Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent held active Teaching Certificate 485203 with certification in Political Science and History. She is a hard worker, who, when orphaned, put herself through school, achieving a Master's Degree in Social Justice from Lewis University. Respondent was employed by Petitioner School Board as a social studies teacher at Miami Central Senior High School for the 1981-82, 1982-83, and 1983- 84 school years. During Respondent's first year with the Dade County school system, 1981-82, she was formally observed by her principal, Mr. Hal Guinyard, and other administrators. Respondent had problems with discipline of tardy students, absenteeism, classroom management and noise level control in the classroom and with devising and carrying through variations of instruction. On Respondent's annual evaluation for 1981-82, Respondent was recommended for employment but was found lacking in the area of classroom management. The specific observations leading up to this evaluation were that: Several students entered and left the room at will, other students remained in the halls during class time, some students in the classroom disturbed others in Respondent's class and even nearby classes with irrelevant and extraneous discussions and excess noise. There was excess noise from the late arrivals and those in the halls, too. The Respondent rolled on copy work from the chalkboard or text book with minimal student conversational feedback. Mr. Guinyard suggested to Respondent that she minimize busy work, create an orderly classroom environment, and explore alternative instructional techniques. On October 26, 1982, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal William Matlack, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of objective analysis. Mr. Matlack rated Respondent as unsatisfactory in the area of techniques of instruction. Excessive time was used by Respondent in preparing her students to take a test. Mr. Matlack prescribed help for Respondent in the area of techniques of instruction by assigning Respondent to observe three effective teachers and list four teacher activities, three student activities, and to analyze the time spent in organizing the class and in instructional activities. He also suggested that she read the TADS chapter on acceptable classroom procedures and teaching techniques and attached 33 pages of reading material to her evaluation, giving suggestions for classroom management, effective planning, techniques of instruction, and techniques of student-teacher relationships. He further advised Respondent of an in-service course in techniques of instruction. While Mr. Matlack did not rate Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management, he found that she still did not control her class for all the reasons previously noted by Mr. Guinyard. Rather than rate her as unacceptable in this area, he directed a memorandum dated October 29, 1982, to Respondent's attention indicating problem areas that could lead to further discipline problems if uncorrected. One of the problems was that Respondent was selling doughnuts for the athletic department between classes, and Mr. Matlack made her aware of the fact that students would be tempted to eat in other teachers' classes and that this was against the school rules. Respondent also was admonished concerning the security danger existing in her leaving money and keys lying about. On February 28, 1983, Respondent was again formally observed in the classroom by Mr. Matlack using the TADS and was found to be deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of the subject matter because the topics were not covered thoroughly and there was too much digression. There were 11 topics discussed and few were related to each other. Some of the areas were irrelevant, e.g., the importance of obtaining a good lawyer if one is going to win a lawsuit, how to obtain a house in Chicago, and the five black Presidents in the United States. Only 6 minutes were spent on how a bill becomes a law. Only 25 minutes were spent on the prescribed curriculum topics of cabinet duties, income tax, social security, Veterans' Administration, Federal Housing Authority, Health and Rehabilitative Services, and the Equal Rights Amendment, and the irrelevant topics already mentioned. Techniques of instruction was rated unacceptable because Respondent presented the material in a lecture form. The assignment on the board was very similar in technique (copy work for listing and defining terms, outlining a chapter) to what was used during the October 1982 observation; content was, however, different. The students were not ready for the assignment. There appeared to be no scope and sequence to the lesson. The lesson was very disjointed. The students were not involved when questions were asked, and their response was minimal. No effort was made to identify those students not participating or off task nor to involve all of them in the lesson. One or two students carried the class. Respondent did not appear to be effectively using the suggestions made by Mr. Matlack during his prior observation. Mr. Matlack explained to Respondent the need to create inspiration, create interesting presentations, move around the classroom utilizing various techniques and media, direct questions for the purpose of involving students, and for motivational use of questions geared toward individual abilities of respective students. He recommended Respondent re-read the TADS booklet that he had prescribed before. Respondent was rated "improved" in keeping grades for a variety of types of assignments in her grade book, but she still was not making informal assessments of her students' learning. Respondent was rated unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because she was not involving the students in instruction. The students appeared to do as they pleased. The classroom still did not present a neat and orderly atmosphere. The students seemed surprised at Respondent's attempt to enforce rules and regulations. This indicated to Mr. Matlack that the control was for his benefit, being implemented only for the instant period of observation. At the conclusion of the 1982-83 school year, Mr. Guinyard recommended Respondent for continued employment, but rated her overall unacceptable. He found her unacceptable for the year in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She would continue on prescription (prescribed remediation efforts). Mr. Guinyard testified that he gave Respondent an extra year on prescription and brought in more help so that she might yet improve. During the 1982-83 school year, Mr. Guinyard recommended that Respondent observe other teachers and that she contact Mr. Hanson for help, which she did. Mr. Hanson is the Social Studies Supervisor for Dade County Schools. Mrs. Felicia Accornero (hereinafter Mrs. Mendez), is Assistant Principal for Curriculum (APC). She is not a trained social studies teacher but is certified to teach biology, chemistry, and gifted children. She is certified to work as an administrator, supervisor, or guidance counselor. Additionally, Mrs. Mendez discussed social studies concepts with other social studies teachers in an effort to be of more assistance to Respondent. On October 18, 1983, Respondent was officially observed in the classroom by Mrs. Mendez. Using the TADS analysis system, Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because there were substantial errors in her presentation: incorrect spellings, incorrectly defined terminology, and unnecessary use of lay terms rather than formal terms. Mrs. Mendez' perception was that neither the students nor she, personally, understood the lesson as represented by Respondent. Mrs. Mendez recommended that Respondent work with her. Mrs. Mendez also prescribed particular pages from the TADS prescription manual, which included a detailed subject matter inventory. This was a checklist so that Respondent could understand the different areas where she could become knowledgeable so that her subject matter would be more accurate and more relevant to the students. Mrs. Mendez discussed subject matter with Respondent and discussed one lesson a week with Respondent prior to its presentation. At this time, Mrs. Mendez also rated Respondent unacceptable in classroom management because there were too many delays in the class due to the same deficiencies observed previously by Messrs. Guinyard and Matlack, specifically repetitive tardies, disruption by tardies noisy off-task irrelevant extraneous discussions among students during teaching, 50% of the time spent in opening and closing class and other non-instructional activities, lack of discipline, disorganized classroom and disorganized lesson presentation by Respondent. The lesson plan which was in Respondent's 1982-83 lesson plan book for October 18, 1983, was not the one which Mrs. Mendez observed in the classroom. She was give a separate lesson plan. Mrs. Mendez prescribed a TADS chapter on structuring classroom time so that the teacher moves from one activity to another without delay. Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent work with both her and the department chairman, Mrs. Consuelo Pino, to improve Respondent's classroom management. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction because Respondent was not following a sequence, was not clarifying directions and explanations when necessary, did not give students background information that was necessary for them to understand the topic, and did not perceive when her students did not understand the lesson. Mrs. Mendez prescribed reading a section from the TADS chapter on sequencing lessons and also prescribed help from herself and Mrs. Pino. Mrs. Mendez worked with Respondent to help her place her lesson plans in an understandable sequence. At least weekly for the next ten weeks, Mrs. Mendez helped Respondent. Mrs. Mendez provided Respondent with a book on questioning techniques, helped Respondent organize her room, showed her how to position her desk so that she would have a better view of the students, explained how a seating chart would help her keep accurate attendance quickly, explained how to utilize student folders so that materials would be easily accessible and so that the classroom and instructional techniques and procedures would accordingly be better organized. The prescription deadline was extended to accommodate Respondent. On November 8, 1983, a conference for the record was held with Mr. Mathew V. Lawrence, Mrs. Mendez, and a field representative of United Teachers of Dade. Mr. Lawrence had been Assistant Principal the first two years Respondent taught at Miami Central Senior High and became Principal there for the 1983-84 school year. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the October 18, 1983 observation and the continuing deficiencies. The prescriptions were discussed. The ramifications of continued deficiency were discussed. Respondent's responsibility for basic skills such as reading and spelling was discussed. Respondent was reminded that she was responsible not only for her subject matter, (history, social studies, political science) but for students' basic skills (reading, writing, spelling, grammar). 24.. On November 12, 1983, Mrs. Mendez again formally observed Respondent in the classroom using the TADS analysis technique. Respondent was aware that she would be observed that day. Respondent showed some improvement over the prior observation in that she presented some accurate information for most of the period; however, Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in preparation and planning because her objective was too simple and she did not list activities and assessment techniques, as required. Thereafter, Mrs. Mendez worked with Respondent on writing lesson plans and helped her write lesson plans. Mrs. Mendez found Respondent unsatisfactory in knowledge of the subject matter because Respondent made inaccurate statements, used incorrect grammar, and gave opinions rather than presenting both sides of an issue to students. Mrs. Pino made the same observation. During some parts of the lesson, it appeared that Respondent did not know what she was talking about. While the students appeared to understand most of the lesson, at times they did not. Mrs. Mendez also concluded that Respondent was not adhering to a structured plan but for this formal observation for the last formal observation Respondent had prepared lesson plans for observation days separate and apart from her normal procedure/plan for non-observation days. To improve Respondent's knowledge of subject matter, Mrs. Mendez recommended that Respondent review and study the textbook chapters prior to teaching the lesson because it did not appear that Respondent was doing this. Mrs. Mendez also gave Respondent the opportunity to prepare lessons and to explain them to Mrs. Mendez ahead of the time Respondent would present the material to the class so that Mrs. Mendez could monitor whether or not the information would be clearly presented to the class. Mrs. Mendez rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction upon much the same grounds as she used to substantiate the unacceptable rating for the categories of preparation and planning and knowledge of the subject matter, all essentially relating back to inadequacy of Respondent's lesson plans, or that the lesson plans were created solely for observation or to satisfy a prescription and were not for actual use. Petitioner's Exhibit 12 does not reflect a specific written prescription in this category, but Mrs. Mendez' oral testimony indicated further emphasis and helpful work on lesson plans was initiated. Respondent was next formally observed by Mr. Matlack on January 19, 1984. Respondent showed improvement this time but Mr. Matlack noted that Respondent needed to record her students' grades in her grade book more promptly as she received them. He also rated her unacceptable in classroom management primarily because of continued disruptions from tardy arrivals. Mr. Matlack directed Respondent to establish rules and regulations for students about coming into the class on time, bringing the needed materials, staying until the period ends, and prohibiting visitors into the classroom. He gave her specific suggestions on how to make these improvements and provided her with a memorandum outlining the deficiencies and prescribed help. Respondent's lesson plan for January 19, 1984, in Respondent's 1983-84 lesson plan book was only partially covered in the period observed that day by Mr. Matlack. On February 8, 1984, Mr. Lawrence rated Respondent unacceptable in classroom management on her midyear annual evaluation for 1983-84. On February 10, 1984, Mr. Lawrence held a second conference for the record with Respondent to discuss her performance assessments to date and his recommendation that she not receive a fourth year of annual contract. He also advised her that if she cleared her deficiencies, he would rescind his recommendation and would recommend a continuing contract. Respondent agreed to a fourth year annual contract. On March 13, 1984, Mr. Lawrence made his first official classroom observation of Respondent according to the TADS and found her to be very deficient. He felt that no teaching and learning were taking place. He observed her to be deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Mrs. Lawrence found Respondent unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because the definitions she gave for vocabulary words were not accurate and not appropriate. The students did not seem to understand the class work. Respondent was not gearing the lesson for all of her students. The lesson plan in Respondent's 1983-84 plan book for March 13, 1984, was not the plan Mr. Lawrence observed being implemented that date. Mr. lawrence prescribed for Respondent to prepare lesson plans for five days that detailed the sequencing of concepts and how each concept would be explained and implemented. Respondent was to include a minimum of five ideas and concepts and give the cognitive levels covered in each area. Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino were recommended as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because students were coming to the room late and being admitted without any evidence they had been detained elsewhere and without reprimand or punishment by Respondent. There was no evidence the students had any knowledge of the correct procedure. Step by step instructions for correcting her classroom management in this area were given to Respondent by Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Tom Shaw later helped her in this area. Mr. Lawrence rated Respondent unacceptable in techniques of instruction because the only two methods she used during the class period were writing definitions for 10 minutes and answering questions from the end of the chapter in the textbook for 45 minutes. The questions at the end of the chapter were unrelated to the vocabulary work. Respondent gave no introduction to the material. There was no evidence of the students understanding the materials, and no opening or closure to the lesson. In order to aid Respondent to improve her techniques of instruction, Mr. Lawrence recommended that Respondent develop a list of at least 10 teaching techniques or suitable teaching methods. He directed her to utilize a minimum of two methods permitting students to actively participate. He directed her to prepare lesson plans for a week that demonstrated these methods and how the students would be involved. He suggested that Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino be used as resources. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques based on four student folders selected at random, each of which contained only five test cares and one or two additional sheets of work. The work in the student folders was not representative of what should have been there so late in the school year and therefore students' work was not accurately documented and could not be properly assessed for grading the child. The help that Mr. Lawrence prescribed for Respondent was to prepare two written assessment items per week for three weeks. Each test was to contain a variety of at least three types of questions. He wanted other corrected items such as homework and class work to be contemporaneously placed in student folders. He assigned Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino to help Respondent. Pursuant to Mr. Lawrence's March 13, 1984 prescription, Mrs. Mendez explained to Respondent in a memorandum what was required in the student folders. Subsequently, when Mrs. Mendez reviewed the student folders, she found a student paper consisting of one incomplete sentence fragment graded "A". The student's grammar was not graded (p 14). This one example was clearly contrary to the criteria established by Mrs. Mendez and contrary to the criteria established by Mrs. Mendez and contrary to the instructions for the assignment outlined by Respondent but it still had been graded "excellent." At hearing, Respondent denied that she gave the paper an "A" and asserted that she would require from this particular student two examples the next day. On April 24, 1984, Respondent was formally observed simultaneously by two administrators (Mrs. Mendez and Paul Hanson) and was found by both administrators to be unsatisfactory in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent had lesson plans and objectives based on the county curriculum, but was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her plans were not effectively implemented. She did not fill the allocated class time although only about 10% of the planned material was covered. One of the nine listed topics was "Communism." Section 233.064, Florida Statutes, spells out the content and mandates 30 hours for curriculum in "Americanism vs. Communism." On eleven different occasions, Mr. Hanson noted students were totally off task, disruptive and loud, and discussing topics that were not relevant to the lesson on Communism. The students were talking in little groups and in Mr. Hanson's opinion nothing academic was learned by the students during the period and consequently the students might thereby fall short of the statutorily required 30 hours. As a means to help Respondent, Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent prepare lesson plans for one week and check with the Assistant Principal who would observe the class to see if the plans were implemented. She recommended that Respondent seek help from both herself and Mrs. Pino. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because the information that she provided concerning Communism was not accurate. There were a number of errors made by Respondent during the course of the lesson. Mr. Hanson prescribed help for Respondent by working with Dan Jones, Social Studies Specialist, during the week of May 11, 1984. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because of the numerous disruptions, extraneous conversations, and constant movement. Student tardiness was noted yet again. Respondent appeared frustrated but was not able to effectively control the situation and did not take any steps to correct or penalize the tardy students. As a means of helping Respondent, Mrs. Mendez suggested that Respondent work with Mr. Shaw who is the assistant principal that generally monitors attendance and discipline problems. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not deliver the instructional program acceptably in many areas. Also, upon the same grounds, Mr. Hanson prescribed help from Mr. Jones on this element. By memorandum dated May 7, 1984, Mr. Lawrence changed his recommendation for extended annual contract to dismissal because Respondent had failed to remediate her deficiencies and she was now more deficient than when he had observed her in March. Pursuant to Mr. Hanson's prescription of April 24, 1984, Mr. Jones worked with Respondent on May 17, 1984. He brought her material to use and discussed a number of areas: lesson planning and format, techniques, the Dade County balanced curriculum objectives, the possibility of his visiting one of her classes to provide feedback to her about her techniques of instruction, a possible policy of limiting hall passes, a technique for engaging students in group activities, and the need for having at least two activities per class. He brought three books for her to use, Ideals and Ideologies, The Russians, and Practical Methods for the Social Studies. He assisted with her lesson planning for the week of May 21-25, 1984. On May 24, 1984, Mr. Lawrence completed the annual evaluation of Respondent, rating her as deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. This constituted three more unacceptable areas than on her midyear evaluation. Mr. Jones returned to help Respondent on June 4, 1984. Based upon his visitation, he wrote several suggestions for Respondent. Subsequently, when Mr. Jones observed the class, Respondent was attempting to implement some of the recommendations he had made but the presentation was not well structured or organized. Approximately fifty percent of the class period was lost in digressions and expounding of Respondent's personal opinions. Mr. Jones testified that it is appropriate for teachers to get students to express their opinions; however, those opinions should be based on knowledge of the course concepts and should come from the students, rather than from the teacher so as to encourage students to think independently, to make rational decisions, and to not merely absorb their teacher's opinion. In time of confusion, Respondent unduly delayed clarification of instructions. Mr. Jones opined that if he had been a student, he would have had to have asked questions also and in his opinion, the students were being deprived of a minimum acceptable level of instruction. On June 7, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by two administrators (Mr. Hanson and Mr. Shaw) using the TADS analysis system. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Respondent's performance had declined since Mr. Hanson's prior observation. She now was rated as having one acceptable category out of six. Mr. Hanson noted that the "students would have been better off to review without teacher's assistance." Respondent gave incorrect information and was very vague. She made several content errors and confused government forms with economic systems, using the terms synonymously. Mr. Hanson, under the impression that Respondent was still being recommended for a fourth year annual contract, recommended that she take course work over the summer in classroom management and subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because again there were at least nine interruptions of the same kinds as previously observed. However, where previously the Respondent had ignored inappropriate behavior, this time she indulged in a disruptive outburst reprimanding one student very loudly. There was a student in the room who had been withdrawn from school two weeks prior and recently readmitted. In returning this student to the office for a status check, Mr. Shaw missed several minutes of Respondent's class and his observation is somewhat impaired by this absence. It is to Respondent's credit that even during this period of suspension, this particular student sneaked into school to attend her class. At no time were more than half of the students observed to be on task. Mr. Shaw recommended that the Respondent work with Mr. Hanson to improve her classroom management. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because there were only passive activities being pursued and there was little feedback from the students. Respondent's technique was ineffective in encouraging class discussion. There was inadequate use of media. Because the lesson was not in proper sequence, it created academic confusion. Again, Mr. Shaw recommended that Respondent seek help from Mr. Hanson. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because of the general lack of respect on the part of the students and because of Respondent's erratic reaction to the student's behavior. The observers prescribed the same help. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no means of assessing whether or not the students were understanding the review process that was taking place. The observers prescribed the same help. In 1983 Respondent was referred to a nine-credit social studies course taught by Mr. Hanson at Nova University as part of the administration's attempts to help her master the subject matter of her course. She cooperated by taking the course but failed it. Complaints of misgraded, missing, and plagiarized papers arose among students in Respondent's classes. Administrators concluded that Respondent lacked an appropriate procedure for receiving, organizing, and monitoring papers for grading purposes. Students and parents complained that no effective teaching was going on and that the disorganization in the classroom even prevented individualized learning. On another occasion, Respondent was informally observed by administrators giving wrong information to students as to the number of municipalities in Dade County. Administrators also observed that her grammar, verb tenses and word choice were not a good example to her students. The undersigned observed this pattern at hearing. At the hearing, Respondent testified to an incorrect number of Florida counties. During her testimony, Respondent used the non-word, "malicy" instead of "malice." She used the word "connotatins" several times in contexts which more properly would have required either the word "confrontations" or "altercations." In no respect was "connotations" an appropriate word selection and Respondent defined the word "connotations" as meaning "disagreements." Respondent contended that her emphasis on rote copying from the board and reading aloud was an appropriate response to large classes the majority of whose members did not possess basic skills. Respondent explained that what her observers perceived as her poor grammar was actually "street talk" she intentionally used to reach culturally deprived students. While these may have been legitimate motivations, they do not excuse Respondent's never having progressed in the use of proper grammar and varied teaching techniques for communication with students when other teachers in the same school were able to do so. Respondent's explanation also does not ring true in light of Respondent's numerous grammatical and content errors during her own testimony. Mrs. Pino, the department head, offered additional help to Respondent during Respondent's three years at Miami Central Senior High School. She discussed classroom management, ways to diversify teaching, and other problems which came up on a daily basis. She discussed parent contacts in order to help with classroom management. She gave Respondent additional copies of some papers that Respondent has lost. She reviewed lesson plans with Respondent many times and on occasion would review a lesson plan with her prior to an administrator's observation. Pursuant to Mrs. Mendez' request, Mrs. Pino observed a whole period in order to help Respondent learn how to make smooth transitions from one classroom activity to another. Respondent testified that she encouraged students to borrow books from her even if it meant looking the other way when she knew they were removing them. Loaning or giving books away might be altruistic upon Respondent's part, and indeed, helpful to students' learning the subject matter or developing a love of history, reading, etc., but Respondent's practice of encouraging the fantasy of theft for learning's sake is hardly in the best interests of the child or the teaching profession. Respondent, a Negro, contended that it was her attempts to instill in her students pride in their Black heritage which resulted in her negative ratings. She based this primarily upon body language of Mr. Matlack she said she observed when she showed him the pamphlet "The Five Negro Presidents" (R-1). She claimed there existed a rehearsed "plot" by all the Petitioner's witnesses on the basis of either her minority heritage views or on the basis of her election as a steward in the union, United Teachers of Dade. This explanation is not credible. While "Black History" may certainly be a valid part or enrichment of a high school social studies curriculum, it cannot legitimately usurp all of the class time properly allotted to prescribed curriculum. Moreover, inaccurate history, even inaccurate Black History, serves no valid purpose. The undersigned finds that it was not this theme on a single occasion which observers were concerned with in rating Respondent, but the inaccuracy and confusion of her presentation of that theme which resulted in her negative rating on the one occasion to which she refers. Also this pamphlet was not used at every observation and cannot be attributed as the incentive for so many negative ratings by so many different observers. It is also noted that Mrs. Mendez and Mrs. Pino are of Hispanic background. Although Respondent has responded to criticism positively, was eager to improve, and cooperated readily in all of her observers' suggestions, she still never achieved the standards of competency required and expected by the Dade County School Board. This is so despite extensive efforts of her colleagues to help Respondent reach acceptable performance standards. Respondent has failed to teach efficiently and faithfully due to her failure to communicate and relate to the children in her classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of face and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-3171 finding Respondent guilty of incompetency, affirming her suspension, dismissing her from her employment with the Dade County School Board, and denying her any claim for back pay. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order in Case No. 84-3171A finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity and revoking her Florida Teacher's Certificate for ten years, subject to reinstatement as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 27th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire The Law Building, Suite 204 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's employment by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Van E. Blanton Elementary School, pursuant to a professional service contract. Van E. Blanton is a typical elementary school within the Miami-Dade County school system, except that it is classified as a "D" school. As in any school, some students engage in disruptive behavior. Respondent holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Florida International University and is certified to teach English as a second language. Pursuant to her certification, she is eligible to teach elementary school students in grades one through six. She has taught for seventeen years. During the 1998-1999 school year Respondent taught third grade. During the 1999-2000 school year she was assigned to teach first grade. Teachers employed by the Miami-Dade County School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (hereinafter "TADS"). TADS was approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (hereinafter "UTD"). The same TADS documents are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers, whether new or veteran. TADS objectively measures 67 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. At all times material hereto, TADS was used to evaluate Respondent's performance. TADS includes in its assessment criteria: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. All teachers are informed of the criteria and procedures. All new teachers receive a copy of "Mini-TADS," a reduced photocopy of the publication entitled "Teacher Assessment and Development System." At the beginning of each school year, school principals are required to review the assessment criteria at faculty meetings. TADS observations and ratings are performed by school principals and assistant principals. TADS observers are trained and certified. The TADS training takes four days and includes the following components: strategies for pre-observation, classroom observation, decision-making with the Classroom Assessment Instrument, post-observation interview, prescription/probation of professionals, recommendations for improvement (prescriptive activities), assisting teachers in the design of instruction and improvement activities, practical activities such as video assessment, and actual classroom teacher assessment under the supervision of a trainer. The observer records deficiencies observed during the observation period and provides a prescription (a plan) for performance improvement. A post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. The teacher has the right to provide a written response, either in the space provided in column 3 of the "Prescription for Performance Improvement" or by separate document that becomes part of the teacher's file. The teacher is required to comply with the activities provided in the prescription plan, which are usually obtained from the "Prescription Manual," and to meet the deadlines set forth in the column designated "Timeline" in the prescription performance improvement plan. As a result of the statutory amendments to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, the School Board and UTD executed a Memorandum of Understanding on December 4, 1997, for the purpose of amending the TADS procedure to comply with the new statutory requirements. Under the amended procedures, a conference for the record initiates a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. Each observation stands on its own, and there must be periodic observations during the performance probation period in which the employee is apprised of his or her progress and is provided assistance through prescription plans. After the performance probation period is concluded, there is a confirmatory observation without a prescription plan. On March 30, 1999, Respondent was formally observed by Principal Edith Hall during math class. She was rated unsatisfactory in Category III, Classroom Management, and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she did not effectively use verbal or non- verbal techniques to redirect off-task learners. Several students misbehaved and violated classroom rules continuously. Respondent did not use techniques effectively to maintain the attention of off-task learners. Clear expectations of student behavior and a systematic approach to proper classroom discipline were not evident. Classroom rules were not referred to, and students who were disruptive were not dealt with quickly and appropriately. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because Respondent did not provide background information and information as to why the topic of surveys was being taught. Respondent started with the wrong textbook and abruptly changed books without explanation and without setting the stage for the lesson. Lesson components were not appropriately sequenced. Activities were not in her lesson plans. Respondent and her students read material together, and students were told to copy a chart. There was no closure to assist the students in understanding the concept of surveys. Little or no instruction or learning took place. During the post-observation conference for the record held April 14, 1999, Respondent was advised that her performance was unacceptable, that starting on that date she was placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation period, and that at the end of her probation period she had to demonstrate that she had corrected the identified deficiencies. This conference took place within 10 calendar days excluding spring recess, which started April 2 and ended April 9, 1999. Principal Hall made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. Respondent provided her written responses in column 3 of the prescription plan, basically explaining her unsuccessful efforts to control students' disruptive behavior. The assistance provided included observing a lesson taught by a fellow teacher and submitting a summary of the verbal and non-verbal discipline techniques used by that teacher to redirect off-task learners. Respondent was also directed to read specific pages from the TADS Prescription Manual, to complete certain activities in that Manual, to develop instructions for proper student behavior, and to submit those activities to the assistant principal for review. Recommended resources, such as administrators and fellow teachers, were also made available to Respondent. Respondent had until May 14, 1999, to complete the prescription activities listed in the April 14 prescription plan. She submitted her completed activities in a timely manner. On May 20, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her science class by Assistant Principal Christina Miracle as a periodic evaluation to apprise Respondent of her progress. Respondent was found unsatisfactory in Category I, Preparation and Planning, Category III, Classroom Management, and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plans failed to state the objectives, activities, homework, or method of monitoring student progress and because she did not fill the allocated time with instruction. Twenty minutes were wasted waiting for a video that was never shown, which video was not reflected in Respondent's lesson plans for that day. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because there was too much time when there was no instruction taking place. Instructional activities did not begin promptly and did not continue until the end of the allocated time period. Approximately half of the students were not engaged in learning activities. Respondent did not effectively use verbal and non-verbal techniques to redirect the off-task behavior. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not follow a sequence of instruction and did not refer to any previous information that students should possess to facilitate learning the lesson. In addition, the lesson components were not appropriately sequenced. First, Respondent stated that they would be learning about animals but when the video was not shown, she proceeded to discuss natural resources. No explanation or connection was made between the two topics. Respondent made no provision for lesson closure. The students told Respondent it was time to go home and started leaving the classroom. During the post-observation conference on May 27, 1999, Miracle made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The assistance included preparing detailed lesson plans identifying objectives, activities, assessment and homework, submitting her lesson plans to the assistant principal on a weekly basis, and observing a fellow teacher to note verbal and non-verbal techniques. The prescription also required Respondent to submit to the assistant principal a classroom management plan to implement in Respondent's classroom. Respondent was also directed to complete several specific activities from the TADS Prescription Manual and to discuss them with the assistant principal. Recommended resources from the administration and the TADS Prescription Manual were also made available to Respondent. Respondent's prescription plan activities were due on September 10, 1999, but she did not submit them. Respondent was given until September 27 to complete those activities, but she again failed to complete them. On September 15, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her language arts class by Principal Hall. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in the categories of Preparation and Planning, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Classroom Management, Techniques of Instruction, and Assessment Techniques. Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in the area of preparation and planning because the content of the lesson and the activities were not related to the objective listed in the lesson plan. Respondent did not follow the lesson plan as written. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she did not present information in a sequentially-logical manner. The information presented was disjointed and in an illogical sequence. Respondent failed to present information at more than one cognitive level. The students were asked to trace and color without any probing or higher-level questioning. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because there were no clear expectations for behavior. Students ignored the classroom rules, and Respondent did not refer to those rules when students misbehaved. She did not deal appropriately with off-task students. Many students talked out of turn, got out of their seats without permission, and talked with classmates during instruction. Respondent failed to engage those students in learning. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in her techniques of instruction because the lesson components were inappropriately sequenced. Respondent began with color words, then discussed time, and then gave directions for heading the paper. She interrupted students by constantly referring to the time remaining to complete the assignment. She did not provide for lesson closure and did not recap any of the activities of the day. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because there was only one grade in her grade book and no evidence of more than one kind of assessment. There was no evidence of a variety of test formats. There were no samples of student work on file. During the post-observation conference on September 21, Principal Hall made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the Prescription Plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The assistance included preparation of detailed lesson plans, with objectives, activities, and student assessment, to be submitted to the assistant principal for review on a weekly basis. Respondent was told to follow her lesson plans for each subject each day, to prepare her classroom activities prior to teaching the lesson, and to review those activities with the assistant principal. Arrangements were made for Respondent to observe fellow teachers. Respondent was to prepare a summary of her observations as to how other teachers encouraged their students to improve their behavior and the strategies those teachers used for verbal interaction. Respondent was to include in that summary the manner in which she could incorporate her observations into her own lessons and discuss her summary with the assistant principal. Respondent was told to use the standard teacher grade book to record student attendance and student assessment and to submit her grade book to the assistant principal on a weekly basis. Respondent refused to sign the Prescription Plan and did not submit any written response. The activities required by the Prescription Plan were due September 24, 1999, but Respondent failed to submit them. She was given until September 27 to do so, but again failed to submit them to the assistant principal as directed by the Prescription Plan. On September 29, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her math class by Principal Hall and was rated unsatisfactory in Classroom Management and Techniques of Instruction. This observation was made within 14 days of the close of Respondent's probationary period and was made for the sole purpose of determining if Respondent's deficiencies had been corrected. This confirmatory observation does not require a prescription plan. On September 30 Respondent was notified that she had failed to submit her prescriptive activities, had failed to meet the Prescription Plan requirements, and had failed to correct her performance deficiencies. On that date Principal Hall forwarded to the Superintendent of Schools her recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated. On October 5 the Superintendent notified Respondent that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated because she had failed to correct her performance deficiencies during her 90 calendar-day performance probationary period. The School Board's contract with UTD provides for a joint labor/management committee commonly known as the TADS monitoring committee. That committee serves as a forum to resolve complaints regarding observation and evaluation issues. Respondent did not register any complaint with the TADS monitoring committee and did not file any grievance under the UTD contract as a result of any dispute or objection concerning the TADS criteria or procedures or her assessments under TADS. On September 28, 1999, Respondent did file a grievance with UTD claiming harassment by Principal Hall. That grievance did not articulate any dispute with the TADS criteria or procedures used to evaluate Respondent. Respondent's complaint of harassment was based solely on frequent classroom visits by her principal. At a meeting held on October 8, 1999, Principal Hall explained that it was her duty to make classroom visits because Van E. Blanton was rated as a "D" school and that she regularly visited every classroom. Respondent's grievance was filed only after the close of her performance probationary period, and the meeting occurred after the Superintendent had recommended to the School Board that Respondent's employment be terminated. The assistance provided to Respondent through her prescriptions was appropriate to remedy her cited deficiencies. Respondent was also provided assistance in the form of workshops, monthly grade-level teacher meetings, in-service workshops and classroom demonstrations. Respondent was observed in two of the workshops eating potato chips and not taking any notes. Despite the assistance given to Respondent, she did not improve sufficiently at any time subsequent to April 14, 1999, to obtain a satisfactory rating under TADS. Respondent could have taken the Summer 1999 In-service Program for elementary teachers, or the Dimensions of Learning Program, or the Substitute Teacher Training: Classroom Management and Effective Teaching Techniques, or any of the workshops offered by the Teacher Education Center but did not do so. Under the UTD contract, teachers cannot be required to attend in-service programs held during the summer recess. Participation by teachers in those programs is voluntary. For whatever reasons, Respondent chose not to participate in order to correct her deficiencies during her performance probationary period. Respondent claims that Principal Hall inappropriately performed one of her observations when testing was scheduled. The alleged testing was a diagnostic survey that is done on an individual basis. Teachers are still required to provide learning activities for the other students while such testing is being performed. Further, Respondent failed to perform that required testing, and other teachers had to test Respondent's students. Respondent also claims that the September 29, 1999, observation was performed during a time when she was not scheduled to teach. However, Respondent's class schedule belies that claim. All TADS requirements were completed, and all TADS procedures were properly executed regarding the formal observations of Respondent and the evaluations of her teaching performance. Further, Respondent was not harassed by Principal Hall regarding the formal observations of Respondent pursuant to TADS requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Respondent's employment and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 5th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Roger Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lisa N. Pearson, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Street Miami, Florida 33129 Ana I. Segura, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues in this matter are as follows: (a) whether Petitioner followed all procedural requirements before deciding to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher; and whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment as a teacher should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact In 1985, Respondent received her Florida Teacher Certification, qualifying her to teach elementary education, Grades 1-6. She continues to hold that certification. Respondent worked as a substitute teacher in Petitioner's elementary, middle, and high schools for 13 years before she was hired as a full-time teacher in 1998. Thereafter, Respondent taught the following classes at the following schools: (a) from 1999–2003, “literacy” and language arts to sixth and seventh graders at Paxon Middle School; from 2003-2004, third graders at John E. Ford Elementary; from 2004-2006, first graders at Lake Lucina Elementary (Lake Lucina); (d) from 2006-2007, first graders at Arlington Heights Elementary (Arlington Heights); and (e) from 2007-2008, fourth graders at Sabal Palm Elementary (Sabal Palm). Throughout her tenure as a full-time teacher, school principals evaluated Respondent's performance on an annual basis. During school years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, Petitioner used the Teacher Assessment System (“TAS”) as the primary method to evaluate Respondent's teaching ability. The TAS measures teaching performance based on nine different “Competencies.” These Competencies, listed in the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 versions of the TAS include the following: (a) Promotes student growth and performance; (b) Evaluates instructional needs of students; (c) Plans and delivers effective instruction; (d) Shows knowledge of subject matter; (e) Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (f) Shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment; (g) Communicates with parents; (h) Pursues professional growth; and (i) Demonstrates professional behaviors. Under the TAS, a school administrator (usually the principal) evaluates teachers based on three scheduled classroom observations. During the observations, the principal uses the Teacher Assessment Instrument (“TAI”) to collect data and identify “indicators” associated with each Competency. In evaluating a teacher’s overall performance, principals may also consider informal, unannounced observations. The Classroom Observation Instrument (“COI”) is an earlier version of the TAI. The COI contains the same Competencies as the TAI, though they appear in different order. The “Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher” is a summative evaluation form used during the final annual evaluation conference. The form reflects the teacher’s final rating as to each Competency and the principal’s overall performance rating for the school year. The TAS procedures provide as follows in pertinent part: TAS Procedures-Principal/Supervisor PLEASE NOTE: One purpose of the TAS is to assist the employee to improve performance. Performance problems are best addressed early. If an informal observation or classroom visit indicates possible performance problems then the principal should immediately arrange to initiate a formal classroom observation using the TAI. Conduct an initial orientation for all instructional employees to be evaluated by the TAS. This should occur during pre- planning and include at minimum, 1) an overview of the forms and procedures, 2) a description of the competencies and their indicators, and 3) your schedule for observation activities. Pre-arrange with the employee at least one instructional session to be formally observed. Conduct a pre-observation conference with the employee. Discuss with the employee information regarding the lesson plan, targeted students and methodology. A pre-observation conference must occur. Conduct the observation using the TAI. All competency indicators that are observed during this observation will be checked on the TAI. Complete the TAI for all competencies/indicators not completed during the classroom observation. After the instrument has been completed, review and rate the data, and prepare the report to share with the employee. Within five (5) working days, schedule and conduct a post-observation conference with the employee to provide feedback. During the post-observation conference, review the TAI with the employee. Identify any problematic areas. At this time, schedule a conference to develop a success plan for employees who potentially may receive an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. This action must take place within two (2) weeks of the post conference but prior to February 1. During this time, a letter of Potential Unsatisfactory Evaluation must be given to the employee. Close the conference by signing all appropriate documents and securing the employee's signature of receipt. Follow the time line provided in the manual to ensure compliance with the reappointment process and to ensure due process for the employee. If a teacher demonstrates deficient performance under any Competency, a "Success Plan" is written in collaboration with the teacher. The Success Plan identifies areas of weakness by Competency, sets out objectives, and provides timelines to meet the objectives. A Success Plan Team includes the teacher, school administrators, colleagues that have expertise in the relevant subject matter, “resource” teachers or “coaches,” and, at times, a teachers’ union representative. According to the TAS, personnel decisions will be appropriate if the timeline and the following steps are followed: Notify the employee in clear and simple written communication(s) regarding your specific performance expectation as identified by the competency indicators on the TAI. Explain to the employee in oral and written detail the deficiency(ies) from the previously stated expectation(s). (Be specific by noting the time factors, place, circumstances, principal observations). Arrange with and/or for the employee to receive appropriate training or other assistance as needed in order to improve the deficiency(ies) noted on the TAS Success Plan. Record in writing any offers of help. Time any communication(s) to the employee so there is sufficient opportunity for the employee to correct deficiencies. The Success Plan Team (including the identified employee) must meet frequently to review the status of the implementation of the plan and the employee’s progress. While teaching first graders at Lake Lucina, Respondent elected to transfer to Arlington Heights in school year 2006-2007. Robert L. Snyder was, and still is, the principal of Arlington Heights. Upon meeting Respondent, Mr. Snyder considered Respondent as a pleasant and likeable person. However, because Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation the prior year, Mr. Snyder arranged for the development of a Success Plan for Respondent. With Respondent's input, the Success Plan Team drafted a Success Plan to be implemented at Arlington Heights. The Success Plan outlined areas of weakness, objectives toward improvement in those areas, and timelines. It was finalized and signed by Ms. Hunt in October 2006. The Success Plan Team included experienced teaching coaches. The coaches modeled instruction in Respondent's class on several occasions. Mr. Snyder conducted three formal observations and observed Respondent’s teaching performance informally on several occasions. During his visits to the classroom, Mr. Snyder would see students doing worksheets amounting to “busy work” which had no apparent connection to instruction or evaluation. Mr. Snyder kept personal notes documenting Respondent's tardiness to school on several occasions. He also noted her tardiness to workshops and in-service programs, including an in-service program focused on a reading assessment system for first graders known as Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). On or about January 30, 2008, Mr. Snyder intended to deliver a letter to Respondent, advising her that she was at risk to receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the year. When he went to Respondent's classroom, Mr. Snyder discovered that Petitioner was absent and had left no plans for the substitute teacher. The school policy required teachers to have three days of substitute plans in case of an unexpected absence. While Mr. Snyder assisted in the development of plans for the substitute teacher, he observed incomplete and blank DRA data collection forms. The forms did not indicate the students' levels of reading ability or the strategies put in place to enhance areas of weakness. Mr. Snyder also observed the teaching assistant doing work which should have been done by Respondent, such as grading papers. When Respondent submitted her lesson plans to Mr. Snyder, he observed that Respondent was not actually teaching the lesson plans to her class. Mr. Snyder also noted a lack of grades in Respondent's grade book. Mr. Snyder brought these concerns to Respondent's attention verbally and in writing. Throughout the school year, Respondent had a full-time paraprofessional/teacher’s assistant (“TA”) in her classroom. Mr. Snyder observed tensions between Respondent and her TA, as well as a second TA. The working relationship between Respondent and her TA deteriorated through the year. On one occasion, Respondent left her class of first graders completely unattended by an adult for twenty minutes. Mr. Snyder knew Respondent was in the office working on the computer when he saw Respondent's unsupervised students. On another occasion, Mr. Snyder saw Respondent who appeared to be videotaping students in a common hallway. The school did not have parental permission to videotape some of the students in another teacher's class. Mr. Snyder retrieved the videotape and discarded it. Respondent did not attend certain conferences with Mr. Snyder (including at least one formal pre-observation conference). Additionally, it was difficult to conduct meetings with the Success Plan Team because Respondent always insisted that an outside union representative instead of the building representative attend the meetings with her. Scheduled meetings with Respondent were delayed or cancelled on a number of occasions because an outside union representative was not available. Mr. Snyder formally observed Respondent and completed TIAs on December 15, 2006, February 6, 2007 and March 14, 2007. Mr. Snyder had a conference with Respondent before and after each formal observation to discuss the TIAs. Respondent signed each TIA. Respondent’s Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher was issued on March 15, 2007. Reflecting the findings on the TIAs, the annual evaluation showed unsatisfactory performance in the following Competencies: Promoting Student Growth and Performance; Planning and Delivering Effective Instruction; and Demonstrates Professional Behaviors. The evaluation also showed a “Needs Improvement” rating in the following Competencies: Evaluates Instructional Needs of Students; Utilizes Appropriate Classroom Management; and Parent Communications. Respondent received and signed the annual evaluation. In school year 2007-2008, Respondent elected to transfer to Sabal Palm. At the new school, Respondent taught reading, writing and science to a fourth-grade class. Respondent's co-teacher, Kim Stancil, taught math and social studies. There were approximately 26 students in the class. The principal at Sabal Palm was, and still is, Mary Mickel. Because Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation the prior year, Ms. Mickel initiated a Success Plan for Respondent. Respondent signed a final copy of the plan on December 11, 2007. The Success Plan outlined areas of weakness, objectives toward improvement in those areas, and timelines. The Success Plan Team consisted of Ms. Mickel, other teachers, a “standards coach," and a “reading coach.” Ms. Stancil retired on October 29, 2007. A new co- teacher, Christie Callison, began teaching in January 2008. Ms. Mickel became concerned when Respondent failed to attend grade-level meetings. After receiving encouragement from Ms. Mickel, Respondent began attending the meetings but did not actively participate. Ms. Mickel had several parents call to complain about how Respondent treated their children or how their children were doing in Respondent's class. Ms. Mickel participated in at least one parent/teacher conference to resolve a parent's concerns. Ms. Mickel visited Respondent's classroom from time to time throughout the school year. Ms. Mickel conducted four formal evaluations of Respondent's performance. The formal observations took place on the following dates: September 13, 2007; November 19, 2007; January 28, 2008; and March 5, 2008. Ms. Mickel provided Respondent with advanced notice of the formal observations. Ms. Mickel had a conference with Ms. Hunt before and after the observations. During the formal observations, Ms. Mickel used the COI instrument to document indicators of performance under the nine Competencies. Respondent does not challenge Ms. Mickel's use of the COIs versus the TIAs. Ms. Mickel observed Respondent using materials and teaching subjects that were not age-appropriate for fourth graders. For instance, Respondent based a lesson on a book typically used with 1st graders. Ms. Mickel discussed this with Respondent and commented on the subject in the COIs. As time passed, Ms. Mickel observed Respondent's continued failure to properly assess student performance and failure to tailor instruction to student needs. Respondent had opportunities to participate in grade- level training on a weekly basis. She was allowed to observe other teachers in her school without having to take personal time. Respondent's coaches came into her class, prepared a lesson plan with her, and modeled the instruction. According to Ms. Callison, Respondent refused to collaborate with planning and instruction. Respondent did not want, give or receive assistance from her co-teacher. Respondent typically did not provide direct instruction to the students. Instead, Respondent gave the students “busy work” via worksheets that had nothing to do with the required curriculum. Respondent openly classified students by ability, using terms such as “middle group” and “low group.” Respondent would then have students grade each others’ papers and report the grades out loud to Respondent in class. Respondent’s Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher was issued on March 14, 2008. Reflecting the findings on the COIs, the annual evaluation showed unsatisfactory performance under the following Competencies: Evaluates Instructional Needs of Students and Plans and Delivers Effective Instruction. Respondent obtained a “Needs Improvement” rating in the following Competencies: Promotes Student Growth and Performance; Communicates with Parents; and Demonstrates Professional Behaviors. Respondent received and signed the annual evaluation. Respondent testified that teaching fourth grade is particularly challenging compared to teaching other grade levels. According to Respondent, fourth-grade is difficult to teach because students must take the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in math, reading and writing. Although Respondent was without a co-teacher for a portion of the 2007-2008 school term, she is certified to teach all fourth-grade subjects. More importantly, Respondent has had experience teaching reading and writing to sixth and seventh- grade students, some of whom were working at the fourth-grade level. Respondent worked with and was evaluated by seven different principals throughout the last eight years of her employment. During those eight years, Respondent's summative evaluations showed her performance as follows: (a) eight consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Parent Communication Competency; (b) five consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Student Growth and Performance Competency; (c) five consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Planning and Delivery of Instruction Competency; (d) four consecutive years with unsatisfactory performance in the Evaluation of Student Needs Competency.
The Issue The central issue in this cause is whether the Respondent, Jose Antonio Blanco, should be placed in the Dade County School Board's opportunity school program due to his alleged disruptive behavior and failure to adjust to the regular school program.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: During the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent attended Palm Springs Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. Respondent (date of birth: 11-13-72) was enrolled in the seventh grade and was administratively assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North on March 9, 1987, due to his alleged disruptive behavior and failure to adjust to the regular school program. Respondent's grades for the 1986-87 school year, the first grading periods, were as follows: COURSE ACADEMIC EFFORT CONDUCT GRADE Mathematics 1st F 3 F 2d F 3 F Physical 1st F 3 F Education 2d F 3 F Industrial 1st F 3 F Arts 2d F 3 F Education Language 1st F 3 F Arts 2d F 3 F Social 1st F 3 F Studies 2d F 3 F Science 1st F 3 F 2d F 3 F SYMBOLS: GRADE "F" UNSATISFACTORY EFFORT "3" INSUFFICIENT CONDUCT "F" UNSATISFACTORY Respondent did not enroll at the opportunity school and did not attend classes. Instead, Respondent's mother enrolled the student in a private school. His conduct has improved but his grades and academic progress are still below level. When a student is disruptive or misbehaves in some manner, a teacher or other staff member at Palm Springs Junior High School may submit a report of the incident to the office. These reports are called Student Case Management Referral forms, and are used to report behavior problems. During the first two grading periods of the 1986-87 school year, Respondent caused 16 Student Case Management Referral Forms to be written regarding his misbehavior. All incidents of his misbehavior were not reported. A synopsis of Respondent's Student Case Management Referral Forms is attached and made a part hereof. Eva Alvarado is a science teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Ms. Alvarado's class, Respondent was persistently disruptive. Respondent refused to do homework and in-class assignments. Respondent was unprepared 90 percent of the time and would disturb the class with loud talking. During lectures Respondent would attempt to talk to other students and ignore Ms. Alvarado's instructions. Ms. Alvarado tried to correct the situation by sending notices to Respondent's parents, but little improvement was made. Valdez Murray is a social studies teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Mrs. Murray's class Respondent was persistently tardy. Respondent refused to complete homework and in-class assignments. Mrs. Murray contacted Respondent's mother, but the student's work and conduct did not improve. Respondent talked in a loud voice to interrupt class. On one occasion, Respondent walked out of the class without permission and on two other occasions Respondent fell asleep at his desk. Respondent made a practice of talking to others who were trying to do their work, and would laugh at Mrs. Murray's efforts to control the situation. Mrs. Murray would instruct the class to ignore Respondent's noise making activities. Mrs. Alicia Robles is an English teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. While in Mrs. Robles' class Respondent refused to perform any work assignments, including in-class oral work. Respondent would instead throw paper darts to the ceiling. Respondent tried to keep other students from working and would interrupt lectures. According to Mrs. Robles, Respondent played with the wires on his braces to create a reason he could be excused from class. Barry Jones is a physical education teacher in whose class Respondent was enrolled. Respondent refused to dress out and participate with the class. Despite Mr. Jones' effort to notify both Respondent and his parents of the problem, no change in conduct or performance was made. Mrs. Blanco acknowledged that her son has a behavior problem, but believes if given another chance his conduct would improve. During the time he has attended private school his conduct has improved tremendously. Although Respondent has not caught up academically, Mrs. Blanco believes he is ready to return to the regular school program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 8th day of October, 1987. SYNOPSIS OF STUDENT CASE MANAGEMENT REFERRAL FORMS DATE INCIDENT DISCIPLINE 10/29/86 disrupting class; parent arguing, talking, conference refusing to work 11/3/86 interrupt class parent refuse to obey conference instruction 11/26/86 tardy, disrupts request be class talking, walking removed changing seats from class- parent contact attempted 12/03/87 tardy, talking to parent contact classmates, showing 3 days out in class in-school suspension 01/13/87 tardy, unprepared 13 days disruptive - noisy, attention defiant parent contact attempted 01/114/87 tardy, refused to additional serve detention detention parent contact 01/15/87 refusal to dress out, 3 days left class area detention without permission 02/014/87 tardy, talks, walks parent contact around disrupting attempted class 02/05/87 refused to do parent contact assignment or test attempted 02/06/87 refused to work, parent contact shouting in class, attempted moving from one seat to another 02/10/87 disrupts class, parent contact running, shouting, unprepared, tardy 02/11/87 tardy, unprepared parent contact for class, failing grades 02/11/87 habitual misbehavior, parent contact lack of respect - refusal to cooperate 02/12/87 refusal to sit in seat; requested threats to other parent to student and teacher get counseling for student 02/25/87 highly disruptive requested during indoor outdoor suspension suspension 02/27/87 disruptive in requested indoor suspension opportunity school APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1453 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted in Findings of Fact paragraphs 1 and 2. Paragraph 2 is accepted in Finding of Fact paragraph 3. The only "D" Respondent received, however, was an exam grade. The grading period was "F." Paragraphs 3 and 4 are accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact paragraph 6. Paragraph 5 is accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact paragraph 9 and the Synopsis attached. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are accepted. See Finding of Fact paragraph 7. Paragraph 8 is accepted. See Finding of Fact paragraph 8. Paragraph 9 is rejected as unnecessary, argumentative. Paragraph 10 is accepted. See Finding of Fact paragraph 5 and the Synopsis. Paragraph 11 is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime Claudio Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 3313 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Board Administration Building 11450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mrs. Bertha Blanco 14535 West 114 Lane Hialeah, Florida 33012 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 11450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of incompetence in teaching, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, or personal conduct that seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the School Board, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(g), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida educator's certificate number 545766, which is valid through June 30, 2015. She is certified in elementary education and English speakers of other languages (ESOL). After graduating from college, Respondent was hired as a permanent teacher in 1984 by the District. Respondent taught middle school until 2003. From October 2003 through June 2006, Respondent transferred to Silver Shores Elementary School (Silver Shores), where she taught third grade and later reading. For each of the school years from 1997-98 through 2006-07, Respondent earned "satisfactory" annual evaluations, which is the highest available rating. But her performance was not entirely satisfactory during the latter part of this period. By memorandum dated October 3, 2003, the Silver Shores principal documented that Respondent had not taught writing daily as required, had not appeared punctually at all school functions and events, and had not conformed to other school or District policies regarding teaching. By memorandum dated March 7, 2006, the Silver Shores principal warned Respondent about her routine tardiness. Although she was required to work from 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Respondent had reported to work from five-to-20 minutes late on 22 days from January 19 through March 7, 2006. Several times, after 7:30 a.m., the principal saw Respondent talking on the cellphone in the parking lot, rather than in her classroom or office. During one discussion about tardiness, Respondent replied to the principal that she was lucky that Respondent was at school at all. Late in the 2005-06 school year, the Silver Shores principal told Respondent that, due to a loss of the reading program, Respondent would be required to teach second grade the following school year. At about the same time, the District informed Respondent's principal that her school was under- enrolled and would have to release a number of teachers in a process known as "surplusing." In this process, if a school finds itself with too many teachers, the principal asks for volunteers to transfer to other schools, and, if an excess remains after these transfers, "surpluses" the excess number of teachers, releasing first the least-senior teachers. When the principal asked if any teachers would accept a transfer, Respondent volunteered. By this means, Respondent found herself teaching at Norcrest at the start of the 2006-07 school year. Respondent's first year at Norcrest was unremarkable. To help Respondent adjust to her new assignment, the Norcrest principal, who evidently was aware of Respondent's problems at Silver Shores, created a class that was unusual in that it did not contain any students with severe behavioral problems, significant reading difficulties, or exceptionally high academic achievement. The principal also assigned to Respondent a reading coach, who helped Respondent set up her classroom, organize her reading groups, and learn how Norcrest teachers were expected to teach reading. The principal assigned another teacher to show Respondent how Norcrest teachers were expected to teach math. Respondent taught at a satisfactory level during the 2006-07 school year. She had some problems with classroom clutter and following the prescribed curriculum, but, at the end of the year, Respondent received a "satisfactory" on her annual evaluation. The period covered by the Administrative Complaint starts with the 2007-08 school year, during which Respondent's performance deteriorated. For this year, the Norcrest principal assigned Respondent the same mix of students that the other second grade teachers received. In late September 2007, the principal complained to Respondent that she was not reading her email twice daily as required, failed to inform the office promptly when two nonrostered students appeared in her classroom on the first day of school, and did not maintain order among her students as they proceeded to their dismissal locations. Respondent countered these relatively minor concerns by asking whether the principal had issued similar directives to other teachers. More serious problems began to emerge the next month. After a walk-through and formal observation on separate days in October, the principal met with Respondent on November 1 and 2, 2007, to discuss numerous issues. As witnessed by the principal, Respondent used a calendar math kit that was incomplete, District narrowcasts of materials that were irrelevant to the curriculum, stale writing center materials, vague speech when talking to the class, procedures that were ineffective at maintaining on-task behavior by the students during instructional time, ineffective techniques to review homework assignments with the class, and obsolete reading data to form tiered reading groups. The principal saw that Respondent had not posted a class schedule, had allowed classroom clutter to impede learning and student access to supportive materials, and was teaching outdated materials instead of District-approved math and reading materials. At this time, the principal learned that Respondent had failed to administer each quarter the required Development Reading Assessment (DRA), failed to maintain effective communications with parents, and reported reading levels with a specificity not supported by available data. Respondent denied many of the principal's findings, but Respondent's denials were implausible. For instance, on October 30, the writing center still featured Christopher Columbus, whose holiday is in early October--even though updated curriculum materials were readily available to Respondent through the lesson plans contained in the Broward Educational Enterprise Portal (BEEP). Claiming that her procedures for reviewing homework were effective, Respondent failed to understand that her general statements--such as "everybody gets that, right?"--may have discouraged students who did not understand the lesson from identifying themselves in front of the entire class. Denying that her class was out of control, Respondent evidently failed to understand that such practices as encouraging unison responses prevented her from identifying which students were not grasping the material and posed risks of off-task behavior. Respondent also complained of inadequate materials or equipment--particularly, that Respondent's computer did not work and her calendar math kit was incomplete. Ungrounded, these complaints also revealed a lack of effort by Respondent. The principal directed the tech specialist to check Respondent's computer, and she found that its energy-saving switch was on, so, when unused for a set period of time, the computer was merely entered a sleep state and required little to restart it. The principal directed another teacher to check Respondent's calendar math kit, and the teacher found that the only component missing was an expendable counting tape that was routinely replaced each year. Even worse, Respondent admitted that she had not administered the DRA in the first quarter of the 2007-08 school year, as required, but instead had reported the DRA scores from the final quarter of the previous year. The current DRA results were required for the organization of reading groups by achievement level. Lacking this data, Respondent admitted that she had organized her reading groups based on the Stanford Achievement Test results from the preceding school year. Persuading no one except perhaps herself, Respondent claimed that obsolete test data supported her current reading groupings, ignoring the fact that very young children often undergo vast changes in reading skills over the summer. Suggestive of another problem with the clutter that Respondent had packed into her classroom, Respondent admitted that, at Halloween, she used seasonally appropriate math materials demonstrating three-digit multiplication problems. The problem was that three-digit multiplication is beyond the grade level that Respondent was teaching, so the students gained no educational value from the materials and were possibly confused by them. Rather than tacitly admit her indolence, when confronted about this incident, Respondent unwisely chose to defend this practice, seemingly unaware of her failure to reinforce the current curriculum by using grade-appropriate materials. By memorandum dated November 5, which documented the discussions between the principal and Respondent arising out of the walk-through and observation, the principal mentioned the assistance that Respondent had received the preceding school year in the form of a reading coach and the help that she had received already in the current school year in the form of a "few weeks" of assistance in "instructional organization, student performance, presentation of subject matter, behavior management, components of the reading block, and physical organization . . . of the learning environment." The November 5 memorandum warns that, if Respondent fails to eliminate these deficiencies, the principal will place her on a PDP. Illustrative of Respondent's lack of response to the November 5 warning is her failure to deal with her cluttered classroom. Photographs of Respondent's classroom on or about November 5 reveal layers of materials, some boxed and some loose, resting upon every horizontal surface formed by carts, bookshelves, filing cabinets and tables. Exacerbating the situation, most of the materials, like the Halloween materials described above, were utterly useless. These materials consisted of folders containing student work back to 1993, books and materials from other schools, middle-school ESOL materials, Spanish materials, materials for kindergarten, newspapers dating back to 1986, and a 1964 book on the use of bulletin boards. The principal ordered Respondent's team leader to help Respondent reorganize her classroom, but Respondent rejected her offers of assistance. After a couple of deadlines for the removal of the clutter had passed, the principal set a final deadline of November 21, after which custodial staff would transfer the materials to Respondent's vehicle for her. On the day that the custodians were to move the materials, Respondent called in sick, so the principal had them move the materials to a storage room. Respondent's team leader witnessed other problems besides a cluttered classroom. Respondent continuously needed help accessing her computer and other everyday teaching aids and did not even keep the classroom calendar on the current month. After observations on November 16 and 20, the principal met with Respondent on November 27 and 29 to discuss a half dozen issues. First and foremost, the principal noted that Respondent had failed to complete a Child Study Team packet, despite several requests to do so by the principal and the guidance counselor. This is a critical requirement that must be completed by the classroom teacher to permit the evaluation of student for exceptional student education (ESE) services to proceed. Displaying the same lack of candor that she had displayed when she reported the previous year's DRA scores in place of the current DRA scores, as discussed above, Respondent claimed that the guidance counselor had never requested the packet. When shown a copy of the request, Respondent quickly changed tactics to say that she had turned it in on time, which is clearly untrue. Notwithstanding the previous directive to use the calendar math kit, Respondent was still failing to use this valuable teaching resource. When confronted with this fact, Respondent again stated that she did not have a complete kit and added that she had seen another teacher's kit, which was neatly organized. The principal went to Respondent's room and examined the kit, parts of which were still wrapped in plastic, meaning that Respondent had not even bothered to open them. The principal explained that the other kit was organized because the teacher had organized it. Displaying a profound lack of teaching competence, Respondent demonstrated confusion between the lesson plans contained in the BEEP and the actual reading curriculum materials, which was the Harcourt Trophies reading series. The principal had to tell Respondent that the Trophies series is the text, and the BEEP lesson plans are the means by which, day to day, Respondent may teach the Trophies series. After this troubling exchange, the principal assigned the reading coach to help Respondent learn how to teach the Trophies series. Although BEEP had been available for elementary school grades for three or four years and Respondent had taught second grade the previous school year, Respondent was unfamiliar with the BEEP lesson plans. The reading coach guided Respondent to the relevant BEEP materials and showed her how to retrieve them from the District online database. Then, for five days, the reading coach taught the Trophies series to Respondent's class to show Respondent the proper way to teach this curriculum using the BEEP lesson plans. After teaching Respondent's class for five days, the reading coach observed Respondent teach the Trophies series for five days. When the reading coach tried to provide Respondent with feedback, Respondent replied that she did not need the reading coach's help. Relations between the two educators became strained, and, when the reading coach tried to help Respondent reorganize her cluttered classroom, Respondent became so loudly oppositional that the principal had to intervene to calm Respondent. Not surprisingly, the reading coach shared the team leader's concerns about Respondent's teaching ability. As the principal had found, the reading coach found Respondent was very difficult to follow during a lesson, and her students often did not understand or were disengaged. Respondent failed to satisfy the needs of second graders for consistency and follow-through. Instead of sticking to a lesson plan, Respondent would futilely try to engage her students with irrelevant stories. When Respondent tried to use BEEP lesson plans, she skipped mandatory elements in the plans, apparently failing to understand herself the relative importance of different parts of the plans. Ultimately, the reading coach justifiably concluded that Respondent's incompetence was depriving her students of an educational environment. By memorandum to Respondent dated December 6, 2007, the principal placed Respondent on a 90-day probationary period. The memorandum advises that, pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, the principal will conduct formal performance evaluations during this period on a specified evaluation form and will prepare and administer a PDP, which will list Respondent's specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, a time period for correction, and suggestions for corrective action. The memorandum states that, within 14 days after the end of the 90 days, the principal will determine whether Respondent has corrected the performance deficiencies and forward a recommendation to the Superintendent, who will notify Respondent within 14 days whether she has corrected the performance deficiencies. The memorandum warns that, if the Superintendent determines that Respondent has failed to correct the performance deficiencies, he will recommend to the School Board that it terminate Respondent's contract. In boldface, the memorandum itemizes three performance deficiencies: lesson presentation, classroom management, and student performance. When the principal tried to assign staff to help Respondent, as required by the PDP, Respondent insisted that the principal find educators not working at Norcrest to provide the required assistance. The PDP process was slowed by the amount of time that it took to find such educators and by Respondent's numerous absences on days scheduled for assistance or PDP-related meetings. By memorandum to Respondent dated February 11, 2008, the principal documented the discussion at a meeting on February 6, which largely covered what, if any, progress was being made in finding persons who could provide assistance to Respondent. By now, Respondent had suggested a young teacher, but she was unwilling to become involved in the PDP process. In the interim, though, Respondent's work was still plagued with problems. For instance, despite the clear emphasis on the importance of conducting timely DRA tests, Respondent had failed to conduct the DRAs that were to have been completed by the end of January and had failed to conduct the Stanford Assessment Test, which also had to be administered. As confirmed by the principal, although Respondent was "improving" in classroom management, she remained "unsatisfactory" in lesson presentation and student performance evaluation. As the end of the 90 days approached, Respondent felt growing stress and began to miss school due to what was eventually diagnosed as neurocardiogenic syncope, which is a form of fainting related to stress. Respondent's use of sick leave was pronounced from March 13 through April 9, 2008. On the days that she was at school, Respondent continued to teach, meet with administrators, and generally fail to perform her basic duties. For example, on March 25, 2008, the guidance counselor met with Respondent and tried, literally for the tenth time, to explain her responsibilities in the preparation of the Child Study Team packet. Failing again, the guidance counselor correctly concluded that Respondent would never produce a satisfactory packet. The principal conducted another observation on March 18, which was followed by a meeting between the principal and Respondent on March 28. The principal noted that Respondent was not using a vocabulary-building program called "Word Wall," even though she had been given a packet of these activities previously. Likewise, the writing center showed no signs of recent use. Respondent failed to follow the BEEP lesson plan that she had adopted for the day. Instead of using the Trophies intervention series for students reading substantially below grade level, Respondent used the Trophies grade-level series without informing the guidance counselor or reading coach. When asked about this practice, Respondent claimed that these students could meet the challenge with extra support. The principal directed Respondent to use the Trophies intervention materials until the students' assessments demonstrated that they could handle the Trophies grade-level materials. On April 9, 2008, the principal issued a formal evaluation assessment to Respondent. Respondent received "satisfactories" in instructional planning, lesson management, communication, behavior management, records management, subject matter knowledge, and other professional competencies. She received "unsatisfactories" in lesson presentation, student performance evaluation, and classroom management. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, a single "unsatisfactory," which is the lowest rating, causes the overall evaluation to be "unsatisfactory." On April 9, Respondent appeared at a scheduled meeting with the principal and several other administrators to discuss her situation. However, as soon as she entered the room and saw the seven or eight persons sitting around the table waiting for her, Respondent felt faint and instead walked outside, where she sat for several minutes until she had recovered sufficiently to drive herself home. On that or the following day, Respondent went on medical leave for the rest of the school year. Although Respondent had met some benchmarks among the three deficient areas listed in the PDP, mainly in classroom management, serious deficiencies remained. Lesson presentation and student performance evaluation remained poor. For instance, at the end of the school year, administrators learned that Respondent had failed to ensure that her students use an important reading diagnostic computer, which customized lessons for each student based on his reading weaknesses. Because Respondent had slowed the PDP process, as described above, the Norcrest principal determined that Respondent had not received all of the assistance that she had been promised in the PDP. The principal therefore elected to place Respondent on another PDP, rather than commence the dismissal process. By memorandum to Respondent dated April 9, 2008, the principal placed Respondent on a second PDP. The second PDP was substantially the same as the first PDP, except that it had a new deadline. After missing the remainder of the 2007-08 school year, Respondent reported for duty at the start of the 2008-09 school year. Evidently due to Respondent's extended absence, by memorandum dated September 3, 2008, the Norcrest principal drafted a third PDP. The third PDP was substantially the same as the first and second PDPs, except that it had a new deadline. The principal and Respondent discussed her 2007-08 evaluation and the proposed third PDP at meetings on September 3, 5, and 12. Respondent disagreed with the third PDP and again refused assistance from any personnel at Norcrest. Agreeing with one of Respondent's objections to the draft PDP, the principal agreed to delete the DRA benchmarks from the third PDP because Respondent had eventually met them the previous school year. On September 12, 2008, the principal revised the draft of the third PDP to incorporate some changes from her discussions with Respondent. As finalized, the third IEP notes, for lesson presentation, that Respondent fails to select and use appropriate instructional techniques, pose clear questions that require students to reflect before responding, and give explicit instructions with confirmation of students' understanding. Among the listed strategies are attending a specific training program (for which a substitute teacher will be provided), collaborating with the team in implementing the Treasures reading series, observing another teacher implementing the Treasures reading series, using appropriate assessments to determine reading groups, posing questions to the class within the curriculum and responding to student responses (for which Respondent will be observed twice so she can obtain feedback on her techniques), and implementing all components of the calendar math kit. For student performance, the PDP states that Respondent fails to monitor student progress in attaining achievement standards and use test data to diagnose student weaknesses. Among the listed strategies are using the Successmaker Enterprise (SME) computer program to assess student achievement, place students in appropriate reading groups, and determine suitable instructional strategies; administering DRAs to place students in appropriate reading groups and determine suitable instructional strategies; and accepting assistance from the reading coach and team leader to ensure the proper use of reading assessments and groupings. For classroom management, the PDP states that Respondent failed to create and maintain an organized and pleasant working environment in the classroom and use appropriate procedures to refer individual students for further assessment or intervention. Among the listed strategies are identifying locations for required visual elements with separate areas for the Word Wall, posted student work, and lesson presentation, preparing a list of needed materials used by other second grade teachers, collaborating with the team to develop a class schedule that incorporates a 90-120 minute reading block and adequate time for other subjects, and reviewing existing Child Study Team packets with the guidance counselor, who will help in their completion by Respondent. Before the Norcrest principal could sign the new PDP, the District directed her to surplus a number of teachers. When the principal asked for volunteers, Respondent said that she would accept a transfer. Due to Respondent's status as a teacher with a PDP, Respondent's voluntary transfer had to be approved by the District, which did so. For the second time in as many years, Respondent surplused herself out of a deteriorating professional situation. Arriving at Lyons Creek, Respondent learned from the principal that she was to teach reading and sixth-grade science. Respondent asked to switch from science to social studies, and, after obtaining the consent of the teacher who had been assigned to teach social studies, the principal reassigned Respondent to teach social science, instead of science. As ordered by the District, the principal discarded the third PDP, so that Respondent could start at Lyons Creek with a clean slate. Respondent's slate did not long remain clean, though. Based on two observations that he performed in October, the principal concluded that this was one of the worst classrooms that he had ever observed. In social studies, Respondent was misinforming the students. In reading, Respondent was not collecting crucial fluency data and, when she collected it, it was unusable. By mid-November, the Lyons Creek principal began preparing a fourth PDP for Respondent. Again, the PDP process was slowed by Respondent's lack of cooperation. Several attempts to schedule meetings were unsuccessful due to Respondent's refusal to accept hand-delivered notices, claims of a lack of notice of previously scheduled meetings, and absences from school due to illness. On January 12, 2009, the principal presented to Respondent her fourth PDP, which addresses the three deficiencies addressed previously: lesson presentation, student performance evaluation, and classroom management. The deadline for elimination of the itemized deficiencies is April 23, 2009. Any protestation to the contrary notwithstanding, it appears from the similarity of the third and fourth PDPs that the principal or his staff consulted the third PDP in the preparation of the fourth PDP; however, the fourth PDP was entirely appropriate in its contents. The deficiencies listed for lesson presentation are the failure to use appropriate instructional techniques, including available materials and technology that support learning of the specific knowledge and skills; ask clear questions that require students to reflect before responding; give brief, explicit directions and check for understanding; and provide timely and specific written or verbal feedback on student work. Strategies include meeting with the department chair regularly to implement the required curriculum on a daily basis and obtain feedback based on the chair's observations; meeting with the New Educator Support System (NESS) coach, who will model appropriate presentation techniques; and collaborating with the reading coach to incorporate vocabulary into the lesson, teach words in context, and use techniques from 9 High Yield Strategies. The deficiencies for student performance evaluation are the failure to monitor student progress in meeting achievement standards and to use test data to diagnose individual student weaknesses and strengths. Strategies include working with the reading coach to understand and use Virtual Counselor; working with the testing coordinator to obtain the students' test scores; under the guidance of the department chair, regularly testing the students; and, in cooperation with the department chair, determining which students need remediation and acceleration. The deficiencies for classroom management are the failure to create and maintain an organized and pleasant working environment in the classroom, to encourage students to participate and contribute to class activities, and to use appropriate procedures to refer individual students for further assessment or intervention by other professionals. Strategies include working with the NESS coach to implement classroom procedures that are conducive to learning, observing other teachers implement effective classroom management practices, and viewing videotapes portraying effective classroom management. At the mid-point of the 90-day period, the principal scheduled a meeting, as is customary. He set it for 10:00 a.m. on February 24 and arranged for coverage of Respondent's classes. Instead of attending the meeting at its scheduled starting time, Respondent spent an hour caucusing with her union representative and a private attorney, trying to decide which of them would represent her. Finally, at 11:00 a.m., Respondent entered the meeting with her union representative. At that time, the principal advised her that, based on his most recent observation on February 19, she was still deficient in lesson presentation, student performance evaluation, and classroom management. Respondent's performance deteriorated after she received the fourth PDP. In January, Respondent failed to enter her students' interim scores. The next month, Respondent failed to record grades for students' reports. For the second term's grades, Respondent had only three or four graded items, and they were all in the same month. For one entire grading period, Respondent administered no quizzes or tests. Respondent could not meet the District deadline for reporting grades without relief from other duties. Before long, Respondent's grades bore no correspondence to student performance. An important reading test, known as the San Diego assessment, requires three administrations to report each student's growth during the year. The Lyons Creek principal described it as an "ordeal" to get Respondent even to administer the test. When she finally entered data, it was unusable. Just as she had done the previous year with the DRA data, Respondent entered the same data for the second and third administrations, making it impossible to determine if a student had grown or was in need of remediation and, if the latter, to identify the specific curriculum that would assist the student. Just as was the case with the reporting of obsolete DRA data, the reporting of the same San Diego data for the second and third assessments also made it less likely for others to notice that Respondent was not performing important job duties. Respondent continued to misinform her class. One day, while the principal was observing her, Respondent told the class that they would have three hours to complete the upcoming FCAT. In fact, they would have only 80 minutes. Within three months of her arrival at Lyons Creek, Respondent and her classes were coming apart. Respondent called a girl in one class a "vicious dog." (The student claimed that Respondent called her a "bitch.") Respondent routinely yelled at the class. The principal was inundated by cascading complaints from parents covering poor teaching, unreliable grading, failure to respond to parent communications, inappropriate comments to students, and classrooms in chaos. The beleaguered team leader implored the principal to assign an administrator to Respondent's parent-teacher conferences due to their explosiveness. On May 5, 2009, the principal prepared a formal evaluation of Respondent. He assigned her "unsatisfactories" in lesson presentation, student performance evaluation, and classroom management and, thus, on overall rating of "unsatisfactory." The principal recommended to the superintendent that Respondent's contract be terminated. Respondent eventually retired in September 2010. After presenting to Respondent the 2008-09 evaluation, the principal relieved her of her teaching duties and assigned a substitute teacher to finish the remaining weeks of school. In preparing to discharge her duties, the substitute teacher found boxes of ungraded papers and assignments.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of incompetence, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and permanently revoking her educator certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 7th day of August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jeffrey S. Sirmons, Esquire Johnson and Sirmons, LLP Suite 309 510 Vonderburg Drive Brandon, Florida 33511 keckler@verizon.net Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. Suite E 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 charles@ctwpalaw.com
Findings Of Fact During the 1988/1989 school year, Shawanna Shaw was a student in the sixth grade at Madison Middle School. During the 1988/1989 school year Respondent was a student in the reading class of Ms. Willson. At the beginning of the school year Respondent's performance and conduct were acceptable. Shortly thereafter, however, Respondent began to demonstrate a severe disinterest in school. She would only complete about 10% of the homework assignments, would come to class without materials and otherwise unprepared, and refused to do work in class. Moreover, Respondent fell into a pattern of disruptive behavior which seriously interfered with the learning activities in the classroom. This behavior included yelling out in class, thereby breaking the silence required in a reading classroom, and showing open disrespect to her teacher by defying her authority and using abusive and foul language towards her. Respondent's behavior in Ms. Willson's class became so disruptive and unproductive that she was relegated to a separate table so as to separate her from other students. During these separations Respondent would sleep and did not benefit from any of the classroom activities. On other occasions, Respondent would defy her teacher's authority by simply leaving the room without permission. Ms. Willson attempted to improve Respondent's conduct in school by different methods, including a conference with the mother. Notwithstanding, there was no positive change in Respondent's behavior. As a result of Respondent's failure to make progress and depriving other students of making progress, she received a grade of "F3F," which constitutes a failing academic and conduct grade and the lowest rating for effort. Respondent was assigned to Ms. Ruddy, one of the school counselors, during the 1988/1989 school year. Because of the frequent conflicts that Respondent had with different teachers and the fact that she was not making progress Ms. Ruddy spent a disproportionate amount of time with her. Efforts by Ms. Ruddy to reactivate Respondent's interest in school were to no avail. Conferences with Respondent and her parents were ineffective. Respondent's skipping of classes became chronic; frequently Ms. Ruddy would find Respondent wandering the halls during normal class times. Further, Respondent frequently tried to engage other students in fighting both during classes and after school, and on one occasion Respondent pushed another student down the stairs. These latter acts can warrant expulsion. Like other schools within the Dade County School District, it is the practice at Madison Middle School for teachers and administrators to document troublesome student behavior. Written reports are made on Student Case Management Referral Forms, which are reserved to document serious behavior problems. Between September 8, 1988, and January 10, 1989, Respondent received eight Referral Forms from her teachers relating to disruptive and otherwise unacceptable conduct. Ms. Ruddy and the assistant principal, Barbara P. Bell, had numerous conferences with Respondent and her mother in an attempt to improve Respondent's behavior. Numerous techniques were considered, and in the process it was determined that the misbehavior of Respondent was not due to any learning disability, but was primarily the result of poor discipline. Madison Middle School is not geared to address the peculiar needs of students nor can it provide individual students with continuous special attention. For example, Ms. Ruddy, as a guidance counselor, has between 550 and 600 students assigned to her for counseling. The number of students assigned to her simply precludes any sort of in-depth, continuous, or special counseling for Respondent. By contrast, in an opportunity school there are far more counselors available to help develop students with individualized and continuous assistance. Moreover, at an opportunity school there is a full-time psychologist on staff, and the student to teacher ratio is less than half of what it is in a regular school program. As such, students can be provided with a much more structured and individualized program at an opportunity school. Both Ms. Ruddy and Ms. Bell are of the opinion that Respondent is simply not making any progress at Madison Middle School, and her disruptive behavior is preventing other students from benefiting from normal classroom activities. The more structured environment of an opportunity school could be of great benefit to Respondent and help her to resolve the discipline problems she is experiencing. Because of Respondent's poor grades, unacceptable conduct, and behavior which deprived other students of a learning experience, a child study team conference between teachers and an administrator was held at which the decision was reached to administratively assign Respondent to an opportunity school. At various times during the 1988/1989 school year Respondent's mother has requested that Respondent be tested for a learning disability and has refused consent for such testing. She has also requested that Respondent be transferred to the Opportunity School voluntarily and has refused to allow Respondent to be so transferred. During the course of the final hearing, Petitioner agreed that Respondent would be psychologically evaluated by Petitioner, resulting from the parent's request that such evaluation be performed. Although Respondent's Stanford Achievement Test scores are low to below average, it is the opinion of the school personnel having repeated contact with Respondent that her disruptive behavior and failure to do her work are not the result of a learning disability since she has been doing her work prior to October of 1988. They believe her conduct to be a result of lack of discipline. It is expected, however, that should the psychological evaluation indicate the possibility of a learning disability, the School Board of Dade County and Respondent's mother would permit and provide the appropriate testing to determine the presence of any learning disability in order to assist Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Shawanna Shaw to the Opportunity School Program at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North until such time as her performance reveals that she can be returned to the regular school program. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Frank A. Howard, Jr., Esquire Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Mrs. Alberta Shaw 2360 N.W. 90th Street Miami, FL 33147
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(c) or (g), Florida Statutes (2010), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the area of elementary education, holding Florida Educator?s Certificate 832516, which expired June 30, 2013. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Duval County School District (DCSD). During the 2009/2010 school year, she taught second grade at Pickett Elementary School (Pickett). Pickett is a “turnaround school,” in which student improvement is crucial. Carolyn Laws was the principal of Pickett from 2007 through 2010, and is currently the principal at Brentwood Elementary School. She has been employed by the Duval County School District for 20 years. Since 2004, she had taken the principals? training course in the use of the Teacher Assessment Tool (TAT) used in Duval County on an annual basis. Ms. Laws has evaluated approximately 50-60 teachers using the TAT. Respondent is among the teachers she evaluated using this method. The TAT contemplates several informal evaluations and at least two formal observations during the school year. The formal observations involve the use of the Teacher Assessment Instrument (TAI). The TAI has a Part A and a Part B. Part A focuses on classroom observation, and Part B focuses on professional development. Part A is then broken down into several categories for observation and evaluation, with specific indicators within each competency. For example, for Competency A (promotes student growth and performance), the indicators listed include: 1) achievement is continuous and appropriate for age, group, subject area and/or student program classification; 2) provides evidence of adequate progress in meeting standards; 3) integrates student performance into lesson plan; 4) uses an objective system of student performance; and 5) shows measurable student gains toward meeting standards. Before the formal evaluation is conducted, the principal and the teacher to be evaluated have a pre-evaluation conference at which they discuss the lesson the teacher intends to present during the observation, and a lesson plan is presented. Thus, the teacher is aware that he or she will be evaluated and when that evaluation will be conducted. On October 13, 2009, Ms. Laws conducted an evaluation of Respondent?s class of 13 students. Respondent had provided a lesson plan in advance. During the evaluation, those areas that were adequately presented were checked on the TAI by the evaluator, and those areas needing improvement were marked with an “n.” Areas that the evaluator did not witness were left blank. Ms. Laws found several areas identified on the TAI to be lacking or in need of improvement. Ms. Laws was concerned that the children in the classroom might not have understood the goals of the lesson, and did not have time to apply the information taught. She was expecting to see a central question, an indication of what was expected, and an anticipated outcome from the lesson. However, Ms. Laws did not witness those things, and the lesson plan provided did not coincide with what was taught that day. Ms. Laws and Ms. Powell met on October 14, 2009, to discuss the observation, and Ms. Laws shared her concerns. Ms. Laws also advised Ms. Powell of the competencies that she needed to make sure she demonstrated in the next observation. A second observation was scheduled for November 16, 2009, a date that Ms. Powell had identified as available. Again, Ms. Laws had several concerns with respect to the observation. For example, there were missing lesson plans, Ms. Powell was not using the required workshop model, the wrong school day was posted on the bulletin board, the lesson included no guided lesson plans, and the lessons schedule needed to be adjusted because the sessions were too long. Ms. Powell also was not using the FAIR (Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading) data to work with her students in appropriate small groups as she should, so that individual student needs were being met, and was not using the Florida Continuous Improvement Model (FCIM), an assessment tool the school uses every 8-10 days to note student progress. Ms. Laws was concerned as to whether the students in Respondent?s class were receiving appropriate instruction. She also was concerned that lesson plans in the month of October were missing. On or about December 2, 2009, Respondent received a written Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Evaluation from Ms. Laws, indicating that she had not demonstrated acceptable performance in the following competencies: B (evaluates instructional needs of students); C (plans and delivers effective instruction); D (shows knowledge of subject matter); E (utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline); and H (pursues professional growth). The notice contained an error, as competency “H” should have been competency “A” (Promotes student growth and performance). Ms. Powell refused to sign the notice, the delivery of which was acknowledged by a union representative. As a result of the notice, Ms. Powell was given a success plan to assist her in improving the competencies that Ms. Laws had identified as deficient. Success plan members who were to assist Ms. Powell were Ms. Laws; Katie Atkins, an instructional coach; Mrs. Senior; Mrs. Howard-Hughes; and Mrs. Curry, the union representative. The majority of the support provided for the support plan came from Ms. Laws and Ms. Atkins. Ms. Powell was given the opportunity to provide input with respect to the success plan. A second Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Evaluation was sent to Ms. Powell on January 8, 2010, and a meeting was held with Ms. Laws, Ms. Powell, and Ms. Powell?s union representative. Ms. Laws sent the second notice because Ms. Powell had been out on sick leave at the end of the semester, and Ms. Laws wanted to make sure she had all of the information that was necessary before beginning the success plan. Ms. Atkins worked extensively with Ms. Powell, observing her in the classroom and providing feedback, as well as modeling lessons for her, and making sure she followed the learning schedule established for her class.1/ According to Ms. Laws, Respondent “worked hard, worked really hard to complete” the success plan; however, completion of the success plan does not necessarily translate to a satisfactory evaluation. The skills developed through the success plan process must transfer to the classroom in order to be effective. In Ms. Powell?s case, those skills did not transfer as hoped. On January 28, 2010, Ms. Laws conducted an informal observation of Ms. Powell in her classroom. During the observation, the mini-lesson reflected in Ms. Powell?s lesson plans was not addressed when she presented the lesson. There was no standard or guided question presented so that the children would understand where the lesson was going or what was expected of them. The lesson plans did not match the learning schedule, the students seemed confused about the assignment, and were not engaged in their work. Ms. Laws discussed the observation with Ms. Powell and gave her some suggestions for improvement. Ms. Powell?s next formal evaluation was conducted on February 5, 2010. Ms. Laws was concerned that the students were revisiting a lesson that had been taught previously, instead of actually presenting a learning experience, especially given that Ms. Powell knew that the formal evaluation would take place that day. Another observation was conducted on February 17, 2010. The lesson was a math lesson addressing use of multiples to reach In Ms. Laws? view, Ms. Powell?s explanation to the children was too long for the lesson. She felt the children needed to have more strategies and did not have clearly identified expectations. She was concerned whether there was any learning taking place in the classroom. A review of the TAI for all of the observations conducted shows that there were several skill areas that were never demonstrated during the observations, despite instructions to improve in these areas or to at least present some aspect of the skill in her teaching. On February 22, 2010, Ms. Laws conducted another formal observation. The concerns expressed were much the same as with previous observations. While Ms. Powell was beginning to use some of the FAIR data, she still needed to meet with her students and make sure they were grouped appropriately. Because she had not already placed her students in appropriate groups, the guided reading was not conducted as it should have been. Ms. Laws conducted another formal observation on February 26, 2010. Again, the lesson taught that day was not reflected in Ms. Powell?s lesson plans. She had grouped her math students and had guided lesson plans provided, so Ms. Laws noted improvement in those areas. One of the things that had been discussed with Ms. Powell was the need to communicate expectations with the students in a student-friendly manner. Instead, Ms. Powell had posted the number of a particular standard on the bulletin board, “MA.2.A.2.1,” instead of a word description of the standard. There was also a wrong answer written on the board that she did not correct. Finally, Ms. Laws conducted another informal evaluation on March 15, 2010. For this observation, Ms. Powell had her standard on the board that indicated what the children were learning. However, her lesson plans were incomplete. The students were supposed to be working with other students on making judgments, and instead, Ms. Powell was telling them what to write down as opposed to having the students come up with their own answers. In addition, the portfolios for the children needed to be organized so that she could keep track of the growth of the children in her classroom. On March 26, 2010, Respondent received her evaluation for the year. She had satisfactory scores for competencies E (utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline); F (shows sensitivity to students by maintaining a positive classroom environment); G (communicates with parents); H (pursues professional growth); and I (demonstrates professional behaviors). She received a “needs improvement” in competencies B (evaluates the instructional needs of students) and D (shows knowledge of subject matter). For competencies A (promotes student growth and performance) and C (plans and delivers effective instruction), she received an unsatisfactory score. Her overall evaluation was rated as unsatisfactory. When a teacher in the DCSD receives an unsatisfactory evaluation, he or she has the option of staying at the current school or moving to a different school within the district for the following year. Ms. Powell opted to transfer to another school. During the 2010/2011 school year, Respondent was assigned to Merrill Road Elementary School (Merrill Road). Jennifer Gray was the principal at Merrill Road. Ms. Gray worked in the DCSD for eight years, and was a teacher or administrator in Kentucky and Nassau County, Florida, for a combination of 13 years prior to her employment in Duval County. Ms. Gray has been trained in using the Duval County Public Schools Teacher Assessment System each year since 2006. She has performed approximately 150 teacher evaluations using the tool. Ms. Gray and Ms. Powell began at Merrill Road the same year. Ms. Powell was assigned to teach first grade. On September 27, 2010, Ms. Gray held a pre-observation conference with Ms. Powell to go over the lesson Ms. Powell would be teaching during her formal evaluation the next day. The following day Ms. Gray observed Respondent in the classroom and took copious notes on what transpired during her time there. During the observation, the lesson taught did not match the lesson plan. In addition, Ms. Powell used a book walk as a teaching tool. During the book walk, she would ask questions such as, “I wonder who the party is for,” and “I wonder who decorated the table.” While according to Ms. Gray, a book walk is a good model to use, Respondent should have let the children question and wonder as opposed to doing it all herself. Ms. Gray also noted some classroom management issues, felt that the expectations for the students were not clearly defined, and that the students were clearly confused about their assignment. As with Ms. Laws, a checkmark on the TAI means the identified indicator was observed. If an indicator is not checked, it indicates that Ms. Gray did not see it during the observation. Ms. Powell?s TAI for September 28, 2010 had only five indicators checked. Ms. Laws met with Ms. Powell after the observation and shared her specific concerns. On October 5, 2010, Ms. Powell received a Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Evaluation. The notice advised Ms. Powell that she needed to show acceptable levels of improvement with respect to the following competencies: A (promotes student growth and performance; B (evaluates instructional needs of students); C (plans and delivers effective instruction); E (utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline); and I (demonstrates professional behaviors). A success plan was developed to help Ms. Powell achieve a satisfactory evaluation. Members of the success team were Cynthia Bartley, Janet Heartsill, Michelle Lenhart, and Ronise Collins, as well as Jennifer Gray. Ms. Powell was able to provide input with respect to the success plan. While the success plan was completed, the competencies were not successfully demonstrated in the classroom. Ms. Powell?s next formal observation was to take place on January 27, 2011. She met with Ms. Gray the day before, and discussed what lesson she was going to present. Ms. Powell filled out a Pre-Observation form that Ms. Gray had devised, identifying the lesson to be taught, and certain features related to the lesson. The form had blanks to be completed for the following information: the date and time of the observation; whether the lesson was a new concept or a review; the standard(s) being taught; the connection; the mini-lesson; the active engagement; and what is being shared. It also identified items that the observed teacher should have available for the principal at the time of the evaluation, such as an assessment notebook, lesson plan book, grade book, three writing portfolios and reading logs/response journals, parent communication logs, student conference logs, and other celebrations the teacher would like to share. Ms. Powell indicated that the lesson would be a review. She did not identify the standard being taught, and indicated that the lesson would be about identifying settings for a story, and seeing how the setting helps the reader better understand the story. Ms. Gray felt there was some misalignment between the lesson plan and the lesson. The essential question, which was written on the board, was, “how does thinking about the most important parts of the story help me to understand and be a better reader?” However, the students spent the majority of the lesson simply identifying the setting and never making the connection to how it makes them better readers. In other words, while the students could identify the setting, Ms. Powell did not help them connect the setting to why the setting is important and how it helps them with their reading. Control in the classroom was not consistent, and because minor behavioral issues were not dealt with effectively, the students got off task and were not able complete their work. For example, 20 minutes into the group work, 10 out of 12 students were off task (either finished, never started, playing with crayons, or just sitting there). In short, the lesson became about identifying a setting rather than learning why knowing the setting helps the reader understand the story. Ms. Gray met with Ms. Powell after the lesson and went over her concerns. She told Ms. Powell that the skills she was learning through the success plan need to translate into the classroom. Another formal evaluation was conducted on March 14, 2011. The lesson to be presented dealt with how the attributes of different items affect mass. During the observation, Ms. Gray saw similar issues as in previous observations, with gaps in learning, disorganized lesson plans, and an incomplete presentation. The lesson presented also was completely off of the district learning schedule, and may not have been appropriate for a first-grade class, which is something Ms. Powell should have known. On March 18, 2011, Ms. Powell received her evaluation for the year. She received a satisfactory score for competencies G (communicates with parents) and H (pursues professional growth); a needs improvement score for competencies D (shows knowledge of subject matter), E (utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques), and F (shows sensitivity to students by maintaining a positive classroom environment); and an unsatisfactory score for competencies A (promotes student growth and performance), B (evaluates the instructional needs of students), and C (plans and delivers effective instruction). The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory. On March 24, 2011, Vicki Reynolds, Chief Human Resources Officer for the DCSD, notified Ms. Powell by certified mail that she was receiving a reprimand as Step II discipline pursuant to the DCSD?s Progressive Discipline Plan. The reprimand was based upon a claim that she threw a chair and verbally threatened a student in her class. Respondent admits receiving the reprimand but denies knocking over the chair in anger. Petitioner presented no evidence with respect to the factual basis for the reprimand. On April 12, 2011, Respondent received a second reprimand and three days? suspension without pay as Step III discipline. The reprimand was based on the belief that Ms. Powell had directed two students to “find Mr. D.” and get her cell phone out of her car, resulting in the students roaming the halls before finding Mr. D., Derick Hampton. The only evidence presented at hearing indicates that at the end of a parent conference, Ms. Powell asked if the parent, Tamika Stanley, would walk the children down to the hallway to the custodian, and give Mr. Hampton Ms. Powell?s keys so that something could be retrieved from her car. Ms. Stanley walked with the children down the hall to Mr. Hampton and gave him the keys. The children wanted to go with him to the car, so she waited for them to return. Once they did, Mr. Hampton returned the keys to Ms. Stanley, and Ms. Stanley returned both the keys and the children to Ms. Powell. It does not appear from the only testimony presented that children were ever allowed to roam the halls and they were not left unescorted. On May 10, 2011, Ed Pratt-Dannals, Superintendent of Schools for the DCSD, notified Respondent that her employment would be terminated effective June 14, 2011, as a result of her unsatisfactory evaluations for the school years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. The letter of termination makes no mention of the two reprimands, but is based only on the two unsatisfactory evaluations. On July 28, 2011, Respondent and the School Board entered into an irrevocable resignation agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(c). It is further recommended that, pursuant to section 1012.796(7)(g), Respondent be prohibited from applying for a new certificate for a period of at least three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2013.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) Whether Petitioner's allegations regarding Respondent schoolteacher's purported performance deficiencies are, in fact, true, thereby justifying Petitioner's placing Respondent on statutory performance probation; (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, then, Whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected the specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes; and (3) Whether Respondent's employment should be continued or terminated.
Findings Of Fact Material Historical Facts At all times material to this case, Respondent Samuel K. Young ("Young") was a teacher in the Palm Beach County School District ("District"). From 1993 until July 2003, when Respondent Palm Beach County School Board ("Board") suspended him without pay, Young taught English at the Alexander W. Dreyfoos, Jr. School of the Arts ("Dreyfoos"), a magnet high school for students interested in an arts-centered education. In August or early September of 2001, shortly after the beginning of the 2001-02 school year, one of the Assistant Principals at Dreyfoos, Tanya Daniel, began routinely to observe Young, on an "informal" basis, while he was teaching his classes. These unscheduled, informal observations were triggered by students' complaints, of which Ms. Daniel, as Young's immediate supervisor, had been the recipient or been made aware. As time passed, the informal observations became increasingly formal. On October 25, 2001, Ms. Daniel conducted a formal evaluation of Young, using the Summative Observation Instrument, which is a tool that was developed for the Florida Department of Education's Florida Performance Measurement System. Another Assistant Principal, Leo Barrett, also started formally observing Young's classes. By early December 2001, Ms. Daniel had come to the conclusion that Young was not performing his teaching responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. Specifically, Ms. Daniel believed that Young was deficient in the areas of classroom management; presentation and organization; planning; student assessment; obedience to policies and procedures; and maintenance of the learning environment. Two points are especially notable about Ms. Daniel's negative assessment of Young. First, she placed considerable reliance on student feedback. Indeed, Ms. Daniel invited and encouraged Young's students to report to her on how he was doing in the classroom. Second, she did not rely upon student performance as measured, in accordance with Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes, by state and/or local assessments. On January 8, 2002, as a result of Ms. Daniel's evaluation, the Principal of Dreyfoos, Ellen Van Arsdale, placed Young on school-level performance probation pursuant to the procedures spelled out in the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS) Evaluation Handbook (the "CTAS"). (Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the District and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association, effective July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2005 (the "Union Contract"), the District is required to conduct formal evaluations of teachers "in keeping with" the 1999 CTAS.) The CTAS provides that a teacher whose performance is found deficient must be afforded at least 30 calendar days to improve his performance to a satisfactory level. During that time, the teacher must be given "school-site assistance" to help him correct the identified performance deficiencies. Accordingly, a 30-day School-Site Assistance Plan was developed for Young and put into effect on January 8, 2002. The school-level performance probation that began in January 2002 constituted a new phase in the evaluation process. The purpose of the first phase, which lasted about three months (from September through December 2001), purportedly was to determine whether Young's performance was satisfactory or not. Thus, the first-phase evaluators should not have assumed at the outset that Young's performance was satisfactory or unsatisfactory. In contrast, during the second phase, the evaluators worked from the initial premise that Young's performance was, in fact, unsatisfactory, in the several areas noted by Ms. Daniel. The focus, therefore, was on whether Young was improving sufficiently to correct deficiencies that were assumed to exist. Throughout the school-level probationary period, a number of evaluators reviewed Young's performance. Ms. Van Arsdale conducted several evaluations, and Mr. Barrett performed at least one. Another was conducted by Dr. Lisa Troute, a Curriculum Specialist with the District. Others, too, were involved. None of the evaluators questioned the conclusion, which was based largely on Ms. Daniel's opinions, that Young's performance actually was deficient. Ms. Daniel did not observe Young's classroom performance during this second phase, evidently in consequence of Young's having voiced some concerns about her impartiality. Ms. Daniel remained an important participant in the process, however, and she continued actively to solicit students' opinions about Young's competence. On February 20, 2002, she interviewed at least three of Young's students, making handwritten notes (which are in evidence) to memorialize their respective assessments. Ms. Daniel asked one student to rate Young's performance on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being "poor" and 10 being "great"; the student gave Young a 3.5. There is no evidence that Ms. Daniel elicited the opinions of a random, representative sample of Young's students——or instead, for example, polled only the known malcontents. There is also no persuasive evidence that Ms. Daniel ever did anything but accept the students' mostly unfavorable opinions uncritically. What the evidence does establish is that Ms. Daniel put great weight on the students' opinions——so much so that the students she spoke with effectively became Young's evaluators themselves. The school-level probationary period was extended well beyond 30 days, and ended up lasting until the end of the 2001- 02 school year. By letter dated May 17, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale informed the Superintendent that Young's performance remained unsatisfactory after 91 days of school-site assistance. Specifically, it was Ms. Van Arsdale's opinion that Young's performance was deficient in the following six areas, each of which is a designated "indicator" of competence under the CTAS: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; Assessment; and Policies/Procedures/Ethics. Ms. Van Arsdale asked the Superintendent to place Young on statutory performance probation for 90 days, pursuant to Sections 231.29 and 231.36, Florida Statutes (2001). The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young during the school-level probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. In fact, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. Nevertheless, the Superintendent acceded to Ms. Van Arsdale's request. By letter dated May 20, 2002, the Superintendent notified Young that he would be placed on performance probation for 90 calendar days. The statutory performance probation——a distinct, third phase of the evaluation process——commenced in August 2002, at the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. On August 22, 2002, Young was given a Professional Development Plan, which called for the provision of assistance, as well as ongoing evaluations, through November 2002, when a final evaluation would be issued passing judgment on whether he had——or had not——corrected the alleged performance deficiencies. The statutory performance probation unfolded largely as had the school-level performance probation. Young was, again, observed and critiqued by a number of evaluators. Of the written evaluations in evidence, the most balanced is a report dated September 22, 2002, which Dr. Troute prepared concerning her observation of Young on September 10, 2002. Based on this contemporaneous report, the undersigned is persuaded that Dr. Trout then believed Young was a "satisfactory" teacher who could, with additional effort, be a "good" teacher. Others were less charitable, however, including Ms. Van Arsdale, who prepared Young's final evaluation based on her November 5, 2002, observation of his class. On the CTAS's evaluation form, Ms. Van Arsdale gave Young a rating of "concern" on five separate "indicators" of competence: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; and Assessment. This resulted in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young while he was on statutory performance probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. Indeed, once again, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. By letter dated November 6, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale notified the Superintendent that, in her opinion, Young had failed to correct performance deficiencies and therefore should be fired. The Superintendent agreed, and by letter dated November 14, 2002, informed Young that he would recommend to the Board that Young's employment be terminated. The Board later accepted the Superintendent's recommendation, and Young was suspended without pay, effective on or about July 16, 2003, pending his discharge. The CTAS A. Teachers who are evaluated under the CTAS are rated on 15 categories of qualities or abilities, which are referred to collectively as "indicators." Each indicator, such as, e.g., Management of Student Conduct, is best understood not as a single ability, but rather as a label for a skill-set, that is, a collection of qualities, abilities, or skills. The indicators are divided into two classes called "performance areas." The performance areas are: "A. Teaching and Learning" and "B. Professional Responsibilities." There are eight indicators under Teaching and Learning and seven under Professional Responsibilities. The CTAS uses a two-point rating scale. The only grades used for scoring a teacher on the 15 indicators are "acceptable" and "concern." The section of the CTAS's evaluation form where the grades are recorded is reproduced below, with the ratings from Ms. Van Arsdale's final evaluation of Young, dated November 6, 2002, added to show how the form is used in practice: A. TEACHING AND LEARNING ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 1. Management of Student Conduct X 2. Human Development and Learning X 3. Presentation of Subject Matter X 4. Communication X 5. Knowledge of Subject Matter X 6. Learning and Environment X 7. Planning X 8. Assessment X B. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 9. Technology X 10. Record Keeping X 11. Continuous Improvement X 12. Working Relationships with Coworkers X 13. Working Relationships with Parents X 14. Policies/Procedures/Ethics X 15. Duties as Assigned by the School Administration X The teacher's overall evaluation rating of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" depends entirely upon the combination of ratings awarded on the 15 indicators. The following combinations require an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory": NUMBER OF CONCERNS SECTION A SECTION B 3 0 2 1 1 3 0 4 As can be seen, the indicators under Section A carry greater relative weight in the overall evaluation than those under Section B. Because Young received five "concerns" on his final evaluation, the CTAS dictated that he be given an overall "unsatisfactory" rating. In rating the various indicators, evaluators are supposed to consider numerous "performance criteria." The CTAS defines the "performance criteria" as "examples of descriptors which define the indicators." To be more precise, the performance criteria are specific behaviors, acts, and practices that the teacher should be performing as an outward manifestation of the teacher's command or mastery of the respective skill-sets known as indicators. Various performance criteria are set out in the CTAS as "bullet points" under each of the indicators. The first bullet point under the first indicator (Management of Student Conduct), for example, is: "[The teacher] specifies and explains rules of conduct and provides for practice of rules when appropriate." For each of the indicators, the CTAS further provides a set of "data collection sources." The CTAS defines the term "data collection sources" as "examples of multiple data sources used to determine a rating of 'acceptable' or 'concern.'" In other words, the data collection sources are lists of "evidence" that can be examined to determine whether, and perhaps how well, the teacher is performing the prescribed performance criteria. For example, the data collection sources for the indicator Planning are: observation reports; lesson plans; conference notes; assessment data; instructional materials; and written reports. B. As we have seen already, the CTAS defines the terms "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory" in a completely objective fashion. It does so by specifying the rating combinations that will result in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." Thus, anyone who knows the number of "concerns" that a teacher has received in Sections A and B can apply the formula and assign the overall grade; this ministerial function requires neither discretion nor judgment. What does demand discretion and judgment is rating the teacher's command or mastery of the respective indicators as either "concern" or "acceptable." This rating function requires that qualitative determinations be made at two distinct levels. First, for every indicator (skill-set), the evaluator must decide how well the teacher is executing each of the several subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors). Then, based on how well the teacher is executing the subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors), the evaluator must render a judgment as to how well the teacher is doing with regard to the indicator (skill-set) that comprises those performance criteria. At both stages of the analysis, to arrive consistently at fair conclusions——that is, to obtain similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time——requires (a) that there be uniform standards to guide evaluators in making the requisite judgment calls and (b) that the same standards always be applied, to all teachers in all evaluations. Thus, it is important to know what standards, if any, the CTAS prescribes. To begin, some negative findings are in order. First, the indicators are not standards upon which to make a judgment. They are, rather, the qualities to be judged, using appropriate standards of decision. Second, the performance criteria are likewise not standards. They define or prescribe the relevant facts to which, jointly and severally, standards should be applied, so as to make a judgment regarding one indicator or another.1 To illustrate, the fact that a teacher is observed "reinforc[ing] appropriate social behavior" tells us nothing about how well he does this, much less about how well he has mastered Management of Student Conduct, which indicator comprises the referenced performance criterion. Rather, to make a qualitative judgment regarding the teacher's performance of this practice requires some test, some basis, for distinguishing between good and bad performances. Similarly, the ultimate fact that the teacher acceptably "reinforces appropriate social behavior" tells us relatively little, presumably, about whether the teacher's mastery of the indicator Management of Student Conduct is acceptable or not, for there are eleven other performance criteria to be considered also in respect of this particular indicator. To make a qualitative judgment regarding whether the teacher has demonstrated an acceptable command of the skill-set known as Management of Student Conduct requires some sort of standard, some yardstick for measuring the relative importance of the teacher's demonstrated expertise (or lack thereof)——as determined by the evaluator——in the execution of the various performance criteria. The only "standards" that the evidence in this case persuasively establishes are the terms "acceptable" and "concern." Superficially, these terms seem to possess some degree of objective content. On reflection, however, it should be seen that they do not, a point which will be examined in greater detail below. The undersigned, moreover, has searched the CTAS and the record in vain for an adequate definition of these terms. As far as the proof in this case goes, these terms are criteria without content, and as such can be used as cover for almost any decision an evaluator might want to make. C. It is desirable at this point to elaborate on why the terms "concern" and "acceptable," by themselves, are not standards that evaluators (or administrative law judges or courts) can consistently and fairly apply to teachers across- the-board. As a starting point, envisage a spectrum comprising every conceivable level or degree of teacher talent, ranging from, in the abstract, "worst imaginable" (or "perfectly awful") to "best imaginable" (or "perfectly excellent"). It makes no difference, for present purposes, how exactly "worst" and "best" might be defined. Rather, it is sufficient to say of the "worst" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be worse." Conversely, it need only be said of the "best" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be better." As should be obvious, these "worst" and "best" teachers are constructs that serve to define the terminal points at either end of the "talent-level spectrum" we are calling to mind. This talent-level spectrum can be depicted with a simple drawing, as follows: Worst ? ? Best It can now be observed that all teachers, everywhere, must fall somewhere on this talent-level spectrum, between the two poles as we have defined them. Of course, the precise point at which any given teacher should be placed on the spectrum, at any given time,2 is a matter about which reasonable people, in every instance, could disagree. But that is presently of no consequence. Turning next to the facts of this case, the question is posed: Where, on this spectrum of talent, should the mark separating "concern" from "acceptable" be placed? Given their ordinary meanings, the words themselves provide no guidance in this regard. Either of the following, for example, is consistent with the plain meaning of "concern" and "acceptable": Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable It does not matter how the mark-point in either example might be defined. What matters is the relationship between the mark and the respective poles. As the mark moves closer to the "worst" terminal, the "concern" band becomes narrower, leaving more teachers on the "acceptable" side. Conversely, moving the mark towards the "best" terminal narrows the "acceptable" band, consigning more teachers to the "concern" category. In the instant case, there is no persuasive evidence on which the undersigned can base a finding as to where the mark should be placed. As a result, the undersigned cannot make de novo findings regarding whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged. To do that, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Young. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence in this case as to where the several evaluators placed the mark when they assessed Young's performance.3 The undersigned therefore cannot find that the evaluators all used the same standards——cannot even infer that they did. Consequently, assuming it were proper to do so, the undersigned could not review whether the evaluators acted fairly and appropriately vis-à-vis Young or whether they reached a "correct" (i.e. legally sustainable) judgment regarding his teaching performance.4 Student Performance The 1999 CTAS that was used in evaluating Young had been developed in 1998 and approved by then-Commissioner Tom Gallagher in January 1999. By letter dated January 25, 1999, Commissioner Gallagher informed the District that its CTAS had received "Full Approval." The Commissioner further instructed the District: [I]t will not be necessary for you to resubmit the [CTAS] unless there are statutory changes which affect the requirements for district instructional performance appraisal systems or unless you substantively revise your system for other reasons. In the very next legislative session following this letter, the legislature substantially amended the statute governing the procedures and criteria for the assessment of instructional personnel, which at the time was Section 231.29, Florida Statutes (1999).5 See Ch. 99-398, § 57, Laws of Florida. These statutory changes, which will be examined more closely in the Conclusions of Law below, took effect on June 21, 1999. Id. at § 78. The thrust of the relevant amendment was to require that, in evaluating teacher performance, primary emphasis be placed on student performance, as measured by "state assessments" and "local assessments." These latter two terms were defined, at the time, in Section 229.57, Florida Statutes (2000). Section 229.57 was subsequently transferred to Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes (2003). The District never amended the CTAS to reflect the statutory changes. Not surprisingly, therefore, the CTAS puts little or no particular emphasis on student performance6 and makes no specific references (that the undersigned can locate) to state and local assessments within the statute's contemplation.7 Consequently, as was mentioned several times above, none of the assessment procedures used during Young's protracted evaluation was primarily based on student performance as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statues (2003). Equally if not more important, however, is the lack of persuasive (indeed any) evidence in the record regarding the performance of Young's students as measured by state and/or local assessments. Because of this, it is impossible for the undersigned to make de novo findings based primarily on student performance as to either (a) whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or (b) whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Young of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Young be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Young back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 17th day of March, 2004.
The Issue Respondent is charged in a five-count Administrative Complaint with violations of Subsection 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes (gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude); Subsection 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes (personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board); Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes (violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as prescribed by the State Board of Education); Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code (failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical safety), and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code (intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement).
Findings Of Fact Respondent has continuously held Florida Educator's Certificate 734274, covering the area of English, since 1996. It is valid through June 30, 2006. Respondent was first employed by the Holmes County School District in November 2000 and served as a language arts teacher for seventh and eighth grades at Poplar Springs School for the remainder of the 2000-2001 School Year. During the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent disciplined students in her seventh and eighth grade language arts (English) classes as more specifically described below. All instances of Respondent's discipline were employed in response to male students talking inappropriately or "cutting up" in her classroom so as to detract from the educational process. On one occasion, Respondent placed two pieces of masking tape over the mouth of student C.R. because he was talking in class. C.R. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period (approximately fifteen to twenty minutes). A science teacher saw C.R. in the hall, en route to his next class, and told him to take the tape off his mouth. Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student J.F. when he laughed out loud after being warned not to continue talking in class. J.F. had the tape over his mouth for approximately twenty minutes, until the bell rang to go to his next class. Respondent directed student T.J. to place tape on his own mouth after he had talked in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or for approximately fifteen minutes. Respondent placed tape over the mouth of student W.W. because he was talking in class. W.W. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period, which ended approximately thirty minutes later. W.W. experienced difficulty breathing with the tape over his mouth, because he had a cold at the time and was having trouble breathing through his nose. Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student C.B. for talking in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or approximately thirty minutes. All of the foregoing five students admitted that Respondent had warned them at least once not to continue talking, before she resorted to taping their mouths, but each of these students also was embarrassed as a result of sitting through the remainder of the class, surrounded by other students, while their mouths were taped. Also during the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent required student C.R. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of three or four heavy dictionaries for approximately fifteen minutes. This method of punishment caused C.R. to experience physical distress in his back. Respondent also required student J.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of seven or eight heavy dictionaries, stacked to his chin, for approximately twenty minutes. This method of punishment caused J.C. to experience physical distress. His knees were buckling, and he was slumping against the wall. Respondent initially required student L.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of twelve dictionaries. However, because the books were stacked almost two feet higher than L.C.'s head, Respondent removed four of them from his arms. L.C. was then required to hold the remaining eight dictionaries for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Respondent also required student J.H. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries stacked up to his eyes, for approximately twenty minutes. Respondent required student E.M., who had talked out of turn early in the class period, to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. At one point during this ordeal, Respondent came out of the classroom and felt E.M.'s forehead to see if he were sweating. When she found that he was not sweating, she returned to her classroom, leaving E.M. outside, still holding the dictionaries. Most students who testified indicated they were disciplined toward the end of a class period, and accordingly, their discipline was automatically ended by the change of classes' bell. However, the foregoing incident, when E.M. was disciplined with books, suggests that Respondent's theory concerning that type of discipline was that once a misbehaving student began to sweat, he had experienced enough punishment. A teacher saw E.M. in the hallway and went to fetch the Principal, Jerry Dixon. Mr. Dixon observed E.M. to be "in a strain," tired, and drooping. When Mr. Dixon discovered what was going on, he told E.M. to go back into Respondent's classroom and take the books with him. Each of the five students disciplined with books was embarrassed by the process, and the posture of holding the dictionaries caused most of them discomfort. After the incident with E.M., Mr. Dixon counseled with Respondent. He advised her that disciplining students as E.M. had been disciplined with the dictionaries was unacceptable and that if she felt future situations were bad enough to warrant punishment, she should send the misbehaving child to his office for him to administer appropriate discipline. In early April 2001, Respondent approached student T.W. at his desk, got down "in his face," and told him that if he did not behave, she would paddle him as hard as she had paddled student C.R., and that was "pretty damn hard." C.R. testified that Respondent had, in fact, actually paddled him, but apparently he was not intimidated or concerned over the paddling. Also, T.W. was not intimidated by Respondent's threat, because he smiled and laughed. However, T.W. was so concerned about Respondent's use of profanity that he approached Principal Dixon in the cafeteria that day and asked the principal if it were "right" for a teacher to curse at a student. Subsequently, in the principal's office, T.W. explained to Mr. Dixon the situation concerning Respondent's use of profanity. Principal Dixon also then learned for the first time that Respondent had been taping her students' mouths as a form of discipline. Mr. Dixon investigated further by talking with other students who verified all or some of T.W.'s account. Mr. Dixon testified that he also believed the incident of Respondent disciplining J.C. with dictionaries in the hallway (see Finding of Fact 11) had occurred after he had told Respondent not to use that procedure. On April 5, 2001, Mr. Dixon met with Respondent to discuss the allegations. In their meeting, Respondent admitted placing tape over students' mouths. She also admitted cursing at T.W. She told Mr. Dixon she had been mad and upset at the time. On April 10, 2001, Mr. Dixon issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for her conduct. In this letter he reminded her that he had, at the time of E.M.'s discipline, told her she was supposed to send students to the office for discipline, not undertake it herself. On June 6, 2001, Mr. Dixon notified Respondent that he would not recommend her reappointment for the 2001-2002 School Year. His decision to not recommend Respondent's appointment was based, at least in part, upon Respondent's admitted inappropriate discipline and use of profanity. There is no evidence Respondent's disciplinary method of causing students to hold heavy books while excluded from the classroom learning environment was effective in improving their behavior in the classroom. There is no evidence this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, Principal Dixon, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, it was not sanctioned, and it is certain that the boys being disciplined were not being taught any curriculum while they were in the hallway. There is no evidence Respondent's method of taping her students' mouths shut and deliberately embarrassing them in the classroom before their peers was effective in teaching them to be quiet in class. There also is no evidence that this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, the principal, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, the evidence is contrary. The disciplinary methods employed by Respondent were not approved or condoned by the Holmes County School Board or by the Poplar Springs School Administration. Her methods were inappropriate. Her inappropriate discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students exposed them to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement at a time in their development when they were particularly emotionally vulnerable. Her methods of discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Holmes County School Board. Respondent failed to take reasonable efforts to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental health and/or physical safety by employing these inappropriate methods of discipline.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order which: Finds Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 231.2615(1)(f)and (i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code; Suspends Respondent's Educator's Certificate for a period of one year; Requires that, as a condition precedent to Respondent's re-employment as an educator in Florida following the suspension, Respondent submit to a psychological evaluation by a qualified provider as required by the Recovery Network Program; Requires that Respondent follow the recommended course of treatment, if any, resulting from her evaluation and that she provide written verification to the Department of her successful completion of the evaluation and/or treatment; and Provides that if Respondent is reemployed as an educator in Florida, she be placed on three years' probation, upon such terms as the Education Practices Commission deems appropriate, including but not limited to successful completion of a college level course in the area of classroom management. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Crawford Post Office Box 573 Ashford, Alabama 36312-0573 J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies, thereby justifying termination of her employment as a teacher pursuant to section 1012.34; and (2) whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, 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 the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School District pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been a teacher for approximately 14 years. She began teaching full-time at Gulfstream in the 2004- 2005 school year. During her years at Gulfstream, she taught fifth, third, and second grades, and in the 2010-2011 school year she was a co-teacher assigned to assist other teachers in instructing their students. In the 2011-2012 school year, and in the 2012-2013 school year until she was suspended pending the outcome of this proceeding, Respondent was a first grade teacher at Gulfstream. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was governed by Florida law, Petitioner's policies and procedures, and the collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade. The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Section 1012.34(3), Florida Statutes, mandates that instructional personnel, including classroom teachers, be evaluated for performance at least once a year. Pursuant to section 1012.34(3), the performance evaluation consists of two components: a student performance component and an instructional practice component. The former is based on student scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"), or, for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT, on school district assessments as provided in section 1008.22(8). The latter is based on instructional performance indicators that are evaluated based in part on classroom teaching observations. 2011-2012 School Year March 27, 2012 Evaluation In the 2011-2012 school year, approximately 17 students were assigned to Respondent's first grade class. Pursuant to section 1012.34(3)(a)2., in connection with Respondent's annual evaluation, Gulfstream Principal Concepcion Santana conducted a formal observation of Respondent's instructional practices in her classroom on March 27, 2012, as she taught reading/language arts. She observed Respondent for 40 minutes. In evaluating Respondent, Santana followed the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System ("IPEGS"), the system used throughout the Miami-Dade County Public School District to evaluate instructional personnel. IPEGS consists of eight performance standards that constitute the minimum standards a teacher must meet in classroom instruction. These standards are based on the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices adopted by the State Board of Education, as required by section 1012.34(3)(a)2. Four of the IPEGS performance standards are observable during the classroom instruction portion of the evaluation. The other four are "not observable," meaning that they target performance standards that may not necessarily be observed at the time of the classroom instruction performance evaluation.1/ Santana found that Respondent's instructional practices were deficient with respect to the four observable performance standards ("PS"): Knowledge of Learners (PS 2), Instructional Planning (PS 3), Instructional Delivery and Engagement (PS 4), and Learning Environment (PS 8). PS 2 requires the teacher to identify and address the needs of learners by demonstrating respect for individual differences, cultures, backgrounds, and learning styles. Santana observed that Respondent failed to meet PS 2. Specifically, Respondent did not tailor her teaching to address the various learning styles and levels of the students in her classroom; rather, she presented the lesson in a manner that addressed only one learning level, so that some of the students were not learning. PS 3 requires the teacher to use appropriate curricula, instructional strategies, and resources to develop lesson plans that include goals and/or objectives, learning activities, assessment of student learning, and home learning in order to address the diverse needs of students. Respondent failed to meet PS 3. The activities she conducted did not directly conform to her written lesson plan. Specifically, the students were reading a story that was not identified on the lesson plan, and completing workbook pages that were not identified in the lesson plan while skipping others that were identified in the plan. As a result, the focus and purpose of the lesson being taught was not addressed in the lesson plan. Additionally, the lesson plan did not incorporate multiple instructional strategies to meet the learning needs of all of the students. Respondent failed to use a variety of resources and questioning techniques to cater to the range of learning styles and levels of her students and encourage higher level thinking; rather, the instruction presented that day catered to rote learning. PS 4 requires the teacher to promote learning by demonstrating accurate content knowledge and by addressing academic needs through a variety of appropriate instructional strategies and technologies that engage learners. Respondent also failed to meet PS 4. She did not deliver the instruction at a pace appropriate to engage all students. Additionally, her instructional delivery failed to incorporate a range of strategies so that again, not all students were engaged in the lesson. As a result, many students were off-task, and frequent interruptions distracted students who otherwise were on-task. PS 8 requires the teacher to create and maintain a safe learning environment while encouraging fairness, respect, and enthusiasm. Respondent failed to meet PS 8. Santana noted that there appeared to be little evidence of specified classroom procedures that the students understood and followed, so as to create an environment conducive to learning. As a result, students were up out of their seats, asking to go to the restroom, and fiddling with their papers and pencils. Following the observation, Santana documented her observations on a form titled "IPEGS Observation Standards Form- Teacher" ("IPEGS Form"). In compliance with section 1012.34(3)(c), Santana notified Respondent in writing of a scheduled support dialogue meeting. The purpose of the support dialogue meeting was to provide feedback regarding the classroom observation and to discuss strategies and supportive actions that could be provided to Respondent to assist her in remediating her deficiencies and improving her instructional performance. Santana's support dialogue meeting with Respondent took place on March 29, 2012. Present at the meeting, in addition to Santana and Respondent were a UTD representative; a reading coach, Mariela Rapp; and an assistant principal. Santana provided the completed IPEGS form for the March 27 classroom observation to Respondent and discussed with her the observed deficiencies, including instructional strategies that she could have incorporated into the lesson to make it more effective. Rapp and another reading coach, Lynn Carrier, were assigned to provide support to Respondent, and strategies to assist her were devised. Respondent was informed that she had 21 days in which to implement the actions prescribed in the support dialogue meeting, and that at the end of that period, Santana would conduct another classroom observation. April 25, 2012 Evaluation Santana conducted another formal classroom observation of Respondent's teaching on April 25, 2012. This time, she observed Respondent for the entire reading/language arts instructional block lasting two hours. Respondent did not meet PS 2. Again, she did not incorporate instructional strategies to cater to the learning styles and levels of all students in her class. Santana noted that Respondent's instructional performance on this standard was very similar to that she had observed on March 27, 2012. Respondent also failed to meet PS 3. Specifically, she did not incorporate a variety of instructional strategies in her lesson plans to meet the varied needs of the students in the class. As a result, she failed to address the diverse learning needs of her students as required by PS 3. Similarly, Respondent failed to meet PS 4. Once again, Respondent's instructional delivery and engagement techniques failed to keep many students on-task. Santana attributed that to Respondent's failure to adequately pace the lesson or to effectively provide differentiated learning experiences to meet the students' varied learning styles and levels. Santana further noted that the lesson was disorganized. Respondent created differentiated learning centers at which the students would engage in various learning activities; however, she provided no guidance, so the students were unable to effectively engage in the activities for which the centers were prepared. Specifically, at the computer-based learning center, the computers were not prepared for the instructional activity, so time was wasted logging onto the computers; consequently, the students had little time to work on the activity. At another learning center involving a device called "Leap Pad," the books and accompanying cassette cartridges were not grouped together, so the students spent time trying to find the matching books and cartridges and, as a result, wasted what was supposed to be instructional time. Because of these problems, students repeatedly interrupted the teacher-led instructional center, interfering with learning at that center. Respondent again failed to meet PS 8. Respondent's failure to establish classroom procedures for the various learning centers and her lack of success in redirecting off-task students to reengage in the assigned learning activities created a disruptive environment that did not promote student learning. Following the April 25, 2012, observation, Santana completed another IPEGS Form. Because Respondent showed no improvement from the March 27, 2012, observation, Santana scheduled a conference for the record ("CFR"). A CFR is a formal meeting to discuss a teacher's performance deficiencies and develop a plan to remediate those deficiencies. Respondent was notified in writing of the CFR, which was rescheduled per Respondent's request. Respondent attended the meeting with two UTD representatives; also attending were Rapp and an assistant principal. By written notice and at the CFR, Respondent was informed that she was being placed on 90-day performance probation, pursuant to section 1012.34(4), as of the date of the CFR. An IPEGS Improvement Plan ("IP") was developed to assist Respondent in remediating her instructional performance deficiencies. An IP is a written document that discusses each performance deficiency; identifies specific resources available to assist the teacher in remediating each specific deficiency; sets forth remedial activities specific to each deficiency in which the teacher and assisting persons are to engage; and establishes deadlines for completing the specified activities. In the IP, Respondent and reading coaches Rapp and Carrier were directed to work collaboratively to improve Respondent's instructional techniques and pacing so as to engage all students in the lessons. To this end, Rapp and Carrier were to assist Respondent in developing lesson plans and identifying instructional strategies and activities to meet the learning needs of all of her students. Additionally, Respondent was given the opportunity to engage in collaborative planning with her peer professionals (i.e., other first grade teachers) and with the reading coaches. She also was provided access to a nationally board certified teacher at Gulfstream who assists teachers in improving their teaching performance. The IP further directed the reading coaches and peer professionals to observe Respondent and provide constructive feedback and assistance to Respondent as she attempted to implement instructional techniques and strategies. The IP also identified Common Core Standards, reading/language arts pacing guides, and reading/language arts planners as resources available to assist her in developing appropriate planning objectives, appropriately pacing her lessons to address her students' needs, and developing her lesson plans. As part of the IP, Santana directed Respondent to prepare a written plan addressing how she would tailor her instruction to address student learning styles; use appropriate instructional materials and techniques; and use differentiated instructional groups and learning centers. The written plan was to be submitted to Santana by May 29, 2012. Respondent was further directed to develop lesson plans to improve her instructional delivery strategies. Those plans were to be submitted to the assistant principal. The IP directed Respondent to read the book "How to be an Effective Teacher: The First Five Days of School" and to submit to an assistant principal a reflective summary discussing effective strategies for addressing inappropriate student behavior and managing the learning environment. Respondent also was directed to consult with the reading coaches and peers to develop effective strategies for redirecting inappropriate student behavior. To assist Respondent in implementing her IP, Santana prepared a support calendar that detailed, on a weekly basis for a 21-day period, the activities in which Respondent was to engage. The support calendar specifically identified the reading coaches, peers, and other professionals responsible for working with Respondent as she performed the assigned activities. During the first week of the IP implementation period, Rapp provided assistance to Respondent in planning for the reading/language arts instructional block that would be conducted the following week. Respondent worked with Rapp to interpret current Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading ("FAIR") testing data and use the data to effectively plan for differentiated instruction. Also during the first week, Respondent observed reading/language arts instruction in a peer's classroom and participated in a debriefing session with Rapp and Carrier after the peer teaching observation. The following week, Respondent participated in an activity cycle during which she collaboratively planned with reading coaches Rapp and Carrier; observed peers teaching reading/language arts; observed Rapp modeling effective reading/language arts teaching strategies and techniques; co- taught reading/language arts with Rapp to practice these strategies and techniques; and taught the reading/language arts block while being observed by Rapp and Carrier. This same activity cycle, consisting of collaborative planning,2/ reading coach and peer modeling and observation, co- teaching, and teaching by Respondent, was repeated in the final week of the IP implementation period. Collectively, these activities were designed to assist Respondent in planning for the use of content and instructional techniques and strategies appropriate for her students. They also demonstrated to Respondent how to identify and implement effective instructional techniques and strategies, provided assistance as she learned to implement these techniques and strategies, and afforded the opportunity for Respondent to benefit from constructive feedback regarding her efforts to utilize these techniques and strategies. On May 16 and May 24, 2012, Rapp and Carrier observed Respondent as she taught a reading/arts lesson. In the lesson, she was to employ the instructional techniques and strategies that had been provided and presented to her by the reading coaches, peer professionals, and reference resources during the implementation of her IP. According to Carrier, Respondent did not adhere to the prepared lesson plan and did not incorporate the techniques and strategies that had been provided to her by the reading coaches and peer teachers through her IP.3/ Shortly after Respondent completed the activities set forth in the IP, the 2011-2012 school year ended. Condition of Respondent's Classroom in 2011-2012 At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent had been assigned to a free-standing portable classroom not located in the main building at Gulfstream. In late September or early October 2011, Respondent complained to Santana about the air quality in her classroom—— specifically, that there was musty smell that made it difficult for her to breathe and aggravated her allergies. Santana contacted Mr. Cruz-Munoz of the Miami-Dade Public Schools asbestos management division to inspect Respondent's classroom. Within a couple of days, Cruz-Munoz conducted the inspection and found no visible mold or mildew. He noted that the musty smell was typical of portables, like Respondent's classroom, that were older and had wood paneling. He noted that although the room generally was clean, it contained many boxes and a large amount of clutter, both of which may attract dust. He recommended that the boxes and clutter be kept to a minimum to prevent dust collection. Within a week, Respondent's classroom was thoroughly cleaned by a maintenance crew. After the classroom was cleaned, Respondent complained to Santana that she noticed a cleaner smell. Santana contacted Cruz-Munoz, who assured her that the cleaners were water-based and did not contain allergens. Santana informed Respondent of this and suggested that the cleaner smell would dissipate over time. In January 2012, Respondent again complained to Santana about the smell of the classroom and that it was aggravating her allergies. Santana again contacted Cruz-Munoz, who arranged another inspection of the classroom. The inspector again reported that the classroom generally was clean and free of visible mold and mildew but contained many boxes; again, the importance of minimizing the number of boxes and clutter so as to avoid collecting dust was stressed. At that point, Santana referred Respondent to workers' compensation so that she could obtain medical attention to address her health issues. At some point in January 2012, Respondent contacted Robert Kalinsky, a regional director with the Miami-Dade Public School system, regarding the air quality and odors in her classroom. Kalinsky was one of Santana's supervisors at the time. Kalinsky notified Santana that Respondent had contacted him and that he also had received a call about about the condition of the classroom from a member of the Miami-Dade County School Board. As a result, Kalinsky paid a visit to Gulfstream. On February 7, 2012, Santana met with Respondent and an assistant principal regarding a number of issues, including the condition of Respondent's classroom. At that meeting, Santana noted that during the recent visit by Kalinsky and personnel who inspected the classroom, the room was observed cluttered with piles of paper on the desk and many other areas, and that there numerous boxes. At the meeting, Santana reminded Respondent regarding many other issues, including those related to classroom and school library procedures and instructional delivery. Effective February 7, 2012, Santana reassigned Respondent to a different classroom that was located in the main building at Gulfstream. Thereafter, Respondent did not have any complaints about the air quality or odors in the classroom to which she had been assigned. She did continue to complain about the odor of air fresheners and scented candles used throughout the school. Santana noted that she regularly dealt with issues similar to those raised by Respondent because she received frequent complaints from teachers regarding the air quality, mold, and odors at Gulfstream due to the school building's advanced age. Santana credibly testified that she never, at any point, became angry with Respondent regarding her concerns about the air quality and odor in the portable classroom, or any actions Respondent that had taken to address those concerns. 2012-2013 School Year Pursuant to section 1012.34(4)(b)1., school vacation periods are not counted as part of the 90-day performance probation period. Accordingly, Respondent's probation period carried over from the end of the 2011-2012 school year to the 2012-2013 school year. When the 2012-2013 school year commenced, her 90-day probation period continued. September 12, 2012 Evaluation On September 12, 2012, Santana formally observed Respondent's classroom teaching for the third time. She observed Respondent for the full duration of the reading/language arts block, approximately two hours. Respondent again failed to meet PS 2. Her instruction did not incorporate techniques and strategies to address the various learning styles and levels of the students in her class. As a result, many students were bored; one student was observed with his head on his desk. Other students attempted, unsuccessfully, to get Respondent's attention to answer questions they had. Respondent was unsuccessful in explaining the small group activities so that several students were off- task. By the time Respondent redirected the off-task students, little time was left for them to engage in the planned activities. Santana observed no improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard when compared to the two previous observations. Likewise, Respondent failed to meet PS 3. She did not develop or present a lesson that addressed logical, sequential goals and objectives and she did not cover the material identified in the lesson plan. Once again, she failed to use differentiated instructional techniques and strategies to address the students' individual learning styles. The lesson was directed only at one skill level and one learning style. Worksheet activities were completed by the entire class, with some students calling out the answers while the others copied those answers on the worksheet. The partner reading portion of the exercise was disorganized and the students were not given adequate direction, so that many students did not understand how the activity was to be conducted. Santana did not observe any improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard. Respondent also failed to meet PS 4. Her teaching did not include activities directed at eliciting higher order thinking, so did not engage all of the students. Several students were overheard saying they were bored, had already read the material, or already knew the concepts being presented. Other students were off-task, reading stories that had not been assigned. When students were assigned to small groups, insufficient direction was given so that many students did not understand what they were to be doing. In particular, the lack of organization with respect to the computer-based portion of the lesson resulted in students wasting a substantial amount of time before being re-directed to the assigned task. Santana did not observe any improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard. Respondent again failed to meet PS 8. Santana noted that the learning environment and activities were not academically challenging and did not engage all of the students. Students were not given adequate instruction on the activities in which they were to be participating. In particular, the partner reading portion of the exercise was disorganized and many students did not understand how the activity was to be conducted. Santana did not observe any improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard. Following the September 12 evaluation, Santana completed the IPEGS Form, conducted another performance review with Respondent, and issued another IP for her on September 18, 2012. Once again, the reading coaches and peer professionals were made available to assist Respondent in implementing the IP. The Common Core Standards, reading/language arts pacing guides, and reading/language arts planners also were resources to which Respondent was referred. The activities in which Respondent was directed to engage to correct her performance deficiencies for PS 2 and PS 3 were very similar to those identified her May 7, 2012 IP. With the new school year, Respondent had a new class of students, and Santana emphasized the importance of Respondent being able to assess those students' learning styles and levels and to plan how she would assign them to instructional groups. Respondent was directed to prepare and submit to the assistant principal weekly lesson plans containing goals, objectives, activities, and strategies to provide instruction aimed at the her students' diverse learning styles and levels. To help Respondent correct her PS 4 deficiencies, the IP emphasized that Respondent was to observe the reading coach (Carrier) and her peers as they modeled effective instructional techniques and activities designed to reach diverse student learning styles and levels. To correct her PS 8 performance deficiencies, Respondent was directed to work with the reading coach and peers to establish a plan for effective classroom procedures, to prepare a written summary of the plan, and to provide the summary to the assistant principal. Additionally, Respondent was directed to observe peer professionals as they taught; to prepare and provide to the assistant principal a list of the effective teaching techniques she observed; and to incorporate three of those techniques into her classroom teaching. She also was directed to maintain a log of teaching techniques she used in her class, with discussion of which techniques were effective or ineffective and why. The log was to be provided to and discussed with Carrier, so that Carrier could assist Respondent in developing and implementing successful classroom techniques and procedures. Again to ensure that everyone involved in implementing Respondent's IP understood their roles and responsibilities, Santana established another 21-day support calendar detailing the specific activities to be conducted on specific days. The activities entailed collaborative planning with Respondent, Carrier, and grade level peers; Respondent working with Carrier and peers to develop small group and differentiated instructional teaching techniques; Respondent's observation of grade level peer teaching and post-observation debriefing regarding instructional best practices; and Respondent's implementation of those best practices in her teaching, to be observed by Carrier, with feedback provided. Respondent engaged in all scheduled activities and timely completed the September 18, 2013, IP. October 11, 2012 Evaluation On October 11, 2012, a fourth formal classroom observation of Respondent was conducted, this time by assistant principal Marybel Baldessari. Baldessari observed Respondent teaching reading/language arts for an hour and a half. Once again Respondent failed to meet PS 2, 3, 4, and 8. With respect to PS 2, Respondent again failed to present differentiated instruction that targeted individual student learning styles and levels; as before, her instruction was aimed only at one learning style and level. With respect to PS 3, Respondent did not ensure that materials were properly organized to accommodate assistance by an interventionist who was working with her that day. As a result, the lesson was disorganized and the lesson was not presented in a logical, sequential manner. With respect to PS 4, again Respondent's instruction was not tailored to meet the students' individual learning styles and levels. Respondent did not appropriately pace the lesson and did not employ teaching techniques, such as appropriate questioning, to encourage students' critical thinking. Respondent again failed to meet PS 8. Students were off-task; in particular, one was off-task for the entire observation period without ever being redirected to the assigned activity. Respondent also had implemented a behavior plan in the classroom involving colored cards, so that when a student was disciplined, he or she was sent to a "behavior wall" to turn over a card on the behavior chart. On this day, a student who was sent to the behavior chart found his card already turned over from the previous day. This evidenced Respondent's lack of attention to detail in maintaining a classroom environment conducive to appropriate student behavior. Baldessari documented Respondent's deficiencies from the October 11, 2012, observation on the IPEGS Form. Santana scheduled a meeting with Respondent on October 17, 2012, to discuss Baldessari's observations. At the meeting, Respondent was given yet another IP. With respect to remedying Respondent's PS 2 performance deficiencies, Respondent was given the same support resources. Respondent was again directed to meet with Carrier and grade level peer professionals to develop differentiated instructional activities and techniques, to incorporate those activities and techniques into lesson plans, and to provide those lesson plans to Baldessari. Respondent also was directed to meet with Carrier and peers to analyze test and observational data, and to use the information gleaned from that data to plan for differentiated instruction based on individual student learning styles and levels. To remedy her PS 3 deficiencies, Respondent was again referred to Carrier and peer professionals, the Common Core Standards, reading/language arts pacing guides, and reading/language arts reading planners. She was again directed to work with Carrier to develop appropriate lesson plans incorporating appropriate instructional strategies. These plans were to identify appropriate goals, objectives, activities, and instructional strategies and were to be provided to Baldessari. Respondent was assigned to read the book, "Understanding Common Core Standards," and to discuss those standards with Carrier and provide a written summary to Baldessari. With respect to PS 4, Respondent was referred to the same remedial resources as for PS 3. Respondent was directed to work with Carrier and selected peer professionals, who would assist her with planning and developing instructional techniques and strategies to appropriately pace lessons and engage all students. With respect to PS 8, Respondent was directed to work with a special education program ("SPED") specialist to develop effective classroom management procedures. She was assigned to prepare and submit a written summary of these procedures to Baldessari. She also was directed to observe peers, identify effective teaching techniques they used to maintain an academically stimulating and challenging environment, submit a list of those techniques to Baldessari, and incorporate three of those techniques into her teaching. Once again, she was directed to maintain a log listing instructional techniques she used, with discussion of which were effective or ineffective and why. The log was to be provided to and discussed with the Carrier so that she could assist Respondent in developing successful classroom techniques and procedures. Those techniques were to be implemented in Respondent's classroom teaching. Santana developed another support calendar to implement Respondent's latest IP. The support calendar identified activities in which Respondent was to engage with Carrier and the SPED specialist; scheduled time for Respondent to observe and discuss peer teaching techniques; and scheduled collaborative planning sessions in which Respondent, Carrier, and grade level peers were to address the development of differentiated instructional strategies. Carrier worked closely with Respondent to implement the October 17, 2012, IP. In doing so, Carrier demonstrated to Respondent how to incorporate certain instructional techniques into her teaching to better engage the students and enhance their learning experience.4/ Carrier stressed the importance of organization and preparation before the lesson in order for the instructional techniques to be effective. Carrier and Respondent also practiced the use of the instructional techniques. However, when it was time for Respondent to teach the lesson, she was disorganized and unprepared, resulting in a substantial amount of time being wasted on logistical matters, such as having essential materials on hand and ready for use, that should have been addressed before the lesson commenced.5/ Carrier also discussed with Respondent the importance of moving around the classroom to keep students focused and on- task. Nonetheless, Carrier observed that Respondent spent most of her time sitting in a chair in front of the classroom. The chair did have wheels, so occasionally Respondent would roll down the center isle of the classroom.6/ During her time in working with Respondent, Carrier observed that Respondent's classroom was messy and disorganized. Books and clutter were all over the place, so that it was difficult to locate resources that were needed to conduct the lessons. Carrier also observed that there were many pieces of information written on the board in an unstructured, disorganized manner, including information from lessons days ago and random vocabulary words, so that it was very difficult to decipher the information Respondent was attempting to convey in using the board. Carrier further noted that words frequently were misspelled and that there were grammatical errors in the information Respondent wrote on the board. Respondent timely completed the activities set forth in the October 17, 2012, IP. November 19, 2012 Evaluation On November 19, 2012, Santana conducted a fifth formal observation of Respondent's classroom teaching. She observed Respondent teaching reading/language arts for an hour and five minutes. Respondent again failed to meet PS 2. Once again, Respondent's instruction provided only one level of complexity and did not cater to the students' different learning styles and levels. The students were reading a story, and instead of incorporating instructional strategies aimed at meeting all students' learning abilities——such as instructing the high level students to write a paragraph, the grade level students to write a sentence, and the lower level students to draw a picture, about the story——she merely had all of them fill in the same workbook page. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to meeting PS 2. Respondent also failed to meet PS 3. Her lesson plans were not aligned to the instructional pacing guide and did not incorporate strategies to address the students' diverse learning styles and levels. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to PS 3. Respondent again failed to meet PS 4. Her instructional delivery did not actively engage the students and did not address their individual learning styles and needs. Because her instruction addressed only one level of complexity, she lost the high functioning and low functioning students. As a result, there were frequent interruptions that interfered with the pace of the instruction and caused students to engage in off-task behavior. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to PS 4. Respondent also failed to meet PS 8. The learning environment was neither challenging nor stimulating. Although the students were working in small groups presumably established according to learning style and level, they nonetheless were reading the same story and answering the same questions. That, and Respondent's continued failure to establish clear classroom procedures and expectations, resulted in frequent interruptions and distractions. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to PS 8. Recommendation to Terminate Respondent's Employment A post-observation meeting was held on November 29, 2012, and Respondent was properly notified of this meeting. At the meeting, Santana informed Respondent that she had failed to remediate her classroom performance deficiencies within the 90- day probation period, so that she (Santana) was recommending that Respondent's employment contract be terminated. Santana prepared a memorandum to the Miami-Dade Public Schools South Regional Director dated November 29, 2012, detailing Respondent's repeated failure to meet PS 2, PS 3, PS 4, and PS 8. The memorandum also stated: "Data indicate that this employee has not demonstrated corrective action." The memorandum recommended termination of Respondent's employment contract. Petitioner presented evidence, consisting of a summary exhibit and testimony from Gisela Field, the administrative director of the Office of Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis for Miami-Dade Public Schools, that Respondent's students' median percentile scores on the 2012 Stanford Achievement Test ("SAT")7/ for Grade 1 for both language arts and mathematics were below those for first grade students at Gulfstream as a whole, and for first grade students in the Miami-Dade County Public School District.8/ Santana did not testify that Respondent's students' SAT median percentile scores were considered in her evaluation of Respondent, or that they constituted a basis for her decision to recommend that Respondent be terminated. Petitioner asserts that the "data" to which Santana's November 29, 2012, memorandum refers are Respondent's students' SAT median percentile scores, evidencing that Santana did consider these scores in evaluating Respondent, and that they were one of the bases for her recommendation that Respondent be terminated.9/ Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding the relative weight given to Respondent's students' scores in conducting her performance evaluation. Respondent's Defenses Respondent began teaching in the Miami-Dade County Public School system in 1989. Thereafter, she took some time off to have children. As previously noted, she resumed fulltime teaching in the 2004-2005 school year. For the period commencing with the 2004-2005 school year, through the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent always received satisfactory classroom performance evaluations.10/ At the final hearing in this proceeding, Respondent testified that she was knowledgeable in preparing lesson plans; adhered to Miami-Dade County Public School District instructional pacing guidelines; engaged in collaborative planning with her colleagues and exchanged ideas regarding making the lessons exciting, fun, and interesting; used objectives, visual aids, posters, computers, books, and hands-on materials to engage students; and employed instructional techniques to address students' diverse learning styles and levels. She further testified that she closely observed her students and obtained feedback from them throughout the instructional day. Respondent also testified that she engaged her students in activities designed to get to know them, that she was sensitive to her students' experiences, that she attempted to make them feel comfortable and safe and to provide a warm and loving environment, and that she knew how to communicate with them and manage their classroom behavior. With respect to specific performance deficiencies identified over the course of the classroom observations conducted by Santana and Baldessari, Respondent asserted that some of the issues with instruction using computers stemmed from technical issues with the computers. In those instances, Respondent would have the students engage in reading activities using books until it was time for them to rotate to another learning center. Respondent believes she was a better teacher in 2011 than she was in 2004 when she re-entered the teaching field fulltime. In her view, this is due to her having participated in personal development workshops, receiving one-on-one instruction, and adapting her teaching style to new curriculum and materials. Respondent asserts that she did not teach any differently in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years than she had in the 2004-2005 school year or any other school year. Respondent contended that she is, and always has been, a very competent teacher, and that the negative performance evaluations she received during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years were unfair and illegitimate. Regarding the condition of the portable classroom to which she was assigned in the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to complain to Santana about the room's odor shortly after the beginning of the school year. In January 2012, she did contact Santana's supervisor Robert Kalinsky to express her concerns. Ultimately, she filed a worker's compensation claim. Once she moved to a different classroom in February 2012, she no longer experienced problems with odors in her classroom. She did continue to have problems with the use of air fresheners and scented candles in other parts of the school building. Respondent noted that only after she complained about the odor and air quality in the portable classroom did she begin receiving negative classroom performance evaluations. She contends that she received negative evaluations for having complained——particularly to Kalinsky and the School Board member——about the condition of the portable. Toward the end of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent applied for a transfer from her instructional position at Gulfstream to another instructional position at another school in the Miami-Dade County Public School District. Both Santana and the Executive Director approved the transfer. Respondent found an instructional position in another school in the Miami-Dade County Public School District, but did not follow through with the transfer. The school was farther from her home than was Gulfstream, so teaching there would entail longer driving time and would add wear and tear to her older vehicle.11/ Findings of Ultimate Fact In this proceeding, Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment for failure to correct performance deficiencies pursuant to section 1012.34, and for "just cause"——specifically, for incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to section 1012.33 and rule 6A-5.056. As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show that Respondent committed the violations of section 1012.34 and 1012.33 and rule 6A-5.056 alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Failure to Correct Performance Deficiencies With respect to the charge that Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies under section 1012.34, the evidence establishes that Respondent consistently engaged in poor and ineffective classroom instructional practices and that she repeatedly failed to correct these instructional practice deficiencies, notwithstanding the very substantial effort that Santana, reading coaches Rapp and Carrier, and Respondent's peers devoted to assisting her in improving her teaching performance. Specifically, the evidence showed that Respondent was consistently ineffective at addressing the individual learning needs, styles, and levels of her students; that she failed to employ appropriate instructional strategies and resources to develop lesson plans that include goals, objectives, and activities to address her students' diverse needs; that she did not address her students' academic needs through a variety of appropriate instructional strategies and techniques that engage them in the learning process; and that she was ineffective in creating and maintaining a classroom environment conducive to learning. The credible evidence does not show that Respondent received negative instructional practice evaluations in retaliation for having complained about the condition of her classroom in the 2011-2012 school year. Rather, the persuasive evidence——which includes corroborative testimony and an IPEGS observation by Baldessari and testimony by Carrier——shows that Respondent received negative performance evaluations because she failed to meet the IPEGS performance standards. However, the evidence failed to adequately address the student performance component of Respondent's performance evaluation pursuant to section 1012.34(3)(a)1.a. As discussed in greater detail below, section 1012.34(3)(a) places great emphasis on student performance on student learning growth assessments——specifically, the FCAT or school district assessments——in evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. Indeed, the statute mandates that at least 50 percent of a performance evaluation be based on data and indicators of student of student learning growth as assessed annually by the FCAT or by school district assessments. Only where (as here) less than three years of data for student learning growth assessments (i.e., FCAT or school district test scores) are available can the percentage of the teacher's performance evaluation based on student learning growth be reduced to less than 50 percent——and even then, it cannot be reduced to less than 40 percent. Here, Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding the relative weight that Santana assigned to Respondent's students' 2012 SAT median percentile scores for language arts and mathematics in evaluating Respondent under section 1012.34. Accordingly, it cannot be determined whether the required relative weight of at least 40 percent was given to the scores in evaluating Respondent, and, ultimately, in recommending that she be terminated. For this reason, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies pursuant to section 1012.34 such that her employment should be terminated. Incompetency Due to Inefficiency As previously noted above, the evidence showed that Respondent consistently and repeatedly was ineffective at addressing the individual learning needs, styles, and levels of her students.12/ She repeatedly failed to employ appropriate instructional strategies and resources to develop lesson plans that include goals, objectives, and activities to address her students' diverse needs. She failed to address her students' academic needs through employing a variety of appropriate instructional strategies and techniques to engage them in the learning process. She consistently used the same instructional materials and techniques to teach students of varying learning styles and levels and did not adequately pace the lessons. She also failed, on a consistent basis, to create and maintain a classroom environment conducive to learning. Her room was disorganized and cluttered, with misspelled words and grammatical errors written on the blackboard. She often was unprepared, so did not efficiently conduct the lessons. She did not establish consistent classroom procedures to address student behavioral issues and keep students on task. As such, Respondent consistently and repeatedly failed to effectively communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that the students were deprived of minimum educational experience. Due to her inefficiency, she was neither able nor fit to discharge her required duties as a teacher.13/ Moreover, the evidence establishes that Respondent failed to perform duties prescribed by law.14/ Section 1012.53(1) provides in pertinent part that the primary duty of instructional personnel is to work diligently and faithfully to help students meet or exceed annual learning goals and to meet state and local achievement requirements. The evidence establishes that due to Respondent's serious, repeated performance deficiencies previously described herein, she did not work diligently and faithfully to, and did not succeed in, helping her students meet or exceed the annual learning goals they were supposed to meet as prescribed by curriculum and lesson plans. Nor did she work diligently and faithfully to help them meet state and local achievement requirements. In fact, Respondent's students' 2012 SAT median percentile scores—— particularly for mathematics, which shows their achievement as much as 34.5 percentile points lower than all first graders in the Miami-Dade County Public School District——stand as strong evidence to this point.15/ The evidence also established that Respondent's teaching practices and classroom were so disorganized that the welfare of her students was diminished.16/ Her lack of organization in teaching caused confusion on the part of her students and instructional time often was wasted. Further, the disorganization and clutter in her classroom made it difficult to locate resources for the lessons. It was apparent at the final hearing that Respondent cares about her students and believes that she is a good teacher. However, Respondent's personal feelings and beliefs do not overcome the strong evidence presented in this case showing that she is not a competent teacher. Petitioner proved that, for the reasons set forth herein, Respondent is incompetent due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056.17/ Accordingly, Petitioner proved that just cause exists under section 1012.33 to terminate Respondent's professional services contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order terminating Respondent's professional services employment contract on the basis of just cause under section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2014, 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 7th day of January, 2014.
