragraph does not expressly allege that Respondent scratched C.A. or otherwise injured C.A., so fails to allege that Respondent engaged in conduct that, if proven, would violate Petitioner's policies or Department of Education rules. Further, to the extent paragraph 7. could be read to sufficiently allege that Respondent scratched or otherwise injured C.A., there was no testimony presented at the final hearing by anyone having personal knowledge of the alleged incident. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence supporting this allegation.15/ Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation involving student C.A. set forth in paragraph 7. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The 2012-2013 School Year Background Petitioner alleges in the Amended Administrative Complaint that during the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent again engaged in physically and verbally abusive acts toward students assigned to her class. Paraprofessionals Shirley Brown and Monica Jobes were assigned to assist in Respondent's classroom in the 2012-2013 school year. That year, approximately nine ESE students were assigned to Respondent's classroom. The credible, persuasive evidence made abundantly clear that neither Brown nor Jobes enjoyed a smooth working relationship with Respondent. This was, in large measure, due to the fact that Respondent had high expectations regarding their performance in assisting her in the classroom, and she consistently reminded Brown and Jobes of those expectations.16/ In particular, Respondent made clear that her——and, by extension, the paraprofessionals'——job entailed taking reasonable and necessary measures to work with students to help them achieve to their capabilities. Respondent testified, persuasively, that neither Brown nor Jobes were dedicated to this approach and instead viewed their jobs more as caretakers or "babysitters" of the students for the school day. Respondent frequently made clear to Brown and Jobes that as the teacher, she was in charge of the class and the instructional approach and all other activities and aspects of classroom management. It was apparent from the credible, persuasive evidence that Brown and Jobes resented Respondent's repeated, overt assertion of authority over them. The persuasive evidence establishes that Brown was as much as a half-hour late to Respondent's class nearly every day, and that Respondent also regularly had to admonish her about frequent use of her cell phone for personal matters during instructional time. Brown also frequently disregarded Respondent's instructions on a range of student-related matters, and when Respondent confronted her, Brown verbally lashed out.17/ The persuasive evidence also establishes that Jobes often sent and received personal text messages during instructional time, causing her to be distracted and interfering with her work. The persuasive evidence established that Brown's and Jobes' behaviors were disruptive to the classroom environment and, in some instances, posed a danger to the students, and that Respondent let them know that their behavior was unacceptable. Shortly before the holiday vacation in December 2012, a holiday celebration was held in Respondent's classroom. While Respondent tended to the other students in the class and their parents, she specifically asked Brown and Jobes to stay with and tend to student C.R., since he did not have a parent present at the celebration. At some point, both paraprofessionals left C.R. alone. While unattended, C.R. ingested something to which he was allergic, went into anaphylactic shock, and ultimately had to be transported to the hospital. In early January 2013, shortly after school commenced following the holiday vacation, Respondent's students went to the music teacher's classroom. Brown was going to place C.R. on the floor, notwithstanding that Respondent had specifically directed her not to do so because he might again ingest something that could make him ill. At that point, Respondent told Brown not to place C.R. on the floor, to which Brown responded "don't worry, I got this" or something to that effect. Respondent tersely admonished Brown and reminded her that it was her (Respondent's) call because she was the teacher.18/ It was apparent from Brown's testimony that she greatly resented Respondent's assertion of authority over her. To address Brown's ongoing behavior and performance issues, Respondent requested a meeting on January 9, 2015, with Principal Hollingsworth, Assistant Principal Long, and ESE Supervisor Vickie Bloome. At the meeting, Hollingsworth informed Brown that Respondent had complained to her about her (Brown's) repeated cell phone use during classroom instructional time and directed her to refrain from using her cell phone during that time. Notwithstanding this meeting, nothing changed in Respondent's classroom. Respondent continued to experience friction in working with the paraprofessionals, who knew that Respondent had complained to the school administration about their performance. On January 16, 2013, an incident involving C.R., discussed in detail below, occurred. During this incident, C.R. became very aggressive, fought, bit and scratched himself, and grabbed for Respondent's insulin pump, which she wore on her arm. As discussed in greater detail below, Respondent and C.R. fell on the floor. Respondent prepared a written report detailing the incident. Persons who witnessed the incident, including Brown and Jobes, signed the report, and Respondent filed it with the school administration that day. On January 23, 2013, Respondent called a meeting with Jobes and Brown to address their ongoing performance issues, update them on student issues, and cover common core implementation procedures. In the email Respondent sent to Jobes and Brown regarding the meeting, she reminded them: "STILL seeing phones being checked and answered during class time. Even if a phone rings during class, it should NOT be answered until your personal time." At the meeting, Respondent once again reminded Brown and Jobes that they were not to use their cell phones during classroom instructional time. On the afternoon of January 23, 2013, following Respondent's meeting with her and Jobes, Brown reported to Assistant Principal Long an incident in which T.P. allegedly said "Ms. T. hurt me." At some point, Jobes also reported to Long that T.P. told her the same thing.19/ Jobes also sent an email to Hollingsworth that afternoon describing a situation in which T.P told her "Ms. T. hurt me." Thereafter, Long spoke with Respondent to get her version of what had happened. At some point on the evening of January 23, 2013, Respondent sent an email to Long stating that she had not been alone with T.P. that day. It was apparent from Respondent's email that she felt that could not trust Brown. She requested that Brown be removed from her classroom. Brown was removed from Respondent's classroom on the morning of January 24, 2013. At some point thereafter, Brown prepared, signed, and filed a report, dated January 23, 2013, alleging that Respondent had engaged in numerous aggressive and abusive acts toward students over a period of months. It is obvious in reading the report——which references Brown's removal from Respondent's classroom———that it was not prepared until sometime after Brown was removed from Respondent's classroom on January 24, 2015. Jobes also signed the report. She testified that Brown had prepared it and that she had contributed "notes." Brown also prepared and filed another written statement alleging that Respondent had engaged in specific instances of abusive and aggressive behavior toward students in her class. This report also was dated January 23, 2013, but again referenced her removal from Respondent's classroom, so obviously was prepared sometime after January 24, 2013. On the evening of January 24, 2013, Jobes sent an email to Hollingsworth requesting to be removed from Respondent's classroom. The email stated: "I came home today so stressed and exhausted from Ms. T all day at me." Jobes, who was pregnant, was concerned that the stress she was experiencing in working with Respondent in her classroom would adversely affect her health. On January 25, 2013, Jobes was removed from Respondent's classroom. On or about January 29, 2013, Respondent was removed from her classroom and reassigned to another position in the school system pending the outcome of an investigation conducted by the Broward County Sheriff's Office Child Protective Investigations ("CPI") Section. In a statement dated February 3, 2013, Jobes alleged that Respondent had taken aggressive and abusive actions toward certain students in her class over a period of months. She also stated that she felt bullied because Respondent, at times, spoke to her disrespectfully, and that Respondent would "constantly remind everyone in the room that she is the boss and if they wanted to be the boss then they need to go get a 4-year degree." Notably, prior to their January 23, 2013, meeting with Respondent, neither Jobes nor Brown had ever reported that Respondent had engaged in aggressive or abusive behavior toward her students.20/ Allegations in Amended Administrative Complaint In the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive behavior toward specific students in her class. Each of these allegations is addressed below. Student M.M. In paragraph 9. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent grabbed student M.M. by the back of her neck, held her head down in the garbage can to make her retrieve an open bag of chips, and forced her to eat them because she had asked for them. At the hearing, Brown and Jobes both testified that on one occasion during classroom snack time, Respondent had given M.M. a bag of chips at her request. M.M. ate a few chips, then tossed the bag in the trash can. Brown and Jobes testified that Respondent held M.M. by the back of the neck and forced her to remove the chips from the trash can. On direct examination, Jobes testified that Respondent forced M.M. to eat the chips, but on cross-examination, testified that, M.M. did not eat the chips. Brown testified that M.M. ate some of the chips but did not finish. Respondent confirmed that she did make M.M. retrieve the chips from the garbage can, but explained the context and the circumstances for making M.M. do so. She credibly denied that she had forced M.M. to eat the chips. Specifically, M.M. had been purchasing school lunches, but Jobes and Brown informed Respondent that M.M. was not eating her lunch. Respondent contacted M.M.'s mother, and collectively, Respondent and M.M.'s mother arrived at a plan in which M.M. would pick out her lunch and snack items at home. The items would be packed in her lunch box, and she would bring her lunch and snacks to school every day. M.M.'s mother also sent a large bag of snacks for M.M. that was kept in the classroom closet and M.M. would get the snack of her choice at snack time. M.M.'s mother specifically requested that Respondent send home anything that M.M. did not eat so that she (M.M.'s mother) would know what M.M. was and was not eating. On the day at issue, M.M. requested a bag of chips. Respondent gave them to her and M.M. returned to her seat, where she ate one or two chips, then threw the bag of chips away in the trash can. Respondent saw this and told M.M. to retrieve the chips from the trash can. Respondent did this so that she could send them home with M.M., consistent with the plan she had devised with M.M.'s mother. Consistent with Respondent's method of prompting M.M.'s behavior, she asked M.M. three times to remove the chips from the trash can. She then added a gestural prompt, done multiple times, that consisted of pointing to the trash can to inform M.M. exactly what she wanted her to do and where she was to go. When M.M. did not respond, Respondent took M.M. by the hand, led her to the trash can, and again gestured and asked her to remove the chips. Again, M.M. did not respond, so Respondent employed a physical prompt that consisted of placing her hand on M.M.'s shoulder and hand and applying enough pressure to show M.M. that she needed to bend down to retrieve the chips. At that point, with Respondent's help, M.M. retrieved the chips from the trash can. Respondent told M.M. to put them in her lunch box so that she could take them home, consistent with M.M.'s mother's request. Respondent credibly testified that she did not tell M.M. she had to eat the chips or force her to eat them. The evidence does not establish that M.M. cried or was distressed as a result of Respondent's actions, and there was no evidence presented to show that M.M. was injured or sickened as a result of this incident. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not punish M.M. for throwing the chips away, that she did not forcefully grab M.M. by the back of the neck or hold her head down into the trash can, and that she did not force M.M. to eat the chips. The evidence instead shows that Respondent's actions in dealing with M.M. on this occasion were appropriate and were consistent with her discussions with M.M.'s mother. Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 9. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student T.P. In paragraph 10. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in December 2012, Respondent force-fed student T.P., causing him to regurgitate. The undisputed evidence establishes that T.P. often refused to eat. On the day in question, T.P. purchased lunch from the cafeteria but he refused to eat the lunch, so was brought back to the classroom, where Respondent attempted to get T.P. to eat his lunch. Brown testified that Respondent forced a piece of chicken and chicken skin into T.P.'s mouth, that he was crying hysterically, and that he gagged. Brown further testified that Respondent made a video recording of T.P. eating. Jobes, who also was present when the incident occurred, did not testify that Respondent force-fed T.P.——only that Respondent was verbally urging T.P. to eat plantains. She did not testify that T.P. gagged or regurgitated. She also testified that Respondent made a video recording of the incident. Respondent testified that T.P. was a very picky eater who did not eat well, and that he regurgitated on the way to lunch every day. She testified, credibly, that she had discussed this issue with T.P.'s parents, and they had directed her to encourage him to eat.21/ Because the sight of other students eating or the smells of food would cause T.P. to vomit, he typically ate at a small table in the cafeteria positioned so he could see the outdoors. On the day in question, the students ate lunch in the classroom. T.P. was having particular difficulty eating that day because he was situated with the entire class as they ate, making him uncomfortable. In an effort to persuade T.P. to eat, Respondent went over to him, picked up a piece of food and coaxed him to eat. T.P. regurgitated all over his food. At that point, Respondent stopped trying to persuade T.P. to eat and sent a note home to his parents describing what had happened. Respondent's version of events is credible. By contrast, the testimony of Jobes and Brown regarding this incident was inconsistent, incredible, and unpersuasive. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 10. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. In paragraph 14. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that on January 23, 2013, Respondent grabbed T.P. by the back of the neck and pushed him toward the door, causing him to stumble and fall to the ground and to verbalize that "Ms. T. hurt me." Jobes testified that on that day, she was in the cafeteria when Brown and T.P. entered, with T.P crying. Jobes testified that Brown told her at lunch that she (Brown) had heard some kind of altercation while she was in the classroom restroom. Jobes did not see Respondent grab, push, or take any other action toward T.P. Jobes testified that later that day, T.P. told her "Ms. T. hurt me," and held his hands in a "U" shape. Jobes interpreted that as indicating that Respondent had choked T.P. Brown testified that she actually saw Respondent grab T.P. by the back of the neck and push him toward the door, causing him to fall, and that he got up, crying, and went with Brown and the rest of the class to lunch. She testified that later in the afternoon, T.P. told her and Jobes that "Ms. T. hurt me." Specifically, she testified: I didn't understand him clearly, you know. So Ms. Jobes was on the other side. He turned, he said 'Ms. Jobes, Ms. Jobes, Ms. T. hurt me, she grabbed me like this." And I, like, what? He said 'I'm going to tell them, I'm going to tell them, Ms. Brown, that Ms. T. hurt me, you see, Ms. T. hurt me.' The undersigned finds Brown's testimony incredible and unpersuasive. First, Brown's statement that she actually saw Respondent grab and push T.P. is inconsistent with her statement made to Jobes while at lunch that same day, that she had been in the restroom at the time and had heard an altercation. Further, the evidence showed that while T.P. is somewhat verbal, he is not capable of the extended, coherent discourse that Brown claims he verbalized in telling her and Jobes that Respondent had hurt him. The undersigned also assigns no weight to Jobes' testimony regarding whether the alleged incident actually occurred. Jobes did not witness the alleged incident, so has no personal independent knowledge regarding whether it occurred. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 14. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student M.P. In paragraph 11. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in an effort to make M.P. stop crying, Respondent jerked her chair backward to scare her to make her stop crying, and that when M.P. did not stop crying, Respondent laid the chair down on the floor so that M.P.'s feet were in the air, leaving her in that position for approximately 20 minutes. Brown and Jobes both testified that M.P. often cried and rocked back and forth in her chair. They testified that in order to make M.P. stop crying, Respondent would try to scare her by jerking the chair backward. Then, if M.P. did not stop crying, Respondent would lay her chair down on the floor so that M.P.'s feet were in the air, and she would leave M.P. in that position until she cried herself to sleep. Both Brown and Jobes testified that they had seen Respondent do this on numerous occasions. Respondent acknowledged that she had, on more than one occasion, laid M.P. down on the floor in the Rifton chair,22/ but, again, provided credible context for taking this action. Specifically, as a result of her exceptionality, M.P. would constantly verbalize and often would rock in her chair. When she became agitated, she would rock her chair so violently that she tipped the chair backward. Initially, Respondent had moved M.P.'s chair against a bookshelf, but M.P. banged her head on the bookshelf. In an effort to prevent M.P. from hurting herself, Respondent then removed M.P. from her chair and placed her on the floor; however, M.P. banged her head on the floor. At that point, Respondent placed M.P. in the Rifton chair. M.P. continued to rock violently, so Respondent ordered a Rifton chair with footrest; however, that measure did not solve the problem with M.P.'s rocking. Respondent then considered placing M.P.'s chair up against the teacher's desk, which would help stabilize the chair but had nothing against which Respondent could bang her head. On one occasion, as Respondent tipped the chair back at a 45-degree angle to place it against her desk, she noticed that M.P. calmed down and closed her eyes. Thereafter, Respondent would sometimes tip M.P.'s chair against her or her desk if she was not otherwise occupied with activities. However, when she was occupied with other activities, she would sometimes completely recline the Rifton chair, with M.P. strapped in it, on the floor. She did this because it calmed M.P., who otherwise would constantly vocalize, cry, and rock back and forth. To determine whether this was an appropriate technique, Respondent asked colleagues who also taught ESE students about their view of this technique and whether there were better techniques of which they were aware. Respondent testified, credibly, that the consensus among other ESE teachers was that if the technique worked to soothe the child and did not endanger her, it was appropriate to use. Respondent also had consulted regularly with occupational specialist Mariana Aparicio-Rodriquez regarding techniques to prevent M.P. from rocking her chair so that she would not tip her chair over and injure herself, but they had not collectively arrived at a solution to the problem. Respondent testified that she and Aparicio-Rodriquez had not specifically discussed reclining the Rifton chair on the floor with M.P. strapped in it. One day, while Respondent was alone in the classroom, Aparicio-Rodriquez entered the classroom and saw M.P. completely reclined on the floor in the Rifton chair. Initially, Aparicio- Rodriquez was alarmed that M.P. had tipped the chair over. Aparicio-Rodriquez testified that Respondent told her that she had placed M.P. on the ground to give her a sense of what it felt like to fall back. Respondent then picked up the chair and placed M.P. in an upright position. Aparicio-Rodriquez confirmed that during the entire time that she was in Respondent's classroom, M.P. was calm, unhurt, and not in distress, and that she did not cry. Aparicio-Rodriquez testified that she did not believe this was an appropriate or useful technique for teaching M.P. not to rock in her chair, and she had intended to report the incident to her supervisor, but because one of Respondent's paraprofessionals informed her that the matter was going to be reported, Aparicio-Rodriquez did not report it. Aparicio- Rodriquez testified that she did not consider the incident to constitute child abuse, so did not report it to the Department of Children and Families. On cross-examination, Aparicio-Rodriquez stated that it was her opinion, from an occupational therapist's perspective, that using the Rifton chair in such a manner was not appropriate; however, she conceded that placing M.P. on the floor in a reclined position in the Rifton chair was not unsafe, and that M.P. was neither hurt nor in imminent or potential danger. She acknowledged that she and Respondent had a difference of opinion regarding the propriety of the use of the Rifton chair in this manner.23/ Aparicio-Rodriquez did not identify any statute, rule, policy, or other applicable standard that was violated by Respondent's use of the Rifton chair in this manner. The persuasive evidence supports the inference that Respondent's placement of M.P. in the Rifton chair in a reclined position on the floor was not intended as a disciplinary measure to frighten or punish M.P. for crying or rocking in her chair, and was appropriate under the circumstances. Respondent credibly testified that she had tried numerous measures to prevent M.P. from harming herself while rocking back and forth, and that when she inadvertently discovered this technique, she discussed it with other ESE professionals, who had suggested that she continue using it since the child was not distressed or injured and the technique worked to soothe her and prevent her from rocking back and forth and potentially injuring herself. Aparicio-Rodriquez disagreed with Respondent regarding the appropriateness of the technique, but she was neither qualified nor presented as an expert witness in appropriate teaching techniques for ESE students or in any other subject, and she did not identify any applicable professional or other standards that were violated by Respondent's use of the Rifton chair in this manner. The persuasive evidence establishes that Aparicio- Rodriquez and Respondent had a difference of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this technique; however, unlike Aparicio- Rodriquez, Respondent had actual successful experience in using this technique without harming M.P. Thus, Respondent's view regarding the appropriateness of using this technique under the circumstances is afforded greater weight than Aparicio- Rodriquez's view. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent distressed, injured or otherwise harmed M.P., placed M.P. in danger, or violated any applicable statute, rule, policy, teaching technique, or standard by placing M.P. in the Rifton chair in a reclining position. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations set forth in paragraph 11. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner also alleges that on one occasion, Respondent disciplined M.P. for crying by placing a plastic bag of ice directly on M.P.'s bare chest, and when that technique was unsuccessful, Respondent placed the bag of ice on M.P.'s back, causing her to cry more loudly. Petitioner presented the testimony of Jobes to substantiate this allegation. Jobes testified that "a couple of times," she saw Respondent place bags of ice under M.P.'s clothing on her bare skin in an effort to get M.P. to stop crying, but that M.P. would not stop crying. Petitioner did not present the testimony of any other witnesses to corroborate Jobes' testimony. Respondent flatly denied ever having placed ice on M.P. for any reason, and stated that under any circumstances, she did not know how that would have helped make M.P. stop crying. Respondent also denied having kept ice in the refrigerator in her classroom. Respondent's testimony was credible, and Jobes' testimony was not credible, regarding these allegations. Accordingly, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 12. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student C.R. In paragraph 13. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that on one occasion, Respondent removed C.R. from his wheelchair, screamed in his ear, held both hands behind his back, laid him face-down on the floor, and laid on top of him for several minutes as he gasped for air. The undisputed evidence shows that on the morning of January 16, 2013, student C.R. (also referred to as "C.J." in the final hearing testimony) arrived at school in an extremely emotionally-distressed state. Although C.R. is a small child who weighs approximately 30 pounds and is confined to a wheelchair, he becomes physically aggressive when distressed and is capable of inflicting injury on others by biting, scratching, and hitting. Upon arriving at school that day, C.R. physically struggled with school personnel, including Jobes, Brown, and Cherelus. Brown took C.R., still upset, in his wheelchair to Respondent's classroom, where he was placed in his classroom chair. C.R. attempted to grab, bite, and scratch Respondent, Jobes, and Brown, bit his own hands, and rubbed and scratched his own face, arms, and legs. Respondent left him in his chair and he eventually calmed down. At that point, Respondent removed C.R. from his chair and carried him to another classroom, where the rest of the class was engaged in instructional exercises. Thereafter, when Respondent carried C.R. back to her classroom, C.R. again became very upset and bit and scratched her. At that point, Respondent notified the school administration and C.R.'s mother of the incident involving C.R. that morning. Assistant Principal Long visited Respondent's classroom to determine what had happened. As of 11 a.m. that day, C.R. was still seated in his classroom chair aggressively biting his own hands and rubbing and scratching his face, arms, and legs.24/ Respondent prepared and submitted an incident report detailing these events, and Brown, Jobes, and Cherelus, and another school staff member, Julie Weiss, signed and dated the report that same day. Jobes testified she read the January 16, 2013, incident report before signing and dating it that same day. She stated that although she had signed the document without being under duress, she had questioned Respondent regarding its accuracy before signing it. Brown testified that she signed the January 16, 2013, incident report that day, but did not read it before she signed it. It is undisputed that at some point in the day on January 16, 2013, Respondent and C.R. ended up on the floor of Respondent's classroom, with Respondent laying on top of C.R. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the time of day, sequence of events, and circumstances that led to this incident. Jobes and Brown both testified that the events that led to Respondent and C.R. being on the floor with Respondent laying on top of C.R. occurred in the morning after C.R. came to school in an emotionally distressed state, and that Respondent had placed C.R. on the floor and laid on top of him to punish him for his aggressive behavior. However, their testimony is contradicted by the version of events detailed in the January 16, 2013, incident report——which they both had signed and dated that same day, thus tacitly acknowledging its accuracy. As discussed in greater detail below, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the incident during which Respondent and C.R. ended up on the floor actually occurred later that same day, and that afterward, C.R. was taken from the classroom to the school clinic and did not return to the classroom for the rest of the day. Had Brown and Jobes been correct regarding the time of day when the incident occurred, C.R. would have been removed from the classroom during the morning. However, according to the January 16, 2013, incident report, C.R. was still in the classroom as of approximately 11 a.m. that day. Indeed, according to the incident report, Assistant Principal Long visited the classroom to investigate the events that were detailed in the report. Had C.R. been removed from the classroom in the morning after the incident, Long would have discovered that when she visited the classroom.25/ Further, Respondent would have known that so would not have stated in the written incident report that C.R. was still in the classroom as of 11 a.m. that day. It is undisputed that Jobes did not actually witness Respondent place C.R. on the floor. Jobes testified that when she looked over from another part of the classroom where she had been tending to other students, she saw C.R. face down on the floor with Respondent on top of him. Notwithstanding that by her own admission, Jobes did not witness the entire incident between Respondent and C.R., she nonetheless testified that Respondent held C.R. down on the floor for three to five minutes.26/ Brown claims to have witnessed the entire incident between Respondent and C.R. She testified that C.R. was acting aggressively, so to punish him, Respondent picked him up, flipped him around, placed him face-down on the floor, and laid on top of him for approximately 20 seconds as he gasped for breath. As noted above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the allegation regarding Respondent laying on top of C.R. arose from an incident that occurred later in the day on January 16, 2013, after lunch and after the incident that had happened earlier that day. The credible evidence establishes that when C.R. returned to Respondent's classroom after having had lunch in the cafeteria under Jobes' and Brown's supervision, his face was red and he was scratching himself and squirming in his chair. Respondent became very concerned, from the previous experience that school year, that C.R. was again having an allergic reaction to something he had eaten. Respondent removed C.R. from his wheelchair in order to place him in his Rifton chair so that she could administer his epi-pen to counter any allergic reaction he might have been having. Respondent is diabetic and wears an insulin pump strapped to her left arm. Respondent testified, credibly, that as she was removing C.R. from the wheelchair, he grabbed at her insulin pump. In an effort to prevent C.R. from pulling her insulin pump off of her arm, Respondent jerked her hand and arm backward, causing her to lose her balance. She fell to the floor with C.R. and landed on top of him. Respondent estimated that she and C.R. were in that position for perhaps five seconds,27/ at which point she scrambled off of C.R. and placed him in his Rifton chair. C.R. was then taken to the clinic to address his allergic symptoms and did not return to the classroom that day. Respondent testified, credibly, that Brown did not witness the entire event because for part of it, she was in the restroom with M.P., consistent with their established routine after the students returned from lunch. The undersigned finds Jobes' and Brown's version of the incident unpersuasive and incredible.28/ Their testimony was imprecise, inconsistent, and directly contradicted by other credible evidence regarding the incident. By contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the incident was specific, precise, and detailed. The undersigned finds her account of the incident credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 13. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Allegations Regarding Unspecified Students Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that Respondent "was observed grabbing students by the arm and forcefully pulling them to the ground." The Amended Administrative Complaint does not identify the students whom Respondent is alleged to have treated in such a manner. Jobes testified that "one or two times" she had seen Respondent grab a student by the arm and pull that student to the ground in an effort to get the student to sit down. She could not recall which students she allegedly saw Respondent treat in that manner and she did not provide any detail regarding these alleged incidents. Her testimony was not corroborated by any other competent evidence in the record and was too vague and lacking in detail to be deemed credible or persuasive. Brown testified that on one occasion, Respondent pushed M.P. to make her walk faster, causing her to fall to the ground. Although Brown identified the specific student, she provided no temporal context or detail regarding the incident. Her testimony was confused and imprecise, so was neither credible nor persuasive. Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent grabbed students by the arm and forcefully pulled them to the ground. Petitioner also generally alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that on occasion, Respondent would grab students by the neck to force them to look at their work. However, neither Brown nor Jobes identified any specific students to whom Respondent's alleged conduct was directed or provided any detail or context in which these alleged incidents occurred, and their testimony was too vague and imprecise to be deemed credible or persuasive. Petitioner did not present any other competent substantial evidence to substantiate this allegation. Respondent testified that at times, it was necessary for her to physically focus students' attention on their work. At those times, she would place her hands on the student's head and turn the student's face down toward the desk so that the student could attend to his or her work. She testified that she did not grab students by the back of the neck or engage in any forceful techniques as she focused their attention on their work. Her testimony was credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent grabbed students by the neck and forced them to look at their work. Petitioner also alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that "[i]n one incident, Respondent crumbled [sic] a student's paper into a ball before throwing it at the student." The student whom Respondent is alleged to have treated in this manner was not identified in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 8. specifically states that the incidents alleged therein occurred "shortly after the commencement of the school year in August 2012." However, the only evidence Petitioner presented in support of this allegation was the testimony of Cara Yontz, a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom in the 2011-2012 school year——a completely different school year than Respondent's actions alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any evidence to substantiate this allegation in paragraph 8. Even assuming that the reference in the Amended Administrative Complaint to the 2012-2013 school year was a drafting error and that Petitioner actually intended to allege that Respondent engaged in such conduct during the 2011-2012 school year, Petitioner still did not prove this allegation by credible, persuasive evidence. Yontz testified that on one occasion, a student named "D." was having difficulty with his work and that twice, when he turned his work in to Respondent, she yelled at him, crumpled up his paper, and threw it back at him, causing him to cry. Petitioner did not present any other competent substantial evidence to support this allegation. Respondent denied having thrown D.'s paper at him and testified, credibly, that she never had thrown anything at any student. The undersigned finds Respondent's testimony on this point credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent crumpled a student's work and threw it at him. Petitioner also alleges in paragraph 8. that Respondent verbally abused unspecified students, making statements such as "they're so stupid," and that she was "happy that God never gave her kids like them." Petitioner did not present credible, persuasive evidence proving this allegation, and Respondent credibly testified that she had not, and would not, ever address a student in such a manner. Failure to Provide Statement On March 4, 2013, the Broward District Schools Police Department issued a Notice to Appear for Statement ("NTA") to Respondent, informing Respondent that an investigation regarding a reported incident had been initiated. The NTA informed Respondent that on March 11, 2013, she was required to appear at a designated location and provide a statement as part of the investigation. The NTA further informed her that a representative of her choice could be present during the statement and that her failure to appear on the scheduled date and to provide a statement would constitute gross insubordination and lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination. Respondent is a member of the Broward Teacher's Union ("BTU") and was represented by Diane Watts, a field staff representative with BTU, in the investigation. Watts had contact with Kathleen Andersen, a detective with the Broward District Schools Police Department regarding scheduling the appointment and other matters with respect to Respondent's statement. At some point before Respondent was to appear and provide her statement, Andersen called Watts to give her a "heads-up" that the investigation was "going criminal"——meaning that a criminal investigation was being commenced and that criminal charges may be filed against Respondent. Watts testified, credibly, that when a matter "goes criminal," the BTU retains a lawyer to represent the member being investigated. At that point, BTU had not yet retained an attorney to represent Respondent in any investigation that may "go criminal." Under those circumstances, it is customary for the employee not to appear and provide a statement. Watts testified, credibly, that she informed Andersen that under the circumstances, Respondent would not appear as scheduled on March 11, 2013, to provide the statement. Watts understood Andersen to have agreed that, given the circumstances, Respondent was not required to appear and, in fact, she credibly testified that she believed Andersen had called her to give her a "heads-up" specifically so that she and Respondent would not make a wasted trip to appear at the location of the scheduled statement, only to find out there that the investigation had "gone criminal"——at which point, Watts would have advised Respondent not to make a statement pending BTU's retention of a lawyer to represent her. Based on her belief that she had an understanding with Andersen, Watts advised Respondent that she was not required to appear and provide a statement on March 11, 2013. Therefore——specifically at Watts' direction and advice——Respondent did not appear and provide a statement on March 11, 2013. At the final hearing, Andersen disputed that she had agreed with Watts that Respondent did not need to appear and provide a statement as directed in the Notice to Appear. Andersen testified that pursuant to Petitioner's Policy 4.9, Respondent was required to appear and provide a statement, and that she had not done so.29/ IV. Findings of Ultimate Fact Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and to terminate her employment as a teacher on the basis of just cause, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. The statute defines just cause to include immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination; and being convicted of or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty of, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude. Here, Petitioner charges that just cause exists, on each of these bases, to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment. As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to establish each element of each offense with which Respondent is charged. Further, whether Respondent committed the charged offenses is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each alleged violation.30/ For the reasons discussed in detail above, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, any of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and therefore failed to prove any of the administrative charges stated in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner asserts in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order that "Petitioner had a number of witnesses to testify to these various events. Respondent had none." This mischaracterizes the evidence presented in this case. Although Petitioner presented the testimony of four persons having personal knowledge of some of the incidents, for several of the allegations, Petitioner presented the testimony of only one witness who had personal knowledge of the alleged incidents, and, as discussed above, often that testimony was not credible. Even when Petitioner presented the testimony of more than one witness regarding a particular allegation, as discussed above, often that testimony was inconsistent on significant details, calling into serious question the credibility and reliability of the testimony. Also, Respondent herself testified. Her testimony was clear, precise, credible, and persuasive, and she provided consistent, logical accounts of the incidents that gave rise to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint.31/ In addition to her own testimony, Respondent presented the testimony of the mother of student J.M., who credibly supported Respondent's version of the incident giving rise to one of the allegations involving her daughter. Here, the undersigned did not find the testimony of Cherelus, Yontz, Brown, or Jobes credible or persuasive on most of the matters about which they testified. As discussed in detail above, in many instances their testimony was vague, unclear, or inconsistent with other testimony or evidence. Moreover, it was abundantly clear that each of these paraprofessionals found Respondent difficult to work with because she was demanding, did not tolerate lax performance, and consistently reminded them that as teacher, she was in charge of the management of her classroom. It was apparent that each of them resented her frequent assertion of authority over them. Each of them had ample motive to be untruthful or to exaggerate regarding certain events——such as those involving J.M. being placed in the restroom, C.R. and Respondent falling on the floor, and T.P. being fed by Respondent. In other instances——such as reclining M.P. in the Rifton chair or directing M.M. to retrieve her snack from the trash can——it is plausible to infer that the paraprofessionals misunderstood Respondent's actions and judged to be inappropriate, when, in fact, they were appropriate under the circumstances. Another factor militating against the paraprofessionals' credibility is that each of them was a mandatory child abuse reporter under Florida law, each of them knew that, and each understood her legal duty. Nonetheless, most of the incidents alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint were not reported until sometime after the incident is alleged to have occurred. In particular, Brown and Jobes first reported that Respondent had engaged in abusive behavior only after she had taken measures to address their classroom performance issues, including her requesting a meeting with the principal and holding her own meeting aimed at, again, addressing their unacceptable behavior and performance. Petitioner focuses on a statement in Respondent's January 23, 2013, email thanking Brown and Jobes for their efforts as indicating that up to that point, Respondent and the paraprofessionals enjoyed a smooth working relationship and that Respondent did not have any problems with their performance, and, in fact, was pleased with their performance. However, this position is contradicted by the strong evidence showing otherwise. Respondent's emails to the school administration dated December 1, 2012, and January 9, 10, and 23, 2013, particularly speak to the ongoing difficulty she was having with both paraprofessionals, even before they submitted statements alleging that she had abused students. Further, the testimony by Brown, Jobes, and Respondent shows that the relationship between Respondent and the paraprofessionals was not a smooth one. In sum, the evidence establishes that the paraprofessionals were not reliable witnesses, and their testimony was neither credible nor persuasive. Conversely, Respondent's testimony was credible and persuasive. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years that violated Department of Education rules and school board policies, and, thus, constituted just cause to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with gross insubordination for failure to appear and provide a statement to the Broward District Schools Police Department on March 11, 2013. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not appear and provide a statement to the Broward Schools Police Department specificially because she had been directed and advised by her BTU representative not to do so. Further, even if Watts did not, in fact, have an understanding with Andersen that Respondent would not provide a statement, it is undisputed that Watts told Respondent that such an understanding existed so that she did not need to appear and provide a statement. Thus, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not intentionally refuse to appear and provide a statement, but, instead, simply and reasonably followed the advice and direction of her BTU representative, who had specifically told her not to appear and provide a statement. Under these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that Respondent intentionally refused to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature. Accordingly, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not commit gross insubordination. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner failed to meet its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct, alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, that violates Department of Education rules and school board policies. Accordingly, Petitioner did not prove that just cause exists to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent; reinstating Respondent's employment as a teacher; and awarding Respondent back pay for the period of her suspension, less the amount of back pay that would be owed for the period commencing on November 6, 2013, and ending on January 23, 2014.42/ DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2015.
