The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has held a teaching certificate issued by the State of Florida, valid through June 30, 2002. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, as a language arts (English) teacher, assigned to Lake Stevens Middle School and subsequently assigned to her own home as an alternate work site. On May 4, 1995, Lucille Collins, an assistant principal at Lake Stevens, conducted a conference with a student, that student’s parent, and Respondent. During the conference, Respondent became enraged and began shouting at Collins. Collins terminated the conference and attempted to return to her office. Respondent followed her, continuing to shout as the two proceeded toward Collins’ office. The student and the parent witnessed Respondent's behavior. On February 8, 1996, Assistant Principal Collins convened a conference with Respondent and Dorothy Johnson, the principal’s secretary, to address conflicts between Respondent and Johnson. Toward the end of the meeting, Respondent became agitated. She began shouting at Collins and trying to provoke another argument with Johnson. On May 2, 1996, Respondent entered the teachers’ workroom and started yelling at Collins. Collins directed Respondent to stop and to come meet with her privately, but Respondent refused twice to meet with Collins. Respondent remained “out of control” and continued yelling as she moved through the office and out into the hall near the cafeteria. On May 15, 1996, Collins conducted a TADS observation of Respondent. A TADS observation is an extended and formal observation of a teacher in a classroom to determine if the teacher possesses the minimum competencies required of a classroom teacher. The trained observer is required to assess six categories that must be deemed satisfactory in order for the teacher to receive an acceptable evaluation. The teacher undergoing the TADS observation is required to submit to the observer lesson plans, student folders, and the grade book. On that day Respondent was unable to produce a lesson plan or grade book. Respondent was given five days to produce the required materials. As of May 20 Respondent had not complied. However, she did eventually comply, and the TADS observation showing Respondent was deficient was then voided. On October 2, 1996, Dr. James Monroe, Executive Director of the Office of Professional Standards for the Miami- Dade School Board, directed Respondent to attend a conference- for-the-record on October 7. The purpose of the conference was to address an act of battery by Respondent and her fitness for future employment. Respondent attended the meeting. At the meeting, she was referred to Dr. Michael Hendrickson for a psychological evaluation. Respondent went to Hendrickson who opined that Respondent was able to return to her teaching duties, with the following recommendations: (1) that Respondent seek help through the School Board’s Employee Assistance Program; (2) that Respondent undergo a neurological examination to rule out any neurological problems; and (3) that Respondent undergo psychotherapy once a week for a year. Based upon that evaluation, Respondent was permitted to return to her classroom. Shortly thereafter, an event known as “Back to School Night” was held at Lake Stevens. During that evening, teachers at Lake Stevens are required to be present in their classrooms to meet with parents. Respondent did not attend and did not advise the administrators at the school that she would not attend. Several parents complained to the principal and to Assistant Principal Collins that Respondent was not in attendance and that they were concerned because they had not received progress reports from Respondent and did not know if their children were passing or failing in Respondent’s class. Due to the parents’ concerns, the principal instructed Collins to conduct another TADS observation of Respondent. On October 22, 1996, Collins conducted another TADS observation of Respondent. She observed that Respondent's grade book had no recorded grades for periods five and six. She noted that the student folders contained no graded assignments. Respondent could not produce any graded tests, quizzes, weekly exams, unit tests, or progress checks. Respondent had not completed organizing the students' class work, homework, or folders in any observable fashion. In addition, Respondent's lesson plans were incomplete. On October 30, 1996, Collins reviewed with Respondent her written evaluation of Respondent's performance during the TADS observation. The written report noted Respondent's deficiencies and directed Respondent to comply with a prescription plan. Respondent was given specific deadlines, as follows: submit five sample graded tests and five writing portfolios to Collins by October 31; submit a complete and up- to-date grade book to Collins by November 1; complete all student folders and portfolios and have them available for review by November 1; read relevant portions of the TADS Prescription Manual by November 12, and submit activities for review and discussion with her department chairperson by November 12. Respondent acknowledged receipt of these directives by signing the TADS report on October 30. Respondent failed to comply with those directives and has never complied with them. Collins reported to Principal Willie B. Turner Respondent's failure to comply with her directives. On December 11, 1996, Principal Turner sent Respondent a memorandum directing her to report for a conference-for-the- record to be held in his office on December 16. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Respondent's non-compliance with the TADS prescription plan. On December 12 Respondent approached Principal Turner while he was on bus duty in front of Lake Stevens Middle School. Turner invited Respondent to speak to him after he was finished. Respondent came to his office and began "venting" at Turner, screaming at him and using "choice words." Turner told Respondent to leave his office, but she refused. Other staff members who were attracted by Respondent's screaming attempted to remove Respondent from Turner's office. With the help of the school's resource office, they were eventually able to do so. Immediately after the December 12 incident in Turner's office, Respondent was removed from Lake Stevens Middle School and assigned to work at her home. The conference originally scheduled to be held at Lake Stevens was re-scheduled to be held at the Office of Professional Standards on December 16. At the meeting, which Respondent attended, she was directed by Dr. James Monroe to contact the Employee Assistance Program immediately, undergo the required neurological evaluation, and attend the required psychotherapy once a week for a year. On or about January 9, 1997, Respondent contacted the Employee Assistance Program but declined to participate. On January 31, 1997, Dr. Monroe sent Respondent a memorandum in which he noted that she had not complied with his three prior directives. Respondent was given five additional days to comply and was informed that her continued failure to comply would be considered gross insubordination. Respondent attended a follow-up visit with Dr. Hendrickson on March 6, 1997. Following this visit, Hendrickson advised Dr. Monroe in writing that Respondent should undergo a psychiatric evaluation to assess her behavior and aggressive outbursts. Upon receiving Hendrickson's report, Dr. Monroe scheduled a meeting with Respondent for March 25. Respondent acknowledged receipt of that notice on March 19. Respondent attended the March 25 meeting. By that time, she had complied with the requirement that she undergo a neurological examination. At the meeting, she presented to Dr. Monroe a letter from a Dr. Cheryl Nowell indicating that Respondent had commenced psychotherapy on January 21, 1997. At that time, however, Respondent had still not undergone a psychiatric evaluation. On April 8, 1997, Dr. Monroe sent Respondent a memorandum summarizing the March 25 meeting. He again directed Respondent to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, gave Respondent five days to comply, and advised Respondent that her failure to comply would be considered gross insubordination. Dr. Monroe transmitted the information furnished by Respondent at the March 25 meeting to Dr. Hendrickson for review. After reviewing the information, Dr. Hendrickson wrote to Dr. Monroe that he believed that Respondent still needed to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Monroe subsequently advised Respondent of that continuing requirement. Respondent did not undergo a psychiatric evaluation. On April 29, 1997, Dr. Monroe notified Respondent that she was to report for a conference at the Office of Professional Standards on May 1. Respondent signed the notice on April 29. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Respondent's continued refusal to comply with prior directives. On April 30, 1997, Respondent contacted Dr. Joyce Annunziata, the Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Professional Standards. Respondent, through her union representative, advised Annunziata that Respondent would not attend the meeting unless she was escorted by an uniformed Metro-Dade County deputy or City of Miami police officer. Respondent stated her reason to be that she was in fear of her life due to what she perceived to be threats from Dr. James Monroe. Dr. Annunziata investigated Respondent's assertion and found it to be without merit. Her union representatives at every prior meeting with Dr. Monroe had accompanied Respondent, and Dr. Monroe had not physically threatened Respondent. Respondent failed to appear for the May 1 meeting. At her request, the meeting was re-scheduled for May 2. Respondent continued to insist a deputy sheriff or police officer accompany her. On May 2, Dr. Annunziata notified Respondent's union representative in writing that Respondent's demand for an uniformed law enforcement officer would not be met, that Respondent must decide if she would attend the meeting or not, and that Respondent's failure to attend the meeting would be considered gross insubordination. Respondent failed to attend the meeting. On that day Principal Turner recommended that the Miami-Dade County School Board terminate Respondent from further employment. Dr. Monroe decided to give Respondent one more chance. He re-scheduled the meeting for May 13, 1997, sent Respondent a written notice, and read the notice to Respondent over the telephone. Respondent was advised that her failure to attend the re-scheduled meeting would result in termination of her employment. Despite having notice, Respondent did not attend the May 13 meeting as she had failed to attend the May 1 and 2 meetings. On June 13, 1997, Respondent received an overall unacceptable TADS evaluation for the 1996-97 school year. She achieved an unacceptable rating in the categories of preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibilities. Respondent's continuing failure to attend the conferences scheduled by Dr. Monroe constitutes gross insubordination. Further, Respondent's failure to comply with the reasonable TADS prescriptive plan given her to overcome her classroom deficiencies constitutes gross insubordination. Respondent's failure, in conjunction with her TADS observation, to have records of students' grades, graded assignments, graded exams, lesson plans, and student writing portfolios constitutes incompetence. Respondent received an unacceptable evaluation based upon her classroom performance on October 26, 1996. She achieved two subsequent unacceptable evaluations for professional responsibility for her continuing failure to comply with directives given to her, not for conduct in her classroom. Finally, she achieved an unacceptable annual evaluation. In light of Respondent's long-standing history of aggressive behavior, the Miami-Dade County School Board's requirement that she submit to a psychiatric examination was reasonable. Respondent's failure to comply with that directive was unreasonable and further constitutes gross insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and permanently revoking her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 J. Wiley Horton, Esquire Pennington Law firm Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Helen B. Williams Post Office Box 551894 Carol City, Florida 33055-0894
The Issue Did Respondent leave the Southside Middle School campus without permission in the 1989-90 school year; in that same year, did Respondent make a threatening complaint in writing to Vice Principal, Peggy Williams; in that same year, did Respondent fail to submit a written report of a fight between students; did Respondent use profanity in the school year 1990-91 while employed at Southside Middle School; did Respondent leave campus without permission and leave his classes unattended in the school year 1991-92 while employed at Lake Shore Middle School; did Respondent engage in inappropriate conduct with students by grabbing a male student, M.F., by the shoulders and squeezing that student's shoulders and making that student go to his knees in the school year 1992-93 while employed at Lake Shore Middle School; did Respondent in that same year grab and hit A.H. in the chest and in the stomach; did Respondent in that same year pull the student, J.W.'s ear; did Respondent in that same year plan a field trip to Walt Disney World, Florida, without approval from the Duval County School District; did Respondent fail to follow district procedures for purchasing t-shirts and sweatshirts for students; did Respondent in the school year 1993-94 while employed at the Lake Shore Middle School fail to comply with guidelines in submitting a "no show" list related to student attendance; and did Respondent engage in profanity in the presence of students in that same year?
Findings Of Fact At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent has held Florida teaching certificate number 638543 covering the areas of health, biology, and physical education. In the fall of 1989, Respondent began employment with the Duval County, Florida, School Board in a teaching position at Southside Middle School. While serving as a teacher at Southside Middle School, Respondent broke up a fight between two students that was occurring in a hallway. Following the incident his obligation was to file a written report detailing the facts. That report was due immediately. The Respondent had to be reminded twice before rendering the report. The report was rendered before the students met with a school hearing officer to resolve the incident. In the fall of 1991, Respondent voluntarily transferred to an assignment at Lake Shore Middle School. That school is also part of the Duval County School District. On one occasion while Respondent was employed at Lake Shore Middle School, Timothy Hamel, another teacher at that school, observed that Respondent's class had been left unattended from approximately 3:40 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. On another occasion, while Respondent was employed at Lake Shore Middle School, Respondent left campus at a time when he did not have classes and did not return until after school had concluded for the day. As a consequence, he missed instruction periods for some classes that he was responsible for teaching. This circumstance was established through testimony from Arlene Guthrie, Assistant Principal for Curriculum at Lake Shore Middle School. The proof submitted at hearing did not satisfactorily demonstrate that the Respondent had made arrangements to cover classes which he missed on this occasion. In the spring of 1993, Respondent was interested in taking some students on a field trip to Walt Disney World, Florida. A conversation was held between the Principal at Lake Shore Middle School and the Respondent concerning this field trip. The principal was persuaded that it was too late in the year to schedule a field trip. Nonetheless, Respondent replied that he was going on the field trip and would rent a van on his own to transport the students, separate and apart from school sanctioned transportation. In the conversation concerning the field trip, the principal asked Respondent if he had obtained parent/guardian permission slips for the students to attend the outing. Respondent replied in the affirmative. A permission information sheet directed to the parents or guardians pertaining to the nature of the field trip was prepared on the Lake Shore Middle School letterhead and signed by Respondent, as sponsor for a school club known as Manhood, Achievement, Community Service. That information sheet indicated that the trip would take place on May 28-30, 1993. Further, it indicated that expenses would be taken care of, except for meals and spending money for the students. The correspondence went on to indicate that the parents or guardians would be informed of the hotel address after receipt of confirmation of room reservations. The information sheet indicated the departure and return time. Respondent confirmed the knowledge of the parents about those details by having them sign the information sheet. As discussed between Respondent and the principal, there was no mention in the information sheet about Respondent arranging for transportation on his own by renting a van. When the principal asked Respondent about the duration of the trip, Respondent indicated that it was more than a single-day trip. The principal wanted to know if Respondent had made arrangements for a place to stay. At that time, Respondent replied that no such arrangements had been made but that Respondent would obtain a place to stay. The principal was not convinced that the parents and guardians were sufficiently apprised of the nature of this outing and told Respondent that Respondent could not take the trip. After the conclusion of the conversation between the Respondent and the principal, Respondent still insisted that he was going on the field trip to Walt Disney World. In the conversation between the principal and Respondent concerning the field trip, the issue related to the payment for the trip was addressed. The principal was concerned that there was not enough money to pay for the trip and asked the Respondent how the balance of the money was to be paid. Respondent replied that the parents would pay. When the principal asked if Respondent had consulted with the parents concerning this additional cost, the answer was no. The conference between the principal and Respondent was held two or three days before the trip was to take place. When it became obvious that the school district, from the principal's perspective, did not wish to sanction the trip, matters were left in the posture that if the Respondent wanted to go on the trip as an adult in charge of those children, then that arrangement would have to be carried out between Respondent and the parents. In that setting of a private trip the school district did not want the Respondent to create the appearance that the trip was a trip sanctioned by the school district. Eventually correspondence was given to the Respondent from Gerlieve R. Oliver, Assistant Superintendent, Middle Schools, Duval County School System, confirming that the Respondent did not have permission to take an official school trip to Disney World. The correspondence also informed the Respondent that he could not take a non-school related trip, given that the written communications to parents concerning the trip was made on school letter head, thus creating the appearance of being a school sponsored trip. This appearance caused the school district to instruct the Respondent that he could not take a non-school trip either. This communication dated May 26, 1993, informed the Respondent that the parents or guardians of the students who were to be taken on the trip would be made aware of the telephone conversation between the Respondent and Ms. Oliver concerning the field trip. The conversation between Respondent and Assistant Superintendent Oliver was instigated by Respondent. It is that telephone conversation that led to the preparation of the correspondence. The correspondence from the assistant superintendent to the Respondent reminded the Respondent that if he failed to follow the directions that he might put himself in jeopardy concerning employment with the district and admonished Respondent to be more careful in adhering to directions. The correspondence from Ms. Oliver to Respondent also mentioned that if Respondent were more careful about following procedures in the future that this would result in the Respondent being able to provide opportunities for his students. This is taken to mean opportunities such as field trips. While Respondent was employed at Lake Shore Middle School there was a policy related to what is referred to as a "no show" list. In particular, at the commencement of the school year a given school counts the number of students in attendance as a means of determining the amount of money the school is entitled to for conducting its operations. The expectation is that the individual school teacher will document this count by calling a roll each day and turning in a slip to the administrative offices verifying the students who did not attend school on that day. Respondent did not comply with that requirement. While Respondent was teaching at Lake Shore Middle School an incident occurred between male students K.A. and M.F. in the school lunch room. K.A. and M.F. were arguing. Respondent came over and broke up the argument by grabbing both of the students by their respective shoulders. On two other occasions while Respondent was in the lunch room with the students, he grabbed A.H. around the neck in the first encounter and the second encounter grabbed that student by the shoulder. When Respondent grabbed A.H. around the neck the student winced and frowned. The reason for that initial encounter between the Respondent and A.H. is not clear. On the second occasion Respondent grabbed A.H. by the shoulder, A.H. had similar expression in that he winced and frowned. Again it is unclear concerning the reason for Respondent's actions. In the experience of K.A., while attending a class taught by Respondent, he observed Respondent curse in class on a somewhat frequent basis. That frequency was as much as four times a day, three days a week. On one occasion K.A. observed Respondent grab D.A. around the neck and tell D.A. to sit down or Respondent was going to be "kicking his fucking ass." Other curse words that K.A. heard the Respondent use were words like "ass", "damn", and "asshole". According to Ms. Guthrie, an expert in education, cursing in front of students, using inappropriate discipline such as grabbing necks and shoulders of students and leaving the class unattended on more than one occasion, constitutes a circumstance in which the Respondent has lost his effectiveness as a teacher. That opinion by Ms. Guthrie is accepted.
Recommendation Based on the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of the four counts in the Administrative Complaint and suspending the Respondent's teaching certificate for thirty (30) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 24th day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan L. Bond, Esquire 2121 Killarney Way, Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308 J. David Holder, Esquire 1408 Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Steven A. Williams 6200 South Barnes Road, P-20 Jacksonville, Florida 32216-5633 Karen Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment as a non-instructional employee by the School Board of Lake County based on his arrest on February 26, 1989 for sexual battery on a child 12 years old.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Anthony Louis Young, was employed by the Lake County School District as a custodian at Rimes Elementary School. The School Board of Lake County is the agency responsible for the administration of public primary and secondary education in Lake County. Respondent had been employed as custodian at Rimes since 1983. This was a non-instructional position. In addition to his duties as custodian, he also had signed a vandal trailer contract under which he occupied, with his family, free of charge, a house trailer located on the school campus. The trailer and all utilities except telephone were furnished without charge to the Respondent. His obligation was to provide himself with a telephone and to make visual checks of the school buildings from time to time when school was not in session. Mr. Young did not receive any salary under the terms of the trailer contract. On February 13, 1989, Julia Young, Respondent's wife and mother by a different father of Nina Walker, age 12, discovered a pair of bloody underpants belonging to her daughter and became suspicious of the cause. She made an appointment with a doctor at the Public Health Service to have her daughter examined but did not keep it, nor did she provide any urine specimens from her daughter for testing. Finally, on or about February 26, 1989, she asked her daughter about the pants and in response was told, by Nina, that her stepfather, Respondent, had come into her room while Ms. Young was gone and had "messed" with her. Nina did not go into detail at this time, but as a result, that same day Ms. Young called the Sheriff's Office to report Respondent for alleged sexual battery on Nina. She had not discussed the matter with Respondent before making the call. When the Sheriff's Deputies came to her home, she told them the story that Nina had told her about the abuse which had allegedly taken place on a previous date. Ms. Young's report was made to Deputy Pallitto who, upon hearing the story, notified the representative from DHRS and then interviewed Nina. In her statement made to Pallitto, Nina told the following story: Respondent had picked her up at her grandmother's house on February 13, 1989 and taken her home. Instead of dropping her off as he usually did, he came inside, followed her into her room, and began touching her on her breasts and vagina. When Nina stated she would tell her mother, Respondent allegedly said he would tell her that Nina had used profanity. He then reportedly forced her onto the bed and told her to take off her clothes. He went into the living room and put some music on to play and then returned and undressed himself. He put what apparently was a condom on and told Nina to open her legs. He then attempted to insert his penis into her vagina and it hurt. As he was trying to do this, Nina's brother came in the back door and this caused Respondent to get off her and leave the room. Deputy Pallitto asked Nina to write out her statement, which she did. After completing her affidavit, she was taken to a doctor for a physical examination. Based on her oral statement, her affidavit which was consistent therewith, and the conclusion of the doctor that her physical condition was consistent with a penetration of her vagina by something, Respondent was arrested. During the period that Nina was waiting to see the doctor, she was again asked to tell her story and at this point, told much the same story as she had previously told, both orally and in writing. Several days later, on February 28, 1989, Deputy Pallitto was contacted by the Assistant State's Attorney who advised him that earlier that day Nina, along with her mother and grandmother, had come to his office and recanted her previous story. At Pallitto's request, she wrote out another affidavit which, in his opinion, was much more difficult for her to do than had been the original. In her second affidavit, Nina indicated she recanted because Respondent was not guilty of what she had alleged and she did not want to see an innocent man go to prison. In the second affidavit, Nina indicated her first story was a lie and claimed that when she attempted to tell the truth at first, she was pressured to make a statement implicating the Respondent. It was not indicated who "pressured" her. Ms. Williams arrived at Respondent's house trailer while Nina was writing out her original affidavit, and when she read it, found it to be consistent with what she had heard directly from Nina and from her mother. Ms. Williams took Nina to the doctor because she wanted Nina to have a vaginal exam as soon as possible to see if penetration could be determined. After the doctor indicated that Nina's condition was consistent with penetration by something, she took both Nina and Nina's brother and sheltered them for a month. At the end of that period, the boy was returned home, but Nina was sent to stay with an aunt in Ft. Lauderdale at the request of Ms. Young. This was done after Nina had recanted her original accusation, but according to Ms. Williams, this is not at all unusual. Ms. Williams also indicated that Ms. Young had seen love letter type notes written to Respondent by children from the school. These were not presented because, Ms. Young indicates, she tore them up and threw them away. Ms. Williams alleges that Ms. Young indicated in her initial interview that Nina was not the sort of child who would make up stories. In fact, Ms. Williams' investigation, and the testimony of Ms. Witter, one of Nina's teachers who is familiar with Nina's reputation at school, confirms this. At the hearing, however, both Ms. Young and Ms. Walker, the grandmother, indicated Nina is as likely to tell a lie as she is to tell the truth, and though she had not been in disciplinary difficulties at school before, she has been somewhat promiscuous on at least one occasion with a male cousin. The investigator from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services who, investigated this matter filed her report indicating the situation as a "confirmed" case of child abuse. Mr. Young was thereafter notified of this classification by letter and did not take any action to contest it. It is the policy of the School Board not to hire individuals who are charged with child abuse and placed in the abuse registry. Even if found innocent of sexual abuse on a minor, an individual would not be hired for a custodial position. Two weeks after Respondent was arrested, the State's Attorney decided not to prosecute and Respondent was released from jail. On the day of his release, a letter advising him that he had been suspended with pay pending a recommendation for disciplinary dismissal by the Board was delivered to him by Mr. Galbraith, the then Assistant Superintendent. This letter advised Respondent he was entitled to an informal conference after the Superintendent had conducted an investigation into the allegations. The investigation was conducted and Respondent requested an informal conference which was scheduled for March 23, 1989. However, before that conference could take place, the Board was advised of a decision of the 5th District Court Of Appeals which afforded Respondent a due process hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Respondent was so advised and requested the formal hearing, and as a result, the dismissal action was held in abeyance pending the formal hearing. Before the formal hearing could be held, however, Respondent's one year contract with the Board expired and, though he had been rehired almost automatically every year since he started with the Board in 1983, on this occasion, because of the allegations against him, Mr. Wolf, the Principal at Rimes, declined to offer him a contract for the following year. At about the same time, the Board advised him to vacate the trailer he occupied on campus. Consequently, no disciplinary dismissal has ever been executed. Shortly after his release from jail in March, 1989, Mr. Young left the area and secured alternative employment in Orlando. He has never requested that he be reinstated after the charges against him were dropped. His sole contest of the Board's action is the request for hearing on the dismissal action. While working with the Board, Respondent was paid approximately $520.00 every two weeks. On or about April 1, 1989, he secured work with a firm in Orlando and has been making $6.25 an hour working 50 hours per week, with overtime for all hours over 40. Though Respondent previously claimed he did not want his job back, he now claims he does, but in light of his current income and the fact that he is currently working in an area away from the locus of the incident, it is found that his stated desire for reinstatement is not sincere. Once Respondent was arrested his principal, Mr. Wolf, recommended to the Board that he be dismissed. School Board Policy 4.06(1), dealing with non- instructional personnel, provides that a staff member may be discharged during his term of office for "good and sufficient reasons". Both Mr. Wolf and Mr. Galbraith advised Dr. Sanders that under the circumstances of this case, wherein an employee who deals on a regular basis with young children is arrested for an offense which, as here, involves allegations of sexual misconduct with a child, the interests of the children and the school system would be best served by his dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Anthony Louis Young, be awarded back pay for the period from the date the charges against him were dismissed to the end of the 1988 - 1989 school year. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2620 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted in this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. & 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire 100 West Main Street Leesburg, Florida Dr. Thomas E. Sanders, Superintendent The School Board of Lake County, Florida 34749 201 W. Burleigh Blvd. Tavares, Florida 32778 Harry L. Lamb, Jr., Esquire 312 West 1st Street, Suite 605 Sanford Florida 32771 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner, Polk County School Board, to terminate Respondent, Jean Regan, from her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Under Florida law, whether charged conduct constitutes a deviation from a standard of conduct established by statute or rule is a question of fact to be decided by the trier-of-fact, considering the testimony and evidence in the context of the alleged violation. Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Thus, deciding whether Ms. Regan’s alleged conduct violates the law as charged in the School Board’s termination letter is a factual, not legal, determination. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the School Board failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Regan acted dishonestly by assisting students in selecting correct answers. Ms. Regan credibly denied ever assisting the students in that manner. In fact, the credible evidence confirmed that Ms. Regan had little opportunity to read the passages to determine the correct answers and, given that the students had different versions of the FSAT, it was highly improbable that she could have known the correct answers when moving from student to student. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the School Board failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Regan acted dishonestly by otherwise violating the FSAT standards. The credible evidence confirmed that Ms. Regan permissibly could: touch the test booklets and point at items while providing oral accommodations; flip through the test booklet to look for the questions the students had identified as needing an accommodation because that is exactly how they practiced in the classroom; and encourage the students to make sure that they completed the test by reading the corresponding directions, particularly after they prompted her to do so, just as they learned in class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Polk County School Board, issue a final order reinstating the Respondent, Jean Regan, as a classroom teacher and awarding her back pay to the date on which the School Board first suspended her without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO 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 26th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-4620 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4000 (eServed) Jacqueline Byrd, Superintendent 1915 South Floral Avenue Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831 Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4000 (eServed)
The Issue Whether there was “just cause” for the termination of Respondent’s employment, as that term is referred to in section of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida, by: Respondent’s using school district property for personal gain, by working on tasks related to a student-based educational European trip through Education First (EF) during her district duty hours in the spring of 2009. Respondent’s consuming excessive alcoholic beverages in the presence of students and parents of Buffalo Creek Middle School (BCMS) during an EF trip in the summer of 2009. Respondent’s reporting to BCMS on August 14, 2009, in order to collect her personal belongings, and appearing to be inebriated Respondent’s contacting witnesses to the investigation to discuss details of the investigation. Respondent’s coming on school grounds on December 7, 2009, while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Manatee County, Florida, is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. Respondent, Tammy M. Johnson, has been employed with the School District of Manatee County since February 8, 2000. She was most recently employed as the senior secretary at BCMS. As the senior secretary to the principal of BCMS, Respondent served as the point person for the principal of the school, working hand-in-hand with the principal. Her duties included screening the principal’s mail and phone calls, handling substitute teachers, performing payroll duties, handling leave forms, coordinating clerical office staff, and handling emergency situations as they arose within the school. Respondent was exposed to confidential school information on a regular basis, such as complaints regarding faculty and staff and policy changes being considered within the district. Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis, which was renewed from year to year. Her employment contract was for a term of 11 months and lasted typically from early August to June of the following year. While employed full-time as the senior secretary, in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009, Respondent organized a trip to Europe through the student-based educational travel company EF. Respondent sought to recruit BCMS students and their family members to sign up for the trip by placing fliers on campus, posting a sign-up board at the incoming students’ open house, and placing a notice about the trip in the school newsletter. Respondent routinely included a signature line in her school-assigned email address that identified her not only as a Senior Secretary but as an EF tour guide in every email that she sent from her school account. Announcements about informational meetings related to the EF trip were made over the school intercom and these meetings occurred on school property in the evenings. Respondent made fliers at BCMS advertising the EF trip on at least two occasions using school equipment. On one occasion, she made 750 fliers using school paper. During the time Respondent was conducting these activities, her principal was Scott Cooper. Cooper knew of Respondent’s activities in promoting the trip, and that she was using school resources to accomplish it. He did not object or tell Respondent to stop doing so; in fact, he encouraged such trips. Respondent ultimately recruited 10 student participants for the EF trip, all of whom were students at BCMS. The trip also included 15 adult participants, all of whom were family members of BCMS students. In exchange for her work organizing, promoting and chaperoning the EF European trip, Respondent was to receive, and did receive a free spot on the trip to Europe. Respondent served as the group leader for the EF group of BCMS students and parents. Three other BCMS teachers became involved in the EF trip as chaperones: Joseph Baker, Malissa Baker and Jessica Vieira. They also used school resources to promote the trip. The EF trip to Europe took place from June 22, 2009, to July 1, 2009. On June 17, 2009, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) received a complaint that Respondent was misusing school resources for personal gain. OPS opened an investigation into these allegations. Shortly before Respondent left for Europe, Scott Cooper was replaced as principal. The newly-appointed BCMS Principal Matt Gruhl, met with Respondent to discuss his concern that she included an EF tagline in the signature block of all of her school emails. Gruhl asked Respondent to remove the EF tagline from her email, take the EF poster off of her door, make any necessary copies at a non-school location, and pay standard rates in the future for any advertising done in the school newsletter. Respondent complied with the directive. On June 22, 2009, the flight for the EF trip left from Tampa. Prior to the flight’s departure, Respondent purchased several small bottles of vodka in the airport duty-free shop. Several students observed Respondent doing so. Respondent drank two vodka-and-cranberry drinks on the flight to Europe in the presence of BCMS students and parents. Upon arrival in London, Respondent went with several other parents to a pub across the street from the hotel. While there, Respondent had too much to drink that evening and became intoxicated. Several BCMS students said that Respondent was speaking so loudly that they were able to hear her all the way across the street and up to the fifth story of the hotel. These students were upset by Respondent’s behavior. Respondent was very loud when she returned from the pub. BCMS parents had to help Respondent into the lobby, as she was falling over and laughing loudly. The adults tried to persuade Respondent to go to bed, but she insisted on ordering another drink in the lobby. Respondent was finally coaxed to go upstairs to bed, and she began banging on all the doors to the hotel rooms in the hallway. Respondent had to be physically restrained from banging on the doors. On more than four occasions Respondent was observed mixing vodka-and-cranberry juice drinks in a Styrofoam to-go cup before leaving the hotel with students for the day. The BCMS students on the EF trip commented on multiple occasions about Respondent’s drinking on the trip. The students did not want to go off alone with Respondent because they did not feel safe with her. The students also made observations that Respondent was drunk and stumbling around. On the return plane ride from Europe to Tampa, Respondent again was drinking alcoholic beverages to excess and exhibiting loud and boisterous behavior. While Respondent was in Europe with the EF trip, she had received a text message notifying her that she may be under an OPS investigation. Shortly after Respondent returned, she approached Gruhl and asked him whether there was an investigation concerning her being conducted by OPS. When Gruhl declined to comment on any pending OPS investigations, Respondent then called Debra Horne, specialist in the Office of Professional Standards, and asked whether there was an investigation being conducted. Horne confirmed that there was an open investigation and told Respondent that it might not be resolved until after school started because it involved students and parents. After speaking to Horne, on or about July 20, 2009, and being made aware that she was involved in an open investigation, Respondent called Vieira and told her that they needed to get their stories straight. Respondent also left messages for Joe and Malissa Baker stating that she heard that there was an OPS investigation and wanted to know if they had any information or had heard anything about the investigation. Respondent was only partially aware of a School Board rule which prohibited contacting potential witnesses during an investigation, although she was aware that she was expected to abide by all School Board rules. Gruhl spoke to Horne and reported Vieira and Malissa Baker’s concerns. Horne expanded her open investigation to include the allegations about Respondent’s behavior on the trip. Effective August 3, 2009, Respondent was removed from her position and placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an investigation of her conduct by the Petitioner’s Office of Professional Standards. During the time of paid leave she was required to report daily to her principal and could not travel outside the country without permission. After Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave, she came to the BCMS campus on August 14, 2009, to pick up her belongings from her office. She met Gruhl and Assistant Principal Nancy Breiding at the school. Gruhl observed that Respondent smelled strongly of alcohol. She had difficulty keeping her balance and ran into walls, ran into doorways and almost fell when she tried to adjust her flip-flop. Respondent also had great difficulty following the line of conversation when she was speaking with Gruhl and repeated herself numerous times. Concerned, Gruhl permitted Respondent to leave campus after observing that her husband was driving her. He did not seek to send her for drug or alcohol testing, as provided in school board rules. Respondent testified that she had “just one” vodka and grapefruit drink at lunch earlier that day. She denied that Gruhl’s observations were accurate, but also alleged that she was on a prescription medication, Cymbalta, and stated that it caused her to be increasingly emotional and somewhat dizzy. However, she testified that she was completely unaware that combining the medication with alcoholic beverages would have an adverse effect on her. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Gruhl’s observations of Respondent’s behavior on August 14, 2009, were incorporated into the OPS investigation. Horne interviewed Respondent on August 20, 2009, regarding the allegations made prior to the trip and the allegations made concerning her behavior on the EF trip. On September 1, 2009, the results of the OPS investigation was presented within the chain-of-command, who recommended to Superintendant Tim McGonegal that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The Superintendant concurred with their recommendation, and on September 21, 2009, the Superintendant notified Respondent that he intended to seek termination of her employment, or, should she request an administrative hearing, suspension without pay pending the outcome of that hearing. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At their meeting on October 13, 2009, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay. While on unpaid suspension, Respondent had no duties, was not required to report to anyone, and was not limited in her ability to travel. However, she was still a School District employee. On December 7, 2009, while on suspension without pay, Respondent returned by car to the BCMS campus while school was in session to check her son out early for a doctor’s appointment. Aware that she was under investigation for excessive drinking, Respondent admitted that she nonetheless had a drink at lunchtime before going to pick up her son from school around 2 p.m. While on campus, Respondent’s eyes were glassy, she smelled of alcohol, and she was unkempt, which was out of keeping with her usual appearance. When Gruhl learned of the incident on December 7, 2009, he recommended to the Superintendant that Johnson not be permitted to return to the BCMS campus On December 7, 2009, the OPS opened an addendum investigatory file on Respondent concerning the events of December 7, 2009. The addendum OPS investigation alleged that, on December 7, 2009, Johnson entered the BCMS campus while under the influence of alcohol. The testimony of Horne, Keefer, Vieira, Hosier and Gruhl is credible. Respondent’s testimony is found to be unreliable.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be terminated from her position as an instructional employee for gross insubordination and being willfully absent from duty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this termination case, Petitioner, Lake County School Board (Board), seeks to terminate Respondent, Brenda Armstead, an instructional employee, on the ground that she was willfully absent from duty without leave and guilty of gross insubordination by virtue of having repeatedly refused to report to her job assignment. In a letter dated May 26, 2000, Respondent asked for a hearing "as soon as possible," contending that the "termination was illegal." In school year 1999-2000, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lake Hills School in Eustis, Florida, where she taught 3 to 5-year-old children with severe emotional disabilities. In September 1999, Respondent was arrested for stalking. However, the criminal charges were later dropped or reduced to a lesser charge. Pending the disposition of the matter, Respondent continued working in the classroom. In January 2000, Respondent reported to her supervisor that she had been exposed to "CMV," an infectious viral disease. Despite being tested as negative, Respondent continued to have concerns with her health and began to exhibit unusual or bizarre behavior in the classroom. Among other things, Respondent constantly wore gloves in the classroom, avoided physical or close contact with her aides, and exhibited other unusual habits or practices. She also began sending "unusual" correspondence to the Superintendent. Because of this, she met with her principal and the Board's Assistant Superintendent on February 14, 2000. At that meeting, Respondent was orally directed to report to the Board's MIS Copy Center (Copy Center) effective immediately until she "could meet with a medical doctor." This action was authorized by School Board Policy 6.171(4), which allows the Board to "require a physical, psychological, and/or psychiatric examination by a physician licensed in the state of Florida when in the School Board's judgment such an examination is relevant to the teaching performance or employment status or a School Board employee." Given Respondent's behavior, the transfer to a non-teaching position was also appropriate and necessary since Respondent was working with emotionally handicapped children. Accordingly, the Board arranged for an evaluation of Respondent by a Dr. Kendall on February 17, 2000; that physician recommended that Respondent be further examined by a psychiatrist. By letter dated February 24, 2000, the Board's Superintendent again directed Respondent to report to the Copy Center for temporary duty pending the results of the examination. The letter was hand-delivered to Respondent on February 25, 2000. Despite both orders, Respondent never reported to work at the Copy Center. Although she "came on campus" a couple of times, she never returned to work. She was later given another oral instruction by telephone on March 16, 2000, by the Board's Assistant Superintendent. By certified mail sent on April 13, 2000, the Board's Superintendent again directed Respondent to report to work, and he warned that if she did not do so by April 19, 2000, she would be subject to being terminated for being absent without leave, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duties. Respondent received the letter the following day. Even so, she never reported to work. It is fair to infer from the evidence that Respondent was willfully absent from work without leave. On April 21, 2000, the Superintendent recommended to the Board that Respondent be terminated because of her "continuing intentional refusal to report to work despite repeated direct orders, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority to do so." This recommendation was accepted by the Board at its meeting on May 8, 2000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lake County School Board enter a final order determining that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination and being willfully absent without leave, and that she be terminated as an instructional employee for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 16th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. R. Jerry Smith, Superintendent Lake County School Board 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778-2496 Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire McLin, Burnsed, Morrison, Johnson, Newman & Roy, P.A. Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Brenda Armstead 32412 Crystal Breeze Lane Leesburg, Florida 34788 Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be suspended, without pay and benefits, and terminated from employment with Petitioner for the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Maynard has a Bachelor of Science degree in Education (K-6) and a Master of Arts degree in Teaching (Special Education). Her prior teaching experience includes teaching in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Ms. Maynard began her employment with the School Board as a substitute teacher. She was a substitute teacher for approximately six years. In the Summer of 2004, Ms. Maynard was hired to teach at the Pompano Beach Elementary School (Pompano Beach Elementary). However, Pompano Beach Elementary had over-hired, and she was surplused-out to Cypress Elementary School (Cypress Elementary). For the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Maynard began at Cypress Elementary as a kindergarten teacher. For the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Maynard was reassigned as an elementary teacher at Cypress Elementary. The parties agree that the relevant time period in the instant case is the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Maynard was an instructional employee, a third grade teacher, with the School Board at Cypress Elementary. On April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard received a written reprimand from Cypress Elementary's Assistant principal, Barbara Castiglione (now, Barbara Castiglione-Rothman). The basis for the disciplinary action was Ms. Maynard's failure, twice, to comply with a directive from Ms. Castiglione--Ms. Maynard was requested to report to an academic meeting with Ms. Castiglione. Among other things, Ms. Maynard was advised that her failure to perform to the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. A copy of the written reprimand was provided to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard contended that she was not refusing to attend the meetings but wanted to meet with Ms. Castiglione when a witness of her own choosing could attend. Ms. Maynard wanted a witness to be present at the meetings because she viewed the meetings as disciplinary meetings even though Ms. Castiglione indicated that the meetings were not disciplinary meetings. Additionally, on April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard made a written request for a transfer from Cypress Elementary. The type of transfer requested by Ms. Maynard was "Regular."2 Cypress Elementary's principal, Louise Portman, signed the request. The principal's signature, as well as the requester's signature, was required. No transfer occurred. PMPs During the 2006-2007 School Year Through School Board policy, implementing a Legislative mandate, all teachers at Cypress Elementary were required to develop an individualized progress monitoring plan (PMP) for each student, who was deficient in reading, in consultation with the student's parent(s). Data for the PMP were collected through reading assessments at the beginning of the school year to establish a student's reading level. The appropriate reading program for the student would be decided upon using the data. Also, who was going to teach the reading program would be decided. The PMP, among other things, identified the student's reading deficiency and set forth the plan to remediate the deficiency and enhance the student's achievement in reading, which included the proposed supplemental instruction services that would be provided to the student. PMPs were generated usually two to three weeks after the beginning of the school year. A copy of the PMP was provided to the student's parent(s). The PMP was referred to as a "living, fluid document." It was not unusual for PMPs to reflect interventions not being used at the time, i.e., it was permissible for PMPs to reflect interventions that were to be used during the school year. Further, the wording current on a PMP referred to interventions during the current school year, not necessarily at that time. PMPs were modified throughout the school year on an as needed basis depending upon a student's progress. On or about September 29, 2006, Ms. Portman advised Ms. Maynard that Ms. Maynard's PMPs must be deleted because the interventions listed on the PMPs were not on the Struggling Readers Chart and were, therefore, invalid. The Struggling Readers Chart was developed by the Florida Department of Education (DOE) and contained interventions approved by DOE. Cypress Elementary had a Reading Coach, Jennifer Murphins. Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, in order to delete the PMPs, a list of the students, who were on the PMPs, was needed so that Ms. Murphins could provide the names to the person in the school district who was authorized to delete the PMPs. Further, Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, once the PMPs were deleted, Ms. Maynard could input valid interventions for the students. The School Board's Curriculum Administrator, Mark Quintana, Ph.D., was the person who was designated to delete PMPs. It was not unusual for Dr. Quintana to receive a telephone call from a school to delete information from PMPs-- the request must originate from the school. Ms. Maynard resisted the deletion of the PMPs and refused to delete them time and time again. She suggested, instead, not deleting the PMPs, but preparing updated PMPs and sending both to the students' parents. Her belief was that she could not put proposed interventions on the PMPs, but that she was required to only include interventions that were actually being used with the students at the time. Even though Ms. Maynard was advised by Ms. Portman that proposed interventions could be included on PMPs, Ms. Maynard still refused to provide Ms. Murphins with the list of the students. Furthermore, Ms. Maynard insisted that including interventions not yet provided, but to be provided, on the PMPs was contrary to Florida's Meta Consent Agreement. She had not read the Meta Consent Agreement and was unable to provide Ms. Portman with a provision of the Meta Consent Agreement that supported a contradiction. Ms. Portman directed Ms. Murphins to contact Dr. Quintana to delete the PMPs for Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Murphins did as she was directed. The PMPs were deleted. On or about October 5, 2006, Ms. Maynard notified Ms. Portman by email that a complaint against Ms. Portman was filed by her with DOE regarding, among other things, the changing of the PMPs and the denying to her students equal access to the reading curriculum and trained professionals. On or about October 30, 2006, Ms. Castiglione sent a directive by email to all teachers regarding, among other things, placing PMPs and letters to parents in the students' report card envelopes. Ms. Maynard refused to comply with Ms. Castiglione's directive because, among other things, the students' PMPs for Ms. Maynard had been deleted and to rewrite the PMPs with interventions that were not actually used by the students was considered falsifying legal documents by Ms. Maynard. On or about October 31, 2006, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard to rewrite the PMPs. Ms. Maynard continued to refuse to obey Ms. Portman's directive. Around November 2006, Ms. Maynard lodged "concerns" about Ms. Portman with the School Board's North Area Superintendent, Joanne Harrison, Ed.D., regarding the PMPs and the instruction of English Language Learners (ELL). Dr. Harrison requested Dr. Quintana and Sayra Hughes, Executive Director of Bilingual/Foreign Language/ESOL Education, to investigate the matter. Dr. Quintana investigated and prepared the report on the PMP concerns, which included findings by Dr. Quintana as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Ms. Hughes investigated and prepared the report on the ELL concerns, which included findings by Ms. Hughes as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Dr. Harrison provided a copy of both reports to Ms. Maynard. Included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: (a) that a school's administration requesting the deletion of PMPs was appropriate; (b) that PMPs are intended to document support programming that was to occur during the school year; (c) that including a support program that was not initially implemented, but is currently being implemented, is appropriate; and (d) that the School Board should consider revising the parents' letter as to using the term "current" in that current could be interpreted to mean the present time. Also, included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: (a) the principal's direction to the teachers, as to the deadline for sending PMPs home by the first quarter report card, was equivalent to the School Board's deadline for sending PMPs home; (b) teacher signatures were not required on PMPs; (c) the principal has discretion as to whether to authorize the sending home of additional PMPs and, with the principal's consent, PMPs can be modified and sent home at any time throughout the school year; and (d) Ms. Maynard completed all of her students' PMPs. Ms. Maynard's concerns regarding ELLS were that Ms. Portman was denying ELLs equal access and had inappropriately adjusted Individual Reading Inventories (IRI) scores of ELLs. Ms. Hughes found that Ms. Maynard only had allegations or claims, but no documentation to substantiate the allegations or claims. As a result, Ms. Hughes concluded that Ms. Portman had committed no violations. As a result of the investigation by Dr. Quintana and Ms. Hughes, Dr. Harrison determined and advised Ms. Maynard, among other things, that no violations had been found in the areas of PMP process, management or implementation and students' equal access rights and that the investigation was officially closed and concluded. Further, Dr. Harrison advised Ms. Maynard that, should additional concerns arise, Ms. Portman, as principal, was the first line of communication and that, if concerns or issues were not being resolved at the school level, the School Board had a process in place that was accessible. Ms. Maynard admits that she was not satisfied with the determination by Dr. Harrison. Ms. Maynard does not dispute that the deleting of the PMPs were directives from Ms. Portman and that Ms. Portman had the authority to give directives. Ms. Maynard disputes whether the directives were lawful directives and claims that to change the PMPs as directed would be falsifying the reading materials used by her students and, therefore, falsifying PMPs. A finding of fact is made that the directives were reasonable and lawful. Interaction with Students and Parents Ms. Maynard's class consisted of third graders. In addition to reading deficiencies indicated previously, some of her students also had behavioral issues. Ms. Maynard was heard by staff and teachers yelling at her students. For instance, the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein, heard Ms. Maynard yelling at her (Ms. Maynard's) students. The Media Center was across the hall from Ms. Maynard's classroom and had no doors. On one occasion, Ms. Goldstein was so concerned with the loudness of the yelling, she went to Ms. Maynard's room to determine whether something was wrong; Ms. Maynard assured her that nothing was wrong. Paraprofessionals working in the cafeteria have observed Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. Some teachers reported the yelling to Ms. Portman in writing. The Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist and Administrative Designee, Marjorie DiVeronica, complained to Ms. Portman in writing regarding Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. A Haitian student was in Ms. Maynard's class for approximately two weeks during the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. The student was not performing well in school. The student's father discussed the student's performance with Ms. Maynard. She indicated to the father that Ms. Portman's directives to teachers, regarding reading services, i.e., PMPs, had negatively impacted his son's performance. Ms. Maynard assisted the father in preparing a complaint with DOE, dated October 12, 2006, against Ms. Portman. Among other things, the complaint contained allegations against Ms. Portman regarding a denial of equal access to trained teachers and the reading curriculum in violation of Florida's Meta Consent Agreement and the Equal Education Opportunity Act. Ms. Portman was not aware that the parent had filed a complaint against her with DOE. Additionally, on October 16, 2006, Ms. Portman held a conference with the Haitian parent. Among other things, Ms. Portman discussed the reading services provided to the parent's child by Cypress Elementary. Ms. Portman provided a summary of the conference to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard responded to Ms. Portman's summary on that same day. In Ms. Maynard's response, she indicated, among other things, that Ms. Portman did not give the Haitian parent accurate information regarding the child. Interaction with Staff (Non-Teachers) A system of awarding points to classes was established for the cafeteria at Cypress Elementary. A five-point system was established in which classes were given a maximum of five points daily. Classes entered in silence and departed in silence. Points were deducted if a class did not act appropriately. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the five-point system encouraged appropriate conduct by students while they were in the cafeteria. The cafeteria was overseen by Leonor Williamson, who was an ESOL paraprofessional, due to her seniority. The paraprofessionals were responsible for the safety of the students while the students were in the cafeteria. The paraprofessionals implemented the five-point system and came to Ms. Williamson with any problems that they had involving the cafeteria. On or about December 11, 2006, Ms. Maynard's students entered the cafeteria and were unruly. Ms. Williamson instructed the paraprofessional in charge of the section where the students were located to deduct a point from Ms. Maynard's class. Ms. Maynard was upset at Ms. Williamson's action and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson, demanding to know the basis for Ms. Williamson's action. Ms. Maynard would not cease complaining, so Ms. Williamson eventually walked away from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Williamson was required to oversee the safety of the students in the cafeteria and, in order to comply with this responsibility, she had to remove herself from the presence of Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard also complained to another teacher, who was attempting to leave the cafeteria with her own students. Additionally, the lunch period for each teacher's class is 30 minutes. On that same day, Ms. Maynard took her class from one section to another section in the cafeteria to serve ice cream to the students. As a result, Ms. Maynard surpassed her lunch period by approximately ten minutes and, at the same time, occupied another class' section. Ms. Williamson viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as unprofessional during the incident and as abusing the scheduled time for lunch. On or about December 12, 2006, Ms. Williamson notified Ms. Portman about the incidents and requested Ms. Portman to remind Ms. Maynard of the cafeteria workers' responsibility to the students and the lunch period set-aside for each class. The incident on or about December 11, 2006, was not the first time that Ms. Williamson had instructed paraprofessionals to deduct points from Ms. Maynard's class. Each time points were deducted, Ms. Maynard became upset and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson. Ms. Williamson felt intimidated by Ms. Maynard. Also, paraprofessionals had deducted points from Ms. Maynard's class on their own accord without being directed to do so by Ms. Williamson. Whenever the deductions occurred, Ms. Maynard expressed her displeasure with the paraprofessionals' actions and often yelled at them in the presence of students and teachers. Another cafeteria situation occurred in December 2006. A paraprofessional, who was in charge of the section where Ms. Maynard's students ate lunch, observed some of the students not conducting themselves appropriately. The paraprofessional decided to deduct one point from Ms. Maynard's class and to indicate to Ms. Maynard why the point was deducted. Furthermore, the paraprofessional decided that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. Upon becoming aware of the incident, Ms. Maynard, who did not witness the conduct, wrote disciplinary referrals on the students involved and submitted them to Ms. Castiglione. The policy was that a referral could be written only by the staff person who observed the incident. Ms. Castiglione discussed the incident with the paraprofessional who indicated to Ms. Castiglione that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. As a result, Ms. Castiglione advised Ms. Maynard that, based upon the paraprofessional's decision and since Ms. Maynard did not witness the incident, Ms. Maynard's referrals would not be accepted and the matter was closed. Ms. Maynard did not agree with the paraprofessional's decision. Ms. Maynard approached the paraprofessional with disciplinary referrals on the students and presented the referrals and strongly encouraged the paraprofessional to sign the referrals. The paraprofessional refused to sign the referrals. Interaction with Staff (Teachers and Administrators) Safety procedures for the Media Center were established by the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein. At one point in time, Ms. Maynard wanted to bring all of her students to Distance Learning. Because of safety concerns, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that all of her students could not attend at the same time. However, Ms. Maynard brought all of her students anyway. Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to preclude Ms. Maynard from entering the Media Center. Additionally, at another point in time, Ms. Maynard requested, by email, that Ms. Goldstein provide all of her (Ms. Maynard's) students with New Testament Bibles. That same day, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that only two Bibles were in the Media Center and, therefore, the request could not be complied with. Disregarding Ms. Goldstein's reply, Ms. Maynard sent her students to the Media Center that same day in twos and threes, requesting the New Testament Bibles. When the two Bibles on-hand were checked-out, Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to offer the students alternative religious material. During 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, Terri Vaughn was the Team Leader of the third grade class. As Team Leader, Ms. Vaughn's responsibilities included being a liaison between team members and the administration at Cypress Elementary. Ms. Vaughn's personality is to avoid confrontation. Ms. Vaughn had an agenda for each team meeting. During team meetings, Ms. Maynard would deviate from the agenda and discuss matters of her own personal interest, resulting in the agenda not being completed. Also, Ms. Maynard would occasionally monopolize team meetings. Additionally, in team meetings, Ms. Maynard would indicate that she would discuss a problem student with parents who were not the student's parents. As time progressed, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would engage in outbursts. She would become emotional on matters and raise her voice to the point of yelling. Also, it was not uncommon for Ms. Maynard to point her finger when she became emotional. At times, Ms. Maynard would have to leave the meetings and return because she had begun to cry. Additionally, at times after an outburst, Ms. Maynard would appear as if nothing had happened. Further, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would excessively raise the subject of PMPs and accuse Ms. Portman of directing her to falsify PMPs or Title I documents. Ms. Vaughn did not report Ms. Maynard's conduct at team meetings to Ms. Portman. However, a written request by a majority of the team members, who believed that the team meetings had become stressful, made a request to the administration of Cypress Elementary for a member of the administration to attend team meetings; their hope was that an administrator's presence would cause Ms. Maynard to become calmer during the team meetings. An administrator began to attend team meetings. Marjorie DiVeronica, an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist, was an administrative designee, and Ms. Portman designated Ms. DiVeronica to attend the team meetings. Ms. DiVeronica would take notes, try to keep meetings moving, and report to Ms. Portman what was observed. Discussions were stopped by Ms. DiVeronica, and she would redirect the meetings to return to the agenda. Even with Ms. DiVeronica's presence, Ms. Maynard would raise her voice. At one team meeting attended by Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard would not stop talking and the agenda could not move. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to stop talking, but Ms. Maynard would not stop. Ms. Portman placed herself in close proximity to Ms. Maynard in order to defuse the situation and raised her voice in order to get Ms. Maynard's attention. Ms. Portman dismissed the meeting. Additionally, at a team meeting, Ms. Maynard had become emotional. Ms. Castiglione was in attendance at that meeting. Ms. Maynard raised her voice and was shouting and yelling and pointing her finger at Ms. Castiglione. Ms. Maynard continued her conduct at the team meetings no matter whether Ms. Portman, Ms. Castiglione, or Ms. DiVeronica attended the meetings. Outside of team meetings, Ms. Vaughn reached the point that she avoided contact with Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's constantly complaining of matters that were of her (Ms. Maynard's) own personal interest, which resulted in long conversations. Ms. Vaughn's classroom was next to Ms. Maynard's classroom. A closet, with a desk in it, was in Ms. Vaughn's room. At least two or three times, in order to complete some work, Ms. Vaughn went into the closet and closed the door. Another team member, Elizabeth Kane, also made attempts to avoid Ms. Maynard. Ms. Kane viewed Ms. Maynard as making the team meetings stressful. Also, Ms. Kane was uncomfortable around Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and, furthermore, felt threatened by Ms. Maynard when Ms. Maynard became agitated. Additionally, Ms. Kane made a concerted effort to avoid Ms. Maynard outside of team meetings. Ms. Kane would "duck" into another teacher's classroom or into a stall in the bathroom to avoid Ms. Maynard. Barbara Young, a team member, tried to be someone to whom Ms. Maynard could come to talk. Ms. Young was never afraid of or felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Further, regarding the cafeteria incident in December 2006, which Ms. Maynard did not witness, Ms. Maynard did not allow the incident to end with Ms. Castiglione's determination to agree with the paraprofessional's decision to not issue disciplinary referrals. Ms. Maynard, firmly believing that Ms. Castiglione's action was unfair, openly disagreed with the decision in the presence her (Ms. Maynard's) students and strongly encouraged some of the students to go to Ms. Castiglione and protest Ms. Castiglione's determination. Some of the students went to Ms. Castiglione regarding her disciplinary determination. Ms. Castiglione explained her determination to the students, including the process and the reasoning why she did what she did. The students were satisfied with the determination after hearing Ms. Castiglione's explanation. Further, the students indicated to Ms. Castiglione that they had no desire to go to her, but Ms. Maynard wanted them to do it. Ms. Maynard's action had undermined Ms. Castiglione's authority with the students. LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard or viewed Ms. Maynard as being hostile towards her. However, Ms. Maynard did make her feel uncomfortable. A second grade teacher, Paja Rafferty, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Excessive Emails Communication thru emails is the standard operating procedure at Cypress Elementary. However, Ms. Maynard engaged in excessive emails. Ms. Maynard's emails were on relevant areas. However, she would not only send the email to the staff member, whether teacher or administrator, who could directly respond to her, but would copy every teacher and administrator. This process and procedure used by Ms. Maynard resulted in massive emails being sent to staff who might or might not have an interest in the subject matter. One such staff person, who took action to stop receiving the emails, was Ms. Kane. Ms. Kane was inundated with Ms. Maynard's emails regarding matters on which Ms. Kane had no interest or concern. To stop receiving the emails, Ms. Kane sent Ms. Maynard an email, twice, requesting that Ms. Maynard remove her (Ms. Kane) from the copy list. However, Ms. Maynard did not do so. Due to the massive number of emails sent to Ms. Portman by Ms. Maynard, a significant portion of Ms. Portman's time was devoted to responding to the emails. Ms. Portman had less and less time to devote to her responsibilities as principal of Cypress Elementary. Eventually, Ms. Portman was forced to curtail Ms. Maynard's emails. None of Ms. Maynard's emails threatened teachers, staff, or students. Additional Directives During the time period regarding the PMPs, Ms. Portman became concerned that the parents of Ms. Maynard's students were being misinformed by Ms. Maynard as to the students' performance and as to Cypress Elementary and Ms. Portman addressing the students' performance. On November 3, 2006, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard. Also, in attendance were Ms. Castiglione and Patricia Costigan, Broward Teachers Union (BTU) Steward. During the meeting, among other things, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard not to have conferences with a parent unless an administrator was present, either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione, in order to assure that parents were not misinformed. A summary of the meeting was prepared on November 6, 2006. A copy of the summary was provided to Ms. Maynard and Ms. Costigan. Subsequently, Ms. Portman received a letter from a parent dated December 20, 2006. The parent stated, among other things, that the parent had approximately a two-hour telephone conversation, during the evening of December 19, 2006, with Ms. Maynard about the parent's child, who was a student in Ms. Maynard's class. Further, the parent stated that her son was referred to by Ms. Maynard as a "fly on manure." Even though Ms. Maynard denies some of the statements attributed to her by the parent and the time span of the telephone conversation, she does not deny that she had the telephone conversation with the parent. On December 20, 2006, Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione went to Ms. Maynard's classroom to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive. Ms Maynard was not in her classroom but was in another teacher's room, Barbara Young, with another teacher. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to come into Ms. Maynard's classroom so that she and Ms. Castiglione could talk with Ms. Maynard out of the presence of the other teachers. Ms. Maynard refused to leave Ms. Young's classroom indicating that whatever had to be said could be said in front of everyone, in front of witnesses. Ms. Portman, complying with Ms. Maynard's request, proceeded to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive to not conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Maynard became very agitated and yelled at them, indicating that she (Ms. Maynard) wanted what was said in writing and that she (Ms. Maynard) was not going to comply with the directive. Shortly before Winter break, on or about December 21, 2006, in the morning, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 10, 2006, regarding insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all contact with parents" until the meeting was held. Later in the afternoon, after the administrative office was closed, Ms. Maynard returned to Ms. Portman's office. Ms. Maynard confronted Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione about the notice, wanting to know what it was all about. Ms. Maynard was very agitated and emotional, raising her voice and pointing her finger. Ms. Portman indicated to Ms. Maynard that the requirement was only to provide the notice, with the meeting to be held later. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard several times to leave because the office was closed; Ms. Maynard finally left. After Ms. Maynard left Ms. Portman's office, Ms. Portman could hear Ms. Maynard talking to other staff. Ms. Portman was very concerned due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and conduct. Ms. Portman contacted the School Board's Professional Standards as to what to do and was told to request all employees, except day care, to leave. Ms. Portman did as she was instructed by Professional Standards, getting on the intercom system and requesting all employees, except for day care, to leave, not giving the employees the actual reason why they were required to leave. Unbeknownst to Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard had departed Cypress Elementary before she (Ms. Portman) instructed the employees to leave. Regarding the afternoon incident, Ms. Maynard felt "helpless" at that point. She had been informed by Professional Standards to go to administration at Cypress Elementary with her concerns, who was Ms. Portman. Ms. Maynard viewed Ms. Portman as the offender, and, therefore, she was being told to go to offender to have her concerns addressed. On January 9, 2007, a Child Study Team (CST) meeting was convened to address the academic performance of a few of Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Maynard had referred the students to the CST. The CST's purpose was to provide support for the student and the teacher by problem-solving, using empirical data to assist with and improve a child's academic performance and behavior, and making recommendations. No individual member can override a team's recommendation, only a principal could do that. On January 9, 2007, the CST members included, among others, Ms. DiVeronica, who was the CST's leader; Miriam Kassof, School Board Psychologist; and LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor. Also, in attendance were Ms. Maynard and Ms. Castiglione, who, at that time, was an intern principal. During the course of the meeting, Ms. Maynard diverted the discussion from the purpose of the meeting to her wanting two of the students removed from her class. She began discussing the safety of the other students in the class, which was viewed, at first, as being well-meaning, however, when she insisted on the removal of the two students, she became highly emotional, stood-up, and was yelling. Members of the CST team attempted to de-escalate the situation, but Ms. Maynard was not willing to engage in problem solving and her actions were counterproductive. Due to Ms. Maynard's constant insistence on discussing the removal of the students from her class, the CST was not able to meet its purpose within the time period set- aside for the meeting. However, before the CST meeting ended, one of the recommendations made was for Ms. Maynard to collect daily anecdotal behavioral notes regarding one of the students and for the behavioral notes to be sent home to the student's parent. Ms. Castiglione gave Ms. Maynard a directive that, before the behavioral notes were sent home to the parent, the behavioral notes were to be forwarded to Ms. Castiglione for review and approval. Ms. Maynard resisted preparing behavioral notes, expressing that that plan of action would not help the situation. The CST members viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as being unproductive, inappropriate, and unprofessional. On January 10, 2007, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held regarding Ms. Portman considering disciplinary action against Ms. Maynard for insubordination. Attendees at the meeting included Ms. Portman; Ms. Castiglione (at that time intern principal); Ms. Maynard; Jacquelyn Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Andrew David, Attorney for Ms. Maynard. The basis for the insubordination was Ms. Maynard's refusal to comply with Ms. Portman's directive for Ms. Maynard not to conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Portman pointed out that Ms. Maynard had a telephone conversation with a parent, regarding the parent's child, on December 19, 2006, without an administrator being present and showed Ms. Maynard the letter written by the parent to Ms. Portman, dated December 20, 2006. Ms. Maynard admitted only that she had the telephone conversation. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard to provide a compelling reason as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken; Ms. Maynard did not respond. Ms. Portman reiterated the directive and advised Ms. Maynard that a letter of reprimand would be issued. A summary of the pre-disciplinary meeting was prepared. Ms. Maynard was provided a copy of the summary. On January 17, 2007, a written reprimand was issued by Ms. Portman against Ms. Maynard for failure to adhere to the administrative directive of not having a parent conference unless an administrator was present. The written reprimand stated, among other things, that Ms. Maynard had a parent's conference on the telephone with a student's parent without an administrator being present and that Ms. Maynard failed to present a compelling reason as to why no disciplinary action should be taken. Furthermore, the written reprimand advised Ms. Maynard that any further failure to perform consistent with the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties, as a third grade teacher, would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. Ms. Maynard received a copy of the written reprimand. After the Written Reprimand of January 17, 2007 Also, on January 17, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard which was not a disciplinary meeting, but was a meeting for Ms. Portman to discuss her concerns and job expectations with Ms. Maynard. In addition to Ms. Portman and Ms. Maynard, attendees at the meeting included Ms. Castiglione; Jacqueline Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Mary Rutland, BTU Steward. Ms. Portman discussed five concerns and issued five directives. The first concern of Ms. Portman was Ms. Maynard's unprofessional behavior. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (b) yelling at administrators, referencing the incident on December 20, 2006; and (c) continuing to publicly accuse Cypress Elementary's administrators of falsifying documents after an investigation had determined the accusation to be unfounded. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate behavior. Ms. Portman's second concern was unprofessional and inappropriate comments. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) indicating on December 20, 2006, while she was in Ms. Young's room, that she would not comply with the directives of which she was reminded by Ms. Portman; (b) speaking to a parent and referring to the parent's child as a "fly on manure"; and (c) telling parents, during conferences, that there was a problem at Cypress Elementary. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate comments. Additionally, Ms. Portman reminded Ms. Maynard that all notes were required to be submitted to administration for review no later than 1:00 p.m., except for student daily behavioral notes, which were to be submitted at 1:30 p.m. The third concern of Ms. Portman was continued dialogue of PMPs and ESOL issues. Ms. Portman indicated that the district had reviewed Ms. Maynard's issues and concerns and had responded to them. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that the said issues were considered closed and that, if Ms. Maynard wished to pursue the said issues, she should contact her attorney. Ms. Portman's fourth concern was unmanageable emails sent by Ms. Maynard. The example provided by Ms. Portman was that she had received over 200 emails from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Portman indicated that the procedure that Ms. Maynard was required to follow when she (Ms. Maynard) had issues or concerns that needed to be addressed was (a) make an appointment with the administrator through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; and (b) provide the confidential secretary with the issue in writing. Only when (a) and (b) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue at the appointment time. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard would cease and desist sending issues via emails and that conferences would be scheduled per the procedure outlined. The fifth concern of Ms. Portman's was protocol compliance. Ms. Portman indicated that the proper procedure for Ms. Maynard to adhere to when Ms. Maynard had a complaint or concern was to first, contact her (Ms. Maynard's) supervisor, not the area office, wherein Ms. Maynard would be provided with an opportunity to meet with an administrator. Additionally, as to meeting with an administrator, (a) Ms. Maynard would meet with either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione; (b) an appointment with the administrator would be made through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; (c) Ms. Maynard would provide the confidential secretary with the issue or concern in writing; (d) only when (b) and (c) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue or concern at the appointment time; (e) administration would address the issue or concern and after the issue or concern had been presented to administration, Ms. Maynard was to consider the issue or concern closed. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman gave to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard was to comply with the protocol outlined for all of her concerns. Moreover, Ms. Portman indicated that a failure by Ms. Portman to follow all of the directives would result in disciplinary action up to and including termination from employment. A summary of the meeting of concerns and job expectations was prepared. On January 18, 2007, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 29, 2007, regarding gross insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all communication with parents both written and oral" until the meeting was held. The notice was hand-delivered to Ms. Maynard at Cypress Elementary. On or about January 22, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting to develop a strategic plan to help motivate one of Ms. Maynard's students, who was in foster care, in the areas of academics and behavior. In addition to Ms. Portman, attendees at the meeting included, among others, Ms. Castiglione; Ms. Smith-Settles; and the student's Guardian Ad-Litem. During the meeting, the Guardian Ad-Litem indicated that Ms. Maynard had telephoned the student's foster parent, engaged in more than a 45-minute conversation, and, during the telephone conversation, made negative comments about Cypress Elementary. On January 23, 2007, Ms. Portman provided Ms. Maynard with a Notice of Special Investigative/Personnel Investigation (Notice) by hand-delivery. The Notice stated, among other things, that the investigation regarded allegations that Ms. Maynard was creating a hostile environment. The Notice directed Ms. Maynard not to engage anyone, connected with the allegations, in conversation regarding the matter and advised that a violation of the directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Further, the Notice advised Ms. Maynard that, if she had any question regarding the status of the investigation, she should contact Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, providing his contact telephone number. The Notice was provided to Ms. Maynard as a result of Ms. Portman making a request for the investigation on January 17, 2007. The request indicated that the allegations were: (1) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (2) yelling at both the principal and assistant principal on December 20, 2006; (3) accusing the principal of falsifying documents even after the school district investigation found the accusation unwarranted; (4) not complying with directives; and accusing the principal of lying to a parent at a conference. The pre-disciplinary meeting noticed for January 29, 2007, was not held due to the placing of Ms. Maynard under investigation. On or about January 25, 2007, Ms. Maynard was temporarily reassigned to the School Board's Textbook Warehouse by Mr. Melita. Temporary reassignment is standard operating procedure during an investigation. Teachers are usually temporarily reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse. Because of the investigation, Ms. Maynard could not return to Cypress Elementary or contact anyone at Cypress Elementary without Mr. Melita's authorization. The SIU investigator assigned to the case was Frederick Davenport. On August 14, 2007, Investigator Davenport went to the Textbook Warehouse to serve a notice of reassignment on Ms. Maynard from Mr. Melita that her reassignment was changed immediately and that she was reassigned to Crystal Lake Community Middle School. The notice of reassignment required Ms. Maynard's signature. Investigator Davenport met with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room and advised her of his purpose, which was not to perform any investigative duties but to serve the notice of reassignment and obtain her signature. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the notice of reassignment because it was not signed by Mr. Melita and left. Investigator Davenport contacted Professional Standards and requested the faxing of an executed notice of reassignment by Mr. Melita to the Textbook Warehouse. Professional Standards complied with the request. Investigator Davenport met again with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the executed notice of reassignment. She felt threatened by Investigator Davenport and ran from the room into the parking area behind the Textbook Warehouse at the loading dock. A finding of fact is made that Investigator Davenport did nothing that the undersigned considers threatening. Investigator Davenport did not immediately follow Ms. Maynard but eventually went to the steps next to the loading dock, however, he did not approach Ms. Maynard in the parking lot. Ms. Maynard refused to talk with Investigator Davenport, expressing her fear of him, and contacted the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BSO). A BSO deputy came to the parking lot. After Ms. Maynard discussed the situation with the BSO deputy and a friend of Ms. Maynard's, who arrived at the scene, she signed the notice of reassignment. Investigator Davenport delivered the notice of reassignment to Professional Standards. Investigator Davenport completed his investigation and forwarded the complete investigative file and his report to his supervisor for approval. At that time, his involvement in the investigation ended. His supervisor presented the investigation to Professional Standards. On or about September 19, 2007, the Professional Standards Committee found probable cause that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment and recommended termination of her employment. The Flyer On April 27, 2009, a town hall meeting was held by the School Board at the Pompano Beach High School's auditorium. That town hall meeting was one of several being held the same night by the School Board. The process and procedure for the town hall meeting included (a) all persons who wished to speak were required to sign-up to speak and (b), if they desired to distribute documents, prior to distribution, the documents were required to be submitted and receive prior approval. Security was at the auditorium, and Investigator Davenport was one of the security officers. During the town hall meeting, an unidentified man rose from his seat, began to talk out-of-turn and loud, was moving toward the front where School Board officials were located, and was distributing a flyer. The actions of the unidentified man got the attention of Investigator Davenport and caused concern about the safety of the School Board officials. Investigator Davenport and the other security officer approached the unidentified man, obtained the flyer, and escorted him out of the auditorium. Once outside, the unidentified man indicated, among other things, that he had not obtained prior approval to distribute the flyer. The unidentified man did not identify who gave him the flyer. Investigator Davenport observed that the flyer was placed on most of the vehicles in the auditorium's parking lot. Once Investigator Davenport and his fellow security officer were convinced that the unidentified man was not a threat to the School Board officials, they released the unidentified man who left the area. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer saw Ms. Maynard at the town hall meeting or had any indication that she had been there. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer had any indication that Ms. Maynard had requested the man to distribute the flyer. The flyer was signed by Ms. Maynard and dated April 27, 2009. The heading of the flyer contained the following: "PARENTS FOR FULL DISCLOSURE"; an email address; and "PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN." The content of the flyer included statements that Ms. Maynard was a teacher in 2006 at Cypress Elementary and was directed twice by her administrators in emails to falsify Title I documents; that she was directed to mislead parents about materials and services that the students were legally entitled to; that many of the students failed because they were denied the materials and services; that she refused to follow the directives and filed complaints with the proper authorities; that in 2008, Ms. Portman, who gave the directives to Ms. Maynard, was removed from Cypress Elementary, along with Ms. Murphins and Dr. Harrison--the flyer also indicated the new locations of the individuals; that persons, who were interested in learning how to prevent themselves from being misinformed and to protect their children from being denied the materials and services, should contact Ms. Maynard at the email address on the flyer; and that parents who gather together have more power than teachers to influence the school districts. Ms. Maynard had no determinations or proof to support any of the allegations in the flyer, only her belief. Recognizing that the flyer contained statements similar to the statements of his investigative report, Investigator Davenport forwarded the flyer to Mr. Melita. Ms. Maynard admits that she prepared the flyer and signed it. She indicates that an individual who claimed to be a member of the parent group, Parents For Full Disclosure, contacted and met with her. That individual, who also did not reveal her identity, requested Ms. Maynard to prepare the flyer and informed Ms. Maynard that the flyer would be distributed at the town hall meeting. Filing Various Complaints with Investigative Agencies Ms. Maynard filed various complaints with public investigative agencies regarding: harassment during the investigation; minority teachers being investigated, reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse, and not receiving annual evaluations; and the flyer. The public investigative agencies included the FBI, Broward County EEOC, federal EEOC, Florida Public Service Commission, and Florida Commission on Human Relations. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. Maynard was prohibited from filing the complaints. Contract Status At the time of the investigation of Ms. Maynard in January 2007 for creating a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Further, at the time that Professional Standards determined probable cause, on or about September 19, 2007, that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Ms. Maynard testified that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract, which the School Board did not refute. A finding of fact is made that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order: Finding that Doreen Maynard committed misconduct, immorality, and gross insubordination, violating section 1012.33(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009(2), (3), and (4); and Suspending Doreen Maynard, without pay and benefits, and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2011.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has sufficient grounds to support dismissal of Respondent from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher by the School Board and currently holds a professional services contract. He began working for the School District on or about March 2007, in the middle of the 2006-2007 school year. His first assignment was at Holmes Elementary School where he worked on a “waiver,” since he did not have an elementary education certification. The principal asked him to get his certification in elementary education, which he did. According to Respondent, he was asked to start working early because the principal did not have enough teachers. During that year, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas of evaluation and was rehired for the 2007-2008 school year. Prior to becoming a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Respondent served in the United States military from 1978-1985, and had worked as a registered nurse. He holds an associate’s degree from Miami-Dade College, a bachelor’s degree from Florida International University (“FIU”), two master’s degrees from FIU, an academic certificate in gerontological studies from FIU, and an academic teaching certificate from FIU. For the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent worked at Little River Elementary School (“Little River”). The principal at Little River asked Respondent to work on another “waiver,” this time for teaching English as a Second Language students (“ESOL”). After completing the necessary coursework, Respondent received an ESOL certification. Respondent remained at Little River through the 2008-2009 school year until he was involuntarily transferred to Scott Lake Elementary School (“Scott Lake”) for the 2009-2010 school year. During the latter two years at Little River, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas. According to Respondent, he was transferred to Scott Lake because the administration of Little River objected to the number of student discipline referrals (“SCMs”) he was writing on students. Respondent reports having written somewhere between 600 and 700 SCMs on students over the years. Respondent freely admits he wrote many SCMs at every school he worked at and highlights that fact as an excuse for why he performed poorly. During Respondent’s first three years of employment at Holmes Elementary and Little River, he was evaluated across the board on his annual evaluations as “Meets Standards.” During this period of time, the only other rating an employee could receive was “Does Not Meet Standards.” During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent’s principal for his first year at Scott Lake was Valerie Ward. During the 2009-2010 school year, the School District made changes to the teacher performance evaluation system. Use of the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (“IPEGS”) was implemented. The IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluations (“SPEs”) were now comprised of eight Performance Standards, where a teacher could be rated “Exemplary,” “Proficient,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In her first year with Respondent, Ms. Ward rated him “Proficient” in all eight standards. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Ward placed Respondent on a 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34. During this 90-day probation process, he was observed by administration on at least five different occasions, was put on several improvement plans, and had several meetings with administrators. The 90-day probation process is very time- consuming for both the subject employee and the employee’s administration. In other words, it is not the preferred task of a busy principal, unless he or she must, and then only when it is warranted by poor performance. Respondent believes Ms. Ward placed him on performance probation to retaliate against him because he complained about the temperature in his classroom. This is the first of many excuses and justifications Respondent has offered to explain criticisms of his performance by administrators. For the 2010-2011 school year at Scott Lake, Respondent was again evaluated as proficient in all areas. On or about April 2012, Principal Lakesha Wilson- Rochelle assumed Ms. Ward’s role at Scott Lake. Principal Rochelle signed off on Respondent’s summative evaluation during the 2011-2012 school year, but did not fill it out, since it had already been completed by someone else. The score placed Respondent in the “needs improvement” category. She signed it only because she was required to do so, and the summative evaluation rating she gave him for the next school year was even worse by several points. It was also during the 2011-2012 school year that IPEGS underwent another change. Now there were seven professional practice standards on which teachers were evaluated and one standard that was based on actual student data. Use of IPEGS IPEGS was approved by the Florida Department of Education (“FDOE”) for all years relevant to this case. The IPEGS processes from the 2013-2014 school year forward consisted of the following: Each teacher that had been teaching for more than two years received one formal observation. If during that observation the teacher’s performance was sufficient, nothing more need be done, outside of a summative evaluation at the end of the year. However, informal feedback is given to teachers throughout the year after classroom walkthroughs and through other means. If a teacher was observed to be deficient in one or more standards during the formal observation, the teacher and administration would engage in something called “support dialogue” in which support in various forms is provided to the teacher, so that the deficiencies can be remediated. If the teacher still exhibits performance deficiencies after the support dialogue, they are placed on the 90-day performance probation. While on performance probation, the teacher is observed another four times after the initial observation. After the second, third and fourth observations, if the teacher has not remediated, the administration develops an improvement plan, which must be followed. The improvement plan gives the teacher assignments and assistance to aid him or her in remediating any deficiencies. Also, each teacher, regardless of whether placed on performance probation, receives an SPE, as well as a Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (“SPE Rating”) of either “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In addition to the seven professional practice standards, a data component is also factored into the SPE Rating known as the VAM. The VAM As explained by Director of Research Services Dr. Aleksander Shneyderman (“Dr. S”), the VAM is a statistical model that attempts to measure a teacher’s impact on student learning growth through the use of a multi-level lineal regression. Dr. S has been working with the VAM, since its inception in 2010-2011. He has studied it and keeps abreast of Florida’s rules and regulations of how to calculate it. Dr. S and his office calculate what is called “Local VAM” for the School District. He also provides trainings to School District employees on the use of the VAM. Dr. S was tendered and accepted in this proceeding as an expert in VAM calculation. Local VAM is usually calculated in September/October by his office after the previous year’s testing data become available. Various assessments are used to create the Local VAM. It is calculated in compliance with state statutes, and the methodology is approved each year by FDOE. Also, the methods for calculating the Local VAM are bargained for and ratified by the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”) teacher’s union. The Florida VAM is calculated by the State using a model that is approved by the Florida Commissioner of Education. The results of the Florida VAM are given to Dr. S’s office by the State. The Florida VAM is created using the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”). In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, Respondent’s Local VAM scores were calculated by Dr. S’s office and based upon his students’ results on the Stanford 8 Achievement Test, 10th edition. UTD approved the methodology in VAM calculation for both of these years. For the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent’s VAM score was the Florida VAM in English language arts for fifth grade. The goal of the VAM is to measure a teacher’s effectiveness on student learning growth. In order to do this as accurately as possible, students are compared to similar students for an “apples to apples” comparison. Only students with the same demographic characteristics, as well as the same prior year’s test scores are compared to one another. The demographic factors considered are English Language Learner (“ELL”) status, gifted status, disability status, relative age (which considers whether a child was retained in a previous grade), and attendance (which was added in 2014-2015). Student demographics and the prior year’s test scores must be exactly the same. Based on these demographics and past scores, an expected score is created for each student. If the student exceeds that score, the credit for that success is given to the teacher. The School Board and Dr. S concede that the VAM does not account for every possible student performance variable, because, simply put, this would be impossible, since there are a limitless number of factors that could be considered. Moreover, certain factors are forbidden to be used by the Legislature, including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and ethnicity. (See § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.). Respondent argues that because not every imaginable factor that might affect a student’s grade is captured, that the VAM is not useful. Respondent claims that factors beyond the teacher might be causing poor performance, for example: lack of parental engagement. While levels of parental engagement could impact student performance, the School Board states that it is following state statutes to the letter and doing the best it can within the applicable statutory framework. Moreover, just as factors outside of consideration might hurt student performance, other factors might enhance performance, and the teachers receive those possible benefits as well--for example, if parental engagement is good. Those benefits would flow to the teacher, despite not having earned them through his or her personal efforts. Moreover, the VAM score ranges that are used to classify teachers are bargained for with UTD. The ranges have confidence intervals developed through the application of margin of error calculations that mitigate uncertainty to protect and “safeguard” teachers from unfair classifications. In many instances these safeguards give the teachers the benefit of the doubt to make sure they do not fall into the lowest category, which is “unsatisfactory.” Noticeably absent from these bargained for “safeguards” is any mention of how much instructional time a teacher must have with a class before those students’ data can be used to calculate a teacher’s VAM score. UTD has not bargained for any special rules designating when teachers can and cannot be held accountable for their class’ data based on the time they have instructed that class. As such, the only relevant inquiry is whether those students are with that teacher during the FTE period in February. Also, the law (see § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.) makes no mention of any minimum length of instructional time necessary to hold a teacher accountable for his or her students. The 2013-2014 School Year at Scott Lake Refusal to teach basic Spanish In May 2013, near the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Rochelle advised Respondent that he would be teaching a kindergarten class for the 2013-2014 school year and that he would be required to teach them one hour of introductory Spanish. In an email to Principal Rochelle, Respondent asserted that he believed he was being assigned to teach Spanish to the kindergarteners in retaliation for his extensive reporting of student SCMs. In that same email, he advised her that he did not want to teach Spanish. Prior to being advised of this assignment, the School District conducted a language proficiency assessment for Respondent with both a written and verbal component, which he passed. Principal Rochelle had personally seen Respondent speak fluent Spanish to her school secretary and the art teacher. Because Respondent spoke fluent Spanish, or, at least, “conversational” Spanish (as admitted by Respondent’s counsel in his opening), she gave him the assignment. Moreover, as a principal, she had the right to assign Respondent as she saw fit. School Board Policy 3130 - Assignments reinforces this assertion stating, in relevant part, “Instructional staff members may be reassigned to any position for which they are qualified in order to meet needs of the District and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.” In order to teach the one-hour basic Spanish component of the class, Respondent did not need to be certified to teach Spanish. He only needed an elementary education certification, which he had. He even attended a training class on the implementation of the Spanish program. Respondent admits he can speak Spanish, write basic Spanish, has taken Spanish classes and passed the School District’s proficiency exam. Curiously, he objected to them giving the proficiency exam to him based on the grounds he was “singled out” for having a Hispanic last name, having been overheard speaking the language, and because he is not from a Spanish-speaking country. These are not reasonable objections when the School District explained the objective reasons listed above regarding Respondent’s qualifications to provide the basic- level Spanish instruction. Respondent persisted in his belief that he is “not qualified” to teach kindergarten Spanish despite all the evidence to the contrary. Respondent simply refused to do something that he was entirely capable of doing and that was within his ambit of responsibilities. He described one of the lessons he was allegedly incapable of teaching as follows, “You put a CD in the player. The kids sing songs in Spanish. The kids cut out pictures of objects and match them to a picture with the word in Spanish.” The kindergartners in his class did not speak Spanish; they spoke English. The Spanish component of the class was very basic and involved things like vowels, colors, puppets, basic books, and vocabulary words. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, no complex grammar or sentence structure was involved. Such things are not even part of ordinary English kindergarten instruction, as admitted by Respondent. Moreover, he was provided with materials from which to draw the instruction. Principal Rochelle does not speak Spanish herself, yet believes she could teach the Spanish component, as it is a “piece of cake.” Respondent filed a grievance regarding the Spanish assignment. In order to appease and accommodate Respondent, Principal Rochelle eventually sent a Spanish teacher to his room to teach the Spanish component. However, Respondent then complained that the grades she was entering still had his name attached to them in the computerized grading system. Finally, the principal decided to move him to a first-grade class in early November 2013. Undoubtedly, the requests of Respondent led to this assignment change. Formal IPEGS observation On March 11, 2014, Principal Rochelle performed her formal observation of Respondent pursuant to IPEGS. On that day, no performance deficiencies were noted. However, throughout the year, Principal Rochelle had conducted many informal observations and walkthroughs of his classroom and had already provided him feedback regarding his performance and her expectations. Examples of that feedback can be found in an August 27, 2013, email from Principal Rochelle to Respondent. Moreover, according to Principal Rochelle, teachers tend to be on their best behavior during these observations–-which makes sense, because they know the boss/evaluator is watching. The formal observation is also only a snapshot in time of the teacher’s performance on a particular lesson; it is not a reflection of the entire year’s performance. Respondent has argued that Principal Rochelle has retaliated against him. If that were the case, this observation would have been a perfect opportunity to retaliate against him. However, she found no deficiencies in his performance on this day. Scott Lake SPE—Professional Practice Throughout the rest of the school year, Principal Rochelle made other credible observations regarding Respondent’s performance. Despite her counseling that he meet with parents, he refused to do so. He refused to participate in activities, including field trips, school celebrations, and award ceremonies. Other teachers actually had to hand out awards for him at the ceremony. He refused to implement group instruction techniques and did not take advantage of the presence of reading and math coaches. He refused to implement progressive discipline and “red, green, yellow” behavior management techniques. He refused to implement various discipline strategies laid out in the Student Code of Conduct and school-wide discipline plan prior to writing SCMs on students. Principal Rochelle recalls that he wrote approximately 25 SCMs on one student within the first nine weeks of school and made no attempt to address the behavior issues with the student’s parents. At one point Principal Rochelle accommodated his request to have a student removed from his class. Since this was only Principal Rochelle’s first full year as principal of Scott Lake, and she was still new to the school, she tended to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt when completing their SPEs. She also had a few teachers who had to be terminated for lack of professionalism that were more of a priority for her than Respondent. As such, she rated Respondent as “effective” in six standards on his SPE and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Communication standard. In her view, “effective” is akin to a “C” grade, whereas “highly effective” is “A plus/high B” status, “developing/needs improvement” is a “D,” and “unsatisfactory” is an “F.” When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he testified he would have given himself five “highly effectives” and two “effectives.” He believes Principal Rochelle rated him lower than she should have as a result of retaliation against him for him not wanting to teach Spanish. This is Respondent’s second claim of retaliation against Principal Rochelle, and third claim of retaliation overall. Principal Rochelle’s denial of such retaliation is credited based upon her testimony at hearing and the exhibits offered in support. Despite the fact that Respondent’s 2013-2014 SPE seemed adequate to a casual observer (with the only obvious blemish being the “developing/needs improvement” in the Communication standard), when compared to his peers, a different story emerges. His professional practice points total put him in the bottom .8 percentile for all teachers district-wide and in the bottom 2.6 percentile for all first-grade teachers district-wide. Without belaboring the data, Respondent’s professional practice scores are at the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how you spin them. Scott Lake VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 12.5 points–-the lowest possible score. He was one of 11 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2013-2014 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 29 percent of his first-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent’s VAM was based on the performance of his first-grade students. Respondent believes that, since he was moved to the class in early November 2013, and the SAT exam was given in April, he should not be held accountable for their performance. In order for him to have a fair shake, he claims he would have had to be there instructing the students on week one. Respondent says the amount of time he was given was not fair because, “if I’m the lowest teacher in Miami-Dade County, and here for termination, no, sir, I don’t think it was fair.” If the rule Respondent proposes were implemented as policy, any teacher could simply avoid responsibility for their student’s performance by requesting a transfer sometime after the first week of the year. It is also not uncommon for teachers to have students added or subtracted from their classes throughout the year for a multitude of reasons. This is a fact of life that teachers have to be able to cope with in the ordinary course of business for the School District. Moreover, and somewhat ironically, if another teacher had been teaching Respondent’s students for a portion of the year, based on his SPE Ratings and student achievement data, Respondent probably would have had better scores. The students would likely have been getting a more effective teacher than he. Respondent also claims Principal Rochelle gave him a lower functioning group of students, who were behind in their learning. He explained that he knew they were low-functioning because he gave them “STAR tests” to gauge their ability levels. When pressed on cross-examination, Respondent admitted that he only tested his own students and never anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to know whether his students were any lower-functioning or further behind than any other teachers’ students. Respondent’s doubtful claim is further undercut by Principal Rochelle’s credible testimony that she selected the members of his first-grade class at random from overcrowded classrooms. Respondent’s claims that he was robbed of instructional time by field trips and fundraising activities, matters that are required of all teachers, are unconvincing excuses for his students’ poor performance. The 2014-2015 School Year at Norwood Shortly after the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent requested a hardship transfer to Norwood Elementary School (“Norwood”) because the school day at Scott Lake was going to be increased by one hour. Despite the fact that he would have been compensated approximately $4,500.00 for this time, he chose to transfer schools. Principal Kevin Williams (or Dr. Williams) had a teacher on leave so he assigned Respondent to fill that gap. Respondent started teaching a kindergarten class, but was moved to a second-grade class during the first week of school. Prior to conducting a formal IPEGS observation of Respondent, Dr. Williams had performed several walkthroughs of his classroom. Based on these walkthroughs, Dr. Williams advised Respondent that he was not properly implementing the school discipline plan. Respondent also refused to implement “grouping” of the students during instruction time. Dr. Williams also had a reading coach model lessons for Respondent and assigned him a teaching assistant. Respondent was the only teacher who received this level of assistance. Dr. Williams even went so far as to have two meetings with UTD prior to his formal evaluation of Respondent in order to help him. By October 2014, Dr. Williams had already explained his expectations to Respondent. Formal IPEGS observation On October 1, 2014, Principal Williams performed the formal IPEGS evaluation of Respondent. Principal Williams noted no deficiencies on that day. Generally speaking, Principal Williams does not view these observations as punitive. Over the years, Dr. Williams has conducted approximately 240 observations of teachers, and, generally, the employees are “on point” when being watched. Moreover, like Principal Rochelle, Dr. Williams views these observations as a snapshot of teacher performance while the SPE captures the year- long performance. In the report of the observation, Dr. Williams suggested that Respondent promote interactions with students, encourage more student participation, connect to prior student knowledge and interests, and present concepts at different levels of complexity, among other items. Norwood SPE—Professional Practice After the formal observation, Dr. Williams continued to conduct walkthroughs of Respondent’s class. He observed the same issues with refusing to use “grouping” and refusing to properly implement the discipline plan. Respondent never took advantage of the modeling techniques that were provided for him. He also was not implementing differentiated instruction. Dr. Williams himself held a professional development class on campus for the school discipline plan, which, instead of attending, Respondent attended a social studies class off campus. Instead of following the prescribed discipline plan, Respondent was trying to control the behavior of his students with treats. Similar to his time at Scott Lake, he refused to participate in field trips, staff gatherings, award assemblies, and student activity days. Respondent had lesson plans, but did not always follow them. He would spend an inordinate amount of time on vocabulary. He gave some tests, but would refuse to grade other tests. The pattern of his teaching was inconsistent, at best. On his SPE, Principal Williams rated Respondent as “effective” in five standards, “highly effective” in one, and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Learning Environment standard. Dr. Williams’ rating for Learning Environment was lower because Respondent failed to implement appropriate discipline strategies despite being told to do so. In eight years of being a principal, this was the first time he had ever given a teacher a “needs improvement” rating. He mostly gives his teachers combinations of “highly effective” and “effective,” if they do what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Dr. Williams testified he still went easy on Respondent because he was new to the school. In terms of his SPE professional practice points, Respondent scored in the bottom two percentile for second-grade teachers district-wide and was the worst rated second-grade teacher at Norwood. Instead of following the discipline plan, Respondent was using the emergency call button, writing SCMs, and writing to the superintendent to have ten students removed from his class. Another teacher at the school, Mr. W, had the exact same set of students as Respondent, only he taught them in the afternoon and not in the morning. He had none of the same behavior management issues Respondent had with this same group of children. Respondent claimed that Mr. W was able to manage the children better because, like the students, he was African-American. When asked how Respondent would have rated himself in these seven SPE standards, he would have given himself six “highly effectives” and one “effective.” He believes Principal Williams rated him lower than he should have as a result of retaliation against him for writing SCMs and because he complained about the size of his initial kindergarten class. This marked Respondent’s fourth claim of retaliation overall. Principal Williams credibly denied such retaliation at the hearing. Norwood VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 8.75 points-–the lowest possible score, again. He was one of 50 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only six percent of his second-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from Norwood should not be considered because of his students’ behavioral issues. He also stated he did not have enough textbooks to send home with students. Much like at Scott Lake, he believes he was intentionally given bad students. This is peculiar for two reasons. First, Dr. Williams first tried to assign Respondent another class, but Respondent complained that one was too big. To accept this argument, the viewer would have to believe Dr. Williams knew Respondent would reject the larger class, and the principal had another one in the wings filled with “bad” students to make Respondent look ineffective. Second, Mr. W had none of the same problems Respondent did with this same group of students in the afternoon. To accept this contention, Principal Williams’ plan only “worked” on Respondent, since he was singled out for retaliation. This line of argument is nonsensical, at best. The 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 School Years at Aventura Waterways K-8 In looking for the right fit, Respondent was sent to Aventura Waterways K-8 (“AWK8”) for the 2015-2016 school year. He remained there for the 2016-2017 school year until he was dismissed from his employment in March 2017. As at his previous school assignments, the administrators at AWK8 tried to work with Respondent and the UTD to let him know their expectations prior to the formal observations. During these two school years Respondent was observed formally by Principal Luis Bello and Assistant Principal Ileana Robles on no less than nine occasions. In both years, during his initial observations, his performance was found to be deficient; and he was immediately placed on support dialogue and, eventually, 90-day performance probation. During these two probationary periods, he was provided assistance through improvement plans and completed all his improvement plan assignments. The goal was to help him remediate his deficiencies. The only change he ever implemented was switching from block to weekly lesson plans. Both his instructional delivery and the learning environment never improved. During these observations, Principal Bello and Assistant Principal Robles both observed the same repeated deficiencies, which they described in meticulous detail at the hearing. Summarizing their testimony, the issues concerning Respondent were: Pacing. Respondent spends too much time on issues and did not complete entire lesson plans. Questioning students. Respondent only uses basic, easy to answer questions; does not ask enough questions; or is dismissive of questions. Failing to properly explain concepts to students or to activate prior knowledge. Respondent fails to prompt students in order to generate interest in the subject matter and holds no conversations about the material in class. Not using challenging enough material. Respondent’s material was so basic that parents were concerned their children were getting grades they did not deserve and not learning grade- appropriate material. Principal Bello described Respondent’s instruction as “robotic” and lacking any semblance of “passion.” AWK8—Professional Practice On his SPE, Principal Bello rated Respondent as “effective” in two standards, and “unsatisfactory” in five standards. Principal Bello’s ratings were in line with the repeated deficiencies discussed above. He awarded Respondent “unsatisfactory” ratings because Respondent never remediated his deficiencies. Principal Bello credibly stands by his SPE Ratings as honest and admits to spending a great deal of time on them. In terms of his SPE professional practice points for 2015-2016, Respondent scored in the bottom (0) percentile for fifth-grade teachers at AWK8, all teachers at AWK8, fifth-grade teachers district-wide, and all teachers district-wide. When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he would have given himself seven “highly effectives.” He believes Principal Bello rated him lower than he should have been rated, but could not say why. AWK8 VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s State VAM score for learner progress points was 8.5 points-–the lowest possible score, for the third year in a row. He was the only one of 98 fifth-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 32 percent of his fifth-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from AWK8 are not legitimate for a variety of reasons, none of which relate to his own shortcomings. Respondent’s excuses and the reasons not to credit those excuses are as follows: Respondent argues that his VAM cannot be counted against him because his afternoon class of fifth graders were ELL, and they spoke a variety of languages, including French, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. His theory was that they performed poorly because of their poor grasp of the English language. For VAM scoring purposes, this excuse should not be credited because the VAM already takes into account their ELL status by comparing them only to other ELL students with identical demographics and prior test scores; and they are not expected to perform as well as non-ELL students. However, by Respondent’s own admission his afternoon ELL class was the best class he had had in ten years of teaching. He said they had emotional balance, presence of mind, and good parental engagement. He even explained how his ESOL certification assisted him in understanding how to teach them. According to him, by the end of the year, the students were at the level where they would be having conversations. Respondent also had another ESOL-certified teacher assist him for a portion of the year, which was a standard practice. Finally, ELL students, who are brand new to the country, are not calculated into the VAM because there are no prior year scores for which they can be compared “apples to apples.” Respondent himself testified that the lowest level ELL students did not get graded. This makes sense because Respondent testified that his afternoon ELL class was 31 students-–yet only 15 ELL students were factored into the data used to calculate his VAM score for 2015-2016. In sum, the grades of the lowest English language functioning students were not even held against him. Respondent next argues that the numbers of students in both his morning and afternoon classes at AWK8 exceeded class size restrictions. Respondent “believes” his morning class had 24 or so students, but only 18 after the special education students were removed. When the student data is examined, it appears that Respondent only had 15 non-ELL students factored into his VAM score. As for the afternoon ELL class, otherwise considered by him the best class he has ever had, Respondent claims there were 31 in that class. Even assuming Respondent’s numbers are accurate (and they do not seem to be, given the VAM data), these class sizes do not run afoul of class size restrictions and are commonplace at AWK8. The School District operates on averages for class size compliance and everyone teaching fifth grade at AWK8 had similar class sizes. None of those other teachers had the same problems Respondent did. Moreover, Respondent reported the alleged class size violations to the FDOE, and they did nothing about it. Respondent further argues that his morning group of students was once again a “bad” group that did not give him a “fair shot.” According to Respondent, he had a student who would sit in a garbage can and another that would tell him “F_ _k you” every day. He had behavior concerns with four to five students in the morning class. Eventually, the student who sat in the garbage can was removed from the class. Respondent then testified that these behavior issues were exacerbated by his absence from the classroom when he was performing his improvement plan activities. He now appears to be placing his behavior concerns on the administration for doing their job by trying to assist him and by remediating his deficiencies. Behavior management is integral to being a teacher. A teacher must not be allowed to escape his or her own responsibility for performance shortcomings by blaming it on the students. At every school where Respondent has taught, he has admittedly written a large number of SCMs, had behavior issues with his students, and believes he was purposely given “bad” students. The only common thread among these schools is Respondent. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge that he might possibly be even a part of the problem and believes he has done nothing wrong. Respondent also blames his poor VAM on the fact that fundraising activities, book fairs, student activity days, and dances all detracted from instructional time at AWK8. This is the same excuse he used for his poor VAM at Norwood and holds no weight, since these are activities that all teachers at all schools must cope with as part of the instructional process. Respondent’s Termination by the School Board Respondent’s case was the first of its kind brought pursuant to section 1012.33(3)(b) (“3-year provision”), since this was the first time the School District had the requisite number of years’ data available. Of the thousands of teachers working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Respondent was part of a singular group of seven to nine teachers who fell into the three-year provision of the statute having the necessary combination of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” final overall SPE Ratings. Of that handful of teachers, Respondent was the single worst. Respondent’s performance actually declined each year despite the assistance provided for and made available to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with Petitioner based on violations of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2), , and (5), for incompetence, misconduct in office, and/or willful neglect of duties, respectively.
Findings Of Fact The Board is responsible for hiring, monitoring, and firing employees at its schools, including Manatee and Pinewoods. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was an employee of the Board. Respondent was hired by the Board on August 22, 2005, as a second grade teacher at Harns Marsh Elementary. She taught second grade at that school for three years. At the end of her third year, Respondent was awarded a professional services contract. Prior to the beginning of her fourth year at Harns March, Respondent was told she was being moved to a fifth grade class for the upcoming school year. Inasmuch as she preferred teaching second grade, Respondent voluntarily transferred to Manatee for the 2008-2009 school year, as there was a second grade position open there. Manatee is a Title I school, serving a distinct population of students with various emotional or behavior issues. After teaching second grade at Manatee for one year, she was moved to a third grade class for the 2009-2010 school year, then back to second grade for the 2010-2011 school year. The principal at Manatee, Louzao, began to have concerns about Respondent commencing in the 2009-2010 school year. The annual evaluation Louzao initially prepared for Respondent after the 2009-2010 school year had contained less than satisfactory scores. In the face of a possible grievance of those scores by Respondent and the teacher’s union, Louzao upgraded the scores to satisfactory. Louzao was a fairly new principal, being at that time in only her third year as an administrator. She did not feel comfortable defending her negative evaluation against a formal grievance. Louzao also believed a satisfactory evaluation would encourage Respondent to improve. As a result of some of her concerns, Louzao ultimately moved Respondent to third grade for the 2010-2011 school year. Louzao felt like Respondent might interact better with students slightly older than the second grade students she had been teaching. However, some of the third grade students’ parents complained to Louzao about Respondent, resulting in some students being transferred out of Respondent’s class to another third grade class. It was not Louzao’s normal policy to transfer students; she would prefer that the teacher and students work through their issues. In this case, however, Louzao felt like removal of the students would be most beneficial as Respondent continued to work with the school guidance counselor dealing with her classroom demeanor. The teacher-student relationship was never fully corrected to Louzao’s satisfaction. For example, the first student was transferred out of Respondent’s class in August, then another in October, and yet another in November 2010. Louzao met or talked with Respondent daily and had her assistant principal counsel Respondent in an effort to improve Respondent’s teaching skills. At the end of the 2010-2011 school year, Louzao gave Respondent another evaluation with generally satisfactory scores, but listed several “areas of concern,” i.e., areas that needed additional work. Louzao would have given Respondent less than satisfactory marks, but she had failed to adequately document Respondent’s shortcomings during the school year, a requirement for unsatisfactory evaluations. Louzao then attempted to deal with Respondent’s inability to properly interact with her students by moving Respondent to a fifth grade class for the 2011-2012 school year.1/ Louzao believed that Respondent’s sarcasm and coarse demeanor would be more well-received by older students. Almost immediately, however, parents began to make complaints about Respondent. Louzao was contacted by parents who reported that Respondent had called students “retarded” or “stupid.” School staff questioned a number of students and received verification from those students that the remarks had been made. Based upon that verification – although it was not absolute proof that the comments were made – Louzao contacted the Board’s professional standards office to begin further investigation into the allegations. It was also reported that Respondent was refusing to allow children to use the bathroom when needed. Again, while Respondent admitted to having a fairly strict bathroom policy, there is no proof that children were actually denied bathroom privileges. The school, nonetheless, found sufficient student verification of the allegation to make it a point of discussion with Respondent. Then, in September 2011, an incident occurred which led to an investigation of Respondent by the Department of Children and Families. The incident involved discipline in a school stairwell. The security videos from a stairwell near Respondent’s classroom showed students walking and running up and down the interior, non-air conditioned stairwell numerous times for approximately 20 minutes without water or rest. There is no dispute about what the videotapes show; Respondent admits that she had the students doing “training” to prevent them from ascending and descending the stairs improperly. Several parents complained to the school about the staircase discipline incident. Respondent described the matter as follows: She had been having a lot of trouble with this particular class; they were very disrespectful. The students would misbehave when they were moving from the classroom to other areas of the school. Particularly, the students would run up and down the stairs. To change that behavior, Respondent decided to teach the students how to walk up and down the stairs. To that end, she had the students walk up and down the stairs over and over until they did it properly. The videotape accurately reflected that it took some students more attempts to stop running and that some students never did stop running. The activity was not, according to Respondent, punishment; rather, it was a teaching moment. She had seen a student injured at a prior school because of running down the stairs, and Respondent did not want that to happen again. Respondent said she just lost track of how much time the students were on the staircase. To administration, however, it looked like Respondent was disciplining the students in an extremely harsh fashion. The Board does not condone such actions by its employees. After the staircase discipline matter, Respondent was suspended with pay. A pre-determination hearing was held, but Respondent said the staircase incident was not mentioned. Rather, she was questioned about various allegations that had been made by students and their parents. The allegations included: Calling a student a “retard;” saying someone was stupid; not allowing students adequate bathroom breaks; making fun of a student’s name; and yelling at students. Upon completion of the pre-determination meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay and sent home. She was later assigned to an office job so that she could be of some benefit to the Board during her suspension. The investigation concluded with the issuance of a Letter of Reprimand to Respondent, who was also required to attend a class on classroom management and a Code of Ethics training session. She was not allowed to return to the classroom at that time. In January 2012, at the beginning of the second semester of the 2011-2012 school year, a second grade teaching position came open at Pinewoods. The Board’s Professional Standards office called Dr. Carlin and told her the Board wished to have Respondent fill the position. Dr. Carlin agreed to the assignment. Dr. Carlin did not speak to Louzao about Respondent and did not know of Respondent’s prior issues at Manatee. Respondent’s testimony that Dr. Carlin stated she was aware of “everything that happened at Manatee” is not credible. Respondent first went to Pinewoods on or about January 19, 2012. She was introduced to the school and to her classroom by Dr. Carlin. Dr. Carlin attempted to prepare Respondent and to provide all the support and assistance she could to insure Respondent’s success. One of the items of support provided by Dr. Carlin, was a website containing the school handbook which sets out all of Pinewood’s policies for teachers and other staff members. Respondent remembers meeting Dr. Carlin on a Thursday and being told she would start co-teaching the class with the out-going teacher the following Monday, January 23, 2012. It was Respondent’s understanding that she would then begin teaching on her own the following Friday, January 27, 2012. (Respondent said her understanding was based on an email she received from the Professional Standards office informing her about the new assignment. However, the email was not produced as an exhibit in this case.) In fact, Respondent was introduced to the class on Friday January 20, 2012, the out-going teacher’s last day. She took over the class the following Monday, January 23, 2012, on her own. Dr. Carlin remembers spending a fair amount of time with Respondent on Respondent’s first day before introducing her to the class. Respondent’s first day with the students in her new class was atypical; it was a field day of sorts at the school, so the students were out of the class more than they were in. At the beginning of the class period, however, Respondent noticed that the children were socializing and talking for the first few minutes after arrival. Respondent asked the out-going teacher if she always allowed the children to do that, and was told she did. That was a different approach than the one normally taken by Respondent. She had hard-fast rules about what students should do upon entering the classroom, e.g., turn in their homework, bring their homework notebook to the teacher’s desk, sharpen their pencils, use the bathroom, and then do advanced reading or use the computer until regular instruction began. Respondent’s approach was much more strict and instruction-oriented than the prior teacher’s. Within two or three days of Respondent assuming her new teaching position, some of the students’ parents began calling the school with complaints. The initial complaint was that Respondent was assigning weekend homework in violation of the school’s policies. When Respondent became aware of the policy, she ceased that practice. Dr. Carlin believes Respondent should have known the policy after reading her school handbook, but the book was over 50 pages long and contained a lot of information. Thus, Respondent’s temporary violation of that policy is excusable. More troubling, however, were the complaints concerning Respondent’s alleged verbal abuse of students and her rude demeanor. Parents who visited Respondent’s classroom found her to be aloof, stand-offish, and she seemed not to be engaged with the students. It was reported again that Respondent was refusing to allow students to use the bathroom as needed. There is no competent evidence to support the allegation, but it is troubling that the same complaint that had been made by parents at Manatee was being made by parents at Pinewoods. The Board’s director of professional standards received “weekly, if not daily,” calls from parents and administration complaining about Respondent almost from the day she started her employment at Pinewoods. Dr. Carlin visited Respondent’s classroom on several occasions to see for herself whether there were any “teaching” issues that needed attention. Dr. Carlin met with Respondent on February 1, 2012, just one week after Respondent started teaching at Pinewoods. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the parents’ complaints and to provide suggestions for doing better in the classroom. Respondent was not told at that time that she was being formally reprimanded. A letter dated February 6, 2012, memorialized the February 1, 2012, meeting and constituted a written reprimand for Respondent’s behaviors in the classroom. Despite the prior meeting, Respondent was surprised by the written reprimand. The letter set out six categories of problems that had been identified by Dr. Carlin from letters and conversations with a number of parents: Lack of respect shown to students and parents, e.g., rolling her eyes and speaking in disrespectful tones; Classroom not warm and supportive. Refusing to help children and making them cry; Refusing to allow children restroom privileges when needed; Moving through the curriculum too fast; Giving excessive homework; and Causing children to cry and become distressed about coming to school. Respondent denied each of the allegations and expressed surprise about the parents’ complaints. She also said that part of the blame for any problems lay with the students; they were not respectful to her and had no rules of conduct.2/ Dr. Carlin knew, however, that the prior teacher had rules for her classroom and the children were well-behaved. Respondent signed the letter, acknowledging receipt. The letter then set forth some guidelines or action plans that were to be implemented immediately by Respondent. In response to the first item, prohibiting Respondent from yelling at students or speaking in a disrespectful tone, Respondent seemed to go to the other extreme. She became very quiet and almost apathetic in her relationship with the students. Respondent did meet expectations in the other items, at least to some degree, though Dr. Carlin was not totally satisfied with all Respondent’s actions. Finally, the letter provided four distinct suggestions for improving her conduct and teaching habits, including: Use of the Peace Education materials in her classroom, including I-Care Rules. Respondent was to meet with Mrs. Cutting and Ms. Roberts for assistance with implementing the materials. Use of the Board’s academic plans for subject areas. Respondent was to meet with Mrs. Cutting and Mrs. Hardee to receive coaching and modeling with regards to the materials. Initiation of a classroom plan outlining her expectations for students. Following all directives in “this letter.” In response to the four suggestions, Respondent: Met with Mrs. Cutting and Ms. Roberts about the Peace Education materials. However, Respondent did not demonstrate implementation of the materials in her classroom. Respondent met with Mrs. Cutting and Mrs. Hardee about use of the Board’s academic plans. However, she did not utilize the plans on a regular basis. Respondent did initiate a classroom plan outlining her expectations for students. Dr. Carlin described the plan as inferior and had to re-write it (with assistance from her staff). Respondent considered her plan to be adequate in all regards, even prior to editing by Dr. Carlin. The fourth guideline was somewhat nebulous, so it is difficult to ascertain whether Respondent complied with the directive. After the letter was issued, Dr. Carlin waited for a week to give Respondent an opportunity to incorporate the guidelines and suggestions. She then conducted three formal observations of Respondent’s classroom to determine whether the guidelines and suggestions were being followed. She prepared written synopses of her observations. The assistant principal, Ms. DeMarchena, also did an observation that was codified in written notes. The gist of the observations by administrative staff was that Respondent was unresponsive to students, uncaring in her demeanor, lethargic in her efforts to teach, and somewhat rude. Dr. Carlin described Respondent as “the worst teacher I have ever seen in my career.” Dr. Carlin noticed a totally lethargic demeanor by Respondent after the February 1, 2012, meeting and February 6, 2012, written reprimand. Respondent seemed to just stop caring about her job. Dr. Carlin said of her visits to Respondent’s classroom, “I really couldn’t quite believe my eyes.” There were 18 students in Respondent’s classroom at Pinewoods. Eight of their parents made formal complaints to Dr. Carlin about Respondent’s classroom demeanor or teaching skills. Three of those parents testified at final hearing and expressed overall dissatisfaction with Respondent’s teaching abilities. The parents observed that their children did well at school prior to Respondent’s arrival, then did well after Respondent’s departure. While Respondent was teaching, however, their children were unhappy, unmotivated, and emotionally distressed. Two of the parents had teaching experience and measured Respondent both professionally and from their perspective as parents. These parents also discussed Respondent’s behavior and teaching abilities with many of the other parents from the class. The parents’ complaints included the following: Respondent ignored two parents when they came into the classroom, a response the parents had not experienced from any other teacher. Respondent did not engage her students in the celebration of a holiday (Valentine’s Day), even upon intervention by a parent who brought treats for the students. Respondent’s classroom was messy and disorganized. Students who had previously enjoyed school were now reluctant to attend Respondent’s class. Students feared Respondent and were afraid to complain about her strictly enforced policies, e.g., bathroom and pencil sharpening limitations. One parent reported that her child prayed each night that Respondent would be nice to the class. Pinewood’s curriculum specialist, Ms. Hardee, was asked by Dr. Carlin to observe Respondent in the classroom and to provide assistance as needed. Ms. Hardee intervened to assist Respondent to gain access to the web-based accelerated reading materials when Respondent initially experienced problems. She also helped Respondent understand the homework policy and other school policies. When observing Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Hardee found that not all students were actively engaged. Ms. Hardee also substituted for Respondent on one occasion and could not find a lesson plan for that day. Respondent said the lesson plan was right in the middle of her desk and does not know why Ms. Hardee could not find it. Many of the parents, as well as administrators, reported that Respondent’s classroom was extremely messy and disorganized. It is, therefore, understandable that Ms. Hardee would not find the lesson plan. Hardee, who was called by Respondent as a witness, provided extremely credible testimony. During her review of Respondent’s class, Hardee found a “lack of procedures” in the classroom and the students were not engaged during instruction time. Hardee described Respondent’s style as “flat, without expression or enthusiasm.” One parent of a student at Manatee, the prior school at which Respondent had taught, testified on Respondent’s behalf. She praised Respondent’s teaching and said Respondent did a good job with her child. Of the several parents’ testimony, the Manatee parent’s was the least persuasive. On February 22, 2012, Dr. Carlin met with Respondent and addressed the many concerns raised by parents and the observations made by herself and her staff. Respondent and Dr. Carlin discussed all the problem areas and Dr. Carlin told Respondent unequivocally that failure to correct the problems would result in sanctions, up to and including termination of employment. It was Dr. Carlin’s intention to place Respondent on a very short leash, intending to act quickly if things did not drastically improve. However, that very evening Dr. Carlin received three additional letters from upset parents complaining about “very disturbing” incidents in Respondent’s classroom. Dr. Carlin contacted the Professional Standards office and the Board’s attorney the next day. In consultation with those people, Dr. Carlin decided that, notwithstanding, her representations to Respondent the day before, she must remove Respondent from the classroom before irreparable harm was done to the students. She then notified Respondent – on February 23, 2012 – that she was being suspended with pay pending further review. The entire situation concerning Respondent’s classroom demeanor and actions was then reviewed by the Professional Standards office. That office determined that just cause existed to terminate Respondent’s employment. Dr. Carlin concurred with the decision. By letter dated April 20, 2012, Respondent was notified that a recommendation for termination of employment would be made to the Board at its next meeting. The letter also notified Respondent that she was suspended without pay effective April 23, 2012. Respondent rejects all of the complaints against her as being without basis or truth. She says the “staircase discipline” issue was just a misunderstanding; she simply lost track of how much time she made the children walk up and down the stairs. She did not, however, grieve the reprimand issued for that incident. Respondent says the children simply misunderstood her bathroom policy; it was correct and appropriate. The parents’ comments about her were, she said, derived from their children’s mistaken perception of her demeanor and attitude. And, even though Respondent acquiesced and took a behavior management class and a class on teacher’s code of ethics, she did not believe she needed them or that they taught her anything. Respondent’s testimony lacked credibility and was not persuasive. The most credible and persuasive evidence presented in this case indicates that Respondent does not recognize how she comes across to students and their parents. Respondent’s demeanor and teaching style, while it may be comfortable to her, is not consistent with good teaching practices. She is dour, lethargic, unfriendly, scary to her students, and defensive. Because she does not understand her own shortcomings, Respondent has become incompetent and has willfully neglected her duties as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Lee County School Board, upholding the termination of Respondent, Elaine Partenheimer's, employment for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 2012.
