The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Cynthia A. Foy (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint; whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of Subsection 1012.795(1)(b), (c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2003),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e) and (5)(d); and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed on Respondent's teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent, Cynthia Foy, holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 468641, covering the areas of early childhood education, elementary education, and English to speakers of other languages, which is valid through June 30, 2007. Respondent had been employed with the Hillsborough County School Board 17 years as of the 2002-2003 school term. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a first-grade teacher at Colson Elementary School (Colson) in the Hillsborough County School District (School District). Respondent worked as a teacher at Colson for about five years, beginning the 1998-1999 school year. During her employment in the School District, including her employment at Colson, Respondent never had any disciplinary action taken against her. From 1986 through 1996, Respondent consistently received satisfactory ratings on her annual teacher evaluations, except for one school year when she had three deaths in her family, including the sudden death of her father and of her 38-year-old brother. Respondent's Absences Respondent was absent from work 22 days during the 1998-1999 school year, her first year at Colson. Some of the absences were related to Respondent's health issues. However, most of Respondent's absences were related to her mother's illness. During the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent's mother was confined to a nursing home and had become very ill and frail. Due to her mother's failing health, Respondent wanted to be with her mother, to watch and take care of her. Also, even though Respondent's mother was in a nursing home, Respondent was responsible for taking her mother to her own doctors to make sure she got the proper care. During the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent was absent from work 13.5 days. Respondent's mother died during that school year. As a result, Respondent missed 13.5 days to deal with matters related to her mother's death. During the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years, Respondent was absent from school for 19.45 and 16 days, respectively. These absences were because of Respondent's own health issues. During these school years, Respondent was under an extreme amount of stress due to what she perceived to be a hostile work environment at school. Mary Clark, principal of Colson, was concerned about Respondent's absences and specifically noted this concern on all of Respondent's evaluations, which are at issue in this proceeding. The reasons for Respondent's absences were not disputed, and there is no assertion that the absences were unauthorized. However, Mrs. Clark believed that Respondent's absences resulted in the lack of continuity of instruction and negatively impacted the learning of students in Respondent's first-grade classes. Mrs. Clark testified that because of their concern about their children's progress, some parents requested that their children be transferred from Respondent's class to another first-grade class. Records of such requests and actual transfers were not presented at hearing. However, Mrs. Clark recalled that at least one student had been transferred from Respondent's class. Whether the only reason for the transfer was Respondent's absences is unclear. Notwithstanding Mrs. Clark's concern and belief that Respondent's absences had a negative impact on the students in her class, no basis for this concern was established. To the contrary, during Respondent's tenure at Colson, her students consistently performed well academically as reflected by their scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, a nationally normed test. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Stanford Achievement Test was used by the School District to assess first-grade students' achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the test was administered to first-grade students at Colson in March or April of each school year. In March 2000, there were four first-grade classes at Colson. Of those four classes, Respondent's students made the highest scores in both the reading section and the math section of the Stanford Achievement Test. The results of the Stanford Achievement Test administered in April 2001, reflect that of the four first-grade classes, the students in Respondent's class made significantly higher scores in both reading and mathematics than the students in the other three first-grade classes. As of April 2002, Colson had six first-grade classes. Of the six first-grade classes, Respondent's class ranked first on the reading section and second on the mathematics section of the Stanford Achievement Test. Respondent's Annual Performance Evaluations The School District utilizes the Classroom Certificated Instructional Effectiveness Evaluation Form (Evaluation Form), which has been approved by the Hillsborough County School Board (School Board) as the instrument by which its teachers are evaluated. Typically, tenured teachers with professional service contracts are evaluated annually, but if the tenured teacher is experiencing difficulties in the classroom, the school administrator may evaluate the teacher more than once a year. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Evaluation Form consisted of the following categories in which teachers are evaluated: Category I, Planning and Preparation, which includes six subsections or areas; Category II, Professional Behaviors, which includes 12 areas; Category III, Techniques of Instruction, which includes 15 areas; Category IV, Classroom Management, which includes seven areas; and Category V, Instructional Effectiveness, which includes one area. The Evaluation Form requires that the teacher's performance in each area be rated as "satisfactory," "needs improvement," or "unsatisfactory." The highest possible rating is "satisfactory," and the lowest rating is "unsatisfactory." In addition to the areas under the various categories in which teachers are rated, the evaluation requires that the teacher be given an "overall rating" of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory." As principal of Colson, one of Mrs. Clark's responsibilities was to supervise and evaluate the teachers at the school. Consistent with that responsibility, Mrs. Clark supervised and evaluated Respondent. Mrs. Clark evaluated Respondent once in the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 school years, usually in April. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mrs. Clark evaluated Respondent twice, in December 2001 and in March 2002. Mrs. Clark decided to evaluate Respondent twice in the 2001-2002 school year. Given Respondent's status as a tenured teacher and Mrs. Clark's "concerns over the years with her performance," by evaluating Respondent in the fall, Mrs. Clark would be able to give Respondent notice of the areas in which she still needed to improve. During the period between the fall evaluation and the spring evaluation, Respondent would have an opportunity to work to improve in those areas.2/ The ratings assigned to Respondent's performance on each of the Evaluation Forms are based on data that is collected by Mrs. Clark through her observations and while "walking into [the] classroom on a regular basis." The Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 through the 2001-2002 school years indicated that she needed to improve in specified areas under the following categories: Category II, Professional Behavior; Category III, Techniques of Instruction; and Category IV, Classroom Management.3/ Although Respondent worked at Colson during the 2002-2003 School year, there is no evidence that she was evaluated that year as required by law. If an evaluation was completed for that school year, the Administrative Complaint does not allege that the evaluation indicated any areas in which Respondent needed to improve. Professional Behavior The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received several evaluations from 1999 through 2002 that indicated she needed to improve in the following areas under the Professional Behavior category: 1) observes confidentiality related to students; 2) works cooperatively and supportively with school staff; and 3) responds reasonably to and acting appropriately to constructive criticism. With regard to the first area of concern, "observes confidentiality related to students," none of Respondent’s evaluations for the relevant time period, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years, indicated that she needed to improve in that area. In fact, contrary to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, all five of Respondent's evaluations for that time period indicate that her performance in that area was rated as "satisfactory." The second area under Professional Behaviors in which it is alleged that Respondent's evaluations indicated she needed to improve is "works cooperatively and supportively with school staff." Respondent's evaluations for her first three school years at Colson--1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001--reflect that her performance in the area, "works cooperatively with school staff," was "satisfactory." However, after receiving "satisfactory" ratings in this area for three consecutive years, for the first time, Respondent's evaluation for the 2001-2002 school year indicated that Respondent needed to improve in this area.4/ The evaluations gave no reason for the "needs improvement" rating in the area, "works cooperatively with school staff," on Respondent's December 2001 and April 2002 evaluations. Although no specific basis for the rating is given on the evaluation, it is noted that these evaluations coincide with the area supervisor's observations. The third area under the Professional Behavior category in which it is alleged that Respondent received several evaluations that indicated she needed to improve is the area, "responds reasonably to and acts appropriately upon constructive criticism." Contrary to this allegation, none of Respondent's evaluations indicated that she needed to improve in this area. Rather, Respondent's performance in the area, "responds reasonably to and acts appropriately upon constructive criticism," was rated as "satisfactory" on all five of the evaluations she received during the relevant time period. Techniques of Instruction The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent received several evaluations that indicated she needed to improve in the following areas under the Technique of Instruction category: (1) uses instructional time efficiently; presents subject matter effectively; and (3) uses praise appropriately. Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years indicated that Respondent needed to improve in the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." As a possible rationale for the rating assigned in the 1998-1999 evaluation, Mrs. Clark wrote on the evaluation, "I am concerned about the slow pace of her lesson as well as the pacing through reading." The evaluations for the 2000-2001 and the 2001-2002 school years gave no rationale for the "needs improvement" rating in the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." Additionally, there is no indication that Mrs. Clark told Respondent the basis of the rating or offered any recommendations as to how Respondent could improve in this area. Upon Respondent's receiving the December 2001 and the March 2002 evaluations, she requested, in writing, a detailed written explanation of the basis for each of the "needs improvement" ratings, which included the area, "uses instructional time efficiently." There is no evidence that Mrs. Clark ever provided the requested explanation. Additionally, the evidence does not establish a basis for the "needs improvement" rating in this area. The next area at issue under the Techniques of Instruction category is, "presents subject matter effectively." Respondent's evaluations for the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 school years indicate that Respondent needed to improve in this area. However, neither the evaluation, nor any evidence at the hearing, offered or established a basis for this rating. On Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 school year, and most recently for the 2001-2002 school year, her performance in the area, "presents subject matter effectively," was rated as "satisfactory." Clearly, the "satisfactory" ratings on the December 2001 and March 2002 evaluations, which were for the 2001-2002 school year, marked an improvement over Respondent's ratings in that category for the immediate prior two school years. Finally, it is alleged that the third area under the Techniques of Instruction category in which Respondent's evaluations indicated she needed to improve is, "uses praise appropriately." Respondent's evaluation for 1998-1999, her first year at Colson, indicated that she needed to improve in this area. The next three school years, however, Respondent's performance in this area improved to "satisfactory," as reflected by the four evaluations for the 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years. Classroom Management Under the category, Classroom Management, it is alleged that Respondent's evaluations indicated that she needed to improve in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self- esteem." On Respondent's evaluations for the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 school years, her first two years at Colson, Respondent's performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was rated "satisfactory." Respondent's evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year indicated that her performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was unsatisfactory. It is specifically found that the Administrative Complaint makes no allegations regarding the "unsatisfactory" rating. Accordingly, except for limited purposes, issues related to that rating will not be addressed. Respondent's performance in the area, "enhancing and maintaining students' self-esteem," improved in the 2001-2002 school year from "unsatisfactory" to "needs improvement," as reflected in both her December 2001 and April 2002 evaluations. Instructional Effectiveness The Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent's evaluations reflect that she needs to improve in the Instructional Effectiveness category. However, in order to present a more complete picture of Respondent's performance, as rated on her evaluations, this category and Respondent's ratings thereunder are considered. The Instructional Effectiveness category includes only one area, "promotes academic learning which results in improved student performance."5/ This area is concerned with and assesses whether actual learning is taking place as a result of the teacher's instruction. 39. For the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002 school years, Respondent's performance in the area, "promotes academic learning which results in improved student performance," is rated as "satisfactory." Overall Rating Category Respondent's "overall rating" in all five of her evaluations for the 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001- 2002 was "satisfactory." 6/ Transfer of Student to Respondent's Class (January 2001) In January 2001, a student, F.R., was transferred to Respondent's class from another first grade class because of his behavioral problems. When such a transfer takes place, the teacher to whom the student is being transferred is given prior notice that the student is being assigned to her class. In this instance, that was not done. Respondent was not informed in advance that F.R. was being transferred to her class. On the first day the students returned to school from winter break, F.R. just "showed up" in Respondent's class. Later, Respondent was told that the child was transferred to her class because he was having peer conflict problems, and, as a result, he was acting out. Respondent was told that the student’s acting out behavior included such things as spitting on children, stabbing children with forks, knocking things off the children's desks, and having outbursts. Respondent thought this was a new chance for the child, and she attempted to make the new class assignment work. For example, rather than isolate the child, as his former teacher had recommended, Respondent assigned F.R. to a seat between two very well-behaved little girls, who she knew would never say anything mean to him. Despite Respondent's efforts to work with F.R., he exhibited lashing out and angry behaviors. Due to F.R.'s exhibiting lashing out behavior, Respondent was concerned for the safety of the other students in the class. In January or early February 2001, Respondent shared her concern with Mrs. Clark and asked that F.R. be removed from her class. Mrs. Clark responded that F.R. was just a little boy and said, "Let's see how he does." No offers for assistance were made, and Respondent felt that her request was simply ignored. Later, in January or early February 2001, as Respondent's class lined up and walked to the lunchroom, F.R. deliberately "high stepped and slid on the heels" of the child in front of him. When Respondent asked F.R. to stop, he just laughed, looked at Respondent, and repeated the behavior. Respondent told F.R. to stand out on the side of the line and walk with her. At first he complied, but then he started to get back in the line. Respondent then told F.R., "You're walking with me." After F.R. ignored Respondent, she took his hand so that he could walk with her. F.R. then yanked and pulled Respondent's fingers back, kicked Respondent "really hard" in the upper ankle, and "took off running." Respondent reported the incident to Mrs. Clark and the vice-principal and completed an incident report, reporting her injury and indicating her belief that F.R.'s behavior described in paragraph 44 constituted an assault/battery. After the incident, Respondent again asked Mrs. Clark to transfer F.R. from her class. Mrs. Clark never responded to Respondent's request. In fact, Mrs. Clark never talked to Respondent about the incident. Some time after the February 21, 2001, observation discussed below, there was a second incident where F.R. was physically aggressive toward Respondent. F.R. ran out of the lunchroom to return to the classroom to get the check he had forgotten. Concerned about his past behavior of destroying and "messing up" the other children's belongings, Respondent went to get F.R. Before Respondent could get to the classroom, F.R. had gotten the check and was running back to the lunchroom and toward Respondent. Respondent stuck her arm out to stop him and he continued running around her. Once in the lunchroom, Respondent "pulled" or "grabbed" the check from F.R.'s hand and asked the aides in the lunchroom to call Mrs. Clark. F.R. then seemed to explode, and he began punching Respondent with his fists and biting her. By the time the assistant principal got to the lunchroom, four students had pulled F.R. off Respondent, and Respondent was holding F.R.'s hand. When the vice-principal arrived, she did not discuss the incident with Respondent, but began screaming and told Respondent, "Go, get out of here, leave!" Following the lunchroom incident, Respondent filed another assault report and, for the third time, asked Mrs. Clark to transfer F.R. from her class. After there was no response to her verbal request, a union representative advised Respondent to make the request in writing. Initially, Mrs. Clark denied the request because it was not on the proper form, but once Respondent made the request on the appropriate form, F.R. was transferred from her class. Prior to the requests related to F.R., Respondent has never requested that a student be transferred from her class. Observations of Area Supervisor Ms. Daryl Saunders, an area supervisor for the School District, went to Respondent's classroom on five different occasions between February 21, 2001, and March 21, 2002, twice during the 2000-2001 school year, and three times during the 2001-2002 school year, to conduct observations. On a visit in February 2002, Ms. Saunders did not conduct an observation. With the exception of the first visit to Respondent's classroom, all of Ms. Saunders' visits were for the purpose of observing Respondent. Of the four times Ms. Saunders went to observe Respondent, she actually conducted observations three times. First Observation (February 21, 2001) Ms. Saunders' first visit to Respondent's classroom was on February 21, 2001. At the request of Mrs. Clark, Ms. Saunders went to Respondent's classroom to observe a student, F.R., who had been displaying inappropriate behavior in class and is described above.7/ During the time Ms. Saunders observed F.R., he did not have any outbursts, engage in any physically aggressive behavior, or display any disruptive or inappropriate behaviors. Ms. Saunders noted that the student delayed starting his assignment and took breaks between work, but did not bother any other student. Based on her observation of F.R. and the manner in which Respondent communicated with him, Ms. Saunders wrote in the summary letter to Mrs. Clark, "I believe F.R. is trying to survive in a room where he feels he is not valued." While Ms. Saunders was observing F.R., she also observed Respondent teaching and interacting with the students. Ms. Saunders was particularly concerned with Respondent's frequent verbal reprimands that were audible to the entire class. During the observation, Ms. Saunders also noticed that Respondent seemed to be easily frustrated and that when communicating with students, her voice vacillated between a friendly tone to an aggressive tone. Ms. Saunders expressed this and other concerns, not relevant to this proceeding, to Mrs. Clark in a letter dated February 22, 2001. According to the letter, a verbal reprimand to a particular student in front of the entire class is "damaging to [a] student's self-esteem." Ms. Saunders further noted that "considering the environment, I was surprised there were no behavioral issues while I was present." In the February 22, 2001, letter to Mrs. Clark, Ms. Saunders recommended that "we provide [Respondent] with some assistance so that the classroom environment is more conducive for instruction and learning." As a means of supporting Respondent in this effort, Ms. Saunders recommended that Mrs. Clark "have [Respondent] take two courses through the staff development office." The two classes that Ms. Saunders recommended were Cooperative Discipline and Effective Teaching Strategies. Finally, Ms. Saunders' letter stated, "the Language Arts Frameworks document should be reviewed with [Respondent]." There is no indication that Mrs. Clark discussed these recommendations. Second Observation (May 7, 2001) At Mrs. Clark's request, Ms. Saunders visited Respondent's classroom on May 7, 2001, to observe Respondent's teaching practices. This was about two weeks after Respondent received her evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year, which had rated her performance as unsatisfactory in the area of "enhancing and maintaining student's self-esteem." Pursuant to an earlier suggestion by Ms. Saunders, Respondent allowed herself to be videotaped in order that she could better critique her own behavior in the classroom. To implement this recommendation, the school's media specialist was in the classroom to set up the video equipment on the day of Ms. Saunders' observation. Soon after Ms. Saunders arrived, the media specialist asked Respondent if she should put the tape in the video recorder. Respondent answered, "Please, I don't want to be accused of using three minutes of my time up." Ms. Saunders believed that Respondent's tone of voice was "unprofessional" and that the comment was directed at her. During the May 7, 2001, observation, a student who was speaking to other students in a group had her back to them. Respondent's voice "became aggravated" as she told the student to turn around. Respondent placed her hands on the student's shoulders and physically turned her, but did not do so forcibly. During the May 7, 2001, observation, Ms. Saunders noted improvement in Respondent's communication with her students. In her written summary of the observation dated May 16, 2001, Ms. Saunders wrote: Based on that first encounter [February 21, 2001], I would say my greatest concern was how you communicated with both students and adults. However, this time your demeanor in front of the children was quite different than when I last observed in your classroom. I believe having the video camera present helped to keep you focused on appropriate communication with the children. I was pleased to hear more of a pleasant tone. Ms. Saunders' summary also stated that she counted four times when Respondent appeared to become frustrated and her tone of voice changed to a negative one. Ms. Saunders' summary of the May 7, 2001, observation included the following recommendations: One way to support and assist you regarding classroom environment, instruction and planning would be to have someone review with you, the six domains from the Florida Performance Measurement System. This information is based on research and would be beneficial to again cover. In addition, I recommend that you attend training provided by the elementary education department specifically in the area of writing. Enrollment can be done on-line. . . . There are many courses offered this summer. The Language Arts Frameworks document should also be reviewed. This will provide information about our district's curriculum and the writer's workshop model. Other staff development offerings related to classroom management are offered periodically through the staff development office. I suggest you take one of their courses to assist you with classroom management. You can register on line any time. . . . In the May 16, 2001, summary, Ms. Saunders notified Respondent that she planned to observe Respondent's classroom again soon. Additionally, Ms. Saunders indicated that she expected to see "appropriate and timely instruction and activities based on student need and planned from grade level expectations." Third Observation (December 6, 2001) Ms. Saunders conducted the third observation on December 6, 2001, seven months after the previous observation. Ms. Saunders summarized her observations in a letter dated December 17, 2001. In the letter, Ms. Saunders advised Respondent, for the first time, that the December 6, 2001, observation was part of a plan to assist Respondent with teaching practices. On December 6, 2001, Ms. Saunders arrived at Respondent's classroom at 8:30 a.m. and stayed until 9:10 a.m., when the children left the room for an activity. During the 40-minute observation, Ms. Saunders heard Respondent communicating with students and observed her conducting a review of telling time. Ms. Saunders was complimentary of Respondent's review of telling time. In the written summary to Respondent, Ms. Saunders wrote: You try hard to provide ways for students to remember abstract concepts. You use pneumonic devices, short stories, rhymes and other ways to assist with memorization. By calling the numbers bases and relating the time to the name of the base they passed, students more accurately read time when the short hand falls somewhere between two numbers. This seemed quite effective. Ms. Saunders observed an incident which she perceived to be negative. There was a student who was off task. Respondent directed her attention to the student and asked the student, "Would your mother [or family] be proud of you?" Ms. Saunders believed that when Respondent made this statement, her voice "sounded with disapproval." Ms. Saunders suggested that in the situation described in paragraph 66, Respondent should have "encouraged" proper behavior by asking the student a question that would have him participate so that he becomes on task rather than off task. In another situation, Ms. Saunders observed Respondent interact appropriately and effectively with a student she was reprimanding. In that case, Respondent asked the student, "What time is it?" Before that student could answer, another student shouted out the answer. Recalling Respondent's positive response in that situation, Ms. Saunders stated the following in the December 17, 2001, summary: A boy shouted out the answer and you began to reprimand him. You began to speak, stopped yourself, and continued with this carefully crafted sentence. "Tell me the rule about calling out." It was nice to see you stop yourself in mid-stream, rethink a way to correct this misconduct while still preserving the child's dignity. Based on the December 6, 2001, observation, Ms. Saunders had two areas of concern, only one of which is relevant in this case. That area relates to Respondent's "appropriate use of instructional time." Ms. Saunders' concern is stated in the summary as follows: In my opinion, a second area of concern relates to planning and appropriate use of instructional time. I entered your room at 8:30 and the instructional day begins at 8:00 a.m. Instruction in your room did not begin until 8:44 and the fifteen minutes suggested for calendar math was stretched to 21 minutes. I suggest you utilize time more wisely by beginning calendar math immediately after announcements. Then spend the rest of the morning on shared, guided and independent reading when youngsters are fresh and ready to learn. Beginning instruction nearly 45 minutes after the day begins will allow you to cover all the curriculum. Although the "instructional day," to the extent that term refers to Respondent's teaching a lesson to the class, did not begin at 8:00 a.m., or soon thereafter, there was a reasonable explanation for the delay. First, three students were assigned to Respondent's class that day because their regular teacher was absent. Prior to beginning instruction, Respondent met with those students, asked them their names, assigned them desks, and explained her classroom management system. Respondent's classroom management system involved giving each student a certain number of clothes pins at the beginning of the day. During the school day, the students could lose and/or earn clothes pins, depending on their conduct. The second reason for the delay in beginning the instructional day was that several students in Respondent's class had been allowed to go to the media center to "Santa's Book Fair." As Ms. Saunders noted in her written summary, several of Respondent's students did not return to the classroom from the book fair until 8:36 a.m. In light of the foregoing circumstances, it was reasonable that Respondent did not begin the "instructional day" at 8:00 a.m., or immediately after announcements were made. Admittedly, Ms. Saunders did not know what, if any, instructions or directions Respondent gave to students prior to 8:30 a.m. However, when Ms. Saunders entered Respondent's classroom, the students were actively engaged in various activities. For example, one student was working on math worksheets. Another student was at the computer taking an Accelerated Reading test. Respondent was working with the student at the computer. In addition to Ms. Saunders' concern that the instructional day did not begin until 8:44 a.m., she believed that Respondent spent too much time teaching the "calendar math" activity. Respondent began the activity at 8:44 a.m., and completed it at 9:05 a.m. Even though Ms. Saunders complimented Respondent on her presentation of the activity, as discussed in paragraph 65, she criticized Respondent for spending too much time teaching or reviewing the lesson. According to Ms. Saunders, the "suggested" time for "calendar math" was 15 minutes, but Respondent "stretched" the activity to 21 minutes, which was six minutes longer than the "suggested" time. Ms. Saunders offered no explanation of why or how Respondent's extending the calendar math activity by six minutes was not an "appropriate use of instructional time." At 9:10, a.m., five minutes after the calendar math lesson, Respondent's students had to leave the classroom to attend a health presentation. The five minutes between the end of "calendar math" and when the children left the classroom for the health presentation, allowed time for the children to return to their seats and for Respondent to pass out name tags to the students and have them line up before leaving the room. Ms. Saunders offered no suggestions as to a more appropriate or acceptable way Respondent could or should have used the extra six minutes that Respondent used teaching the calendar math activity. Ms. Saunders summarized the December 6, 2001, observation and made recommendations in a letter dated December 17, 2001. Based on Ms. Saunders' concerns about Respondent's teaching practices, Ms. Saunders recommended that Respondent "have someone review with [her] the six domains from the Florida Performance Measurement System." Also, she recommended that Respondent take training provided by the elementary education department and a classroom management course, both of which were offered "periodically" through the staff development office. Attempted Observation (February 2001) On an unspecified day in February 2002, Ms. Saunders went to Respondent's classroom to conduct her fourth observation. After Ms. Saunders entered the classroom, Respondent told her that she had no notice of the observation. Ms. Saunders then advised Respondent that Mrs. Clark knew that Ms. Saunders would be observing Respondent's class that day, but that "neither of us [Saunders nor Clark] chose to make you [Respondent] aware of the visitation." Respondent espoused the view that she should have received notice of the observation. Ms. Saunders disputed Respondent's view that she should have been given notice and indicated that the observation was part of the assistance plan laid out in May 2001. Respondent replied that an assistance plan could only last 90 days and, thus, this observation could not be part of any such plan. Ms. Saunders then asserted that she could do an observation any time as part of her normal duties. Respondent disagreed and requested that Ms. Saunders provide her with a written explanation of the reason why Ms. Saunders was visiting the class, the instrument she would be using, what she would be observing, and how long she would be staying. As the verbal interchange proceeded, Ms. Saunders thought that Respondent's voice became more aggressive and that she was also getting upset. Because Respondent's students were in the classroom, Ms. Saunders decided to leave the classroom and return at another time. Although students were in the classroom during the verbal exchange concerning whether Ms. Saunders' visit was authorized, there is no evidence that the students heard the conversation. Fourth Observation (March 21, 2002) On March 21, 2002, Ms. Saunders conducted an observation in Respondent's classroom. Upon Ms. Saunders' entering the room, Respondent advised her that she had no notice that Ms. Saunders was coming to her class. Respondent also told Ms. Saunders that the students were taking a school-wide writing assessment. Ms. Saunders acknowledged that, but still indicated that she would be seated and conduct an observation. Respondent then approached Ms. Saunders and asked why she was in the class, what instrument she was using, and what she was observing. Ms. Saunders reiterated her prior position that she was there as part of the assistance plan and that she would be taking anecdotal notes. Respondent then asserted her earlier position, that an assistance plan was only for 90 days. Consistent with Ms. Saunders' previous recommendation that Respondent tape herself in class as a way to critique herself, Respondent told Ms. Saunders and the class that she was turning on the tape recorder. Ms. Saunders began the observation at or about 8:58 a.m., and ended it at 9:16 a.m. In all, the observation lasted only about 18 minutes. During most of that time, Respondent's students were completing a school-wide writing assessment. As students finished the writing assessment, Respondent gave them books to read silently, while the other children continued to work on the writing assessment. Ms. Saunders summarized the March 21, 2002, observation in a letter dated April 18, 2002. Due to the duration of the observation, 18 minutes, and the fact that the students were taking a writing assessment, Ms. Saunders reported only a few specific observations. None of those observations concerned or were related to Respondent's teaching techniques or classroom management.8/ In the April 18, 2002, letter, Ms. Saunders summarized the March 21, 2002, observation and made conclusions. In the letter, Ms. Saunders stated she continued to see the "same behaviors" from Respondent. She further stated, Each time I visit your classroom I continue to see the same behaviors from you. Though discussion has occurred regarding ineffective practices, visitation were made to a number of other classrooms at Yates Elementary, suggestions regarding inservice courses have been made, yet your practices have not changed. I continue to see an emphasis on students being silent unless called upon. I continue to hear you speak gruffly to students. I continue to see you punish students for very minor infractions like wiggling or whispering. I continue to see you isolate students from the group. I continue to see you go over concepts, like vocabulary orally in order for students to memorize things rotely. I continue to see calendar math exceed the 15 minutes it is intended to occupy of the mathematics instructional time. I continue to see only one student engaged at a time. It was the intention of the assistance plan to have you reevaluate some of your ineffective practices and work to make some changes. I have yet to witness any of that nor do I think you are even trying to make strides toward improvement. Despite her recitation of areas in which Respondent still needed to improve, Ms. Saunders offered no recommendations in the April 18, 2002, summary letter to assist Respondent. However, Ms. Saunders stated that she "plan[ned] to make an unannounced observation in [Respondent's] class again soon," but she never did. The conclusions in Ms. Saunders' April 18, 2002, letter are inconsistent with some of her earlier observations discussed in paragraphs 59, 65, and 68 above. Moreover, there was no connection between the conclusion Ms. Saunders articulated in the summary letter and what she observed on March 21, 2002. Area Supervisor's Criticism of Respondent's Reprimand Method Ms. Saunders was critical of the way Respondent reprimanded students. During Ms. Saunders' observations, Respondent sometimes would call the name of the child who was being reprimanded and tell him what he should or should not be doing. At the hearing, Ms. Saunders testified to maintain order in the classroom, Respondent should have used "public praise" and "private criticism." Notwithstanding this position, Ms. Saunders admitted that this method or principle is not an established policy and procedure of the School District. While Ms. Saunders testified that the "public praise, private criticism" principle is simply an "educational belief that many people subscribe to," she acknowledged that other models exist. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Ms. Saunders ever specifically discussed the "public praise, private criticism" philosophy that she believed Respondent should have used in the classroom. Observations of the School Principal Mrs. Clark frequently observed Respondent in the classroom as part of her routine of visiting all the classrooms at Colson. During her observation of Respondent, Mrs. Clark saw and heard Respondent sometimes use a "harsh desist" in reprimanding students. According to Mrs. Clark, the term "harsh desist" means "harshly reprimanding a child to stop doing something." Mrs. Clark described an example of a "harsh desist" by Respondent's saying, "Shhhh" to the class in a loud way, and talking to children in a way that was "derogatory." Mrs. Clark believed that the children were impacted by the way Respondent spoke to them. She based this belief on the expressions she saw on some of the children's faces. Mrs. Clark testified, "In some instances, they [the students] would cringe." Mrs. Clark testified that she talked to Respondent about her "harsh desist," but Respondent did not change this classroom management method. These discussions were not documented, and no reference to this issue was ever noted on Respondent's evaluations. The record fails to establish when or how often Mrs. Clark observed Respondent engaging in a "harsh desist," to whom any particular "harsh desist" was directed, and if and how the "harsh desist" affected the student. Mrs. Clark testified that she observed situations in which she observed Respondent talk to students in a derogatory manner. In one instance, the student referred to in paragraph 41 above, who had been transferred to Respondent's class because of behavioral problems he was having in another class, left Respondent's classroom without permission and was returned to the room by Mrs. Clark. The student told Mrs. Clark that he had left the room to look for a pencil or scissors. Mrs. Clark asked Respondent if the student could borrow one from another student or if she would give him the tool that he needed. Respondent said she would not give him the particular tool. Respondent continued, "He breaks them all the time. He doesn't deserve them." Although students were in the classroom when Respondent made the comments, there is no evidence that they heard the comments. The other incident in which Mrs. Clark described Respondent as using derogatory language when talking to a student involved T.B., a student in her class. On an unspecified date, Respondent was walking down the hallway with her students, taking them to the buses. Respondent was holding T.B. by his arm, presumably for misbehaving. At the time, Mrs. Clark was in the hallway, but some distance away. When Respondent saw Mrs. Clark in the hallway, she told T.B., "If you don't behave, you're going to get a referral to that lady over there," pointing to Mrs. Clark. Mrs. Clark testified that there is nothing wrong with reminding a child that he could have to go the principal's office if he or she misbehaves, "if it [is] handled in the appropriate way." The clear implication was that the manner in which Respondent handled the situation described in paragraph 98 was inappropriate. However, no evidence was presented to establish the appropriate way to remind the student that his behavior needs to improve and that there are consequences for misbehavior. Recommendations of Mrs. Clark Respondent's 2000-2001 evaluation indicated that her performance in the area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," was unsatisfactory. To address this rating, Mrs. Clark issued a letter to Respondent which made two recommendations to assist Respondent in improving in this area. The letter is referred to on the evaluation and was given to Respondent on or about April 24, 2001, the day she received the 2000-2001 evaluation.9/ The first recommendation was that Respondent attend a Cooperative Discipline Workshop that was offered by the School District or "something similar to that that was offered by the district." The other recommendation was that Respondent go and observe behavior management in classrooms at other schools. No specifics were given as to who would schedule the time, place, and number of observations. With regard to the classroom management course, no information was provided as to what, if any, approval would be needed prior to taking the course. In neither instance was a time specified that Respondent would have to complete the observations and/or the classroom management course. During Respondent's tenure at Colson, the only written recommendations she received from Mrs. Clark were the two made in the letter issued to Respondent. As reflected on the 2000-2001 evaluation, Mrs. Clark issued the letter to address the "unsatisfactory" rating Respondent received in that evaluation. In such a case, a tenured teacher who receives an "unsatisfactory" rating, a letter and/or form of assistance is required to be provided pursuant to Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent's Efforts to Comply With Assistance Plans and/or Recommendations In an effort to comply with Mrs. Clark's recommendation that she observe other classes, Respondent asked several teachers on her first-grade team, including one who was nationally-certified, if she could observe them. Some of these teachers had been held out by Mrs. Clark as using behavioral models that were ones that Respondent might use in her class. All of the teachers agreed to allow Respondent to observe their classes, but Mrs. Clark denied Respondent's request to observe any of the teachers at Colson. Eventually, someone, likely Ms. Saunders or Mrs. Clark, scheduled an observation for Respondent at Yates Elementary School (Yates). On an unknown date between May 7, 2001, and December 6, 2001, Respondent went to Yates to observe several first-grade classes pursuant to Mrs. Clark's April 24, 2001, recommendation. Ms. Saunders accompanied Respondent to the class for the observations. As Respondent and Ms. Saunders went to observe in the various classrooms, it appeared to Respondent that the teachers in those classrooms had no prior knowledge of the observations. During the observations at Yates, Ms. Saunders directed Respondent to write down anything positive she saw regarding classroom management, as well as anything she found pedagogically unsound.10/ Ms. Saunders referenced and discussed Respondent's observations at Yates in the summary letter dated December 17, 2001. In that letter, Ms. Saunders recalled the following: During the visit to Yates, we witnessed some wonderful classroom strategies and we also saw some things that perhaps would not be helpful. I know, based on our conversation, that you saw some things that you might like to try implementing. I hope that you will continue to reflect on that day and try some of the things you think might work well in your room. Ms. Saunders also noted in the December 17, 2001, letter that at the time of the visit to Yates, she asked Respondent to write a plan that included trying or applying some of the classroom management strategies that they witnessed. Respondent complied with this directive as reflected in Ms. Saunders' letter in which she stated, "A copy of that plan was to be given to Mrs. Clark[,] and I am aware that you submitted something to her." As requested by Ms. Saunders, Respondent submitted a classroom management plan to Mrs. Clark based on what she observed at Yates that she could implement in her classroom. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate whether Respondent's plan was ever reviewed or critiqued by either Mrs. Clark or Ms. Saunders. After Mrs. Clark recommended that Respondent take a classroom management course, she attempted to do so, but was unsuccessful. Respondent's initial failure to take the classroom management course after the April 2001 evaluation, was based on a misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or no communication between Mrs. Clark and Respondent. Later, Respondent's efforts to take a classroom management course were thwarted by Mrs. Clark. The misunderstanding, miscommunication, and/or lack of communication between Mrs. Clark and Respondent is evident. Almost eight months after Mrs. Clark initially recommended that Respondent take a classroom management course, she wrote in the "comment section" of Respondent's December 19, 2001, evaluation that she was "not sure" if Respondent had taken the course. In response, Respondent wrote on the same evaluation, "It was my understanding that a workshop would be scheduled for me during the school year." Mrs. Clark testified that Respondent had "repeatedly kept asking" for which workshop Mrs. Clark had signed her up. Based on the apparent misunderstanding discussed in paragraph 109, Respondent selected at least two different classroom management courses. She then requested Mrs. Clark's consent, because the course required payment of a fee and a substitute teacher for the time Respondent would be attending the course. Both courses were approved by the Hillsborough County School Board. Although in the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent made several requests to take a management course, Mrs. Clark denied all the requests, indicating that no money was available. In one case, a person from the School District office called Respondent and told her that no money was available for her to attend the courses she had requested. The payment for one of the courses was about $135.00 and required that a substitute teacher be hired to cover Respondent's class on the day of the course. Having been unsuccessful in obtaining permission or approval to attend two School Board-approved courses, on September 20, 2002, Respondent wrote an e-mail letter to Mrs. Clark regarding Respondent's efforts to take a classroom/behavior management course. In the e-mail, Respondent indicated that she had looked to take the recommended course on a professional study day (when students are not present), but had not found any such course being offered. In light of Mrs. Clark's and/or the School District's failure to approve a course for Respondent to take, Respondent requested that Mrs. Clark provide Respondent with the name of the classroom/behavior management course that Mrs. Clark wanted her to take and the date and time of such course. There is no evidence that Mrs. Clark ever responded to Respondent's September 20, 2002, e-mail or ever provided Respondent with the name of a classroom management course to attend. Moreover, no evidence was presented that the School District actually offered the recommended classroom management course during the relevant time period. Despite the recommendation that Respondent take the classroom/behavior management course, she was not provided with the assistance and in-service opportunity to help correct or improve the noted performance deficiency. Nonetheless, through her own effort, she increased her performance area, "enhances and maintains students' self-esteem," from "unsatisfactory" in the 2000-2001 school year to "needs improvement." Incidents Involving Respondent and School Principal and Staff First Incident (January/February 2001) In January or February 2001, during the lunch break, Vicki Davis, one of the other first-grade teachers, was sitting near Respondent and noticed that Respondent was writing in a notebook. Ms. Davis then asked Respondent, "What are you doing? Writing about kids or something?" Respondent did not elaborate, but told Ms. Davis that it was a behavior book. Ms. Davis was concerned because she saw her name in the book, but beyond that, she could not say what was in the book. Exactly what Respondent was writing in the "behavior book," is unknown, but this incident occurred soon after the student referred to in paragraph 41 was transferred from Ms. Davis' class to Respondent's class. Respondent implied that she was writing down observations about the child. Even though the precise contents of the "behavior book" were not clearly visible, Ms. Davis felt uncomfortable when she saw what she believed to be her name in the "behavior book." Second Incident (July 2001) In July 2001, when school was not in session, Respondent telephoned the school and asked Mrs. Clark to provide her with a report that Ms. Saunders had prepared. Before leaving the school, Mrs. Clark advised Jennifer Connolly, her secretary, that Respondent was coming to get the report and told Ms. Connolly to put the report in Respondent's mailbox. When Respondent arrived at Colson, she checked her mailbox, but did not see the report that she had come to retrieve. At the time, no one was in the front office area so Respondent went into Mrs. Clark's office and looked on her desk for the document. While Respondent was in Mrs. Clark's office looking through papers in an effort to locate Ms. Saunders' report, Ms. Connolly saw Respondent and asked why she was in the office. After Respondent explained that she was looking for Mrs. Saunders' report, Ms. Connolly told Respondent the report was in Respondent's mailbox and to leave Mrs. Clark's office. Ms. Connolly left the office and walked down the hall. After Ms. Connolly left Mrs. Clark's office, Respondent turned out the light in Mrs. Clark's office and closed the door to the office as she exited. By the time Respondent got to her mailbox, Mrs. Saunders' report was on top of the stack of mail in Respondent's mailbox. After being informed about Respondent's going into her office, Mrs. Clark contacted the School District's Professional Standards Office. An investigation was conducted and based on the findings, a letter was issued to Respondent. It is unknown if the letter was a warning, reprimand, or other type of communication since the letter was not offered as evidence at this proceeding. There is no indication that Respondent was doing anything in Mrs. Clark's office other than looking for the report that she came to the school to retrieve; the report that Mrs. Clark had expected her to pick up. Nonetheless, Respondent's decision to go into the principal's office, without permission, reflected poor judgment on her part. This, however, was an isolated incident and is not indicative of Respondent's usual judgment. Except for this incident, Respondent's record indicates that she usually exercised good judgment as shown by her evaluations for the relevant time period. For example, for the three school terms immediately prior to the July 2001 incident, Respondent's performance in the area related to a teacher's judgment under the Professional Behavior category, "demonstrates logical thinking and makes practical decisions," was rated as "satisfactory."11/ The only evaluation that indicated Respondent "needed to improve" in that area was the December 2001 evaluation, the first evaluation she received after the July 2001 office incident. However, in Respondent's very next evaluation dated April 24, 2002, her performance in the area, "demonstrates logical thinking and makes practical decisions," was rated as "satisfactory." Third Incident (2001-2002 School Term) In or about the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent brought a tape recorder to a team meeting. When Ms. Davis, one of the team members, saw the tape recorder, she felt uncomfortable and told Respondent to turn off the tape recorder.12/ Ms. Davis knew that "something was going on between [Respondent] and Mrs. Clark" and seemed to suspect that Respondent's bringing the tape recorder into the meeting was somehow related to that. However, Ms. Davis did not want to be a part of that and told Respondent, "This [meeting] is not about anything. We're working together as a team." Respondent immediately complied with Ms. Davis' request and turned off the tape recorder. After that one incident, Respondent never again brought a tape recorder to a team meeting. Fourth Incident (February 25, 2003) On or about February 25, 2003, as part of her usual routine of visiting classrooms, Mrs. Clark went to Respondent's classroom, entering from the back door. At the time, Respondent was sitting with two students, working with them. When Respondent saw Mrs. Clark, she got up from her seat and walked over to where Mrs. Clark was standing. Respondent then asked Mrs. Clark, "Did you leave right after us?" Mrs. Clark correctly understood, and Respondent confirmed that the question referred to Respondent's grievance hearing that was held the previous day and attended by Respondent and her attorney, as well as Mrs. Clark and the area supervisor. Respondent apparently thought Mrs. Clark indicated that she had left immediately after the grievance hearing. Respondent challenged Mrs. Clark and indicated that Respondent and her attorney had waited outside for Mrs. Clark for 15 minutes. Respondent then moved closer to Mrs. Clark and whispered in her ear. Mrs. Clark understood Respondent to say, "You're a liar. You're devious. There is a God. I'm not through with you yet." Respondent denied that she made these statements. Given the conflicting testimony of Mrs. Clark and Respondent, both of whom appeared to be credible witnesses, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made the statements. Nonetheless, it is found that Mrs. Clark understood and believed that the statements in paragraph 130 were the ones Respondent whispered to her. Mrs. Clark responded to Respondent's statements in a voice that was not a whisper by asking, "You're not through with me yet?" According to Mrs. Clark, during this incident, she repeatedly kept turning to Respondent and kept telling her, "If you have something to say to me, we can meet in my office." There were children in Respondent's classroom during the incident described in paragraph 130, but Mrs. Clark's credible testimony was that the children could not hear Respondent's comments. Mrs. Clark described the comments Respondent whispered in her ear as "quite upsetting." While Mrs. Clark might have been upset, her conduct clearly indicated that she did not feel threatened by Respondent's comments. After the exchange between Respondent described in paragraphs 130 and 131, Mrs. Clark stayed in Respondent's classroom to continue her visit and look at the children's work. In fact, Mrs. Clark took time to talk to a student in the class who she believed was not working. Later, she asked the children about a large crayon that was on the floor. At some point during the visit, Respondent noticed that Mrs. Clark was holding something in one of her hands, both of which were behind her back. Believing that the object in Mrs. Clark's hand was a tape recorder, Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand and splayed it open in an attempt to completely display the object. As Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand, she asked Mrs. Clark if she had a tape recorder and if she were recording Respondent. Mrs. Clark stated that the object she was holding was a two-way radio. Even though the object Mrs. Clark was holding was a two-way radio, Respondent did not believe Mrs. Clark's explanation. After or as Respondent grabbed Mrs. Clark's hand, Mrs. Clark told Respondent, "Get your hands off me! Get away from me!" Respondent believed Mrs. Clark was going to strike her so she moved back, away from Mrs. Clark. Undoubtedly, Respondent's conduct, described in paragraph 134, grabbing her supervisor's hand, was inappropriate, unprofessional, and disrespectful. However, based on the record, this was clearly an isolated incident. Moreover, this conduct does not constitute any of the statutory or rule violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Mrs. Clark then left Respondent's classroom and continued visiting other classrooms. After completing her routine classroom visits, Mrs. Clark called the School District office to report the February 25, 2002, incident in Respondent's classroom. Respondent also called the School District office to report the incident. In addition to calling the School District Office, Respondent called a friend who was a retired teacher and reported that she believed Mrs. Clark had tried to record her and asked for advice on what she should do if Mrs. Clark returned to her room. The following day, an investigator with the School District went to the school to investigate the matter. School District Request for Fitness for Duty Evaluation By letter dated April 30, 2003, the School District referred Respondent to Dr. James Edgar, M.D., a psychiatrist, for an evaluation. In the referral letter, Linda Kipley, the general manager of the School District's Professional Standards Office, stated that the referral was due to the School District's "concerns for a pattern of personal and professional behavior which has negatively impacted her capability and competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of teaching." Ms. Kipley's letter went on to say, "After reviewing our most recent investigative report, there is a question if she is fit for her teaching responsibilities and to teach minor children." Also, Ms. Kipley requested that Dr. Edgar provide a written report of his assessment of Respondent's "capability to make sound professional judgments and her capability to safely instruct children." Opinion of James Edgar, M.D. Dr. James Edgar, who was qualified as an expert in the field of psychiatry, conducted an independent medical (psychiatric) evaluation of Respondent. Based on information provided to Dr. Edgar by School District staff, there were questions raised about Respondent's ability to safely instruct minor children and about her general mental health status. Along with the request for the evaluation, the School District provided Dr. Edgar with copies of all of Respondent's evaluations since she was employed by the School District and the February 22, May 16, and December 17, 2001, letters/reports from Ms. Saunders. For some reason, Ms. Saunders' last report dated April 18, 2002, and discussed in paragraphs 85 and 86, was not provided to Dr. Edgar. Dr. Edgar found that Respondent had normal motor activity and normal facial expressions; that she was polite and her appearance was neat; and that she was calm although anxious (which Dr. Edgar indicated was a natural reaction under the circumstances of an evaluation being ordered by her employer). He also found that Respondent's intelligence was normal, her memory was intact, her senses were good, her affect was appropriate, and there was no evidence of hallucinations. Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusions, in the "summary and recommendation" section of his report, Dr. Edgar opined, I do not feel [Respondent] is currently capable of safely instructing young children." As the basis for this conclusion, Dr. Edgar stated that when Respondent is stressed by routine events, such as constructive criticism, her ability to keep things orderly and controlled is impaired and she becomes anxious and depressed. He further stated that the combination of Respondent's "major depression and pre-existing personality disorder interfere with the usual psychological functions (i.e. judgment and problem solving ability, emotional stability, ability to conform to societal standards of behavior, interpersonal skills, integrity, responsibility, ability to cope with stressful situations, and decision making in a crisis). In the "summary and recommendation" section of Dr. Edgar's written report, he prefaces the above-quoted opinion by stating, "This summary is provisional because I have not had an opportunity to review medical records or mental health records." At the end of the report, Dr. Edgar states that "I may amend my report after reviewing the previously mentioned records." As of the date of this proceeding, Dr. Edgar had not yet reviewed any of Respondent's medical records and mental health records, although Respondent advised him that she was being treated for depression by a psychiatrist and was in counseling with a licensed mental health professional. Contrary to the School District's concern for Respondent's "competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of teaching," Dr. Edgar testified that his report made no finding that Respondent was incompetent to teach. Opinion of Gerald Mussenden, Ph.D. Dr. Gerald Mussenden was qualified as an expert in the area of psychology. On September 5 and 12, 2003, Dr. Mussenden conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Respondent to determine her overall mental functioning (i.e., whether she was mentally stable, well adjusted, and/or if she is a threat to herself or others). As part of the evaluation, Dr. Mussenden administered, among other instruments, the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, which has been developed and standardized since 1982. The Child Abuse Potential Inventory is valid in terms of content validity, construct validity, and predictive validity and is a tool used by psychologists who do testing specializing in abuse propensities. Based on the results of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory, Dr. Mussenden concluded that Respondent had no child abuse potential characteristics and was not a danger to children. Moreover, Dr. Mussenden opined that Respondent was emotionally stable, had good skills by which to relate and interact with others, and had no problems or difficulties that would endanger others around her. Dr. Mussenden's evaluation report accurately notes that at the time of the evaluation, Respondent was under the treatment of a psychiatrist and in counseling with a licensed mental health counselor. Dr. Mussenden's opinion is that this course of treatment contributed to Respondent's mental health status at the time of the evaluation. In his report, Dr. Mussenden states, "Due to their success [the psychiatrist and mental health counselor], [Respondent] is relatively well adjusted and without signs of mental difficulties." Dr. Mussenden's credible testimony was that a person can suffer from depression and still be competent to handle one's duties as a teacher. When Respondent was evaluated by Dr. Mussenden, she was taking medication for depression. The purpose of such medication is to help people suffering from depression become well-adjusted. The fact that there was no evidence that Respondent was suffering from depression during the September 2003 evaluation indicates that the medication she was taking was effective in that it masked any depression that may have been present. Dr. Mussenden saw Respondent within 60 days of the hearing and based on that visit, he did not change his opinion that Respondent posed no risk of harm to children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered that finds Respondent not guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint and dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be suspended or dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida (Board).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses the following findings of fact are made: Respondent was employed as a first grade elementary school teacher at Fulford Elementary School during the 1988-89 school year. In September, 1988, the principal at Fulford Elementary, Mrs. Pope, asked the primary education coordinator for region 2, Mrs. Neely, to perform an observation and assessment of all primary teachers at Fulford. Accordingly, Mrs. Neely observed all classrooms for grades kindergarten through three and made recommendations to the teachers and Mrs. Pope. Mrs. Neely visited respondent's classroom on several occasions and observed the Respondent's treatment of students and her teaching methods. Respondent did not follow the lesson plan for the daily lesson, did not have a schedule to specify times for subjects to be taught, and did not have a based reading program as required by the board. When Mrs Neely attempted to counsel Respondent in order to assist her to correct these deficiencies, Respondent became hostile and argumentative. During one visit Mrs. Neely observed the Respondent chasing students around the classroom. At first Mrs. Neely assumed the conduct to be a game of some type. When the conduct continued for several minutes without interruption or comment from Respondent, Mrs. Neely realized that the class was out of control and that the Respondent was unable to restore order. Consequently, Mrs. Neely took charge and got the children into their seats. When she instructed the class to get quiet, Respondent also took her chair and refused to speak. Ultimately, Mrs. Neely taught the class for the remainder of the lesson. Respondent refused to cooperate with Mrs. Neely and did not correct the deficiencies in teaching and class management which Mrs. Neely observed. During a portion of October and November, 1988, Vincent Golden was assigned to Respondent's classroom to work as a teacher's aide. During the three weeks he was with Respondent's class, Mr. Golden observed Respondent on a daily basis. Twice during this period Respondent grabbed a student named Devon by the throat to reprimand inappropriate conduct. On another occasion Respondent grabbed a female student by the hair in order to chastise the student. In a fourth incident, Mr. Golden heard the Respondent instruct students in the class to chase down another student. This chase resulted after Respondent had thrown off her own shoes, failed at catching the student within the room, and had become frustrated the student bolted from the classroom. Mrs. Pope apprehended the errant student and Respondent's posse in the halls. During the fall of 1988, Mary Williams was employed as a systems aide at Fulford Elementary. On one occasion she observed two students outside of Respondent's classroom who were unable to open the door because Respondent and a student were holding it closed from the inside. One of the students was crying hysterically and was taken to the library to calm down. On a second occasion Respondent refused to allow a new student who was handicapped into her room. Mrs. Williams went to Respondent's classroom almost everyday to ask Respondent for her reading groups. It was Ms. Williams' responsibility to enter the reading group information into the school computer. Respondent refused to provide the reading group rosters. During the fall of 1988, Charles Mixon supervised a maintenance crew at Fulford Elementary. One day while Mr. Mixon was observing a crew mowing the lawn adjacent to Respondent's room, he saw Respondent shove two students out of the classroom. Mixon then overheard Respondent tell the students to fight outside if they wished to continue. The students were then left in the hall unsupervised. On another occasion Mr. Mixon overheard the Respondent tell a teacher to kiss her backside. Mr. Mixon watched Respondent make the comment as she pulled her dress halfway up. Lossie Jordan was an exceptional education teacher at Fulford Elementary during the 1988-89 school year. On one morning Ms. Jordan was in the office copying some materials when Respondent approached her and asked her if she had a squirrel for her. When Mrs. Jordan replied in the negative and asked Respondent why she would ask that, Respondent told her that a woman had come to her house the day before to tell her to ask Mrs. Jordan that question. No further explanation was offered by Respondent. A second incident occurred when Respondent entered Mrs. Jordan's classroom to drop students of for instruction. Mrs. Jordan was in the process of showing another teacher a new blouse she had bought. Upon entering, Respondent told the students that Mrs. Jordan was a thief and that she had stolen the new blouse. A third incident arose when Respondent, Mrs. Jordan and Mrs. Forbes, another teacher, were in the workroom waiting for the copy machine. Respondent was the third to center the room and when Mrs. Forbes told her that they were ahead of her to use the machine, Respondent shoved Mrs. Forbes against Mrs. Jordan who fell against the cabinets. Respondent then left the workroom. On still another occasion, Respondent told Mrs. Jordan to kiss her backside. On October 27, 1988, Mrs. Pope called Respondent into her office for a conference for the record. Mrs. Pope was concerned about the number of incidents which had been reported regarding Respondent's conduct. Mrs. Pope had also observed Respondent's class. During one observation Mrs. Pope watched a group of students who were sitting at a back table in Respondent's class. One student pulled another student's sweater and tied it behind his back so that the student could not use his hands. Mrs. Pope mentioned the problem to Respondent who advised her that since the student had gotten himself into the situation he would have to get himself out of it. On other occasions Mrs. Pope observed Respondent chasing students around the classroom. Respondent failed to properly supervise students in her classroom. As a result, Mrs. Pope was required to return students to Respondent's room after they wandered out into the school halls. Another unsupervised student got her arm caught in a chair and was brought to Mrs. Pope who had to contact Fire Rescue to release the child's arm. On November 2, 1988, Mrs. Pope directed Respondent to come to the office for a conference with a parent regarding allegations the parent's child had made. Respondent refused to meet with the parent. After directives from Mrs. Pope not to lock her classroom door, Respondent locked her door. After directing Respondent not to leave her class unsupervised, Mrs. Pope found Respondent's class unsupervised at least four times. Respondent had physical contact with students to administer discipline after Mrs. Pope directed her to refrain from such conduct. Respondent refused to accept a handicapped student after Mrs. Pope directed her to admit the child into her class. Following a number of the incidents described above, parents asked Mrs. Pope to remove their children from Respondent's class. Respondent's effectiveness was impaired by her behavior and her failure to properly supervise and instruct her class. Mrs. Pope directed Respondent to an employee assistance program. Ultimately, following a conference with Dr. Monroe, Dr. Poiret, a psychiatrist, performed a psychological assessment of Respondent. Following interviews with Respondent on November 22, 1988 and December 1, 1988, Dr. Poiret determined Respondent was not medically fit to carry out her assigned responsibilities. Consequently, Respondent was relieved of her teaching duties and spent the remainder of the school year on leave. During the leave Respondent was to undergo individual psychotherapy on at least a weekly basis and to have a complete physical examination. Later, Dr. Monroe requested that Respondent submit documentation regarding her psychotherapy Respondent did not do so. In August, 1989, Dr. Poiret met with Respondent again to evaluate her ability to return to the classroom. As in the prior instances, Respondent continued to be hostile, noticeably irritable and angry. Since she had made no significant improvement, Dr. Poiret determined Respondent was not medically fit to discharge her teaching duties due to a lack of emotional stability. Respondent repeatedly demonstrated a failure to effectively and efficiently manage the behavior of students assigned to her classroom. She failed to provide a curriculum of education to the students in her class, failed to communicate appropriately with her peer teachers and administrators who attempted to assist her, and failed to carry out her professional1 duties. As a result, Respondent's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously impaired. Respondent failed to take corrective measures to amend her deficiencies, failed to obey reasonable instructions given to her by the principal, and failed to present documentary evidence of her successful completion of therapy required to rehabilitate her for classroom duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from her employment with the public school district. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-7035 PETITIONER: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraphs 2 and 3 rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 4 and 6 accepted as addressed in paragraph 8, otherwise rejected as irrelevant or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 12 is accepted. As addressed in paragraph 5, paragraphs 13 through 15 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Except as addressed in paragraph 9, paragraph 16 is rejected as hearsay. Except as addressed in paragraphs 2 through 4, paragraphs 17,18, and 19 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 21 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. The first six sentences of Paragraph 23 are accepted. The balance is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 24 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 26 is accepted to the extent addressed in paragraph 6; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, recitation of testimony or argumentative. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 31 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Todate, Respondent has not submitted written or other evidences from a treating physician which would establish she is medically able to return to the classroom. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Irma Annette Butler Lowe 17350 N.W. 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent should be denied issuance of a new professional service contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, on the grounds asserted in the Consolidated Specific Notice of Charges filed in these consolidated cases? If not, whether Respondent's employment with the Dade County School Board should be terminated pursuant to the Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes, on the grounds asserted in the Consolidated Specific Notice of Charges filed in these consolidated cases?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made to supplement the facts to which the parties have stipulated: Respondent is 63 years of age. She is an English teacher by profession. She has been teaching since 1972, the year she graduated from the University of Maryland. Prior to her employment with the Board, she held various teaching positions in the States of Maryland and New Jersey and also taught at several private schools in Dade County, Florida. Respondent's employment with the Board began in 1985. For the entire period of her employment with the Board, she was assigned to Miami Carol City High School (hereinafter referred to as "Carol City"), where she taught English. Following the successful completion of her probationary period, Respondent was issued a professional service contract by the Board. The 1989-90 School Year In accordance with the Board's Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS), school principals and their designees have the authority to formally observe and evaluate teachers at their school and to prescribe remedial activities designed to improve the teacher's performance. The categories of classroom performance that are assessed are preparation/planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and assessment techniques. Under TADS, a teacher is also rated in a seventh area, that of professional responsibility, which encompasses matters that go beyond the teacher's performance in the classroom. On November 3, 1989, Respondent was formally observed and evaluated by Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, an assistant principal at Carol City. Before becoming an assistant principal, O'Donnell had been a language arts regional coordinator for the Board and an English teacher. O'Donnell rated Respondent deficient in preparation/planning, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. O'Donnell prescribed the following remedial activities for Respondent: Ms. Pollack will submit her weekly lesson plans for each preparation by noon each Friday (or the last working day of the week) to Dr. O'Donnell. In weekly plans, Ms. Pollack will use a variety of methods designed to motivate students. In addition to lecture and questioning, she will use group work projects, student presentations, etc. She will denote in her weekly plans the method(s) to be used each day. Ms. Pollack will include supplemental materials at least two times each week. These aids will be clearly labeled in her plans. Ms. Pollack will assign, collect, grade and enter in her gradebook at least two grades per student per week. 2/ One assignment will be a Writing Enhancement product and the other will be a quiz or test related to literature or an oral presentation. Ms. Pollack will submit her gradebook to Dr. O'Donnell each Friday for review. Ms. Pollack will develop a unit test which includes a variety of test items. She will submit to Dr. O'Donnell for review prior to administering to students. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that O'Donnell had observed during her November 3, 1989, observation. Respondent was again formally observed and evaluated by O'Donnell on April 23, 1990. She was rated acceptable in all six classroom performance categories. It was therefore determined that Respondent had corrected the performance deficiencies noted by O'Donnell during her November 3, 1989, observation. The 1990-91 School Year O'Donnell next formally observed and evaluated Respondent on October 4, 1990. She rated Respondent deficient in preparation/planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Respondent did not follow her lesson plan. She presented ideas and information to the students in a disorganized and illogical manner without the use of supplemental materials which would enhanced the lesson. Students were obviously confused and did not understand the lesson, but Respondent made no adjustments to try to alleviate such confusion and lack of understanding. Adding to the students' confusion was Respondent's failure to indicate whether their responses to her questions were correct or incorrect. Many of the questions Respondent asked were not pertinent to the lesson. There was no closure to the lesson. The students' writing enhancement folders did not contain the requisite number of corrected and graded compositions. Although Respondent's gradebook indicated that she had given the students one test and two quizzes, the students' folders did not contain any evidence that this test and these quizzes had been given. 3/ Neither did O'Donnell see any indication that the students had evaluated their own or each other's work. O'Donnell prescribed the following remedial activities for Respondent: Ms. Pollack will submit her lesson plans to her department head by 2:30 p.m. each Friday. In the event of her department head's absence, she will submit her plans directly to Dr. O'Donnell. In the event of Ms. Pollack's absence, she will submit her lesson plans by 2:30 p.m. of the day of her return to work. On her weekly plans, Ms. Pollack will list, in order, the specific activities to be accomplished each day. In addition, she will estimate the time each activity will require and note that on the plan next to the activity. In her weekly plans, Ms. Pollack will briefly explain the connection of objectives to activities each day. Ms. Pollack will review information regarding questioning skills provided by Dr. O'Donnell. She will prepare a list of questions to be asked in a teacher selected lesson. Ms. Pollack will review the questions with Dr. O'Donnell prior to the lesson's delivery. Ms. Pollack will observe two mutually selected language arts teachers for one full class period each. She will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a list of techniques (at least 3) each teacher used to: a- measure students' understanding of a lesson b- deal with students' lack of understanding. Ms. Pollack will develop or use commercially prepared supplementary material at least two times per week. She will note the use in her lesson plans and provide a copy of all supplementary material to Dr. O'Donnell at the same time she submits her lesson plans. In her observations of other language arts teachers Ms. Pollack will note and list words used by these teachers when students answer incorrectly. She will review this with Dr. O'Donnell at a scheduled conference. In a meeting with the department head, they will discuss how the teacher can make suggestions to learners regarding improving their performance while maintaining positive feelings within the classroom. Ms. Pollack will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a list of at least three methods developed in conjunction with the department head. In her meeting with the department head, Ms. Pollack will discuss what to look for in order to determine if adjustments to a lesson are needed. She will also discuss appropriate adjustments that can be made. Ms. Pollack will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a list of at least three signals that lesson adjustments are needed and three appropriate adjustments the teacher can make for those signals. In her observation of other language arts teachers, Ms. Pollack will note how the teacher prepares student's for the day's lesson. Ms. Pollack will summarize this information and provide it in written form to Dr. O'Donnell. In her weekly lesson plans, Ms. Pollack will number the exact order in which she will present each topic activity. Ms. Pollack will include on her weekly plans each day's closure activity/statement. Ms. Pollack will provide one class set of the Writing Enhancement assignment to Dr. O'Donnell each Monday by 9 a.m. Dr. O'Donnell will notify Ms. Pollack by note in her mailbox by 7 a.m. each Monday which class set she will review that week. Papers must be available for at least 85% of the students in the class and there must be teacher input on each paper. Ms. Pollack will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a note regarding type of grading used- holistic, primary trait, intensive, etc. She will vary the type of grading criteria. The list of questions that Ms. Pollack will provide will include a notation regarding the level of each question based on Bloom's Taxonomy. The teacher will provide at least one opportunity per week for students to evaluate their own or each other's performance. Ms. Pollack will note when the opportunity takes place on her lesson plans. Ms. Pollack will develop a unit test for students. She will review it with the department head before administering to students. She will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a copy of the test and a scoring analysis within three days of the test's administration. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that O'Donnell had observed during her October 4, 1990, observation. By memorandum dated October 30, 1990, James Hunt, the principal of Carol City, referred Respondent to the Board's Employee Assistance Program. The referral was made after Respondent had been involved in an altercation with a student in one of her classes and the student's parent. Hunt believed that Respondent had exercised poor judgment in handling the situation. Upon learning of the referral, Respondent conceded that she was having a difficult and stressful time in attempting to deal with the students in this particular class. After attending one Employee Assistance Program meeting, Respondent declined to further participate in the program. On November 30, 1990, Hunt formally observed and evaluated Respondent. He rated Respondent acceptable in all six classroom performance categories. During his November 30, 1990, observation Hunt examined neither Respondent's gradebook nor the students' folders. He subsequently conducted such an examination and discovered that the gradebook and the folders were incomplete. On December 7, 1990, Hunt held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. Following the conclusion of the conference-for-the-record, Hunt prepared the following memorandum which accurately summarized what had occurred during the conference: On December 7th a mid-year Conference-for-the- Record was held in my office. Present at the conference were Thomasina O'Donnell, Assistant Principal, Ron Pollack, UTD Steward, you and I. I began by asking you if you had received notification. You replied that you had. I explained the purpose of this mid-year Conference-for the-Record. We will review your performance to date and your future employment with Dade County Public Schools. Your first observation was conducted by Dr. O'Donnell on October 4th [and] you were found unacceptable in Categories I [preparation/planning], II [knowledge of subject matter], IV [techniques of instruction], and VI [assessment techniques]. You were placed in prescriptive mode. You met your timelines and satisfied your prescription. I conducted a second observation on November 30th. You were acceptable in Categories I through VI. However, you were placed in the prescriptive mode for Category VII [professional responsibility] due to your non-compliance with the Jack Gordon Writing Act. Also, the summative of observation 1 and 2 yields an unacceptable summative. Therefore, at least one more observation will be required. It is our intent to assist you in every way possible. You have been provided with information about the Gordon Act and as part of your prescription you are to meet with Dr. O'Donnell to review all aspects of it. I reviewed the fact that as schools are held accountable for class size, 4/ teachers are held accountable for student writing products. Respondent was next formally observed and evaluated on February 21, 1991. O'Donnell was the observer and evaluator. She rated Respondent deficient in preparation/planning, classroom management and assessment techniques. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. The lesson plan was not followed. Almost one half of the period was used, not for instruction, but for "housekeeping" matters, such as taking roll and having the students "update" their folders and copy the day's "agenda" from the board. The students' writing enhancement folders did not contain the requisite number of corrected and graded compositions. There were no graded tests in any of the students' folders. O'Donnell prescribed the following remedial activities for Respondent: Using the packet of information provided by Dr. O'Donnell, Ms. Pollack will write appropriate daily objectives for the weekly lesson plans. She will provide her weekly plans to Dr. O'Donnell each Friday by 2:30 p.m. Ms. Pollack will place the plans in Dr. O'Donnell's mailbox in the main office. In the event of Ms. Pollack's absence she will submit her plans by 7:15 a.m. of the day of her return. In her weekly plans Ms. Pollack will include an estimate of the time for each activity for each day. She will limit folder maintenance or any similar "housekeeping" task to no more than 5 minutes at the beginning or end of the period. After the last class each day, Ms. Pollack will review [her] written plan. She will mentally review the degree to which she followed all [the] plan. She will adjust her plan for the next day as needed. She will invite a colleague to observe one full class period. She will provide the colleague with her lesson plan. After the class she will discuss the extent to which she followed the plan. The colleague will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a brief written description of the observed lesson. Ms. Pollack will include in her daily plans a brief written instructional activity to begin each day. Ms. Pollack will submit to Dr. O'Donnell two different sets of graded paper[s] per week, not including the writing enhancement assignment. She will post in her gradebook at least three (3) grades per week. One grade must be a composition, another must be a quiz/test (at least 10 questions) based on literature and the third grade will be of Ms. Pollack's choosing. Ms. Pollack will submit her grade book to Dr. O'Donnell for review each Friday by 2:45 p.m. Additionally, Ms. Pollack will develop and, after clearing with Dr. O'Donnell, administer a unit test. The unit test will contain multiple-choice, matching, true-false and essay questions. This unit test will contain at least 30 questions. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that O'Donnell had observed during her February 21, 1991, observation. On April 17, 1991, the Superintendent of Schools sent Respondent a letter which read as follows: This is your official notification that I have reviewed your assessments and I am hereby charging you with unsatisfactory performance during the 1990-91 school year in the following categories: I Preparation and Planning and VI Assessment Techniques. These performance deficiencies may result in termination of your employment if not corrected prior to April 1, 1992. Upon written request, a meeting will be scheduled with Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director, in the Office of Professional Standards to review the determination of your unsatisfactory performance. That meeting will also address your statutory entitlement to request consideration of transfer. Assessment of your performance will continue through the balance of this school year, and the Office of Professional Standards will continue to monitor your progress during the 1991-92 school year. On May 24, 1991, Hunt held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to review her performance and her future employment with the Board. During the conference, Hunt advised Respondent that she would be receiving an overall rating of unacceptable on her annual evaluation and that she would have the following year to attempt to improve her performance. Respondent received her annual evaluation for the 1990-91 school year on May 31, 1991. She was rated unacceptable in the categories of preparation/planning, classroom management and assessment techniques and, as promised, she received an overall rating of unacceptable. Respondent believed that she had been treated unfairly at Carol City, particularly by O'Donnell. 5/ She therefore asked her collective bargaining representative, the Untied Teachers of Dade, to request a transfer for her, which it did. The request was denied because the Board determined that it was not administratively feasible to transfer Respondent to another school given the glut of high school English teachers in the school system. The Board, however, agreed that during the 1991-92 school year Respondent would be formally observed and evaluated by as many non-site administrators as possible. It also reassigned her to teach ninth grade, an assignment which involved less paperwork. The 1991-92 School Year Respondent remained at Carol City during the 1991-92 school year. The first formal observation and evaluation of Respondent's classroom performance that year was conducted on October 8, 1991, by Dr. Judith Margulies, an assistant principal at Miami Edison High School. Margulies, like O'Donnell, had been a language arts regional coordinator for the Board and an English teacher before becoming an assistant principal. Margulies rated Respondent deficient in classroom management and techniques of instruction. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Respondent did not appropriately address off-task behavior, of which there was a considerable amount. Some of the few students who expressed an interest in actively participating in the lesson by raising their hands were totally ignored by Respondent. Respondent gave unclear and confusing instructions to her students that she simply repeated and failed to clarify when it should have been obvious to her that the students did not understand what she wanted them to do. Repeating these instructions unnecessarily wasted valuable instructional time. By the end of the class period, Respondent had not gotten done what, according to her lesson plan, she had hoped to accomplish. Margulies met with Respondent after the end of the class period and discussed with her the deficiencies she had noted. She also prescribed the following remedial activities for Respondent: Ms. Pollack will develop a set of classroom rules, review them with Dr. O'Donnell and post conspicuously in her classroom. Also, she will give individual copies to all students. Dr. O'Donnell will make all arrangements for Ms. Pollack to observe a 9th grade teacher at MESH [Miami Edison Senior High] for one entire class period. Before leaving MESH, Ms. Pollack will discuss what she has observed with the teacher. She will list at least 5 techniques the teacher used to address off task behavior. She will also describe at l[e]ast two methods the teacher employed to redirect students who were off task. Ms. Pollack will meet with Dr. O'Donnell to review the observation within 3 days of the observation. Ms. Pollack will observe one of Ms. Baum's [a fellow English teacher's] class for one entire period; she will look for and list 3 techniques Ms. Baum used to either prevent or redirect inappropriate student behavior. Within 48 hours of the observation, Ms. Pollack will meet with Ms. Baum to discuss the observation. Ms. Pollack will also schedule a meeting with Dr. O'Donnell to review the list and the discussion with Ms. Baum. Dr. O'Donnell will make all necessary arrangements. Ms. Pollack will register for and successfully complete the TEC Course "Classroom Management" to be held as follows: . . . Ms. Pollack will develop a detailed lesson plan for each of the following dates: Oct. 23 and 30. She will submit her plans to Dr. O'Donnell the Friday previous to those dates by 3:00 p.m. The plans must include the production of a completed student work product. Ms. Pollack will attach to her plans an example or model of the product she expects from her students. While observing Ms. Baum's class and/or through the follow-up discussion, Ms. Pollack will determine and list at least 3 techniques Ms. Baum employs to be aware of all students. Ms. Pollack will provide this list to Dr. O'Donnell. Ms. Pollack will plan one day's lesson specifically for group work. She will ask a colleague to observe her teach a class. They will discuss the observation. The teacher will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a brief written summary of the activities and discussion. Dr. O'Donnell will make all arrangements. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that Margulies had observed during her October 8, 1991, observation. Two or three days following the observation, Margulies met briefly with Respondent to discuss the prescription. On November 4, 1991, Hunt held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to review her failure to timely comply with prescription deadlines, which also had been the subject of an informal conference he and Respondent had had the previous month. Following this conference-for-the-record, Hunt determined that Respondent was "in violation of Category VII of TADS, Professional Responsibilities." He so advised Respondent and indicated he would be preparing and presenting to her an additional prescription dealing with this violation. Hunt warned that "[f]ailure to comply with this prescription will result in further disciplinary action." The prescription was prepared and presented to Respondent on or about November 12, 1991. It set forth the following remedial activities for Respondent to perform: Read the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (6B-1.01) and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida (6B-1.06) [copies of which were provided to Respondent]. Delineate applicable sections and submit a summary to Dr. O'Donnell for review and discussion. Read the UTD Contract sections relating to TADS. Outline these procedures and submit to Dr. O'Donnell. Ms. Pollack is directed to meet all remaining timelines of her current prescription. In the event of any additional prescriptions, she is also directed to meet all timelines. Respondent was next formally observed and evaluated on November 19, 1991, by Charles Houghton, a site administrator at another Board-run facility. Before assuming this position, Houghton, like O'Donnell and Margulies, had been a language arts regional coordinator for the Board and an English teacher. Houghton rated Respondent deficient in preparation/planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Respondent did not follow her lesson plan. The entire period was consumed by only one of the four activities identified in the plan. This lone activity was simply to review material that had already been covered during a prior class period. What was identified in the plan as the lesson's objective was in reality an activity. Moreover, it was an activity that the students did not have the opportunity to complete. Although knowledgeable regarding the subject matter of the lesson, she was unable to impart her knowledge to her students. She failed to make the topic under discussion relevant to the students. Respondent did not ask questions that were sufficiently challenging. Most of the students were inattentive and not involved in whatever instruction was taking place. Respondent made no effort to draw them into the lesson. Almost all of the grades in Respondent's grade book were for classwork. There were very few grades for tests, quizzes or writing assignments. Of the student folders Houghton examined, none contained more than two graded assignments. The folders consisted primarily of written classroom assignments that involved merely copying on a piece of paper material that was on the blackboard. The students had already received their report cards for the first nine-week grading period of the school year, but the folders did not contain sufficient documentation to substantiate the grades she had given. The remedial activities Houghton prescribed for Respondent included the following: Ms. Pollack will keep a daily log in which she will note the degree to which she accomplishes the activities she had planned according to her prepared lesson plan. She will submit the log and the weekly lesson plan on each Monday for the previous week to Dr. O'Donnell. In her weekly lesson plans, Ms. Pollack will develop at least 3 activities with direct relevance to students' lives or interests. She will clearly identify these activities in her plans. She will submit her weekly lesson plans to Dr. O'Donnell each Friday, before 3:00 p.m. Ms. Pollack will review the packet of information concerning question strategies previously provided. She will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a list of at least 5 advantages to pre-planning questions and at least 4 advantages to asking questions at higher cognitive levels. Ms. Pollack will arrange for the Region I Language Arts coordinator to observe informally at least one full class period. Ms. Granat will provide feedback to Ms. Pollack concerning the students' understanding of the lesson concepts. She will also provide Ms. Pollack with feedback regarding how closely she followed her planned lesson and any adjustments made on any which should have been made. Ms. Granat will also provide written feedback to Ms. Pollack and Dr. O'Donnell. Ms. Pollack will assign, collect and grade at least 3 student assignments each week in all of her classes. One assignment must be a literature quiz/test, one must be a writing assignment of at least one paragraph and the third will be the teacher's choice. Each Monday during 1st period Ms. Pollack will present the student work and her gradebook in order to determine that the grades have been posted. Dr. O'Donnell will select one class each Monday for examination. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that Houghton had observed during his November 19, 1991, observation. Houghton had a post-observation meeting with Respondent at which he went over the prescription with her. On December 6, 1991, Hunt had a mid-year conference-for-the-record with Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review Respondent's performance to date and the status of her future employment with the Board. Hunt reminded Respondent that if her performance, as measured by formal observations and evaluations, did not improve sufficiently, she would not be retained. Two union representatives were also in attendance at the conference. Hunt gave them permission to informally observe Respondent so that they would be in a better position to assist her. He also offered Respondent the opportunity to solicit assistance from any Board employee in whom she had confidence, regardless of whether the employee had been identified as a resource in any of the prescriptions she had received. Respondent was next formally observed and evaluated on February 7, 1992, by Dr. Matthew Welker, an assistant principal at Carol City. Welker rated Respondent deficient in preparation/planning, classroom management and teacher-student relationships. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Respondent did not follow the lesson plan. The students spent a significant amount of time copying the day's agenda from the blackboard. The agenda written on the blackboard was not consistent with the lesson plan. Respondent arrived late to class and therefore did not have a full period in which to instruct her students. The time she did have to provide instruction she did not use efficiently. An excessive amount of time was spent on "housekeeping" tasks. Of the 20 students in attendance that day, 6/ six were persistently off-task. Respondent made no real effort to prevent or to redirect their off- task behavior or to involve them in the lesson. Most of Respondent's interactional time during the lesson was spent with only six or seven students located on the right side of the classroom. Respondent made no attempt to verbally or nonverbally reward or recognize the students who did actively and appropriately participate in the lesson. Welker prescribed the following remedial activities for Respondent: Ms. Pollack will maintain a daily log indicating the degree to which she has accomplished the activities described in her weekly lesson plan. Ms. Pollack will also indicate in writing any changes she has made to align her actual lessons during the week with her weekly lesson plan. Ms. Pollack will submit these materials along with her weekly lesson plan to Dr. Welker for review and discussion on Monday of the following week . . . . Ms. Pollack will invite one of her colleagues or the Language Arts Department chairperson to observe her class. During that time the visitor is to record the time she spends on various activities while in class. Using the record prepared by the visitor, Ms. Pollack will then analyze her instruction on the basis of how much time she spends on instructional versus noninstructional activities. Once that information is known, Ms. Pollack will develop a strategy to reduce her percentage of noninstructional time while in class. This strategy will take the form of detailed lesson plans that indicate how Ms. Pollack is using time in her classroom. Ms. Pollack will submit her lesson plan to Dr. Welker for review and discussion on each Monday within the timeline established herein [March 30, 1992]. Ms. Pollack will invite one of her colleagues or the Language Arts Department chairperson to observe her class. During that time, the visitor is to record the frequency of off-task behavior observed in her class. Using the record prepared by the visitor, Ms. Pollack will then analyze her instruction and planning to formulate a plan to significantly reduce the frequency of off-task behavior observed. This strategy will take the form of detailed lesson plans that Ms. Pollack will submit to Dr. Welker for review and discussion on each Monday within the timeline established herein [March 30, 1992]. Ms. Pollack will invite a colleague or the Language Arts Department chairperson to observe her class in order to determine the frequency and distribution of verbal communication she makes with students in the classroom. Once that information has been recorded, Ms. Pollack will analyze the data and develop a treatment strategy to increase the frequency and distribution of her verbal communication with students in her classroom by at least 50 percent. Ms. Pollack will submit in writing to Dr. Welker for review and discussion the following information: Pretreatment interactional analysis showing both frequency and distribution of verbal student contact Treatment strategy to increase both frequency and distribution of verbal student contact during class. Posttreatment interactional analysis showing both frequency and distribution of verbal student contact. Ms. Pollack will make a tape recording of herself teaching a lesson involving interaction with students. Once the recording has been prepared, Ms. Pollack will play back the tape and record the frequency of reinforcement statements made to the students. She will also analyze her verbal statements to determine the total number of positive and negative reinforcement statements made during the class. She will then develop a treatment plan to increase the frequency of positive reinforcement by 50 percent. Ms. Pollack will submit in writing to Dr. Welker for review and discussion the following information: Pretreatment interactional analysis showing the total number of positive and negative reinforcement statements made toward students in your class Treatment strategy to increase the number of positive reinforcement statements while decreasing the number of negative reinforcement statements made toward students in your class Posttreatment interactional analysis showing the total number of positive and negative reinforcement statements made toward students in your class. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that Welker had observed during his February 7, 1992, observation. Welker also provided Respondent with excerpts from a book that he recommended Respondent read to help improve her classroom performance. Hunt had another conference-for-the-record with Respondent on March 4, 1992. Hunt advised Respondent that since she had not corrected her performance deficiencies, he was going to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that her professional service teaching contract not be renewed. He added, however, that he would reconsider his decision if Respondent "demonstrate[d] acceptable performance in the near future." Although, in explaining his decision to Respondent, Hunt specifically mentioned only the formal evaluations Respondent had received, 7/ informal observations of Respondent's classes revealed similar deficiencies in her performance. Perhaps the most glaring of these deficiencies was in the area of classroom management. Administrators often had to be called to her classroom because she was unable to maintain control over her students. 8/ Respondent's inability to maintain such control resulted in a classroom environment that not only was not conducive to learning, but at times was unsafe. 9/ Respondent was provided ample assistance to help her perform satisfactorily as a classroom teacher, but such help was to no avail. Notwithstanding that she was given notice of her deficiencies and a reasonable opportunity to correct them, her performance remained unacceptable. Some time shortly after his March 4, 1992, conference-for-the-record with Respondent, Hunt submitted to the Superintendent of Schools his recommendation that the Board decline to renew Respondent's contract. The Superintendent, without providing any notice to Respondent, submitted an identical recommendation to the Board. On April 22, 1992, the Board adopted the Superintendent's recommendation. The following day Respondent was formally observed and evaluated by O'Donnell and Jean McCauley. At the time, McCauley was the principal of Redland Middle School. Like O'Donnell, she had a language arts background. This was an external review. External reviews are conducted jointly by a site and non-site administrator in instances where a teacher has received multiple unacceptable performance evaluations. The administrators rate the teacher's performance independently and, if there are deficiencies, prepare a prescription together. Both O'Donnell and McCauley rated Respondent deficient in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. These unsatisfactory ratings were justified. Although the lesson could have benefited from the use of supplemental materials, none were used. The lesson was presented in an illogical and disorganized fashion at the lowest cognitive level. No critical thinking or synthesis of ideas was required of the students. Respondent's instructional methods were clearly inappropriate for the needs and abilities of the students. Different learning styles were not accommodated. Respondent did not monitor the students' understanding of the lesson. Respondent did not interact with any individual student notwithstanding that there were only 12 students in attendance. Respondent made no adjustments although it was obvious that the students were not taking part in the lesson. Respondent did not intervene when students engaged in off-task, inappropriate or disruptive behavior. During the lesson, the students did no written work for Respondent to examine and assess. Because of the ill-suited nature of the questions asked by Respondent during the lesson, the responses given were not useful in providing student assessments. There were no grades in the gradebook, nor were there any student folders available, for the class Respondent was teaching that period. Respondent presented two student folders from another of her classes. These folders did not contain the materials they should have. They were devoid of any quizzes, tests and essays. O'Donnell and McCauley prescribed the following remedial activities for Respondent: Ms. Pollack will submit her weekly lesson plans to Dr. O'Donnell by 2:30 p.m. each Friday. In the event of Ms. Pollack's absence, she will submit her plans by 2:30 p.m. of the day of her return. Her plans are to include a list, in order, of specific activities to be accomplished each day. In addition, she will estimate the time each activity will require and note that in the plan. In her weekly plans, Ms. Pollack will briefly explain the connection of objectives to activities each day. She will plan at least 2 separate but related activities each day. Ms. Pollack will review the packet of Questioning Techniques information previously presented to her. Using that information she will develop at least 5 higher level question[s], she will attach the questions to her lesson plans and meet with Dr. O'Donnell to review and discuss. Ms. Pollack will observe a mutually selected colleague for one free class period. She will note how the teacher makes clear his/her behavior expectations. She will present a list of at least 5 observed techniques to Dr. O'Donnell for review and discussion. During the observation of a colleague, Ms. Pollack will also note techniques the teacher employs to provide students with feedback about appropriate or inappropriate behavior. She will present this list to Dr. O'Donnell for review and discussion. During the observation and through discussion with her colleague, Ms. Pollack will note at least 5 techniques employed by her colleague to become aware of off-task student behavior. She will present this list to Dr. Welker for review and discussion. Ms. Pollack is to register for and attend the TEC course "Research on Student Motivation." The class dates are 5/13, 5/19, 5/27. Ms. Pollack will use commercially prepared supplementary material at least two times per week. She will attach copies of the supplementary material (or see Dr. O'Donnell if it cannot be attached to the submitted lesson plans) to the weekly lesson plans. While observing a colleague's class, Ms. Pollack will note at least 3 instances where the teacher corrects a student's incorrect response. Ms. Pollack will briefly describe in written form and present to Dr. O'Donnell for review and discussion. Ms. Pollack will meet with a mutually agreed upon colleague. She will discuss what to look for in order to determine if adjustments to the lesson are needed. She will also discuss appropriate adjustments that can be made. Ms. Pollack will provide Dr. O'Donnell with a list of at least 3 signals that lesson adjustments are needed and 3 appropriate adjustments a teacher can make. Ms. Pollack will invite a mutually agreed colleague to observe her teach a lesson. She will ask the colleague to keep a tally of interactions between her and individual students. Ms. Pollack will discuss this with her colleague and present the tally sheet to Dr. O'Donnell. Ms. Pollack will prepare and give a short quiz at least 2 times per week to determine areas of student confusion. She will make these available for review by Dr. O'Donnell. Ms. Pollack will assign, collect, grade and post in her gradebook at least 3 assignments per week. At least one of these must be a literature quiz/test, one must be a writing assignment of at lest one paragraph and the third is the teacher's choice. Every Monday Ms. Pollack must meet with Dr. O'Donnell to present the student work and her gradebook for review. Ms. Pollack is to report to Dr. O'Donnell's office at 7:45 a.m. In her weekly plans, Ms. Pollack must plan at least one activity that requires students to work together.. Ms. Pollack is to prepare a unit test for Call to the Wild and present it for review to Dr. O'Donnell before giving it to students. Ms. Pollack is to make and keep a student folder for each of her students. The folder must contain a representative sample of the student's work. Ms. Pollack is to submit a class set of these folders to Dr. O'Donnell for review. These prescribed activities were reasonably designed to help Respondent correct the performance deficiencies that O'Donnell and McCauley had observed during their April 23, 1992, observation. On May 20, 1992, Hunt had another conference-for-the-record with Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review Respondent's performance to date and her employment status. Hunt informed Respondent during the conference that, inasmuch as her performance remained unacceptable, as reflected by O'Donnell's and McCauley's evaluation, his recommendation to the Superintendent that her professional service teaching contract not be renewed would stand. (He apparently was unaware, as was Respondent, that the Board had already taken action on the matter.) Hunt further advised Respondent that she would be receiving an overall unacceptable rating on her annual evaluation for the 1991-92 school year. Although the Board had acted on the Superintendent's recommendation not to renew Respondent's professional service teaching contract on April 22, 1992, it was not until May 26, 1992, that the Superintendent sent Respondent a letter notifying her of the Board's action. The letter read as follows: This is your official notification that on April 22, 1992, The School Board of Dade County, Florida, acted upon my recommendation to withhold authorization for your future employment beyond the 1991-92 contract year. On April 17, 1991, I notified you that you had unsatisfactory performance and if no remediation were determined by April 1992, termination actions will be pursued. During the 1991-92 school [year], your performance was assessed deficient despite remediation efforts. You have been apprised of the deficiencies and subsequent employment actions in conferences-for-the-record on November 4, 1991, December 6, 1991, and March 4, 1992. Your employment with the Dade County Public Schools will terminate at the close of the 1991-92 contract year, and your last day of employment will be June 19, 1992. If you wish to contest your nonreappointment, you have fifteen calendar days from your receipt of this notice to request, in writing, a hearing. The written request for a hearing should be submitted to the School Board Clerk, Room 317, 1450 N.E. Second Avenue, Miami, Florida 33132. If you believe there is false information in your file which led to this decision, and wish to challenge this information, you should follow the procedures in Article XIV, Section 1.A.4 of the UTD collective bargaining agreement. Your written request must identify the false statements you wish cleared and should be addressed to the Assistant Superintendent, Office of Professional Standards, 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215, Miami, Florida 33132, within fifteen calendar days of your receipt of this notice. Please be advised that even if you should prevail, there is no entitlement to reemployment. Respondent received her annual evaluation for the 1990-91 school year on or about May 29, 1992. She was rated unacceptable in the categories of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques and, as promised, she received an overall rating of unacceptable. In addition, the evaluation indicated that Hunt had not recommended her for further employment. By letter dated June 3, 1992, Respondent, through her attorney, requested a "Chapter 120 Administrative Hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings" on the nonrenewal of her professional service teaching contract. Pursuant to Respondent's request the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer on June 9, 1992. Following the close of the school year, Respondent was placed in a suspended-without-pay status pending the outcome of this administrative proceeding, notwithstanding that her professional service teaching contract had not been renewed. On July 22, 1992, the Board took action to formally suspend Respondent and initiate proceedings to dismiss her "for incompetency, just cause and gross insubordination." Respondent was advised of the Board's action and her right to request a hearing on the matter by a letter, dated July 23, 1992, from the Superintendent of Schools. Such a hearing was requested and the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer on July 27, 1992.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order (1) adopting the recommendation that Respondent not be issued a new professional service teaching contract, and (2) dismissing as moot the charges filed against Respondent pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of March, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 8th day of March, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 097813, Rank II, Post Graduate, valid through June 30, 1987, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Art Education, Early Child Education, Reading and Junior College. During the 1976-1977 school year Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher at Astoria Park Elementary School in Leon County, Florida. Petitioner received a suggestion of Respondent's incompetence from school officials in Leon County, Florida, on October 14, 1977, and pursuant to the authority contained in Rule 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, a professional inquiry into the allegation of Respondent's incompetence was conducted. On July 10, 1979, a report was submitted to the Executive Committee of Respondent which recommended that the Commissioner of Education find probable cause to believe that Respondent was guilty of acts constituting grounds for revocation or suspension of her teaching certificate. Pursuant to that recommendation, probable cause was found by the Commissioner on July 13, 1979. The filing of a petition seeking revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate was thereupon directed. On October 5, 1976, Respondent neglected to provide adequate or competent instructional plans for a substitute teacher, even though she had previously been advised by her principal that her absence from her classroom would be necessitated by a professional workshop; that a substitute would be required to conduct her classes; and that instructional plans for substitutes were essential to the accomplishment of the educational goals during her absence. On January 6, 1977, Respondent was warned in writing by her principal that, in accordance with school policy, adequate lesson plans for substitute teachers were necessary in order to insure a continued movement toward instructional goals for her students. Notwithstanding this warning, however, Respondent, during an absence necessitated by illness from January 31, 1977 through February 4, 1977, failed to leave adequate or comprehensible lesson plans and procedures for a substitute teacher. In fact, on various of the days during this time, no lesson plans whatever were left. On December 1, 1976, Respondent failed to deploy audio-visual equipment in a manner in which it could be heard by her class, failed to adequately explain the content of the material presented, and failed to use the equipment in a manner calculated to adequately instruct her students. During this same lesson, Respondent failed to utilize adequate techniques for the management of the behavior of her students, resulting in student behavior which interfered with instruction of her students. During the 1976-1977 school year, Respondent consistently maintained charts and visual teaching aids in her classroom in a disorganized and illogical manner, demonstrated poor enunciation and a lack of plural/singular distinction in the pronunciation of words, demonstrated incorrect letter formation and a lack of continuity of lessons from one day to the next. In addition, at various times during the 1976-1977 school year, in the process of grading and evaluating her class's test papers, homework and standardized test results, Respondent failed to accurately and adequately grade, evaluate and analyze her students' performance. As a result of Respondent's failure in this regard, her students were not properly advised of whether the tasks they had undertaken to learn were adequately understood, and were thus potentially permitted to retain inaccurate concepts of basic skills. Throughout academic year 1976-1977, Respondent consistently failed to utilize available instructional materials and equipment, such as student handouts, mimeograph materials and bulletin boards, in a manner calculated to accomplish the tasks for which those instructional aids were designed. In the use of such instructional aids, Respondent consistently misspelled words, used illegible manuscript, misused words and grammar, passed out sloppily prepared materials, and in general failed to utilize teaching techniques sufficient to assure that a particular task or subject was or could be understood by her students. In addition, Respondent consistently maintained her classroom in an unkempt and disorganized condition, despite reasonable requests and warnings from her principal. During this period Respondent constantly rearranged desks and seats in her classroom, causing confusion, disorientation, and general turbulence among her students. On December 3, 1976, Respondent publicly embarrassed one of her students by calling the student a "liar" when the student told Respondent that she had turned in a work assignment to Respondent. Respondent was apparently unable to locate the student's work at that time, but later found the paper on Respondent's desk. Despite this mistake, Respondent failed to apologize to the student or retract her criticism. At various times during the 1976-1977 school year, Respondent inflicted corporal punishment on her students by yanking them from their seats and/or shaking them, even though Respondent had repeatedly been instructed by her principal not to touch a student in any manner except as prescribed by school policy, and in the presence of other instructional or administrative personnel. Throughout academic year 1976-1977, until remedial action was taken by her principal, Respondent consistently failed to adequately and accurately explain her students' progress and goal achievement through evaluative methods and procedures made available to the students' parents. Further, Respondent consistently exhibited during this period incorrect and inappropriate grammar in class and in reports and other communications with her colleagues and students' parents. In addition, Respondent also displayed a cumulative lack of proper grammar and instructional skills, as well as a persistent lack of basic knowledge and inaccuracy in transmitting information in subject areas assigned to her class. On February 1, 1977, Respondent, in violation of school and district policy of which she had repeatedly been reminded, failed to report for school and failed to notify appropriate persons that she would be absent. Respondent was repeatedly counselled by her supervisors concerning her performance in an attempt to provide remedial assistance and advice. Respondent was issued repeated warnings that her persistence in the patterns and practices of conduct set forth above would result in disciplinary proceedings being instituted against her. As indicated earlier in this order, Respondent has asserted, as a defense to allegations of incompetency, that she suffered from medical and/or emotional or mental impairments during the 1976-1977 school year. However, the only medical testimony of record in this proceeding establishes that Respondent displays no gross psychiatric deviations, and is suffering from no diagnosable psychiatric disease.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(c) or (g), Florida Statutes (2010), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the area of elementary education, holding Florida Educator?s Certificate 832516, which expired June 30, 2013. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Duval County School District (DCSD). During the 2009/2010 school year, she taught second grade at Pickett Elementary School (Pickett). Pickett is a “turnaround school,” in which student improvement is crucial. Carolyn Laws was the principal of Pickett from 2007 through 2010, and is currently the principal at Brentwood Elementary School. She has been employed by the Duval County School District for 20 years. Since 2004, she had taken the principals? training course in the use of the Teacher Assessment Tool (TAT) used in Duval County on an annual basis. Ms. Laws has evaluated approximately 50-60 teachers using the TAT. Respondent is among the teachers she evaluated using this method. The TAT contemplates several informal evaluations and at least two formal observations during the school year. The formal observations involve the use of the Teacher Assessment Instrument (TAI). The TAI has a Part A and a Part B. Part A focuses on classroom observation, and Part B focuses on professional development. Part A is then broken down into several categories for observation and evaluation, with specific indicators within each competency. For example, for Competency A (promotes student growth and performance), the indicators listed include: 1) achievement is continuous and appropriate for age, group, subject area and/or student program classification; 2) provides evidence of adequate progress in meeting standards; 3) integrates student performance into lesson plan; 4) uses an objective system of student performance; and 5) shows measurable student gains toward meeting standards. Before the formal evaluation is conducted, the principal and the teacher to be evaluated have a pre-evaluation conference at which they discuss the lesson the teacher intends to present during the observation, and a lesson plan is presented. Thus, the teacher is aware that he or she will be evaluated and when that evaluation will be conducted. On October 13, 2009, Ms. Laws conducted an evaluation of Respondent?s class of 13 students. Respondent had provided a lesson plan in advance. During the evaluation, those areas that were adequately presented were checked on the TAI by the evaluator, and those areas needing improvement were marked with an “n.” Areas that the evaluator did not witness were left blank. Ms. Laws found several areas identified on the TAI to be lacking or in need of improvement. Ms. Laws was concerned that the children in the classroom might not have understood the goals of the lesson, and did not have time to apply the information taught. She was expecting to see a central question, an indication of what was expected, and an anticipated outcome from the lesson. However, Ms. Laws did not witness those things, and the lesson plan provided did not coincide with what was taught that day. Ms. Laws and Ms. Powell met on October 14, 2009, to discuss the observation, and Ms. Laws shared her concerns. Ms. Laws also advised Ms. Powell of the competencies that she needed to make sure she demonstrated in the next observation. A second observation was scheduled for November 16, 2009, a date that Ms. Powell had identified as available. Again, Ms. Laws had several concerns with respect to the observation. For example, there were missing lesson plans, Ms. Powell was not using the required workshop model, the wrong school day was posted on the bulletin board, the lesson included no guided lesson plans, and the lessons schedule needed to be adjusted because the sessions were too long. Ms. Powell also was not using the FAIR (Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading) data to work with her students in appropriate small groups as she should, so that individual student needs were being met, and was not using the Florida Continuous Improvement Model (FCIM), an assessment tool the school uses every 8-10 days to note student progress. Ms. Laws was concerned as to whether the students in Respondent?s class were receiving appropriate instruction. She also was concerned that lesson plans in the month of October were missing. On or about December 2, 2009, Respondent received a written Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Evaluation from Ms. Laws, indicating that she had not demonstrated acceptable performance in the following competencies: B (evaluates instructional needs of students); C (plans and delivers effective instruction); D (shows knowledge of subject matter); E (utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline); and H (pursues professional growth). The notice contained an error, as competency “H” should have been competency “A” (Promotes student growth and performance). Ms. Powell refused to sign the notice, the delivery of which was acknowledged by a union representative. As a result of the notice, Ms. Powell was given a success plan to assist her in improving the competencies that Ms. Laws had identified as deficient. Success plan members who were to assist Ms. Powell were Ms. Laws; Katie Atkins, an instructional coach; Mrs. Senior; Mrs. Howard-Hughes; and Mrs. Curry, the union representative. The majority of the support provided for the support plan came from Ms. Laws and Ms. Atkins. Ms. Powell was given the opportunity to provide input with respect to the success plan. A second Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Evaluation was sent to Ms. Powell on January 8, 2010, and a meeting was held with Ms. Laws, Ms. Powell, and Ms. Powell?s union representative. Ms. Laws sent the second notice because Ms. Powell had been out on sick leave at the end of the semester, and Ms. Laws wanted to make sure she had all of the information that was necessary before beginning the success plan. Ms. Atkins worked extensively with Ms. Powell, observing her in the classroom and providing feedback, as well as modeling lessons for her, and making sure she followed the learning schedule established for her class.1/ According to Ms. Laws, Respondent “worked hard, worked really hard to complete” the success plan; however, completion of the success plan does not necessarily translate to a satisfactory evaluation. The skills developed through the success plan process must transfer to the classroom in order to be effective. In Ms. Powell?s case, those skills did not transfer as hoped. On January 28, 2010, Ms. Laws conducted an informal observation of Ms. Powell in her classroom. During the observation, the mini-lesson reflected in Ms. Powell?s lesson plans was not addressed when she presented the lesson. There was no standard or guided question presented so that the children would understand where the lesson was going or what was expected of them. The lesson plans did not match the learning schedule, the students seemed confused about the assignment, and were not engaged in their work. Ms. Laws discussed the observation with Ms. Powell and gave her some suggestions for improvement. Ms. Powell?s next formal evaluation was conducted on February 5, 2010. Ms. Laws was concerned that the students were revisiting a lesson that had been taught previously, instead of actually presenting a learning experience, especially given that Ms. Powell knew that the formal evaluation would take place that day. Another observation was conducted on February 17, 2010. The lesson was a math lesson addressing use of multiples to reach In Ms. Laws? view, Ms. Powell?s explanation to the children was too long for the lesson. She felt the children needed to have more strategies and did not have clearly identified expectations. She was concerned whether there was any learning taking place in the classroom. A review of the TAI for all of the observations conducted shows that there were several skill areas that were never demonstrated during the observations, despite instructions to improve in these areas or to at least present some aspect of the skill in her teaching. On February 22, 2010, Ms. Laws conducted another formal observation. The concerns expressed were much the same as with previous observations. While Ms. Powell was beginning to use some of the FAIR data, she still needed to meet with her students and make sure they were grouped appropriately. Because she had not already placed her students in appropriate groups, the guided reading was not conducted as it should have been. Ms. Laws conducted another formal observation on February 26, 2010. Again, the lesson taught that day was not reflected in Ms. Powell?s lesson plans. She had grouped her math students and had guided lesson plans provided, so Ms. Laws noted improvement in those areas. One of the things that had been discussed with Ms. Powell was the need to communicate expectations with the students in a student-friendly manner. Instead, Ms. Powell had posted the number of a particular standard on the bulletin board, “MA.2.A.2.1,” instead of a word description of the standard. There was also a wrong answer written on the board that she did not correct. Finally, Ms. Laws conducted another informal evaluation on March 15, 2010. For this observation, Ms. Powell had her standard on the board that indicated what the children were learning. However, her lesson plans were incomplete. The students were supposed to be working with other students on making judgments, and instead, Ms. Powell was telling them what to write down as opposed to having the students come up with their own answers. In addition, the portfolios for the children needed to be organized so that she could keep track of the growth of the children in her classroom. On March 26, 2010, Respondent received her evaluation for the year. She had satisfactory scores for competencies E (utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline); F (shows sensitivity to students by maintaining a positive classroom environment); G (communicates with parents); H (pursues professional growth); and I (demonstrates professional behaviors). She received a “needs improvement” in competencies B (evaluates the instructional needs of students) and D (shows knowledge of subject matter). For competencies A (promotes student growth and performance) and C (plans and delivers effective instruction), she received an unsatisfactory score. Her overall evaluation was rated as unsatisfactory. When a teacher in the DCSD receives an unsatisfactory evaluation, he or she has the option of staying at the current school or moving to a different school within the district for the following year. Ms. Powell opted to transfer to another school. During the 2010/2011 school year, Respondent was assigned to Merrill Road Elementary School (Merrill Road). Jennifer Gray was the principal at Merrill Road. Ms. Gray worked in the DCSD for eight years, and was a teacher or administrator in Kentucky and Nassau County, Florida, for a combination of 13 years prior to her employment in Duval County. Ms. Gray has been trained in using the Duval County Public Schools Teacher Assessment System each year since 2006. She has performed approximately 150 teacher evaluations using the tool. Ms. Gray and Ms. Powell began at Merrill Road the same year. Ms. Powell was assigned to teach first grade. On September 27, 2010, Ms. Gray held a pre-observation conference with Ms. Powell to go over the lesson Ms. Powell would be teaching during her formal evaluation the next day. The following day Ms. Gray observed Respondent in the classroom and took copious notes on what transpired during her time there. During the observation, the lesson taught did not match the lesson plan. In addition, Ms. Powell used a book walk as a teaching tool. During the book walk, she would ask questions such as, “I wonder who the party is for,” and “I wonder who decorated the table.” While according to Ms. Gray, a book walk is a good model to use, Respondent should have let the children question and wonder as opposed to doing it all herself. Ms. Gray also noted some classroom management issues, felt that the expectations for the students were not clearly defined, and that the students were clearly confused about their assignment. As with Ms. Laws, a checkmark on the TAI means the identified indicator was observed. If an indicator is not checked, it indicates that Ms. Gray did not see it during the observation. Ms. Powell?s TAI for September 28, 2010 had only five indicators checked. Ms. Laws met with Ms. Powell after the observation and shared her specific concerns. On October 5, 2010, Ms. Powell received a Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Evaluation. The notice advised Ms. Powell that she needed to show acceptable levels of improvement with respect to the following competencies: A (promotes student growth and performance; B (evaluates instructional needs of students); C (plans and delivers effective instruction); E (utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline); and I (demonstrates professional behaviors). A success plan was developed to help Ms. Powell achieve a satisfactory evaluation. Members of the success team were Cynthia Bartley, Janet Heartsill, Michelle Lenhart, and Ronise Collins, as well as Jennifer Gray. Ms. Powell was able to provide input with respect to the success plan. While the success plan was completed, the competencies were not successfully demonstrated in the classroom. Ms. Powell?s next formal observation was to take place on January 27, 2011. She met with Ms. Gray the day before, and discussed what lesson she was going to present. Ms. Powell filled out a Pre-Observation form that Ms. Gray had devised, identifying the lesson to be taught, and certain features related to the lesson. The form had blanks to be completed for the following information: the date and time of the observation; whether the lesson was a new concept or a review; the standard(s) being taught; the connection; the mini-lesson; the active engagement; and what is being shared. It also identified items that the observed teacher should have available for the principal at the time of the evaluation, such as an assessment notebook, lesson plan book, grade book, three writing portfolios and reading logs/response journals, parent communication logs, student conference logs, and other celebrations the teacher would like to share. Ms. Powell indicated that the lesson would be a review. She did not identify the standard being taught, and indicated that the lesson would be about identifying settings for a story, and seeing how the setting helps the reader better understand the story. Ms. Gray felt there was some misalignment between the lesson plan and the lesson. The essential question, which was written on the board, was, “how does thinking about the most important parts of the story help me to understand and be a better reader?” However, the students spent the majority of the lesson simply identifying the setting and never making the connection to how it makes them better readers. In other words, while the students could identify the setting, Ms. Powell did not help them connect the setting to why the setting is important and how it helps them with their reading. Control in the classroom was not consistent, and because minor behavioral issues were not dealt with effectively, the students got off task and were not able complete their work. For example, 20 minutes into the group work, 10 out of 12 students were off task (either finished, never started, playing with crayons, or just sitting there). In short, the lesson became about identifying a setting rather than learning why knowing the setting helps the reader understand the story. Ms. Gray met with Ms. Powell after the lesson and went over her concerns. She told Ms. Powell that the skills she was learning through the success plan need to translate into the classroom. Another formal evaluation was conducted on March 14, 2011. The lesson to be presented dealt with how the attributes of different items affect mass. During the observation, Ms. Gray saw similar issues as in previous observations, with gaps in learning, disorganized lesson plans, and an incomplete presentation. The lesson presented also was completely off of the district learning schedule, and may not have been appropriate for a first-grade class, which is something Ms. Powell should have known. On March 18, 2011, Ms. Powell received her evaluation for the year. She received a satisfactory score for competencies G (communicates with parents) and H (pursues professional growth); a needs improvement score for competencies D (shows knowledge of subject matter), E (utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques), and F (shows sensitivity to students by maintaining a positive classroom environment); and an unsatisfactory score for competencies A (promotes student growth and performance), B (evaluates the instructional needs of students), and C (plans and delivers effective instruction). The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory. On March 24, 2011, Vicki Reynolds, Chief Human Resources Officer for the DCSD, notified Ms. Powell by certified mail that she was receiving a reprimand as Step II discipline pursuant to the DCSD?s Progressive Discipline Plan. The reprimand was based upon a claim that she threw a chair and verbally threatened a student in her class. Respondent admits receiving the reprimand but denies knocking over the chair in anger. Petitioner presented no evidence with respect to the factual basis for the reprimand. On April 12, 2011, Respondent received a second reprimand and three days? suspension without pay as Step III discipline. The reprimand was based on the belief that Ms. Powell had directed two students to “find Mr. D.” and get her cell phone out of her car, resulting in the students roaming the halls before finding Mr. D., Derick Hampton. The only evidence presented at hearing indicates that at the end of a parent conference, Ms. Powell asked if the parent, Tamika Stanley, would walk the children down to the hallway to the custodian, and give Mr. Hampton Ms. Powell?s keys so that something could be retrieved from her car. Ms. Stanley walked with the children down the hall to Mr. Hampton and gave him the keys. The children wanted to go with him to the car, so she waited for them to return. Once they did, Mr. Hampton returned the keys to Ms. Stanley, and Ms. Stanley returned both the keys and the children to Ms. Powell. It does not appear from the only testimony presented that children were ever allowed to roam the halls and they were not left unescorted. On May 10, 2011, Ed Pratt-Dannals, Superintendent of Schools for the DCSD, notified Respondent that her employment would be terminated effective June 14, 2011, as a result of her unsatisfactory evaluations for the school years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. The letter of termination makes no mention of the two reprimands, but is based only on the two unsatisfactory evaluations. On July 28, 2011, Respondent and the School Board entered into an irrevocable resignation agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(c). It is further recommended that, pursuant to section 1012.796(7)(g), Respondent be prohibited from applying for a new certificate for a period of at least three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2013.
The Issue Whether respondent's teaching contract should be renewed for school year 1995-96.
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this proceeding, petitioner, Suwannee County School Board (Board), seeks to terminate respondent, Lallah P. Singh, a teacher, on the ground his classroom performance in school years 1993-94 and 1994-95 was unsatisfactory. In doing so, petitioner relies upon Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes, which authorizes a school board to terminate an employee with a professional services contract (PSC) when that employee has an unsatisfactory performance rating for two consecutive years. This proceeding represents the first occasion on which the Board has utilized the statute for a PSC teacher. Respondent, who has been employed in the Suwannee County school system since December 1977, is certified as a teacher in the areas of biology and mathematics for grades 6-12. A native of India, he holds the equivalent degree of a doctor in veterinary medicine from a university in that country. He has also obtained a master's degree in veterinary science in this country and is certified as an education specialist in mathematics. Until school year 1993-94, respondent was employed in a variety of positions, including a regular classroom teacher (1977-86), a home study teacher (1987-89), and an alternate education teacher (1990-92). During school year 1993-94, respondent was assigned to the Branford Pre K-12 School in Branford, Florida where he taught the in-school suspension (ISS) class. That class is made up of high school level students suspended from their regular classes for disciplinary reasons. The assignment required that respondent maintain discipline and assist students with work assigned by their regular teachers. Based on observations conducted by his principal during the school year, respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation for his classroom performance. He was notified of these deficiencies in writing and was told that such deficiencies must be corrected by the end of the following school year, or else he would face possible non-renewal of his contract. For school year 1994-95, respondent was reassigned to an ISS classroom four periods per day but was also required to teach a general science class one period per day. During that year, respondent was observed by his principal in the general science class on four occasions to determine if the deficiencies noted in the prior year had been remediated. While most of the earlier deficiencies were eventually corrected, respondent was still unsatisfactory in one performance area noted in the prior year, as well as two other areas, and his performance was accordingly deemed to be unsatisfactory. On May 15, 1995, he was notified that his contract would not be renewed. By letter dated May 19, 1995, respondent requested a hearing to contest the Board's action. Although Section 231.36(3)(e)4.b., Florida Statutes, requires that the hearing be scheduled within 45 days of receipt of the written appeal, the parties have waived this requirement by requesting hearing dates beyond that timeframe. As clarified by his counsel, respondent generally contends the Board erred in the termination process by (a) providing him untimely and insufficient notice, (b) performing an inadequate evaluation, and (c) offering him inadequate assistance to correct his deficiencies. He asks for reinstatement of his professional services contract, as well as back pay. Events Leading up to School Year 1993-94 Around 1982, the legislature amended Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, to create a professional services contract under which teachers could be employed. Prior to that time, teachers not on annual contract status were employed under what was known as a continuing contract. Both a PSC and a continuing contract are considered a form of tenure for public school employees. After the new law became effective, teachers employed under a continuing contract were given the option to convert to a PSC. The advantage to a PSC is that if a teacher is cited for unsatisfactory performance in a given year, he or she has the following year in which to remediate those deficiencies. If the deficiencies are not remediated in the second year, a school board can change the teacher to annual contract status and decline to renew the teacher's contract. This procedure contrasts with the continuing contract process which, after an unsatisfactory rating is given but is not remediated by the teacher, allows a school board to change the teacher to annual contract status and not renew the contract at the end of any given year. In school year 1991-92, respondent was still employed under a continuing contract. When he received an unsatisfactory evaluation, and was threatened with the possibility of being changed to an annual contract and not renewed, he consulted with a teacher's union field representative, Richard E. Layer, on his procedural and substantive rights. During their discussions, the two talked about whether respondent should remain on a continuing contract or switch to a PSC. According to Layer, he explained to respondent "how the statute (governing a PSC) worked," advised him that a PSC offered more job security than a continuing contract, and recommended respondent switch to a PSC since this would give him two years in which to correct any deficiencies that might occur in the future. Layer added that after their conversation, respondent "knew exactly what the (PSC) provided." Based on Layer's advice, in April 1992 respondent requested that he be converted to a PSC. This was done for school year 1992-93, and he remained in that status until his contract was terminated in May 1995. The Evaluation Process Generally When evaluating classroom performance in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the Board used standard evaluation forms developed by representatives of the Board and teacher's union. The evaluation, which must be performed at least once a year for teachers having a PSC, is conducted by the teacher's immediate supervisor, who in this case was the school principal, Melvin McMullen. McMullen had assumed that position during the latter part of school year 1992-93, had received special training for conducting evaluations, and was required to perform evaluations for over fifty teachers in both school years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The evaluation process for a teacher on a PSC consists of at least one classroom evaluation during a given school year. The results of the first evaluation are recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. Within five days after the observation, a principal-teacher conference must be held for the purpose of reviewing the outcome of the observation. At that meeting, the teacher must sign the form, which includes a written admonition that "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to your dismissal or non- renewal." Subsequent evaluations during the year, if any, are also recorded by the evaluator on an assessment form. For all evaluations, the teacher is given an acceptable ("A") or unacceptable ("U") rating for each evaluated area. Although the assessment forms used herein changed in some minor respects from school year 1993-94 to school year 1994-95, their substance was essentially the same. Each assessment form for a classroom teacher contains six overall performance standards, including planning, teaching procedures, classroom managment, presentation and knowledge of subject matter, assessment techniques and personal characteristics and professional responsibilities. Under the performance standards are found a total of twelve "indicators." Finally, within the indicators are found a "checklist of observable teaching behaviors," consisting of twenty-seven behaviors, each requiring a rating of "U" or "A." If any teaching behavior is given a "U," the indicator likewise requires a rating of "U." If an indicator is marked "U," the performance standard is also scored unacceptable. A total score is then assigned to the teacher, with one point given for each indicator with an "A," and the highest score being twelve. Anything less than a twelve is considered unsatisfactory and, if not corrected, may result in the teacher's dismissal. If the first observation of a PSC teacher results in an unsuccessful rating in any area, a "level-one" assistance plan is instituted by the principal, which consists of a principal-teacher conference to discuss the deficient areas, suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies, and a timeframe to correct the substandard performance. If insufficient progress has been made by the end of the timeframe, at the option of the assessor, the level-one assistance process can be repeated or a "level-two" assistance plan can begin. The latter level of assistance generally mirrors the assistance given during level-one but the assessor must also notify the superintendent that level-two has been initiated. If the deficiencies are still not corrected by the end of the school year, the superintendent is notified, and the teacher is again placed on notice that he must correct those deficiencies during the following school year or suffer the risk of being reverted to an annual contract status and not being renewed. Finally, during the subsequent school year, the same observations are conducted, and level-one and two assistance plans are implemented if deficiencies are observed. If remediation does not occur by the end of the second school year, the superintendent has the authority to recommend that the school board decline to renew the teacher's contract. School year 1993-94 Respondent was first evaluated by principal McMullen on February 23, 1994. He received a total credit of 10 out of 12 possible points. For the indicators "Recognizes and provides for individual differences" and "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," respondent received a "U." A conference was held by McMullen and respondent the same day, at which time respondent was given a form entitled "Related Work Performance Form (Appraisal III)." It contained not only an explanation of unacceptable areas and recommended procedure for correction, but also a notation that respondent had "2 weeks from today to demonstrate acceptable teacher corrective action." On March 14, 1994, respondent was again evaluated by principal McMullen. Although McMullen noted that "improvement" had occurred since the earlier evaluation, respondent received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Indeed, he was still deficient in the area of "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." At a conference held the same day, respondent was given an explanation of his unacceptable area, a recommended procedure for correction, and the following timeframe for improvement: "2 weeks approximately from 3/14/94.". On March 15, 1994, respondent was given a lengthy list of resource materials available for use in correcting his deficiencies, including videos, journals and publications. In addition, he was given written instructions for use of the materials. Based on the unsatisfactory performance rating, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent on March 25, 1994: This letter is to notify you that you have demonstrated unsatisfactory performance on the Final Observation/Assessment Form (Appraisal I), with deficiencies noted in the folowing areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum These deficiencies must be corrected by April 1, 1995. I am requesting that your employ-ment be continued an additional year in order to provide you assistance. If you wish to discuss this matter with me further, please schedule an appointment through Mrs. Cannon. I look forward in continuing to work with you on classroom management issues. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same day. On March 31, 1994, principal McMullen wrote the following letter to superintendent Blaylock: Dr. Lallah Singh has been notified of unsatis- factory performance on the Final Assessment Form with deficiencies noted in the following areas: Classroom Management Number 2: Maintains rules of conduct Number 3: Maintains instructional momentum I request that his employment be followed for an additional year to allow the opportunity to correct these deficiencies by April 1, 1995. Whether respondent received a copy of this letter is not of record. Although the March 14, 1994 evaluation was ostensibly used for personnel decisions that year, on May 6, 1994, a third formal assessment of respondent's classroom performance was conducted by principal McMullen. On that date, he received a credit of 11 out of 12 points. Even so, respondent was still deficient in "Classroom Management" and the related indicator based on unacceptable ratings given for the following observable teaching behaviors: "Maintains rules of conduct" and "Maintains instructional momentum." Thus, no matter whether the March or May evaluation was used, at the end of the first school year in question, respondent's only noted deficiency continued to be for classroom management and the related indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control." On May 10, 1994, respondent and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's latest assessment. Although McMullen noted that respondent had made "progress in meeting recommended procedures to help correct areas of concern," he noted that his level of improvement was "still not acceptable" and that respondent must continue the earlier suggestions for improving his performance. The two agreed to meet during the next school year's pre-planning period to discuss a plan of improvement for that year. This was embodied in a letter sent by McMullen to respondent on May 11, 1994. Sometime after receiving this notification, respondent contacted his local teacher's union representative, Willie Veal, Jr., for advice and assistance. On April 21, 1994, acting on the superintendent's recommendation, the Board reemployed respondent for the following year and placed him in a status known as "Professional Services Contract continuation (2nd year)," which is the Board's terminology for the "subsequent year" described in section 231.36(3)(e). Respondent did not receive a copy of this action. On June 7, 1994, however, respondent received a letter from the superintendent advising that the Board had approved him for a PSC for school year 1994-95. School year 1994-95 On August 19, 1994, respondent, union representative Veal, and principal McMullen met to discuss respondent's teaching status for the 1994-95 school year. At that meeting, respondent learned he would be reassigned to ISS but would also be required to teach general science one period per day. Although respondent says general science was not his strongest suit, which was mathematics, it was a subject within his certified area of biology. He also understood that his contract was subject to being non-renewed if he did not correct his deficiencies during the school year. This was confirmed by witness Veal. The following letter was given to respondent on August 29, 1994, to memorialize the substance of the meeting: Thank you for meeting with me while Mr. Veal had a moment last Friday (August 19th., 1994) to generally discuss plans for teaching improvement for the 1994-95 school year. As we discussed, I believe the opportunity to teach a General Science class and Mr. Brown spending two periods a days (sic) with I.S.S. students (doing Drop-Out Prevention counseling) will be two positive techniques to aid improvement as noted on the Appraisal II Form from last year. You and I will meet again soon, to review matters particular to unacceptable areas noted on the May 6th., 1994 Observation/ Assessment. We will then outline other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist this teacher improve- ment process. On November 15, 1994, respondent was sent the following letter by principal McMullen: As we discussed at our 8/25/94 (sic) meeting, and briefly the other day, we need to meet this coming week to discuss items noted on the Appraisal II Form. We will review the items which were unacceptable on the 5/6/94 Observation/Assessment Form. Can a meeting between you and I be set up for Tuesday afternoon, about 2:30 in your room? Please let me know. Pursuant to this letter, a meeting was held on November 20, 1994. During the meeting, principal McMullen further discussed respondent's deficient areas in the prior year and suggested ways to improve them. He also recommended that informal observations be made in an effort to prepare respondent for his formal observations during the following months. While respondent contends this assistance was begun too late in the school year to be of any meaningful value, it was rendered more than four months before the final evaluation on March 29, 1995. Then, too, respondent's most persistent problem continued to be in the area of classroom management, for which assistance to remedy that problem had been offered throughout the previous year. On December 12, 1994, principal McMullen conducted the first of four observations of respondent's performance in his general science classroom. That classroom, rather than the ISS class, was chosen out of fairness to respondent in order to assess him in a controlled classroom environment. On that day, respondent received a score of 7 out of 12 possible points. More specifically, he received an unacceptable rating for the following indicators: "Uses instructional materials effectively," "Displays skills in making assignments," "Recognizes and provides for individual differences," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The following day, or December 13, 1994, petitioner was placed in the level-two assistance process. He was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance observed at the December 12 evaluation and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct each of those deficiencies. Late on the morning of the same day, or December 13, 1994, principal McMullen walked by the building in which respondent taught and "noticed (him) sleeping at (his) desk" with his shoes off and leaning back in his chair. There were four students in his classroom at the time. Respondent was given a letter confirming this incident and told that if he had a medical reason which caused him to sleep to provide the principal with a doctor's note by December 16, 1994. Respondent provided a letter from his doctor the following day in which the physician listed four medications being taken by respondent, none of which would cause him to sleep. However, the physician noted that respondent "occasionally" took an over the counter cough syrup "that may cause drowsiness." Whether respondent was taking a cough syrup that day is not of record. This incident is relevant to the charge that respondent did not properly manage his classroom. On January 24, 1995, principal McMullen again performed an assessment of respondent's classroom performance. On this occasion, respondent received a score of 10 out of a possible 12 points. He received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." On January 27, 1995, and pursuant to the level-two assistance program, respondent was again given a written, detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and a list of recommended procedures for correction. He was told that he would be reevaluated on or about February 17, 1995. Finally, respondent was given the following written notice: Failure to satisfactorily correct all area(s) of unacceptable performance within the expected timeframe may result in returning the teacher holding a CC/PSC contract to annual contract status. If area(s) of unacc- eptable performance are not satisfactorily corrected during the second year, the teacher may be recommended for non-renewal. On February 21, 1995, another classroom observation was conducted by principal McMullen. That day, respondent received a score of 10 out of 12 possible points. Respondent again received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control" and "Presents subject matter effectively." At a conference the same date, respondent was advised in writing that the following administrative assistance would be rendered: "Arrange conference time with fellow teachers/administrators, help secure resource materials and arrange for time to visit (illegible), etc." Respondent was also told that "(b)y April 5th (approximately six weeks), 1995 all observed/assessed areas should be scored acceptable." In addition, respondent was given a more detailed explanation of his unacceptable areas and recommended procedures for correction of those areas. On March 13, 1995, principal McMullen acknowledged receipt of certain corrective measures which respondent proposed to use at his next observation. These corrective measures were considered by principal McMullen at the next observation. A final observation of respondent occurred on March 29, 1995. Respondent received three unacceptable ratings which resulted in a score of 9 out of 12 points. On that occasion, he received unacceptable ratings for the following indicators: "Uses appropriate motivating techniques," "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitation and control," and "Presents subject matter effectively." The second noted indicator, "Demonstrates effective classroom facilitiation and control," was the same indicator for which respondent had received an unacceptable rating the prior year. On March 30, 1995, principal McMullen sent the following letter to respondent: This letter refers to our meeting today on your 3/29/95 Observation/Evaluation. Having gone over that with you, I wanted to highlight the fact that you still have three areas deficient in evaluation of your classroom teaching. These areas are noted on your evaluation form. Instructional recommendations are due to the Superintendent April 1, 1995. Due to this being the second year in the process to correct noted deficiencies and those continue, I have no choice but to recommend non-renewal at that time. Respondent acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter the same date. On March 31, 1995, principal McMullen notified the superintendent by letter that he could not recommend respondent for the 1995-96 school year term given his failure to correct the deficiencies. The superintendent accordingly recommended to the school board on April 21, 1995, that respondent not be rehired for the following school year. The recommendation was accepted by the school board at its April 25, 1995 meeting. On May 15, 1995, the superintendent advised respondent by letter that his contract was not being renewed for the following school year. This notice prompted respondent to request a formal hearing to contest the school board's proposed action. Was There Adequate Notice, Evaluation and Assistance? Notice Respondent contends that the school board erred by giving him inadequate and untimely notice of its actions. At the same time, respondent asserts that he was unaware of the consequences of the unsatisfactory performance ratings in school year 1993-94. He claims that, before the middle of school year 1994-95, no one ever specifically told him that his employment status was in jeopardy if his deficiences were not corrected by the following school year. Respondent's contention that he was unaware of the consequences of the 1993-94 unsatisfactory rating is not deemed to be credible. As early as 1992, respondent was given an explanation on how section 231.36(3)(e) "worked" by a field representative of the teacher's union, and according to the representative, "knew exactly what the law provided." Based on that advice, he switched from a continuing contract to a PSC since he had been told that this would give him two years to correct deficiencies before his employment could be terminated. Beginning in the summer of 1994, he was also represented by the president of the Suwannee County teacher's union, Willie Veal, Jr. At a meeting with Veal and principal McMullen in August 1994, respondent was told that he must correct his deficiencies before the end of the school year or face non- renewal. In addition, respondent had been through a similar evaluation process several years earlier. In 1992, he received an unsatisfactory performance rating and was told that unless the deficiencies were corrected, his contract might be terminated. In that case, however, the deficiencies were corrected, and he retained his tenure under a PSC. Finally, each of the many assessment forms that respondent signed during this process specifically noted that his "(f)ailure to correct the area(s) marked unacceptable may lead to (his) dismissal or non-renewal." Therefore, the totality of the evidence belies respondent's contention that he did not understand that this could happen. Statutory requirements The school board did not strictly follow all requirements of the law in terminating respondent. For example, the law requires that the superintendent provide the teacher in writing "no later than 6 weeks prior to the end of the postschool conference school period, of performance deficiencies which may result in termination of employment, if not corrected during the subsequent year of employment." In this case, respondent received this notice from his principal, rather than the superintendent. However, such notice was sufficient to inform respondent of the gravity of the situation. In the subsequent year, or school year 1994-95, the same notice must again be provided to the employee "no later than 6 weeks prior to the close of the postschool conference period." In this case, the notice was given by the superintendent, but this occurred less than "6 weeks prior to the postschool conference period." Although several errors in procedure occurred during the termination process, they were not so serious as to impair the fairness of this proceeding, or to cause prejudice to respondent in the defense of this case. Therefore, the errors in procedure are deemed to be harmless. Evaluation and Assistance The statute also calls for the employee to be "provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." However, the specific type of assistance and opportunties to be afforded a teacher is not statutorily defined. Respondent contends that such assistance and opportunities were never provided. Beginning with his first evaluation in February 1994, respondent was given assistance in the form of specific suggestions on how to correct the deficiencies. Also, numerous principal-teacher conferences were held to discuss the observation findings. After the March 14, 1994 evaluation, respondent was given a lengthy list of videos, journals and publications to use in an effort to correct his deficiencies. He was also given written instructions for the use of the materials. At the beginning of school year 1994-95, respondent had a pre-school meeting with both his principal and union representative concerning this matter. He also met with the principal on November 20, 1994, and the two discussed "other suggestions, techniques and/or personnel that might assist (his) teacher improvement process." Following an evaluation on December 12, 1994, respondent was given a detailed explanation of unacceptable areas of performance and a lengthy list of suggestions on how to correct those deficiencies. After another evaluation on February 21, 1995, respondent was again given advice on how to correct his deficiencies before the next evaluation. Although respondent says he took this advice to heart, and did all of the things suggested by his principal, he was still unable to obtain an acceptable rating. The Board, however, cannot be faulted for respondent's continued inability to correct the cited deficiencies. Through his expert, respondent contended that the evaluation and assistance process was not adequate. In reaching this conclusion, the expert relied upon her experience in the States of Georgia and Texas, as well as Dade and Seminole Counties, Florida. She did not, however, have any teacher remediation experience in small, rural counties such as Suwannee. The expert pointed out that a peer teacher did not assist the principal in performing the evaluations and making subsequent recommendations on how to correct the deficiencies. But there is no requirement that more than one person conduct the evaluation, and respondent (and his union representative) did not request that someone other than principal McMullen perform the observation. The expert further contended the Board should have assigned a peer teacher to assist respondent throughout this process. She also recommended that the Board send him to various seminars relating to his deficient areas. Again, however, there is no statutory requirement that a school board provide this type of assistance, especially when other forms of assistance and opportunities being given the teacher are adequate. Finally, the criticism that the Board did not adequately formalize its planned assistance measures into a written document is deemed to be unavailing. Because the assistance and opportunties provided respondent were adequate, the Board met its statutory obligation to provide "assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies." Summary After being evaluated in a fair and impartial manner, and receiving timely and adequate notice of his deficiencies, as well as adequate assistance and opportunities to correct those flaws, respondent did not remediate a noted performance standard and related indicator during two consecutive school years. Therefore, the Board could properly change respondent's contract status from PSC to annual at the end of school year 1994-95 and decline to renew his contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order terminating respondent from employment by not renewing his 1995-96 contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2988 Respondent: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 9-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being unnecessary. 15-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 18-19. Rejected as being unnecessary. 20-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 22-35. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-20. 36-56. Partially accepted in findings of fact 21-34. 57-67. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-46. 68-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 35-37. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Victor Africano, Esquire P. O. Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060-1450 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Charles F. Blaylock, Jr. Superintendent Suwannee County School Board 224 West Parshley Street Live Oak, Florida 32060-2396 Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies, thereby justifying termination of her employment as a teacher pursuant to section 1012.34; and (2) whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School District pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been a teacher for approximately 14 years. She began teaching full-time at Gulfstream in the 2004- 2005 school year. During her years at Gulfstream, she taught fifth, third, and second grades, and in the 2010-2011 school year she was a co-teacher assigned to assist other teachers in instructing their students. In the 2011-2012 school year, and in the 2012-2013 school year until she was suspended pending the outcome of this proceeding, Respondent was a first grade teacher at Gulfstream. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was governed by Florida law, Petitioner's policies and procedures, and the collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade. The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Section 1012.34(3), Florida Statutes, mandates that instructional personnel, including classroom teachers, be evaluated for performance at least once a year. Pursuant to section 1012.34(3), the performance evaluation consists of two components: a student performance component and an instructional practice component. The former is based on student scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"), or, for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT, on school district assessments as provided in section 1008.22(8). The latter is based on instructional performance indicators that are evaluated based in part on classroom teaching observations. 2011-2012 School Year March 27, 2012 Evaluation In the 2011-2012 school year, approximately 17 students were assigned to Respondent's first grade class. Pursuant to section 1012.34(3)(a)2., in connection with Respondent's annual evaluation, Gulfstream Principal Concepcion Santana conducted a formal observation of Respondent's instructional practices in her classroom on March 27, 2012, as she taught reading/language arts. She observed Respondent for 40 minutes. In evaluating Respondent, Santana followed the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System ("IPEGS"), the system used throughout the Miami-Dade County Public School District to evaluate instructional personnel. IPEGS consists of eight performance standards that constitute the minimum standards a teacher must meet in classroom instruction. These standards are based on the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices adopted by the State Board of Education, as required by section 1012.34(3)(a)2. Four of the IPEGS performance standards are observable during the classroom instruction portion of the evaluation. The other four are "not observable," meaning that they target performance standards that may not necessarily be observed at the time of the classroom instruction performance evaluation.1/ Santana found that Respondent's instructional practices were deficient with respect to the four observable performance standards ("PS"): Knowledge of Learners (PS 2), Instructional Planning (PS 3), Instructional Delivery and Engagement (PS 4), and Learning Environment (PS 8). PS 2 requires the teacher to identify and address the needs of learners by demonstrating respect for individual differences, cultures, backgrounds, and learning styles. Santana observed that Respondent failed to meet PS 2. Specifically, Respondent did not tailor her teaching to address the various learning styles and levels of the students in her classroom; rather, she presented the lesson in a manner that addressed only one learning level, so that some of the students were not learning. PS 3 requires the teacher to use appropriate curricula, instructional strategies, and resources to develop lesson plans that include goals and/or objectives, learning activities, assessment of student learning, and home learning in order to address the diverse needs of students. Respondent failed to meet PS 3. The activities she conducted did not directly conform to her written lesson plan. Specifically, the students were reading a story that was not identified on the lesson plan, and completing workbook pages that were not identified in the lesson plan while skipping others that were identified in the plan. As a result, the focus and purpose of the lesson being taught was not addressed in the lesson plan. Additionally, the lesson plan did not incorporate multiple instructional strategies to meet the learning needs of all of the students. Respondent failed to use a variety of resources and questioning techniques to cater to the range of learning styles and levels of her students and encourage higher level thinking; rather, the instruction presented that day catered to rote learning. PS 4 requires the teacher to promote learning by demonstrating accurate content knowledge and by addressing academic needs through a variety of appropriate instructional strategies and technologies that engage learners. Respondent also failed to meet PS 4. She did not deliver the instruction at a pace appropriate to engage all students. Additionally, her instructional delivery failed to incorporate a range of strategies so that again, not all students were engaged in the lesson. As a result, many students were off-task, and frequent interruptions distracted students who otherwise were on-task. PS 8 requires the teacher to create and maintain a safe learning environment while encouraging fairness, respect, and enthusiasm. Respondent failed to meet PS 8. Santana noted that there appeared to be little evidence of specified classroom procedures that the students understood and followed, so as to create an environment conducive to learning. As a result, students were up out of their seats, asking to go to the restroom, and fiddling with their papers and pencils. Following the observation, Santana documented her observations on a form titled "IPEGS Observation Standards Form- Teacher" ("IPEGS Form"). In compliance with section 1012.34(3)(c), Santana notified Respondent in writing of a scheduled support dialogue meeting. The purpose of the support dialogue meeting was to provide feedback regarding the classroom observation and to discuss strategies and supportive actions that could be provided to Respondent to assist her in remediating her deficiencies and improving her instructional performance. Santana's support dialogue meeting with Respondent took place on March 29, 2012. Present at the meeting, in addition to Santana and Respondent were a UTD representative; a reading coach, Mariela Rapp; and an assistant principal. Santana provided the completed IPEGS form for the March 27 classroom observation to Respondent and discussed with her the observed deficiencies, including instructional strategies that she could have incorporated into the lesson to make it more effective. Rapp and another reading coach, Lynn Carrier, were assigned to provide support to Respondent, and strategies to assist her were devised. Respondent was informed that she had 21 days in which to implement the actions prescribed in the support dialogue meeting, and that at the end of that period, Santana would conduct another classroom observation. April 25, 2012 Evaluation Santana conducted another formal classroom observation of Respondent's teaching on April 25, 2012. This time, she observed Respondent for the entire reading/language arts instructional block lasting two hours. Respondent did not meet PS 2. Again, she did not incorporate instructional strategies to cater to the learning styles and levels of all students in her class. Santana noted that Respondent's instructional performance on this standard was very similar to that she had observed on March 27, 2012. Respondent also failed to meet PS 3. Specifically, she did not incorporate a variety of instructional strategies in her lesson plans to meet the varied needs of the students in the class. As a result, she failed to address the diverse learning needs of her students as required by PS 3. Similarly, Respondent failed to meet PS 4. Once again, Respondent's instructional delivery and engagement techniques failed to keep many students on-task. Santana attributed that to Respondent's failure to adequately pace the lesson or to effectively provide differentiated learning experiences to meet the students' varied learning styles and levels. Santana further noted that the lesson was disorganized. Respondent created differentiated learning centers at which the students would engage in various learning activities; however, she provided no guidance, so the students were unable to effectively engage in the activities for which the centers were prepared. Specifically, at the computer-based learning center, the computers were not prepared for the instructional activity, so time was wasted logging onto the computers; consequently, the students had little time to work on the activity. At another learning center involving a device called "Leap Pad," the books and accompanying cassette cartridges were not grouped together, so the students spent time trying to find the matching books and cartridges and, as a result, wasted what was supposed to be instructional time. Because of these problems, students repeatedly interrupted the teacher-led instructional center, interfering with learning at that center. Respondent again failed to meet PS 8. Respondent's failure to establish classroom procedures for the various learning centers and her lack of success in redirecting off-task students to reengage in the assigned learning activities created a disruptive environment that did not promote student learning. Following the April 25, 2012, observation, Santana completed another IPEGS Form. Because Respondent showed no improvement from the March 27, 2012, observation, Santana scheduled a conference for the record ("CFR"). A CFR is a formal meeting to discuss a teacher's performance deficiencies and develop a plan to remediate those deficiencies. Respondent was notified in writing of the CFR, which was rescheduled per Respondent's request. Respondent attended the meeting with two UTD representatives; also attending were Rapp and an assistant principal. By written notice and at the CFR, Respondent was informed that she was being placed on 90-day performance probation, pursuant to section 1012.34(4), as of the date of the CFR. An IPEGS Improvement Plan ("IP") was developed to assist Respondent in remediating her instructional performance deficiencies. An IP is a written document that discusses each performance deficiency; identifies specific resources available to assist the teacher in remediating each specific deficiency; sets forth remedial activities specific to each deficiency in which the teacher and assisting persons are to engage; and establishes deadlines for completing the specified activities. In the IP, Respondent and reading coaches Rapp and Carrier were directed to work collaboratively to improve Respondent's instructional techniques and pacing so as to engage all students in the lessons. To this end, Rapp and Carrier were to assist Respondent in developing lesson plans and identifying instructional strategies and activities to meet the learning needs of all of her students. Additionally, Respondent was given the opportunity to engage in collaborative planning with her peer professionals (i.e., other first grade teachers) and with the reading coaches. She also was provided access to a nationally board certified teacher at Gulfstream who assists teachers in improving their teaching performance. The IP further directed the reading coaches and peer professionals to observe Respondent and provide constructive feedback and assistance to Respondent as she attempted to implement instructional techniques and strategies. The IP also identified Common Core Standards, reading/language arts pacing guides, and reading/language arts planners as resources available to assist her in developing appropriate planning objectives, appropriately pacing her lessons to address her students' needs, and developing her lesson plans. As part of the IP, Santana directed Respondent to prepare a written plan addressing how she would tailor her instruction to address student learning styles; use appropriate instructional materials and techniques; and use differentiated instructional groups and learning centers. The written plan was to be submitted to Santana by May 29, 2012. Respondent was further directed to develop lesson plans to improve her instructional delivery strategies. Those plans were to be submitted to the assistant principal. The IP directed Respondent to read the book "How to be an Effective Teacher: The First Five Days of School" and to submit to an assistant principal a reflective summary discussing effective strategies for addressing inappropriate student behavior and managing the learning environment. Respondent also was directed to consult with the reading coaches and peers to develop effective strategies for redirecting inappropriate student behavior. To assist Respondent in implementing her IP, Santana prepared a support calendar that detailed, on a weekly basis for a 21-day period, the activities in which Respondent was to engage. The support calendar specifically identified the reading coaches, peers, and other professionals responsible for working with Respondent as she performed the assigned activities. During the first week of the IP implementation period, Rapp provided assistance to Respondent in planning for the reading/language arts instructional block that would be conducted the following week. Respondent worked with Rapp to interpret current Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading ("FAIR") testing data and use the data to effectively plan for differentiated instruction. Also during the first week, Respondent observed reading/language arts instruction in a peer's classroom and participated in a debriefing session with Rapp and Carrier after the peer teaching observation. The following week, Respondent participated in an activity cycle during which she collaboratively planned with reading coaches Rapp and Carrier; observed peers teaching reading/language arts; observed Rapp modeling effective reading/language arts teaching strategies and techniques; co- taught reading/language arts with Rapp to practice these strategies and techniques; and taught the reading/language arts block while being observed by Rapp and Carrier. This same activity cycle, consisting of collaborative planning,2/ reading coach and peer modeling and observation, co- teaching, and teaching by Respondent, was repeated in the final week of the IP implementation period. Collectively, these activities were designed to assist Respondent in planning for the use of content and instructional techniques and strategies appropriate for her students. They also demonstrated to Respondent how to identify and implement effective instructional techniques and strategies, provided assistance as she learned to implement these techniques and strategies, and afforded the opportunity for Respondent to benefit from constructive feedback regarding her efforts to utilize these techniques and strategies. On May 16 and May 24, 2012, Rapp and Carrier observed Respondent as she taught a reading/arts lesson. In the lesson, she was to employ the instructional techniques and strategies that had been provided and presented to her by the reading coaches, peer professionals, and reference resources during the implementation of her IP. According to Carrier, Respondent did not adhere to the prepared lesson plan and did not incorporate the techniques and strategies that had been provided to her by the reading coaches and peer teachers through her IP.3/ Shortly after Respondent completed the activities set forth in the IP, the 2011-2012 school year ended. Condition of Respondent's Classroom in 2011-2012 At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent had been assigned to a free-standing portable classroom not located in the main building at Gulfstream. In late September or early October 2011, Respondent complained to Santana about the air quality in her classroom—— specifically, that there was musty smell that made it difficult for her to breathe and aggravated her allergies. Santana contacted Mr. Cruz-Munoz of the Miami-Dade Public Schools asbestos management division to inspect Respondent's classroom. Within a couple of days, Cruz-Munoz conducted the inspection and found no visible mold or mildew. He noted that the musty smell was typical of portables, like Respondent's classroom, that were older and had wood paneling. He noted that although the room generally was clean, it contained many boxes and a large amount of clutter, both of which may attract dust. He recommended that the boxes and clutter be kept to a minimum to prevent dust collection. Within a week, Respondent's classroom was thoroughly cleaned by a maintenance crew. After the classroom was cleaned, Respondent complained to Santana that she noticed a cleaner smell. Santana contacted Cruz-Munoz, who assured her that the cleaners were water-based and did not contain allergens. Santana informed Respondent of this and suggested that the cleaner smell would dissipate over time. In January 2012, Respondent again complained to Santana about the smell of the classroom and that it was aggravating her allergies. Santana again contacted Cruz-Munoz, who arranged another inspection of the classroom. The inspector again reported that the classroom generally was clean and free of visible mold and mildew but contained many boxes; again, the importance of minimizing the number of boxes and clutter so as to avoid collecting dust was stressed. At that point, Santana referred Respondent to workers' compensation so that she could obtain medical attention to address her health issues. At some point in January 2012, Respondent contacted Robert Kalinsky, a regional director with the Miami-Dade Public School system, regarding the air quality and odors in her classroom. Kalinsky was one of Santana's supervisors at the time. Kalinsky notified Santana that Respondent had contacted him and that he also had received a call about about the condition of the classroom from a member of the Miami-Dade County School Board. As a result, Kalinsky paid a visit to Gulfstream. On February 7, 2012, Santana met with Respondent and an assistant principal regarding a number of issues, including the condition of Respondent's classroom. At that meeting, Santana noted that during the recent visit by Kalinsky and personnel who inspected the classroom, the room was observed cluttered with piles of paper on the desk and many other areas, and that there numerous boxes. At the meeting, Santana reminded Respondent regarding many other issues, including those related to classroom and school library procedures and instructional delivery. Effective February 7, 2012, Santana reassigned Respondent to a different classroom that was located in the main building at Gulfstream. Thereafter, Respondent did not have any complaints about the air quality or odors in the classroom to which she had been assigned. She did continue to complain about the odor of air fresheners and scented candles used throughout the school. Santana noted that she regularly dealt with issues similar to those raised by Respondent because she received frequent complaints from teachers regarding the air quality, mold, and odors at Gulfstream due to the school building's advanced age. Santana credibly testified that she never, at any point, became angry with Respondent regarding her concerns about the air quality and odor in the portable classroom, or any actions Respondent that had taken to address those concerns. 2012-2013 School Year Pursuant to section 1012.34(4)(b)1., school vacation periods are not counted as part of the 90-day performance probation period. Accordingly, Respondent's probation period carried over from the end of the 2011-2012 school year to the 2012-2013 school year. When the 2012-2013 school year commenced, her 90-day probation period continued. September 12, 2012 Evaluation On September 12, 2012, Santana formally observed Respondent's classroom teaching for the third time. She observed Respondent for the full duration of the reading/language arts block, approximately two hours. Respondent again failed to meet PS 2. Her instruction did not incorporate techniques and strategies to address the various learning styles and levels of the students in her class. As a result, many students were bored; one student was observed with his head on his desk. Other students attempted, unsuccessfully, to get Respondent's attention to answer questions they had. Respondent was unsuccessful in explaining the small group activities so that several students were off- task. By the time Respondent redirected the off-task students, little time was left for them to engage in the planned activities. Santana observed no improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard when compared to the two previous observations. Likewise, Respondent failed to meet PS 3. She did not develop or present a lesson that addressed logical, sequential goals and objectives and she did not cover the material identified in the lesson plan. Once again, she failed to use differentiated instructional techniques and strategies to address the students' individual learning styles. The lesson was directed only at one skill level and one learning style. Worksheet activities were completed by the entire class, with some students calling out the answers while the others copied those answers on the worksheet. The partner reading portion of the exercise was disorganized and the students were not given adequate direction, so that many students did not understand how the activity was to be conducted. Santana did not observe any improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard. Respondent also failed to meet PS 4. Her teaching did not include activities directed at eliciting higher order thinking, so did not engage all of the students. Several students were overheard saying they were bored, had already read the material, or already knew the concepts being presented. Other students were off-task, reading stories that had not been assigned. When students were assigned to small groups, insufficient direction was given so that many students did not understand what they were to be doing. In particular, the lack of organization with respect to the computer-based portion of the lesson resulted in students wasting a substantial amount of time before being re-directed to the assigned task. Santana did not observe any improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard. Respondent again failed to meet PS 8. Santana noted that the learning environment and activities were not academically challenging and did not engage all of the students. Students were not given adequate instruction on the activities in which they were to be participating. In particular, the partner reading portion of the exercise was disorganized and many students did not understand how the activity was to be conducted. Santana did not observe any improvement in Respondent's performance on this standard. Following the September 12 evaluation, Santana completed the IPEGS Form, conducted another performance review with Respondent, and issued another IP for her on September 18, 2012. Once again, the reading coaches and peer professionals were made available to assist Respondent in implementing the IP. The Common Core Standards, reading/language arts pacing guides, and reading/language arts planners also were resources to which Respondent was referred. The activities in which Respondent was directed to engage to correct her performance deficiencies for PS 2 and PS 3 were very similar to those identified her May 7, 2012 IP. With the new school year, Respondent had a new class of students, and Santana emphasized the importance of Respondent being able to assess those students' learning styles and levels and to plan how she would assign them to instructional groups. Respondent was directed to prepare and submit to the assistant principal weekly lesson plans containing goals, objectives, activities, and strategies to provide instruction aimed at the her students' diverse learning styles and levels. To help Respondent correct her PS 4 deficiencies, the IP emphasized that Respondent was to observe the reading coach (Carrier) and her peers as they modeled effective instructional techniques and activities designed to reach diverse student learning styles and levels. To correct her PS 8 performance deficiencies, Respondent was directed to work with the reading coach and peers to establish a plan for effective classroom procedures, to prepare a written summary of the plan, and to provide the summary to the assistant principal. Additionally, Respondent was directed to observe peer professionals as they taught; to prepare and provide to the assistant principal a list of the effective teaching techniques she observed; and to incorporate three of those techniques into her classroom teaching. She also was directed to maintain a log of teaching techniques she used in her class, with discussion of which techniques were effective or ineffective and why. The log was to be provided to and discussed with Carrier, so that Carrier could assist Respondent in developing and implementing successful classroom techniques and procedures. Again to ensure that everyone involved in implementing Respondent's IP understood their roles and responsibilities, Santana established another 21-day support calendar detailing the specific activities to be conducted on specific days. The activities entailed collaborative planning with Respondent, Carrier, and grade level peers; Respondent working with Carrier and peers to develop small group and differentiated instructional teaching techniques; Respondent's observation of grade level peer teaching and post-observation debriefing regarding instructional best practices; and Respondent's implementation of those best practices in her teaching, to be observed by Carrier, with feedback provided. Respondent engaged in all scheduled activities and timely completed the September 18, 2013, IP. October 11, 2012 Evaluation On October 11, 2012, a fourth formal classroom observation of Respondent was conducted, this time by assistant principal Marybel Baldessari. Baldessari observed Respondent teaching reading/language arts for an hour and a half. Once again Respondent failed to meet PS 2, 3, 4, and 8. With respect to PS 2, Respondent again failed to present differentiated instruction that targeted individual student learning styles and levels; as before, her instruction was aimed only at one learning style and level. With respect to PS 3, Respondent did not ensure that materials were properly organized to accommodate assistance by an interventionist who was working with her that day. As a result, the lesson was disorganized and the lesson was not presented in a logical, sequential manner. With respect to PS 4, again Respondent's instruction was not tailored to meet the students' individual learning styles and levels. Respondent did not appropriately pace the lesson and did not employ teaching techniques, such as appropriate questioning, to encourage students' critical thinking. Respondent again failed to meet PS 8. Students were off-task; in particular, one was off-task for the entire observation period without ever being redirected to the assigned activity. Respondent also had implemented a behavior plan in the classroom involving colored cards, so that when a student was disciplined, he or she was sent to a "behavior wall" to turn over a card on the behavior chart. On this day, a student who was sent to the behavior chart found his card already turned over from the previous day. This evidenced Respondent's lack of attention to detail in maintaining a classroom environment conducive to appropriate student behavior. Baldessari documented Respondent's deficiencies from the October 11, 2012, observation on the IPEGS Form. Santana scheduled a meeting with Respondent on October 17, 2012, to discuss Baldessari's observations. At the meeting, Respondent was given yet another IP. With respect to remedying Respondent's PS 2 performance deficiencies, Respondent was given the same support resources. Respondent was again directed to meet with Carrier and grade level peer professionals to develop differentiated instructional activities and techniques, to incorporate those activities and techniques into lesson plans, and to provide those lesson plans to Baldessari. Respondent also was directed to meet with Carrier and peers to analyze test and observational data, and to use the information gleaned from that data to plan for differentiated instruction based on individual student learning styles and levels. To remedy her PS 3 deficiencies, Respondent was again referred to Carrier and peer professionals, the Common Core Standards, reading/language arts pacing guides, and reading/language arts reading planners. She was again directed to work with Carrier to develop appropriate lesson plans incorporating appropriate instructional strategies. These plans were to identify appropriate goals, objectives, activities, and instructional strategies and were to be provided to Baldessari. Respondent was assigned to read the book, "Understanding Common Core Standards," and to discuss those standards with Carrier and provide a written summary to Baldessari. With respect to PS 4, Respondent was referred to the same remedial resources as for PS 3. Respondent was directed to work with Carrier and selected peer professionals, who would assist her with planning and developing instructional techniques and strategies to appropriately pace lessons and engage all students. With respect to PS 8, Respondent was directed to work with a special education program ("SPED") specialist to develop effective classroom management procedures. She was assigned to prepare and submit a written summary of these procedures to Baldessari. She also was directed to observe peers, identify effective teaching techniques they used to maintain an academically stimulating and challenging environment, submit a list of those techniques to Baldessari, and incorporate three of those techniques into her teaching. Once again, she was directed to maintain a log listing instructional techniques she used, with discussion of which were effective or ineffective and why. The log was to be provided to and discussed with the Carrier so that she could assist Respondent in developing successful classroom techniques and procedures. Those techniques were to be implemented in Respondent's classroom teaching. Santana developed another support calendar to implement Respondent's latest IP. The support calendar identified activities in which Respondent was to engage with Carrier and the SPED specialist; scheduled time for Respondent to observe and discuss peer teaching techniques; and scheduled collaborative planning sessions in which Respondent, Carrier, and grade level peers were to address the development of differentiated instructional strategies. Carrier worked closely with Respondent to implement the October 17, 2012, IP. In doing so, Carrier demonstrated to Respondent how to incorporate certain instructional techniques into her teaching to better engage the students and enhance their learning experience.4/ Carrier stressed the importance of organization and preparation before the lesson in order for the instructional techniques to be effective. Carrier and Respondent also practiced the use of the instructional techniques. However, when it was time for Respondent to teach the lesson, she was disorganized and unprepared, resulting in a substantial amount of time being wasted on logistical matters, such as having essential materials on hand and ready for use, that should have been addressed before the lesson commenced.5/ Carrier also discussed with Respondent the importance of moving around the classroom to keep students focused and on- task. Nonetheless, Carrier observed that Respondent spent most of her time sitting in a chair in front of the classroom. The chair did have wheels, so occasionally Respondent would roll down the center isle of the classroom.6/ During her time in working with Respondent, Carrier observed that Respondent's classroom was messy and disorganized. Books and clutter were all over the place, so that it was difficult to locate resources that were needed to conduct the lessons. Carrier also observed that there were many pieces of information written on the board in an unstructured, disorganized manner, including information from lessons days ago and random vocabulary words, so that it was very difficult to decipher the information Respondent was attempting to convey in using the board. Carrier further noted that words frequently were misspelled and that there were grammatical errors in the information Respondent wrote on the board. Respondent timely completed the activities set forth in the October 17, 2012, IP. November 19, 2012 Evaluation On November 19, 2012, Santana conducted a fifth formal observation of Respondent's classroom teaching. She observed Respondent teaching reading/language arts for an hour and five minutes. Respondent again failed to meet PS 2. Once again, Respondent's instruction provided only one level of complexity and did not cater to the students' different learning styles and levels. The students were reading a story, and instead of incorporating instructional strategies aimed at meeting all students' learning abilities——such as instructing the high level students to write a paragraph, the grade level students to write a sentence, and the lower level students to draw a picture, about the story——she merely had all of them fill in the same workbook page. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to meeting PS 2. Respondent also failed to meet PS 3. Her lesson plans were not aligned to the instructional pacing guide and did not incorporate strategies to address the students' diverse learning styles and levels. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to PS 3. Respondent again failed to meet PS 4. Her instructional delivery did not actively engage the students and did not address their individual learning styles and needs. Because her instruction addressed only one level of complexity, she lost the high functioning and low functioning students. As a result, there were frequent interruptions that interfered with the pace of the instruction and caused students to engage in off-task behavior. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to PS 4. Respondent also failed to meet PS 8. The learning environment was neither challenging nor stimulating. Although the students were working in small groups presumably established according to learning style and level, they nonetheless were reading the same story and answering the same questions. That, and Respondent's continued failure to establish clear classroom procedures and expectations, resulted in frequent interruptions and distractions. Respondent did not exhibit any improvement with respect to PS 8. Recommendation to Terminate Respondent's Employment A post-observation meeting was held on November 29, 2012, and Respondent was properly notified of this meeting. At the meeting, Santana informed Respondent that she had failed to remediate her classroom performance deficiencies within the 90- day probation period, so that she (Santana) was recommending that Respondent's employment contract be terminated. Santana prepared a memorandum to the Miami-Dade Public Schools South Regional Director dated November 29, 2012, detailing Respondent's repeated failure to meet PS 2, PS 3, PS 4, and PS 8. The memorandum also stated: "Data indicate that this employee has not demonstrated corrective action." The memorandum recommended termination of Respondent's employment contract. Petitioner presented evidence, consisting of a summary exhibit and testimony from Gisela Field, the administrative director of the Office of Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis for Miami-Dade Public Schools, that Respondent's students' median percentile scores on the 2012 Stanford Achievement Test ("SAT")7/ for Grade 1 for both language arts and mathematics were below those for first grade students at Gulfstream as a whole, and for first grade students in the Miami-Dade County Public School District.8/ Santana did not testify that Respondent's students' SAT median percentile scores were considered in her evaluation of Respondent, or that they constituted a basis for her decision to recommend that Respondent be terminated. Petitioner asserts that the "data" to which Santana's November 29, 2012, memorandum refers are Respondent's students' SAT median percentile scores, evidencing that Santana did consider these scores in evaluating Respondent, and that they were one of the bases for her recommendation that Respondent be terminated.9/ Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding the relative weight given to Respondent's students' scores in conducting her performance evaluation. Respondent's Defenses Respondent began teaching in the Miami-Dade County Public School system in 1989. Thereafter, she took some time off to have children. As previously noted, she resumed fulltime teaching in the 2004-2005 school year. For the period commencing with the 2004-2005 school year, through the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent always received satisfactory classroom performance evaluations.10/ At the final hearing in this proceeding, Respondent testified that she was knowledgeable in preparing lesson plans; adhered to Miami-Dade County Public School District instructional pacing guidelines; engaged in collaborative planning with her colleagues and exchanged ideas regarding making the lessons exciting, fun, and interesting; used objectives, visual aids, posters, computers, books, and hands-on materials to engage students; and employed instructional techniques to address students' diverse learning styles and levels. She further testified that she closely observed her students and obtained feedback from them throughout the instructional day. Respondent also testified that she engaged her students in activities designed to get to know them, that she was sensitive to her students' experiences, that she attempted to make them feel comfortable and safe and to provide a warm and loving environment, and that she knew how to communicate with them and manage their classroom behavior. With respect to specific performance deficiencies identified over the course of the classroom observations conducted by Santana and Baldessari, Respondent asserted that some of the issues with instruction using computers stemmed from technical issues with the computers. In those instances, Respondent would have the students engage in reading activities using books until it was time for them to rotate to another learning center. Respondent believes she was a better teacher in 2011 than she was in 2004 when she re-entered the teaching field fulltime. In her view, this is due to her having participated in personal development workshops, receiving one-on-one instruction, and adapting her teaching style to new curriculum and materials. Respondent asserts that she did not teach any differently in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years than she had in the 2004-2005 school year or any other school year. Respondent contended that she is, and always has been, a very competent teacher, and that the negative performance evaluations she received during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years were unfair and illegitimate. Regarding the condition of the portable classroom to which she was assigned in the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to complain to Santana about the room's odor shortly after the beginning of the school year. In January 2012, she did contact Santana's supervisor Robert Kalinsky to express her concerns. Ultimately, she filed a worker's compensation claim. Once she moved to a different classroom in February 2012, she no longer experienced problems with odors in her classroom. She did continue to have problems with the use of air fresheners and scented candles in other parts of the school building. Respondent noted that only after she complained about the odor and air quality in the portable classroom did she begin receiving negative classroom performance evaluations. She contends that she received negative evaluations for having complained——particularly to Kalinsky and the School Board member——about the condition of the portable. Toward the end of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent applied for a transfer from her instructional position at Gulfstream to another instructional position at another school in the Miami-Dade County Public School District. Both Santana and the Executive Director approved the transfer. Respondent found an instructional position in another school in the Miami-Dade County Public School District, but did not follow through with the transfer. The school was farther from her home than was Gulfstream, so teaching there would entail longer driving time and would add wear and tear to her older vehicle.11/ Findings of Ultimate Fact In this proceeding, Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment for failure to correct performance deficiencies pursuant to section 1012.34, and for "just cause"——specifically, for incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to section 1012.33 and rule 6A-5.056. As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show that Respondent committed the violations of section 1012.34 and 1012.33 and rule 6A-5.056 alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Failure to Correct Performance Deficiencies With respect to the charge that Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies under section 1012.34, the evidence establishes that Respondent consistently engaged in poor and ineffective classroom instructional practices and that she repeatedly failed to correct these instructional practice deficiencies, notwithstanding the very substantial effort that Santana, reading coaches Rapp and Carrier, and Respondent's peers devoted to assisting her in improving her teaching performance. Specifically, the evidence showed that Respondent was consistently ineffective at addressing the individual learning needs, styles, and levels of her students; that she failed to employ appropriate instructional strategies and resources to develop lesson plans that include goals, objectives, and activities to address her students' diverse needs; that she did not address her students' academic needs through a variety of appropriate instructional strategies and techniques that engage them in the learning process; and that she was ineffective in creating and maintaining a classroom environment conducive to learning. The credible evidence does not show that Respondent received negative instructional practice evaluations in retaliation for having complained about the condition of her classroom in the 2011-2012 school year. Rather, the persuasive evidence——which includes corroborative testimony and an IPEGS observation by Baldessari and testimony by Carrier——shows that Respondent received negative performance evaluations because she failed to meet the IPEGS performance standards. However, the evidence failed to adequately address the student performance component of Respondent's performance evaluation pursuant to section 1012.34(3)(a)1.a. As discussed in greater detail below, section 1012.34(3)(a) places great emphasis on student performance on student learning growth assessments——specifically, the FCAT or school district assessments——in evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. Indeed, the statute mandates that at least 50 percent of a performance evaluation be based on data and indicators of student of student learning growth as assessed annually by the FCAT or by school district assessments. Only where (as here) less than three years of data for student learning growth assessments (i.e., FCAT or school district test scores) are available can the percentage of the teacher's performance evaluation based on student learning growth be reduced to less than 50 percent——and even then, it cannot be reduced to less than 40 percent. Here, Petitioner did not present any evidence regarding the relative weight that Santana assigned to Respondent's students' 2012 SAT median percentile scores for language arts and mathematics in evaluating Respondent under section 1012.34. Accordingly, it cannot be determined whether the required relative weight of at least 40 percent was given to the scores in evaluating Respondent, and, ultimately, in recommending that she be terminated. For this reason, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies pursuant to section 1012.34 such that her employment should be terminated. Incompetency Due to Inefficiency As previously noted above, the evidence showed that Respondent consistently and repeatedly was ineffective at addressing the individual learning needs, styles, and levels of her students.12/ She repeatedly failed to employ appropriate instructional strategies and resources to develop lesson plans that include goals, objectives, and activities to address her students' diverse needs. She failed to address her students' academic needs through employing a variety of appropriate instructional strategies and techniques to engage them in the learning process. She consistently used the same instructional materials and techniques to teach students of varying learning styles and levels and did not adequately pace the lessons. She also failed, on a consistent basis, to create and maintain a classroom environment conducive to learning. Her room was disorganized and cluttered, with misspelled words and grammatical errors written on the blackboard. She often was unprepared, so did not efficiently conduct the lessons. She did not establish consistent classroom procedures to address student behavioral issues and keep students on task. As such, Respondent consistently and repeatedly failed to effectively communicate with and relate to the students in her classroom to such an extent that the students were deprived of minimum educational experience. Due to her inefficiency, she was neither able nor fit to discharge her required duties as a teacher.13/ Moreover, the evidence establishes that Respondent failed to perform duties prescribed by law.14/ Section 1012.53(1) provides in pertinent part that the primary duty of instructional personnel is to work diligently and faithfully to help students meet or exceed annual learning goals and to meet state and local achievement requirements. The evidence establishes that due to Respondent's serious, repeated performance deficiencies previously described herein, she did not work diligently and faithfully to, and did not succeed in, helping her students meet or exceed the annual learning goals they were supposed to meet as prescribed by curriculum and lesson plans. Nor did she work diligently and faithfully to help them meet state and local achievement requirements. In fact, Respondent's students' 2012 SAT median percentile scores—— particularly for mathematics, which shows their achievement as much as 34.5 percentile points lower than all first graders in the Miami-Dade County Public School District——stand as strong evidence to this point.15/ The evidence also established that Respondent's teaching practices and classroom were so disorganized that the welfare of her students was diminished.16/ Her lack of organization in teaching caused confusion on the part of her students and instructional time often was wasted. Further, the disorganization and clutter in her classroom made it difficult to locate resources for the lessons. It was apparent at the final hearing that Respondent cares about her students and believes that she is a good teacher. However, Respondent's personal feelings and beliefs do not overcome the strong evidence presented in this case showing that she is not a competent teacher. Petitioner proved that, for the reasons set forth herein, Respondent is incompetent due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056.17/ Accordingly, Petitioner proved that just cause exists under section 1012.33 to terminate Respondent's professional services contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order terminating Respondent's professional services employment contract on the basis of just cause under section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 2014.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's professional service contract should be renewed as provided in Subsection 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes. This requires a determination of whether the Petitioner provided sufficient assistance and in-service training opportunities and evaluated Respondent periodically to apprise him of his progress, and whether Respondent corrected certain noted performance deficiencies.
Findings Of Fact At the time that he was recommended for non-renewal, Respondent, James A. Conner, had been employed by the School Board of Seminole County (Board) as a graphic arts teacher at Sanford Middle School for approximately seventeen years. Daniel Pelham has been principal at Sanford Middle School for the past twenty-three years. On March 26, 1991, Pelham advised Conner, in writing, that he was being recommended for return to annual contract status for the 1991-92 contract year, based on unsatisfactory performance in the following areas: Deficient Classroom Management Failure to maintain established procedures. Failure to maintain appropriate and consistent disciplinary procedures. Failure to use clearly defined classroom procedures. Failure to utilize time efficiently. Deficient Teaching Skills Failure to promote effective classroom interaction. Failure to exhibit rapport and understanding with students. (Petitioner's Exhibit #4) The deficiencies noted by Pelham had been developing over a period of approximately four or five years and were pointed out on prior evaluation forms. In particular, Pelham was concerned that there were an inordinate number of student discipline referrals being made by Conner. Pelham also personally observed problems in classroom management in visits he made to Conner's classes. Conner's classes in the vocational program were typically smaller than those in the academic programs. Over a school day of five periods, he had a total of sixty to seventy-five students, and some of his classes contained only nine or ten students. As a result of proceedings not relevant to this case, the parties entered a stipulation that the March 26, 1991 recommendation would be considered a notice of unsatisfactory performance required to terminate a professional service contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1991). The effect of the stipulation was to provide Conner with an opportunity to remedy his deficiencies as provided in a new law governing employment rights of classroom teachers. By the time Pelham's recommendation was made, he felt that Conner had the capacity to improve, but the principal was not optimistic that the improvements would be made. As required by law, an assistance plan was developed to assist James Conner in correcting the deficiencies provided in the notice described above. Daniel Pelham assigned Roger Gardner, his assistant principal, to be a mentor to Conner; and he removed Gardner from any supervisory role in an attempt to make the relationship more helpful. The assistance team was comprised of Dan Pelham; Roger Gardner; John Reichert, the Board's Director of Personnel; Cliff Duncan, Director of Staff Development; and Betty Hogle, Director of Vocational Education. The plan was provided to James Conner in September 1991. Helene Samango was Conner's representative from the Seminole Education Association, the teachers union. She elicited the assistance of Linda Cronin- Jones, Ph.D., an associate professor of instruction and curriculum at the University of Florida College of Education, to review the performance assistance plan. Dr. Cronin-Jones provided a critique of the plan, with suggestions that were, in turn, provided to Mr. Reichert the second week of December 1991. Dr. Cronin-Jones' suggestions were incorporated in the plan at the next meeting of the assistance team on January 13, 1992. The additions to the plan included a peer teacher selected by Mr. Conner, in addition to the one already identified in the plan, and included videotaping Conner's class sessions to be used as a tool for Conner and his peers to critique his work and to make suggestions for further improvement. The content of the assessment documents used to evaluate Conner's performance was established by statute. The assessment plan itself was developed four or five years ago by a committee of school board staff, including teachers, principals and union representatives. The plan has been approved by the State Department of Education every year thereafter. The performance assistance plan developed for James Conner was adequate and appropriate to address the specific deficiencies previously noted in his performance. He took advantage of the required activities, including review of in-service training material. He was not, however, responsive to the guidance attempts by Roger Gardner, whose task, having known Conner for many years, was to help him with specific strategies to reach the goals set up in the plan. For example, Gardner gave Conner a few articles to read that supported some of the things he was being asked to do. The articles related to specific problems of middle school children and ways of dealing with their discipline needs. Conner was to respond back to Gardner after reading the articles. He apparently read them, but did not respond as asked. Another assignment to Conner was to draft his classroom management plan. He and Gardner met on preliminary drafts several times, but it was not finally completed until December 19, 1991. The meetings were scheduled by Gardner, and Conner simply did not take the initiative that would have reflected an effort to cooperate. James Conner was observed or formally assessed on several occasions over the remedial year. Bettie Hogle, Director of Vocational and Technical Education for the School Board, observed him from the beginning of the first period until 10:35 a.m. on October 28, 1991. She noted the following: There was no clear focus on the day's learning activities at the beginning of class. Student behavior was poor. One student was sent to the office for discipline at the start of class. I was not sure why he was singled out when others were misbehaving as well. Equipment and materials were stacked around the lab. This cluttered atmosphere is not conducive to student learning. On the positive side, Mr. Conner exhibited good questioning techniques in teaching the lesson. He complimented the students on the good behavior they demonstrated in groups earlier in the week. After students began working on projects, he circulated around the room and provided individual assistance. (Petitioner's Exhibit #11) Daniel Pelham observed Conner's seventh grade class for thirty-five minutes on November 11, 1991. There were five students in the class. The assessment form notes unsatisfactory ratings in six areas of classroom management and teaching skills. Two students were observed talking during most of the observation, without intervention by the teacher. The form also noted "not much change here" under the category, "Exhibits rapport and understanding with students", with the comment, "very high discipline referral. To date 11/11, total of 46". (Petitioner's Exhibit #12) On December 9, 1991, Pelham sent Conner a memorandum regarding the continued clutter in his classroom, storage room and office, and directed him to remove the items not in use in his program and to get the items off the floors. A follow-up memorandum was given to Conner on January 22, 1992, noting that the papers and boxes were still scattered on the floor of his office and storage room. The memorandum also noted a positive improvement in classroom management observed on January 9, 1992. The nine students observed that period were on task and behaved. Pelham's next assessment is dated March 24, 1992 and reflects a thirty-five minute observation of Conner's seventh grade graphic arts class on March 18, 1992. There were ten students present. Five areas under classroom management and teaching skills were found unsatisfactory. No significant change in management style was found. Students spent a lot of time just sitting. One student completed his project and sat for 30 minutes. The students were told "just follow directions". (Petitioner's Exhibit #8) Pelham's annual assessment of Conner is dated April 24, 1992 and finds him unsatisfactory in these four areas under classroom management and teaching skills: "Uses clearly defined classroom procedures"; "Disciplinary procedures established and used"; "Promotes effective classroom interaction"; and "Exhibits rapport and understanding with students". Four or more unsatisfactory ratings constitute an unsatisfactory evaluation according to the instructional personnel plan. (Petitioner's Exhibit #6) The areas found unsatisfactory are critical to the effective functioning of a teacher. The deficiencies noted in the above-described assessments or evaluations are evident in the videotapes of Conner's classes, recorded in December 1991 and March 1992. Those sessions are typical examples of Conner's performance at the time that they were taped; they reflect the methodologies and strategies he was using and attempting to implement from the assistance plan. The December session shows constant talking by the students, with Conner lecturing and attempting to demonstrate over the low din. The class was small, approximately ten students, but they were notably disengaged, except during brief periods when the equipment was plotting designs. Conner ignored the talking and forged on with the lesson. The March sessions were also small classes and the students were not as disruptive. Explanations and demonstrations of equipment were made with the teacher's back to the students. Again, the students were primarily disengaged, some with their heads on the tables. Several times, Conner urged them, "you might want to write this down", but not the first student picked up a pencil, and some seemed not to have pencils or materials on their tables. A child with his hand up was not recognized for an extended period and eventually Conner's response to his question was a flippant, "Because it's there". There was some attempt to engage the students in discussion about what was learned in other classes or about trips to Epcot or Busch Gardens, and there was some attempt to compliment students with, "Congratulations and a warm fuzzy to the stars who made 100"; but in spite of the size of the class, there was very little individual interaction. Students were rarely addressed by name or called to respond individually. For the most part, the students appeared unchallenged or simply bored. The Board's expert witness described the classroom style as lack of "with-it-ness". Although Conner was friendly or kind, class time was wasted and the students' education was not advanced. Over the 1991-92 school year, James Conner issued approximately 110 student discipline referrals, exhibiting some improvement over prior years, but still an excessive amount based on the number of his students, and reflective of a failure of classroom management and poor rapport with the students. His explanation that his students were particularly disruptive and he had to be strict to keep them from hurting themselves on the dangerous equipment, is not substantiated by the observations of the principal or by the compelling evidence of the videotaped sessions. The classroom unrest was more apparently the painful consequence of student boredom and failure of the teacher to engage his enviably small classes in the subject matter. Conner's theory that his principal gave up on him too early and failed to provide the equipment he needed, or had a personality conflict, was not developed with competent, credible evidence. The assistance plan, the suggestions and guidance offered by Roger Gardner, and the peer assistance of two outstanding teachers were appropriate and adequate. Daniel Pelham did not recommend Conner's transfer to another school because he properly wanted to avoid passing on a problem to someone else. James Conner did improve his performance over the remedial year. Six unsatisfactory charges were reduced to four. It is impossible to determine whether more improvement would have been made with more time. He was, however, given the time required by law, and was given the assistance required to make improvements. The principal's assessment was valid and the superintendent's recommendation that he not be issued a new professional service contract was timely and is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Seminole County enter its Final Order denying renewal of James Conner's professional service contract. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 26th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3012 The following constitute rulings made on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted substantially in paragraph 1. Respondent testified that he was employed 17 years (transcript, p.304). Included in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 17. Included in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Rejected as unnecessary. 9-10. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. (Second numbered paragraph 12) Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraphs 17 and 26. Adopted in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 12-16. Rejected as substantially unsupported by the evidence. He did make some effort and was moderately, but insufficiently, successful. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in paragraph 1. Adopted in part in paragraph 2. The proposed finding of personality conflict is rejected as unsubstantiated by competent, credible evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 4. Adopted in part in paragraph 5. The ultimate conclusion that he had "given up" is rejected as an overstatement of the substance of Pelham's testimony. 5-7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substantive part in paragraph 25. Adopted in paragraph 6. 10-12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 15-17. Substantially rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 18-22. Rejected as unnecessary. The testimony of the peer teachers neither supports nor rejects the position of Respondent. It is credible, but essentially neutral. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. The referrals played some part in the unsatisfactory assessments, but so also did Pelham's classroom observations. Rejected as unnecessary. The basic premise is accepted, but this was not the reason Respondent had problems with referrals. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 26-27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 18. 29-31. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Both parties' experts were impressive and credible. In her assessment of Respondent's performance, Dr. Cronin- Jones understandably concentrated on the positive aspects, which aspects were nonetheless outweighed by the negative overall lack of effective connection between teacher and his students. The marked efforts to "relate" are rote, and in some cases (the trips), detract from the learning process. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire STENSTROM, MCINTOSH, ET AL. Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848 Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire MEYER AND BROOKS, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's termination of employment by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, was proper.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed as a teacher at Charles R. Drew Middle School, pursuant to an annual contract and holds Florida Educators Certificate Number 188727. Respondent holds a bachelor of science degree from Florida Atlantic University. She was employed by Petitioner in 1997 and has worked in the teaching profession for approximately 30 years. Prior to 1997, Respondent was a substitute teacher in Broward County, Florida, and in other states. During the 1999- 2000 school year, Respondent taught eighth grade science. Teachers employed by the School Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS"). TADS was approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract between the School Board and UTD. The identical TADS evaluations are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers, whether new or veterans. TADS objectively measures 68 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. At all times material hereto, TADS was used to evaluate Respondent's performance. TADS includes the following factors in its assessment criteria: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships and assessment techniques. All teachers are contractually required to be informed of the criteria and procedures. At the beginning of each school year, school principals are required to review the assessment criteria with all faculty. TADS observations and ratings are performed by school principals and assistant principals who are trained and certified. The TADS training encompasses four days and includes the following components: strategies for pre-observation, classroom observation, decision-making with the Classroom Assessment Instrument, post-observation interview, prescription/probation of professionals, recommendations for improvement (prescriptive activities), assisting teachers in the design of instruction and improvement activities, practical activities such as video assessment, and actual classroom teacher assessment under the supervision of a trainer. The trained observer is responsible for recording any deficiencies identified during the observation period and providing a prescription plan for performance improvement. Within five work days, a post-observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. The teacher has the right to provide a written response, either in the space provided in column 3 of the "Prescription for Performance Improvement" or by separate document that becomes part of the teacher's file. The teacher is required to comply with the activities provided in the prescription plan, which are usually obtained from the "Prescription Manual," and to meet the deadlines set forth in the column designated "Timeline" in the prescription performance improvement plan. As a result of the statutory amendments to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, the School Board and UTD executed a Memorandum of Understanding on December 4, 1997, for the purpose of amending the TADS procedures to comply with the new statutory requirements. Under the amended procedures, a "conference for the record" initiates a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. Each observation is independent, and there must be periodic observations during the performance probation period in which the employee is apprised of his or her progress and is provided assistance through prescription plans. After the performance probation period is concluded, a "confirmatory observation" occurs without a prescription plan. On November 8, 1999, Respondent was formally observed by Assistant Principal Paulette Covin during science class. Respondent received an unsatisfactory rating in Category III, Classroom Management; Category IV; Techniques of Instruction; and Category V, Teacher-Student Relationships. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she did not effectively use verbal or non- verbal techniques to redirect off-task learners. Several students continuously misbehaved and violated classroom rules. Four students were engaged in drawing during the lesson. One student slept throughout the entire observation which lasted over one hour. Six students talked throughout the observation period. Several students left their seats without permission and walked around the classroom during the observation period. Respondent did not use techniques effectively to maintain the attention of off-task learners. Clear expectations of student behavior and a systematic approach to proper classroom discipline were not evident. Respondent blew a whistle in an attempt to redirect off-task behavior, but there was no connection between the whistle-blowing and the expected behavior. The students did not react at the use of the whistle. Classroom rules were referred to; however, disruptive students were not dealt with quickly and appropriately. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because Respondent failed to provide background information explaining why the topic of waves was being discussed. Respondent asked students if they remembered what they had learned about waves and electromagnetic spectrum. A student responded, "You did not teach us that." Moreover, lesson components were not properly sequenced. Without any segue or introduction from one activity to another, Respondent told the students to engage in jump-in reading and later, buddy reading. Respondent did not provide students with examples of demonstrations for the lesson she was teaching. Respondent did not provide students with feedback. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because Respondent did not promote a positive interpersonal environment in her classroom. She did not encourage her students who had difficulty responding. She demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding for students who responded poorly during the observation, and did not solicit involvement from students who appeared reluctant to participate. She failed to take corrective action when one student gave a response and another student yelled out, "Dummy that's not right." During the post-observation conference for the record held on November 15, 1999, Respondent was advised that her performance was unacceptable, and effective immediately, was being placed on a 90 calendar-day performance probation period. She was informed that, at the end of her probation period, it was her responsibility to demonstrate that she had corrected the identified deficiencies. On November 17, 1999, Respondent received a prescription for performance improvement. Assistant Principal Covin made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The plan included observing a lesson taught by a fellow teacher and submitting a summary of the verbal and non- verbal discipline techniques used by that teacher to redirect off-task learners. Respondent was directed to create a classroom management plan for implementing techniques to redirect off-task learners, chart implementation for one week, and then discuss the results with Assistant Principal Covin. In addition, Respondent was directed to review reading strategies learned during in-service training sessions and submit a paper describing ways in which Respondent could provide instruction accommodations for more than one learning style. Additional resources, including administrators and fellow teachers, were also made available to Respondent. Respondent submitted her completed prescription activities before the December 3, 1999, deadline. On December 13, 1999, Respondent was formally observed in her science class by Assistant Principal Andy Granados as a subsequent evaluation to apprise Respondent of her progress. Respondent was found unsatisfactory in Category I, Preparation and Planning; Category III; Classroom Management; and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she had failed to develop written lesson plans, as required. Instead, Respondent advised Assistant Principal Granados that "the lesson plans were in her head." Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she was unaware that several students were engaged in off-task behavior. Three students left their seats without permission and went to other students' desks to talk casually. One student sat in his chair but did not attempt to complete any work. Seven students held private conversations and Respondent made no attempt to redirect them. Throughout the observation period, students walked aimlessly, sharpened pencils, visited with other students, and disturbed the class. Respondent failed to address their behavior. Although Respondent blew a whistle, there was no connection between the whistle blowing and any expected behavior. Respondent's use of verbal and non-verbal techniques to redirect the off-task behavior was completely ineffective. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she failed to provide any background for the lesson at hand. The lesson began without introduction and the activities in the class were unrelated. Respondent distributed two worksheets. The first worksheet involved an exercise comparing energy and the second was an isolated word game. She did not provide the students with any explanation about either sheet. Students repeatedly asked, "Why are we doing this?" Assistant Principal Granados held a post-observation conference with Respondent on January 10, 2000, to discuss his findings. Although the observation took place on Monday, December 13, 1999, Respondent, admittedly, was absent on December 14 and 15, 1999, and again on January 3-7, 2000. Furthermore, the holiday break extended from December 18, 1999, to January 2, 2000. Notwithstanding Respondent's testimony that she was present on two workdays, December 16 an 17, between the date of the observation and the post-observation conference held January 10, 2000, Petitioner complied with the five-work day time requirement for the post-observation conference. During their post-observation conference, Assistant Principal Granados made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The directions included writing and submitting daily lesson plans containing objectives, activities, procedures, assessments, and homework. Respondent was directed to observe a fellow teacher and identify instances where non-verbal techniques were used to maintain the attention of the students. She was also directed to prepare a plan for student behavior with rewards and consequences, to read specific pages for the TADS Prescription Manual, and to complete certain activities in that manual. Additionally, Respondent was directed to create a written outline with an introduction to each lesson indicating the relationship between the written instructional objectives, and the planned activities. The written outline was required to be attached to Respondent's lesson plans. Respondent's prescription plan activities were due on January 28, 2000. Respondent requested and received an extension of time to complete the activities until January 31, 2000, and completed the assigned activities on time. On February 8, 2000, Respondent was formally observed again in her science class by Assistant Principal Edward Bethel. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in Category III, Classroom Management, and Category IV, Techniques of Instruction. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because there was no clear expectations for acceptable behavior. Students were engaged in off-task behavior. Four students left their seats without permission, while six students chewed gum and talked throughout the lesson. Respondent blew a whistle but the students continued to talk. Students who interacted inappropriately or interfered with the work of others were not disciplined appropriately. Two students fought over a stool, while a male student tried to remove a book from a female student. Respondent did not intervene. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because there was no background given for the lesson presented and lesson components were not properly sequenced. Respondent listed six unrelated activities on the board. The students were confused about the unrelated assignments and the relationship between the assignments and what they had learned in the previous lesson. In the middle of the lesson, Respondent interrupted the students and read to them about the life of Frederick Douglas. Respondent failed to explain the connection between the life of Frederick Douglas and the lesson objective of the day which involved an animal's environment influencing survival. During the post-observation conference on February 15, 2000, Assistant Principal Bethel made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance in the prescription plan for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. The assistance included observing a fellow teacher and identifying five verbal and five nonverbal techniques to maintain specific behaviors of learners. Respondent was instructed to submit to Assistant Principal Bethel techniques that could be used to develop clear expectations to deal with students appropriately. Respondent was instructed to list the name of each student who acted inappropriately, and to submit a written plan to Assistant Principal Bethel as to how Respondent would handle negative behavior in the classroom. In addition, Respondent was directed to read specific pages from the TADS Prescription Manual, and to complete certain activities in that manual. Respondent was directed to create a written outline with an introduction to each lesson indicating the instructional objectives, the planned activities, and a description of how those activities will assist the students in reaching the instructional objective. Respondent submitted her completed activities in a timely manner. On March 9, 2000, two days after Respondent's 90-day performance probation period ended, Principal Ronnie Hunter performed a confirmatory observation to determine if Respondent's deficiencies had been corrected. Principal Hunter formally observed the Respondent in her science class and rated her unsatisfactory in Category II, Knowledge of Subject Matter, Category III, Classroom Management; Category IV; Techniques of Instruction; and Category VI, Assessment Techniques. After the confirmatory observation, Respondent was notified that she had failed to correct her performance deficiencies. Thereafter, on March 9, 2000, Principal Hunter forwarded to the Superintendent of Schools his recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated. By letter dated March 10, 2000, the Superintendent notified Respondent that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated because she failed to correct performance deficiencies during her 90-calendar-day performance probation period. The assistance provided to Respondent through her prescriptions was substantial and appropriate to remedy her cited deficiencies. Although she claims that in-service training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies were not provided, she was directed to and observed several fellow colleagues engaged in teaching. Dr. O'Donnell, a 31-year veteran with the school system and an expert in TADS and teacher assessment, specifically testified that in-service training is not limited to formal education or workshops, but includes observation of fellow teachers. Although the School Board provided sufficient and meaningful in-service training opportunities to Respondent, she failed to show improvement. Respondent further claims that the School Board failed to meet TADS requirements after she was placed on a 90 calendar- day performance probation in October 1999, following the initial and rescinded observation conducted by Principal Hunter on October 12, 1999. Respondent claims that after she was initially placed on probation in October, Principal Hunter failed to notify her that she was being removed from probationary status due to a procedural error. Principal Hunter testified he rescinded the October 12, observation and verbally told Respondent that he was removing her from the 90-calendar- day performance probation because he did not get a required signature on the post-observation report. Respondent on the other hand, claims she did not receive notification and, as a result, believed the observation conducted by Paulette Covin on November 8, 1999, and the subsequent observations conducted on December 13, 1999, and February 8, 2000, were observations within the 90 calendar-day probation period. Respondent's claim that she never received notice that she was no longer on probation following the October 1999 observation is disingenuous. Notwithstanding Principal Hunter's credible testimony that he verbally informed her that she was no longer on probation, Respondent was clearly placed on notice that she was on probation beginning November 17, 1999. Specifically, on November 15, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent following her unsatisfactory observation held on November 8, 1999, during which Respondent received a written prescription and was informed in writing that, as a result of that unsatisfactory observation, she was being placed on the 90-calendar-day performance probation period. Moreover, on November 17, Respondent signed the summary of the conference-for-the-record which clearly and unambiguously stated, "You were advised of the availability of personnel to assist you during the 90 calendar-day Performance Probation, which commences upon the date that you receive the written prescription." In addition, the School Board committed no statutory violation of any TADS procedures by rescinding the October 12 unacceptable observation. In fact, under TADS the School Board could not rely on the October 12 unacceptable observation to dismiss Respondent because the post-observation report lacked a required signature. The School Board correctly rescinded the October 12 unacceptable observation. The TADS' requirements and procedures were properly executed regarding the formal observations of Respondent and the evaluations of her teaching performance. Petitioner complied with all of the statutory time frames. Respondent also failed to demonstrate that Principal Hunter created a hostile environment toward Caucasian female teachers that resulted in the termination of Respondent's employment. There was no reliable evidence that Principal Hunter discriminated against Respondent at any time including his formal observations of Respondent pursuant to TADS. While Principal Hunter performed two formal observations noting Respondent's deficiencies including the rescinded observation on October 12, 1999, and the confirmatory on March 9, 2000, three different assistant principals also objectively evaluated and rated her unsatisfactory prior to Principal Hunter's confirmatory observation finding Respondent's performance unacceptable. Moreover, Principal Hunter interviewed and hired Respondent as a teacher in 1997. Finally, although the School Board's contract with UTD provides for a joint labor/management committee called the "TADS Monitoring Committee" to resolve evaluation and procedure disputes, Respondent never objected to the criteria, procedures, or assessments of the committee. In sum, Respondent failed to demonstrate that TADS procedures were not followed, or establish that she was harassed or discriminated against by Principal Hunter. On the other hand, Petitioner presented competent substantial evidence that Respondent consistently performed at an unsatisfactory level and failed to correct her deficiencies during the probationary period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Valerie Kiffin Lewis, Esquire Valerie Kiffin Lewis, P.A. 4801 South University Drive, Suite 102 The Atrium Centre Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33328 Timothy A. Pease, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all time relevant hereto, respondent, Delores V Crumiel, held Teaching Certificate No. 342743 issued by the State Department of Education. The certificate covers the specialization of elementary education, grades one through six. During school years 1979-80 through 1984-85, Crumiel was employed by petitioner, School Board of Dade County, as a tenured elementary teacher at West Little River Elementary School (WIRES) in Miami, Florida. Crumiel received a bachelor of science degree in elementary education from Florida Memorial College. Except for a leave of absence during school year 1982-83 due to the death of her husband, she was employed as an elementary school teacher in Dade County for the eleven years immediately preceding her dismissal. WLRES is located in a low socio-economic area of Miami. It has qualified as a Chapter I school, which means it receives federal monies to provide supplementary instruction in basic skills for low-achieving students from the low-income areas of the community. Under this program, instruction is focused on basic skills such as mathematics, language arts and reading, and the teacher has no responsibility in content areas such as science, social studies and health. However, in order to compensate for the lack of content areas, the Chapter I teacher is required to interweave topics from the missing content areas into language lessons in order to give a "language experience" to the students. The language experience is an important part of the federal program. The size of Chapter I classes at WLRES is roughly half of a normal class, and typically numbered from thirteen to fifteen students. It was established that a Chapter I class is easier to teach than a class in the regular school program because of smaller classroom size, less discipline problems, and easier subject matter content. The lesson plans are also easier to prepare than regular lesson plans because only language arts and mathematics are included in Chapter I plans. During the relevant time period, Crumiel was assigned to teach either fifth or sixth grades. By virtue of required classroom observations being conducted by supervisory personnel, Crumiel was found to be deficient in classroom management and teacher-student relationships in school year 1979-1980, deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment technique in school year 1983-84, and deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques in school year 1984-85. After Crumiel declined a School Board offer to relinquish her teaching job, and accept a teaching aide position, the School Board voted on October 21, 1985, to dismiss Crumiel from employment with the Board on the basis of incompetency. This action confirmed her earlier suspension effective October 2, 1985, and she has remained suspended without pay since that date. The Board's action prompted the instant proceeding. Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, thereafter filed an administrative complaint seeking revocation of Crumiel's teaching certificate on the same ground. The two matters have been consolidated for hearing purposes. School Year 1979-1980 During school year 1979-1980, Crumiel was assigned to teach in a fifth grade classroom at WLRES. At that time Dr. John Johnson, II was her principal. Crumiel was formally observed by Johnson on December 4, 1979 and February 26, 1980 when he made routine visits to her classroom to evaluate her teaching skills. On these two visits Johnson found Crumiel to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and teacher- student relationships. More specifically, Johnson observed hostility and screaming in the classroom, and found her "upset, emotional and loud." He described her as being in "total disarray." He also felt the students were "acting out." Because of this, she received an unacceptable annual evaluation for the 1979-80 school year. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Johnson assigned a systems aide to work with Crumiel in the classroom. Crumiel was also assigned to work with a master teacher during the following summer (1981). The results of this effort are noted in a subsequent finding. Dr. Johnson gave her written prescriptions to help improve her performance and asked that the assistant principal work with Crumiel. A prescription is a course of action that must be carried out by a teacher in order to remediate a deficient performance. This type of assistance continued until Johnson departed WLRES in 1983. During this period of time Johnson received numerous complaints regarding Crumiel's classroom management from other teachers, and had to go to her class on a number of occasions to calm the students. During school year 1979-80, a first-year teacher taught in the classroom adjacent to respondent's classroom. She confirmed that Crumiel's classroom discipline was very poor, and that the students were noisy and disruptive. In addition, even though Crumiel was supposedly a "seasoned" teacher, the first year teacher frequently found Crumiel seeking assistance from her regarding subject matter content and teaching techniques. Despite the unacceptable annual evaluation given Crumiel in school year 1979-80, Johnson continued to recommend Crumiel for employment. However, he noted that Crumiel's performance was going "down" as time progressed, and except for the fact that he was leaving WLRES in 1983, he would have recommended she be dismissed from the school system. C. 1980-83 During the summer of 1981, Dr. Johnson assigned crumiel to team teach with Alstene McKinney, a master teacher, so that Crumiel could learn some ideas and techniques from McKinney. They taught two regular size classes of twenty-five to thirty Chapter I students in a pod. A pod is a free standing building utilizing the open space concept where a number of classrooms are separated by partitions. At least two classrooms would share common bathrooms and water fountain facilities. McKinney observed that Crumiel has a problem with classroom management, and that her class was always noisy. On various occasions McKinney had to stop teaching and ask Crumiel's students to quiet down. On one occasion McKinney observed Crumiel instructing her students that a quarter past the hour meant 25 minutes after the hour. When she later mentioned it to Crumiel, Crumiel corrected herself and said, "I meant 20 minutes after." Crumiel's husband unexpectedly died on September 1, 1982, from injuries received in an accident. By the following spring, respondent has accumulated some forty-five days of absences, and her absences were affecting her students' progress. In addition, she developed a pattern of calling in the evening and informing the school secretary htat she would report to work the next day, and then in the morning, calling to inform the school she would be absent. At that time, Dr. Johnson referred Crumiel to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in an effort to aid her in coping with her family crisis. The EAP is a program designed to assist teachers having academic, personal or psychological problems. Crumiel eventually took a leave of absence April, 1983 for the remainder of the school year. She was medically cleared to return to work in August, 1983. The medical clearance noted that Crumiel did not have any medical condition that would impair or restrict her performance as a teacher. School Year 1983-84 Respondent returned to WLRES on August 24, 1983. She was given a Chapter 1 fifth grade classroom assignment on that day by her new principal, Glenda Harris. The class was to be taught in an air-conditioned pod to be shared with two other teachers, Pauline Maloof and Merrial Daniels Radford. There were a total of forty-five students assigned to the entire pod. Although the adequacy of the size of the room was questioned by one of respondent's witnesses, it is found that respondent's classroom contained adequate space for the number of children being taught. In fact, in the prior year, two teachers and sixty-four students had shared the same space. Moreover, the pod concept is common in the Dade County school system, and even today, Crumiel's former pod classroom is still set up structurally in the same manner. During this school year, Chapter I classes were restricted to a maximum of sixteen students, with the average being fifteen students. This compared with a regular class that would have from twenty-eight to thirty-five students. An essential component in the Chapter I program is the oral language development segment. Through this component, the teacher gives the children a better example of speech patterns so that students who are not proficient in the use of standard English become aware of the standard patterns and usage. This enables the students to use appropriate language when entering the job market. To improve and enhance the teacher skills in the foregoing area, all Chapter I teachers, including Crumiel, received five in-service training sessions during the school year. On November 16, 1983, Harris visited Crumiel's classroom to make a formal observation of respondent's teaching. Harris was so stunned by what she observed that she chose not to record her visit as an official observation. During the visit, it became apparent to Harris that Crumiel had no grasp of Chapter I requirements. More specifically, Crumiel was not interweaving the content areas of science and social studies into the language experience. She confused the students by accepting incorrect answers as correct and vice-versa. Crumiel also demonstrated a lack of basic English skills, making such statements as, "Is there anyone who do not understand?"; "I am sorry, boys and girls--my book do not have . . . "; "Why you think it's 'drink?'"; and "Who do not understand?" In addition, Crumiel was using an outdated reading technique (round-robin reading), and did not use the diagnostic prescriptive approach by setting up reading groups within her class. It was evident to Harris that Crumiel had not read the lesson prior to teaching the children, and was totally unprepared. Because of this, the children in Crumiel's classroom did not receive a minimal educational experience on that day. Harris asked Crumiel where her teaching aid materials were, and was told by Crumiel they were in the bottom of one of her desk drawers. Crumiel also acknowledged that she had not read them. Harris returned for a formal observation of Crumiel on November 21, 1983. She found respondent's performance to be no better than it was on November 16, 1983. It was evident that respondent had not read the lesson prior to teaching the class and did not understand the point of the story being told. The students were also having great difficulty reading. Crumiel's interpretive skills were very poor and she still accepted incorrect responses from the students and vice-versa. For example, when one student gave an example of a compound word, charcoal, Crumiel told the student that it was incorrect because "char" was not a word. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "jack-o-later" for "jack-o-lantern," "likeded" for "liked," and "terranium" for "terrarium." She also used very poor grammatical structure. Based upon her observations, Harris rated Crumiel as being unacceptable with specific deficiencies in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She also concluded that the students failed to receive a minimal educational experience. After the observation was concluded, Harris and Crumiel discussed the problems Harris had noted that day. Crumiel acknowledged she had done poorly, and asked that Harris observe her another day when she would be better prepared. Harris again formally observed respondent on November 29, 1983. She was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. Harris noted that Crumiel had not set up a reading program even though this is required in both regular and Chapter I classes. In addition, respondent's lesson plans merely listed page numbers rather than activities, materials and evaluations. Further, while she had grouped the children, she had not given them the appropriate reading books based upon their diagnostic tests. Crumiel had also failed to preview the lesson prior to teaching the class. Respondent continued to mispronounce words such as "shevel" for "shovel," and "depenable" for "dependable," and displayed poor grammar throughout the instruction. Her subject verb agreement was virtually nonexistent and she misused possessives. For example, Crumiel stated, "This machine what is called the steam shovel. . . what is the little boy name? . . . Yes it does scoops up dirt." She was unable to define a steam shovel for a student until she looked the term up in a dictionary. She continued to accept incorrect information from the children as correct and vice-versa. Finally, Harris found respondent's techniques of instruction unacceptable since Crumiel merely read directions to the class. After the observation was completed, Harris met with Crumiel and discussed all areas of her evaluation. On December 8, 1983, a conference-for-the-record was attended by Harris, Crumiel and Jack Grayson, the assistant principal at WLRES. At that time, the observations and visits of November 16, 21 and 29, 1983 were discussed. In an effort to assist Crumiel, Harris and Grayson devised a prescription designed to meet Crumiel's needs. In this case, the prescriptive plan required Crumiel to enroll in a basic English course and a Methods and Materials course in the teaching of reading. She was told to do this by the second semester of the school year. She was also told that Grayson would give her assistance with her reading plans, and visit her classroom on December 13, 1983 to become more familiar with her classroom style. In addition, Harris offered to make available further training in the Dade County Diagnostic Prescriptive Reading System. She was asked to set up a schedule of visitations to other classrooms so that she might learn teaching techniques from other faculty members. Finally, Crumiel was given a set of procedures to be used in critiquing her own plans and presentations of lessons. After the conference, Harris and Grayson spent an hour- and-a-half showing Crumiel how to set up her reading program. They were surprised when they found that respondent, despite having taught for eight or nine years in the system, did not know how to do this. Respondent was next formally observed by Grayson during a lesson on invitations on December 13, 1983. Respondent was given an overall rating of acceptable. However, Grayson later discovered that another teacher, Merria1 Radford Daniels, had actually written the lesson plan, and had demonstrated to Crumiel how to teach that day's class. She did so after Crumiel came to her seeking help before Grayson's visit. Daniels had made displays for Crumiel, and had written the lesson on Crumiel's blackboard with the key words to be used. She also demonstrated the lesson in Crumiel's presence. Daniels then had Crumiel demonstrate the lesson for her, and told respondent to go home and practice in front of a mirror. Respondent admitted this to Grayson. Respondent was informally visited by Harris on January 23, 1984. Although the students were supposed to be in their seats and ready to begin at 8:30 a.m., Harris found them up and out of their seats at 8:58 a.m. when she entered the classroom. Crumiel had not prepared a lesson for that particular class, so she taught a lesson originally scheduled for another time. Even so, she merely read instructions and handed out materials. Harris found no evidence that respondent was carrying out the prescription previously given to her on December 8, 1983. She concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience that day. Respondent was again formally observed by Harris on June 5, 1984. At that time she was given an overall rating of unacceptable with specific deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Although respondent had developed lesson plans for the class, the classroom activities did not reflect evidence of effective instructional planning. More importantly, Harris did not see any progress by Crumiel since she had been given the prescription on December 8, 1983. She found Crumiel still reading directions to the students rather than teaching them subject matter content. A large part of the classroom instruction was taken up by students performing meaningless exercises. Respondent still lacked a basic understanding of the subject matter, abbreviations. This was evidenced by respondent's inability to answer questions from students indicating when abbreviations are to be used. For example, she could not answer why the abbreviation for doctor is capitalized, or why the abbreviation for ounces is oz. rather than oun. She still continued to use improper English such as "Be sure your name and date is on all your papers." On June 6, 1984, Grayson revisited Crumiel's classroom to conduct a formal evaluation of Crumiel's mathematics class. Grayson rated respondent's performance as unacceptable with a specific deficiency in the area of techniques of instruction. He found the lesson too simple for the students and therefore a waste of their time. Crumiel's instructions and directions were confusing, and she was unable to clarify them for the students' benefit. Crumiel was again observed by Harris on June 8, 1984. Respondent had asked Harris to return after her prior visit on June 5 because she had learned something in a class she was taking and wanted to demonstrate it to Harris. After observing respondent Harris rated her as unacceptable with deficiencies in the areas of planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. She was found barely acceptable in classroom management. Although Crumiel had a lesson plan, it was not effective and was inappropriate for students of the fifth grade level. Moreover, her classroom management appeared to Harris to be staged and practiced as in a performance. At hearing, Crumiel contended the pod was a poor environment in which to teach, and stated her class was frequently disrupted by outside students coming in to her area to use the restroom and drinking fountain. However, during school year 1983-84, Crumiel voiced no complaints to the administration about teaching in a pod, or that she experienced the disruptions she described. Indeed, no such disruptive activity was ever observed by the administrators who made classroom evaluations or by other teachers in the pod. If such activity did occur, it was only after someone inside the classroom unlocked the door since Crumiel's door was always kept locked. During the school year, the disruptive children were always evenly distributed between Maloof, Daniels, and Crumiel. After Harris became aware of Crumiel's classroom management problems, several students with behavioral problems were reassigned from Crumiel's classroom to that of Maloof and Daniels. Moreover, Crumiel received the highest academic level in the three groups. On her annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas or preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. However, Harris refrained from recommending Crumiel for termination, choosing instead to write another, more detailed prescription in the hope that Crumiel could improve over the summer. On June 21, 1984, another conference-for-the-record was held by Harris, Crumiel, Grayson and a teacher union representative. At that time, Harris outlined the prescription and asked that Crumiel continue with the EAP. Crumiel had previously participated in the EAP but had ceased attending, Crumiel was told to prepare her lesson plans in behavioral terms and was given various reading materials to help her with this task. She was further given an excerpt from the teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) manual on techniques of instruction. In addition, she was directed to take certain courses offered by the Teacher Education center (TEC) to assist her in deficient areas. However, Harris suggested that the outside course work could be postponed until the fall so that she could spend a restful summer. Finally Crumiel was told she would be informally observed during the first nine weeks of the following school year, and formally observed in the second nine week period. This information was incorrect since any teacher on prescription must be formally observed during the first six weeks of the next school year. In conjunction with the EAP respondent began individual psychotherapy and supportive counseling with a licensed clinical psychologist that summer. She remained his patient until September, 1985. During school year 1983-84, Crumiel received help from Maloof and Daniels, who shared her pod. Maloof gave Crumiel assistance in grouping her children, shared materials with her, and made various suggestions on how to improve her teaching techniques. However, when they discussed educational topics, Crumiel did not seem to understand the subject matter. Daniels showed respondent how to order materials for the different levels of students. Finally, a reading specialist gave a workshop session in October, 1983 that addressed the procedures for pre- testing, post-testing and leveling students. Crumiel attended this workshop. School Year 1984-85 Beginning in the 1984-85 school year, WLRES implemented the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) of teacher observation for all teachers. In the prior year, only annual contract teachers were under the TADS observation scheme. Since Crumiel was under a continuing contract, she was not subject to this observation method prior to school year 1984-85. Under the TADS system, teachers are required to have objectives, activities and a way of monitoring student progress in and through their lesson plans. At the beginning of the school year, Harris moved Crumiel to Room 212, a self-contained classroom. This move was prompted by complaints about noisy, disruptive students in Crumiel's classroom from the teachers who shared the pod with Crumiel during the prior year. Room 212 contained approximately the same amount of space that Crumiel previously had in the pod, but the classroom was not air-conditioned. However, around two- thirds of the teachers in the school did not have air- conditioning at that time. Harris also changed respondent's grade level from grade five to grade six. This was done to relieve her of the additional pressures of preparing the students for the state assessment test (SAT). WLRES had been adjudged deficient during the previous school year, and fifth grade classes were scheduled to be tested on the SAT in the first nine weeks of the school year. Crumiel protested her reassignment to a higher grade level and told Harris that sixth grade mathematics were beyond her teaching ability. However, Harris reminded Crumiel that she was certified for the sixth grade, and that the chances of her actually teaching sixth grade math in a Chapter I class were remote. Children were assigned to respondent in very much the same manner that they had been assigned the previous year. The administration made certain that slow learners and students exhibiting behavior problems were evenly distributed among the various teachers. Harris visited respondent's classroom on September 20, 1984 to conduct an informal observation. Respondent's lesson plans were not written in behavioral terms as directed by her June 21 prescription. Further, she had not grouped the children or pretested them in reading. Harris also found Crumiel's presentation of subject matter and classroom management skills unacceptable. Harris concluded that the children did not receive a minimally acceptable educational experience. Harris met with respondent following the informal visit. At that meeting, Harris reviewed Crumiel's prescription and the efforts being made by Crumiel to fulfill its goals. Harris discovered that respondent had "forgotten" to inquire about the various courses taught at the Reacher Education Center and displayed an unconcerned attitude towards the requirements of the prescription. She was told by Crumiel that the sixth grade level objectives were too difficult for her, and that she did not know how to write lesson plans in behavioral objectives. Harris then told Crumiel she would visit respondent's classroom on September 25, 1984. Harris also began showing Crumiel how to write objectives in behavioral terms. Harris was unable to visit respondent's classroom on September 25 because respondent called in sick that morning. Crumiel did, however, bring her lesson plans to Harris the following day. Harris found them lacking any behavioral objectives. Harris again encouraged Crumiel to read the material furnished her. Respondent's mathematics class was formally observed by Grayson on October 1, 1984. A formal observation was required at that time since Crumiel was on prescription from the prior year. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because her lesson plans did not have the items required by the TADS system. In other words, Crumiel had no way to assess her students in order to monitor their progress. Grayson recommended that respondent continue with the prescription given by Harris, and to turn in her lesson plans on a weekly basis for his review. Grayson continued to review those plans until her dismissal some two years later, and to offer suggestions on how they could be improved. During the school year, the teacher occupying the adjacent classroom continually complained about the noise in respondent's room. Because of this, Crumiel was moved to room 206, a larger self-contained classroom which had been recently renovated and filled with new furniture. It was uncontradicted that room 206 was far superior to the other classroom spaces in the building that were used by Chapter I classes. Respondent was formally observed again by Harris on January 23, 1985. Harris found that the children were not receiving a minimal educational experience. Using the TADS system, Crumiel was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessments techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she was still using November lessons plans with only the dates changed, and was not using the prescribed plan. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she gave no instruction. She was found to be unacceptable in classroom management because the children were not prepared to begin the lesson. In the area of techniques of instruction, Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because she was not using appropriate methods or differentiated materials, and she failed to use two or more learning styles as required by TADS. Finally Crumiel was found to be deficient in assessment techniques because she failed to use the information given her in the TADS prescription manual. In addition, because her grade book and student folders were not properly maintained, and there was no way to tell what had been taught and tested, or to access the students' improvement. As a result of the January 25 visit, Harris prescribed help for respondent from the TADS prescription manual, which is written on a level that the average teacher can understand. However, Harris did not suggest that Crumiel use the manual after that occasion since Crumiel admitted she was unable to understand the information in the manual. At respondent's request, Harris performed another formal observation on January 29, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management and techniques of instruction. Harris also concluded that the students did not receive a minimal educational experience. Crumiel was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not written in conformity with her prescription. She appeared unprepared and wasted classroom time on repetitious, meaningless exercises. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of knowledge of subject matter because she did not understand the lesson she was suppose to be teaching, and told the children that adding an "s" at the end of a verb would make it plural. Crumiel's classroom management was rated unacceptable because the classroom environment was not conducive to learning. Harris found the room unkempt and materials in disorder, and noted that Crumiel did not start the lesson promptly due to a number of unnecessary delays. In the area of techniques of instruction Crumiel received an unacceptable rating because the majority of the materials used were inappropriate for the objectives. Further, the methods of instruction never varied, and respondent did not give consideration to the various learning styles in the classroom. Harris concluded that the materials and methods used often insulted the age level of the students. After the observation was concluded, Harris asked Crumiel to review and study the materials given her in the prior prescription. Crumiel was also told that Eneida Hartner, director of the North Central area, would provide her with additional help. Finally, Harris taught a reading lesson to Crumiel's class in an effort to improve Crumiel's teaching style. While Harris was in the classroom, respondent did relatively well with teacher-student relationships. However, when no administrator was present, respondent could often be heard shouting and cajoling the children to behave. There were instances when children were seen hanging out of the windows and shouting. Respondent was heard telling a student on one occasion, "Sit your black butt down." On February 8, 1985, Harris and Hartner visited respondent's classroom for approximately one hour to informally observe Crumiel. Even though Hartner had designed certain activities for respondent to use that day while teaching, Hartner and Harris concluded there was no teaching in the classroom. They also noted that respondent was not following the diagnostic prescriptive approach which is required of all elementary teachers.. Hartner recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from a Chapter I educational specialist, Pat Kanovsky, who was assigned to help Crumiel with the language experience approach used in Chapter I classes. Hartner also directed a prep specialist, Gwen Bryant, to monitor Crumiel in the areas of basic skills, such as reading, writing and mathematics, and to help respondent in the prescriptive diagnostic approach. She also recommended that Crumiel receive assistance from the assistant principal, department chairman and master teacher, and to make use of certain excerpts from the TADS prescription manual. Bryant visited Crumiel's classroom four times in February 1985 in an attempt to provide her with assistance. On her February 14 visit, Bryant observed that respondent was not using the "RSVP" program in an appropriate manner. This is a program that is used for all children in both Chapter I and regular classes. Bryant also noted that Crumiel had not used her pacemaker chart correctly, and was therefore unable to determine if the children were being taught subject matter at a pace commensurate with their level of ability. On her February 27 visit, Bryant found the students confused and not understanding what they were expected to do in class that day. They were yelling, and many were out of their seats. Respondent was unsuccessful in her efforts to manage behavior. After seeing this, Bryant made a number of suggestions to respondent. She also went over the instructional material and demonstrated how to properly use it. She explained how the students were to be placed and instructed according to their reading levels. Bryant gave further tips on teaching techniques, suggestions on managing classroom behavior and how to properly begin a lesson. On February 11, 1985, Kanovsky spent approximately two hours with Crumiel in an effort to improve Crumiel's lesson plan preparation. Among other things, Kanovsky told respondent that her grammar was inappropriate for use in a Chapter I classroom. Hartner, accompanied by Harris, visited respondent's classroom on March 27, 1985, for the purpose of making an external observation. This type of observation was required since Crumiel had already received two negative evaluations from WLRES administrators. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. She was given an unsatisfactory rating in preparation and planning because she failed to properly include a language experience activity in her instruction. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she continued to use poor grammar while teaching. For example, Crumiel made such statements as, "Their eyes be red" and "How do their face look?" Crumiel was found to be deficient in techniques of instruction because the lesson lacked sequence, and she failed to adjust her instruction when she did not get anticipated responses from the students. She also accepted responses from the students without telling them whether they were right or wrong. Further, it did not appear that Crumiel had made use of any of the suggestions regarding teaching techniques given by Bryant on February 27. Finally, respondent was given an unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because a review by Hartner of the students' folders revealed that Crumiel had failed to use the diagnostic prescriptive approaches in reading and mathematics that were required by the Dade County school system. Having formally observed Crumiel, Hartner concluded that respondent's students did not have a meaningful educational experience on March 27, 1985. She further concluded that respondent lacked adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that she lacked the necessary motivational skills necessary to promote oral language development. She also concluded that Crumiel would be unable to teach non-Chapter I students because of the greater number of students and more difficult subject matter in those classes. In short, she found Crumiel unable to teach in any capacity at the elementary school level. In addition to her visits on February 14 and 27, Bryant met with Crumiel on at least two other occasions to help Crumiel understand the diagnostic prescriptive approach to reading. Bryant came away from those meetings with the belief that Crumiel did not understand her directions or the teaching materials. She also concluded the Crumbie was unqualified to teach the sixth grade. An educational specialist, Shirley Fields, also visited respondent's classroom on April 19 and 22, 1985, to discuss the oral language development segment of instruction. On one of her visits, she demonstrated for Crumiel's benefit an actual lesson from the program. Harris returned to respondent's classroom on June 3, 1985 for the purpose of conducting a formal observation. She found no improvement on Crumiel's part and concluded it would be counter-productive to fill out a formal observation form. The subject matter of the class was fractions, and Crumiel appeared to have no knowledge of the subject matter. During the school year, Harris and Grayson received a number of verbal complaints about respondent's classroom management. This was confirmed by testimony from the other teachers and a teacher liaison who frequently observed or heard disruption and noise in respondent's classroom. Harris, Crumiel and a teacher union representative attended a conference-for-the-record on June 12, 1986 to discuss Crumiel's teaching performance. However, it was necessary to discontinue the conference shortly after it was begun because Crumiel lost her composure. The conference was reconvened on June 24, 1985. At that meeting Crumiel rejected an opportunity to be reclassified as a teacher aide, a position that would enable her to continue working with children, but only under the direct supervision of another teacher. On her annual evaluation for 1984-1985, respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques and professional responsibility. In addition, she was not recommended for employment the following school year. Psychological Testing In an effort to find some type of alternative position for Crumiel, the classroom teacher's union recommended that she undergo a battery of psychological tests. In this vein, Crumiel was referred to both a psychiatrist and a psychologist to determine if there was a reason for her poor performance in classroom teaching. The psychologist, Dr. Bradman, had previously seen the patient since June, 1984 in conjunction with the EAP. On June 14 and 18, 1985 Bradman administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) Test to Crumiel. This test is more commonly known as an IQ or intelligence quotient test. At the time of testing, Bradman found no evidence of depression although Crumiel experienced some mild anxiety. The test segment which would most likely be affected by depression was the Digit Symbol Subtest. However, Crumiel scored within the average range on this segment, and it represented one of her highest scores. Respondent obtained a Full Scale IQ of 74 which is in the borderline range of intelligence. Stated differently, approximately 95% of the people taking the test would achieve a higher score than Crumiel. Bradman found this result to be accurate and valid, and that neither stress or depression could account for Crumiel's low performance. During the course of the two sessions on June 14 and 18, Bradman asked Crumiel a number of questions to test her intellectual skill and capacity. In response to a question asking her to name four men who have been president of the United States since 1950, she responded, "Roosevelt, Lincoln, George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt." When questioned further, she added, "Jefferson." Crumiel also told Bradman that there were 48 weeks in a year and that Labor Day is in May. She did not know who Louie Armstrong was, and thought that to get from Chicago to the country of Panama one would travel east. She could not correctly define the words "assemble," "enormous," "conceal," "consume," "regulate," "commence," "domestic," "tranquil" or "ponder." Finally, Crumiel could not answer basic arithmetic questions such as "If raffle tickets cost twenty-five cents each, how much would it cost to buy six tickets?" and "If soft drinks are sold six cans to a package, if you want 36 cans, how many packages must you buy?" Based upon the results of the WAIS-R, Dr. Bradman concluded that respondent was not capable of teaching the higher elementary school grades. However, he was unable to form an opinion as to whether Crumiel could teach the lower grade levels based strictly upon the testing he had performed. On August 29, 1985, Crumiel was also evaluated by a board certified psychiatrist, Dr. Waldo M. Ellison, who was accepted as an expert in that field. He examined Crumiel to ascertain if there was a psychological reason for her dysfunction as an elementary school teacher. Ellison noted that respondent experienced some mild anxiety during the examination but had no depression. Further, he found no evidence of any medical problem or condition. Although Crumiel told Dr. Ellison that mathematics was her favorite subject, she was unable to determine two-thirds of the number sixty. She also could not correctly define the word "motivate," and was unaware of important current events such as the name of the mayor of Miami, or the fact that a hurricane was then approaching the City of Miami. Based upon his evaluation, Ellison concluded that respondent's intellectual deficiencies would interfere with the ability to provide her students with a minimum educational experience. Miscellaneous It was the general consensus of all administrators and faculty who observed Crumiel during the relevant time periods that she did not possess the skills necessary to teach elementary students, either at a regular or Chapter I level. More specifically, they found that she lacked an adequate command of her area of specialization, elementary education, and that her lack of minimum skills and competency resulted in her students being deprived of a minimal educational experience. Respondent's own testimony helped confirm the above observations since it was replete with inappropriate English grammar and language. Her lack of fundamental mathematics skills also became apparent during cross-examination by the Board counsel. Respondent's Case Respondent blamed her problems in 1984-85 on her assignment to a small, self-contained classroom without air- conditioning. However, this classroom was approximately the same size as used by two other teachers in the pod, and they did not experience the same difficulty as did Crumiel. Moreover, two- thirds of the faculty at WLRES that year had no air-conditioning. Even so, she was moved to a larger, more modernized classroom during the year but her performance did not improve. Respondent also cited over-aged, disruptive students being assigned to her Chapter I classes as a cause for her classroom management difficulty. But credible testimony established that disruptive students were evenly assigned to all Chapter I teachers, that Crumiel's class had no more than other Chapter I teachers, and several were taken out of her classroom in an effort to aid her performance. Crumiel also contended that her classes were frequently disrupted by students wandering into her classroom from an adjacent physical education area to use the restroom and water fountain facilities. No administrator ever observed this while visiting in her class, and it was shown that even if it did happen, she could have prevented this by refusing to unlock her door. Crumiel further stated that she attempted to follow through with her prescriptions, but that Harris and Grayson were never satisfied. However, independent administrators not associated with WLRES confirmed her failure to follow the prescriptions. Respondent also stated she received a "B" in a college course taken one summer at a local college as evidence of her effort to improve her skills. But a fellow teacher placed this testimony in serious doubt when she testified that Crumiel had taken notes into the final examination and improperly used them while filling out her examination booklet. Through the deposition testimony of Dr. Capp, a psychologist, respondent attempted to refute the IQ score of 74 by showing that she received a score of 99 on the test on February 4, 1986, and that she was functioning within the normal range of intelligence. Dr. Bradman had no scientific explanation for this result, but opined that Crumiel may have studied for the second test, or had remembered the questions from the first time the test was administered. Dr. Capp agreed that this was possible. In any event, the testimony of Drs. Bradman and Ellison is deemed to be more persuasive and credible, and their results and conclusions are found to be more accurate. Union Contract Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade County. That body has a labor contract with the Dade County School Board. Among other things, section 6 of the contract provides in relevant part as follows: Any teacher assigned in any observation category shall be entitled to a prescription of professional growth practices (remedies) which shall include reasonable time-frames for implementation . . .. The function of such practices is to assist the teacher in professional growth . . .. Failure to implement prescribed professional growth practices or to correct deficiencies for which professional growth was prescribed shall constitute just cause for disciplinary action in accordance with the due process provisions in this Article . . .. In the instant case, respondent was placed on prescription at the end of school year 1983-84. Respondent was told she would remain on prescription during the first nine weeks of school year 1984- However, in order to comply with a TADS requirement, a teacher who ends the year on prescription must be observed during the first six weeks in the following school year. To meet this requirement, a formal observation was made by Grayson on October 1, 1985 which was within the time-frame for improvement set forth in the prescription. At that time, Grayson gave a second prescription to Crumiel with instructions that a lesson plan be submitted by each Wednesday. Another formal observation was made by Harris on January 23, 1985, or well after the first and second prescriptive periods. Crumiel was then placed on another prescription effective January 28, 1985 by prescription dated January 23, 1985. Certain prescriptives were ordered to be complied with no later than the next visit. This was followed by a formal observation by Harris on January 29, 1985. When the next formal observation was made by Hartner on March 27, 1985, no time-frames were in effect. All such observations, prescriptive periods and remedies were in conformity with the contract. Even respondent did not file a grievance complaining that the contract was violated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency, and that she be terminated from employment with the School Board of Dade County, and her teaching certificate number 342743 be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Bldg., Suite 301 1450 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Avenue, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Daniel F. Solomon, Esquire 1455 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 215, Knott Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Petitioner (Case No. 85-3673): Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Rejected as not being necessary to resolve the issues. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected as being irrelevant. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 10 Covered in finding of fact 11 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 12 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 14 Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 15 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 13 Covered in finding of fact 28 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 28 Covered in finding of fact 29 Rejected as being unnecessary Covered in finding of fact 29 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 17 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in finding of fact 16 Partially covered in finding of fact 16. Covered in finding of fact 16 Covered in findings of fact 18 and 19. Covered in finding of fact 18 Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 18. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 19. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 31. Covered in finding of fact 32. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 33. Covered in finding of fact 34. Partially covered in finding of fact 34. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 36. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 40. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 42. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 44. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 46. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 47. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Covered in finding of fact 51. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 52. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 54. Covered in finding of fact 55. Covered in finding of fact 55. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in finding of fact 57. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 59. Covered in finding of fact 60. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 61. Covered in finding of fact 62. Covered in finding of fact 63. Covered in finding of fact 64. Covered in finding of fact 65. Covered in finding of fact 66. Covered in finding of fact 66. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 67. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 68. Covered in finding of fact 57. Petitioner (Case No. 86-1116): Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in findings of fact 2 and 5. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 13. Covered in findings of fact 16 and 17. Covered in findings of fact 18 and 20. Covered in finding of fact 20. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 23. Covered in finding of fact 24. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in findings of fact 30 and 31. Covered in findings of fact 35 and 36. Covered in finding of fact 35. Covered in finding of fact 37. Covered in finding of fact 38. Covered in finding of fact 39. Covered in finding of fact 40 except that the observation took place on October 1, 1984. Covered in finding of fact 41. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 45. Covered in finding of fact 53. Covered in finding of fact 58. Covered in finding of fact 50. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in findings of fact 3 and 29. Covered in finding of fact 56. Covered in findings of fact 11 and 33. Covered in finding of fact 71. Covered in findings of fact 5, 6, 9 and 10._ Covered in findings of fact 61, 65 and 66. Covered in findings of fact 61-63. Covered in finding of fact 69 Covered in findings of fact 13 and 35. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 70. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Respondent:* Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in background. Covered in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 30. Covered in finding of fact 45. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 21. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. The second sentence is irrelevant since no formal external observation was performed by Hartner on February 8, 1985. Rejected as being irrelevant since no formal observation was conducted on February 8, 1985. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Findings of Fact Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 43. Covered in finding of fact 1. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 45. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 48. Covered in finding of fact 49. Essentially covered in findings of fact 48-58. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 53. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence and irrelevant. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. *Respondent's filing contained two sections entitled "Proposed Findings" and "Findings of Fact."
