The Issue Whether Jessie M. Mitchell should be discharged from her employment as a teacher in the Duval County public school system for professional incompetency as set forth in Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, 1941 Laws of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenure Act")?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Mitchell was licensed as a public school teacher by the State of Florida. Her license was current and in full force and effect. Ms. Mitchell was licensed to teach in early childhood education. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Mitchell was employed as a tenured teacher by the Board. Ms. Mitchell received a Bachelor of Science degree from Edward Waters in 1962 and a Masters degree from Florida A & A University in 1965. During the 1985-1986 school year, Ms. Mitchell was assigned as a teacher at S. P. Livingston Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Livingston") in Jacksonville, Florida. Robert Strauss was the principal at Livingston during the 1985-1986 school year. Mr. Strauss had been the principal charged with evaluating Ms. Mitchell during the 1982-1983, 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 school years. Mr. Strauss had given Ms. Mitchell an overall satisfactory rating for these years. Ms. Mitchell received satisfactory ratings for the 1980 through 1985 school years. She did not receive an unsatisfactory rating until the 1985-1986 school year. During the 1985-1986 school year Mr. Strauss observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on four or five occasions. On February 14, 1986, Mr. Strauss extended the end of Ms. Mitchell's evaluation period for the 1985-1986 school year from March 15, 1986, the usual evaluation date, to May 2, 1986. In-service cadre were also requested to assist Ms. Mitchell improve her performance. John Williams was the primary in-service cadre member who provided assistance to Ms. Mitchell during the 1985-1986 school year. Mr. Williams observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on April 18, 1986 and May 22, 1986. After each observation, Mr. Williams met with Ms. Mitchell and discussed his observations. Written suggestions for improvement were also presented to Ms. Mitchell by Mr. Williams. Ms. Mitchell was also given the opportunity to observe other teachers. In addition to Mr. Williams, Cheryl Schang, Marilyn Russell and Carolyn Love provided assistance to Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Williams and Ms. Russell conducted a help session on planning and curriculum for Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell did not cooperate fully in the efforts of Mr. Williams and other in-service cadre members to assist her. She missed several meetings which had been scheduled with cadre members. Ms. Love observed Ms. Williams for approximately five hours. Based upon her observations, Ms. Love pointed out deficiencies and discussed ways of correcting those deficiencies with Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Williams provided Ms. Mitchell with language experience reading materials, teacher improvement packets and behavior management material in an effort to improve her performance as a teacher. Mr. Williams and Mr. Strauss developed a Professional Development Plan for Ms. Mitchell. The Professional Development Plan provided objectives and suggestions designed to assist Ms. Mitchell in improving her performance as a teacher. The Professional Development Plan was provided to Ms. Mitchell in April, 1986. It was not probable, nor was it anticipated, however, that Ms. Mitchell would complete the goals set out in the Professional Development Plan before the 1985-1986 school year ended. It was anticipated that the Professional Development Plan would be followed by Ms. Mitchell during the 1986- 1987 school year. The Professional Development Plan developed for Ms. Mitchell was adequate to assist Ms. Mitchell to improve her teaching performance. Ms. Mitchell did not carry out the objectives and suggestions contained in the Professional Development Plan during the 1985-1986 school year or the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell was given a written evaluation for the 1985-1986 school year by Mr. Strauss on May 2, 1986. Ms. Mitchell was evaluated unsatisfactory. Ms. Mitchell was notified by certified mail on May 16, 1986, that her performance as a teacher during the 1985-1986 school year had not been satisfactory. Ms. Mitchell was informed that she had the right to transfer to a new teaching position for the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell elected to transfer to a new teaching position for the 1986-1987 school year. She was assigned to teach kindergarten at Richard L. Brown Sixth Grade Center (hereinafter referred to as "R. L. Brown") for the 1986-1987 school year. William Permenter was the principal at R. L. Brown. In August, 1986, Mr. Permenter and Ms. Mitchell had a pre-planning conference. During this conference, the Professional Development Plan developed by Mr. Strauss and Mr. Williams for Ms. Mitchell was discussed with her and modified. Mr. Permenter made numerous suggestions to Ms. Mitchell to assist her in improving her teaching performance during the 1986-1987 school year. During the 1986-1987 school year Mr. Permenter observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on at least nine occasions. Conferences were held with Ms. Mitchell following these observations. Mr. Permenter also set out in writing suggestions intended to assist Ms. Mitchell in improving her teaching performance. Mr. Permenter's written suggestions to Ms. Mitchell contained clear and detailed concerns with Ms. Mitchell's performance. In October, 1986, Mr. Permenter gave Ms. Mitchell an interim evaluation of unsatisfactory. On January 30, 1987, Ms. Mitchell was informed by Mr. Permenter that she would receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1986-1987 school year unless she demonstrated an acceptable level of teaching performance by March 15, 1987. In March, 1987, Ms. Mitchell was given an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1986-1987 school year by Mr. Permenter. During the 1986-1987 school year the primary in-service cadre member who assisted Ms. Mitchell was James Constande. Mr. Constande observed Ms. Mitchell on at least six occasions, conducted conferences with Ms. Mitchell, made suggestions to her and provided her with written materials designed to assist her in improving her teaching performance. Five of Mr. Constande's six observations were scheduled with the permission of Ms. Mitchell. Jayne Owens, another in-service cadre member, also assisted Ms. Mitchell. No observations were conducted by in-service cadre from September 27, 1986, through November 25, 1986 and from November 26, 1986, through January 21, 1987, because of Ms. Mitchell's reluctance to agree to such observations. On March 23, 1987, Ms. Mitchell told Mr. Constande that she did not want to continue with classroom observations. Mr. Constande contacted Ms. Mitchell in April and May of 1987, at least twice each month. Ms. Mitchell refused to allow any classroom observations. In-service cadre members encouraged Ms. Mitchell to contact them if she needed any additional assistance. Ms. Mitchell did so only on a few occasions. Jayne Owens, an in-service cadre member during the 1986-1987 school year, conducted class while Ms. Mitchell observed. During the 1986-1987 school year Ms. Mitchell believed that Mr. Permenter and the in-service cadre members were not trying to help her. This attitude was reinforced by advice Ms. Mitchell received from counsel for the Duval County Teachers' Union. Ms. Mitchell's attitude about Mr. Permenter and the in-service cadre deteriorated after she received an unsatisfactory rating for the 1986-1987 school year. She refused any further assistance from the in-service cadre. The unsatisfactory ratings which Ms. Mitchell received for the 1985- 1986 and 1986-1987 school years were based upon her deficiencies in the general areas of classroom management and teaching effectiveness. Ms. Mitchell's classroom management deficiencies included the following: (a) failure to maintain order in the classroom and school corridors; (b) failure to maintain an attractive, organized classroom (Ms. Mitchell did improve her performance in this area, however); (c) failure to keep students on- task by engaging in conversation unrelated to the subject of her class; (d) failure to maintain effective behavior management techniques such as the use positive reinforcement to avoid negative behavior; (e) failure to stop students who interrupted by calling out; (f) failure to explain the standard of behavior she expected; (g) failure to control the noise level; (h) failure to monitor rules and to timely issue desists orders; (i) failure to identify and discipline students actually causing disruptions; (j) failure to stop children from chewing on pencils, which may be a health hazard; and (k) failure to insure that usable school materials were picked up off the floor to avoid their being sweep up and thrown away. Ms. Mitchell's teaching deficiencies included the following: (a) failure to explain the purpose of lessons at the beginning of a class and to give a review at the end of the class to reinforce what had been taught; (b) failure to provide an explanation when moving from one subject to the next; (c) failure to use correct grammar; (d) failure to give praise; (e) failure to organize the classroom effectively into learning areas; (f) failure to correctly mark report cards; (g) failure to manage time properly, resulting in a loss of momentum; (h) failure to have materials and teaching aides ready to start class; (i) failure to select subject matter of a film suitable for her students; (j) failure to keep lesson plans in accordance with district guidelines; (k) failure to assign or prepare sufficient tasks for students; (1) failure to organize instructions; (m) failure to stop unison responses; (n) failure to be familiar with subject of a film; (o) failure to avoid providing too much information to students; and (p) failure to accurately present subject matter. Ms. Mitchell's deficiencies were observed over two school years by at least six observers on several occasions. Ms. Mitchell was unable to produce current lesson plans in May, 1986. Ms. Mitchell did not adequately plan. Therefore, she was unable to provide an effective learning environment and she was unable to reduce discipline problems. Ms. Mitchell failed to have a series of groups of students and a series of activities for each group throughout a school day. Ms. Mitchell failed to properly maintain cumulative folders during the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell was given clear and detailed statements of her deficiencies throughout the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 school years. The Superintendent of Duval County Public Schools brought charges against Ms. Mitchell seeking to discharge her for professional incompetency by certified letter dated May 19, 1987. The charges were based upon Ms. Mitchell's teaching performance during the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 school years, the two years for which Ms. Mitchell received unsatisfactory evaluations. Ms. Mitchell was afforded a hearing in conformance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Ms. Mitchell was afforded a speedy and public hearing, informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against her, confronted by accusing witnesses, given the opportunity to subpoena witnesses and papers and allowed to secure assistance of counsel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Mitchell be dismissed as a tenured teacher within the Duval County public school system. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 11th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4581 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3. 3 46. 4 38 5 39 and 41. 6 40-41. 7 6 and 9. 8 17. 9 Hereby accepted. 10-11 20. 12 11. 13 18. 14-15 21. 16-17 Irrelevant. 18 11. 19 17. 20 13. 21 12. 22 14. 23 13. 24 42. Hereby accepted. See 40. 27 16. 28 43. 29 42. 30 34. 31 15. 32 See 39. 33 19. 34 22. 35 23. 36 24-25. 37 18, 38 Hereby accepted. 39 26. 40 28. 41-42 Irrelevant. 43 45. 44 27. 45 Hereby accepted. 46-47 30. 48-49 Hereby accepted. 50 31. 51 30. 52 32. 53 35. 54 Hereby accepted. 55 32 and 37. 56 33. 57 See 40. 58-61 Hereby accepted. 62 44. 63 36. Hereby accepted. Irrelevant. 66 32 and 37. 67 36. 68-69 Hereby accepted. 70 45. 71 Cumulative. 72 47. 73 48. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 2 3. 3 46. 4 5. 5 6. 6 10. 7-8 21. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11-13 7. 14 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 15-16 Hereby accepted. 17 17. 18 24. 19 23. Irrelevant. See 25. 22 27. 23 29. 24-29 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. 30 8. 31-43 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. 44 Hereby accepted. 45 4. 46 8. 47 Hereby accepted. 48 36. 49-52 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Dolores R. Gahan Assistant Counsel City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth Vickers, Esquire Suite 1 437 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herb A. Sang, Superintendent School Board of Duval County 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent was a public school teacher licensed by the State of Florida to teach English language at the secondary school level, and her teaching certificate was current and in full effect. The Respondent, Queen Bruton, is employed by the Duval County School Board and holds tenure under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. On November 22, 1982, Respondent was sent a Notice of Proposed Dismissal by the School Board indicating the Board's intention to dismiss her as a teacher upon a charge of professional incompetency. The grounds for such conclusion include an indication that Respondent received unsatisfactory evaluations of her performance for the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. The Duval County Teacher Tenure Act (TTA), Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, permits the discharge of a teacher for, inter alia, professional incompetency as a teacher if certain conditions are met and procedures followed. All teachers in the Duval County public schools are evaluated whenever necessary, but at least once a year. Under the rating system in effect during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, an unsatisfactory rating is awarded when an evaluation contains eight or more deduction points. Ratings are: (1) satisfactory, (2) needs improvement, and (3) unsatisfactory. On the rating form in use during the time in issue here, an unsatisfactory rating results in two deduction points in Items 1 through 27, and one deduction point in Items 28 through 36. An evaluation of "needs improvement" does not result in any deduction points. The School Board of Duval County has not, in any formal way, defined professional incompetence. The evaluation process is but one tool in the management of teacher employment. An unsatisfactory evaluation is not, therefore, conclusive of professional incompetence, but is one factor in that judgmental decision. The procedure used by the School Board in evaluating teacher performance was not adopted in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act. At the time of adoption, the School Board was operating under teacher working conditions that had been implemented after extensive bargaining between the School Board and the teachers' union. These working conditions contained extensive provisions involving "teacher evaluation." When a contract was finally agreed upon between the School Board and the teachers' union, it contained provisions concerning teacher evaluation identical to those which were in effect under the working conditions previous to the implementation of the contract. These provisions, therefore, do not constitute rules "as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes," but instead constitute guidelines for the evaluation of teacher performance arrived at not by decision of the School Board under conditions which require public hearing but jointly by agreement of the parties to the negotiations of the teacher contract between the School Board and the union, a collective bargaining agreement. Warren K. Kennedy was in Respondent's sophomore English class at Forrest Senior High School in Jacksonville during the 1980-81 school year. At one point during the school year, Kennedy saw a series of approximately 22 sexually explicit words or phrases written on the blackboard in Respondent's room. Kennedy copied these words and notified the principal, who went to Respondent's classroom and saw them himself. These words were placed on the board by someone other than Respondent, with her permission, and consisted of a part of an exercise in outlining. As such, Respondent claims the words themselves mean nothing, but words of that nature, including "orgasms, sexual intercourse, French tickler, blow job, condoms, dildo, masturbation, orgy," and the like serve no legitimate purpose in, and are not a legitimate part of, a sophomore English class. Respondent's classroom that year was chaotic. Students did little work, but instead talked openly and freely. Respondent sat quietly at her desk doing paperwork unless the noise got so great as to disturb other classes. Students felt free to walk out of class with impunity. Cursing was prevalent in class, and discipline was nonexistent. Defacing of school property occurred on at least one occasion with Respondent taking no corrective action. As a result, several students and the parents of other students requested their transfer from Respondent's class to another. Respondent was also unreliable in submitting grades and reports in a timely fashion. Observations of Respondent in the classroom environment by several different individuals revealed she did not insist her students come to class equipped with the proper supplies for effective writing or textbook activity. She rarely utilized visual aids pertinent to the matter being discussed. Classroom discussion with students did not generally involve a broad sampling of the class, but was focused on only a few class members. Her questions to the students were often vague and confusing to the students. Respondent's principal during that school year, Ronel J. Poppel, at whose request the above observations were made, himself observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions. As a result of the input from those requested observations and of his own observations, he prepared an evaluation form on Respondent on March 15, 1981, which bore an overall rating of unsatisfactory and reflected that her performance was declining. This report, which reflected 7 of 36 items as unsatisfactory (12 total deduction points), had 20 other items rated as "needs improvement" and contained such written-in suggestions as "needs classroom management techniques, needs better standards of behavior, needs to have long-range planning from the beginning of the year, needs to show more enthusiasm for teaching--needs more variety in methods of teaching," and "should use better judgment in selection of topics." As a result of this evaluation, the observations of her principal and others, and the several counseling periods during which Respondent's deficiencies were pointed out to her along with suggestions for improvement, Respondent was put on notice of her failing performance and afforded the opportunity to take advantage of teacher education counseling (TEC) and, while she did enroll in at least one improvement course, failed to take full advantage of the available opportunities. Poppel's evaluation of Respondent as an incompetent teacher is based on: His personal observation; Evaluation by other professionals; Parent complaint follow-up; Her demonstrated lack of effective planning; Her lack of enforcement of school policies; Her lack of or inability to motivate students; Observed and reported chaotic classroom deportment; Her failure to keep proper records; and Her failure to leave lesson plans for substitutes. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent was well versed in the subject matter she was to teach and had the subjective background to be an excellent teacher. Her shortcomings, as described above, however, far outweighed the positive aspects of her credentials. Respondent was transferred for the 1981-82 school year to Fletcher High School in Jacksonville where she was placed under the supervision of Dr. Ragans, Principal, to teach English. Dr. Ragans spoke to Mr. Poppel, her former principal, about Respondent's weak areas so that he could develop plans to help her in those areas. In an effort to prepare Respondent for the coming year and to ensure she was fully aware of school policies and standards, Dr. Ragans held an extensive conference with Respondent to discuss her previous year's unsatisfactory rating and to make plans to remedy or remediate those areas. On August 25, 1981, he wrote a letter to Respondent in which he reiterated the items discussed previously. Review of this letter reveals there could be little doubt of what Dr. Ragans expected. Nonetheless, when he personally observed her in her classroom less than a month later, he found many of the same weaknesses previously identified, such as a noisy classroom environment, talking by students without being called on, Respondent appearing preoccupied with desk work, and inadequate lesson plans. In the observation report, he made numerous suggestions for improvement and offered Respondent the opportunity to a conference which she did not request. Prior to that observation, however, on September 8, 1981, Dr. Ragans and Respondent met with Dr. Jeff Weathers, TEC consultant for the School Board, in a full discussion of her professional shortcomings, at which meeting a suggestion was made that Respondent enroll in certain university-level courses in classroom management and motivation. Respondent was somewhat reluctant to take these courses because she felt they might interfere with her planning and her preparation for classes. Nonetheless, she did attend one class. Dr. Ragans had advised her he would arrange for substitute teachers for her so that she could take available classes. She was also invited to meet with master teachers in the school to seek assistance and to observe them, and she did in fact do so. In addition, a program was set up for her lesson plans to be reviewed by experts at the School Board. Respondent denies she ever submitted these plans, but according to Judith B. Silas, a resource teacher at School Board headquarters who reviewed Respondent's plans in December, 1981, her plans were confusing and lacking a consistent format: the dates on the plans reflect they were from an earlier series of years; objective numbers did not refer to the 1981 Curriculum Guide and did not cross-reference; and some included material had no relationship to plans or lessons. Ms. Silas's comments, forwarded to the school in February, 1982, were discussed with Respondent. A follow-up letter dated September 25, 1981, outlining the substance of the joint meeting with Dr. Weathers, was forwarded to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, on October 29, 1981, Dr. Ragans prepared a preliminary evaluation on Respondent rated overall as unsatisfactory in which 13 items were rated that way and 12 more rated as "needs to improve." On November 25, 1981, Respondent was provided with a lesson presentation checklist drawn by Dr. Weathers for her to use along with a notice of several night courses available to Respondent and a notice of a proposed observation of another teacher by Dr. Weathers and Respondent on December 14, 1981. After this observation, Dr. Weathers and Respondent discussed the positive aspects of that teacher's operation that Respondent could and should emulate. A new classroom observation of Respondent was set for January, 1982. In the interim, in January, 1982, Dr. Ragans received at least one parent request for a student to be transferred from Respondent's class because the classroom environment was noisy, unruly, and not conducive to learning. As a result of this letter and other parent contacts of a similar nature, Dr. Ragans had several informal discussions with Respondent during this period. On February 23, 1982, Respondent requested a conference with Dr. Ragans on her upcoming evaluation which was, she understood, to be unsatisfactory from a letter to her on February 5, 1982, from Dr. Ragans. This rating, conducted on February 2, 1982, but not signed by Dr. Ragans until March 3, 1982, was unsatisfactory, containing 14 items so marked and 13 marked "needs to improve." At the conference, held the same day as requested, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent he still felt she had marked deficiencies previously indicated regarding classroom control, authority, respect, lesson plans coordination, classroom planning, her failure to provide purposeful learning experiences, no student motivation, and her apparent inability to be understood by her students. Also cited to her were the continuing parent complaints and those of other teachers that their classrooms, used by her (she was a traveling teacher with no room of her own), had been damaged by her students. Much of this had previously been outlined in Dr. Ragans' February 2, 1982, letter indicating his intent to rate Respondent as unsatisfactory. Both Dr. Weathers and another school district supervisor, Dr. Henderson, observed Respondent in the classroom situation in late January or early February, 1982. Both individuals identified the same deficiencies as previously noted by so many others, and both made recommendations for improvement which were passed on, intact, to Respondent. In early March, 1982, Dr. Ragans advised Respondent in writing of his intent to evaluate her on March 15, 1982, to see if she had made any improvement. He did this because of Respondent's feeling that the previous evaluation had not given her enough time to work out improvements. This latest evaluation was also overall unsatisfactory. Two days later, on March 17, 1982, Respondent indicated in writing that she did not accept this evaluation. On April 30, 1982, Dr. Ragans again visited Respondent's classroom so that, if she had markedly improved, he could try to extend her contract or change her evaluation before the end of the school year. However, he could observe no appreciable change. Shortly after this visit, on May 3, he discussed with Respondent complaints he had received from several parents about warnings she had sent out on some students which inconsistently showed both satisfactory performance and danger of failing on the same form. She explained this as all students, including straight "A" students, who had not taken the MLST (test) were in danger of failing. Dr. Ragans felt this excuse was feeble and unjustified and demonstrated poor judgment on her part. All this was confirmed in a letter on May 17. A complaint from a parent of one of Respondent's students, received on June 11, 1982, initiated an audit of the grades given by Respondent during the school year. Results of this audit revealed at least 68 errors involving 46 students, including three students who received passing grades when they, in fact, had failed and should have been in summer school. A total of 13 student grades had to be changed, requiring a letter of notification and apology from the principal. Respondent did not deny the inconsistencies shown in the audit, but defended them on the basis of, in many cases, their being the result of her exercising her discretion and prerogative to award a grade different from that supported by recorded achievement if, in her opinion, other factors so dictated. In any case, the number of inconsistencies requiring a grade change was substantially higher than is normal. During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent had not been assigned a classroom of her own, but instead met and taught her classes in the rooms assigned to other teachers. This situation, while not unique to Respondent and one which several other teachers had as well, is nonetheless a definite handicap to any teacher. In an effort to alleviate the impact of this situation, all Respondent's rooms were scheduled as geographically close together as possible, and she was assigned only one subject to teach. Therefore, though she may have had several class periods which progressed at different speeds, the planning and preparation was similar and much less an arduous task than if she had different subjects to prepare for. In any case, there is little relationship between this and discipline and control in the classroom. Dr. Mary Henderson, Director of Language Arts/Reading for the Duval County School Board, observed Respondent in the classroom during both the 1980- 81 and 1981-82 school years at two different schools. Recognizing that Respondent has definite strengths in her knowledge of the subject matter to be taught and her recognition of and communication to the students of the relationship of their lessons to the test requirements, Dr. Henderson still felt Respondent was not a competent teacher. On both occasions, she found Respondent's lesson plans to be inadequate, her techniques in classroom management were deficient, she failed to make effective use of the students' time, and she failed to effectively motivate her students to participate in the classroom activities. Throughout all this period, according to both supervisors and others who observed her, Respondent always maintained a pleasant, calm, positive, and cooperative approach to all with whom she came into contact. At no time did she show hostility or resentment. Also, there was never a question as to her knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent possesses a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in administration and supervision. She has sufficient credit hours to qualify for a major in Spanish. She has also taken several in-service courses in such subjects as linguistics, methods of curriculum and instruction, British literature, and school administration. She is certified to teach English, Spanish, and typing. She has been a teacher in several Florida school systems for 29 years, of which the last 21 years were in various Jacksonville area schools. She is tenured. She was selected for summer school employment in 1980, while at Forrest High School, even though tenure does not ensure selection to teach summer school. During the 1980-81 school year, Respondent was caring for the aunt who raised her and who was suffering from terminal cancer. This required frequent travel back and forth to another part of the state, and in addition to being a physical burden, constituted a severe strain on her mental state. During that year, she started out teaching only twelfth grade classes, but as a result of a reduction in class sizes during the school year, she was given some additional tenth grade classes for which she had not prepared. Respondent feels her classroom discipline was not so unusual as to be remarkable. She feels she maintained classroom discipline as well as required and contested the allegations that she rarely referred students to the administration for additional discipline. She made all reasonable effort to improve her performance by enrolling in some of the courses recommended by Drs. Weathers and Ragans, but had to wait until the second semester because she did not get the information on the first semester courses until after they had started. The classes she took urged the use of listening and negotiating skills rather than the authoritative method in dealing with students. She tried to implement what she learned in her classrooms and feels she succeeded regardless of what the testimony shows. In addition, she took a course dealing with self- concept and self-confidence and applied for admission to Jacksonville University's master of arts program in an effort to upgrade her skills. Respondent admits that at the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, she was not using formal lesson plans. She had been asked by the administration for plans on a weekly basis and had jotted down ideas on paper. To formulate these ideas, she used prior years lesson plans, but did not turn any of these in. This does not track with Ms. Silas's testimony that the Respondent's plans she reviewed appeared to be from prior years. I find that prior years' plans were used by Respondent extensively and how these plans were transmitted to Ms. Silas for review is immaterial. Respondent, based on the above, while possessing the necessary technical qualifications to perform as a teacher, while possessing the appropriate knowledge of her subject matter, and while possessing the desire to impart that knowledge to her students, is nonetheless incompetent to conduct a class, maintain proper discipline, and generate adequate student motivation to accomplish these desired ends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be removed from classroom teaching duties and be assigned some other function within the school system until such time, unless sooner released for other good cause, as she can retire with maximum benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary E. Eckstine, Esquire Chief Administrative Hearings Section City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William F. Kachergus, Esquire Maness & Kachergus 502 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Herb A. Sang Superintendent Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
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.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(c), or (g), Florida Statutes (2013),2/ and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a master's degree in early childhood education and is a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the area of elementary education. Respondent is also certified to teach language arts and social studies in middle school. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Sarasota County School District (SCSD). During the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2009-2010, and 2010- 2011 school years, Respondent taught kindergarten at North Port Toledo Blade Elementary School (Toledo). During the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Respondent taught first grade at Toledo. Respondent executed a professional service contract of employment for the SCSD on July 1, 2008, approximately a month before the start of the 2008-2009 school year. TEACHER EVALUATIONS In the SCSD during the applicable time, the instrument used for teacher evaluations was called the Professional Rubrics Investing and Developing Educator Excellence (PRIDE) performance evaluation system which contains a Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) Summative Observation Instrument, a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) Checklist, and a PIP Classroom Instructional Level 1 & 2 form. Utilizing the PRIDE, SCSD teachers were required to demonstrate competency in four Domains. Each domain encompassed a specific aspect of teaching: I- Creating a Culture for Learning; II- Planning for Success; III- Instruction and Assessing Student Achievement; and IV- Communicating Professional Commitment; and each domain had several subparts. During an observation/evaluation, a teacher could receive one of four ratings: accomplished, developing, needs improvement, or unsatisfactory. A teacher who receives two or more "unsatisfactory" ratings in PRIDE domains I, II, or III, could be subject to termination from the SCSD. Following classroom observations, should a school administrator determine there are concerns regarding a teacher's performance, a PIP conference (conference) may be called. Those attending the conference are the teacher, a union representative,6/ the school's administrator(s), and a district representative. During the conference, the school's administrator discusses the classroom observations of what was working or not working in the teacher's classroom. The PIP is fully explained to the teacher. A PIP is for teachers who have been identified by their school administrators as having some performance challenges. Its purpose is to provide confidential support via a coach to those teachers who have been identified as performing below acceptable standards. Other support services that can be provided to a teacher include: an opportunity to observe a highly effective similar classroom of students; additional professional development courses; and regularly scheduled PIP conferences to review what has been observed between each conference. The PIP goal is to assist the teacher to become an effective and efficient teacher in the classroom. A PIP is generally established for two school years; however, it may be shortened if the teacher demonstrates improvement in the areas of concern. Once a PIP is in place, the school principal assumes the responsibility of observing and evaluating the teacher. After the conference, a coach is identified, contacted and asked to serve as the teacher's coach. As the PIP progresses, that coach and the school's principal are to provide feedback to the teacher. However, the parties decide the manner in which the feedback is to be provided. There are no set directions for when the principal must provide feedback, except at the regularly scheduled PIP conferences. In the event the teacher's performance has not improved after having a coach and time, an administrator (or administrators) from another school may be called in to observe and evaluate the teacher. This is to ensure that the teacher is evaluated by a neutral third party who is not part of the school's administration. Prior to the PRIDE system, the SCSD used a different evaluation system: the Teacher Performance Appraisal System (TPAS). TPAS provided for pre- and post-observation conferences with the teachers regarding the observations. This system provided timely feedback to the teacher.
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)(d), Respondent be placed on probation for a period of at least three years with such conditions as the Education Practices Commission may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all time relevant hereto, respondent, Delores V Crumiel, held Teaching Certificate No. 342743 issued by the State Department of Education. The certificate covers the specialization of elementary education, grades one through six. During school years 1979-80 through 1984-85, Crumiel was employed by petitioner, School Board of Dade County, as a tenured elementary teacher at West Little River Elementary School (WIRES) in Miami, Florida. Crumiel received a bachelor of science degree in elementary education from Florida Memorial College. Except for a leave of absence during school year 1982-83 due to the death of her husband, she was employed as an elementary school teacher in Dade County for the eleven years immediately preceding her dismissal. WLRES is located in a low socio-economic area of Miami. It has qualified as a Chapter I school, which means it receives federal monies to provide supplementary instruction in basic skills for low-achieving students from the low-income areas of the community. Under this program, instruction is focused on basic skills such as mathematics, language arts and reading, and the teacher has no responsibility in content areas such as science, social studies and health. However, in order to compensate for the lack of content areas, the Chapter I teacher is required to interweave topics from the missing content areas into language lessons in order to give a "language experience" to the students. The language experience is an important part of the federal program. The size of Chapter I classes at WLRES is roughly half of a normal class, and typically numbered from thirteen to fifteen students. It was established that a Chapter I class is easier to teach than a class in the regular school program because of smaller classroom size, less discipline problems, and easier subject matter content. The lesson plans are also easier to prepare than regular lesson plans because only language arts and mathematics are included in Chapter I plans. During the relevant time period, Crumiel was assigned to teach either fifth or sixth grades. By virtue of required classroom observations being conducted by supervisory personnel, Crumiel was found to be deficient in classroom management and teacher-student relationships in school year 1979-1980, deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment technique in school year 1983-84, and deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques in school year 1984-85. After Crumiel declined a School Board offer to relinquish her teaching job, and accept a teaching aide position, the School Board voted on October 21, 1985, to dismiss Crumiel from employment with the Board on the basis of incompetency. This action confirmed her earlier suspension effective October 2, 1985, and she has remained suspended without pay since that date. The Board's action prompted the instant proceeding. Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, thereafter filed an administrative complaint seeking revocation of Crumiel's teaching certificate on the same ground. The two matters have been consolidated for hearing purposes. School Year 1979-1980 During school year 1979-1980, Crumiel was assigned to teach in a fifth grade classroom at WLRES. At that time Dr. John Johnson, II was her principal. Crumiel was formally observed by Johnson on December 4, 1979 and February 26, 1980 when he made routine visits to her classroom to evaluate her teaching skills. On these two visits Johnson found Crumiel to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and teacher- student relationships. More specifically, Johnson observed hostility and screaming in the classroom, and found her "upset, emotional and loud." He described her as being in "total disarray." He also felt the students were "acting out." Because of this, she received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Johnson assigned a systems aide to work with Crumiel in the classroom. Crumiel was also assigned to work with a master teacher during the following summer (1981). The results of this effort are noted in a subsequent finding. Dr. Johnson gave her written prescriptions to help improve her performance and asked that the assistant principal work with Crumiel. A prescription is a course of action that must be carried out by a teacher in order to remediate a deficient performance. This type of assistance continued until Johnson departed WLRES in 1983. During this period of time Johnson received numerous complaints regarding Crumiel's classroom management from other teachers, and had to go to her class on a number of occasions to calm the students. During school year 1979-80, a first-year teacher taught in the classroom adjacent to respondent's classroom. She confirmed that Crumiel's classroom discipline was very poor, and that the students were noisy and disruptive. In addition, even though Crumiel was supposedly a "seasoned" teacher, the first year teacher frequently found Crumiel seeking assistance from her regarding subject matter content and teaching techniques. Despite the unacceptable annual evaluation given Crumiel in school year 1979-80, Johnson continued to recommend Crumiel for employment. However, he noted that Crumiel's performance was going "down" as time progressed, and except for the fact that he was leaving WLRES in 1983, he would have recommended she be dismissed from the school system. C. 1980-83 During the summer of 1981, Dr. Johnson assigned crumiel to team teach with Alstene McKinney, a master teacher, so that Crumiel could learn some ideas and techniques from McKinney. They taught two regular size classes of twenty-five to thirty Chapter I students in a pod. A pod is a free standing building utilizing the open space concept where a number of classrooms are separated by partitions. At least two classrooms would share common bathrooms and water fountain facilities. McKinney observed that Crumiel has a problem with classroom management, and that her class was always noisy. On various occasions McKinney had to stop teaching and ask Crumiel's students to quiet down. On one occasion McKinney observed Crumiel instructing her students that a quarter past the hour meant 25 minutes after the hour. When she later mentioned it to Crumiel, Crumiel corrected herself and said, "I meant 20 minutes after." Crumiel's husband unexpectedly died on September 1, 1982, from injuries received in an accident. By the following spring, respondent has accumulated some forty-five days of absences, and her absences were affecting her students' progress. In addition, she developed a pattern of calling in the evening and informing the school secretary htat she would report to work the next day, and then in the morning, calling to inform the school she would be absent. At that time, Dr. Johnson referred Crumiel to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in an effort to aid her in coping with her family crisis. The EAP is a program designed to assist teachers having academic, personal or psychological problems. Crumiel eventually took a leave of absence April, 1983 for the remainder of the school year. She was medically cleared to return to work in August, 1983. The medical clearance noted that Crumiel did not have any medical condition that would impair or restrict her performance as a teacher. School Year 1983-84 Respondent returned to WLRES on August 24, 1983. She was given a Chapter 1 fifth grade classroom assignment on that day by her new principal, Glenda Harris. The class was to be taught in an air-conditioned pod to be shared with two other teachers, Pauline Maloof and Merrial Daniels Radford. There were a total of forty-five students assigned to the entire pod. Although the adequacy of the size of the room was questioned by one of respondent's witnesses, it is found that respondent's classroom contained adequate space for the number of children being taught. In fact, in the prior year, two teachers and sixty-four students had shared the same space. Moreover, the pod concept is common in the Dade County school system, and even today, Crumiel's former pod classroom is still set up structurally in the same manner. During this school year, Chapter I classes were restricted to a maximum of sixteen students, with the average being fifteen students. This compared with a regular class that would have from twenty-eight to thirty-five students. An essential component in the Chapter I program is the oral language development segment. Through this component, the teacher gives the children a better example of speech patterns so that students who are not proficient in the use of standard English become aware of the standard patterns and usage. This enables the students to use appropriate language when entering the job market. To improve and enhance the teacher skills in the foregoing area, all Chapter I teachers, including Crumiel, received five in-service training sessions during the school year. On November 16, 1983, Harris visited Crumiel's classroom to make a formal observation of respondent's teaching. Harris was so stunned by what she observed that she chose not to record her visit as an official observation. During the visit, it became apparent to Harris that Crumiel had no grasp of Chapter I requirements. More specifically, Crumiel was not interweaving the content areas of science and social studies into the language experience. She confused the students by accepting incorrect answers as correct and vice-versa. Crumiel also demonstrated a lack of basic English skills, making such statements as, "Is there anyone who do not understand?"; "I am sorry, boys and girls--my book do not have . . . "; "Why you think it's 'drink?'"; and "Who do not understand?" In addition, Crumiel was using an outdated reading technique (round-robin reading), and did not use the diagnostic prescriptive approach by setting up reading groups within her class. It was evident to Harris that Crumiel had not read the lesson prior to teaching the children, and was totally unprepared. Because of this, the children in Crumiel's classroom did not receive a minimal educational experience on that day. Harris asked Crumiel where her teaching aid materials were, and was told by Crumiel they were in the bottom of one of her desk drawers. Crumiel also acknowledged that she had not read them. Harris returned for a formal observation of Crumiel on November 21, 1983. She found respondent's performance to be no better than it was on November 16, 1983. It was evident that respondent had not read the lesson prior to teaching the class and did not understand the point of the story being told. The students were also having great difficulty reading. Crumiel's interpretive skills were very poor and she still accepted incorrect responses from the students and vice-versa. For example, when one student gave an example of a compound word, charcoal, Crumiel told the student that it was incorrect because "char" was not a word. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "jack-o-later" for "jack-o-lantern," "likeded" for "liked," and "terranium" for "terrarium." She also used very poor grammatical structure. Based upon her observations, Harris rated Crumiel as being unacceptable with specific deficiencies in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She also concluded that the students failed to receive a minimal educational experience. After the observation was concluded, Harris and Crumiel discussed the problems Harris had noted that day. Crumiel acknowledged she had done poorly, and asked that Harris observe her another day when she would be better prepared. Harris again formally observed respondent on November 29, 1983. She was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Harris noted that Crumiel had not set up a reading program even though this is required in both regular and Chapter I classes. In addition, respondent's lesson plans merely listed page numbers rather than activities, materials and evaluations. Further, while she had grouped the children, she had not given them the appropriate reading books based upon their diagnostic tests. Crumiel had also failed to preview the lesson prior to teaching the class. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "shevel" for "shovel," and "depenable" for "dependable," and displayed poor grammar throughout the instruction. Her subject verb agreement was virtually nonexistent and she misused possessives. For example, Crumiel stated, "This machine what is called the steam shovel. . . what is the little boy name? . . . Yes it does scoops up dirt." She was unable to define a steam shovel for a student until she looked the term up in a dictionary. She continued to accept incorrect information from the children as correct and vice-versa. Finally, Harris found respondent's techniques of instruction unacceptable since Crumiel merely read directions to the class. After the observation was completed, Harris met with Crumiel and discussed all areas of her evaluation. On December 8, 1983, a conference-for-the-record was attended by Harris, Crumiel and Jack Grayson, the assistant principal at WLRES. At that time, the observations and visits of November 16, 21 and 29, 1983 were discussed. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Harris and Grayson devised a prescription designed to meet Crumiel's needs. In this case, the prescriptive plan required Crumiel to enroll in a basic English course and a Methods and Materials course in the teaching of reading. She was told to do this by the second semester of the school year. She was also told that Grayson would give her assistance with her reading plans, and visit her classroom on December 13, 1983 to become more familiar with her classroom style. In addition, Harris offered to make available further training in the Dade County Diagnostic Prescriptive Reading System. She was asked to set up a schedule of visitations to other classrooms so that she might learn teaching techniques from other faculty members. Finally, Crumiel was given a set of procedures to be used in critiquing her own plans and presentations of lessons. After the conference, Harris and Grayson spent an hour- and-a-half showing Crumiel how to set up her reading program. They were surprised when they found that respondent, despite having taught for eight or nine years in the system, did not know how to do this. Respondent was next formally observed by Grayson during a lesson on invitations on December 13, 1983. Respondent was given an overall rating of acceptable. However, Grayson later discovered that another teacher, Merria1 Radford Daniels, had actually written the lesson plan, and had demonstrated to Crumiel how to teach that day's class. She did so after Crumiel came to her seeking help before Grayson's visit. Daniels had made displays for Crumiel, and had written the lesson on Crumiel's blackboard with the key words to be used. She also demonstrated the lesson in Crumiel's presence. Daniels then had Crumiel demonstrate the lesson for her, and told respondent to go home and practice in front of a mirror. Respondent admitted this to Grayson. Respondent was informally visited by Harris on January 23, 1984. Although the students were supposed to be in their seats and ready to begin at 8:30 a.m., Harris found them up and out of their seats at 8:58 a.m. when she entered the classroom. Crumiel had not prepared a lesson for that particular class, so she taught a lesson originally scheduled for another time. Even so, she merely read instructions and handed out materials. Harris found no evidence that respondent was carrying out the prescription previously given to her on December 8, 1983. She concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience that day. Respondent was again formally observed by Harris on June 5, 1984. At that time she was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Although respondent had developed lesson plans for the class, the classroom activities did not reflect evidence of effective instructional planning. More importantly, Harris did not see any progress by Crumiel since she had been given the prescription on December 8, 1983. She found Crumiel still reading directions to the students rather than teaching them subject matter content. A large part of the classroom instruction was taken up by students performing meaningless exercises. Respondent still lacked a basic understanding of the subject matter, abbreviations. This was evidenced by respondent's inability to answer questions from students indicating when abbreviations are to be used. For example, she could not answer why the abbreviation for doctor is capitalized, or why the abbreviation for ounces is oz. rather than oun. She still continued to use improper English such as "Be sure your name and date is on all your papers." On June 6, 1984, Grayson revisited Crumiel's classroom to conduct a formal evaluation of Crumiel's mathematics class. Grayson rated respondent's performance as unacceptable with a specific deficiency in the area of techniques of instruction. He found the lesson too simple for the students and therefore a waste of their time. Crumiel's instructions and directions were confusing, and she was unable to clarify them for the students' benefit. Crumiel was again observed by Harris on June 8, 1984. Respondent had asked Harris to return after her prior visit on June 5 because she had learned something in a class she was taking and wanted to demonstrate it to Harris. After observing respondent Harris rated her as unacceptable with deficiencies in the areas of planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She was found barely acceptable in classroom management. Although Crumiel had a lesson plan, it was not effective and was inappropriate for students of the fifth grade level. Moreover, her classroom management appeared to Harris to be staged and practiced as in a performance. At hearing, Crumiel contended the pod was a poor environment in which to teach, and stated her class was frequently disrupted by outside students coming in to her area to use the restroom and drinking fountain. However, during school year 1983-84, Crumiel voiced no complaints to the administration about teaching in a pod, or that she experienced the disruptions she described. Indeed, no such disruptive activity was ever observed by the administrators who made classroom evaluations or by other teachers in the pod. If such activity did occur, it was only after someone inside the classroom unlocked the door since Crumiel's door was always kept locked. During the school year, the disruptive children were always evenly distributed between Maloof, Daniels, and Crumiel. After Harris became aware of Crumiel's classroom management problems, several students with behavioral problems were reassigned from Crumiel's classroom to that of Maloof and Daniels. Moreover, Crumiel received the highest academic level in the three groups. On her annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas or preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. However, Harris refrained from recommending Crumiel for termination, choosing instead to write another, more detailed prescription in the hope that Crumiel could improve over the summer. On June 21, 1984, another conference-for-the-record was held by Harris, Crumiel, Grayson and a teacher union representative. At that time, Harris outlined the prescription and asked that Crumiel continue with the EAP. Crumiel had previously participated in the EAP but had ceased attending, Crumiel was told to prepare her lesson plans in behavioral terms and was given various reading materials to help her with this task. She was further given an excerpt from the teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) manual on techniques of instruction. In addition, she was directed to take certain courses offered by the Teacher Education center (TEC) to assist her in deficient areas. However, Harris suggested that the outside course work could be postponed until the fall so that she could spend a restful summer. Finally Crumiel was told she would be informally observed during the first nine weeks of the following school year, and formally observed in the second nine week period. This information was incorrect since any teacher on prescription must be formally observed during the first six weeks of the next school year. In conjunction with the EAP respondent began individual psychotherapy and supportive counseling with a licensed clinical psychologist that summer. She remained his patient until September, 1985. During school year 1983-84, Crumiel received help from Maloof and Daniels, who shared her pod. Maloof gave Crumiel assistance in grouping her children, shared materials with her, and made various suggestions on how to improve her teaching techniques. However, when they discussed educational topics, Crumiel did not seem to understand the subject matter. Daniels showed respondent how to order materials for the different levels of students. Finally, a reading specialist gave a workshop session in October, 1983 that addressed the procedures for pre- testing, post-testing and leveling students. Crumiel attended this workshop. School Year 1984-85 Beginning in the 1984-85 school year, WLRES implemented the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of teacher observation for all teachers. In the prior year, only annual contract teachers were under the TADS observation scheme. Since Crumiel was under a continuing contract, she was not subject to this observation method prior to school year 1984-85. Under the TADS system, teachers are required to have objectives, activities and a way of monitoring student progress in and through their lesson plans. At the beginning of the school year, Harris moved Crumiel to Room 212, a self-contained classroom. This move was prompted by complaints about noisy, disruptive students in Crumiel's classroom from the teachers who shared the pod with Crumiel during the prior year. Room 212 contained approximately the same amount of space that Crumiel previously had in the pod, but the classroom was not air-conditioned. However, around two- thirds of the teachers in the school did not have air- conditioning at that time. Harris also changed respondent's grade level from grade five to grade six. This was done to relieve her of the additional pressures of preparing the students for the state assessment test (SAT). WLRES had been adjudged deficient during the previous school year, and fifth grade classes were scheduled to be tested on the SAT in the first nine weeks of the school year. Crumiel protested her reassignment to a higher grade level and told Harris that sixth grade mathematics were beyond her teaching ability. However, Harris reminded Crumiel that she was certified for the sixth grade, and that the chances of her actually teaching sixth grade math in a Chapter I class were remote. Children were assigned to respondent in very much the same manner that they had been assigned the previous year. The administration made certain that slow learners and students exhibiting behavior problems were evenly distributed among the various teachers. Harris visited respondent's classroom on September 20, 1984 to conduct an informal observation. Respondent's lesson plans were not written in behavioral terms as directed by her June 21 prescription. Further, she had not grouped the children or pretested them in reading. Harris also found Crumiel's presentation of subject matter and classroom management skills unacceptable. Harris concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience. Harris met with respondent following the informal visit. At that meeting, Harris reviewed Crumiel's prescription and the efforts being made by Crumiel to fulfill its goals. Harris discovered that respondent had "forgotten" to inquire about the various courses taught at the Reacher Education Center and displayed an unconcerned attitude towards the requirements of the prescription. She was told by Crumiel that the sixth grade level objectives were too difficult for her, and that she did not know how to write lesson plans in behavioral objectives. Harris then told Crumiel she would visit respondent's classroom on September 25, 1984. Harris also began showing Crumiel how to write objectives in behavioral terms. Harris was unable to visit respondent's classroom on September 25 because respondent called in sick that morning. Crumiel did, however, bring her lesson plans to Harris the following day. Harris found them lacking any behavioral objectives. Harris again encouraged Crumiel to read the material furnished her. Respondent's mathematics class was formally observed by Grayson on October 1, 1984. A formal observation was required at that time since Crumiel was on prescription from the prior year. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plans did not have the items required by the TADS system. In other words, Crumiel had no way to assess her students in order to monitor their progress. Grayson recommended that respondent continue with the prescription given by Harris, and to turn in her lesson plans on a weekly basis for his review. Grayson continued to review those plans until her dismissal some two years later, and to offer suggestions on how they could be improved. During the school year, the teacher occupying the adjacent classroom continually complained about the noise in respondent's room. Because of this, Crumiel was moved to room 206, a larger self-contained classroom which had been recently renovated and filled with new furniture. It was uncontradicted that room 206 was far superior to the other classroom spaces in the building that were used by Chapter I classes. Respondent was formally observed again by Harris on January 23, 1985. Harris found that the children were not receiving a minimal educational experience. Using the TADS system, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessments techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she was still using November lessons plans with only the dates changed, and was not using the prescribed plan. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she gave no instruction. She was found to be unacceptable in classroom management because the children were not prepared to begin the lesson. In the area of techniques of instruction, Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because she was not using appropriate methods or differentiated materials, and she failed to use two or more learning styles as required by TADS. Finally Crumiel was found to be deficient in assessment techniques because she failed to use the information given her in the TADS prescription manual. In addition, because her grade book and student folders were not properly maintained, and there was no way to tell what had been taught and tested, or to access the students' improvement. As a result of the January 25 visit, Harris prescribed help for respondent from the TADS prescription manual, which is written on a level that the average teacher can understand. However, Harris did not suggest that Crumiel use the manual after that occasion since Crumiel admitted she was unable to understand the information in the manual. At respondent's request, Harris performed another formal observation on January 29, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Harris also concluded that the students did not receive a minimal educational experience. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not written in conformity with her prescription. She appeared unprepared and wasted classroom time on repetitious, meaningless exercises. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of knowledge of subject matter because she did not understand the lesson she was suppose to be teaching, and told the children that adding an "s" at the end of a verb would make it plural. Crumiel's classroom management was rated unacceptable because the classroom environment was not conducive to learning. Harris found the room unkempt and materials in disorder, and noted that Crumiel did not start the lesson promptly due to a number of unnecessary delays. In the area of techniques of instruction Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because the majority of the materials used were inappropriate for the objectives. Further, the methods of instruction never varied, and respondent did not give consideration to the various learning styles in the classroom. Harris concluded that the materials and methods used often insulted the age level of the students. After the observation was concluded, Harris asked Crumiel to review and study the materials given her in the prior prescription. Crumiel was also told that Eneida Hartner, director of the North Central area, would provide her with additional help. Finally, Harris taught a reading lesson to Crumiel's class in an effort to improve Crumiel's teaching style. While Harris was in the classroom, respondent did relatively well with teacher-student relationships. However, when no administrator was present, respondent could often be heard shouting and cajoling the children to behave. There were instances when children were seen hanging out of the windows and shouting. Respondent was heard telling a student on one occasion, "Sit your black butt down." On February 8, 1985, Harris and Hartner visited respondent's classroom for approximately one hour to informally observe Crumiel. Even though Hartner had designed certain activities for respondent to use that day while teaching, Hartner and Harris concluded there was no teaching in the classroom. They also noted that respondent was not following the diagnostic prescriptive approach which is required of all elementary teachers.. Hartner recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from a Chapter I educational specialist, Pat Kanovsky, who was assigned to help Crumiel with the language experience approach used in Chapter I classes. Hartner also directed a prep specialist, Gwen Bryant, to monitor Crumiel in the areas of basic skills, such as reading, writing and mathematics, and to help respondent in the prescriptive diagnostic approach. She also recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from the assistant principal, department chairman and master teacher, and to make use of certain excerpts from the TADS prescription manual. Bryant visited Crumiel's classroom four times in February 1985 in an attempt to provide her with assistance. On her February 14 visit, Bryant observed that respondent was not using the "RSVP" program in an appropriate manner. This is a program that is used for all children in both Chapter I and regular classes. Bryant also noted that Crumiel had not used her pacemaker chart correctly, and was therefore unable to determine if the children were being taught subject matter at a pace commensurate with their level of ability. On her February 27 visit, Bryant found the students confused and not understanding what they were expected to do in class that day. They were yelling, and many were out of their seats. Respondent was unsuccessful in her efforts to manage behavior. After seeing this, Bryant made a number of suggestions to respondent. She also went over the instructional material and demonstrated how to properly use it. She explained how the students were to be placed and instructed according to their reading levels. Bryant gave further tips on teaching techniques, suggestions on managing classroom behavior and how to properly begin a lesson. On February 11, 1985, Kanovsky spent approximately two hours with Crumiel in an effort to improve Crumiel's lesson plan preparation. Among other things, Kanovsky told respondent that her grammar was inappropriate for use in a Chapter I classroom. Hartner, accompanied by Harris, visited respondent's classroom on March 27, 1985, for the purpose of making an external observation. This type of observation was required since Crumiel had already received two negative evaluations from WLRES administrators. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. She was given an unsatisfactory rating in preparation and planning because she failed to properly include a language experience activity in her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to use poor grammar while teaching. For example, Crumiel made such statements as, "Their eyes be red" and "How do their face look?" Crumiel was found to be deficient in techniques of instruction because the lesson lacked sequence, and she failed to adjust her instruction when she did not get anticipated responses from the students. She also accepted responses from the students without telling them whether they were right or wrong. Further, it did not appear that Crumiel had made use of any of the suggestions regarding teaching techniques given by Bryant on February 27. Finally, respondent was given an unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because a review by Hartner of the students' folders revealed that Crumiel had failed to use the diagnostic prescriptive approaches in reading and mathematics that were required by the Dade County school system. Having formally observed Crumiel, Hartner concluded that respondent's students did not have a meaningful educational experience on March 27, 1985. She further concluded that respondent lacked adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that she lacked the necessary motivational skills necessary to promote oral language development. She also concluded that Crumiel would be unable to teach non-Chapter I students because of the greater number of students and more difficult subject matter in those classes. In short, she found Crumiel unable to teach in any capacity at the elementary school level. In addition to her visits on February 14 and 27, Bryant met with Crumiel on at least two other occasions to help Crumiel understand the diagnostic prescriptive approach to reading. Bryant came away from those meetings with the belief that Crumiel did not understand her directions or the teaching materials. She also concluded the Crumbie was unqualified to teach the sixth grade. An educational specialist, Shirley Fields, also visited respondent's classroom on April 19 and 22, 1985, to discuss the oral language development segment of instruction. On one of her visits, she demonstrated for Crumiel's benefit an actual lesson from the program. Harris returned to respondent's classroom on June 3, 1985 for the purpose of conducting a formal observation. She found no improvement on Crumiel's part and concluded it would be counter-productive to fill out a formal observation form. The subject matter of the class was fractions, and Crumiel appeared to have no knowledge of the subject matter. During the school year, Harris and Grayson received a number of verbal complaints about respondent's classroom management. This was confirmed by testimony from the other teachers and a teacher liaison who frequently observed or heard disruption and noise in respondent's classroom. Harris, Crumiel and a teacher union representative attended a conference-for-the-record on June 12, 1986 to discuss Crumiel's teaching performance. However, it was necessary to discontinue the conference shortly after it was begun because Crumiel lost her composure. The conference was reconvened on June 24, 1985. At that meeting Crumiel rejected an opportunity to be reclassified as a teacher aide, a position that would enable her to continue working with children, but only under the direct supervision of another teacher. On her annual evaluation for 1984-1985, respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques and professional responsibility. In addition, she was not recommended for employment the following school year. Psychological Testing In an effort to find some type of alternative position for Crumiel, the classroom teacher's union recommended that she undergo a battery of psychological tests. In this vein, Crumiel was referred to both a psychiatrist and a psychologist to determine if there was a reason for her poor performance in classroom teaching. The psychologist, Dr. Bradman, had previously seen the patient since June, 1984 in conjunction with the EAP. On June 14 and 18, 1985 Bradman administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) Test to Crumiel. This test is more commonly known as an IQ or intelligence quotient test. At the time of testing, Bradman found no evidence of depression although Crumiel experienced some mild anxiety. The test segment which would most likely be affected by depression was the Digit Symbol Subtest. However, Crumiel scored within the average range on this segment, and it represented one of her highest scores. Respondent obtained a Full Scale IQ of 74 which is in the borderline range of intelligence. Stated differently, approximately 95% of the people taking the test would achieve a higher score than Crumiel. Bradman found this result to be accurate and valid, and that neither stress or depression could account for Crumiel's low performance. During the course of the two sessions on June 14 and 18, Bradman asked Crumiel a number of questions to test her intellectual skill and capacity. In response to a question asking her to name four men who have been president of the United States since 1950, she responded, "Roosevelt, Lincoln, George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt." When questioned further, she added, "Jefferson." Crumiel also told Bradman that there were 48 weeks in a year and that Labor Day is in May. She did not know who Louie Armstrong was, and thought that to get from Chicago to the country of Panama one would travel east. She could not correctly define the words "assemble," "enormous," "conceal," "consume," "regulate," "commence," "domestic," "tranquil" or "ponder." Finally, Crumiel could not answer basic arithmetic questions such as "If raffle tickets cost twenty-five cents each, how much would it cost to buy six tickets?" and "If soft drinks are sold six cans to a package, if you want 36 cans, how many packages must you buy?" Based upon the results of the WAIS-R, Dr. Bradman concluded that respondent was not capable of teaching the higher elementary school grades. However, he was unable to form an opinion as to whether Crumiel could teach the lower grade levels based strictly upon the testing he had performed. On August 29, 1985, Crumiel was also evaluated by a board certified psychiatrist, Dr. Waldo M. Ellison, who was accepted as an expert in that field. He examined Crumiel to ascertain if there was a psychological reason for her dysfunction as an elementary school teacher. Ellison noted that respondent experienced some mild anxiety during the examination but had no depression. Further, he found no evidence of any medical problem or condition. Although Crumiel told Dr. Ellison that mathematics was her favorite subject, she was unable to determine two-thirds of the number sixty. She also could not correctly define the word "motivate," and was unaware of important current events such as the name of the mayor of Miami, or the fact that a hurricane was then approaching the City of Miami. Based upon his evaluation, Ellison concluded that respondent's intellectual deficiencies would interfere with the ability to provide her students with a minimum educational experience. Miscellaneous It was the general consensus of all administrators and faculty who observed Crumiel during the relevant time periods that she did not possess the skills necessary to teach elementary students, either at a regular or Chapter I level. More specifically, they found that she lacked an adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that her lack of minimum skills and competency resulted in her students being deprived of a minimal educational experience. Respondent's own testimony helped confirm the above observations since it was replete with inappropriate English grammar and language. Her lack of fundamental mathematics skills also became apparent during cross-examination by the Board counsel. Respondent's Case Respondent blamed her problems in 1984-85 on her assignment to a small, self-contained classroom without air- conditioning. However, this classroom was approximately the same size as used by two other teachers in the pod, and they did not experience the same difficulty as did Crumiel. Moreover, two- thirds of the faculty at WLRES that year had no air-conditioning. Even so, she was moved to a larger, more modernized classroom during the year but her performance did not improve. Respondent also cited over-aged, disruptive students being assigned to her Chapter I classes as a cause for her classroom management difficulty. But credible testimony established that disruptive students were evenly assigned to all Chapter I teachers, that Crumiel's class had no more than other Chapter I teachers, and several were taken out of her classroom in an effort to aid her performance. Crumiel also contended that her classes were frequently disrupted by students wandering into her classroom from an adjacent physical education area to use the restroom and water fountain facilities. No administrator ever observed this while visiting in her class, and it was shown that even if it did happen, she could have prevented this by refusing to unlock her door. Crumiel further stated that she attempted to follow through with her prescriptions, but that Harris and Grayson were never satisfied. However, independent administrators not associated with WLRES confirmed her failure to follow the prescriptions. Respondent also stated she received a "B" in a college course taken one summer at a local college as evidence of her effort to improve her skills. But a fellow teacher placed this testimony in serious doubt when she testified that Crumiel had taken notes into the final examination and improperly used them while filling out her examination booklet. Through the deposition testimony of Dr. Capp, a psychologist, respondent attempted to refute the IQ score of 74 by showing that she received a score of 99 on the test on February 4, 1986, and that she was functioning within the normal range of intelligence. Dr. Bradman had no scientific explanation for this result, but opined that Crumiel may have studied for the second test, or had remembered the questions from the first time the test was administered. Dr. Capp agreed that this was possible. In any event, the testimony of Drs. Bradman and Ellison is deemed to be more persuasive and credible, and their results and conclusions are found to be more accurate. Union Contract Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade County. That body has a labor contract with the Dade County School Board. Among other things, section 6 of the contract provides in relevant part as follows: Any teacher assigned in any observation category shall be entitled to a prescription of professional growth practices (remedies) which shall include reasonable time-frames for implementation . . .. The function of such practices is to assist the teacher in professional growth . . .. Failure to implement prescribed professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was prescribed shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Article . . .. In the instant case, respondent was placed on prescription at the end of school year 1983-84. Respondent was told she would remain on prescription during the first nine weeks of school year 1984- However, in order to comply with a TADS requirement, a teacher who ends the year on prescription must be observed during the first six weeks in the following school year. To meet this requirement, a formal observation was made by Grayson on October 1, 1985 which was within the time-frame for improvement set forth in the prescription. At that time, Grayson gave a second prescription to Crumiel with instructions that a lesson plan be submitted by each Wednesday. Another formal observation was made by Harris on January 23, 1985, or well after the first and second prescriptive periods. Crumiel was then placed on another prescription effective January 28, 1985 by prescription dated January 23, 1985. Certain prescriptives were ordered to be complied with no later than the next visit. This was followed by a formal observation by Harris on January 29, 1985. When the next formal observation was made by Hartner on March 27, 1985, no time-frames were in effect. All such observations, prescriptive periods and remedies were in conformity with the contract. Even respondent did not file a grievance complaining that the contract was violated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency, and that she be terminated from employment with the School Board of Dade County, and her teaching certificate number 342743 be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Bldg., Suite 301 1450 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Avenue, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Daniel F. Solomon, Esquire 1455 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 215, Knott Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Petitioner (Case No. 85-3673): Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected as being irrelevant. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 10 Covered in finding of fact 11 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 14 Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 28 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 28 Covered in finding of fact 29 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 17 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Partially covered in finding of fact 16. Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in findings of fact 18 and 19. Covered in finding of fact 18 Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 32. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 33. Covered in finding of fact 34. Partially covered in finding of fact 34. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 36. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 40. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 42. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 44. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 46. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 47. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 54. Covered in finding of fact 55. Covered in finding of fact 55. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in finding of fact 57. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 60. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 62. Covered in finding of fact 63. Covered in finding of fact 64. Covered in finding of fact 65. Covered in finding of fact 66. Covered in finding of fact 66. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 67. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 57. Petitioner (Case No. 86-1116): Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 5. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 13. Covered in findings of fact 16 and 17. Covered in findings of fact 18 and 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in findings of fact 30 and 31. Covered in findings of fact 35 and 36. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Covered in finding of fact 40 except that the observation took place on October 1, 1984. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in findings of fact 3 and 29. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in findings of fact 11 and 33. Covered in finding of fact 71. Covered in findings of fact 5, 6, 9 and 10._ Covered in findings of fact 61, 65 and 66. Covered in findings of fact 61-63. Covered in finding of fact 69 Covered in findings of fact 13 and 35. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 70. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Respondent:* Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 45. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 21. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. The second sentence is irrelevant since no formal external observation was performed by Hartner on February 8, 1985. Rejected as being irrelevant since no formal observation was conducted on February 8, 1985. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Findings of Fact Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 1. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Essentially covered in findings of fact 48-58. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence and irrelevant. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. *Respondent's filing contained two sections entitled "Proposed Findings" and "Findings of Fact."
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be suspended or dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida (Board).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses the following findings of fact are made: Respondent was employed as a first grade elementary school teacher at Fulford Elementary School during the 1988-89 school year. In September, 1988, the principal at Fulford Elementary, Mrs. Pope, asked the primary education coordinator for region 2, Mrs. Neely, to perform an observation and assessment of all primary teachers at Fulford. Accordingly, Mrs. Neely observed all classrooms for grades kindergarten through three and made recommendations to the teachers and Mrs. Pope. Mrs. Neely visited respondent's classroom on several occasions and observed the Respondent's treatment of students and her teaching methods. Respondent did not follow the lesson plan for the daily lesson, did not have a schedule to specify times for subjects to be taught, and did not have a based reading program as required by the board. When Mrs Neely attempted to counsel Respondent in order to assist her to correct these deficiencies, Respondent became hostile and argumentative. During one visit Mrs. Neely observed the Respondent chasing students around the classroom. At first Mrs. Neely assumed the conduct to be a game of some type. When the conduct continued for several minutes without interruption or comment from Respondent, Mrs. Neely realized that the class was out of control and that the Respondent was unable to restore order. Consequently, Mrs. Neely took charge and got the children into their seats. When she instructed the class to get quiet, Respondent also took her chair and refused to speak. Ultimately, Mrs. Neely taught the class for the remainder of the lesson. Respondent refused to cooperate with Mrs. Neely and did not correct the deficiencies in teaching and class management which Mrs. Neely observed. During a portion of October and November, 1988, Vincent Golden was assigned to Respondent's classroom to work as a teacher's aide. During the three weeks he was with Respondent's class, Mr. Golden observed Respondent on a daily basis. Twice during this period Respondent grabbed a student named Devon by the throat to reprimand inappropriate conduct. On another occasion Respondent grabbed a female student by the hair in order to chastise the student. In a fourth incident, Mr. Golden heard the Respondent instruct students in the class to chase down another student. This chase resulted after Respondent had thrown off her own shoes, failed at catching the student within the room, and had become frustrated the student bolted from the classroom. Mrs. Pope apprehended the errant student and Respondent's posse in the halls. During the fall of 1988, Mary Williams was employed as a systems aide at Fulford Elementary. On one occasion she observed two students outside of Respondent's classroom who were unable to open the door because Respondent and a student were holding it closed from the inside. One of the students was crying hysterically and was taken to the library to calm down. On a second occasion Respondent refused to allow a new student who was handicapped into her room. Mrs. Williams went to Respondent's classroom almost everyday to ask Respondent for her reading groups. It was Ms. Williams' responsibility to enter the reading group information into the school computer. Respondent refused to provide the reading group rosters. During the fall of 1988, Charles Mixon supervised a maintenance crew at Fulford Elementary. One day while Mr. Mixon was observing a crew mowing the lawn adjacent to Respondent's room, he saw Respondent shove two students out of the classroom. Mixon then overheard Respondent tell the students to fight outside if they wished to continue. The students were then left in the hall unsupervised. On another occasion Mr. Mixon overheard the Respondent tell a teacher to kiss her backside. Mr. Mixon watched Respondent make the comment as she pulled her dress halfway up. Lossie Jordan was an exceptional education teacher at Fulford Elementary during the 1988-89 school year. On one morning Ms. Jordan was in the office copying some materials when Respondent approached her and asked her if she had a squirrel for her. When Mrs. Jordan replied in the negative and asked Respondent why she would ask that, Respondent told her that a woman had come to her house the day before to tell her to ask Mrs. Jordan that question. No further explanation was offered by Respondent. A second incident occurred when Respondent entered Mrs. Jordan's classroom to drop students of for instruction. Mrs. Jordan was in the process of showing another teacher a new blouse she had bought. Upon entering, Respondent told the students that Mrs. Jordan was a thief and that she had stolen the new blouse. A third incident arose when Respondent, Mrs. Jordan and Mrs. Forbes, another teacher, were in the workroom waiting for the copy machine. Respondent was the third to center the room and when Mrs. Forbes told her that they were ahead of her to use the machine, Respondent shoved Mrs. Forbes against Mrs. Jordan who fell against the cabinets. Respondent then left the workroom. On still another occasion, Respondent told Mrs. Jordan to kiss her backside. On October 27, 1988, Mrs. Pope called Respondent into her office for a conference for the record. Mrs. Pope was concerned about the number of incidents which had been reported regarding Respondent's conduct. Mrs. Pope had also observed Respondent's class. During one observation Mrs. Pope watched a group of students who were sitting at a back table in Respondent's class. One student pulled another student's sweater and tied it behind his back so that the student could not use his hands. Mrs. Pope mentioned the problem to Respondent who advised her that since the student had gotten himself into the situation he would have to get himself out of it. On other occasions Mrs. Pope observed Respondent chasing students around the classroom. Respondent failed to properly supervise students in her classroom. As a result, Mrs. Pope was required to return students to Respondent's room after they wandered out into the school halls. Another unsupervised student got her arm caught in a chair and was brought to Mrs. Pope who had to contact Fire Rescue to release the child's arm. On November 2, 1988, Mrs. Pope directed Respondent to come to the office for a conference with a parent regarding allegations the parent's child had made. Respondent refused to meet with the parent. After directives from Mrs. Pope not to lock her classroom door, Respondent locked her door. After directing Respondent not to leave her class unsupervised, Mrs. Pope found Respondent's class unsupervised at least four times. Respondent had physical contact with students to administer discipline after Mrs. Pope directed her to refrain from such conduct. Respondent refused to accept a handicapped student after Mrs. Pope directed her to admit the child into her class. Following a number of the incidents described above, parents asked Mrs. Pope to remove their children from Respondent's class. Respondent's effectiveness was impaired by her behavior and her failure to properly supervise and instruct her class. Mrs. Pope directed Respondent to an employee assistance program. Ultimately, following a conference with Dr. Monroe, Dr. Poiret, a psychiatrist, performed a psychological assessment of Respondent. Following interviews with Respondent on November 22, 1988 and December 1, 1988, Dr. Poiret determined Respondent was not medically fit to carry out her assigned responsibilities. Consequently, Respondent was relieved of her teaching duties and spent the remainder of the school year on leave. During the leave Respondent was to undergo individual psychotherapy on at least a weekly basis and to have a complete physical examination. Later, Dr. Monroe requested that Respondent submit documentation regarding her psychotherapy Respondent did not do so. In August, 1989, Dr. Poiret met with Respondent again to evaluate her ability to return to the classroom. As in the prior instances, Respondent continued to be hostile, noticeably irritable and angry. Since she had made no significant improvement, Dr. Poiret determined Respondent was not medically fit to discharge her teaching duties due to a lack of emotional stability. Respondent repeatedly demonstrated a failure to effectively and efficiently manage the behavior of students assigned to her classroom. She failed to provide a curriculum of education to the students in her class, failed to communicate appropriately with her peer teachers and administrators who attempted to assist her, and failed to carry out her professional1 duties. As a result, Respondent's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired. Respondent failed to take corrective measures to amend her deficiencies, failed to obey reasonable instructions given to her by the principal, and failed to present documentary evidence of her successful completion of therapy required to rehabilitate her for classroom duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from her employment with the public school district. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 21st day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-7035 PETITIONER: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraphs 2 and 3 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 4 and 6 accepted as addressed in paragraph 8, otherwise rejected as irrelevant or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 12 is accepted. As addressed in paragraph 5, paragraphs 13 through 15 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Except as addressed in paragraph 9, paragraph 16 is rejected as hearsay. Except as addressed in paragraphs 2 through 4, paragraphs 17,18, and 19 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 21 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. The first six sentences of Paragraph 23 are accepted. The balance is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 24 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 26 is accepted to the extent addressed in paragraph 6; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, recitation of testimony or argumentative. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 31 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Todate, Respondent has not submitted written or other evidences from a treating physician which would establish she is medically able to return to the classroom. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Irma Annette Butler Lowe 17350 N.W. 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Cynthia A. Foy (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint; whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of Subsection 1012.795(1)(b), (c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2003),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e) and (5)(d); and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed on Respondent's teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent, Cynthia Foy, holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 468641, covering the areas of early childhood education, elementary education, and English to speakers of other languages, which is valid through June 30, 2007. Respondent had been employed with the Hillsborough County School Board 17 years as of the 2002-2003 school term. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a first-grade teacher at Colson Elementary School (Colson) in the Hillsborough County School District (School District). Respondent worked as a teacher at Colson for about five years, beginning the 1998-1999 school year. During her employment in the School District, including her employment at Colson, Respondent never had any disciplinary action taken against her. From 1986 through 1996, Respondent consistently received satisfactory ratings on her annual teacher evaluations, except for one school year when she had three deaths in her family, including the sudden death of her father and of her 38-year-old brother. Respondent's Absences Respondent was absent from work 22 days during the 1998-1999 school year, her first year at Colson. Some of the absences were related to Respondent's health issues. However, most of Respondent's absences were related to her mother's illness. During the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent's mother was confined to a nursing home and had become very ill and frail. Due to her mother's failing health, Respondent wanted to be with her mother, to watch and take care of her. Also, even though Respondent's mother was in a nursing home, Respondent was responsible for taking her mother to her own doctors to make sure she got the proper care. During the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent was absent from work 13.5 days. Respondent's mother died during that school year. As a result, Respondent missed 13.5 days to deal with matters related to her mother's death. During the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years, Respondent was absent from school for 19.45 and 16 days, respectively. These absences were because of Respondent's own health issues. During these school years, Respondent was under an extreme amount of stress due to what she perceived to be a hostile work environment at school. Mary Clark, principal of Colson, was concerned about Respondent's absences and specifically noted this concern on all of Respondent's evaluations, which are at issue in this proceeding. The reasons for Respondent's absences were not disputed, and there is no assertion that the absences were unauthorized. However, Mrs. Clark believed that Respondent's absences resulted in the lack of continuity of instruction and negatively impacted the learning of students in Respondent's first-grade classes. Mrs. Clark testified that because of their concern about their children's progress, some parents requested that their children be transferred from Respondent's class to another first-grade class. Records of such requests and actual transfers were not presented at hearing. However, Mrs. Clark recalled that at least one student had been transferred from Respondent's class. Whether the only reason for the transfer was Respondent's absences is unclear. Notwithstanding Mrs. Clark's concern and belief that Respondent's absences had a negative impact on the students in her class, no basis for this concern was established. To the contrary, during Respondent's tenure at Colson, her students consistently performed well academically as reflected by their scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, a nationally normed test. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Stanford Achievement Test was used by the School District to assess first-grade students' achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the test was administered to first-grade students at Colson in March or April of each school year. In March 2000, there were four first-grade classes at Colson. Of those four classes, Respondent's students made the highest scores in both the reading section and the math section of the Stanford Achievement Test. The results of the Stanford Achievement Test administered in April 2001, reflect that of the four first-grade classes, the students in Respondent's class made significantly higher scores in both reading and mathematics than the students in the other three first-grade classes. As of April 2002, Colson had six first-grade classes. Of the six first-grade classes, Respondent's class ranked first on the reading section and second on the mathematics section of the Stanford Achievement Test. Respondent's Annual Performance Evaluations The School District utilizes the Classroom Certificated Instructional Effectiveness Evaluation Form (Evaluation Form), which has been approved by the Hillsborough County School Board (School Board) as the instrument by which its teachers are evaluated. Typically, tenured teachers with professional service contracts are evaluated annually, but if the tenured teacher is experiencing difficulties in the classroom, the school administrator may evaluate the teacher more than once a year. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Evaluation Form consisted of the following categories in which teachers are evaluated: Category I, Planning and Preparation, which includes six subsections or areas; Category II, Professional Behaviors, which includes 12 areas; Category III, Techniques of Instruction, which includes 15 areas; Category IV, Classroom Management, which includes seven areas; and Category V, Instructional Effectiveness, which includes one area. The Evaluation Form requires that the teacher's performance in each area be rated as "satisfactory," "needs improvement," or "unsatisfactory." The highest possible rating is "satisfactory," and the lowest rating is "unsatisfactory." In addition to the areas under the various categories in which teachers are rated, the evaluation requires that the teacher be given an "overall rating" of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory." As principal of Colson, one of Mrs. Clark's responsibilities was to supervise and evaluate the teachers at the school. Consistent with that responsibility, Mrs. Clark supervised and evaluated Respondent. Mrs. Clark evaluated Respondent once in the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 school years, usually in April. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mrs. Clark evaluated Respondent twice, in December 2001 and in March 2002. Mrs. Clark decided to evaluate Respondent twice in the 2001-2002 school year. Given Respondent's status as a tenured teacher and Mrs. Clark's "concerns over the years with her performance," by evaluating Respondent in the fall, Mrs. Clark would be able to give Respondent notice of the areas in which she still needed to improve. During the period between the fall evaluation and the spring evaluation, Respondent would have an opportunity to work to improve in those areas.2/ The ratings assigned to Respondent's performance on each of the Evaluation Forms are based on data that is collected by Mrs. Clark through her observations and while "walking into [the] classroom on a regular basis." The Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 through the 2001-2002 school years indicated that she needed to improve in specified areas under the following categories: Category II, Professional Behavior; Category III, Techniques of Instruction; and Category IV, Classroom Management.3/ Although Respondent worked at Colson during the 2002-2003 School year, there is no evidence that she was evaluated that year as required by law. If an evaluation was completed for that school year, the Administrative Complaint does not allege that the evaluation indicated any areas in which Respondent needed to improve. Professional Behavior The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received several evaluations from 1999 through 2002 that indicated she needed to improve in the following areas under the Professional Behavior category: 1) observes confidentiality related to students; 2) works cooperatively and supportively with school staff; and 3) responds reasonably to and acting appropriately to constructive criticism. With regard to the first area of concern, "observes confidentiality related to students," none of Respondent’s evaluations for the relevant time period, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years, indicated that she needed to improve in that area. In fact, contrary to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, all five of Respondent's evaluations for that time period indicate that her performance in that area was rated as "satisfactory." The second area under Professional Behaviors in which it is alleged that Respondent's evaluations indicated she needed to improve is "works cooperatively and supportively with school staff." Respondent's evaluations for her first three school years at Colson--1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001--reflect that her performance in the area, "works cooperatively with school staff," was "satisfactory." However, after receiving "satisfactory" ratings in this area for three consecutive years, for the first time, Respondent's evaluation for the 2001-2002 school year indicated that Respondent needed to improve in this area.4/ The evaluations gave no reason for the "needs improvement" rating in the area, "works cooperatively with school staff," on Respondent's December 2001 and April 2002 evaluations. Although no specific basis for the rating is given on the evaluation, it is noted that these evaluations coincide with the area supervisor's observations. The third area under the Professional Behavior category in which it is alleged that Respondent received several evaluations that indicated she needed to improve is the area, "responds reasonably to and acts appropriately upon constructive criticism." Contrary to this allegation, none of Respondent's evaluations indicated that she needed to improve in this area. Rather, Respondent's performance in the area, "responds reasonably to and acts appropriately upon constructive criticism," was rated as "satisfactory" on all five of the evaluations she received during the relevant time period. Techniques of Instruction The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received several evaluations that indicated she needed to improve in the following areas under the Technique of Instruction category: (1) uses instructional time efficiently; presents subject matter effectively; and (3) uses praise appropriately. Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years indicated that Respondent needed to improve in the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." As a possible rationale for the rating assigned in the 1998-1999 evaluation, Mrs. Clark wrote on the evaluation, "I am concerned about the slow pace of her lesson as well as the pacing through reading." The evaluations for the 2000-2001 and the 2001-2002 school years gave no rationale for the "needs improvement" rating in the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." Additionally, there is no indication that Mrs. Clark told Respondent the basis of the rating or offered any recommendations as to how Respondent could improve in this area. Upon Respondent's receiving the December 2001 and the March 2002 evaluations, she requested, in writing, a detailed written explanation of the basis for each of the "needs improvement" ratings, which included the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." There is no evidence that Mrs. Clark ever provided the requested explanation. Additionally, the evidence does not establish a basis for the "needs improvement" rating in this area. The next area at issue under the Techniques of Instruction category is, "presents subject matter effectively." Respondent's evaluations for the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 school years indicate that Respondent needed to improve in this area. However, neither the evaluation, nor any evidence at the hearing, offered or established a basis for this rating. On Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 school year, and most recently for the 2001-2002 school year, her performance in the area, "presents subject matter effectively," was rated as "satisfactory." Clearly, the "satisfactory" ratings on the December 2001 and March 2002 evaluations, which were for the 2001-2002 school year, marked an improvement over Respondent's ratings in that category for the immediate prior two school years. Finally, it is alleged that the third area under the Techniques of Instruction category in which Respondent's evaluations indicated she needed to improve is, "uses praise appropriately." Respondent's evaluation for 1998-1999, her first year at Colson, indicated that she needed to improve in this area. The next three school years, however, Respondent's performance in this area improved to "satisfactory," as reflected by the four evaluations for the 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years. Classroom Management Under the category, Classroom Management, it is alleged that Respondent's evaluations indicated that she needed to improve in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self- esteem." On Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 school years, her first two years at Colson, Respondent's performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was rated "satisfactory." Respondent's evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year indicated that her performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was unsatisfactory. It is specifically found that the Administrative Complaint makes no allegations regarding the "unsatisfactory" rating. Accordingly, except for limited purposes, issues related to that rating will not be addressed. Respondent's performance in the area, "enhancing and maintaining students' self-esteem," improved in the 2001-2002 school year from "unsatisfactory" to "needs improvement," as reflected in both her December 2001 and April 2002 evaluations. Instructional Effectiveness The Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent's evaluations reflect that she needs to improve in the Instructional Effectiveness category. However, in order to present a more complete picture of Respondent's performance, as rated on her evaluations, this category and Respondent's ratings thereunder are considered. The Instructional Effectiveness category includes only one area, "promotes academic learning which results in improved student performance."5/ This area is concerned with and assesses whether actual learning is taking place as a result of the teacher's instruction. 39. For the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years, Respondent's performance in the area, "promotes academic learning which results in improved student performance," is rated as "satisfactory." Overall Rating Category Respondent's "overall rating" in all five of her evaluations for the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001- 2002 was "satisfactory." 6/ Transfer of Student to Respondent's Class (January 2001) In January 2001, a student, F.R., was transferred to Respondent's class from another first grade class because of his behavioral problems. When such a transfer takes place, the teacher to whom the student is being transferred is given prior notice that the student is being assigned to her class. In this instance, that was not done. Respondent was not informed in advance that F.R. was being transferred to her class. On the first day the students returned to school from winter break, F.R. just "showed up" in Respondent's class. Later, Respondent was told that the child was transferred to her class because he was having peer conflict problems, and, as a result, he was acting out. Respondent was told that the student’s acting out behavior included such things as spitting on children, stabbing children with forks, knocking things off the children's desks, and having outbursts. Respondent thought this was a new chance for the child, and she attempted to make the new class assignment work. For example, rather than isolate the child, as his former teacher had recommended, Respondent assigned F.R. to a seat between two very well-behaved little girls, who she knew would never say anything mean to him. Despite Respondent's efforts to work with F.R., he exhibited lashing out and angry behaviors. Due to F.R.'s exhibiting lashing out behavior, Respondent was concerned for the safety of the other students in the class. In January or early February 2001, Respondent shared her concern with Mrs. Clark and asked that F.R. be removed from her class. Mrs. Clark responded that F.R. was just a little boy and said, "Let's see how he does." No offers for assistance were made, and Respondent felt that her request was simply ignored. Later, in January or early February 2001, as Respondent's class lined up and walked to the lunchroom, F.R. deliberately "high stepped and slid on the heels" of the child in front of him. When Respondent asked F.R. to stop, he just laughed, looked at Respondent, and repeated the behavior. Respondent told F.R. to stand out on the side of the line and walk with her. At first he complied, but then he started to get back in the line. Respondent then told F.R., "You're walking with me." After F.R. ignored Respondent, she took his hand so that he could walk with her. F.R. then yanked and pulled Respondent's fingers back, kicked Respondent "really hard" in the upper ankle, and "took off running." Respondent reported the incident to Mrs. Clark and the vice-principal and completed an incident report, reporting her injury and indicating her belief that F.R.'s behavior described in paragraph 44 constituted an assault/battery. After the incident, Respondent again asked Mrs. Clark to transfer F.R. from her class. Mrs. Clark never responded to Respondent's request. In fact, Mrs. Clark never talked to Respondent about the incident. Some time after the February 21, 2001, observation discussed below, there was a second incident where F.R. was physically aggressive toward Respondent. F.R. ran out of the lunchroom to return to the classroom to get the check he had forgotten. Concerned about his past behavior of destroying and "messing up" the other children's belongings, Respondent went to get F.R. Before Respondent could get to the classroom, F.R. had gotten the check and was running back to the lunchroom and toward Respondent. Respondent stuck her arm out to stop him and he continued running around her. Once in the lunchroom, Respondent "pulled" or "grabbed" the check from F.R.'s hand and asked the aides in the lunchroom to call Mrs. Clark. F.R. then seemed to explode, and he began punching Respondent with his fists and biting her. By the time the assistant principal got to the lunchroom, four students had pulled F.R. off Respondent, and Respondent was holding F.R.'s hand. When the vice-principal arrived, she did not discuss the incident with Respondent, but began screaming and told Respondent, "Go, get out of here, leave!" Following the lunchroom incident, Respondent filed another assault report and, for the third time, asked Mrs. Clark to transfer F.R. from her class. After there was no response to her verbal request, a union representative advised Respondent to make the request in writing. Initially, Mrs. Clark denied the request because it was not on the proper form, but once Respondent made the request on the appropriate form, F.R. was transferred from her class. Prior to the requests related to F.R., Respondent has never requested that a student be transferred from her class. Observations of Area Supervisor Ms. Daryl Saunders, an area supervisor for the School District, went to Respondent's classroom on five different occasions between February 21, 2001, and March 21, 2002, twice during the 2000-2001 school year, and three times during the 2001-2002 school year, to conduct observations. On a visit in February 2002, Ms. Saunders did not conduct an observation. With the exception of the first visit to Respondent's classroom, all of Ms. Saunders' visits were for the purpose of observing Respondent. Of the four times Ms. Saunders went to observe Respondent, she actually conducted observations three times. First Observation (February 21, 2001) Ms. Saunders' first visit to Respondent's classroom was on February 21, 2001. At the request of Mrs. Clark, Ms. Saunders went to Respondent's classroom to observe a student, F.R., who had been displaying inappropriate behavior in class and is described above.7/ During the time Ms. Saunders observed F.R., he did not have any outbursts, engage in any physically aggressive behavior, or display any disruptive or inappropriate behaviors. Ms. Saunders noted that the student delayed starting his assignment and took breaks between work, but did not bother any other student. Based on her observation of F.R. and the manner in which Respondent communicated with him, Ms. Saunders wrote in the summary letter to Mrs. Clark, "I believe F.R. is trying to survive in a room where he feels he is not valued." While Ms. Saunders was observing F.R., she also observed Respondent teaching and interacting with the students. Ms. Saunders was particularly concerned with Respondent's frequent verbal reprimands that were audible to the entire class. During the observation, Ms. Saunders also noticed that Respondent seemed to be easily frustrated and that when communicating with students, her voice vacillated between a friendly tone to an aggressive tone. Ms. Saunders expressed this and other concerns, not relevant to this proceeding, to Mrs. Clark in a letter dated February 22, 2001. According to the letter, a verbal reprimand to a particular student in front of the entire class is "damaging to [a] student's self-esteem." Ms. Saunders further noted that "considering the environment, I was surprised there were no behavioral issues while I was present." In the February 22, 2001, letter to Mrs. Clark, Ms. Saunders recommended that "we provide [Respondent] with some assistance so that the classroom environment is more conducive for instruction and learning." As a means of supporting Respondent in this effort, Ms. Saunders recommended that Mrs. Clark "have [Respondent] take two courses through the staff development office." The two classes that Ms. Saunders recommended were Cooperative Discipline and Effective Teaching Strategies. Finally, Ms. Saunders' letter stated, "the Language Arts Frameworks document should be reviewed with [Respondent]." There is no indication that Mrs. Clark discussed these recommendations. Second Observation (May 7, 2001) At Mrs. Clark's request, Ms. Saunders visited Respondent's classroom on May 7, 2001, to observe Respondent's teaching practices. This was about two weeks after Respondent received her evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year, which had rated her performance as unsatisfactory in the area of "enhancing and maintaining student's self-esteem." Pursuant to an earlier suggestion by Ms. Saunders, Respondent allowed herself to be videotaped in order that she could better critique her own behavior in the classroom. To implement this recommendation, the school's media specialist was in the classroom to set up the video equipment on the day of Ms. Saunders' observation. Soon after Ms. Saunders arrived, the media specialist asked Respondent if she should put the tape in the video recorder. Respondent answered, "Please, I don't want to be accused of using three minutes of my time up." Ms. Saunders believed that Respondent's tone of voice was "unprofessional" and that the comment was directed at her. During the May 7, 2001, observation, a student who was speaking to other students in a group had her back to them. Respondent's voice "became aggravated" as she told the student to turn around. Respondent placed her hands on the student's shoulders and physically turned her, but did not do so forcibly. During the May 7, 2001, observation, Ms. Saunders noted improvement in Respondent's communication with her students. In her written summary of the observation dated May 16, 2001, Ms. Saunders wrote: Based on that first encounter [February 21, 2001], I would say my greatest concern was how you communicated with both students and adults. However, this time your demeanor in front of the children was quite different than when I last observed in your classroom. I believe having the video camera present helped to keep you focused on appropriate communication with the children. I was pleased to hear more of a pleasant tone. Ms. Saunders' summary also stated that she counted four times when Respondent appeared to become frustrated and her tone of voice changed to a negative one. Ms. Saunders' summary of the May 7, 2001, observation included the following recommendations: One way to support and assist you regarding classroom environment, instruction and planning would be to have someone review with you, the six domains from the Florida Performance Measurement System. This information is based on research and would be beneficial to again cover. In addition, I recommend that you attend training provided by the elementary education department specifically in the area of writing. Enrollment can be done on-line. . . . There are many courses offered this summer. The Language Arts Frameworks document should also be reviewed. This will provide information about our district's curriculum and the writer's workshop model. Other staff development offerings related to classroom management are offered periodically through the staff development office. I suggest you take one of their courses to assist you with classroom management. You can register on line any time. . . . In the May 16, 2001, summary, Ms. Saunders notified Respondent that she planned to observe Respondent's classroom again soon. Additionally, Ms. Saunders indicated that she expected to see "appropriate and timely instruction and activities based on student need and planned from grade level expectations." Third Observation (December 6, 2001) Ms. Saunders conducted the third observation on December 6, 2001, seven months after the previous observation. Ms. Saunders summarized her observations in a letter dated December 17, 2001. In the letter, Ms. Saunders advised Respondent, for the first time, that the December 6, 2001, observation was part of a plan to assist Respondent with teaching practices. On December 6, 2001, Ms. Saunders arrived at Respondent's classroom at 8:30 a.m. and stayed until 9:10 a.m., when the children left the room for an activity. During the 40-minute observation, Ms. Saunders heard Respondent communicating with students and observed her conducting a review of telling time. Ms. Saunders was complimentary of Respondent's review of telling time. In the written summary to Respondent, Ms. Saunders wrote: You try hard to provide ways for students to remember abstract concepts. You use pneumonic devices, short stories, rhymes and other ways to assist with memorization. By calling the numbers bases and relating the time to the name of the base they passed, students more accurately read time when the short hand falls somewhere between two numbers. This seemed quite effective. Ms. Saunders observed an incident which she perceived to be negative. There was a student who was off task. Respondent directed her attention to the student and asked the student, "Would your mother [or family] be proud of you?" Ms. Saunders believed that when Respondent made this statement, her voice "sounded with disapproval." Ms. Saunders suggested that in the situation described in paragraph 66, Respondent should have "encouraged" proper behavior by asking the student a question that would have him participate so that he becomes on task rather than off task. In another situation, Ms. Saunders observed Respondent interact appropriately and effectively with a student she was reprimanding. In that case, Respondent asked the student, "What time is it?" Before that student could answer, another student shouted out the answer. Recalling Respondent's positive response in that situation, Ms. Saunders stated the following in the December 17, 2001, summary: A boy shouted out the answer and you began to reprimand him. You began to speak, stopped yourself, and continued with this carefully crafted sentence. "Tell me the rule about calling out." It was nice to see you stop yourself in mid-stream, rethink a way to correct this misconduct while still preserving the child's dignity. Based on the December 6, 2001, observation, Ms. Saunders had two areas of concern, only one of which is relevant in this case. That area relates to Respondent's "appropriate use of instructional time." Ms. Saunders' concern is stated in the summary as follows: In my opinion, a second area of concern relates to planning and appropriate use of instructional time. I entered your room at 8:30 and the instructional day begins at 8:00 a.m. Instruction in your room did not begin until 8:44 and the fifteen minutes suggested for calendar math was stretched to 21 minutes. I suggest you utilize time more wisely by beginning calendar math immediately after announcements. Then spend the rest of the morning on shared, guided and independent reading when youngsters are fresh and ready to learn. Beginning instruction nearly 45 minutes after the day begins will allow you to cover all the curriculum. Although the "instructional day," to the extent that term refers to Respondent's teaching a lesson to the class, did not begin at 8:00 a.m., or soon thereafter, there was a reasonable explanation for the delay. First, three students were assigned to Respondent's class that day because their regular teacher was absent. Prior to beginning instruction, Respondent met with those students, asked them their names, assigned them desks, and explained her classroom management system. Respondent's classroom management system involved giving each student a certain number of clothes pins at the beginning of the day. During the school day, the students could lose and/or earn clothes pins, depending on their conduct. The second reason for the delay in beginning the instructional day was that several students in Respondent's class had been allowed to go to the media center to "Santa's Book Fair." As Ms. Saunders noted in her written summary, several of Respondent's students did not return to the classroom from the book fair until 8:36 a.m. In light of the foregoing circumstances, it was reasonable that Respondent did not begin the "instructional day" at 8:00 a.m., or immediately after announcements were made. Admittedly, Ms. Saunders did not know what, if any, instructions or directions Respondent gave to students prior to 8:30 a.m. However, when Ms. Saunders entered Respondent's classroom, the students were actively engaged in various activities. For example, one student was working on math worksheets. Another student was at the computer taking an Accelerated Reading test. Respondent was working with the student at the computer. In addition to Ms. Saunders' concern that the instructional day did not begin until 8:44 a.m., she believed that Respondent spent too much time teaching the "calendar math" activity. Respondent began the activity at 8:44 a.m., and completed it at 9:05 a.m. Even though Ms. Saunders complimented Respondent on her presentation of the activity, as discussed in paragraph 65, she criticized Respondent for spending too much time teaching or reviewing the lesson. According to Ms. Saunders, the "suggested" time for "calendar math" was 15 minutes, but Respondent "stretched" the activity to 21 minutes, which was six minutes longer than the "suggested" time. Ms. Saunders offered no explanation of why or how Respondent's extending the calendar math activity by six minutes was not an "appropriate use of instructional time." At 9:10, a.m., five minutes after the calendar math lesson, Respondent's students had to leave the classroom to attend a health presentation. The five minutes between the end of "calendar math" and when the children left the classroom for the health presentation, allowed time for the children to return to their seats and for Respondent to pass out name tags to the students and have them line up before leaving the room. Ms. Saunders offered no suggestions as to a more appropriate or acceptable way Respondent could or should have used the extra six minutes that Respondent used teaching the calendar math activity. Ms. Saunders summarized the December 6, 2001, observation and made recommendations in a letter dated December 17, 2001. Based on Ms. Saunders' concerns about Respondent's teaching practices, Ms. Saunders recommended that Respondent "have someone review with [her] the six domains from the Florida Performance Measurement System." Also, she recommended that Respondent take training provided by the elementary education department and a classroom management course, both of which were offered "periodically" through the staff development office. Attempted Observation (February 2001) On an unspecified day in February 2002, Ms. Saunders went to Respondent's classroom to conduct her fourth observation. After Ms. Saunders entered the classroom, Respondent told her that she had no notice of the observation. Ms. Saunders then advised Respondent that Mrs. Clark knew that Ms. Saunders would be observing Respondent's class that day, but that "neither of us [Saunders nor Clark] chose to make you [Respondent] aware of the visitation." Respondent espoused the view that she should have received notice of the observation. Ms. Saunders disputed Respondent's view that she should have been given notice and indicated that the observation was part of the assistance plan laid out in May 2001. Respondent replied that an assistance plan could only last 90 days and, thus, this observation could not be part of any such plan. Ms. Saunders then asserted that she could do an observation any time as part of her normal duties. Respondent disagreed and requested that Ms. Saunders provide her with a written explanation of the reason why Ms. Saunders was visiting the class, the instrument she would be using, what she would be observing, and how long she would be staying. As the verbal interchange proceeded, Ms. Saunders thought that Respondent's voice became more aggressive and that she was also getting upset. Because Respondent's students were in the classroom, Ms. Saunders decided to leave the classroom and return at another time. Although students were in the classroom during the verbal exchange concerning whether Ms. Saunders' visit was authorized, there is no evidence that the students heard the conversation. Fourth Observation (March 21, 2002) On March 21, 2002, Ms. Saunders conducted an observation in Respondent's classroom. Upon Ms. Saunders' entering the room, Respondent advised her that she had no notice that Ms. Saunders was coming to her class. Respondent also told Ms. Saunders that the students were taking a school-wide writing assessment. Ms. Saunders acknowledged that, but still indicated that she would be seated and conduct an observation. Respondent then approached Ms. Saunders and asked why she was in the class, what instrument she was using, and what she was observing. Ms. Saunders reiterated her prior position that she was there as part of the assistance plan and that she would be taking anecdotal notes. Respondent then asserted her earlier position, that an assistance plan was only for 90 days. Consistent with Ms. Saunders' previous recommendation that Respondent tape herself in class as a way to critique herself, Respondent told Ms. Saunders and the class that she was turning on the tape recorder. Ms. Saunders began the observation at or about 8:58 a.m., and ended it at 9:16 a.m. In all, the observation lasted only about 18 minutes. During most of that time, Respondent's students were completing a school-wide writing assessment. As students finished the writing assessment, Respondent gave them books to read silently, while the other children continued to work on the writing assessment. Ms. Saunders summarized the March 21, 2002, observation in a letter dated April 18, 2002. Due to the duration of the observation, 18 minutes, and the fact that the students were taking a writing assessment, Ms. Saunders reported only a few specific observations. None of those observations concerned or were related to Respondent's teaching techniques or classroom management.8/ In the April 18, 2002, letter, Ms. Saunders summarized the March 21, 2002, observation and made conclusions. In the letter, Ms. Saunders stated she continued to see the "same behaviors" from Respondent. She further stated, Each time I visit your classroom I continue to see the same behaviors from you. Though discussion has occurred regarding ineffective practices, visitation were made to a number of other classrooms at Yates Elementary, suggestions regarding inservice courses have been made, yet your practices have not changed. I continue to see an emphasis on students being silent unless called upon. I continue to hear you speak gruffly to students. I continue to see you punish students for very minor infractions like wiggling or whispering. I continue to see you isolate students from the group. I continue to see you go over concepts, like vocabulary orally in order for students to memorize things rotely. I continue to see calendar math exceed the 15 minutes it is intended to occupy of the mathematics instructional time. I continue to see only one student engaged at a time. It was the intention of the assistance plan to have you reevaluate some of your ineffective practices and work to make some changes. I have yet to witness any of that nor do I think you are even trying to make strides toward improvement. Despite her recitation of areas in which Respondent still needed to improve, Ms. Saunders offered no recommendations in the April 18, 2002, summary letter to assist Respondent. However, Ms. Saunders stated that she "plan[ned] to make an unannounced observation in [Respondent's] class again soon," but she never did. The conclusions in Ms. Saunders' April 18, 2002, letter are inconsistent with some of her earlier observations discussed in paragraphs 59, 65, and 68 above. Moreover, there was no connection between the conclusion Ms. Saunders articulated in the summary letter and what she observed on March 21, 2002. Area Supervisor's Criticism of Respondent's Reprimand Method Ms. Saunders was critical of the way Respondent reprimanded students. During Ms. Saunders' observations, Respondent sometimes would call the name of the child who was being reprimanded and tell him what he should or should not be doing. At the hearing, Ms. Saunders testified to maintain order in the classroom, Respondent should have used "public praise" and "private criticism." Notwithstanding this position, Ms. Saunders admitted that this method or principle is not an established policy and procedure of the School District. While Ms. Saunders testified that the "public praise, private criticism" principle is simply an "educational belief that many people subscribe to," she acknowledged that other models exist. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Ms. Saunders ever specifically discussed the "public praise, private criticism" philosophy that she believed Respondent should have used in the classroom. Observations of the School Principal Mrs. Clark frequently observed Respondent in the classroom as part of her routine of visiting all the classrooms at Colson. During her observation of Respondent, Mrs. Clark saw and heard Respondent sometimes use a "harsh desist" in reprimanding students. According to Mrs. Clark, the term "harsh desist" means "harshly reprimanding a child to stop doing something." Mrs. Clark described an example of a "harsh desist" by Respondent's saying, "Shhhh" to the class in a loud way, and talking to children in a way that was "derogatory." Mrs. Clark believed that the children were impacted by the way Respondent spoke to them. She based this belief on the expressions she saw on some of the children's faces. Mrs. Clark testified, "In some instances, they [the students] would cringe." Mrs. Clark testified that she talked to Respondent about her "harsh desist," but Respondent did not change this classroom management method. These discussions were not documented, and no reference to this issue was ever noted on Respondent's evaluations. The record fails to establish when or how often Mrs. Clark observed Respondent engaging in a "harsh desist," to whom any particular "harsh desist" was directed, and if and how the "harsh desist" affected the student. Mrs. Clark testified that she observed situations in which she observed Respondent talk to students in a derogatory manner. In one instance, the student referred to in paragraph 41 above, who had been transferred to Respondent's class because of behavioral problems he was having in another class, left Respondent's classroom without permission and was returned to the room by Mrs. Clark. The student told Mrs. Clark that he had left the room to look for a pencil or scissors. Mrs. Clark asked Respondent if the student could borrow one from another student or if she would give him the tool that he needed. Respondent said she would not give him the particular tool. Respondent continued, "He breaks them all the time. He doesn't deserve them." Although students were in the classroom when Respondent made the comments, there is no evidence that they heard the comments. The other incident in which Mrs. Clark described Respondent as using derogatory language when talking to a student involved T.B., a student in her class. On an unspecified date, Respondent was walking down the hallway with her students, taking them to the buses. Respondent was holding T.B. by his arm, presumably for misbehaving. At the time, Mrs. Clark was in the hallway, but some distance away. When Respondent saw Mrs. Clark in the hallway, she told T.B., "If you don't behave, you're going to get a referral to that lady over there," pointing to Mrs. Clark. Mrs. Clark testified that there is nothing wrong with reminding a child that he could have to go the principal's office if he or she misbehaves, "if it [is] handled in the appropriate way." The clear implication was that the manner in which Respondent handled the situation described in paragraph 98 was inappropriate. However, no evidence was presented to establish the appropriate way to remind the student that his behavior needs to improve and that there are consequences for misbehavior. Recommendations of Mrs. Clark Respondent's 2000-2001 evaluation indicated that her performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was unsatisfactory. To address this rating, Mrs. Clark issued a letter to Respondent which made two recommendations to assist Respondent in improving in this area. The letter is referred to on the evaluation and was given to Respondent on or about April 24, 2001, the day she received the 2000-2001 evaluation.9/ The first recommendation was that Respondent attend a Cooperative Discipline Workshop that was offered by the School District or "something similar to that that was offered by the district." The other recommendation was that Respondent go and observe behavior management in classrooms at other schools. No specifics were given as to who would schedule the time, place, and number of observations. With regard to the classroom management course, no information was provided as to what, if any, approval would be needed prior to taking the course. In neither instance was a time specified that Respondent would have to complete the observations and/or the classroom management course. During Respondent's tenure at Colson, the only written recommendations she received from Mrs. Clark were the two made in the letter issued to Respondent. As reflected on the 2000-2001 evaluation, Mrs. Clark issued the letter to address the "unsatisfactory" rating Respondent received in that evaluation. In such a case, a tenured teacher who receives an "unsatisfactory" rating, a letter and/or form of assistance is required to be provided pursuant to Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent's Efforts to Comply With Assistance Plans and/or Recommendations In an effort to comply with Mrs. Clark's recommendation that she observe other classes, Respondent asked several teachers on her first-grade team, including one who was nationally-certified, if she could observe them. Some of these teachers had been held out by Mrs. Clark as using behavioral models that were ones that Respondent might use in her class. All of the teachers agreed to allow Respondent to observe their classes, but Mrs. Clark denied Respondent's request to observe any of the teachers at Colson. Eventually, someone, likely Ms. Saunders or Mrs. Clark, scheduled an observation for Respondent at Yates Elementary School (Yates). On an unknown date between May 7, 2001, and December 6, 2001, Respondent went to Yates to observe several first-grade classes pursuant to Mrs. Clark's April 24, 2001, recommendation. Ms. Saunders accompanied Respondent to the class for the observations. As Respondent and Ms. Saunders went to observe in the various classrooms, it appeared to Respondent that the teachers in those classrooms had no prior knowledge of the observations. During the observations at Yates, Ms. Saunders directed Respondent to write down anything positive she saw regarding classroom management, as well as anything she found pedagogically unsound.10/ Ms. Saunders referenced and discussed Respondent's observations at Yates in the summary letter dated December 17, 2001. In that letter, Ms. Saunders recalled the following: During the visit to Yates, we witnessed some wonderful classroom strategies and we also saw some things that perhaps would not be helpful. I know, based on our conversation, that you saw some things that you might like to try implementing. I hope that you will continue to reflect on that day and try some of the things you think might work well in your room. Ms. Saunders also noted in the December 17, 2001, letter that at the time of the visit to Yates, she asked Respondent to write a plan that included trying or applying some of the classroom management strategies that they witnessed. Respondent complied with this directive as reflected in Ms. Saunders' letter in which she stated, "A copy of that plan was to be given to Mrs. Clark[,] and I am aware that you submitted something to her." As requested by Ms. Saunders, Respondent submitted a classroom management plan to Mrs. Clark based on what she observed at Yates that she could implement in her classroom. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate whether Respondent's plan was ever reviewed or critiqued by either Mrs. Clark or Ms. Saunders. After Mrs. Clark recommended that Respondent take a classroom management course, she attempted to do so, but was unsuccessful. Respondent's initial failure to take the classroom management course after the April 2001 evaluation, was based on a misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or no communication between Mrs. Clark and Respondent. Later, Respondent's efforts to take a classroom management course were thwarted by Mrs. Clark. The misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or lack of communication between Mrs. Clark and Respondent is evident. Almost eight months after Mrs. Clark initially recommended that Respondent take a classroom management course, she wrote in the "comment section" of Respondent's December 19, 2001, evaluation that she was "not sure" if Respondent had taken the course. In response, Respondent wrote on the same evaluation, "It was my understanding that a workshop would be scheduled for me during the school year." Mrs. Clark testified that Respondent had "repeatedly kept asking" for which workshop Mrs. Clark had signed her up. Based on the apparent misunderstanding discussed in paragraph 109, Respondent selected at least two different classroom management courses. She then requested Mrs. Clark's consent, because the course required payment of a fee and a substitute teacher for the time Respondent would be attending the course. Both courses were approved by the Hillsborough County School Board. Although in the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent made several requests to take a management course, Mrs. Clark denied all the requests, indicating that no money was available. In one case, a person from the School District office called Respondent and told her that no money was available for her to attend the courses she had requested. The payment for one of the courses was about $135.00 and required that a substitute teacher be hired to cover Respondent's class on the day of the course. Having been unsuccessful in obtaining permission or approval to attend two School Board-approved courses, on September 20, 2002, Respondent wrote an e-mail letter to Mrs. Clark regarding Respondent's efforts to take a classroom/behavior management course. In the e-mail, Respondent indicated that she had looked to take the recommended course on a professional study day (when students are not present), but had not found any such course being offered. In light of Mrs. Clark's and/or the School District's failure to approve a course for Respondent to take, Respondent requested that Mrs. Clark provide Respondent with the name of the classroom/behavior management course that Mrs. Clark wanted her to take and the date and time of such course. There is no evidence that Mrs. Clark ever responded to Respondent's September 20, 2002, e-mail or ever provided Respondent with the name of a classroom management course to attend. Moreover, no evidence was presented that the School District actually offered the recommended classroom management course during the relevant time period. Despite the recommendation that Respondent take the classroom/behavior management course, she was not provided with the assistance and in-service opportunity to help correct or improve the noted performance deficiency. Nonetheless, through her own effort, she increased her performance area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," from "unsatisfactory" in the 2000-2001 school year to "needs improvement." Incidents Involving Respondent and School Principal and Staff First Incident (January/February 2001) In January or February 2001, during the lunch break, Vicki Davis, one of the other first-grade teachers, was sitting near Respondent and noticed that Respondent was writing in a notebook. Ms. Davis then asked Respondent, "What are you doing? Writing about kids or something?" Respondent did not elaborate, but told Ms. Davis that it was a behavior book. Ms. Davis was concerned because she saw her name in the book, but beyond that, she could not say what was in the book. Exactly what Respondent was writing in the "behavior book," is unknown, but this incident occurred soon after the student referred to in paragraph 41 was transferred from Ms. Davis' class to Respondent's class. Respondent implied that she was writing down observations about the child. Even though the precise contents of the "behavior book" were not clearly visible, Ms. Davis felt uncomfortable when she saw what she believed to be her name in the "behavior book." Second Incident (July 2001) In July 2001, when school was not in session, Respondent telephoned the school and asked Mrs. Clark to provide her with a report that Ms. Saunders had prepared. Before leaving the school, Mrs. Clark advised Jennifer Connolly, her secretary, that Respondent was coming to get the report and told Ms. Connolly to put the report in Respondent's mailbox. When Respondent arrived at Colson, she checked her mailbox, but did not see the report that she had come to retrieve. At the time, no one was in the front office area so Respondent went into Mrs. Clark's office and looked on her desk for the document. While Respondent was in Mrs. Clark's office looking through papers in an effort to locate Ms. Saunders' report, Ms. Connolly saw Respondent and asked why she was in the office. After Respondent explained that she was looking for Mrs. Saunders' report, Ms. Connolly told Respondent the report was in Respondent's mailbox and to leave Mrs. Clark's office. Ms. Connolly left the office and walked down the hall. After Ms. Connolly left Mrs. Clark's office, Respondent turned out the light in Mrs. Clark's office and closed the door to the office as she exited. By the time Respondent got to her mailbox, Mrs. Saunders' report was on top of the stack of mail in Respondent's mailbox. After being informed about Respondent's going into her office, Mrs. Clark contacted the School District's Professional Standards Office. An investigation was conducted and based on the findings, a letter was issued to Respondent. It is unknown if the letter was a warning, reprimand, or other type of communication since the letter was not offered as evidence at this proceeding. There is no indication that Respondent was doing anything in Mrs. Clark's office other than looking for the report that she came to the school to retrieve; the report that Mrs. Clark had expected her to pick up. Nonetheless, Respondent's decision to go into the principal's office, without permission, reflected poor judgment on her part. This, however, was an isolated incident and is not indicative of Respondent's usual judgment. Except for this incident, Respondent's record indicates that she usually exercised good judgment as shown by her evaluations for the relevant time period. For example, for the three school terms immediately prior to the July 2001 incident, Respondent's performance in the area related to a teacher's judgment under the Professional Behavior category, "demonstrates logical thinking and makes practical decisions," was rated as "satisfactory."11/ The only evaluation that indicated Respondent "needed to improve" in that area was the December 2001 evaluation, the first evaluation she received after the July 2001 office incident. However, in Respondent's very next evaluation dated April 24, 2002, her performance in the area, "demonstrates logical thinking and makes practical decisions," was rated as "satisfactory." Third Incident (2001-2002 School Term) In or about the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent brought a tape recorder to a team meeting. When Ms. Davis, one of the team members, saw the tape recorder, she felt uncomfortable and told Respondent to turn off the tape recorder.12/ Ms. Davis knew that "something was going on between [Respondent] and Mrs. Clark" and seemed to suspect that Respondent's bringing the tape recorder into the meeting was somehow related to that. However, Ms. Davis did not want to be a part of that and told Respondent, "This [meeting] is not about anything. We're working together as a team." Respondent immediately complied with Ms. Davis' request and turned off the tape recorder. After that one incident, Respondent never again brought a tape recorder to a team meeting. Fourth Incident (February 25, 2003) On or about February 25, 2003, as part of her usual routine of visiting classrooms, Mrs. Clark went to Respondent's classroom, entering from the back door. At the time, Respondent was sitting with two students, working with them. When Respondent saw Mrs. Clark, she got up from her seat and walked over to where Mrs. Clark was standing. Respondent then asked Mrs. Clark, "Did you leave right after us?" Mrs. Clark correctly understood, and Respondent confirmed that the question referred to Respondent's grievance hearing that was held the previous day and attended by Respondent and her attorney, as well as Mrs. Clark and the area supervisor. Respondent apparently thought Mrs. Clark indicated that she had left immediately after the grievance hearing. Respondent challenged Mrs. Clark and indicated that Respondent and her attorney had waited outside for Mrs. Clark for 15 minutes. Respondent then moved closer to Mrs. Clark and whispered in her ear. Mrs. Clark understood Respondent to say, "You're a liar. You're devious. There is a God. I'm not through with you yet." Respondent denied that she made these statements. Given the conflicting testimony of Mrs. Clark and Respondent, both of whom appeared to be credible witnesses, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made the statements. Nonetheless, it is found that Mrs. Clark understood and believed that the statements in paragraph 130 were the ones Respondent whispered to her. Mrs. Clark responded to Respondent's statements in a voice that was not a whisper by asking, "You're not through with me yet?" According to Mrs. Clark, during this incident, she repeatedly kept turning to Respondent and kept telling her, "If you have something to say to me, we can meet in my office." There were children in Respondent's classroom during the incident described in paragraph 130, but Mrs. Clark's credible testimony was that the children could not hear Respondent's comments. Mrs. Clark described the comments Respondent whispered in her ear as "quite upsetting." While Mrs. Clark might have been upset, her conduct clearly indicated that she did not feel threatened by Respondent's comments. After the exchange between Respondent described in paragraphs 130 and 131, Mrs. Clark stayed in Respondent's classroom to continue her visit and look at the children's work. In fact, Mrs. Clark took time to talk to a student in the class who she believed was not working. Later, she asked the children about a large crayon that was on the floor. At some point during the visit, Respondent noticed that Mrs. Clark was holding something in one of her hands, both of which were behind her back. Believing that the object in Mrs. Clark's hand was a tape recorder, Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand and splayed it open in an attempt to completely display the object. As Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand, she asked Mrs. Clark if she had a tape recorder and if she were recording Respondent. Mrs. Clark stated that the object she was holding was a two-way radio. Even though the object Mrs. Clark was holding was a two-way radio, Respondent did not believe Mrs. Clark's explanation. After or as Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand, Mrs. Clark told Respondent, "Get your hands off me! Get away from me!" Respondent believed Mrs. Clark was going to strike her so she moved back, away from Mrs. Clark. Undoubtedly, Respondent's conduct, described in paragraph 134, grabbing her supervisor's hand, was inappropriate, unprofessional, and disrespectful. However, based on the record, this was clearly an isolated incident. Moreover, this conduct does not constitute any of the statutory or rule violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Mrs. Clark then left Respondent's classroom and continued visiting other classrooms. After completing her routine classroom visits, Mrs. Clark called the School District office to report the February 25, 2002, incident in Respondent's classroom. Respondent also called the School District office to report the incident. In addition to calling the School District Office, Respondent called a friend who was a retired teacher and reported that she believed Mrs. Clark had tried to record her and asked for advice on what she should do if Mrs. Clark returned to her room. The following day, an investigator with the School District went to the school to investigate the matter. School District Request for Fitness for Duty Evaluation By letter dated April 30, 2003, the School District referred Respondent to Dr. James Edgar, M.D., a psychiatrist, for an evaluation. In the referral letter, Linda Kipley, the general manager of the School District's Professional Standards Office, stated that the referral was due to the School District's "concerns for a pattern of personal and professional behavior which has negatively impacted her capability and competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of teaching." Ms. Kipley's letter went on to say, "After reviewing our most recent investigative report, there is a question if she is fit for her teaching responsibilities and to teach minor children." Also, Ms. Kipley requested that Dr. Edgar provide a written report of his assessment of Respondent's "capability to make sound professional judgments and her capability to safely instruct children." Opinion of James Edgar, M.D. Dr. James Edgar, who was qualified as an expert in the field of psychiatry, conducted an independent medical (psychiatric) evaluation of Respondent. Based on information provided to Dr. Edgar by School District staff, there were questions raised about Respondent's ability to safely instruct minor children and about her general mental health status. Along with the request for the evaluation, the School District provided Dr. Edgar with copies of all of Respondent's evaluations since she was employed by the School District and the February 22, May 16, and December 17, 2001, letters/reports from Ms. Saunders. For some reason, Ms. Saunders' last report dated April 18, 2002, and discussed in paragraphs 85 and 86, was not provided to Dr. Edgar. Dr. Edgar found that Respondent had normal motor activity and normal facial expressions; that she was polite and her appearance was neat; and that she was calm although anxious (which Dr. Edgar indicated was a natural reaction under the circumstances of an evaluation being ordered by her employer). He also found that Respondent's intelligence was normal, her memory was intact, her senses were good, her affect was appropriate, and there was no evidence of hallucinations. Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusions, in the "summary and recommendation" section of his report, Dr. Edgar opined, I do not feel [Respondent] is currently capable of safely instructing young children." As the basis for this conclusion, Dr. Edgar stated that when Respondent is stressed by routine events, such as constructive criticism, her ability to keep things orderly and controlled is impaired and she becomes anxious and depressed. He further stated that the combination of Respondent's "major depression and pre-existing personality disorder interfere with the usual psychological functions (i.e. judgment and problem solving ability, emotional stability, ability to conform to societal standards of behavior, interpersonal skills, integrity, responsibility, ability to cope with stressful situations, and decision making in a crisis). In the "summary and recommendation" section of Dr. Edgar's written report, he prefaces the above-quoted opinion by stating, "This summary is provisional because I have not had an opportunity to review medical records or mental health records." At the end of the report, Dr. Edgar states that "I may amend my report after reviewing the previously mentioned records." As of the date of this proceeding, Dr. Edgar had not yet reviewed any of Respondent's medical records and mental health records, although Respondent advised him that she was being treated for depression by a psychiatrist and was in counseling with a licensed mental health professional. Contrary to the School District's concern for Respondent's "competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of teaching," Dr. Edgar testified that his report made no finding that Respondent was incompetent to teach. Opinion of Gerald Mussenden, Ph.D. Dr. Gerald Mussenden was qualified as an expert in the area of psychology. On September 5 and 12, 2003, Dr. Mussenden conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Respondent to determine her overall mental functioning (i.e., whether she was mentally stable, well adjusted, and/or if she is a threat to herself or others). As part of the evaluation, Dr. Mussenden administered, among other instruments, the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, which has been developed and standardized since 1982. The Child Abuse Potential Inventory is valid in terms of content validity, construct validity, and predictive validity and is a tool used by psychologists who do testing specializing in abuse propensities. Based on the results of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, Dr. Mussenden concluded that Respondent had no child abuse potential characteristics and was not a danger to children. Moreover, Dr. Mussenden opined that Respondent was emotionally stable, had good skills by which to relate and interact with others, and had no problems or difficulties that would endanger others around her. Dr. Mussenden's evaluation report accurately notes that at the time of the evaluation, Respondent was under the treatment of a psychiatrist and in counseling with a licensed mental health counselor. Dr. Mussenden's opinion is that this course of treatment contributed to Respondent's mental health status at the time of the evaluation. In his report, Dr. Mussenden states, "Due to their success [the psychiatrist and mental health counselor], [Respondent] is relatively well adjusted and without signs of mental difficulties." Dr. Mussenden's credible testimony was that a person can suffer from depression and still be competent to handle one's duties as a teacher. When Respondent was evaluated by Dr. Mussenden, she was taking medication for depression. The purpose of such medication is to help people suffering from depression become well-adjusted. The fact that there was no evidence that Respondent was suffering from depression during the September 2003 evaluation indicates that the medication she was taking was effective in that it masked any depression that may have been present. Dr. Mussenden saw Respondent within 60 days of the hearing and based on that visit, he did not change his opinion that Respondent posed no risk of harm to children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered that finds Respondent not guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint and dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp (Sapp), was nonrenewed for his annual teaching contract for constitutionally permissible reasons.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first employed by the Escambia County School Board for the 1984-85 school year in the compensatory education program at Bellview Middle School and later that school year he took the place of an eighth grade math teacher who was out on maternity leave. Sapp holds a Florida Teaching Certificate in elementary education and is not certified to teach in middle school. He has a bachelors degree. Sapp was asked by the School Board to take the courses necessary to become certified in middle school math, but did not do so because he was working at another job at the time. Petitioner was hired on annual contract by the principal of Bellview Middle School to teach seventh grade math during the 1985-86 school year and to teach sixth grade for the 1986-87 school year. For the most part, Sapp received excellent performance evaluations from the Bellview principal. In September, 1986, a mother of a Bellview Middle School student complained to the principal regarding what she believed to be unacceptable contact between Sapp and her son. The principal told Sapp to stay away from the student, but the parent's complaints continued. The student had been in Sapp's seventh grade math class the prior school year. On November 7, 1986, Sapp was arrested for lewd and lascivious assault on that student. As a result of these charges the Superintendent of the Escambia County School District recommended to the School Board that Sapp be suspended without pay. The School Board voted to disapprove the Superintendent's recommendation. Instead, Sapp was reassigned to administrative duties at the Hall Center. In the fall of 1986, Sapp was also notified by the Department of Education, Professional Practices Services (PPS), that an investigation of the allegations involved in the criminal charge had been instituted. On April 1, 1987, Sapp received the standard memo from the School Board, signed by the Bellview principal, indicating that his annual contract was going to expire at the end of the 1986-87 school year. The memo also indicated that the school district would move as rapidly as possible on the reappointment of the annual contract teachers recommended to the Superintendent for reappointment for the 1987-88 school year, but "personnel assignments resulting from the closing of the Beggs Center and the redistricting of all middle school boundaries greatly obscures the timeline for such reappointments." During the summer of 1987, Sapp talked to Dr. Roger Mott, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services of the school district, and others in his office regarding appointment to an annual contract for the 1987-88 school year. Sapp claims he was told by Mott that he would not be rehired until after his criminal trial. Mott denies telling this to Sapp. Because Sapp's testimony was very confused and contradictory regarding these alleged statements by Mott, Sapp's version is given little weight. Instead, it is found that Mott did not tell Sapp that he would be rehired after the criminal trial. During the discussions between Sapp and Mott in the summer of 1987, Mott did tell Sapp that he was free to interview with any principals in the district for open annual contract positions, however those principals who inquired would be told that there was a Professional Practices Services investigation. Sapp expressed interest only in employment at Bellview. During 1987 the middle schools of Escambia County were redistricted. As a result of redistricting, Bellview Middle School anticipated losing approximately 300 students and 10 teaching positions for the 1987-88 school year. After the jury found him not guilty on August 12, 1987, Sapp again inquired regarding employment. According to Charles McCurley, principal of Bellview Middle School, there were no positions available at Bellview. By letter dated August 21, 1987, Sapp was advised that the Professional Practices Services was investigating two complaints. The first related to the charge of lewd and lascivious assault on a child. The second complaint was that Sapp had received his teaching certificate by fraudulent means because he failed to disclose two criminal convictions on his applications. Mott became aware of the PPS investigation and he discovered that Sapp had apparently falsified the applications for his teaching certificate and the applications for employment with the Escambia County School District. Mott then informed Sapp that the chances of reemployment were not good and that he could not be considered for employment until the PPS investigation was complete. Mott also testified that Sapp was not reemployed because of the information that formed the basis of the second PPS investigation. While this is not the place to determine whether or not Sapp falsified these applications, it is necessary to determine what facts the Respondent acted on in not renewing Sapp's annual contract. Sapp's applications to both the school district and the state showed that he answered "no" when asked if he had ever been convicted of a felony or first degree misdemeanor or other criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. Sapp has, in fact, been convicted of at least two such violations which were not disclosed. Sapp approached Robert Husbands, Executive Director of the Escambia Education Association, for assistance in getting employment. Husbands talked to Mott. Mott informed him that Sapp could not be rehired until the PPS investigation was resolved. Husbands found that there were seven teaching positions in the whole county which were vacant at the beginning of the 1987-88 school year. Two of those positions were located some distance from Pensacola. Only one of those positions was known to have been filled by an annual contract teacher. There were 37 annual contract teachers in the school district who were not renewed for the 1987-88 school year. Eight others who were not renewed at the beginning of the school year were rehired during the year. Because of redistricting, Bellview had only one opening for an annual contract teacher after it placed its continuing contract teachers. That one opening was for reading and was filled by a reading teacher with a masters degree. Sapp was not qualified for that position. After the 1987-88 school year had begun, Bellview experienced increased enrollment and a resulting increase in teaching positions. Those positions were filled by teachers who were teaching in their field of certification and who were at least as qualified as Sapp. It was very important that Bellview have teachers working in their area of certification because the school was to be audited for accreditation in the 1987-88 school year. Sapp's former position at Bellview was filled by a continuing contract teacher who had previously taught seventh grade and who was certified to teach in both middle and elementary school. The teacher who took over Sapp's class in the 1986-87 school year was not rehired. During the first week of the 1987-88 school year, Sapp sought employment at Bellview and the principal correctly told him there were no jobs. Later, in October, 1987, a position opened up at Bellview and a continuing contract teacher with a masters degree in reading and 18 years of experience was transferred in at her request. Sapp believes he was not renewed as retaliation for the School Board's rejection of the Superintendent's recommendation for suspension on January 27, 1987. This allegation is based only on Sapp's personal feeling and no evidence was presented to substantiate his belief. Sapp also believes he was not renewed because of the arrest itself. Again, no evidence was presented to substantiate his belief. By letter of September 18, 1987, the School District, through counsel, advised Sapp's attorney that Sapp would not be considered for reemployment until the PPS investigation was concluded and the District was advised of the results. The PPS has not filed any complaint against Sapp based on either of its investigations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp, be DENIED relief from the nonrenewal of his annual contract and that his request for relief be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5059 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Finding's of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(10); 3(12); 4(14); 5(2); 6(2); 8(3); 9(3); 11(4); 12(5); 13(8); 15(6); 16(7); 18(23); 20(20); 21(24); 22(26); 23(26); and 25(27). Proposed findings of fact 7, 17, 28 and 29 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 10 is rejected as irrelevant. Propose findings of fact 14, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, School Board of Escambia County Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(9); 2(1 and 10); 3(11); 4(25); 5(25); 6(13); 7(14 and 16); 8(15 and 22); 9(18); 10(22 and 23); 11(6); 12(19); 13(29); 14(30 and 31); 15(32); 16(33); 18(19); 19(27); 20(28); 21(33); 22(34); and 23(35). Proposed finding of fact 17 is rejected as being unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 24 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: G. James Roark, III, Esquire 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mike Holloway Superintendent of School Board Escambia County 215 West Garden Street Post Office Box 1470 Pensacola, Florida 32597-1470 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent's termination of employment as a teacher should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Since 1990, Cabrera has taught elementary school Spanish within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Cabrera began her career with Petitioner as a substitute teacher. In 1993 she was offered the first of several permanent postings. She has been assigned to Bel-Aire from 1996 to the date of her termination. At all times during which Cabrera has been so employed, teachers in the Miami-Dade County school system were evaluated annually pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("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 ("UTD"). The same TADS evaluation procedures are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers. TADS purports to objectively measure 67 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. TADS includes in its assessment criteria: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. TADS observations and ratings are performed by school supervisory personnel. TADS observers are trained and certified. The observer records deficiencies noted during the observation period, if any. In addition, the observer provides a so-called "prescription," or plan, for performance improvement in each of the areas in which deficiencies are noted. A post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. The teacher has the right to provide a written response. Under the School Board's contract with the UTD, the teacher is required to comply with the prescription plan, performing all activities specified in the prescription and meeting the deadlines set forth. Miami-Dade County's TADS assessment system was implemented to fulfill the legislative mandate of Section 231.29, Florida Statutes. The statute requires the superintendent of each of Florida's school districts to establish procedures for assessing, on an annual basis, the performance of all instructional personnel employed by the district. At all times material to this case, TADS was used to evaluate Cabrera's performance. Miami-Dade County's TADS procedures include all of the statutorily required elements, and Cabrera received the benefit of each of the statutory requirements, including notice in writing of each deficiency observed; assistance and recommendations designed to help correct those deficiencies; and a reasonable period of time in which to correct deficiencies. As a result of certain 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 new statutory requirements. Under the amended procedures, a meeting known as a conference for the record ("CFR") initiates a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. From the beginning of her employment at Bel-Aire through and including the 1998-99 school year, Cabrera's TADS evaluations were satisfactory. Notwithstanding her annual passing TADS scores, the evidence establishes that dealing with classroom discipline had never been Cabrera’s strong suit. Yet, for reasons not revealed in the record, Cabrera had never been in fear for her job, nor had her deficiencies in managing classroom discipline previously bothered administrators enough to cause them to take meaningful action to assist her, or get her out of the classroom. In the summer school session of 2000, Cabrera ran into especially difficult discipline problems from at least two students, and was dissatisfied with the level of support she received from her principal, Melvin Dennis (Dennis), in dealing with those students. Cabrera took the extraordinary step of going outside the school chain-of-command to complain to the central administration about what she perceived to be a lack of appropriate disciplinary support at the school level. On January 8, 2001, Cabrera received the first of that year’s formal TADS evaluations. The observer was assistant principal Dr. Barbara Moller (Moller). At that time, Moller found Cabrera’s performance unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. More specifically, Moller found, among other things, that Cabrera’s lesson plans did not include a method for monitoring student progress; that she failed to maintain student’s attention and to redirect those students who were “off-task”; that Cabrera failed to provide instructional materials that were appropriate for her students; and that Cabrera failed to provide formal assessments of her students’ progress. A timely post-observation CFR was held to discuss the results of the January observation. At that time, Cabrera was advised that due to her unsatisfactory performance, she would be placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. Also during the conference for the record, Respondent was given suggestions on how to improve her performance and correct her deficiencies in the form of written prescriptive activities appropriate to the noted deficiencies. The assistance provided to Cabrera included, but was not limited to: reviewing her lessons plans with the assistant principal; working with the Bilingual Department chairperson to formulate acceptable lesson plans; developing a behavior modification plan with the assistance of two fellow teachers and the school district’s instructional supervisor for bilingual education; and providing instructional materials, assessment devices, and commercially prepared tests. Also during the CFR, Cabrera was advised that at the conclusion of the 90 calendar-day performance probation period, a determination would be made as to whether the performance deficiencies identified during the probationary period have been satisfactorily corrected and that a recommendation by the school principal would be made to the Superintendent of Schools, which could lead to the termination of Respondent’s employment contract if performance deficiencies were not corrected. On February 22, 2001, a second TADS observation was conducted by Principal Dennis. At that time, Dennis deemed Cabrera’s performance unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Dennis observed, among other things, that Cabrera’s class was disorganized. Students were not all in their seats and working within the type of orderly routine expected in a properly managed classroom. Cabrera continued to lack control over her class, as demonstrated by the fact that students were off task and Cabrera was unable to redirect them. Behavior problems may well have been exacerbated by her continued deficiency in techniques of instruction. Rather than tailor materials and instructional techniques to the differing needs of the students, Cabrera was observed to be deficient in this category because she used a rote style of presentation that was not appropriate to all students. In addition, Cabrera failed at this observation to use appropriate assessment techniques to determine how much of the lesson was being absorbed by students. As a result of Cabrera’s continuing unsatisfactory classroom performance, on February 28, 2001, Cabrera was again given formal written notice that she had been placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation status. She was further informed that, due to her unsatisfactory performance, her professional service contract may not be renewed and that her performance would continue to be monitored throughout her probationary period. On March 1, 2001, a post-observation conference was held with Cabrera to address the deficiencies noted in the formal classroom observation. At this time, Cabrera was again presented with a written prescription and a performance improvement plan in order to assist in correcting her deficiencies. In an effort to further assist Cabrera, on March 9, 2001, Dennis requested that the school district’s instructional supervisor for bilingual education visit Cabrera at the school for the purpose of assisting her in improving her performance deficiencies. The school principal also provided the assistance of staff members and teachers to help Cabrera in planning her lessons, developing a positive reinforcement and rewards system and on setting up her classroom in order to provide students with a positive learning environment. In a further effort to provide assistance, Cabrera was referred to the school district’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Cabrera was not required to take advantage of the EAP, and she did not do so. By spring, the strain of the probationary status was taking a visible toll on Cabrera, and the relationship between her and the Bel-Aire administration was fast becoming untenable. On March 27, 2001, Cabrera took her entire class to the main office to complain that she could not begin her lesson because her students did not have pencils. This childish bit of theater was met with an equally silly straight-faced memorandum issued to Cabrera advising that her responsibility for preparation and planning included assisting her students with having the appropriate supplies for class. Two days later, Cabrera was again formally observed in the classroom by Moller. During the formal classroom observation conducted on March 29, 2001, Moller found Cabrera’s performance unacceptable in the categories of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and in teacher-student relationships. Moller documented that Cabrera ignored or was unaware of her students’ inappropriate and disruptive behavior, that she did not provide feedback to students regarding the expected behavior in the classroom, and that she did not sequence the components of her lesson properly. On April 12, 2001, a post-observation conference was held with Cabrera to address the deficiencies noted in the March formal classroom observation. At this time she was again presented a written prescription and a performance improvement plan in order to assist in correcting her deficiencies. On April 18, 2001, the school district’s instructional supervisor for bilingual education met with Cabrera to assist her in correcting her performance deficiencies and offered Cabrera numerous suggestions on how to improve her classroom teaching performance. On May 3, 2001, Cabrera was again formally observed in the classroom by Principal Dennis. At that time, Dennis rated Cabrera’s performance unacceptable in the categories of classroom management and in techniques of instruction. Since a deficiency in even one TADS category, if not corrected within the 90-day period, requires termination, the fact that Cabrera had corrected two areas of deficiency identified in her January evaluation was not enough to save her job. Cabrera believes that she is being unfairly criticized for being unable to manage the behavior of students who, she claims, are beyond the ability of any teacher to manage. In her view, the students who disrupted her classroom “needed professional help, not from a teacher, but from someone else.” Cabrera testified, quite sincerely, that she did the best she could in terms of trying to fulfill her responsibility to create a orderly classroom in which learning could take place. She contends that the decision to place her on prescription in 2001 was an ambush. The evidence did establish that Petitioner’s knowledge of Cabrera’s shortcomings as a disciplinarian were well known at Bel-Aire long before the administration acted upon that knowledge. Cabrera argues that had she been given assistance, inside or outside the TADS process, long before she was, she could have improved her performance and saved her job. This argument requires the fact-finder to engage in impermissible speculation. While the evidence established that Cabrera was motivated to keep her job, complied with all recommended prescriptive activities and, in two out of the four categories in which she was determined by TADS observers to be deficient, had been able to elevate her performance to a passable level within the 90-day compliance period, it is impossible to know whether she could have remedied her deficiencies in the area of classroom discipline had she been forced to try years earlier. If Petitioner was inclined to overlook Cabrera's deficient classroom management prior to last year, Cabrera was similarly inclined to overlook unacceptable behavior in her students when it first manifested itself. In both cases, the willingness to accept sub-standard behavior worked to the detriment of all concerned. The most damaging testimony regarding Cabrera’s classroom management problems came not from School Board witnesses, but from Cabrera herself. She testified that it was her practice to give misbehaving children one or two months to “let them adjust. . . . Maybe they are not used to me. It’s an unfamiliar face. So I wait. Then, when I see that I get to the point where I just can’t take it . . . then that’s when I take action and I start writing referrals and start calling parents.” By that time, the evidence established, it was too late for Cabrera to exercise control over students whom she had allowed to ignore her. As a result of Cabrera’s unsatisfactory performance, on May 3, 2001, Dennis notified the Superintendent of Schools that Cabrera had not satisfactorily corrected her performance deficiencies during her 90 calendar-day performance probation period and recommended that Cabrera's employment be terminated. On May 16, 2001, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Cabrera's employment contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Cabrera's employment and denying her claim for reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 3rd day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2200 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida, 33137 Luis M. Garcia, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Merritt R. Steirheim, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
