The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a Florida-certified teacher authorized to teach mathematics. She holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 801286, which covers the five-year period ending June 30, 2003. Respondent was a teacher for more than a decade in Michigan before moving to Florida. She began teaching in Florida in or around September of 1998, when she was hired to teach mathematics at Deerfield Beach High School (DBHS). Respondent taught at DBHS only into the early part of the second semester of the 1998-1999 school year, when she was removed from the classroom following her arrest, during the early morning hours on January 17, 2002, for lewd and lascivious conduct. The arrest occurred at Athena's Forum, a club that Respondent and her then fiancée, William Markowitz, had read about in a magazine article about "swing clubs." The article "peaked [their] interest to go in[to one of these clubs] and see what it was all about." Respondent and Mr. Markowitz entered Athena's Forum at approximately 9:30 p.m. on Saturday, January 16, 1999. Neither she nor Mr. Markowitz had been to the club before. They were stopped in the vestibule and asked to fill out and sign a membership application and to pay a membership fee of $75.00, which they did. They were then allowed to go into the interior of the building. There were signs posted in the vestibule and elsewhere in the club cautioning that those who might be offended by "sexual activity or nudity" should not enter the club. Upon entering the interior of the building, Respondent and Mr. Markowitz went to the bar and ordered drinks. They later went to the buffet area where food was being served to get dinner. They brought their dinner to a table "at the stage level," where they sat down and ate. It was "very dark" there. They spent the rest of the evening sitting at their table (next to each other) listening to music and watching "people coming and going throughout the club." On occasion, they got up to dance. There were at least 50 people in the club that evening, some of whom were in various states of undress, being "fondl[ed]" and "touch[ed]" by others. Respondent and Mr. Markowitz, however, both remained clothed throughout their stay at the club. Among the other people in the club that evening was Deputy John Duncan of the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BCSO). Deputy Duncan was there, along with eight to 12 other law enforcement officers, as part of a BCSO undercover operation. Deputy Duncan had been to the club on a prior occasion to conduct "surveillance." He had gone there at the direction of his supervisor, Sergeant Barbara Stewart. Sergeant Stewart had advised Deputy Duncan and the other participants in the undercover operation that a "tip" had been received that "lewd activity was supposedly going on inside the club" and that they "were going in there to look for" such activity and to see if "any narcotics [were] being sold." During that first visit, the club was "dead." The bartender, however, told Deputy Duncan that there were other times, including "certain nights [designated as] couples nights, that things [did] go on" at the club. Among these "things," according to the bartender, was "sexual activity." Deputy Duncan returned to the club at approximately 10:00 p.m. on January 16, 1999. He gained entry to the interior of the building after showing his "membership number" to a woman "at the front desk," giving the woman a "bottle of liquor" he had brought with him, and having his "cover charge" paid (by a fellow undercover officer). Deputy Duncan, along with Sergeant Stewart, who was part of the BCSO undercover operation at the club that evening, proceeded to the "northwest section of the bar," where they sat down. Next to the bar was a "dance floor." There were tables and chairs surrounding the "dance floor." Approximately 30 feet from where he was seated at the bar, in the area of the "dance floor," Deputy Duncan observed a "white female," 3/ standing up, straddling the right leg of a "gentleman" sitting on a chair. The "white female" was wearing a tight-fitting, black spandex dress. Deputy Duncan saw the "gentleman" "lift her dress up" above her vaginal area. It appeared to Deputy Duncan that the "white female" did not "have any underwear on." The "gentleman" then proceeded to fondle the "white female's" vaginal area. This went on for two to five minutes. At no time did the "white female" attempt to pull down her dress or otherwise cover her vaginal area. Neither she, nor the "gentleman," made any effort to hide what they were doing. Although Deputy Duncan considered the "white female's" and the "gentleman's" conduct to be lewd and lascivious, he did not immediately place them under arrest inasmuch as the undercover operation had not concluded. Before the club was "raided" later that evening and arrests were made, Deputy Duncan observed other instances of people in plain view engaging in activities of a sexual nature. He saw, among other things, "women with other women where they were fondling the breast," "women with men doing dirty dancing," and "men and women in corners." In the "back area" of the club, he saw "hot tubs with several naked individuals inside" and rooms where people were "engaging in open intercourse." There were approximately 38 people arrested as a result of the BCSO undercover operation at Athena's Forum that evening. Respondent and Mr. Markowitz were among those arrested. Respondent's and Markowitz's arrests were for lewd and lascivious conduct. The arrests occurred at 1:30 a.m. on January 17, 1999 (after the club had been "raided"). Deputy Duncan was the arresting officer. He believed that Respondent and Mr. Markowitz were the "white female" and "gentleman," respectively (referred to above) whom he had observed earlier that evening in the area of the "dance floor" engaging in conduct that he considered to be lewd and lascivious. Deputy Duncan, however, was mistaken. Respondent was not the "white female" 4/ and Mr. Markowitz was not the "gentleman" 5/ Deputy Duncan had seen. At no time that evening at the club had Mr. Markowitz pulled Respondent's dress up or fondled Respondent's vaginal area. Respondent's and Mr. Markowitz's arrests were two of the "many" arrests Deputy Duncan made at "swing clubs" in the county. Respondent's arrest was reported in the media. It was common knowledge at DBHS that she had been arrested for lewd and lascivious conduct at a "swing club." The Broward County School Board initiated disciplinary proceedings against Respondent. It removed her from the classroom and reassigned her to a "security guard" position pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. Respondent thereafter submitted a letter of resignation, dated January 24, 2000, to the Broward County School Board. In her letter, she stated, among other things, the following: Broward County showed me a warm welcome by taking away my civil rights to privacy and making my entire ordeal a Nationwide joke. No one, except my attorney and my future husband knew of my arrest on January 17, 1999, until the School Board . . . gave information to the local and national media. . . . . The Broward County School Board showed an excellent, motivated and experienced educator that they are more interested in what teachers do after hours than the students' well-being. I was wrongfully arrested on January 17, 1999 in a private club where no children were present. It was not near or on any school grounds and it did not impair my ability to teach. As of this letter, it seems that the criminal charges against me will be dismissed. On February 17, 1999, I was handed a letter that will forever change my life, when I was pulled and submitted to complete ridicule in front of my 4th Period class with only forty minutes to the end of the day. I successfully taught for four weeks and would have continued to successfully teach if the Board had not release[d] my name to the media. After a national debate on the right to privacy my career was destroyed, as well as my life. . . . In August 1999 I was placed on administrative reassignment with pay. I was informed that I would receive a "meaningful" job that would justify my paycheck while we awaited the Administrative Hearing. Once assigned a position, displayed for the world to see, as a security guard for the main School Board Building, I reported my health issues and repeated harassment from the media, school board employees, teachers, and parents. I was informed by Carmen Rodriguez, attorney for the School Board, that the position I was assigned would involve "little or no participation." I asked for a different position but the request was denied. . . . At this point I am unable to return to work due to illness . . . . Therefore, due to the cost to my personal health, lack of financial resources, lack of union support, the fact that I am only an annual contract teacher, being refused a position change, and being denied a Leave of Absence, and the pride to not submit myself to the degrading way you treated my fellow educator, I must with great hesitation resign as an educator in Broward County. I am giving up the battle in the administrative courts to win the war of public opinion. The criminal charges that had been filed against Respondent following her arrest were "dropped by the court" on or about July 18, 2000. Respondent married Mr. Markowitz, but they were later divorced. They still keep in touch with one another, however. Mr. Markowitz tried to help Respondent make the necessary arrangements to attend the final hearing in the instant case, but due to the expense involved and the fact that Respondent had an examination to take, she was unable to be at either of the hearing sites. 6/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the EPC issue a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 14th day of October, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission should deny Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate on the grounds that Petitioner lacks the requisite good moral character and that he has committed an act or acts for which such a certificate could be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. During the 1999-2000 school year, Rolle was employed as a public school teacher in the Miami-Dade County School District (the "District"). He was assigned to Mays Middle School, where he taught drama to sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students. Holding a temporary Florida Educator's Certificate, Rolle was hired initially to work as a substitute teacher. Later during the 1999-2000 school year, Rolle's contract status was reclassified, and he became a "3100" or "temporary" teacher. A 3100 teacher's contract automatically expires at the end of the school year. Before the close of the subject school year, Rolle was removed from the classroom after allegations of misconduct were made against him. When the school year ended, Rolle's supervisor gave him an unsatisfactory evaluation and recommended that the temporary teacher not be re-hired. Consequently, Rolle separated from employment with the District following the 1999- 2000 school year. In the meantime, Rolle applied to the Department of Education for a professional (i.e. non-temporary) teaching certificate, pursuant to Section 231.17, Florida Statutes. On March 28, 2001, the Commissioner, as the head of the Department of Education, issued a Notice of Reasons setting forth the grounds for denying Rolle's application. In a nutshell, the Commissioner alleged that Rolle lacked the good moral character required of a teacher and that he had violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. Below are the relevant historical facts concerning the specific incidents upon which the preliminary denial of Rolle's application was based.2 The Vulgar Joke On March 17, 2000, Rolle told a vulgar joke to his sixth grade class. One of his students, an 11-year-old girl named D. M., reported the joke to the school's administration, submitting a handwritten statement dated March 23, 2000, that quoted Rolle's monologue.3 Rolle admits having told the joke; indeed, he repeated it in full while testifying at hearing. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by including the entire joke in this Recommended Order. The punch line——"Your mouth smells exactly like your butt"——is sufficient to convey the crudity of Rolle's ill-considered attempt at comedy, which would have been inappropriate in polite adult company. Telling such a coarse joke in the classroom to a group of young schoolchildren at a minimum reflected appallingly poor judgment on the teacher's part. The R-Rated Movies On several occasions during the school year, Rolle showed movies to his sixth and seventh grade classes.4 At least two of the movies, Rolle admitted, are rated "R." Another, Rolle claimed, is rated "PG-13."5 Rolle did not obtain the permission of his students' parents to show the children any of these films in class. While the movies themselves were not offered into evidence, it is a matter of general knowledge based on common experience that R-rated movies are intended for a "restricted" audience and typically contain language, images, and plots to which children under the age of 17 should not be casually exposed. At any rate, clearly, children aged 11 and 12 should not be shown R-rated movies in a public school classroom without parental knowledge and consent. Rolle showed these movies, not for a pedagogic purpose, but merely to entertain the children. Making matters worse, Rolle instructed his students to have sheets of paper on their desks while a videotape was playing so that they could pretend to be "critiquing" the movie if someone (presumably another teacher) were to enter the classroom. Rolle also directed the children not to tell others that R-rated films were being screened in his class, warning the students that if word got out, then someone might complain, with the predictable result that the school's administration would forbid such movies from being shown in the future. The Impromptu Skits In class, Rolle often required small groups of his students to act in impromptu skits as a means of developing improvisational skills. Rolle would describe a scene in broad terms, and the students selected to perform would play assigned parts, making up appropriate dialogue extemporaneously. The plots for some of these impromptu skits were taken from the students' textbooks. But Rolle required the students to act out some other scenes that he had imagined on his own. Several of these skits were highly inappropriate, to say the least. In the sixth grade class, for example, Rolle assigned children to play in a scene involving a lesbian having an affair with her female boss at work; a skit in which a girl describes losing her virginity and becoming pregnant; and a vignette wherein a girl who has been raped reports the crime to her parents and the police. Students not chosen to perform in these skits were obligated to watch them. D. M., the young girl who reported the gauche joke discussed above, was one of the sixth-grade students chosen to play a lesbian. She refused the assignment, whereupon Rolle threatened her with a failing grade. Rolle also instructed his seventh grade students to perform in impromptu skits having adult themes.6 More than once, the plot required these adolescent (or pre-adolescent) children, aged 12 and 13, to explore the subject of homosexual relationships. On one occasion, according to the credible testimony of a (then) seventh-grade student named M. M., Rolle suggested that two girls kiss. One of the girls refused. M. M. described a separate incident during which she and another girl, playing lesbians in an impromptu skit under Rolle's direction, actually did kiss one another, although M. M. professed not to have been adversely affected by the experience. Rolle's Explanations Rolle conceded that he had exercised "bad judgment" in connection with the incidents described above and stressed that he had been "reprimanded" by the District for them. Rolle admitted that he had believed his actions were appropriate at the time taken, but upon reflection he now recognizes that he made what he calls "first year teacher" mistakes. Rolle adamantly denied having intended to harm or embarrass any student. Ultimate Factual Determinations Rolle's classroom conduct during the 1999-2000 school year repeatedly fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defines good moral character. By any reasonable measure, it is wrong for a teacher to show R-rated movies to impressionable sixth and seventh grade students; when that teacher, an authority figure acting in loco parentis, further instructs the students to be prepared to lie about or conceal the fact that such films are being shown, as Rolle did, he not only exhibits a propensity for dishonesty that is incompatible with the position of great trust he holds but also encourages the children in his charge likewise to be deceitful. Similarly, when Rolle told that scatological joke to his sixth grade class, he revealed a lack of respect for the rights of others and behaved in a manner inconsistent with the high standard expected of a public school teacher. Finally, asking children as young as 11 years old to act out or watch scenes in which lesbians discuss an illicit workplace romance; a rape victim describes her trauma; and a pregnant girl speaks about her first sexual experience, as Rolle did, reveals a personality that is preoccupied with subjects unsuitable for the middle school curriculum. If Rolle were soon permitted to teach again, parents understandably would question their children's safety and well-being. The risk of allowing Rolle to return to the classroom, at this juncture, is too great. The conduct in which Rolle engaged, moreover, took place in the classroom during the 1999-2000 school year and directly involved the students in his care. Thus, the conduct involved in this case is both recent and rationally connected to Rolle's fitness to teach in the public schools of Florida. In sum, the evidence fails to establish that, more likely than not, Rolle possesses the good moral character required of a teacher to whom the custody of children is entrusted. For that reason, Rolle is not eligible for certification. There is, further, ample proof that Rolle failed on numerous occasions to exert a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, health, or safety as required under Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which is part of the Principles of Professional Conduct. Rolle's multiple violations of this Rule would be grounds for revocation of a teaching certificate and hence independently justify the denial of his application for one. Finally, the greater weight of evidence does not demonstrate that Rolle specifically intended to expose his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying Rolle's application for a teaching certificate and providing that he shall not be eligible to reapply for certification for a period of 15 years from the date of the final order, during which time the Department of Education, in its discretion pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(a), Florida Statutes, may refuse to consider his application, neither granting nor denying same. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is now, and has been employed as a teacher in the Pinellas County school District since the 1980-81 school year. Since the 1983-84 school year, he has taught biology and earth science at Tarpon Springs High school under continuing contract. In November, 1984, Petitioner applied for Associate Master Teacher Endorsement in the state Master Teacher Program for the 1984-85 school year. His application was approved, and he participated in the Master Teacher Program for the 1984-85 school year, receiving the appropriate salary incentive award of $3000. In October, 1985 Petitioner applied for continued participation in the Master Teacher Program for the 1985-86 school year. His application was again approved, and he participated in the program for the 1985-86 school year, receiving the appropriate salary incentive award of $3000. The 1986-87 school year was the third and final year of the State Master Teacher Program. The application deadline for continued participation by teachers previously endorsed as Master Teachers was November 1, 1986. According to Virginia Sasser, Petitioner meets all substantive requirements and criteria for continued participation in the program for the 1986-87 school year. However, it is the position of the Respondents that Petitioner failed to timely file his application by November 1, 1986, and therefore he was not eligible to receive a Master Teacher salary incentive award for the 1986-87 school year. The first notice that Petitioner received that he had not been approved for participation in the program for the 1986-87 school year was in August, 1987 when other Master Teachers at Tarpon Springs High School received their salary incentive awards of $3000, and he did not. Petitioner contacted the Department of Education and spoke with Virginia Sasser who told him that the Department had no record of his 1986-87 application for continued participation. No specific advice was offered by Sasser about what he should do. Subsequently, Sasser learned that the Pinellas County School District also had no record of ever receiving Petitioner's application for 1986-87. The 1986-87 application procedure required individual teachers to complete Form MT-5, and submit it to their principal for his certification and signature. The Form requires the principal to certify that he has returned a completed copy of the application to the teacher after the principal affixed his signature. Thereafter, the Form was to be forwarded by the principal to the School District Office for transmittal to the Department of Education. In January, 1987, acknowledgments were sent to teachers whose applications had been received by the Department of Education. Based upon the testimony of Petitioner, Chalmers Coe, Petitioner's principal, John Katsaris, fellow Master Teacher, and Patricia Burdette, Coe's secretary, it is specifically found that Petitioner did properly complete and submit Form MT-5 to Coe in mid-October, 1986. However, the Form was thereafter lost either in Coe's office or in transit from Tarpon Springs High School to the School District Office in Clearwater via courier. Petitioner was not responsible for, and was not aware of this loss. Although he was on the School District's list of Master Teachers from whom an application for continued participation would be expected to be received, no one from the School District Office ever contacted Coe or the Petitioner to inquire why his Form MT-5 had not been received. Petitioner reasonably assumed that Coe had properly processed the application he gave him, and that the intradistrict mail courier would deliver it to the School District personnel officer. Patricia Burdette testified that on occasion items she placed in the courier mail, or which were placed in the mail for her, were lost and never received. The testimony of Chalmers Coe, principal of Tarpon Springs High school is found to be credible and persuasive in that he clearly confirmed the following statements contained in a letter he sent to Virginia Sasser in September, 1987, after Petitioner had been informed by Sasser that his application had not been received by the Department: This is to notify you that Peter Lelekis, a teacher on our staff, did submit a completed application for the Master Teacher Program for 1986-87. This application was submitted before the deadline of November 1, 1986. I, as well as my secretary, Patricia Burdette can verify that Mr. Lelekis did comply with the instructions from the Master Teacher Division of the Department of Education. I personally signed and forwarded forms to Superintendent. The testimony of John Katsaris supports the testimony of Petitioner and Coe in that Katsaris testified he saw Petitioner take his Form MT-5 to Coe's office in mid-October, 1986, and spoke with Petitioner about the application. According to Larry Hutcheson, who administered the Master Teacher Program for the Department of Education from approximately June, 1985 to July, 1986, the Department followed a "hold-harmless philosophy" in administering the program whereby if an applicant did his part to comply with all application procedures, as verified by his principal or superintendent, an applicant whose application was not timely filed would be held-harmless for this omission and the substantive merits of his application would be evaluated. This philosophy was applied "not infrequently" according to Hutcheson. Virginia Sasser, who has continuing responsibilities for the program, confirmed this "philosophy," and stated that if the principal or superintendent conceded their error, a teacher's application would be accepted and evaluated. She further acknowledged that if an application was lost in the mail, the teacher should similarly be held- harmless for the courier's error. In this case, an error was made either by the intra-district mail courier, or by Coe in not insuring that Petitioner and the District Personnel Office received a copy and the original Form MT-5, respectively, after he signed this form. In either event, the error that was made was not made by Petitioner, and he should therefore be held-harmless in accordance with the Department's applicable "philosophy" for administering this program. Coe and Petitioner both testified that he meets all substantive requirements and criteria for continued participation for the 1986-87 school year, a fact not disputed by Respondents. Petitioner has timely sought review of the Respondents' decision, as set forth by letter dated September 17, 1987, to deny his continued participation in the State Master Teacher Program for the 1986-87 school year solely for the following reason: According to our records, a 1986-7 application was never received by our office for you. In addition, the Pinellas school district office records further confirmed that your application was not processed through their office. I regret that we cannot accept Mr. Coe's statement as evidence of your filing an application for continued participation in the program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondents enter a Final Order approving Petitioner for continued participation in the State Master Teacher Program for the 1986-87 school year, and providing him with the appropriate salary incentive award of $3000. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 7, 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Rejected and Accepted, in part, in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 7, 10, 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 10. Rulings of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary, and as a conclusion of law. 5-6. Rejected as unnecessary. The only issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to the third year salary incentive award. Thus, the general application and renewal process is irrelevant. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 8-9. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 10. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4, 11. 11-13. Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as a conclusion of law. Generalized discussion of the Master Teacher Program does not pertain to the issue in this case. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6, 7. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 8. The primary testimony was offered by Coe and Was confirmed and supported by Katsaris, Petitioner and Burdette. 16-18. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 10 and otherwise Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 10, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Rejected as irrelevant. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 12. Rejected as irrelevant. This is a de novo hearing to determine if Petitioner did submit his application. 30-31. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 10, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 32. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. Petitioner's request for hearing was timely. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire MEYER, BROOKS & COOPER, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission (EPC) should discipline the Respondent, Bruce R. Ferko, on charges set out in an Administrative Complaint that he was alcohol intoxicated on and off the job as an elementary school teacher, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), once falsely represented to the administration at his school that he was unable to teach because he was in the emergency room of a hospital when he was in fact in the county jail on (DUI) charges, and was guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as a teacher, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), (e), (f) and (h), Fla. Stat. (1989).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bruce R. Ferko, held teaching certificate number 553660 issued by the Florida Department of Education, covering elementary education, at all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, until it expired on June 30, 1990. From approximately August, 1986, until approximately March, 1990, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Southern Oak Elementary School in the Pinellas County School District. On July 11, 1988, the Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), fleeing and eluding a police officer, and driving with a suspended license. He pled guilty to the charges on August 30, 1988, and was sentenced to 30 days in the county jail, which was suspended, was fined a total of $382, was ordered to pay a total of $425 of court costs, was required to attend DUI school, and was placed on six months probation on two of the charges, to run concurrently. On several occasions during the 1988/1989 and 1989/1990 school years, the Respondent arrived at school with a smell of alcohol on his breath that was strong enough for at least four different employees at the school to have noticed on different occasions. When the smell was brought to the Respondent's attention, he sometimes would excuse himself to brush his teeth. On or about May 24, 1989, a fellow teacher with whom the Respondent team taught third grade in the 1988/1989 school year, noticed a very strong smell of alcohol on the Respondent's breath. The teacher was concerned and reported it to the school's assistant principal. The assistant principal consulted with the School District's chief personnel officer, who advised the assistant principal to have a conference with the Respondent about it this time. The Respondent admitted that he had been drinking the night before, had about five drinks, and did not eat breakfast. (Later, the assistant principal learned that he had been out until 2:00 a.m. that morning.) The assistant principal decided to send the Respondent to get something to eat and had to make arrangements to cover the Respondent's classroom responsibilities in the meantime. The Respondent often was late for school, especially during the 1988/1989 and 1989/1990 school years. Sometimes, he would take a shower at school when he arrived; sometimes, he would brush his teeth when he arrived at school. Once, after arriving late, the Respondent told an improbable tale of how his car broke down, requiring the Respondent to jump out and fall on his knee (although his white pants showed no evidence of this). Later the same day, the Respondent lay on top of another teacher's desk, in front of the teacher, and acted as if he was going to sleep. On January 17, 1990, the Respondent came to school late with the strong smell of alcohol on his breath and brushed his teeth when he arrived. While leading his class either to or from physical education class, the Respondent was heard singing "at the top of his lungs" This inappropriate behavior disrupted the classes being held nearby. The evidence was insufficient to causally connect the unusual behavior described in Finding 6, above, to the Respondent's use of alcohol. On the morning of October 12, 1989, the Respondent called the school office to arrange for a substitute classroom teacher to take his place for the morning. He reported that he was in the hospital emergency room and was spitting blood. The Respondent was asked if he was sure he only needed a substitute for the morning and was asked to call again if he would not be able to be in that afternoon. The Respondent neither called nor appeared for work the rest of the day, and last minute attempts had to be made to find a substitute for the Respondent for his afternoon classes. That evening, between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m., the Respondent telephoned the school secretary at home to ask if he was in trouble. He gave the excuse that he was lying on a table in the emergency room all morning having a barium enema and was not permitted to get up to call the school to get a substitute for the afternoon. Later, school officials learned that the Respondent had not been at the hospital that morning but rather, in fact, had been arrested earlier on the morning of October 12, 1989, and was in the Pinellas County Jail. (The evidence at the final hearing did not specify the charges or their disposition.) On the morning of October 24, 1989, the Respondent was scheduled to take his class on a field trip to Ruth Eckerd Hall, a performing arts center in Clearwater, with the other third grade class. The Respondent was late for school again, so late that the field trip almost had to be cancelled. He arrived with the strong smell of alcohol on his breath and complaining of a headache. When the bus arrived at Ruth Eckerd Hall, the Respondent jumped off and, inappropriately, headed across the busy parking lot toward the building well ahead of the children in his class, who were hurrying to try to keep up with him. The other third grade teacher was concerned for the safety of the children in the Respondent's class and had to take some of the stragglers from the Respondent's class, of whom the Respondent appeared oblivious, under her care for their safety. When the Respondent returned to school after the field trip, still complaining of a headache, he inappropriately yelled at one of the children in his class for not being appropriately dressed for Ruth Eckerd Hall, upsetting the child. On November 11, 1989, a Pinellas Park Police Department patrol officer saw the Respondent in his car weaving down the street and running a stop light. The officer attempted to stop the Respondent, who sped off in his car, leading the officer on a two mile chase at 60 miles per hour, 20 mile per hour over the legal speed limit, that ended in the driveway of the Respondent's residence. The Respondent resisted arrest (without violence), saying that he did not want to go back to jail because he would lose his job. The patrol officer had to call for back up assistance, and it took three officers to take the Respondent down to the ground to handcuff and arrest him. Although the Respondent's breathalyzer showed 13 to 14 percent blood alcohol, there was no evidence whether the breathalyzer was properly calibrated. However, the Respondent failed all four field sobriety tests, and it is found that he was intoxicated at the time of his arrest. Criminal charges are pending against the Respondent. He has failed to appear for criminal court proceedings, and there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding the Respondent, Bruce R. Ferko, guilty as specified in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and imposing the sanction that he be barred from applying for a new teacher certificate for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5822 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact (the Respondent not having filed any): 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part as not proven. There was no evidence to prove the third and fourth sentences. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 5.-10. Accepted but subordinate, mostly to facts found. 11. Accepted and incorporated. 12.-21. Accepted but subordinate, mostly to facts found. Rejected as not proven. The witnesses were not clear as to the Respondent's contract status, and there was no evidence to prove the rest of the proposed finding. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark S. Herdman, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675 Bruce R. Ferko 109 Collier Place, Apt. 2C Cary, North Carolina 27513 George A. Bowen Acting Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Program Director Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Until his suspension in August 1983, Respondent has been continuously employed by the School Board since August 1983, as a teacher, psychologist, and Assistant Principal. He holds Florida Teacher's Certificate Number 232311 and has been on continuing contract with the School Board. During Respondent's 15 years of employment with the School Board, he was evaluated as average and above average as a teacher, psychologist, and Assistant Principal. He was particularly effective as an assistant principal and in diagnosing learning and behavioral problems experienced by kindergarten and first-grade children. On August 9, 1983, Respondent entered a guilty plea and was therefore convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of one count of conspiracy to transfer firearms in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 371 because the subject firearms were not registered with the Secretary of the Treasury as required by the applicable federal laws. Respondent was originally sentenced to be confined to a minimum security institution for a period of six months with a subsequent period of two years probation. This sentence was then modified to four months in a community treatment center (halfway house) with a subsequent period of three years probation. Respondent is presently serving his probation period. This conviction forms the sole factual basis for the charges herein by both the School Board and the Department. Because the Specific Notice of Charges and the Administrative Complaint are based upon allegations involving Respondent's immorality, moral turpitude and his effectiveness as a teacher, the circumstances surrounding Respondent's arrest, plea, and conviction are extremely pertinent. Respondent's first involvement with the circumstances leading to his conviction stems from conversations he had with his neighbor Jose Lopez regarding the sale of hand guns. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of a Federal Firearms License. Although Lopez knew that Respondent was a licensed gun dealer, Respondent did not know that Lopez was a paid federal informant. Lopez asked Respondent if Respondent could put him in touch with anyone who would sell unregistered firearms. Respondent knew a gun dealer named Zarraga who had previously introduced Respondent to a man named Navarro who owned a gun shop. Respondent told Lopez about these men and introduced them to each other. Lopez contacted Donald R. Kimbler, a Special Agent for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms of the United States Treasury Department. Lopez, acting with Kimbler's knowledge, then entered into a deal with Navarro and Zarraga wherein Lopez was to purchase seven Ingram submachine guns and eight silencers. Lopez, Navarro, and Zarraga arranged to deliver the guns and silencers to Respondent's home where they were to be picked up by Lopez. Respondent earned no money from the transaction. He was willing to help Lopez locate the guns because he was under the belief that they were to be sent to Nicaragua to aid in the fight against the Communists in that country. Respondent believed that to be a worthy cause based upon Respondent's personal flight as a young man with his family from Communist Cuba. Respondent believed that the persons offering the guns for sale (Navarro and Zarraga) were the ones who had the responsibility to register them with the federal government. The first time Respondent realized he was involved in a serious crime was when he was confronted by Agent Kimbler at Respondent's school. At that meeting, Respondent cooperated with Kimbler and gave a voluntary statement regarding the transaction under investigation. In a subsequent meeting with Kimbler, Respondent gave another statement which constituted a complete account of the events regarding the sale of guns by Navarro and Zarraga in which Respondent was involved. At the time Respondent gave his cooperation and first statement to Kimbler, he was not under arrest and no arrest of Respondent was contemplated by Kimbler. Respondent's attitude throughout the investigative proceedings was one of total and above excellent cooperation with the authorities. His cooperation was based upon his desire to be honest and do what was right rather than on a desire to "make a deal" with the government. Based upon Respondent's cooperation and subsequent testimony, the federal government was able to indict and convict Zarraga and Navarro. Contrary to Agent Kimbler's recommendation, Respondent was also indicted. Although it is common knowledge that machine guns are used to kill people and silencers are used to muffle the sounds of such a weapon, there was no direct evidence as to what use these guns and silencers were to be put. Petitioner's only witness to testify that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been reduced was Patrick Gray, Jr., the Executive Director for the School Board's Division of Personnel Control. That witness further admitted that he did not recall ever having seen a newspaper article regarding Respondent's arrest or conviction. Two other employees of the School Board who are involved in the actual school setting did not believe Respondent has lost his effectiveless.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that Final Orders be entered: In Case No. 83-3017 suspending Respondent from his employment by the School Hoard without pay for a period of three years from the effective date of his suspension, and In Case No. 83-3447 suspending Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate for a period of three years from the effective date of his suspension by the School Board. Done and Recommended this 30th day of November 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Robertson, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Third Floor Miami, Florida 33137 Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire Suite 616, Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 SW 36 Court Miami, Florida 33135 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florid 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Petitioner. CASE NO. 83-3017 IVAN DANGER, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint issued on October 19, 2009, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Schad holds Florida Educator’s Certificate (Certificate) No. 407935, covering the areas of Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Mathematics and Reading. Her Certificate is valid through June 30, 2013. Ms. Schad began teaching in 1978. She has taught in both the Lee County School District and Collier County School District. At all times material hereto, Ms. Schad was employed as a Reading and Math Specialist at Village Oaks Elementary School (Village Oaks) in the Collier County School District (School District). She began at Village Oaks for the 2003-2004 school year. Ms. Schad’s duties and responsibilities at Village Oaks included providing extra assistance to students who were not proficient in reading and math. Classroom teachers chose which students would receive the extra assistance from her. Typically, Ms. Schad met with the students she assisted in pull- out/break-out sessions in small groups of five students at a time and provided 30 minutes of assistance to each group of students. Some of the students to whom she provided the extra assistance spoke English as a second language (ESOL students). The principal at Village Oaks was Dorcas Howard. She has been employed with the School District for 50 years and has been a principal with the School District for over 21 years. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Collier County Education Association and the District School Board of Collier County (Collective Bargaining Agreement) controls the assessment of teachers. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires the evaluation of teachers in the School District based on an evaluation system known as the Collier Teacher Assessment System (CTAS). The CTAS consists of 12 educator accomplished practices (EAPs)—Assessment, Communication, Continuous Improvement, Critical Thinking, Diversity, Ethics, Human Development and Learning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Learning Environments, Planning, Role of the Teacher, and Technology—that are evaluated as Inadequate, Developing, and Professional/Accomplished. Also, the overall evaluation is Meets Expectation or Does Not Meet Expectation. If a professional service contract or continuing contract teacher fails to be rated at the Professional/Accomplished level in three or more EAPs or is rated at the Inadequate level in one EAP, the Collective Bargaining Agreement requires certain procedures and processes to be taken to assist the teacher. At all times material hereto, Ms. Schad was a professional service contract teacher. In order to perform an assessment pursuant to CTAS, one must be trained in CTAS. At all times material hereto, Ms. Howard was trained in CTAS. Ms. Schad’s 2004 Annual Performance Evaluation for the 2003-2004 school year was performed by Ms. Howard. Ms. Schad was rated overall as Meets Expectations, with two EAPs rated as Developing—Knowledge of Subject Matter and Technology. Ms. Schad was considered deficient in the two EAPs. Ms. Schad’s 2005 Annual Performance Evaluation for the 2004-2005 school year was performed by Ms. Howard. Ms. Schad was rated overall as Meets Expectations, with one EAP rated as Developing—Technology. Ms. Schad was considered deficient in the one EAP. Ms. Schad’s 2006 Annual Performance Evaluation for the 2005-2006 school year was performed by Ms. Howard. Ms. Schad was rated overall as Meets Expectations, with no EAPs rated as Inadequate or Developing. Ms. Schad was not considered deficient in any EAP. Ms. Schad’s 2007 Annual Performance Evaluation for the 2006-2007 school year was performed by Ms. Howard. Ms. Schad was rated overall as Meets Expectations, with no EAP rated as Inadequate or Developing. Again, Ms. Schad was not considered deficient in any EAP. On or about May 12, 2008, Ms. Schad received her 2008 Annual Performance Evaluation for the 2007-2008 school year from Ms. Howard. Ms. Schad’s overall rating was Does Not Meet Expectations (unsatisfactory), with four EAPs rated as Developing—Assessment, Communication, Learning Environments, and Planning. Ms. Schad was considered deficient in the four EAPs. As a professional service contract employee, pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, for the 2008-2009 school year, Ms. Schad was required to be assigned to Strand III, which is a probationary 90-calendar-day period to correct the deficiencies. On or about August 11, 2008, Ms. Schad was placed on a Strand III, 90-Day Improvement Plan to address the areas of deficiency. Pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a professional assistance team (PAT) at Village Oaks was organized to assist Ms. Schad to correct the deficiencies. The PAT consisted of Ms. Schad, Ms. Howard, and two teachers—one teacher chosen by Ms. Howard, as a mentor to Ms. Schad, and one teacher chosen by Ms. Schad, as a peer teacher. The PAT met on several occasions. The first meeting was on August 27, 2008. Essentially, the discussion consisted of what was expected of Ms. Schad and what would occur at the end of the probationary period—a recommendation would be submitted to the Superintendent of the School District in 90 days. The expectations were that Ms. Schad would: provide documentation of absence in order to be paid, which should include date, time, and service; attend all planning sessions for third grade to determine the standards, targets and strategies, and activities that were to be taught; give a copy of her plans for next week to the team leader and the principal by 3:00 p.m. each Friday; follow the schedule to pick-up and drop-off students and have materials on hand and ready to begin lessons; meet each third-grade teacher to discuss progress or lack of progress; and work with five students per session and document (weekly/quarterly) their assessment results. Another PAT meeting was held on September 3, 2008. Pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a Professional Assistance Plan (PAP) was developed and was reviewed at the meeting. The PAP contained major areas, with detailed strategies, which were Attendance, Planning, Assessment, Communication, and Role of Teacher; all were reviewed. Additionally, another area contained in the PAP was Observation, in which it was indicated that the Ms. Howard would complete at least four observations with written feedback; this too was reviewed. Implementation of the PAP occurred after the meeting. PAT meetings were subsequently held on September 24, October 15, and October 30, 2008. Other major areas of concern were discussed at the meetings, including Student Participation Progress; and Focus/Follow-Up. At each meeting, the focus of the discussions was on what Ms. Schad was not doing; what she was doing, but not doing correctly; what assistance could and would be provided. As a result of each meeting, assistance was being continuously provided to Ms. Schad by the PAT members to assist her in improving and correcting her deficiencies. At each meeting, Ms. Howard determined that Ms. Schad was not correcting deficiencies even though she (Ms. Schad) was being provided assistance to correct deficiencies. At the meeting held on September 24, 2008, the noted deficiencies included the areas of Planning and Student Participation Progress. At the meeting held on October 14, 2008, the noted deficiencies included the areas of Focus/Follow-Up, Planning, Student Participation Progress, and Assessment. At the meeting held on October 30, 2008, the noted deficiencies included the areas of Focus/Follow-Up, Planning, Student Participation Progress, and Assessment/Differentation. Furthermore, Ms. Howard was conducting observations of Ms. Schad during the Probationary period. The observations revealed continued deficiencies in spite of assistance being provided by the PAT. On or about November 7, 2008, about 64 days from the development and implementation of the PAP, Ms. Schad received a performance evaluation from Ms. Howard. Ms. Schad was rated overall as Does Not Meet Expectations (unsatisfactory), with four EAPs rated as Inadequate—Assessment, Communication, Planning, and Role of the Teacher—and three EAPs rated as Developing—Continuous Improvement, Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Learning Environments. The EAPs were areas of deficiency. The EAPs in which Ms. Howard found Ms. Schad to be deficient in the 2008 Annual Performance Evaluation that were not corrected within the Probationary period were Assessment, Communication, Learning Environments, and Planning—with Assessment, Communication, and Planning rated Inadequate; and Learning Environments rated Developing. Additional EAPs were found to be deficient at the end of the Probationary period, which were Continuous Improvement, Knowledge of Subject Matter, and Role of the Teacher—with Knowledge of Subject Matter and Continuous Improvement rated Developing; and Role of the Teacher rated Inadequate. The School District considered Ms. Schad as not competent to teach in the School District. On or about January 15, 2009, Ms. Schad was terminated from her teaching position with the School District. She has appealed her termination.3 The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Schad failed to meet the minimum standards required by the School District for teachers and was, therefore, not competent to teach according to the standards of the School District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Eric J. Smith, as Commissioner of Education, enter a final order: Finding that Deborah Jane Schad violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2008). Suspending Ms. Schad’s Certificate for six months and placing her on probation for two years under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has cause to terminate Respondent's professional service contract based on his failure to correct his performance deficiencies during his 90-Day Performance Probation. Whether Respondent’s performance was properly evaluated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a classroom teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a classroom teacher since 1993. He taught at Redland Middle School from 1993 to 1996. He taught at South Miami Senior High School from 1996 to 1999. During the times pertinent to this proceeding (the school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001) Respondent taught eighth grade math at Palmetto. Between 1984 and the school year 1999/2000 all teachers employed by Petitioner were evaluated under the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). The United Teachers of Dade (UTD) is the collective bargaining unit representing all classroom teachers employed by Petitioner, including Respondent. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-day performance probation period for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. 1/ Petitioner and the UTD collectively bargained a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the 90-day performance probation. The new evaluation system is known as PACES, an acronym for the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. The MOU amended the collective bargaining agreement between the UTD and Petitioner to authorize the replacement of TADS with PACES. During the 1999/2000 school year, the School Board piloted PACES in selected schools. During the 2000/2001 school year, PACES was utilized throughout the school district. Teacher evaluations at Palmetto were performed pursuant to PACES during the 1999/2000 and the 2000/2001 school years. The evaluations at issue in this proceeding were performed pursuant to PACES. PACES has been approved by the Florida Department of Education. PACES observers must be extensively trained to observe and evaluate teaching performance and student learning. School supervisory personnel perform PACES observations and evaluations. The principal and two assistant principals at Palmetto performed the observations and evaluations at issue in this proceeding. Respondent asserted at the final hearing that certain administrators who participated in observing and evaluating Respondent were insufficiently trained. That assertion is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. PACES was a major district initiative, and both teachers and administrators received extensive training in PACES. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the principal and the assistant principals at Palmetto who observed and evaluated Respondent were appropriately trained in observing and evaluating teachers in accordance with PACES procedures. 2/ Individual schools across the district, including Palmetto, conducted PACES training for teachers. During the 2000/2001 school year each faculty member at Palmetto had a handbook which contained PACES information, including discussion on each domain, the indicators, the PACES website, and training videos on the website. Several faculty meetings were devoted to discussions of PACES. There were mini-workshops within various departments at Palmetto and all-day workshops for teachers were available in the district. The Palmetto assistant principals divided all six domains between themselves and explained and discussed them with the faculty. A projector was used to show the teachers how to get to the PACES website on the computers. There were 300 computers for teacher use at Palmetto by which Petitioner’s website could be accessed. The faculty meetings at Palmetto were mandatory. If a teacher missed any of the meetings, it was the teacher’s responsibility to come to an administrator to find out what was missed. Teachers who missed meetings were given the handouts that had been utilized at the faculty meetings. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew, or should have known, the evaluation criteria of PACES. 3/ Prior to the beginning of the 90-day probation under PACES an appropriately trained administrator must observe the teacher's classroom performance and find that performance to be below articulated standards. This observation is officially referred to as the “initial observation not of record.” Unofficially, this observation is referred to as the “freebie.” The freebie observation triggers the probation process, but it is not used to terminate a teacher’s employment. The same administrator who conducted the freebie observation meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed in approximately one month. The administrator offers a PGT to the teacher, the use of which by the teacher is voluntary at this point. Next is the “first observation of record,” which is unofficially referred to as the "kickoff observation." If this observation is below performance standards, a Conference-for- the-Record (CFR) is held. Next, a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) is first given to the teacher, and the 90-day Performance Probation begins the next day. The Performance Probation lasts 90 days, not counting certain specified weekends and school holidays. There must be two official observations within the 90-day period. A PIP is given after any official observation that is below performance standards. If the second official observation is below performance standards, a confirmatory observation takes place after the end of the 90-day period to determine whether the teacher has corrected the deficiencies. The confirmatory observation must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the probationary period. The evaluator must thereafter forward to the Superintendent a recommendation whether to terminate the teacher's employment. In PACES, there are six domains. Each domain has components and each component has indicators. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for an observation to be rated below performance standards. If a teacher improves in a particular indicator from one observation to the next, but becomes unacceptable in another indicator, the second observation is rated below performance standards. Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s freebie observation on October 24, 2001. The observation did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on October 24, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because he was going over 30 homework problems and simply giving out the answers, not making an effort to know whether the students understood. He did not seek input from the students. The students had no opportunity to participate. There was no interaction between Respondent and the students. There was no introduction to the lesson, thereby failing to establish motivation to learn. Respondent did not tell the students what they should learn from the lesson or why it was important that they understand the material. Respondent failed to provide a logical sequence and pace. He was going much too fast for the students. Respondent only demonstrated one math problem, failing to demonstrate any of the others, although there were six different types of problems for review. Respondent failed to utilize higher order cognition, teaching at only one cognitive level. There was no effort to clarify, using different words or examples. The students were not encouraged to make any association or consider examples from their own experience. The students were not asked questions and were not given an opportunity to answer questions. Respondent did not monitor the engagement or involvement of the students in the learning process. He made no effort to gauge whether the students understood the material. He sought no questions from the students and gave no feedback. Then Respondent sat down for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. He did not walk around to monitor what the students were doing. Most of the students were not doing their work. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher- Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom- based Assessment of Learning. Mr. Cromer met with Respondent on November 1, 2001, and went over each item on the observation and explained why Respondent did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer made suggestions for improvement. He advised Respondent that he would be coming back to do a follow-up observation and that Respondent was entitled to have a PGT. At first Respondent declined the PGT, but the next day, he accepted it. PGTs are for first year teachers and for any teacher on a PIP. PGTs are made up of seasoned teachers who are trained in PACES and give support and assistance to other teachers. Usually the administration chooses one member of the PGT and the teacher chooses the other. In this case, Respondent was permitted to choose both teachers. He chose Vivian Taylor and Maria Mayo. Both teachers gave appropriate assistance to Respondent. Under PACES, the same administrator who conducted the freebie observation must conduct the kickoff observation. On November 26, 2001, Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s kickoff observation. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on November 26, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because many of the students in his class were excluded from the first twenty minutes while Respondent focused exclusively on two students at the board. One student finished her problem very quickly. The other student was completely confused. Respondent did the problem for him but did not make sure the student understood. The rest of the class was ignored during that time. The students were not given any explanations as to what the two students had done. The remainder of the class talked among themselves, looked around the class, and one student was sleeping. There was no introduction to the lesson and no transition into the second portion of the lesson. The students were not engaged in critical analysis or problem solving. Respondent did not develop any associations between the pie graph he was working on and its relationship to percentages and fractions. Respondent did not provide sufficient “wait time” after questions to encourage the students to think about the answers. Instead, the same few students called out answers. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher/Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. On December 5, 2001, Mr. Merker and Mr. Cromer held a CFR with Respondent and Respondent’s union representative to address Respondent’s substandard performance, his Performance Probation, recommendations to improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent’s future employment status with the School Board. Respondent’s input was sought. Those in attendance at the meeting on December 5, 2001, met again the following day. Respondent’s input was again sought. He was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP at that time. The PIP required Respondent to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manuals. Respondent’s Performance Probation began on December 7, 2001. The time frame was established with the help of OPS. Respondent was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed timeframe. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 10, 2002. On January 15, 2002, Mr. Merker conducted an official observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on January 15, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not actively engaged in learning. Only six students out of 27 were involved in the lesson. Many of the students did not have the materials and were not able to follow through with the lesson. Respondent did not monitor what the students were doing. Many students were off-task, inattentive, and bored. Respondent did not re-engage the students. Respondent did not re-direct the off-task behavior, which persisted for the entire period. Learning routines were not apparent. Respondent did not give directions for the lesson. Respondent’s explanations were unclear. No adjustments were made. Respondent did not assess the learning progress during the lesson. Respondent solicited only basic knowledge in his questioning. He did not utilize a range of questions to assess student understanding. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning. Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on January 24, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 22, 2002. On February 27, 2002, Mr. Meneses conducted the second official formal observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Meneses testified as to his observation of Respondent on February 27, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Meneses’ testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not engaged in learning. After wasting 27 minutes copying numbers from the board, only three to four minutes were left for the main part of the lesson. Respondent wasted a lot of time during the lesson going over non-essential information, and the students were only presented with basic knowledge-level tasks. Inaccurate information was given by Respondent and accepted by the students. Students were not given "wait time" after a question to think about the answers. The learners were not given any introduction to the learning outcomes of the lesson. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. Mr. Meneses and Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on March 5, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent’s PIP required him to complete a self- assessment through the PACES website. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was March 22, 2002. Respondent’s Performance Probation ended on March 24, 2002. Respondent completed all of the activities required by all of his PIPs. He never indicated that he had any difficulty understanding them. Because Respondent’s second observation within the Performance Probation was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether or not Respondent had corrected his performance deficiencies. On March 26, 2002, Mr. Merker completed Respondent’s confirmatory observation. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on March 26, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning, because the lesson appeared staged. It was a lesson on fractions that had been presented approximately five weeks earlier. Respondent went full steam ahead regardless of what the students were doing. Respondent had not improved his questioning techniques since Mr. Merker’s prior observation. Mr. Merker notified Respondent on March 26, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and that Mr. Merker was going to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent’s employment be terminated. 4/ Mr. Merker notified the Superintendent of Schools on March 29, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 3, 2002, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that the Superintendent was going to recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract because Respondent had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation. Petitioner established that it met all procedural requirements and time frames set forth by statute, by PACES, and by the MOU. Under the collective bargaining agreement and under PACES, a teacher is entitled to a fair, equitable, and impartial evaluation. Respondent’s evaluations were fair, equitable, and impartial. On April 17, 2002, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Respondent's employment contract subject to his due process rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the termination of Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 17, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2002, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 2002.
The Issue The issues here are as presented through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent. In particular, it is alleged that Respondent falsified applications related to her certification as a teacher in the State of Florida and her employment as a teacher in the Duval County, Florida School System. In particular it is alleged that Respondent falsely answered questions pertaining to her arrest or conviction for a misdemeanor offense in Jacksonville, Florida. For these acts, Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, in that she has obtained her teaching certificate by fraudulent means and been guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school system. Moreover, it is alleged that further fraud was committed related to Rule 6B- 1.06(5)(a)(g) and (h) Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to fraudulent statements or disclosures.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1981, Shirley Lambert made application to be certified as a teacher in the fields of health education and physical education. This certification request was made with a State of Florida, Department of Education Teacher Certification section. A copy of the application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. As part of the application, question V asks, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Lambert responded in the negative. Lambert also signed the application form below that portion of the application related to notarization which states "I understand that Florida Statutes provide revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate is obtained by fraudulent means. (Section 231.28 FS). I certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct." As a result of this application, Respondent was issued a teacher's certificate from the State of Florida, Department of Education in the field of physical education. The date of the issuance was June 25, 1982, for a period ending June 30, 1983. A copy of this certificate is found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. In fact, as was known to the Respondent at the time of making the application for certificate, she had been arrested and charged with petit theft for an offense that occurred on April 11, 1978, the taking of clothing less than $100 in value. The basis of the charge was Section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent pled guilty to this offense and was given a ten day jail sentence which was suspended and probation imposed for a period of six months. The particulars of this disposition may be found in Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 3, which contained records of court related to the offense. On August 10, 1982, Respondent made application for employment with the Duval County School Board, Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This application had a similar question related to prior criminal offenses. The application stated, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Again, the question was answered in the negative although Respondent was aware of the aforementioned criminal violation at the time she answered this questionnaire. The application was signed by Respondent and at the place of signature, Lambert was exposed to the language at the signature line which states "I certify that all information on this application is true and accurate and recognize that it is subject to verification and that my employment and/or continuance thereof is contingent upon its accuracy." Not being mindful of her prior criminal involvement the Duval County School System hired Respondent as a substitute teacher on September 13, 1982. Her criminal record was later disclosed to the administrators within that system and her employment was terminated effective October 12, 1982. Had the administration known of the prior criminal involvement, they would not have hired Lambert in view of the fact that they could be more selective and not choose a person with a prior criminal involvement, given the high number of applicants for jobs within their system. Dalton Epting, Director of Certified personnel of Duval County Public Schools, felt that a prior conviction of a misdemeanor offense of petit larceny would be in violation of standards required of teachers in Duval County. Likewise, the offense of petit larceny would be sufficient grounds to deny certification when requested of the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent testified that in the course of the final hearing and indicated in discussing both applications which are at issue that she read those applications too fast and made a mistake in answering the questions related to her prior criminal involvement. She felt in effect that she had not read the applications carefully. Moreover, in giving her explanation at final hearing, even though she recognized her prior criminal involvement in the way of arrest and the plea of guilty to petit theft, she stated that she did not feel the questions in the applications related to misdemeanors. She was of the opinion that the questions pertained to more serious crimes. Given the plain language of the questions in the application for certification with the State of Florida and the application for a position with the Duval County School Board and the precautionary statements related to accuracy and possible penalties for inaccuracy, Respondent's explanations are not plausible. Respondent's comments do not constitute a reasonable excuse for having falsified her applications for certification and employment.
